The Iowa caucus isn’t for 6 months. Not that she doesn’t need to compete, but since (according to Nate Silver) Bernie’s support doesn’t seem to be growing particularly fast any more, she doesn’t need to react like it’s an emergency. Once the debates start she’ll start making a public case, I imagine, which is probably the right time.
If you are going to make the boxing analogy this is more like pre-fight hype phase, not even entering the ring to “Aaand in this corner, weighing in at …”
You plan on ten rounds and you have a plan for the ten rounds. Early rounds don’t make any major mistakes and don’t tire yourself out. If you are not a boxer think of running a marathon or better yet a triathlon … it is a mistake to let the person who even just swam over you (let alone is just a splash gaining some on you) goad you into pushing yourself too soon. Remember that after the swim is a long bike ride and only then the run. Stay on your pace.
My prediction still holds: Sanders will come closest to winning in New Hampshire and next closest in Iowa. I do not think he will will even there. After those he is blown away in every other state except Vermont. Biden is unlikely to enter but if he does he loses extremely badly. For his sake I hope he does not enter; for the party’s sake I hope he does as it gives the process more media attention.
And that’s what I strongly suspect the DNC is paying him to do, since Warren declined - be her sparring partner in the debates, to tune her up for the real ones, while bracketing her from the left and insulating her from the “she’s too extreme / crazy / Saul Alinsky” crap we know is coming.
In the meanwhile, I know it really has to be irritating as all fuck for some people that she’s not doing or saying anything they can excoriate her for to exercise some need for RO, even if those people are Democrats. The notion that she’d have Sanders killed just like Vince Foster is surprising to come across from that side, though.
Well, if he doesn’t change his party affiliation they have grounds to exclude him from some primaries depending on the rules.
But the real way they’ll beat him is simply to get someone in the race who can. Biden is the current “break glass in case of emergency” candidate, but Warren or Gore or even Howard Dean would do in a pinch. Dean, BTW, said last year he was interested in running, but chose to stay out because he was backing Clinton. If Clinton faltered and the DNC rang him up, I doubt he’d say no.
Now, if youre talking about Wall Street and Corporate America, there’s no need to even bother resisting a Sanders candidacy through nefarious means. The old, traditional means work just fine. Normally corporate money goes to both parties. With Sanders, the business community would probably go all in for the GOP nominee. And if that failed, there’s still the short term lock on the House to make sure Sanders can’t change tax or budget policy.
BTW, a recent report says that Biden is considering a one-term Presidency. If that happened, would that mean Clinton would get a third chance?
She’s not running against the Republicans, she’s running against Bernie Sanders, who’s drawing hundreds of thousands of people out to see him and hear him. These are the primaries, not the General Election and if she wants to win them against the populous candidate whose message of anti-cronyism is resonating on *both * sides, then she better act like she gives a shit about people and not just her wealthy donors. She ain’t making that great of an impression as it happens.
It’s no joke.
The DNC is *paying * him? That’s. I. WTF dude?
I think this board has gone nucking futs.
No link?
Who was she running against *before *he declared?
Not yet, they aren’t, not nearly. Are you under the same impression as Bob, that the election is *this *year?
We’ve known of your visceral antipathy toward her for eight years now, possibly more. Isn’t it time to let it go?
We discussed that when Sanders finally entered the race, shortly after the people begging him to finally realized Warren wasn’t. Tell us, if he really wanted to be President, where the hell has he been for the last few decades?
What purpose would be served by pushing out Sanders by replacing him with Warren?
Well for one, an actual Democrat. For another, someone electable. The Democrats don’t want a repeat of George Mcgovern’s candidacy, and there’s a real risk of that with Sanders.
What on earth difference does that make? That’s rhetorical, by the way. The answer is none. But for the record, Sanders declared on April 30. That’s only four days after the first Democratic primary debate was held in 2007. See below.
You’ve got your DNC talking points down pat, I see.
In 2007 – note that’s '07, not '08 – the first Democratic debate was April 26. April. That’s three-and-a-half months earlier than right now and five months earlier than the DNC cowards are willing to expose her to the beating she’ll get from Sanders this time.
Then we had debates on June 3, June 28, July 12, July 23, August 4, August 7, August 9, August 19, September 9, September 12, September 20, September 26, October 30, November 15, December and December 13, all in 2007. So you’re wrong. Demonstrably, provably, factually wrong. This is primary season, much as you Hillary people would like it not to be.
When she stops running for president.
That’s a joke, right? That’s got to be one of the most ridiculous, absurd things I’ve ever read on this board (and there been a lot of insanity here). Now it’s a qualification to have to be someplace, like, I don’t know, Peru or something? What the hell kind of ridiculousness is that?
November 13, 2014: This Is How Bernie Sanders Will Run for President
The Vermont senator is going for the win, and a longtime friend and veteran media consultant is already strategizing his path to victory.
Get used to it.
The email scandal has to be the most boring scandal in the history of scandals.
Nope. She was running against the Republicans, and still is. Did you think she was visiting Iowa for fun or something?
While you’re repeating Limbaugh’s. From twenty years ago.
When you can tell us a reason she should, or even a reason you hate her, do please let us know, will you?
If it were easy to debunk, you’d do it, right? Instead of your typical dudgeon and bluster.
That isn’t even coherent.
That’s what he has to say whether it’s true or not, isn’t it?
Looks like somebody needs a hug.
Jesus. Dude, I’m not doing this dance with you again this time. I’d explain why, but that would be Pit material.
Bernie Sanders is a legitimate candidate for president who will squash Hillary Clinton like a bug on every critical issue Americans care about: college affordability, money in politics, Social Security, immigration, black lives, universal health care, and wealth inequity. Americans of all political stripes, not just die-hard corporate democrats. He’s drawing young people who are terrified about their futures, Libertarians who are sick of being owned, Republicans who aren’t frothy religious nuts, long-time Independents who feel like they finally have someone they can vote for and everyone in between. He’s packing stadiums and addressing overflow crowds in the tens of thousands. People who hear his message are thrilled with what they’re finally hearing a candidate for president say. No pandering. No wishy-washiness. No vague dodging. He’s real. She’s hiding out.
And just like you underestimated Obama who beat her, Bernie Sanders will beat her too.
I’ll just leave you with this to show you how deeply bought Hillary Clinton is:
She’s forked.
Hey, I’m flashing back to '08…
But this time I’m kind of supporting HRC. I haven’t drunk the Sanders kool-aid.
Go right ahead if you like. But the reasons for your visceral hatred of Secretary Clinton are entirely legitimate subject material for this forum, and you’re not going to be allowed to evade providing them. You’ve been asked repeatedly, now how about it?
You weren’t paying attention if that’s what you thought. I all along thought she’d be a stronger candidate in November, and would be a more effective President, for reasons that have proven to be correct. But I never claimed she *would *win, only that I thought she should.
Oh you’re not going to *allow * me to not do whatever the hell I don’t want to do? That’s hilarious! Too bad you’re not going to bully me into your little game because a) I don’t respond to people who lie about me, like claiming I’ve been asked somelhing repeatedly that I haven’t even been asked once, and b) I answered that question four years ago, which you very well know. Repeatedly. So no, I don’t owe you a thing, therefore you’ll just have to remain unsatisfied.
[Quote=ElvisL1ves]
You weren’t paying attention if that’s what you thought. I all along thought she’d be a stronger candidate in November, and would be a more effective President, for reasons that have proven to be correct. But I never claimed she *would *win, only that I thought she should.
[/QUOTE]
LMAO! OK, whatever you say dear.
No, whitewater is the most boring scandal of all time by a wide margin. The email scandal is actually easy to understand, a legitimate issue, and goes straight to the question of her fitness to handle classified material. It also reminds us how non-transparent she is, which isn’t exactly the change we’re looking for.
And while I endorse Shayna’s support of Sanders over Clinton, I don’t see that the case is THAT compelling. Sanders is less experienced, being a career legislator, has little experience in dealing with the other side(he hasn’t even done much dealing with his OWN side), has no foreign policy experience, and is way outside the mainstream on the issues.
If he does beat Clinton, it will be on character issues. He’s honest, he’s an adult when it comes to setting priorities and recognizing the tradeoffs involved(Clinton understands these things but doesn’t trust the voters to understand them so she talks down to us), and he’s a straight talker.
This strikes me as not boring at all:
http://bigstory.ap.org/urn:publicid:ap.org:b54a250a40e9410baaaca5f9fb58ea94