No, you have it wrong. Hillary Clinton is telling someone that pragmatic governance gets shit done
(and usually “Hope and Change” is mere rhetoric that runs into the realities of governing (see Obama’s first term))
Besides Bill Clinton and Obama ran to replace Republican administrations. Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are running to continue a Democratic administration (in whatever respect you think that continuation should look like). Sanders is actually being a bit more careful in his ‘change’ rhetoric as it pertains to President Obama - he even said that Obama was definitely a progressive. He knows ‘change’ is dangerous to sell to someone (and a lot of those someones exist in the Democratic primary) who really likes the current occupant of the White House.
And FWIW, following popular 2 term administrations, George H.W. Bush and Al Gore ran on platforms of ‘lets not let the other party take away what we have gained’. Bush, of course, won big and Gore probably won, but was actually more hurt by not running closer to Bill Clinton in his campaign.
Yeah, but “Change we can believe in” means changing Congress and state legislatures. Right now, I’m not seeing a lot of talk about that from any Presidential candidate.
Bernie gives us a rough idea of what they could be changed into–in 2018? when?–with some of the progressive caucus and a lot of new blood. Hillary is talking about a Republican Congress, apparently forever for all I know.
I’m not happy with either of them on this, to be honest. Hillary as much as said in a debate that she would not and could not retake Congress, which I read as not trying. Bernie stood their dumbly, which I don’t know how to take.
That anyone can mobilize the disillusioned anti-war crowd for HRC is a pipe dream, but Bernie has at least a hope of it. I think she’s no more electable than Sanders.
Policywise, well, we’re in different places, yeah. The idea that I would vote for Hillary Clinton over a pro-socialized medicine candidate is weird enough. I worry that it’s easier to compromise a radical President Sanders down on a few issues than to drag a President Clinton toward a carbon tax *and a financial transactions tax and *a basic income guarantee, or whatever.
2016 is a vital year for Democrats in the Senate. That should really be a big priority, because 2018 is like the worst map ever for Democrats. They could easily drop 8 seats in 2018, a dozen if they have a particularly horrible midterm like the last two. Gaining at least 6 Senate seats is a MUST for Democrats in 2016. Probably as important as the Presidency, given the consequences of Republicans getting 60 or more, which is a possibility in 2018 if Democrats underperform in 2016.
No, you misunderstand. When people say that the important thing is electing the Democrat - they’re not talking about the next election. They’re talking about the need to make sure that it’s a Democrat who gets to pick Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s replacement.
Presidents come and go. Supreme Court appoints stick around for decades. A few more guys like Alito and Scalia on the court will set America back a hundred years.
Because I don’t believe them. I don’t believe that they really have such a beef against Hillary- I think they’re only against her to improve Bernie’s chances of getting the nomination.
If Bernie wasn’t running, do you *really *think these same people would be so vocal in their hatred of Hillary? I don’t.
If you want me to vote for someone, tell me why I should vote for them. Don’t tell me why I should vote against someone else.
As important as the Supreme Court is, I think it’s overrated. On issues of civil rights, the court simply enacts a decade or two earlier what Congress would have done anyway. It’s nice, but not the difference between having it and never having it. Jim Crow was going to end. Abortion was going to be legal. Gay marriage was going to be recognized. It just would have taken a little longer.
And once you get past civil rights, the only other issue where the court has national importance is in striking down laws or allowing laws. I can think of no law so important that Democrats need a rubber stamp court to be able to pass it, and I can think of no Republican law so awful that Democrats would need the court as the only defense against it.
So while I am very concerned about where the Supreme Court might go if Democrats win in 2016, I’d still rather have a good Democratic President than a bad Republican President.
I’m not sneering at anyone, and I’m glad that people are passionate about the election and about how they want things to be. But I guess I’m someone who can’t understand voting to cast judgment or to sway national narrative if it won’t actually accomplish anything. Policy and law is what changes things.
This post is hard to argue with. Not because I agree with what you said but because there is so much wrong that it requires a book to correct.
When people talk about demographics favoring the Democrats, they mean specifically that minorities will become the majority. Blacks (including African immigrants), Hispanics, and Asians (and maybe Muslims if their numbers increase to voting significance) are becoming local majorities in many states, some of which are now Red. Republicans would have to turn themselves inside out to get majorities. They are the future of the Democratic Party.
Your young socialist millennials are a mirage just as Ron Paul’s young libertarians were. They are loud but not numerous. And if you want to point a finger at groups who don’t vote in non-presidential elections, just glance in their direction.
Younger voters are important, and would be critical if they voted. They don’t. They tend to run 30 percentage points lower than seniors even in presidential years. They vote in proportions about equal to the poor, the people who you say don’t vote at all.
Historically, their voting percentages increase as they get more skin in the game: houses, kids, health care. Yelling at Wall Street, no matter how justified, is not a long-term strategy for committed voters. To the contrary, getting people involved through an issue that will never happen is a recipe for disaster, as the Democrats saw with Vietnam.
This election is about getting a Democrat elected. The party needs eight years to develop a core of young candidates that will be realistic nominees in the future. We’ve all seen how the Republican “deep bench” worked out for them. They’ll wind up with the weakest candidate in a generation. Clinton can and will win. Socialism as a caused labeled 'socialism" is a Trump-sized Loser.
Well, if you think about, Senator Sanders’ greatest railing point is against a Supreme Court decision - Citizens United vs. FEC. Also, it was a very close thing that the ACA was kept alive (by the pen of Chief Justice Roberts).
So, the actual first primary election is taking place today.
Waiting for news bulletins about Hillary’s supporters trying to depress primary turnout! (On this morning’s news, it was reported that she won’t be surprised if Bernie wins this one–since his state is next door.)
But in both cases, you can still pass laws addressing the issues. If the individual mandate had been struck down, you just pass single payer or a law without a mandate but with other penalties for failure to sign up(such as if you don’t sign up during the enrollment period you can’t sign up for the year).
As for campaign finance reform, you can still limit donations, you just can’t tell people they can’t advocate for or against the election of a candidate using corporate money, and events have moved way past the Citizens United decision anyway. the Kochs’ activities have always been legal.
But yeah, I agree that the Court is very important, just not so important that it overrides good decisionmaking on your nominee. Once you get into a position where you’re saying you’ll vote for anyone just to keep the other party out then you are surrendering on a lot of important stuff. Republicans need to resist that urge too with Marco Rubio. Sure, he’s probably the most electable, but his lack of experience could result in a second consecutive awful Republican Presidency, which would be disastrous in the long term for the party. So we need be careful, and if necessary, throw our support to Clinton or Sanders if the nominee is awful. And Democrats should do the same if they are getting serious red flags from their own candidate.
So Bernie’s supporters hate Hillary because Bernie’s a better candidate? Fine. Tell us to vote for Bernie. Don’t tell us to vote *against *Hillary. Because when you do that, I honestly can’t tell if you’re a Bernie supporter or a Republican. I honestly think that half of the vocal Sanders supporters are actually Republicans who think that Hillary’s going to be too hard to beat, so they’re doing everything to make sure that Sanders is going to get the nomination.
You may have mentioned this elsewhere in the thread, but assuming Hillary gets the nomination, would you vote for her?
Yes, winning in November is the priority. The question is how best to achieve that.
So far, the sparring between Hillary and Bernie seems amicable. Assuming that continues, which is better for Hillary: To emerge as the winner after a strong and fairly-fought challenge? Or to become the nominee early by brutal treatment of Sanders?
I’m not sure of the answer to that, but I’ll guess a long fair fight will assuage Sanders’ supporters and make them more likely to vote in November. And if, somehow, it is Bernie that ends up with more delegates … well, that might well mean he’d be the stronger candidate after all.
