The Clinton Victory Thread

[Macdoc]

Yup

[Columbus]

The USA electorate is not as socialist as Sanders is. Whether they should be or not isn't the question. We aren't.

Actually, you are.

The problem is that the Democratic Party isn't as socialist as Sanders.

The reason Sanders is unlikely to win the nomination for president is because only 31% of Americans “react positively” to the word socialism.

Here's a quote from your post. The reality is that most of the USA electorate won't vote for someone that they perceive as socialist. You might think that they should. But they won't.

So the question is "Will the GOP pull victory out of the jaws of defeat?" Or will the Democrats pull defeat out of the jaws of victory.

I think Sanders and Clinton are going to put their strengths together and really pull off a huge victory for the USA. Trump is destroying the Republican party, this is the Democrats chance to take over and get some shit done. With a bit of strategy and luck Sanders agenda could be important after the election.
I want that very much.

If Trump or Cruz win, that won't happen. If Sanders supporters don't back a winner they won't get anything either. If Clinton wins despite Sanders, Sanders supporters will lose. Their agenda will go back to rural Vermont to languish until someone else comes along. Whatever you think of Clinton's policies or character, she is a winner.

And the democrats have a good chance of a history making win.
Tom

[proudfootz]

So it stands to reason if Clinton doesn't do what it takes to win these votes, no one else will be to blame.

Everyone should be smart enough to see that.

The same applies to Sanders. If he doesn't do what it takes to win the votes, no one else will be to blame. It stands to reason.
Everyone should be smart enough to see that.

Of course.

If Sanders doesn't get the nomination that's the way it goes. I'm not looking around for scapegoats.

The political reality is that Clinton is winning the votes. Not Trump, Sanders or Cruz.
Especially not the emergency candidate that the GOP honchos hope will rescue the party.
Tom

The Republicans didn't do very well with their last couple of 'respectable' candidates, McCain and Romney.

Of course.

[proudfootz]

So it stands to reason if Clinton doesn't do what it takes to win these votes, no one else will be to blame.

Everyone should be smart enough to see that.

The same applies to Sanders. If he doesn't do what it takes to win the votes, no one else will be to blame. It stands to reason.
Everyone should be smart enough to see that.

The political reality is that Clinton is winning the votes. Not Trump, Sanders or Cruz.
Especially not the emergency candidate that the GOP honchos hope will rescue the party.
Tom

While I generally agree with you, a free and fair election requires a certain amount of ethical behaviour. Sanders is running an ethical campaign, and it's costing him, as Hillary and the DNC have a different threshold. It'll likely cost him the nomination. On the other hand, Trump or Cruz have even lower standards, or possibly none at all.

Sanders could do better by smearing Clinton, but he would lose his most desirable trait, and it would cost him respect and credibility in the long run.

Yes, I'd prefer Sanders stick with running a positive campaign laying out a program to actually benefit the American people by investing in health, education, housing, infrastructure, etc.

Leave the smears to the other guys.

[Nicko]

The reality is that most of the USA electorate won't vote for someone that they perceive as socialist. You might think that they should. But they won't.

Which is different from what you said earlier.

So the question is "Will the GOP pull victory out of the jaws of defeat?" Or will the Democrats pull defeat out of the jaws of victory.

I think Sanders and Clinton are going to put their strengths together and really pull off a huge victory for the USA. Trump is destroying the Republican party, this is the Democrats chance to take over and get some shit done. With a bit of strategy and luck Sanders agenda could be important after the election.
I want that very much.

Sounds good to me too, but you're not getting that during a Clinton Presidency. A Clinton presidency means more of the same. Which is better than what you'd get under Trump or Cruz, to be sure. But I would urge you not to set yourself up for disappointment by expecting Clinton to suddenly morph into a progressive - or even a liberal - once she gets in office.

If Trump or Cruz win, that won't happen. If Sanders supporters don't back a winner they won't get anything either.

Pretty much any candidate the Dems put forward would be preferable under almost any circumstances to any of the possible GOP candidates. In much the same way that it's preferable to drive one's car into a ditch rather than off a cliff.

If Clinton wins despite Sanders, Sanders supporters will lose.

What do you mean, "despite Sanders"?

Sanders is not going to try to sabotage Clinton if she gets the nomination, as he's said many times. That was the whole reason for his running for the Democratic nomination in the first place: he doesn't want to split the vote. The question is, will the people who supported Sanders transfer their support to Clinton?

While I suspect many will, it won't be all.

Their agenda will go back to rural Vermont to languish until someone else comes along.

Which is where it is going under a Clinton Presidency anyway.

Whatever you think of Clinton's policies or character, she is a winner.

What does that even mean?

And the democrats have a good chance of a history making win.
Tom

They also have a good chance of a history-making loss. And considering that that loss will be to either a lunatic warmonger with only a marginal grip on reality or to Donald Trump, that is a pretty serious matter.

The real danger many supporters of Clinton don't see is that many of the people who don't support her do not just think another candidate would be better, they fucking hate her. It's one thing to ask someone who's not exactly enthused about a candidate to vote for them as the lesser of two evils. It's another thing entirely to bank on this strategy to overcome actual antipathy.

[Thomas Eshuis]

The USA electorate is not as socialist as Sanders is. Whether they should be or not isn't the question. We aren't.

Actually, you are.

The problem is that the Democratic Party isn't as socialist as Sanders.

The reason Sanders is unlikely to win the nomination for president is because only 31% of Americans “react positively” to the word socialism.

Here's a quote from your post. The reality is that most of the USA electorate won't vote for someone that they perceive as socialist. You might think that they should. But they won't.

Nicko's point still stands. Americans might have an irrational aversion to the word socialist, that doesn't change that with regards to actual political views, a lot of them are socialists.

[proudfootz]

People sometimes forget that voting for the perceived lesser of two evils is still choosing evil.

[Teague]

I don't understand this bitterness among Sanders supporters.

What bitterness?

The sense I get from some supporters is that if they don't get the nomination it's all over and Americans are "too stupid" to elect a decent government.

They've been too stupid for decades but it's not just the US that suffers from it.

[proudfootz]

Geez, we elected Nixon, Reagan, Bush the Elder, Bush the Younger and survived all of them.

Well, not all of us survived.

But you get the idea - all this 'Sanders is to blame if Trump wins' guff is Scare-mongering 101.

[Teague]

Geez, we elected Nixon, Reagan, Bush the Elder, Bush the Younger and survived all of them.

Well, not all of us survived.

But you get the idea - all this 'Sanders is to blame if Trump wins' guff is Scare-mongering 101.

It bullshit for retards to eat.

If people were a little more aware of what the fuck was going on around them and took a reasonable look at things then maybe instead of just listening to fucktards on the political trail and bothered to type into their phones w.w.w.g.o.o.g.l.e.c.o.m and looked up a few things then they might be able to make an informed decision.

On the other hand, they'd rather just choose someone on the way they talk and things they say or just for the fact they've been around so long. Try looking at their policies and then look at all the shit things they've done, it's really easy to google that stuff you can find out a lot in 10 minutes.

Why anybody votes Rep. is beyond me. The party that's against the people and make the economy worse. In this race the choice from most intelligent to most fucking retarded is

Sanders
Clinton
Kasich
Trump/Cruz

I can't make my mind up which is worse when it comes to Trump or Cruz and Kasich isn't much better.

[Macdoc]

Cruz is scary theocrat. Kasich just an annoying right wing ding.

[Nicko]

People sometimes forget that voting for the perceived lesser of two evils is still choosing evil.

Well, yeah. That doesn't make it the wrong choice. As I said, if your only two choices are driving into a ditch or driving off a cliff, you steer toward the ditch and brace yourself.

The trick is to have options available other than the ditch or the cliff.

[purplerat]

The problem I'm seeing for Bernie isn't that people don't like him or that people like Clinton better. The problem is the last guy who ran an insurgent campaign against Hillary with lofty idealistic goals and won but never lived up to those ideals. Obviously Obama was better than any of the republicans he eventually beat out for the White house but I think a lot of people look at Bernie and see him going the same route as Obama, which is that he basically ends up right where Clinton would be anyways. So if that's what we are going to get either way then the smart move is to take the sure thing and not risk the general election. It's simple pragmatism.

[purplerat]

So it stands to reason if Clinton doesn't do what it takes to win these votes, no one else will be to blame.

Everyone should be smart enough to see that.

The same applies to Sanders. If he doesn't do what it takes to win the votes, no one else will be to blame. It stands to reason.
Everyone should be smart enough to see that.

The political reality is that Clinton is winning the votes. Not Trump, Sanders or Cruz.
Especially not the emergency candidate that the GOP honchos hope will rescue the party.
Tom

While I generally agree with you, a free and fair election requires a certain amount of ethical behaviour. Sanders is running an ethical campaign, and it's costing him, as Hillary and the DNC have a different threshold. It'll likely cost him the nomination. On the other hand, Trump or Cruz have even lower standards, or possibly none at all.

Sanders could do better by smearing Clinton, but he would lose his most desirable trait, and it would cost him respect and credibility in the long run.

Yes, I'd prefer Sanders stick with running a positive campaign laying out a program to actually benefit the American people by investing in health, education, housing, infrastructure, etc.

Leave the smears to the other guys.

Unfortunately Americans are not quite as dumb as we are made out to be and I think people may be realizing that Bernie's reluctance to hit below the belt could be a liability in the general election. Everybody pays lip service to being against negative campaigning but once it's our side hitting the other we lap it up.

[purplerat]

Sanders
Clinton
Kasich
Trump/Cruz

I can't make my mind up which is worse when it comes to Trump or Cruz and Kasich isn't much better.

I'm tempted to put trump above all the other republican candidates. I think he honestly is a wild card and it's completely conceivable that after winning the general election or maybe even the nomination he'd laugh at his supporters and admit he lied just to get their support and he wasn't going to go through with his crazy policies. Not that I think it's likely but it's possible. The alternative is that he does go through with it and the Republican party as we know it is dead in 4 years.

Kasich or Cruz would undoubtedly bring us back to the W years which would not be good while convincing the GOP to continue down that road.

[Willie71]

The problem I'm seeing for Bernie isn't that people don't like him or that people like Clinton better. The problem is the last guy who ran an insurgent campaign against Hillary with lofty idealistic goals and won but never lived up to those ideals. Obviously Obama was better than any of the republicans he eventually beat out for the White house but I think a lot of people look at Bernie and see him going the same route as Obama, which is that he basically ends up right where Clinton would be anyways. So if that's what we are going to get either way then the smart move is to take the sure thing and not risk the general election. It's simple pragmatism.

I agree with you. This is the perception, but Obama was beholden to his donors, and so is Sanders. The difference is that Obama took money from Wall Street and the Military Industrial Complex, while Sanders takes money from the people for his campaign. Obama so,d out. Sanders refuses to.

[Willie71]

The same applies to Sanders. If he doesn't do what it takes to win the votes, no one else will be to blame. It stands to reason.
Everyone should be smart enough to see that.

The political reality is that Clinton is winning the votes. Not Trump, Sanders or Cruz.
Especially not the emergency candidate that the GOP honchos hope will rescue the party.
Tom

While I generally agree with you, a free and fair election requires a certain amount of ethical behaviour. Sanders is running an ethical campaign, and it's costing him, as Hillary and the DNC have a different threshold. It'll likely cost him the nomination. On the other hand, Trump or Cruz have even lower standards, or possibly none at all.

Sanders could do better by smearing Clinton, but he would lose his most desirable trait, and it would cost him respect and credibility in the long run.

Yes, I'd prefer Sanders stick with running a positive campaign laying out a program to actually benefit the American people by investing in health, education, housing, infrastructure, etc.

Leave the smears to the other guys.

Unfortunately Americans are not quite as dumb as we are made out to be and I think people may be realizing that Bernie's reluctance to hit below the belt could be a liability in the general election. Everybody pays lip service to being against negative campaigning but once it's our side hitting the other we lap it up.

The fact that it is perceived that candidates need to hit below the belt leaves me with the opposite impression. Too much reality show culture. This should be embarrassing, but it isn't. It's seen as "the way things are."

[purplerat]

The problem I'm seeing for Bernie isn't that people don't like him or that people like Clinton better. The problem is the last guy who ran an insurgent campaign against Hillary with lofty idealistic goals and won but never lived up to those ideals. Obviously Obama was better than any of the republicans he eventually beat out for the White house but I think a lot of people look at Bernie and see him going the same route as Obama, which is that he basically ends up right where Clinton would be anyways. So if that's what we are going to get either way then the smart move is to take the sure thing and not risk the general election. It's simple pragmatism.

I agree with you. This is the perception, but Obama was beholden to his donors, and so is Sanders. The difference is that Obama took money from Wall Street and the Military Industrial Complex, while Sanders takes money from the people for his campaign. Obama so,d out. Sanders refuses to.

Yup. Bernie does have the history of not selling out while Obama was a relative political novice. Then again Bernie has enjoyed serving a very small, very homogeneous state where there is little outside pressure. He can basically do and say whatever he wants because it doesn't really matter and that makes sticking to one's principles a lot easier.

[purplerat]

While I generally agree with you, a free and fair election requires a certain amount of ethical behaviour. Sanders is running an ethical campaign, and it's costing him, as Hillary and the DNC have a different threshold. It'll likely cost him the nomination. On the other hand, Trump or Cruz have even lower standards, or possibly none at all.

Sanders could do better by smearing Clinton, but he would lose his most desirable trait, and it would cost him respect and credibility in the long run.

Yes, I'd prefer Sanders stick with running a positive campaign laying out a program to actually benefit the American people by investing in health, education, housing, infrastructure, etc.

Leave the smears to the other guys.

Unfortunately Americans are not quite as dumb as we are made out to be and I think people may be realizing that Bernie's reluctance to hit below the belt could be a liability in the general election. Everybody pays lip service to being against negative campaigning but once it's our side hitting the other we lap it up.

The fact that it is perceived that candidates need to hit below the belt leaves me with the opposite impression. Too much reality show culture. This should be embarrassing, but it isn't. It's seen as "the way things are."

I wouldn't call it "reality show culture" because it's basically been that way for as long as there's been elections.

[ScholasticSpastic]

But you get the idea - all this 'Sanders is to blame if Trump wins' guff is Scare-mongering 101.

I can see it being true if all the youngin's who are fired up about Sanders decide not to participate if/when he loses the Primaries. But if Sanders' message can carry beyond defeat, serve as a wake-up call for the DNC, and keep young people and independents energized against the GOP, then his candidacy will be a very good thing regardless of the outcome.

I'd rather vote for Sanders, but I'll vote for Clinton if she wins the Primaries. Because she's not Cruz or Kasich or Trump. I can at least count on Clinton to do her part to maintain the status quo until we get another chance at upsetting it. Whereas with the GOP I can't count on anything not getting broken as they attempt to drag us back to the 1950s as they never were.

Not good is not the same thing as bad. There's also "meh" in the middle. I'll take the "meh" over the bad, and consider it something other than voting for the lesser evil.

What I would really love to see is enough 'Muricans pulling their heads out of their asses that the Congress can stop using the President as their fall-guy. I'd say >90% of the failures attributed to Presidents have probably been more accurately attributable to career Congressmen who are able to pin it on their Presidential scapegoat and continue their nefarious dealings without reasonable scrutiny.