2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forum30 Days Until Hillary Wins Iowa!
[font size="5"]#45[/font][img][/img]
don't count your chickens before they hatch (just saying)
brooklynite
(94,727 posts)Which race is more likely to flip?
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)Well within striking distance for Bernie.
Meanwhile, Bernie is way ahead of Clinton in New Hampshire.
Which race is more likely to flip, indeed
riversedge
(70,299 posts)MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Gothmog
(145,554 posts)roguevalley
(40,656 posts)Gothmog
(145,554 posts)Sanders will not break the 15% level in many Senate Districts.
Response to Gothmog (Reply #29)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)Hillary won the Texas primary against a much stronger candidate. Sanders is no Barack Obama and the Texas Two step is not being used this cycle
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)30 days until Hillary loses Iowa.
Fred75
Omaha Steve
(99,708 posts)OS
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)Pauldg47
(640 posts)#FeeltheBern !
trueblue2007
(17,238 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)And that Iowa is '"too white" to matter, really.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)I can't wait.
SunSeeker
(51,697 posts)sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)DesertRat
(27,995 posts)Ned_Devine
(3,146 posts)ellennelle
(614 posts)tho it may well be 'inevitable' that HRC wins the primary, how does this 'inevitability' feel?
how does it feel that it comes by exploiting the corporate media?
and by commandeering the democratic party, corrupting even the appearance of fair practices?
and by gaining all that campaign money from the very capitalist enterprises that plan to benefit from her 'inevitable' win, benefits for their greedy selves that will ruin the country and the planet?
HRC and the DNC have exposed their ultimate compromise that makes them barely better than the RNC: they have placed winning above principles.
how do you sleep with that?
how will any of us live with that?
Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)how does it feel that it comes by exploiting the corporate media?I always find it odd.. one second the corporate media is all just a bunch of greedy, money grubbing bastards.. the next they are calculating and working everything they can to get a specific candidate elected.. despite it being against their best financial interest? Hate to break it to you, but at the end of the day your candidate isn't getting coverage because he's boring, polling poorly, and frankly just doesn't sell the same well Hillary does. I know, it stinks for all of you who love this corporate media conspiracy theory bullshit, but there it is deary.. It's just that your candidate hasn't done enough to earn the headliners. He's boring, and he doesn't sell news well.. but he does pull together a nice crowd where he speaks (don't feel too bad, Ron Paul had these same issues as well).
and by gaining all that campaign money from the very capitalist enterprises that plan to benefit from her 'inevitable' win, benefits for their greedy selves that will ruin the country and the planet? Ummm, because it falls 100% within the legal rules, and the real candidates that she's going to have to face aren't harming their own campaigns by refusing to accept legal contributions. That would be.. well.. stupid.
HRC and the DNC have exposed their ultimate compromise that makes them barely better than the RNC: they have placed winning above principles. Nope, they haven't. You are wrong, and any ontheissues.org comparison of any RNC person to DNC person would show it. In fact, when you take away the hyperbolic bullshit, and look JUST at the issues HRC is only a hair to the right of Bernie.
how do you sleep with that? Speaking only for myself, I sleep just fine. Thanks for asking.
how will any of us live with that? well, deary, you'll have to answer that one for yourself.
good day.
sonofspy777
(360 posts)without the baggage of have to do quid pro quo for the corporate donors
Win-Win
HAHAHAHAHAHA
ellennelle
(614 posts)...to answer these responses, but more concerned about your tone. deary.
deary? really? could you be more insulting if you tried?
first, i never mentioned who i'm backing; for all you know, i have not decided. not just a wee bit presumptuous of you, consistent with your insulting tone.
second, your point about the media lacks any logical coherence and makes no sense. how do you figure it is "against the media's interest" if clinton wins? she's in bed with wall street, or at least sleeps on a mattress filled with their money, as far as i can discern, and when wall street wins, so do the media.
as for "[my] candidate" (again, where do i mention "my choice"? i'll assume you mean sanders from the rest of it) being "boring" and "polling poorly," the couple million donors and tens of thousands who attend his rallies and volunteer clearly don't find him boring, and he's on track to win NH and within striking distance in IA. these things can and do shift with the pollster and their methods, and with time, and have also been proven wrong, as 8 years ago in IA when obama won. your comparison with ron paul is beyond silly; sanders has drawn historically record-breaking rallies, beyond obama and others. you keep saying he's boring, but that's just your opinion; the data say otherwise. in fact, the data coupled with the brazen and obviously active trend of the media to ignore sanders does suggest they're fairly scared of him, as they should be, as sanders actively campaigns against their wall street greed (see above), whereas hillary has had to talk out of both sides of her mouth, for the public and for wall street, tho ne'er the twain shall meet. just because each member of the media behaves in their true best interest here, for hillary and against sanders, does NOT mean there is a conspiracy; no one that i'm aware of has suggested these maggots get together and decide to coordinate these things. they just do, and it serves their greedy interests, jointly and severally, to do so.
third, your argument that taking wall street money is ok "because it's legal" pretty much says it all, and is consistent with my point that winning has become the HRC/DNC guiding principle, just like the RNC. fwiw, the big short/inside job the big bankers pulled off in 07 and 08 was in fact quite legal. i was trying to insert some moral consideration here. too weighty for you?
which leads to your final point, that HRC is just a "hair" to the right of sanders. again, a matter of opinion; you call it hyperbolic, i call it the difference between sanders and everyone else; there are just too many issues on which (a) HRC has shifted her position only because of sanders' popularity, and (b) those shifted positions have been stated with astounding legal-speak, giving her tons of wiggle room for retraction later.
even beyond the issues themselves, where i find far too many far too wide gaps for my comfort zone, these observations about her are what make me cringe. she has been in the political trenches with this middle way (read: abandon the left, court the right and their money) too long, and has shifted her positions on so many of the hot-button issues (e.g., iraq war, gay marriage, etcetc.) too often to really believe these shifts come from a place of principle over politics.
i defended this woman till i was blue in the face (pun intended) all thru the 90s, and was impressed with her campaign for the senate. it took me a while, tho, to realize why she chose NYC (wall st, as if she did not make that abundantly clear in the recent debates), but i was royally disappointed with her iraq vote, tho all in all she did fine as a senator. the gild came off the lily, however, during her 08 campaign when i began to notice a good bit of chaos in her organization, too much slop in the system. i was disappointed, but did not finally make my decision to vote for obama in the primary till feb. of 08.
sadly, many other things she's done and said since then have cast my doubts about her, tho i've continued to defend her (e.g., benghazi, emails; crikey, we'll see loads more of that if she is the nominee). for instance, tho the email thing is clearly hyperbolic (used here by its definition, not hyperbolically), her handling of the email situation at the outset in 09 did not, imho, show the best judgment. also, she bailed on the very women and ethnicities she once honorably championed (see how she abandoned marian wright edelman, for instance), and undid her support as first lady for liz warren's bankruptcy protections only to vote against them as senator representing credit card companies.
these are things, amimnoch, i cannot admire.
hey, i'm a woman, and would love to see a woman in the WH; way overdue. but i'll not commit the crime so many PUMAs accused obama supporters of in 08; specifically, that support for him was just because he was black, especially if those supporters were black themselves (see bill's SC comment after that 08 loss).
instead, i chose long ago (the confession, here it comes!), years ago in fact to vote for and actively support sanders, in part due to years of following him in congress, and watching/listening to thom hartmann's time with him, but in general because i've studied with amazement his consistency, his passion (so decidedly NOT boring), and his sensibilities and principles. these are the things i will vote FOR, and will campaign FOR.
the comparison, by my observations, between him and HRC, are wide and vivid. and those differences at this time are so vitally important (if you have not as yet read naomi klein's this changes everything: capitalism v. the climate, or seen the film, please do so; our species, and most others on the planet, depend on it!), we cannot afford to allow ideological nit-picking, let alone petty rudeness, cloud our thinking. too much is at stake, and i take the larger picture here very very seriously.
as did sanders in the first debate when asked, along with the others, what they felt was the greatest threat against the US. he was the only one to say it out loud, to emphasize just how crucial our situation is, noting that even the military recognizes that climate change poses our biggest threat. this, please note, is NOT hyperbolic; this is reality. HRC, on the other hand, said a few years back we could wait a couple decades before doing anything, and her efforts at copenhagen in 09 (which she crowed about in the debates) were utterly disastrous, not to mention how long she waited to weigh in on keystone, clearly timed safely in line with obama's decision.
my apologies if these facts ruffle your feathers, but they are facts; she is not bold and passionate and consistent on the issues that matter, or the ones that should matter. in fact, she is fairly predictable (taylor branch, civil rights writer, noted she is not a "derring-do" kind of person); politically boring, by comparison to bernie's bold standard-shattering.
no amount of your snide rudeness will change the facts. if you wish to win over supporters, may i suggest you change your tone from nastiness and try some calm reason and logic. sadly, however, you cannot change the facts.
if HRC wins the nomination, she'll get my vote, but it will be cast more AGAINST the republican candidate. this is the problem her campaign faces now; there is virtually no passion for her, but lots of passion against her, which could prove deadly in the GE.
please make your decision wisely; the country - and planet - hang in the balance.
and that is NOT hyperbole. i so wish it were.
have a nice day, and happy 2016.
Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)First, deary, is a term that I've used in posts both on those I disagree with and agree with (hell, I've used it with some of the coolest, and greatest people on this site in the GLBT section). I use it with male, female, trans, family, friends, and co-workers. I'm not sure where you come from, but where I come from it is a term of endearment.
Second, You use all of the Sanders side talking points, then try to deny any kind of affiliation or support? it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck.. it's a duck. Please use your faux innocence on someone else.
The rest.. not worth my time. You have very obviously made your choice. I do thank you for your opinions.
I do applaud you for your pledged support to Hillary should she win the nomination. Despite my feelings that Sanders is by and far the inferior candidate in the primary, he will likewise get my full support (what little $$ I can throw him, phone banking and canvassing) in the General should he win the nomination.
Do have a nice day yourself, and a happy and successful 2016 to you as well.
well, deary, without explanation, it comes across as condescending, fwiw.
i avoid comments here like the plague, and am reminded why; thx for that. won't be doing so again, probably ever.
also fwiw, mine are not bernie talking points at all, and for you to assume as much is also condescending. and insulting. the reason i have followed sanders with such loyalty for so long is his vision reflects my own; i held these positions before i ever heard of him. moreover, his character comes closest to measuring up to what i hope to see in the WH.
i quite honestly and sincerely wish i could say the same for hillary. sadly, she has disappointed me - and many others - over and over again, with her positions and her compromises and her reversals and abandonment of principles. the first clue was the DLC background; i do not honor that organization, nor their vision or positions.
your saying the rest of what i have to say is 'not worth [your] time' is also insulting. as is your accusation of my 'faux innocence'. you appear to lack any circumspection or reflection on how your words come across. as i noted previously, those not only fail to win me over to the side you have chosen (which, by the by, is far more 'obviously' 'made' than mine), they were frankly off-putting. fwiw, if i may be so candid, hillary is not well-served by your caustic attitude. if you risk maintaining this attitude for the general election, no matter who is the dem pick, i beg you to do some serious naval-gazing to tamp down that approach; as much as i loathe what republicans do, i pity them more, and would not dream of insulting their potential voters - or anyone - as you have insulted me.
you offered the strong opinion that bernie is the inferior candidate, to which i countered with specific reasons for my opinion to the contrary. tho you are of the opinion that hillary is the superior candidate, you offer not a single solitary piece of evidence to support that opinion. instead, you toss the insults and presumptions around like a dominatrix. just not conducive to a civilized discussion, imho.
but, i am glad to know that you will support bernie when he wins. i sincerely thank you for that. and for your reciprocated good 2016 wishes.
Bad Dog
(2,025 posts)The Labour party was principled throughout the 1980s and that resulted in a decade dominated by Thatcherism, attacks on the NHS, destruction of heavy industry, anti trade union legislation and a more divisive society.
Blair did make an unholy alliance with Murdoch to get elected, and his premiership disappointed a lot of us, but it was a lot better than letting the Tories back in. Peace in NI, extra funding for Health and Education and the introduction of Tax Credits and a minimum wage. That's concrete change. I suppose it would have been more principled to let the Tories dismantle the NHS and stoke up sectarianism in NI.
riversedge
(70,299 posts)Lovely tweet:
Rhys Tay ?@iRhysTay 6h6 hours ago
Let's Vote Blue! #ImWithHer . . . #Election2016
Hillary for Florida Retweeted
Hillary Clinton ?@HillaryClinton 16h16 hours ago
#Hillary2016 starts the new year stronger than ever. To everyone who has supported this campaign: Thank you.
View conversation
330 retweets 1,061 likes
Hillary for Florida Retweeted
Adam Smith ?@AdamSmith_USA 16h16 hours ago
JUST IN: Clinton campaign raised $55 Million in Q4: $37m for the primary, $18m for the Democratic Party. #ImWithHer
67 retweets 101 likes
Hillary for Florida Retweeted
Students For Hillary ?@studentshillary 16h16 hours ago
New Year, New Motto. 🎉
#ImWithHer #Hillary2016
Students For Hillary, Adam Smith, Adam Parkhomenko and 7 others
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)Can't come soon enough!
silenttigersong
(957 posts)I want PEACE in the world!
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Or not so nice.
Punkingal
(9,522 posts)But dream on. Media heads will be exploding once again, as they did in 2008 when she lost.
Walk away
(9,494 posts)over and done as early as possible so Hillary can really start to run against what is left of the republican Clown Car.