Handwaving AND spin! That’s fun. I wonder if you believe that you have turned the discussion into the questions asked in interviews of various candidates. Because for all your attempts at spin, the big concern that Sanders doesn’t have any idea of how he’s going to get his talking points done, which was confirmed by the Daily News’s interview is actually a thing, regardless of what Clinton is asked (because no one really has any issues with wondering if Clinton has ideas of how to get her policies done - this isn’t anything that even Sanders supporters have seriously brought up).
So… how about you answer the main issue, if you can? I will note that TriPolar up thread did acknowledge it is an issue, and TriPolar is no Hillary Clinton fan from what I can tell.
Your description is not quite accurate and of course is without context.
But the interesting thing for me is that you have said you would without question vote for either candidate in the GE (with a preference for HRC). What would it take for you to say no to a D candidate?
I agree they do not seem to be comparable. But like Trump might be asked things about fascism and the KKK, because there is a sense in the media if not the population at large that he is shaky on these issues, Sanders is likely to be asked about specifics about his plans. Clinton is likely to be asked about ethics and legal issues. Cruz is likely to be asked about why everyone hates him. Kasich is likely to be asked about why he’s in the race when he can’t win any states.
People have to defend their perceived deficiencies. I think it’s fair to say one of Sanders’s perceived deficiencies is explaining just how he will get the things done he says he will get done.
You’re not denying they are talking points, are you? I’m not “turning the discussion” into anything; I commented on your posts, and you are free to respond or not. Tripolar and I (or any other Sanders supporter) are not part of a team here. I don’t necessarily agree with everything they post, so I can’t answer for them. Personally, I don’t think it is a “thing” outside of the HRC campaign. That is your spin.
I gave the context in the link. And I’m not sure how I’ve been inaccurate. I’ll quote (from that article):
And let’s not forget " “The above references, in no uncertain terms, state that you might very well be the cause of cancer.” The “you” being the mother. But the sexual attitudes? They are the daughter’s.
Be guilty or nervous about sex and you’re more likely to get cancer.
They would have to represent something I don’t associate with democrats. If they are in the Democratic mainstream, they would likely be someone I could vote for.
Frankly, I don’t think Sanders got into the race with the idea he could win. He wanted to speak to these issues, especially knowing that HRC had cleared the field in advance and would, under those circumstances, not be challenged on them. That’s why I supported his campaign. I don’t think he had enough time to put forward a campaign in the way HRC has - she’s been planning this for at least 16 years now. So I am not surprised he seems deficient in the specifics compared to her. I don’t expect him to win, but I want to keep these issues in the conversation, up to and beyond the election.
In any case, considering the difference between a candidates platform, the Democratic party platform that comes out of the convention, and what a candidate actually does once in office, I’m not as worried about his specifics at this point as I am about some of things I think it is likely HRC will do, especially regarding foreign policy, which I as a grassroots would have a more difficult time influencing effectively.
If we’re going to throw out these hypothetical general election polls, and I’d agree that we probably should, then all I have to go on is what I see here on the ground. My parents, traditional Boehner moderate conservatives, might actually consider voting for Clinton if they can’t vote for Kasich. They’re going to vote regardless, because they’re old and they always vote. So there’s that.
Every single other conservative I know, who all fall into the younger, more libertarian/tea party camps, is like this: They might vote, they might not. They will never vote for Sanders. Too naive, too socialist, too fond of taxes. But they admire his integrity and his position as an outsider, and if it came down to Sanders versus some dipshit, they’re not going to be all that motivated to vote.
Clinton, though, they hate. They hate her with the burning of a thousand suns. They will show up in a blizzard to vote for a moldy potato if it means casting a vote against Hitler-y, which is their preferred term of address. Maybe this hatred is misguided, unfair, undeserved, and the product of a vast right-wing conspiracy, but it’s there. I see it. They will vote for Trump, Cruz, Kasich, Romney, whoever, as long as it means keeping Clinton out of the white house.
That’s just what I see. Maybe I’m misreading it, and they’ll soon be taught to hate Sanders with the same passion. But right now, this idea that Clinton is more electable seems absurd to me.
Gotta love this quote: “Don’t destroy the Democratic Party to satisfy the secretary’s ambitions to become president of the United States,” Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver told CNN.
As if a) there’s such a thing as a presidential candidate without ambition to become President and b) Hillary is ‘destroying’ the Democratic Party. Last I looked, she’s the establishment candidate and it’s Bernie that’s causing the division.
Sure glad Bernie’s campaign is keeping it positive and issue-oriented.
I’m a firm believer in the “baked in disapproval” theory which holds that Clinton’s haters are already out and proud and her numbers can’t get much lower. Sanders, having never run a national campaign against a Republican, will be attacked for the first time ever in many people’s eyes. His favorables will drop as his opponent start to define him, and the polls that show him now beating the likes of Trump or Cruz will narrow once the election moves to the general. Clinton’s polls are set, neither Trump, Cruz, nor the GOP can bring out any more new things to attack her with.
I think it’s been a huge boon to the party. I’m glad he is running and grateful his supporters have been very vocal in their support.
She is definitely not my dream foreign policy candidate. Frankly, I don’t think my ideal foreign policy candidate exists. Obama is closer than some, but way too willing to use drones. Sanders does not sound very credible to me in foreign policy, though I would trust his intentions more than any Republican. (I’ve never doubted his intentions, just some of his judgment.)
I know I am biased, but if you read my reply to Ibn in that thread hopefully you understand why. I guess I’m less afraid of an old hippie than I am of the neocons holding sway over our foreign policy again.
I’m not a woo fan, but I understand that a lot of the 60’s thinking was driven by a mistrust of the establishment (govt and corporations), and I think there was (and still is) a good reason for the mistrust.
For the Republican party to disappear and be replaced by a left of the Democrats party. As long as that isn’t the case it is insane not to vote for the Democrat.
For me, his arguments show real weakness of thinking and judgment. Again, I think he’s so far above the Republicans running that I would not hesitate to vote for him. But I don’t want to continue or promote the association of the Democratic Party and scientific ignorance and rejection. The GOP has that covered. I’d like that ignominy to rest with them.
You really don’t think it’s a “thing” trying to figure out if Sanders knows how he’s going to accomplish what he says he is going to do?! I mean they’ve asked about it in Democratic debates. I’m flabbergasted.
It was an article for an alt newspaper to make a few dollars, written by a 28 year old over 40 years ago. Those Reichian ideas had a resurgence in the 60’s (Reich was one who coined the phrase “the sexual revolution”), and Reich was seen as a martyr by the left because of the way he was treated by the government.
In any case, they weren’t Sander’s theories; he was citing Reich’s work, which fit into the cultural ideas of the time, and therefore had editorial interest. This was before the link between cervical cancer and STD’s/sexual activity were known. I see no indication that he’s been problematic on any women’s issues in all his time in politics, and there’s no history of personal abuse of women.
This is exactly what Hillary’s campaign needs to do…and to question the minimal details he’s already presented.
I was watching her interview on CNN earlier, and it was served up to her on a silver platter, and all she said was basically, “Well, that’s not the way it’s been done historically. A President needs to hit the ground running.” Much nicer than I was given to expect by the campaign’s press release yesterday.
Maybe the campaign’s saving it for the debate, but I see no reason why they shouldn’t unveil it now.
Quoting someone else is not an excuse, and it was crackpottery then and is crackpottery now.
And I am not accusing him of personal abuse of women (not sure where that’s coming from) but of having poor judgment about woo. It comes up with GMOs, with alternative medicine, with that ghastly bullshit regarding cancer (which he was still repeating years later), and probably with other stuff. Here’s an article talking about his approach to science in general.