New Poll: Majority says: enough Bushes and Clintons in the Oval Office.

[merrily]

Last edited Mon Jul 27, 2015, 08:09 AM - Edit history (1)

I think that is a change? Last I read, not many really cared.

Other than that, there is good news and bad news for both Bernie and Clinton in the polls. You have to look at the entire article as slices that are not misleading are hard to carve out and I won't cherry pick

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/nbc-marist-polls-show-donald-trump-running-strong-iowa-nh-n398401

[TBF]

1. I'm surprised they'd even release that in the press -

due to health issues I was actually watching TV a bit in June (it takes a lot to slow me down that much) and at that time the press was determined to get out their message that people didn't mind dynasties. I saw at least a couple of times that was claimed. I am so happy the truth is getting out. I have some friends/family who still really want Hillary, but just as many who would like to get beyond the Clinton/Bush paradigm.

[merrily]

2. Are the Hillary holdouts in your family older women?

I was going to preface that with "Just curious:" but who asks any question unless they're curious? It just seems to me that they are her most diehard fans. I totally get why.

[TBF]

3. No they are the more well-off democrats

The older women (like my mom) who are blue-collar have shifted to Bernie.

[udbcrzy2]

4. I only know of one

A couple of months ago I spoke to an older female friend and she likes Hillary. I am hoping to turn that around because I know she will like Bernie and his message.

[merrily]

5. That's encouraging.

An 80 year old I know originally said she was going to write in Warren. (She didn't specify general or primary.) However, when she learned Sanders was running, she practically jumped for joy and got right on board, and so did her daughter, who is in her 40s.

[Proud Public Servant]

6. Welcome back to 1992

This really feels familiar. A country disgusted by both parties and their candidates, and a self-aggrandizing businessman threatening both with a third-party run. The big difference being that Perot drew support away from Bush I and Clinton I pretty evenly, whereas Trump would draw much more from Bush III than Clinton II. The result would be the same, though: a Clinton elected with an underwhelming plurality of the popular vote, leaving her without a mandate as she faces a hostile Congress.

Jesus, it's depressing.

[merrily]

8. Coincidentally, this year makes 30 years since Back to the Future premiered.

At one point in the film, Doc decides to go to 2015 and brings Marty and his girl along. They disturb the space time continuum and bad things ensue.

The result would be the same, though: a Clinton elected with an underwhelming plurality of the popular vote, leaving her without a mandate as she faces a hostile Congress.

Or


http://www.democraticunderground.com/128030419

BTW, in this Group, we don't assume Hillary will be the nominee, no matter how much of a fix was in with the msm and others.

[Proud Public Servant]

10. Didn't mean to assume a Clinton nomination

Just pointing out the parallels. No offense intended!

[merrily]

12. No worries. I did not get offended.

[Darb]

7. Bush is a Bush. Period, full stop.

Hillary is not the same, she is a Clinton by marriage, but a Rodham by birth.

To conflate the two families is disingenuous bullshit. The Bush Family was backing Hitler and running the CIA and involved in more sordid shit in our history than you can shake a stick at, and Jeb is a direct descendant of those fascist fucks.

Bill Clinton came out of a poor, small town background pretty much. Hillary came from middle class people from Pennsylvania and grew up in Illinois. She had to go to a new high school for her senior year because of redistricting ferchrissakes. Can you imagine a Bush even IN a public school?

Puuulease. This line of thinking is bullshit. The Sanders supporters should know that and not sign on nor promote this fallacy. But trudge on if you must. It's not your best play though.

[merrily]

9. You know this is the Sanders group and I didn't create the poll, right?

Besides, equating the families is not the point. This is a nation of 350 million people. We don't need to swap out among relatives. Whether they are related by blood or marriage seems beside the point.

[Darb]

14. It's not beside the point, you are involved in it by posting it.

"It" being the conflating of the Bush Crime Family with Hillary Rodham Clinton's family.

I will vote for whomever the Democratic candidate is and think conflating Bush with Clinton is farkin stupid, regardless of who does it, including all of the Democratic candidates. If O'Malley people did it, I'd say the same thing. I believe that it is imperative that the Repugnants stay as far from the White House as possible. I also believe that burning down the house is a bad tactic.

So does the Bernie Sanders "group" mean that nobody can come here and make a point that an argument that you are making is counter-productive and you might want to concentrate on issues? I like Bernie but am not a sycophant by any means, is this group for sycophants only? Democratic Party faithful stay away? I thought Bernie was a Democrat, at least for this election? Si or no?

Your point is invalid. My point is valid. I am sure there are many of us who are Bernie supporters, who are also O'M supporters and Clinton supporters, who think this is not a valid comparison.

[merrily]

19. Bernie Sanders' supporters are "party faithful."

I like Bernie but am not a sycophant by any means, is this group for sycophants only? Democratic Party faithful stay away? I thought Bernie was a Democrat, at least for this election? Si or no?

Please take this the right way: Get over yourself.

The rules for every group are that they are safe havens for like minded people. The SOP for posting in this particular group is posted, as is the SOP for every DU Group. You want to remake DU rules, tell Skinner about it in ATA. This is not the Group for you to be calling Sander's supporters sycophants.

[merrily]

11. P.S. Bill's background wasn't all that poor for the time and Hillary lived in quite the upscale

area. At least it was when she grew up there. Not sure about now.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12779385 (OP about Bill)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6497046 (post that starts subthread about Hillary)

Not only did they both have a more financially comfortable childhood than the impression I somehow had, but both seem to have been politically well connected as well.

[udbcrzy2]

13. Hillary's father

He owned a textile company and they owned more than one home too. None of that is the impression that the other poster is trying to leave. Poor and middle-class? Not hardly.

edit to add: My father had to pick cotton out in the field. Probably for a textile company.

[merrily]

15. Somehow, I had the same impression, until I looked into it.

I noticed that her wiki had been changed. Originally, it said that her father owned a small business. Later, it said he managed a small textile business. Luckily, after I noticed the change, his wiki was still untouched. He supplied hotel and motels with draperies. Sounds like a comfortable living in the 1940s to me. Women didn't go to Princeton Law School then. They were lucky to go to college.

A DUer's whose mom had grown up in the same area as Hillary confirmed that the area was very upscale. Plus, yes, they had a lake house or something like that. In the late Forties, and 1950s, that was not the typical middle class family. Of course, there's middle class, and then there's middle class.

[Darb]

16. Your opinion is not that accurate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_E._Rodham

Trust me on this, if you think that the Rodhams are the same as the Bush's then you are not really a good judge of wealth and class. And believe me, having a vacation home is not where I would aim my attack, especially the one that was built by Hugh Rodham and his father. It is part of the American dream in a sense for many and attacking the American dream is not that wise. But trudge on if you must.

[merrily]

17. Please do not imply something that is so false. Yours were the inaccurate claims.

I never said or implied that the Rodhams were as rich as the Bushes.

Nothing I said was inaccurate. Your claims, however, have been misleading--and not only as to Hillary and Bill.

Again, this is not the place where you should be debating. Try GD: P There, it's discussion. Here, it's disrupting.

[udbcrzy2]

18. You said they were poor and middle-class right?

That is really inaccurate. Oh, and btw I had already checked it out before I posted the first time.

[merrily]

20. +1 Yes, that is really inaccurate.

[L0oniX]

21. I'm not even going to ask you to delete your post.

If you can't be nice in this group then you have no business posting in it.

[eridani]

22. IMO, a Bush/Clinton contest would result in the lowest voter turnover with a--

--non-incumbent president ever recorded. Young voters will just sit it out.

[merrily]

23. Yes, and not only young ones.