This is how it looks to me a couple of months

[upaloopa]

from the first primary vote.

Polls this week will show Hillary still leads Sanders and O'Malley.

Hillary will win IA. NH is a toss up at this point.

Hillary will take SC as Bernie can't make inroads into the AA community.

Hillary will take Nevada as Bernie can't make I raids there in the Hispanic community.

Come Super Tuesday Hillary will wrap up the nomination by winning enough delegates.

The current OP's attacking Hillary are looking to me to be increasingly hostile but futile. There isn't much there in the form of debate just mean spirited attacks.

I think that is because Bernie's campaign is a continuous round of events were he repeats his talking points with no substance as to how those things get done beside raising taxes.

By contrast Hillary is laying out her program one step at a time with substance.

Both candidates support similar ideals.

I take no stock in what Bernie folks say about Hillary.


The main contrast I see here is Bernie's plan relies on raising taxes and increased Federal spending to pay for his ideas.

Hillary's plan is a mix of government programs and private investment.

So we will look back on Sanders' and O'Malley's campaigns as one were we are told that government can solve everything if we just pay into it enough and another one that never really took off.

So we are going into the holiday season then soon the primary elections.

May we all come together again and to those who will not support the nominee,
good bye.

[morningfog]

1. I think you mean "SC" rather than "NC"

Also, it is not possible, mathematically, for her to wrap up the nomination by Super Tuesday.

[NurseJackie]

15. Thanks! I'd wondered how the schedule would synch with the actual delegate requirements.

I've searched online, but can't easily figure out what the earliest possible date would be for any candidate to technically "wrap-up" the nomination. Have you heard, or do you know?

[morningfog]

19. Here is a good source:

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/wddaa.phtml

[NurseJackie]

20. TYVM (nt)

[NurseJackie]

21. It appears that Tuesday 22 March 2016 would be the absolute earliest for any candidate ...

... to have it "wrapped-up" mathematically.

Thanks again. Good source... easier to make sense of than the others I'd found online.

[Sheepshank]

2. yup.....I think you covered it all.

But I do believe, there has been a recent uptick in very hostile anti Hillary posts....I wonder if the timeline of Hillary events may be moved up just a little?

[NurseJackie]

13. Uptick is a polite way of putting it.

As annoying as the phenomenon is, it's also something that can be very reassuring.

[randys1]

3. Bernie is right (not sure what O'Malley's is, but if same then he too) and there is no reason

we cant eliminate health insurers and go 100% tax based, single payer.

This is a fact that we should waste no time on as in arguing, as we can do it but do we have the political will to do it, etc.

Having said that, Hillary as president will be massively preferable to any con, of course.

[ismnotwasm]

36. I actually think it will be accomplished state by state

There was an OP to that effect by someone --I forget who.
Win or lose, Sanders has accmplished this much; the idea is in the broader public psyche. President Obama started the ball rolling with Healthcare reform, Now, if Colorado can go forward with a successful single payer, if other states can follow suit..

We might get there

[Eric J in MN]

4. Bernie Sanders is announcing programs and explaining how he'd pay for them.

His "College for All Act" includes a stock-transaction tax.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand's "Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act," which he supports, has a small payroll tax increase.

Hillary Clinton refuses to say how she'd pay for things.

[NCTraveler]

5. Margaret Thatcher is a better feminist role model than Clinton.

That was said to cheers here. No one with respectable intelligence has ever promoted such a thought. After I read that here, and a floundering campaign sent out a surrogate to make that laughable charge, I no longer take political discourse here seriously. The anti-union rhetoric coming from the Sanders side over the last week is just icing on the cake. There is a reason they are bragging about resonating with the right. But hey, Sanders is going to win fifty states. lol. I just can't take them serious anymore.

[randys1]

6. I know what you mean, sickening. What anti union rhetoric now?

[NCTraveler]

8. Same exact ones the right has been using for decades.

Literally dozens of ops about the corruption of union leaders with not one shred of evidence to back it up. Unions just aren't backing the only person they have deemed fit to endorse. Literally dozens of ops about union leadership. The exact rhetoric the right has been using against unions for decades.

[Sheepshank]

27. One recent example

see post #25.

[randys1]

32. I dont doubt some union leaders are prone to be for Hillary solely because

they believe she has a better chance of winning and actually accomplishing something.

I think Bernie far better represents working people than does any other person running, but I get why a pragmatic union leader would see Hillary as the one with the better outcomes.

I dont agree but I can understand it.

[Sheepshank]

33. I totally agree about the pragmatism...but union leaders are bad mouthed

even when they state that they polled and got a majority feedback for one candidate.

I imagine that there is some level of consideration for which candidate can actually deliver on the ability to be a friend of unions once in the Whitehouse. And that likley also drives the member polls.

[MrMickeysMom]

24. You have to BE serious to TAKE anyone seriously...

... and anyone who seriously follows the issues or candidates knows where these candidates stand.

[Ken Burch]

25. It's not "anti-union rhetoric" to call bullshit on out of touch union leaders

who betray the rank-and-file by supporting the least-progressive(and this automatically most anti-labor)candidate for the Democratic nomination.

The interests of working people are never best served by supporting "pro-business" candidates.

The Nineties proved this.

[zappaman]

7. Why are you calling Sanders a racist?

[randys1]

10. Boy I sure missed that, can you point that out for us please

[NurseJackie]

12. I think that was meant to be a parody of what we can expect to hear ...

... from the hypersensitive Bernie fans with overactive imaginations.

[randys1]

14. Oh, sarcasm...

It is so crazy around here, who knows anymore.

More criticism here of Hillary than ANY rightwing board you can name.

I dont hang out on them but I do post on one very small board where there are about 10 libs and 10 cons and they dont have half the crap that i can see here.

[jkbRN]

9. I guess I'll provide the a source for your claims

In the most recent ABC/WaPo poll, Hillary lost 11 points among nonwhite voters, whereas Bernie gained 16.

You should always provide sources to back up your claims, especially when someone can so easily point out your BS.

Source: http://www.langerresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/1173a22016Election.pdf

[NurseJackie]

11. So that's: Hillary 60, Bernie 34 ... That's +24 for Hillary. :-)

Her very l-o-n-g list of endorsements is quite impressive too. Bernie's endorsements, well, enhhh, not so much. I'm very pleased with her campaign and am confident of her success.

[randome]

16. Those who whine about Clinton simply show their weakness. And they don't even realize it.

You can't argue with numbers. Clinton is the overwhelming favorite right now. Seems like the logical thing to do is work together to see how to push her even further left. Supporters of Sanders can still support him while talking about how to get more out of Clinton. We can do more than one thing, can't we?

Anger and lamentations never did anyone any good.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[jeff47]

17. That's only logical if you can trust her to actually keep her campaign promises.

And considering her entire campaign is based on "who else you gonna vote for?", it would be foolish to believe she'd actually be "pushed to the left".

[randome]

22. So you've essentially given up. That's not very helpful.

And, really, no one knows what kind of President she will be. The office itself changes the person. And there will be a ton of aides and coworkers who will press her on many, many different topics. Hell, just the nonsensical opposition from the GOP will push her.

So the chance is still there for real change. But choosing to sit it out does no one any good.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[jeff47]

34. Give me any reason to believe she would actually move to the left instead of saying something

in the primary that she later ignores.

And keep in mind she actually has a history where she moved to the center in office.

Re-election fears? "Who else you gonna vote for?".

[riversedge]

30. #ImwithHer

Hillary Clinton greeted people before a campaign rally at Faneuil Hall in Boston on Sunday.Credit Steven Senne/Associated Press Nov 29

[Armstead]

18. Here's the sticky wicket in your post...

"mix of government programs and private investment. "

That's a conservative idea. Yes, public/private partnerships" are not always bad, and some are productive. But too often that is a code word for privatization of public services, gifts to the already wealthy and a certain amount of corruption.

"were we are told that government can solve everything if we just pay into it enough"

Seems I heard something like that last time I turned on right wing talk radio.

[Major Hogwash]

23. Like Bubba said, "I feel your pain."

Imagine me biting my lower lip and holding up my right thumb.

[riversedge]

31. But Sanders is asking you --citizens to just what you are crying about related to Health

care and child care



"were we are told that government can solve everything if we just pay into it enough"

[Doctor_J]

35. yes, the ops contention that Sanders and Clinton have the same ideals is absurd

Hillary's view of the economy is much closer to that of JEB, trump, and the sane republicans than it is to Sanders. A person needs to be oblivious to the real world to believe Clinton is a liberal.

[artislife]

26. I want to see your credentials as a seer.

Can you provide proof of earlier predictions that have come true?

[Live and Learn]

28. 'May we all come together again' Ha. nt

[cheapdate]

29. Government spending and investment is badly inadequate at present

and it's needlessly hurting the nation in myriad ways. The money needed for sensible investments in people and infrastructure is on the order of around 2 or 3 GDP points. It could easily be raised without any extraordinary measures. Simply collecting more of the taxes owed under existing law could bring in almost 1/3 of the money. Closing unnecessary corporate loopholes and foreign tax shelters could bring in another big chunk. Modest tax increases on high incomes and a modest decrease in military spending could bring in practically all of the rest.

We spend too little, not too much. The extra money we need isn't hard to come by, it only takes political will.

[brooklynite]

37. Good broad strokes, but your math is off...

The Big Four States account for only 4% of the delegates.

The Big Four + Super Tuesday account for 25%, of which Sanders will likely collect 20%.

By the end of March, we'll be at 53% of delegates. Clinton still won't have it in the bag, but the end will be obvious.

[localroger]

38. This is the logic that sunk HRC in 2008

The single most important thing you are forgetting is that the Democratic primary isn't winner take all. You can still take a significant number of delegates to represent your supporters from states you don't carry. In '08, HRC treated it as if it was winner take all though, totally ignoring states she didn't expect to carry and confidently expecting to own a lock after Super Tuesday. Meanwhile Obama aggressively campaigned in every district where he had a chance to pick up delegates (and he had a full time campaign employee dedicated to scouring the country for such opportunities on a per-district basis). So come Super Tuesday Hillary won all the states but Obama still got 45% of those delegates, and the lock she expected to have wasn't there. She really didn't seem to have a plan to answer that.

And that is really my single biggest problem with her being the nominee. If she misread something as simple as campaign strategy that badly, when she had to be in contact with many people who could have told her what the math really implied, who will be advising her and how will she make decisions as President? It did not leave me with a warm fuzzy feeling.

Make no mistake I'll vote for her if she's the nominee. But that overconfidence in her advantage in the primary is the very reason she wasn't the nominee eight years ago.