# Hillary Clinton v. Bernie Sanders 2016 Predictions **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [May 5, 2015, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clinton-v-bernie-sanders-2016-predictions/719328 "2015-05-05T17:55:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2015, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clinton-v-bernie-sanders-2016-predictions/719328/61 "2015-05-15T20:39:34Z")
OK, so **Enlightening Meditation** thinks that trickle-down works, _and_ that the government is less efficient than private industry. I’m not sure how the latter leads to the former, but it doesn’t matter, because both are demonstrably false. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2015, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clinton-v-bernie-sanders-2016-predictions/719328/62 "2015-05-15T22:24:36Z")
> [@Enlightening\_Meditation](#): > > I base it on her words during the pre-1995 era and then again after the recent (roughly 2013 to present) lurch back leftward: “_You know that old theory…trickle down economics…_\. \* That has been tried. That has failed.\*” -HRC at a Martha Coakley campaign event. That’s just one example. Yes, it is entirely true that trickle-down economics has failed, repeatedly. That is nothing one would have to be a socialist to notice or to say. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2015, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clinton-v-bernie-sanders-2016-predictions/719328/63 "2015-05-15T22:25:41Z")
> [@Enlightening\_Meditation](#): > > Also, her gaffes are far more cringe-inducing than Obama. I have yet to hear her make one. What exactly are you thinking of? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2015, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clinton-v-bernie-sanders-2016-predictions/719328/64 "2015-05-16T00:13:33Z")
> [@Enlightening\_Meditation](#): > > . . . HillaryCare . . . :rolleyes: > [@Enlightening\_Meditation](#): > > . . . scare. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2015, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clinton-v-bernie-sanders-2016-predictions/719328/65 "2015-05-16T00:16:11Z")
I also think that **Enlightening Meditation** takes issue with the manner in which [Hillary Clinton eats crackers](http://cdn.someecards.com/someecards/usercards/1324596542030_7713053.png). ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2015, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clinton-v-bernie-sanders-2016-predictions/719328/66 "2015-05-16T00:42:03Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Yes, it is entirely true that trickle-down economics has failed, repeatedly. That is nothing one would have to be a socialist to notice or to say. Do the Republicans admit that? ---
**Author:** ![Riv1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Riv1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riv1)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2015, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clinton-v-bernie-sanders-2016-predictions/719328/67 "2015-05-22T22:53:06Z")
> [@Billdo](#): > > The race for the 2016 Republican nomination has always been seen as a giant scrum, a kicking, screaming, writhing mass of bodies composed of anyone and everyone from that side of the aisle with a hope, prayer or fantasy becoming President. On the Democratic side, the race was instead supposed to be merely the anointment of Hillary Rodham Clinton, cruising above the fray. But enter, stage left (far left), Bernie Sanders, Democratic Socialist Senator from Vermont, to challenge the unchallengeable HRC. > > So, with Clinton and Sanders teed up for a head to head match, how do you think the 2016 Democratic Primaries will go? > > I don’t think anyone sentient thinks that Sanders has any chance of grabbing the nomination away from Clinton, but the interesting thing will how his entry changes the race. > > My speculation is that Sanders is running to bring some of his progressive issues into the national spotlight, and to see if he can get Clinton and the Democratic establishment to embrace them. Maybe he hope that he can get Clinton to move left in the primaries, in the hope that if she wins the general election, she’ll feel obliged to follow through with her primary promises. > > I think, on the other hand, that Clinton will be best served by using Sanders as a foil, showing that she is centrist by differentiating herself from some of his farther left policies and positions. Obviously, there are a lot of positions that they share, but I think she will pick a few key points to say “that’s not where I want to go.” > > The key to this strategy is that I don’t believe that there is a single Sanders primary voter that would not vote for Clinton in the general election. During Clinton/Obama 2008, there was a lot of talk of the “PUMA” (Party Unity My Ass) voters who claimed that they would walk away if Hillary weren’t nominated, but in the end, they all came around to Obama. As such, she has little need to pander to the progressive wing of her party if she can get the nomination by running to the center. > > My prediction is that Sanders will get 30-40% of the votes in Iowa and 45% or so of the New Hampshire votes. Then he’ll pull off a win in one or two of the other early states, while polling in the 30s down the rest of the line. Of the Sanders’ voters, although a few of them will be true believers, 90%+ of them will be protesting against the inevitability of the coronation of Clinton. As I said, 100% of them will get behind Clinton in the general election, no matter which of the Republicans is nominated. > > What this will do is get the media endlessly hyperventilating about whether this “wounds” Clinton, whether her campaign is falling apart, whether Sanders can take it all, how Sanders would do against the hot Republican of the moment, what this means for the Democratic party, and any other topic the round-the-clock commentators can think of. Everything that Clinton does in apparent response to her “weakness” against Sanders will be picked apart under a media microscope. Later when Sanders concedes, the they’ll get to do the warm and fuzzy reconciliation story. There will be a giant orgy of media coverage of the Democrats, who would otherwise be ignored in favor of the Republican steel-cage death match. > > Although, in the end the Bernie Sanders challenge will be a tale full of sound and fury, signifying nothing, because sound and fury (undoubtedly, told by an idiot) sells these days like nothing else, it will be a good thing for Clinton and the Democratic campaign in general. I think you are right if it came down to a two way race. But this scene reminds me of the Al Gore/ Ralph Nader meeting in 2000 where Nader’s 2 percent swung the election to Bush. Bernie Sanders as the modern day Nader might be convinced by the same sort of left side rebels OR some covert Republicans to drop out and run a third party candidacy because like Nader, he does have issues he wants to get out which the Dems won’t touch and he’d have no chance in a two way nomination contest with Clinton if somehow Clinton could keep her numbers and cruise to the primaries which I highly doubt. Sanders would probably avoid Iowa because NH is his territory. The political pundits would watch that one closely. Maybe Sanders could draw 40-45% in NH but quickly drop in other states meaning Sanders would be running a ghost campaign bereft of money, supporters, media attention until he drops out by Mar 2016 and considers a Nader style candidacy. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2015, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clinton-v-bernie-sanders-2016-predictions/719328/68 "2015-05-22T22:58:17Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > I have yet to hear her make one. What exactly are you thinking of? C’mon. The thing about being under fire in Bosnia was undeniably a blunder. Clinton said it and it wasn’t true. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2015, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clinton-v-bernie-sanders-2016-predictions/719328/69 "2015-05-23T00:28:38Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > C’mon. The thing about being under fire in Bosnia was undeniably a blunder. Clinton said it and it wasn’t true. She isn’t a military person. Perhaps after advice she \*thought \*they were. 🙂 She is sure hard to run down on a bicycle. ---
**Author:** ![Enlightening\_Meditation](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ecc23a/32.png) [@Enlightening\_Meditation](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enlightening_Meditation)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2015, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clinton-v-bernie-sanders-2016-predictions/719328/70 "2015-05-26T04:07:54Z")
[QUOTE=Chronos] OK, so Enlightening Meditation thinks that trickle-down works, and that the government is less efficient than private industry. I’m not sure how the latter leads to the former, but it doesn’t matter, because both are demonstrably false. [/QUOTE] I (and also my friends depending on the VA for their healthcare) do firmly disagree. I wish that our government would support current and former troops especially the wounded ones who are still coping with the aftermath of their service. The ‘trickle-up’ economics of the past 17 years has failed in my opinion. It is really depressing to see so many people agree with your position. I defend your right to speak it, though. ‘Trickle up’ economics may have indeed helped you, but it did not help most of us in the middle and/or lower classes. I do not support your thoughts but I do support your right to express those thoughts. \*\* I proudly disagree with you. I proudly declare that trickle-up economics has failed. Trickle down should be tried again, I contend.\*\* > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > If you were just saying that you personally think she sucks, and her book tour sucked, and her interviews sucked, then that’s fine with me. I thought you were arguing that these things were a disaster _for her political career_, which is demonstrably false. > > You’ve made it clear that you think Hillary sucks. Even if I took everything you said as absolutely true, she’s still _nigh-infinitely better than the Republicans_. **NO** , I never said that. ‘Sucks’ or ‘sucked’ would be too generous. The Clintons are corrupt regardless of one’s political persuasions. I still predict that HRC loses in the primary. I predicted her failure 8 years ago, and I predict her failure again. I’m not going to post here to defend most, if any, Republicans, but it would be a stretch to say that Clinton is better than most GOP candidates. I’m willing to listen to Rubio and Fiorina and maybe others, but most of the GOP are equally out of touch even if not nearly as corrupt as the Clintons. I support equal civil rights, voting rights, a less ‘trickle-up’ tax structure, et cetera, and I am disappointed with the GOP on many issues, but it is no excuse to let the Clintons back into power. I vehemently stand by my predictions about Hillary Clinton vs. Bernie Sanders, and I stand by my predictions about Jeb Bush. I predict that both of them will be defeated during their respective primaries. I could be wrong and I could be too optimistic, but I hold firm to the predictions. [QUOTE=carnivorousplant] [QUOTE=Enightening Meditation] Did you hear or read what happened when Terry Gross dared to ask about Hillary about her changing views? [/QUOTE] She was angry that Gross said “changing your mind” without “learning about it.” [/QUOTE] Yes, I agree. Terry Gross did not stick to the script, and HRC was absolutely livid. [QUOTE=pkbites] Since he’s announced I’ve seen a couple of articles touting him as some kind of gun rights hero. SAY WHAT? Both the NRA and Gun Owners of America rate him no better than an F! Heh. I’ll bet some people will buy this bunk too. Vote for him over Hillary because she’s after their guns. [/QUOTE] There is no surprise here IMO. The NRA and GoA are lobbying groups. Bernie may deserve a ‘C’ grade on gun rights but he gets an ‘F’ for ever opposing these groups at all, but suddenly he has some gun rights credentials since HRC is his opponent in the next primary. Lobbyists are only singularly focused on their own agendas. [QUOTE=BrainGlutton] [QUOTE=Enlightening Meditation] I base it on her words during the pre-1995 era and then again after the recent (roughly 2013 to present) lurch back leftward: “You know that old theory…trickle down economics…\. That has been tried. That has failed.” -HRC at a Martha Coakley campaign event. That’s just one example. [/QUOTE] Yes, it is entirely true that trickle-down economics has failed, repeatedly. That is nothing one would have to be a socialist to notice or to say. [/QUOTE] The trickle-up economics of the past 12 years (since Glass-Steagal repeal) has failed in my opinion. Your perspective is different. You may have benefitted from trickle-up economics, and that is your perspective. I proudly and vehemently disagree with you. I defend your right to state your opinion, however. [QUOTE=BrainGlutton] [QUOTE=Enlightening Meditation] Also, her gaffes are far more cringe-inducing than Obama. [/QUOTE] I have yet to hear her make one. What exactly are you thinking of? [/QUOTE] Oh, wow. Is this new or surprising to you? A Clinton gaffe? Some of us remember the Yankee ballcap wearing Cubs fan carpetbagger campaigning in upstate NY as soon as she stepped off the plane. Some of us still remember the ‘landing under sniper fire’ in Bosnia comment. Some of us still remember the ‘dead broke’ comment on the book tour. Also, the “It is hard enough with two parties to come to any resolution, and I say this very respectfully, because I feel the same way about our own democracy, which has **been around a lot longer** [?] than European democracy.” It is sad that she never studies the Romans and Greeks. I also consider this whole interview to be a gaffe [or collection of gaffes]: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnUPhp7AHXo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnUPhp7AHXo) C’mon, did she really apply to NASA to become an astronaut? Do you think that HRC’s sudden recent support for LGBT rights is anything other than pure politics? What about Biden or Obama? They’re all phonies. Let’s assume that Kathleen Willey and Dick Morris (among other Clinton staffers) are liars… Let’s assume that the Clintons are not at all corrupt… Let’s assume that Cattlegate and Travelgate never happened… Let’s assume that the Clintons are no pro-DC establishment… then… Are the Clintons the best choice to become leaders (again)? I would be stunned if a plurality of voters would support this creature to be leader. [QUOTE=carnivorousplant] [QUOTE=BrainGlutton] Yes, it is entirely true that trickle-down economics has failed, repeatedly. That is nothing one would have to be a socialist to notice or to say. [/QUOTE] Do the Republicans admit that? [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=John\_Stamos’\_Left\_Ear] I also think that Enlightening Meditation takes issue with the manner in which Hillary Clinton eats crackers. [/QUOTE] I take issue with Hillary’s corruption, her completely false story about dodging sniper fire in Bosnia, her vote on the Dubya-era war in Iraq, her carpetbagging campaigning for the US Senate, HillaryCare, _It Takes a Village_, her phony politics, her husbands’ phony politics, the coy silense all of a sudden on the Asia trade deal, etc. **Perhaps, you are able to embrace Hillary as a candidate, and I proudly say that I do not.** I stand behind my predictions. I may be wrong, but I have enough faith in the American citizens that Hillary does get nominated as the Democratic Party candidate and does not win as POTUS. It is difficult, but I try to be optimistic. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2015, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clinton-v-bernie-sanders-2016-predictions/719328/71 "2015-05-26T11:30:50Z")
> [@Enlightening\_Meditation](#): > > **NO** , I never said that. ‘Sucks’ or ‘sucked’ would be too generous. The Clintons are corrupt regardless of one’s political persuasions. I still predict that HRC loses in the primary. I predicted her failure 8 years ago, and I predict her failure again. I’m not going to post here to defend most, if any, Republicans, but it would be a stretch to say that Clinton is better than most GOP candidates. I’m willing to listen to Rubio and Fiorina and maybe others, but most of the GOP are equally out of touch even if not nearly as corrupt as the Clintons. I support equal civil rights, voting rights, a less ‘trickle-up’ tax structure, et cetera, and I am disappointed with the GOP on many issues, but it is no excuse to let the Clintons back into power. > > I vehemently stand by my predictions about Hillary Clinton vs. Bernie Sanders, and I stand by my predictions about Jeb Bush. I predict that both of them will be defeated during their respective primaries. I could be wrong and I could be too optimistic, but I hold firm to the predictions. Fine – we’ll see if your predictions hold up. I still strongly disagree about Hillary vs the Republicans – they’re more dishonest, more corrupt, more out-of-touch, etc. They’re all worse and in almost every way. As far as this “trickle-up” stuff, I wish we had trickle up economics! Trickle-down has been such a dismal failure – and it should be obvious… businesses don’t spend more money just because they have more money – they spend more money if there are _more customers_ and _more demand_. Business don’t hire more people and make more widgets if there is no one to buy the stuff! How do we spark customers to buy and increase demand? _Give more money to consumers_. If their customers have more money, businesses will have to produce more to meet the demand. The rule should always be “does this policy give more money to consumers?” rather than “does this policy give more money to businesses”. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2015, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clinton-v-bernie-sanders-2016-predictions/719328/72 "2015-05-26T12:19:29Z")
Enlightening Meditation, trickle-down doesn’t work, never has, and never will. The idea that the wealthy would create jobs if only they weren’t paying taxes is beyond silly. They create jobs when there is demand for their products, we can stimulate this demand by infrastructure projects that put real money in people’s hands which they plow right back into the economy. Now really, EM, there is no need to shout here. You can disagree and I’m sure you do, but it isn’t that most of us don’t understand your point, it’s just that we don’t buy it. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2015, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clinton-v-bernie-sanders-2016-predictions/719328/73 "2015-05-26T13:37:13Z")
> [@Enlightening\_Meditation](#): > > The ‘trickle-up’ economics of the past 17 years has . . . . . . never existed. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2015, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clinton-v-bernie-sanders-2016-predictions/719328/74 "2015-05-26T13:43:05Z")
Maybe he just hasn’t found the font size that will make his argument correct. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2015, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clinton-v-bernie-sanders-2016-predictions/719328/75 "2015-05-26T13:45:50Z")
> [@Enlightening\_Meditation](#): > > The Clintons are corrupt regardless of one’s political persuasions. How is it, then, that Ken Starr, with the full investigative and subpoena power of an independent counsel, spent five years hunting for that corruption and could come up with nothing more than a blowjob? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2015, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clinton-v-bernie-sanders-2016-predictions/719328/76 "2015-05-26T13:50:41Z")
> [@Enlightening\_Meditation](#): > > . . . the coy silense all of a sudden on the Asia trade deal, etc. So, you want Sanders for POTUS, do you? Because [among the GOP candidates, only Cruz is even slightly hesitant about the TPP.](http://ballotpedia.org/2016_presidential_candidates_on_the_Trans-Pacific_Partnership_trade_deal) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2015, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clinton-v-bernie-sanders-2016-predictions/719328/77 "2015-05-26T17:01:40Z")
> [@Enlightening\_Meditation](#): > > I proudly and vehemently disagree with you. I defend your right to state your opinion, however. NB: That ain’t good enough for the Dope’s Elections forum nor the GD forum. It’s good enough for IMHO, but here, you have to state a case and argue it. Which you have yet to do in any way that is coherent enough to rise above the [Not Even Wrong](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong) level. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2015, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clinton-v-bernie-sanders-2016-predictions/719328/78 "2015-05-26T17:18:11Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Maybe he just hasn’t found the font size that will make his argument correct. Maybe if blink tags worked here he’d be able to make some headway. ---
**Author:** ![Enlightening\_Meditation](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ecc23a/32.png) [@Enlightening\_Meditation](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enlightening_Meditation)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2015, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clinton-v-bernie-sanders-2016-predictions/719328/79 "2015-05-27T02:17:48Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > [QUOTE=Enlightening Meditation] > . . . the coy silense all of a sudden on the Asia trade deal, etc. So, you want Sanders for POTUS, do you? Because [among the GOP candidates, only Cruz is even slightly hesitant about the TPP.](http://ballotpedia.org/2016_presidential_candidates_on_the_Trans-Pacific_Partnership_trade_deal) [/QUOTE] No, I do not want Sanders to win but would prefer him to Clinton for certain. I generally support free trade agreements, but it’s the fine details that matter. I do not support Cruz, and I’m not much willing to listen to an extremist grandstanding birther type. [QUOTE=BrainGlutton] How is it, then, that Ken Starr, with the full investigative and subpoena power of an independent counsel, spent five years hunting for that corruption and could come up with nothing more than a blowjob? [/QUOTE] Did Whitewater, travelgate, and cattlegate never happen? Did Vince Foster kill himself? Is the Clinton Foundation not a shining example of corrupt influence peddling? I thought that Ken Starr was a secret Clinton crony, and I certainly do not defend his actions as a special prosecutor. His ‘investigating’ was a waste of resources at best. [QUOTE=BobLibDem] Enlightening Meditation, trickle-down doesn’t work, never has, and never will. The idea that the wealthy would create jobs if only they weren’t paying taxes is beyond silly. They create jobs when there is demand for their products, we can stimulate this demand by infrastructure projects that put real money in people’s hands which they plow right back into the economy. Now really, EM, there is no need to shout here. You can disagree and I’m sure you do, but it isn’t that most of us don’t understand your point, it’s just that we don’t buy it. [/QUOTE] Don’t put words into my mouth, please. I support higher taxes for some applications as long as they are simple and not confusing or onerous. It’s the horribly inefficient use of gov’t funds that irks me. I still stand behind my prediction that Hillary loses the nomination. I have watched the trickle up toward Wall St and DC during these past few years, and it has failed the majority of people in this country. [QUOTE=BrainGlutton] [QUOTE=Enlightening Meditation] The ‘trickle-up’ economics of the past 17 years has . . . [/QUOTE] . . . never existed. [/QUOTE] The 2008 TARP bailout was the apex of trickle up. I am happy to disagree with you on this. You have a different perspective. > [@](#): > > Maybe he just hasn’t found the font size that will make his argument correct. I chose ‘size = 7’ and didn’t know it’d be that big. Sorry. [QUOTE=iiandyiiii] As far as this “trickle-up” stuff, I wish we had trickle up economics! Trickle-down has been such a dismal failure – and it should be obvious… businesses don’t spend more money just because they have more money – they spend more money if there are more customers and more demand. Business don’t hire more people and make more widgets if there is no one to buy the stuff! How do we spark customers to buy and increase demand? Give more money to consumers. If their customers have more money, businesses will have to produce more to meet the demand. The rule should always be “does this policy give more money to consumers?” rather than “does this policy give more money to businesses”. [/QUOTE] The middle class once had a larger piece of the pie prior to the Glass-Steagal Act repeal. Which direction did it trickle since then? I supported a larger stimulus and supported the large infrastructure legislation that failed to pass Congress. Liquidity needed to be added to the pie after such a hard pull back and deflation. To let such a huge chunk go to TARP was such a poor choice IMO. There are other reasons that businesses spend more money. Big businesses spend more money on lobbyists when it buys influence in DC. Big businesses spend more money to pay lawyers to figure out the 70,000+ pages of tax code and 2700 pages of the PPACA, i.e. “ObamaCare”. It’s tougher for smaller and mid-size businesses to hire and expand under this environment even if expanding customer demand for products and services is there since regulations are often confusing. It’s too bad that expanding small businesses are punished if they grow to exceed 49 employees. I just wish that hard working visionary people had better opportunities to succeed in this country but the bureaucratic command portion of the economy just keeps expanding. ---
**Author:** ![Enlightening\_Meditation](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ecc23a/32.png) [@Enlightening\_Meditation](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enlightening_Meditation)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2015, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clinton-v-bernie-sanders-2016-predictions/719328/80 "2015-05-27T02:29:28Z")
[QUOTE=iiandyiiii] Fine – we’ll see if your predictions hold up. I still strongly disagree about Hillary vs the Republicans – they’re more dishonest, more corrupt, more out-of-touch, etc. They’re all worse and in almost every way. [/QUOTE] Eh, depends on the Republican. I am willing to listen to some of the newcomers, i.e. not Bush and not Romney and not Graham and not Cruz and not Huckabee and probably not Paul. Is Pataki corrupt? Huckabee corrupt or just insane? I agree on ‘out-of-touch’ generally for most or all of them. Also, I am willing to listen to those on the Dem side who oppose Hillary. I am a moderate who dislikes both parties and will possibly vote Libertarian once again. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clinton-v-bernie-sanders-2016-predictions/719328.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clinton-v-bernie-sanders-2016-predictions/719328.md?page=5)