The Clinton Victory Thread

[Willie71]

In another topic, the perceived "Clinton Victory" may not be so in the bag. Alan Grayson explains the two primary nature of the democratic race. Clinton won the first but moving forward, Sanders has as much of an advantage as Clinton held in the first half. I will agree that Sanders underperformed last Tuesday, but he only lost by a large margin in one of the state's. For the most part, the delegates were split with the advantage to Clinton. As I noted, even Nate Silver predicts a very strong showing going forward for Sanders. The two largest states, New York and California are coming up. New York is a closed primary, which favours Clinton, but California with over 500 delegates is a modified closed, which allows unaffiliated voters, favours Sanders.

[proudfootz]

It's certainly true whoever gets the nod to become the President will need a Congress they can work with.

There are a lot of slots from the grass roots all the way to the top that need socially responsible people in them.

[Columbus]

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.

This is my whole point. I supported Obama and "Hope and Change". What I got was Romneycare, Libya debacle, an obstructionist Congress, and a jobless recovery. Obama was well intentioned and wanted a revolution. But he didn't have enough clout in Washington DC to get the job done.

Now Sanders has a chance to do better. By Sanders going into the convention in Philadelphia with a strong hand to play, Clinton will play ball with him. She will agree to stuff she might not have done if he didn't have a big chunk of the electorate behind him.
Between them, they could pull off The Revolution. Neither can do that individually.


Clinton has clout and ruthlessness. Sanders has vision and integrity.
And they both have Trump to trash the Republican party.

This could be huge if the sanderites and the clintonistas keep it together.

Tom

[Willie71]

You can get it from the horses mouth here: Will Bernie Sanders ask his supporters to vote for Clinton?

Watch and find out. I love his answer.

[Teague]

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.

Sanders beats Clinton in every poll against republicans by huge leads and if you listened to Sanders campaign, you'd know that once in office he'll be tellign the people who is voting against the reforms he's trying to put in and will expect them to help him after the election.

What is so hard for people here to understand? He's not going to do an Obama, he's looking for political revolution. That means you get off your arse and vote dickheads out and march on the streets if you have to whilst he names and shames all the people that are fucking you over.

NO politician has done that before and it's worth voting Sanders in just to see these assholes squirm when the spotlight is suddenly on them.

[Thommo]

You can get it from the horses mouth here: Will Bernie Sanders ask his supporters to vote for Clinton?

Watch and find out. I love his answer.

Presidential candidate doesn't want to be a leader. And the important question to get his support is "what will you do for us?".

I really don't think he came over well there at all.

[Teague]

You can get it from the horses mouth here: Will Bernie Sanders ask his supporters to vote for Clinton?

Watch and find out. I love his answer.

Presidential candidate doesn't want to be a leader. And the important question to get his support is "what will you do for us?".

I really don't think he came over well there at all.

I understand exactly what he means by that and the perfect man for the job is a man that doesn't want to be a leader but is prepared to be one to take the country in the right direction. This is better than Clinton who desperately wants the power and to be "the leader" which imo is a far worse position to hold.

He also means he's not here to lead the country on his own as he wants the people to take an initiative which is what he's been saying his entire campaign.

[Thommo]

I understand exactly what he means by that and the perfect man for the job is a man that doesn't want to be a leader but is prepared to be one to take the country in the right direction. This is better than Clinton who desperately wants the power and to be "the leader" which imo is a far worse position to hold.

That's just a projection. You want to see Clinton as desparate and Sanders as principled because you happen to agree with Sanders. This "them and us" stuff has only passing resemblance to reality. Mind you, if you want to watch "them" squirm, I guess you can't be surprised when they want to watch "you" squirm.

Don't get me wrong, I think that Sanders has some good ideas, but there are far better ways of expressing this than in the language of the ludicrously polarised fashions that dominate US politics and political comment.

He also means he's not here to lead the country on his own as he wants the people to take an initiative which is what he's been saying his entire campaign.

I'm not asking for an explanation of what he means, I'm expressing an opinion on why I don't think he comes across well. Leadership roles are important, being recognised as a leader means being accountable, regardless of whether you have an authoritarian or egalitarian leadership style.

It is notable that "strength" is a quality that people (and Americans in particular) look for in a leader. Rhetorically sidestepping that role can easily be seen as weaseling.

[Saim]

What Western country has a leftist head of government?

France.

You consider them to be Leftists? What have the Socialists done to preserve or reinstate Social democracy under Hollande? I'll admit ignorance on this one, but from the outside the main things that I can remember are the state of emergency, the Mali invasion and the bombing of Syria.

As far as I can tell practically all major Western Social-democratic and Labour parties have shifted to the right to become moderate liberal parties, but if France is somehow an exception that's great.

From my perspective the USA is far enough to the 'right' as it is. There needs to be a correction to bring us into line with modern nations vis a vis health, education, housing, etc.

In the USA matters are already pretty extreme, and some don't want to see things get any worse.

I get that but we're moving in the same direction everywhere. Even in Australia they started dismantling the welfare state, despite the fact that we weren't really hit by the financial crisis in the same way as Western Europe or the US were. I get that you don't want things to get worse, but these issues are systemic and ingrained and are not going to be solved (or, conversely, set in stone forever) by one presidency. We're on an uphill battle in the entire West because of the nature of how our economies and political systems work. The fall of the Soviet Union and the rise of Asia is putting a lot of strain on Social democracy and the Western middle class, and America is being hit harder by it because you started off in a worse position already.

[mrjonno]

All Western countries are highly capitalist even ones that might claim to be far left like Greece. You can't survive without being part of global finance and global trade which basically require you to be.

If you currency drops through the roof because the financial world doesn't want it any more you go bankrupt end of story and your people starve. This of course puts a mockery on the concept of independent countries but that's not such a terrible thing

[proudfootz]

I understand exactly what he means by that and the perfect man for the job is a man that doesn't want to be a leader but is prepared to be one to take the country in the right direction. This is better than Clinton who desperately wants the power and to be "the leader" which imo is a far worse position to hold.

That's just a projection. You want to see Clinton as desparate and Sanders as principled because you happen to agree with Sanders. This "them and us" stuff has only passing resemblance to reality. Mind you, if you want to watch "them" squirm, I guess you can't be surprised when they want to watch "you" squirm.

Don't get me wrong, I think that Sanders has some good ideas, but there are far better ways of expressing this than in the language of the ludicrously polarised fashions that dominate US politics and political comment.

He also means he's not here to lead the country on his own as he wants the people to take an initiative which is what he's been saying his entire campaign.

I'm not asking for an explanation of what he means, I'm expressing an opinion on why I don't think he comes across well. Leadership roles are important, being recognised as a leader means being accountable, regardless of whether you have an authoritarian or egalitarian leadership style.

It is notable that "strength" is a quality that people (and Americans in particular) look for in a leader. Rhetorically sidestepping that role can easily be seen as weaseling.

Likewise, that could be projecting something onto Sanders. It's a bit of a stretch to listen to what he says in this clip and interpret that to mean he doesn't want to be accountable in some weaselly way.



I'm not interested in anyone 'squirming', but I am interested in the Democratic leadership learning from the phenomenally successful campaign Sanders is running. Why is he popular? Is he that charismatic? It's his programs and policies people are responding to, and writing off the voters Sanders has energized because they're not rich enough to afford to buy politicians off the shelf is exactly the kind of business-as-usual 'pragmatism' that keeps voter turnout low.

[proudfootz]

From my perspective the USA is far enough to the 'right' as it is. There needs to be a correction to bring us into line with modern nations vis a vis health, education, housing, etc.

In the USA matters are already pretty extreme, and some don't want to see things get any worse.

I get that but we're moving in the same direction everywhere. Even in Australia they started dismantling the welfare state, despite the fact that we weren't really hit by the financial crisis in the same way as Western Europe or the US were. I get that you don't want things to get worse, but these issues are systemic and ingrained and are not going to be solved (or, conversely, set in stone forever) by one presidency. We're on an uphill battle in the entire West because of the nature of how our economies and political systems work. The fall of the Soviet Union and the rise of Asia is putting a lot of strain on Social democracy and the Western middle class, and America is being hit harder by it because you started off in a worse position already.

I agree one presidency isn't going to change everything all at once. But the journey of a thousand kilometers starts with one step. If we keep taking steps in the wrong direction we'll never get where we want to go.

That's what pragmatism is - doing what is in your power to do to achieve your goals.

Some seem to think pragmatism is simply giving up.

[Thommo]

I understand exactly what he means by that and the perfect man for the job is a man that doesn't want to be a leader but is prepared to be one to take the country in the right direction. This is better than Clinton who desperately wants the power and to be "the leader" which imo is a far worse position to hold.

That's just a projection. You want to see Clinton as desparate and Sanders as principled because you happen to agree with Sanders. This "them and us" stuff has only passing resemblance to reality. Mind you, if you want to watch "them" squirm, I guess you can't be surprised when they want to watch "you" squirm.

Don't get me wrong, I think that Sanders has some good ideas, but there are far better ways of expressing this than in the language of the ludicrously polarised fashions that dominate US politics and political comment.

He also means he's not here to lead the country on his own as he wants the people to take an initiative which is what he's been saying his entire campaign.

I'm not asking for an explanation of what he means, I'm expressing an opinion on why I don't think he comes across well. Leadership roles are important, being recognised as a leader means being accountable, regardless of whether you have an authoritarian or egalitarian leadership style.

It is notable that "strength" is a quality that people (and Americans in particular) look for in a leader. Rhetorically sidestepping that role can easily be seen as weaseling.

Likewise, that could be projecting something onto Sanders. It's a bit of a stretch to listen to what he says in this clip and interpret that to mean he doesn't want to be accountable in some weaselly way.

How is it projecting onto Sanders to say that the American public rates leadership or strength in a leader highly? It's not even a statement about Sanders for goodness sake.

I'm not interested in anyone 'squirming', but I am interested in the Democratic leadership learning from the phenomenally successful campaign Sanders is running. Why is he popular? Is he that charismatic? It's his programs and policies people are responding to, and writing off the voters Sanders has energized because they're not rich enough to afford to buy politicians off the shelf is exactly the kind of business-as-usual 'pragmatism' that keeps voter turnout low.

He's not even winning, let alone being phenomenally successful, he's not even likely to be as successful as Mitt Romney, who at least got a nomination. I'm glad you aren't interested in seeing anyone squirming, but I really don't see what that has to do with anything. The only person I'm assuming that's true of is the person who said it, I don't think it's beneficial for other people to come in and somehow pretend the comment was directed at anyone else.

The idea that Clinton is "writing off" voters is definitely projection too by the way. And saying that's why voter turnout is low is equally daft. Voter turnout is low in pretty much all of the countries in the world where living standards are good and where the best social safety nets exist. The explanation is not down to any one single identifiable factor in such simplistic a way.

[Teague]

I understand exactly what he means by that and the perfect man for the job is a man that doesn't want to be a leader but is prepared to be one to take the country in the right direction. This is better than Clinton who desperately wants the power and to be "the leader" which imo is a far worse position to hold.

That's just a projection. You want to see Clinton as desparate and Sanders as principled because you happen to agree with Sanders. This "them and us" stuff has only passing resemblance to reality. Mind you, if you want to watch "them" squirm, I guess you can't be surprised when they want to watch "you" squirm.

Don't get me wrong, I think that Sanders has some good ideas, but there are far better ways of expressing this than in the language of the ludicrously polarised fashions that dominate US politics and political comment.

He also means he's not here to lead the country on his own as he wants the people to take an initiative which is what he's been saying his entire campaign.

I'm not asking for an explanation of what he means, I'm expressing an opinion on why I don't think he comes across well. Leadership roles are important, being recognised as a leader means being accountable, regardless of whether you have an authoritarian or egalitarian leadership style.

It is notable that "strength" is a quality that people (and Americans in particular) look for in a leader. Rhetorically sidestepping that role can easily be seen as weaseling.

I think Sander's comes across as the strongest candidate there is and has been for decades. He's sincere and is obviously not afraid of the establishment and is willing to take them on. That's a guy with balls and a leader imo and why he's doing so well with young people. Personally, I think he comes across great. He says what he's going to do and doesn't bullshit which is refreshing.

[proudfootz]

I understand exactly what he means by that and the perfect man for the job is a man that doesn't want to be a leader but is prepared to be one to take the country in the right direction. This is better than Clinton who desperately wants the power and to be "the leader" which imo is a far worse position to hold.

That's just a projection. You want to see Clinton as desparate and Sanders as principled because you happen to agree with Sanders. This "them and us" stuff has only passing resemblance to reality. Mind you, if you want to watch "them" squirm, I guess you can't be surprised when they want to watch "you" squirm.

Don't get me wrong, I think that Sanders has some good ideas, but there are far better ways of expressing this than in the language of the ludicrously polarised fashions that dominate US politics and political comment.

He also means he's not here to lead the country on his own as he wants the people to take an initiative which is what he's been saying his entire campaign.

I'm not asking for an explanation of what he means, I'm expressing an opinion on why I don't think he comes across well. Leadership roles are important, being recognised as a leader means being accountable, regardless of whether you have an authoritarian or egalitarian leadership style.

It is notable that "strength" is a quality that people (and Americans in particular) look for in a leader. Rhetorically sidestepping that role can easily be seen as weaseling.

Likewise, that could be projecting something onto Sanders. It's a bit of a stretch to listen to what he says in this clip and interpret that to mean he doesn't want to be accountable in some weaselly way.

How is it projecting onto Sanders to say that the American public rates leadership or strength in a leader highly? It's not even a statement about Sanders for goodness sake.

You used the word 'weasel' - where did that come from?

You said something about 'accountability' - where did Sanders say anything about not wanting to be accountable?

You imagined all that.

I'm not interested in anyone 'squirming', but I am interested in the Democratic leadership learning from the phenomenally successful campaign Sanders is running. Why is he popular? Is he that charismatic? It's his programs and policies people are responding to, and writing off the voters Sanders has energized because they're not rich enough to afford to buy politicians off the shelf is exactly the kind of business-as-usual 'pragmatism' that keeps voter turnout low.

He's not even winning, let alone being phenomenally successful, he's not even likely to be as successful as Mitt Romney, who at least got a nomination.

Funny, Sanders has taken quite a few states from Clinton. So, yes, for an unknown, uncharismatic guy, Sanders is doing quite well against Clinton who's been on the national scene for decades.

People are turning out in droves to see him, which is in contrast to the anemic rallies of the other candidates. Turnout for the primaries have been shattering records because Sanders is in the race.

He outpolls Clinton against all the Republicans in head to head contests.

So I think that's doing pretty well.

I'm glad you aren't interested in seeing anyone squirming, but I really don't see what that has to do with anything. The only person I'm assuming that's true of is the person who said it, I don't think it's beneficial for other people to come in and somehow pretend the comment was directed at anyone else.

If you want a private conversation with another poster, send them a PM.

The idea that Clinton is "writing off" voters is definitely projection too by the way. And saying that's why voter turnout is low is equally daft. Voter turnout is low in pretty much all of the countries in the world where living standards are good and where the best social safety nets exist. The explanation is not down to any one single identifiable factor in such simplistic a way.

There are possibly many reasons why turnout is low.

It's interesting that in this primary season, Sanders is energizing voters and turnout is higher than it's been for a long time.

Maybe it has something to do with the phenomenal turnout at his rallies?

[proudfootz]

I understand exactly what he means by that and the perfect man for the job is a man that doesn't want to be a leader but is prepared to be one to take the country in the right direction. This is better than Clinton who desperately wants the power and to be "the leader" which imo is a far worse position to hold.

That's just a projection. You want to see Clinton as desparate and Sanders as principled because you happen to agree with Sanders. This "them and us" stuff has only passing resemblance to reality. Mind you, if you want to watch "them" squirm, I guess you can't be surprised when they want to watch "you" squirm.

Don't get me wrong, I think that Sanders has some good ideas, but there are far better ways of expressing this than in the language of the ludicrously polarised fashions that dominate US politics and political comment.

He also means he's not here to lead the country on his own as he wants the people to take an initiative which is what he's been saying his entire campaign.

I'm not asking for an explanation of what he means, I'm expressing an opinion on why I don't think he comes across well. Leadership roles are important, being recognised as a leader means being accountable, regardless of whether you have an authoritarian or egalitarian leadership style.

It is notable that "strength" is a quality that people (and Americans in particular) look for in a leader. Rhetorically sidestepping that role can easily be seen as weaseling.

I think Sander's comes across as the strongest candidate there is and has been for decades. He's sincere and is obviously not afraid of the establishment and is willing to take them on. That's a guy with balls and a leader imo and why he's doing so well with young people. Personally, I think he comes across great. He says what he's going to do and doesn't bullshit which is refreshing.

If it comes down to Sanders v Trump in the election, it will be interesting to see whether US voters go for the integrity of Sanders or for the demagoguery of Trump.

From the perspective here on the ground, I'm afraid it's too close to call.

[Teague]

That's just a projection. You want to see Clinton as desparate and Sanders as principled because you happen to agree with Sanders. This "them and us" stuff has only passing resemblance to reality. Mind you, if you want to watch "them" squirm, I guess you can't be surprised when they want to watch "you" squirm.

Don't get me wrong, I think that Sanders has some good ideas, but there are far better ways of expressing this than in the language of the ludicrously polarised fashions that dominate US politics and political comment.



I'm not asking for an explanation of what he means, I'm expressing an opinion on why I don't think he comes across well. Leadership roles are important, being recognised as a leader means being accountable, regardless of whether you have an authoritarian or egalitarian leadership style.

It is notable that "strength" is a quality that people (and Americans in particular) look for in a leader. Rhetorically sidestepping that role can easily be seen as weaseling.

Likewise, that could be projecting something onto Sanders. It's a bit of a stretch to listen to what he says in this clip and interpret that to mean he doesn't want to be accountable in some weaselly way.

How is it projecting onto Sanders to say that the American public rates leadership or strength in a leader highly? It's not even a statement about Sanders for goodness sake.

You used the word 'weasel' - where did that come from?

You said something about 'accountability' - where did Sanders say anything about not wanting to be accountable?

You imagined all that.

I'm not interested in anyone 'squirming', but I am interested in the Democratic leadership learning from the phenomenally successful campaign Sanders is running. Why is he popular? Is he that charismatic? It's his programs and policies people are responding to, and writing off the voters Sanders has energized because they're not rich enough to afford to buy politicians off the shelf is exactly the kind of business-as-usual 'pragmatism' that keeps voter turnout low.

He's not even winning, let alone being phenomenally successful, he's not even likely to be as successful as Mitt Romney, who at least got a nomination.

Funny, Sanders has taken quite a few states from Clinton. So, yes, for an unknown, uncharismatic guy, Sanders is doing quite well against Clinton who's been on the national scene for decades.

People are turning out in droves to see him, which is in contrast to the anemic rallies of the other candidates. Turnout for the primaries have been shattering records because Sanders is in the race.

He outpolls Clinton against all the Republicans in head to head contests.

So I think that's doing pretty well.

I'm glad you aren't interested in seeing anyone squirming, but I really don't see what that has to do with anything. The only person I'm assuming that's true of is the person who said it, I don't think it's beneficial for other people to come in and somehow pretend the comment was directed at anyone else.

If you want a private conversation with another poster, send them a PM.

The idea that Clinton is "writing off" voters is definitely projection too by the way. And saying that's why voter turnout is low is equally daft. Voter turnout is low in pretty much all of the countries in the world where living standards are good and where the best social safety nets exist. The explanation is not down to any one single identifiable factor in such simplistic a way.

There are possibly many reasons why turnout is low.

It's interesting that in this primary season, Sanders is energizing voters and turnout is higher than it's been for a long time.

Maybe it has something to do with the phenomenal turnout at his rallies?

Let's not forget that Obama set the record for individual contributions I believe 8 years ago and sanders has not only beat it, he's pummeled it into the ground. He is now the undisputed heavy-weight champion when it comes to contributions which is somewhere around the 5 million mark I do believe but we can keep getting poster determined to belittle his efforts.

[Teague]

I understand exactly what he means by that and the perfect man for the job is a man that doesn't want to be a leader but is prepared to be one to take the country in the right direction. This is better than Clinton who desperately wants the power and to be "the leader" which imo is a far worse position to hold.

That's just a projection. You want to see Clinton as desparate and Sanders as principled because you happen to agree with Sanders. This "them and us" stuff has only passing resemblance to reality. Mind you, if you want to watch "them" squirm, I guess you can't be surprised when they want to watch "you" squirm.

Don't get me wrong, I think that Sanders has some good ideas, but there are far better ways of expressing this than in the language of the ludicrously polarised fashions that dominate US politics and political comment.

He also means he's not here to lead the country on his own as he wants the people to take an initiative which is what he's been saying his entire campaign.

I'm not asking for an explanation of what he means, I'm expressing an opinion on why I don't think he comes across well. Leadership roles are important, being recognised as a leader means being accountable, regardless of whether you have an authoritarian or egalitarian leadership style.

It is notable that "strength" is a quality that people (and Americans in particular) look for in a leader. Rhetorically sidestepping that role can easily be seen as weaseling.

I think Sander's comes across as the strongest candidate there is and has been for decades. He's sincere and is obviously not afraid of the establishment and is willing to take them on. That's a guy with balls and a leader imo and why he's doing so well with young people. Personally, I think he comes across great. He says what he's going to do and doesn't bullshit which is refreshing.

If it comes down to Sanders v Trump in the election, it will be interesting to see whether US voters go for the integrity of Sanders or for the demagoguery of Trump.

From the perspective here on the ground, I'm afraid it's too close to call.

Once it gets down to the debates against the two, how's Trump going to answer any questions on policy? How stupid is he going to look when Sanders can tell the people what he's going to do for them and then when asked his policy positions and how he's going to implement them he's going to say "It's going to be great, tremendous, wait and see!"

[Thommo]

You used the word 'weasel' - where did that come from?

You said something about 'accountability' - where did Sanders say anything about not wanting to be accountable?

You imagined all that.

No, you imagined that I said that he said it. But forget it, I've learned from past experience what conversing with you is like and I'm not prepared to go into more than a single post explaining a couple of plain sentences because the original point is already lost. If you don't find them clear, that's just too bad.

If you want a private conversation with another poster, send them a PM.

Yeah, this is the kind of rhetorical dishonesty that gets so dull. Deliberately misrepresenting one comment because I objected to you misrepresenting another.

[proudfootz]

You used the word 'weasel' - where did that come from?

You said something about 'accountability' - where did Sanders say anything about not wanting to be accountable?

You imagined all that.

No, you imagined that I said that he said it. But forget it, I've learned from past experience what conversing with you is like and I'm not prepared to go into more than a single post explaining a couple of plain sentences because the original point is already lost. If you don't find them clear, that's just too bad.

If you want a private conversation with another poster, send them a PM.

Yeah, this is the kind of rhetorical dishonesty that gets so dull. Deliberately misrepresenting one comment because I objected to you misrepresenting another.

Keep saying that in a mirror and maybe it will sink in.