The Clinton Victory Thread

[GT2211]

An electric night that began with Boulder County Democrats lining blocks to get into caucus sites turned ugly in many spots, as unexpectedly high turnout meant thousands of would-be caucus-goers were denied the chance to partake, despite spending hours in line.

Turnout vastly exceeded projections — and 2008 totals — at many of the party's 22 Boulder County caucus supersites Tuesday night, including locations in Boulder, Longmont and Lafayette.

But while Bernie Sanders handily defeated Hillary Clinton in Colorado's slice of the "Super Tuesday" spectacle, in Boulder County at least, the politics were largely overshadowed by the mess.

Though party officials and precinct leaders assured people waiting in line that everyone would get in, the crowds eventually were so overwhelming that many precincts already had met and selected delegates while long lines of people unwittingly waited patiently outside for a chance to be counted.

http://www.dailycamera.com/local-electi ... tic-caucus

Massive turnout overwhelms Idaho Democratic caucus

Bill Dentzer, political reporter for the Idaho Statesman, talks with Rachel Maddow about the overwhelming number of people who showed up for a Democratic caucus of unprecedented size.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watc ... 0509891763

Early reports showed that Sanders won 79 percent of caucuses in rural counties in the heavily rural Midwestern state. More than 40,000 Kansans showed up for this year’s caucuses, which was an increase in turnout of about 10% compared to turnout in the previously record-breaking 2008 election. The state’s Democratic Party officially called the state for Sanders at 8:35 PM Eastern time.

http://usuncut.com/news/bernie-sanders-wins-kansas/

PORTLAND, Maine —A record number of Maine Democrats took part in the presidential caucuses on Sunday.

They gathered at hundreds of locations across Maine and chose Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders by a 2-1 margin over former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Party officials said more than 46,000 people took part in the caucuses.

The turnout was overwhelming, especially in Portland.

http://www.wmtw.com/politics/maine-demo ... y/38370544

The presidential polls were off. Way off.

They indicated former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would easily win the state's primary election. The polls in the last week had Clinton as the victor by anywhere from 13% to 37% over U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont. The Detroit Free Press poll taken last week had Clinton up by 25 points.

But those polls missed the enthusiasm for Sanders on the ground, especially among young people, said Mark Brewer, former chairman of the Michigan Democratic Party...

Consider the voter turnout shattered records when more than 2.5 million people cast ballots. Sanders won big just about everywhere, except in Wayne, Oakland and Macomb counties. And while a big showing in Wayne County and its city of Detroit often spells victories for many candidates, the turnout was 25% in Detroit and 31% in Wayne County, while the statewide total was closer to 40%.

http://www.freep.com/story/news/politic ... /81527800/

Caucus voters came out in droves on Super Tuesday to support their preferred presidential candidates. Republicans set turnout records; Democrats predicted they had their second-highest showing in state history.

The high turnout led to crowded caucus sites, long lines and a revived debate over whether it’s time for Minnesota to swap out its caucus system for the more-common — and less complex — presidential primary. Unlike a primary, where residents simply vote for their chosen candidate, a caucus is a community event in which people debate the merits of their chosen candidates before voting.

For decades, opponents of caucuses have argued the insider nature of the system discourages the average citizen from voting and that in years of high turnout, volunteers and facilities can become overwhelmed.

http://www.twincities.com/2016/03/02/af ... us-system/

Lincoln, NE - Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders landed a sizable Nebraska victory Saturday, cementing a 14-point lead thanks not only to favorable demographics, but to voter turnout so high it forced several precincts to relocate in search of larger space.

That said, Sanders' margin of victory pales in comparison to President Barack Obama's 35-point landslide victory in 2008. With just shy of 100% of precincts reporting Sunday morning, Sanders led the state with 57 percent to national Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton's 43 percent support.

http://patch.com/us/across-america/nebr ... rs-clinton

Democratic turnout was 249,215, lower than New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner had predicted, and lower than the record Democratic turnout in 2008 that gave Hillary Clinton the victory over Barack Obama and John Edwards.

Sanders, an independent U.S. senator from Vermont, often tells his audiences that Democrats and progressives benefit from high turnout.

“Because of a huge voter turnout ... we won," Sanders said in his New Hampshire victory speech. "Because we harnessed the energy and the excitement that the Democratic Party will need to succeed in November.”

Sanders won the primary in a landslide, more than 22 percentage points ahead of Clinton.

[While not the all time turnout, it's only the second highest for Democrats in the state]

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/stor ... /80247392/

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’s populist and trust-busting rhetoric found receptive ears at two huge rallies heading up to Super Tuesday.

Sanders received 174,054 votes and 21 delegates, according to Politico, while Clinton received 139,338 votes and 17 delegates. Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley received 7,669 votes, despite dropping out of the race exactly one month earlier after a poor showing in Iowa. Four other candidates with no name recognition received more than 14,000 votes.

A majority of polls had shown Clinton clinging to a small lead in Oklahoma, but Sanders’ appeal may have broken the turnout model by the look of his margin of victory...

Sanders — and record-setting Democratic primary turnout as a whole — may have benefited from independents’ first opportunity to vote in primaries on the big-tent-party’s side. The self-described “democratic socialist” won 75 of Oklahoma’s 77 counties, losing only in Oklahoma County and Osage County to Clinton.

Ironically, Clinton has raised more money in Oklahoma than all other presidential candidates combined, as reported by Oklahoma Watch before the election.

http://nondoc.com/2016/03/02/turnout-re ... -oklahoma/

SALT LAKE CITY -- It was a record night for Utah Democrats with turnout at caucuses across the state well exceeding expectations. At some caucuses, like Mountain View Elementary, there were last minute runs to get more ballots.

http://fox13now.com/2016/03/22/democrat ... cials-say/

BURLINGTON, Vt. —More than twice as many Vermonters elected to cast ballots in Tuesday's Democratic presidential primary compared to the Republican contest, but for the GOP that's improvement.

Given Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders is running for the Democratic presidential nomination this year, there was unusually high interest in the outcome. Sanders earned 86 percent of the primary vote over Hillary Clinton.

But it turned out Democratic participation rates were off once again, while Republicans saw a 57 percent surge in ballots cast when each are compared to 2008, the last wide-open election primary.

Vermont Democratic Party Executive Director Conor Casey has a theory about that.

"I had Democrats and Independents calling me saying they'll vote in GOP primary not because they support any of the horror show candidates, but because I think they're fearful of seeing a Donald Trump at the top of the ticket in the general election," Casey said. "So they came out to vote against that."

http://www.wptz.com/news/vermont-gop-se ... t/38346278

Nope. Nothing to see here, folks...

Meanwhile it seems Clinton is leading in states that are considered 'Red States' [i.e. Republican states].

A surprising dynamic emerges when comparing the states won by each candidate. Hillary Clinton has so far posted wins in 12 states: Iowa (debatable), Nevada, Massachusetts, South Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama, Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. Bernie Sanders has won 9 states: New Hampshire, Colorado, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Vermont, Kansas, Nebraska, Maine and now Michigan. It doesn’t take a political science expert to understand that Clinton’s current lead is near-completely comprised of wins in historically red states. In fact, three-quarters (9 of 12) of Hillary’s primary victories are in states overwhelmingly considered lost causes for Democrats in the general election. By contrast, only a third (3 of 9) of Bernie’s wins were in such states.

This deficit among blue states should be very disconcerting to Sec. Clinton’s campaign, as well as her supporters, as the primaries move out of the South. A Democratic candidate that loses a majority of historically Democratic states is unequivocally not more electable. In a recent Salon article, former Clinton White House counselor Bill Curry echoed that sentiment with a scathing indictment of the former Secretary and the political establishment as a whole. In it, he called Clinton the “weakest candidate” on the Democratic side and said, “By Saturday, eight of the 11 states of the old Confederacy had voted. In them [Clinton] won 68 percent of the vote. Ten of 39 states outside the South had voted. In those states Sanders took 57 percent of the vote. On March 15, the Confederacy will be all done voting. The race begins then.” While Hillary Clinton may have the support of the old Confederacy, Bernie Sanders, rather poetically, has the support of the Union. If history is any indication, the Union will prevail once more.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/d-c-rutle ... 26934.html

I like how you kept trying to emphasize 'massive turnout' when most of Bernie's wins have been caucuses. Bernie's massive turnout in Idaho meant he won the state with 18,000 votes. The huge turnout in Kansas of 40,000 voters comes from a state of 3 million.

Also Hillary's wins have been out side of just the red states.

She has won Florida, Virginia, Iowa, Nevada, and Ohio. 5 of the most important swing states. Also North Carolina which is red-leaning but went to Obama in 08. Massachusetts is not a red state.

[Willie71]

A number of Clinton "wins" we're less than 2%. Technically a win, but basically a split vote and delegate count. Clinton blew out Sanders through the south, but Sanders has blown out Clinton a few times too. It'll be interesting to see if Clinton can hold on to her lead. Just today, the newest national poll has sanders ahead of Clinton, but the lead is within the margin of error. I can't see how anyone could say with certainty what the outcome would be. I think anyone who claims Sanders or Clinton as "definitely" winning is simply unaware of the dynamics of this election. I also think the disenfranchisement prevalent is something that needs to be watched. A lot of questionable things happening.

[Thommo]

Just today, the newest national poll has sanders ahead of Clinton, but the lead is within the margin of error.

Ahead on what? Do you have a link to that poll? Is it this Bloomberg poll*?

Sanders is so far behind he needs more than a 20% swing (in number of delegates) compared to what's happened so far or he loses.

*Which puts Clinton ahead by 50 to 47 among those yet to vote - a group that if Sanders gets less than about 67% among will lead to his losing.

[Griz_]

Bernie has a chance if he can somehow swing large numbers of super delegates but I don't see that happening. I've said before that I think Bernie's goal is to start a movement, not necessarily to win the Presidency.

[purplerat]

There's definitely been a constant drum beat of scandals touted about Clinton - from Cookiegate to Trailer Trashing, from Whitewater to Commoditiesgate, from Travelgate to to Vince Foster, from Benghazi to Super Predatorgate.

It doesn't matter none of these amount to anything - the general public is inclined to think 'where there's smoke, there's fire'.

I read an article earlier today which wasn't exactly about this but alluded to it and how it could be viewed as a benefit to Clinton over Sanders in terms of electability in the general.

The thought goes something like this; Bernie's strength is his ideological purity and high favorabilities. But he's never faced out right attacks against him as he inevitably would against a GOP rival (especially somebody like Trump) in a general election. His only direction to go is down and the only question is how far such attacks will knock him down.

Clinton on the other hand is basically at the bottom in those areas, yet still is as strong if not stronger than Bernie in general election matchups. The attacks on her are worn out and really can't do any more damage. Especially against Trump with his persistent woman bashing this will actually help her more than hurt her.

With Clinton it's almost like what Trump said about his being able to shoot somebody on 5th Avenue and not lose any supporters. In that case it's because his supporters are so in love with him they wouldn't care. With Hillary she could do basically the same and it wouldn't change anything because that's basically expected of her by both her supporters and detractors.

Sanders on the other hand could be devastated in terms of support and likability if the the right line of attack hits home against him.

td;dr - The threshold for negative press hurting Clinton is much higher Bernie because it's expected of her but not him.

[proudfootz]

An electric night that began with Boulder County Democrats lining blocks to get into caucus sites turned ugly in many spots, as unexpectedly high turnout meant thousands of would-be caucus-goers were denied the chance to partake, despite spending hours in line.

Turnout vastly exceeded projections — and 2008 totals — at many of the party's 22 Boulder County caucus supersites Tuesday night, including locations in Boulder, Longmont and Lafayette.

But while Bernie Sanders handily defeated Hillary Clinton in Colorado's slice of the "Super Tuesday" spectacle, in Boulder County at least, the politics were largely overshadowed by the mess.

Though party officials and precinct leaders assured people waiting in line that everyone would get in, the crowds eventually were so overwhelming that many precincts already had met and selected delegates while long lines of people unwittingly waited patiently outside for a chance to be counted.

http://www.dailycamera.com/local-electi ... tic-caucus

Massive turnout overwhelms Idaho Democratic caucus

Bill Dentzer, political reporter for the Idaho Statesman, talks with Rachel Maddow about the overwhelming number of people who showed up for a Democratic caucus of unprecedented size.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watc ... 0509891763

Early reports showed that Sanders won 79 percent of caucuses in rural counties in the heavily rural Midwestern state. More than 40,000 Kansans showed up for this year’s caucuses, which was an increase in turnout of about 10% compared to turnout in the previously record-breaking 2008 election. The state’s Democratic Party officially called the state for Sanders at 8:35 PM Eastern time.

http://usuncut.com/news/bernie-sanders-wins-kansas/

PORTLAND, Maine —A record number of Maine Democrats took part in the presidential caucuses on Sunday.

They gathered at hundreds of locations across Maine and chose Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders by a 2-1 margin over former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Party officials said more than 46,000 people took part in the caucuses.

The turnout was overwhelming, especially in Portland.

http://www.wmtw.com/politics/maine-demo ... y/38370544

The presidential polls were off. Way off.

They indicated former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would easily win the state's primary election. The polls in the last week had Clinton as the victor by anywhere from 13% to 37% over U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont. The Detroit Free Press poll taken last week had Clinton up by 25 points.

But those polls missed the enthusiasm for Sanders on the ground, especially among young people, said Mark Brewer, former chairman of the Michigan Democratic Party...

Consider the voter turnout shattered records when more than 2.5 million people cast ballots. Sanders won big just about everywhere, except in Wayne, Oakland and Macomb counties. And while a big showing in Wayne County and its city of Detroit often spells victories for many candidates, the turnout was 25% in Detroit and 31% in Wayne County, while the statewide total was closer to 40%.

http://www.freep.com/story/news/politic ... /81527800/

Caucus voters came out in droves on Super Tuesday to support their preferred presidential candidates. Republicans set turnout records; Democrats predicted they had their second-highest showing in state history.

The high turnout led to crowded caucus sites, long lines and a revived debate over whether it’s time for Minnesota to swap out its caucus system for the more-common — and less complex — presidential primary. Unlike a primary, where residents simply vote for their chosen candidate, a caucus is a community event in which people debate the merits of their chosen candidates before voting.

For decades, opponents of caucuses have argued the insider nature of the system discourages the average citizen from voting and that in years of high turnout, volunteers and facilities can become overwhelmed.

http://www.twincities.com/2016/03/02/af ... us-system/

Lincoln, NE - Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders landed a sizable Nebraska victory Saturday, cementing a 14-point lead thanks not only to favorable demographics, but to voter turnout so high it forced several precincts to relocate in search of larger space.

That said, Sanders' margin of victory pales in comparison to President Barack Obama's 35-point landslide victory in 2008. With just shy of 100% of precincts reporting Sunday morning, Sanders led the state with 57 percent to national Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton's 43 percent support.

http://patch.com/us/across-america/nebr ... rs-clinton

Democratic turnout was 249,215, lower than New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner had predicted, and lower than the record Democratic turnout in 2008 that gave Hillary Clinton the victory over Barack Obama and John Edwards.

Sanders, an independent U.S. senator from Vermont, often tells his audiences that Democrats and progressives benefit from high turnout.

“Because of a huge voter turnout ... we won," Sanders said in his New Hampshire victory speech. "Because we harnessed the energy and the excitement that the Democratic Party will need to succeed in November.”

Sanders won the primary in a landslide, more than 22 percentage points ahead of Clinton.

[While not the all time turnout, it's only the second highest for Democrats in the state]

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/stor ... /80247392/

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’s populist and trust-busting rhetoric found receptive ears at two huge rallies heading up to Super Tuesday.

Sanders received 174,054 votes and 21 delegates, according to Politico, while Clinton received 139,338 votes and 17 delegates. Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley received 7,669 votes, despite dropping out of the race exactly one month earlier after a poor showing in Iowa. Four other candidates with no name recognition received more than 14,000 votes.

A majority of polls had shown Clinton clinging to a small lead in Oklahoma, but Sanders’ appeal may have broken the turnout model by the look of his margin of victory...

Sanders — and record-setting Democratic primary turnout as a whole — may have benefited from independents’ first opportunity to vote in primaries on the big-tent-party’s side. The self-described “democratic socialist” won 75 of Oklahoma’s 77 counties, losing only in Oklahoma County and Osage County to Clinton.

Ironically, Clinton has raised more money in Oklahoma than all other presidential candidates combined, as reported by Oklahoma Watch before the election.

http://nondoc.com/2016/03/02/turnout-re ... -oklahoma/

SALT LAKE CITY -- It was a record night for Utah Democrats with turnout at caucuses across the state well exceeding expectations. At some caucuses, like Mountain View Elementary, there were last minute runs to get more ballots.

http://fox13now.com/2016/03/22/democrat ... cials-say/

BURLINGTON, Vt. —More than twice as many Vermonters elected to cast ballots in Tuesday's Democratic presidential primary compared to the Republican contest, but for the GOP that's improvement.

Given Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders is running for the Democratic presidential nomination this year, there was unusually high interest in the outcome. Sanders earned 86 percent of the primary vote over Hillary Clinton.

But it turned out Democratic participation rates were off once again, while Republicans saw a 57 percent surge in ballots cast when each are compared to 2008, the last wide-open election primary.

Vermont Democratic Party Executive Director Conor Casey has a theory about that.

"I had Democrats and Independents calling me saying they'll vote in GOP primary not because they support any of the horror show candidates, but because I think they're fearful of seeing a Donald Trump at the top of the ticket in the general election," Casey said. "So they came out to vote against that."

http://www.wptz.com/news/vermont-gop-se ... t/38346278

Nope. Nothing to see here, folks...

Meanwhile it seems Clinton is leading in states that are considered 'Red States' [i.e. Republican states].

A surprising dynamic emerges when comparing the states won by each candidate. Hillary Clinton has so far posted wins in 12 states: Iowa (debatable), Nevada, Massachusetts, South Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama, Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. Bernie Sanders has won 9 states: New Hampshire, Colorado, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Vermont, Kansas, Nebraska, Maine and now Michigan. It doesn’t take a political science expert to understand that Clinton’s current lead is near-completely comprised of wins in historically red states. In fact, three-quarters (9 of 12) of Hillary’s primary victories are in states overwhelmingly considered lost causes for Democrats in the general election. By contrast, only a third (3 of 9) of Bernie’s wins were in such states.

This deficit among blue states should be very disconcerting to Sec. Clinton’s campaign, as well as her supporters, as the primaries move out of the South. A Democratic candidate that loses a majority of historically Democratic states is unequivocally not more electable. In a recent Salon article, former Clinton White House counselor Bill Curry echoed that sentiment with a scathing indictment of the former Secretary and the political establishment as a whole. In it, he called Clinton the “weakest candidate” on the Democratic side and said, “By Saturday, eight of the 11 states of the old Confederacy had voted. In them [Clinton] won 68 percent of the vote. Ten of 39 states outside the South had voted. In those states Sanders took 57 percent of the vote. On March 15, the Confederacy will be all done voting. The race begins then.” While Hillary Clinton may have the support of the old Confederacy, Bernie Sanders, rather poetically, has the support of the Union. If history is any indication, the Union will prevail once more.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/d-c-rutle ... 26934.html

I like how you kept trying to emphasize 'massive turnout' when most of Bernie's wins have been caucuses. Bernie's massive turnout in Idaho meant he won the state with 18,000 votes. The huge turnout in Kansas of 40,000 voters comes from a state of 3 million.

Thanks! I can't take all the credit - party officials and journalists have supplied all the headlines.

Also Hillary's wins have been out side of just the red states.

That was in the article I linked. I noticed it, too!

I never wrote otherwise.

She has won Florida, Virginia, Iowa, Nevada, and Ohio. 5 of the most important swing states. Also North Carolina which is red-leaning but went to Obama in 08. Massachusetts is not a red state.

What I posted was an apposite correction to the notion that Sanders is somehow an insignificant factor, and that his candidacy isn't stimulating increased participation.

Another indication of the importance of Sanders in the race is Clinton realizing she has to adopt some of Sanders' positions rather than simply following the rightward rush of the Republicans.

[proudfootz]

There's definitely been a constant drum beat of scandals touted about Clinton - from Cookiegate to Trailer Trashing, from Whitewater to Commoditiesgate, from Travelgate to to Vince Foster, from Benghazi to Super Predatorgate.

It doesn't matter none of these amount to anything - the general public is inclined to think 'where there's smoke, there's fire'.

I read an article earlier today which wasn't exactly about this but alluded to it and how it could be viewed as a benefit to Clinton over Sanders in terms of electability in the general.

The thought goes something like this; Bernie's strength is his ideological purity and high favorabilities. But he's never faced out right attacks against him as he inevitably would against a GOP rival (especially somebody like Trump) in a general election. His only direction to go is down and the only question is how far such attacks will knock him down.

Clinton on the other hand is basically at the bottom in those areas, yet still is as strong if not stronger than Bernie in general election matchups. The attacks on her are worn out and really can't do any more damage. Especially against Trump with his persistent woman bashing this will actually help her more than hurt her.

With Clinton it's almost like what Trump said about his being able to shoot somebody on 5th Avenue and not lose any supporters. In that case it's because his supporters are so in love with him they wouldn't care. With Hillary she could do basically the same and it wouldn't change anything because that's basically expected of her by both her supporters and detractors.

Sanders on the other hand could be devastated in terms of support and likability if the the right line of attack hits home against him.

td;dr - The threshold for negative press hurting Clinton is much higher Bernie because it's expected of her but not him.

True, it's hard to imagine there's anything Clinton hasn't already faced. It's entirely possible Sanders might not be able to laugh off the noise machine from the right as easily as he hasn't had the practice.

[proudfootz]

Bernie has a chance if he can somehow swing large numbers of super delegates but I don't see that happening. I've said before that I think Bernie's goal is to start a movement, not necessarily to win the Presidency.

That's what's needed whoever wins.

A President without grassroots support will have a hard time doing any good.

[Columbus]

.That's what's needed whoever wins.

A President without grassroots support will have a hard time doing any good.

The problem is grass roots USA support is unreliable.
Obama took office on grass roots support, with Capitol Hill at his back. But the young people, the black people, the leftist people and most of his grass roots support evaporated afterwards. By the mid terms, it was the Tea Party that could turn out the vote. Not the Democratic party. So we wound up with an obstructionist Congress and Obama accomplished little, maybe lost ground.

I see the same thing happening now with Sanders.

Grass roots supporters are worse than useless if they don't support the cause in between popular events. If they all go back to watching the Kardassians and playing video games after the election Sanders will be a worse disaster than Obama. Because he will be an even weaker President than Obama is now.
Which means that the rich and powerful will continue to get richer and more powerful.
Tom

[Boyle]

Tea Party is working out, though. Key to grassroots is to tap the people's fear and division.

[Columbus]

.Tea Party is working out, though.

I don't understand what you mean. What I see is Trump leading the GOP off a cliff by appealing to the Tea Party voters. I don't see the Tea Party working out for anyone.
Quite the contrary.
What do you think I am missing?
Tom

[Boyle]

I mean it's managed to stay relatively powerful. The Tea Party seemingly screwing up an established political party points to its effectiveness as a grassroots dealy.

[proudfootz]

The Tea Party is kind of another version of the Moral Majority and others which are successfully organized, and intellectual heir to the Birchers and the America Firsters. This has been going back to the Know Nothings.

It's definitely a problem that ordinary Americans can't seem to organize along similar lines. You may be right that some sort of irrational fear is a necessary glue to make it work. Normal people don't seem to consistently take the time to meet on a regular basis to get their marching orders and then follow through.

And I think there is a problem with people entertaining themselves to death. I seems like people are more upset by a dancer's nipple showing for 1/2 second on TV than they are by thousands of voters being disenfranchised.

People are fickle. It would have been a good thing if the people who organized to elect Obama stuck together and made sure he moved Heaven and Earth to try and fulfill the promises he made. But they didn't.

People here seem to think the President is it. This is why we have so many afraid of what will happen if Trump is elected. But he really has no Party, no experience in government at all, the people supporting him are largely newbies in politics like the Sanders supporters are supposed to be, and probably watch as much Kardashians as anyone. Why shouldn't we using the anti-Sanders logic conclude Trump is going to be less effective than even Sanders is supposed to be.

As far as the rich and powerful continuing to get richer and more powerful as an anti-Sanders gambit - what makes anyone think Clinton is their enemy? She is one of them FFS!

[Columbus]

. [As far as the rich and powerful continuing to get richer and more powerful as an anti-Sanders gambit - what makes anyone think Clinton is their enemy? She is one of them FFS!

What gambit? I'm talking about recent history. Obama got into the office on a wave of Sanders style campaigning. In the years since the rich have gotten richer. How hard is that to see?

There is a big grey area between 'one of them" and "their enemy". What we need is a cross between Sanders' policies and Clinton's abilities. We won't get that with either one alone.
Tom

[Boyle]

Clinton's abilities to. . . ?

Like, I get the appeal of Clinton, but what makes you think she'll be able to get more done than Obama did? What are her policy goals and how will she achieve them given the reality of the Tea Party? Or do you think the Tea Party won't attempt to obstruct her and her nefarious liberal agenda?

[proudfootz]

. [As far as the rich and powerful continuing to get richer and more powerful as an anti-Sanders gambit - what makes anyone think Clinton is their enemy? She is one of them FFS!

What gambit? I'm talking about recent history. Obama got into the office on a wave of Sanders style campaigning. In the years since the rich have gotten richer. How hard is that to see?

There is a big grey area between 'one of them" and "their enemy". What we need is a cross between Sanders' policies and Clinton's abilities. We won't get that with either one alone.
Tom

Somehow I got the idea you were implying that if Sanders was elected the rich would get richer, as if that wouldn't happen under all the other candidates.

My mistake if that was the wrong impression.

[proudfootz]

Clinton's abilities to. . . ?

Like, I get the appeal of Clinton, but what makes you think she'll be able to get more done than Obama did? What are her policy goals and how will she achieve them given the reality of the Tea Party? Or do you think the Tea Party won't attempt to obstruct her and her nefarious liberal agenda?

Well, supposing that by and large Clinton's agenda will be like Obama's - if she were to take a stronger stand at the outset instead of assuming (as I think Obama mistakenly did - but maybe was not as liberal as he seemed) that the Republicans would negotiate in good faith.

It's been my impression that Obama would open negotiations with a compromise rather than asking for what the people wanted.

As the dust settles on the debt-ceiling fiasco, liberals are left scratching their heads and wondering what the heck happened. Public opinion is overwhelmingly in favor of a balanced approach to deficit reduction and 67 percent of Americans believe we should be focusing on the economy rather than the deficit. With public opinion in our favor and a few fail-safe constitutional options in our back pocket, how did this showdown end in complete and utter surrender?

As it turns out, the reason liberals got a bad deal here is the same reason we got a bad deal on extending the Bush Tax Cuts, and in the budget showdown, and even when it came to health-care reform. Despite overwhelming and irrefutable evidence to the contrary, President Obama continues to believe that he can negotiate with Republicans.

In the health-care debate, the president tried to get Republicans on board by offering a conservative proposal based on Heritage Foundation recommendations and Republican Mitt Romney's health-care overhaul. Rather than being impressed by his reasonable and centrists approach, Republicans instead portrayed the public option as an evil communist plot, screamed about death panels, and outrageously sought to portray the plan as an attack on Medicare. Even though Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress and had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, GOP demagoguery proved effective enough that in the end a watered-down health-care bill barely made it over the finish line. And it continues to be under threat of repeal.

<more of the same at the link>

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ns/242973/

Maybe Clinton will have learned from this?

[Columbus]

Clinton's abilities to. . . ?

Like, I get the appeal of Clinton, but what makes you think she'll be able to get more done than Obama did?

If the Democratic party, which includes Sanders and Clinton, do this right:
A) The Senate will turn blue and all kinds of things become possible that Obama can't do without Congressional support.
B) Clinton will pursue her agenda more forcefully. She is a hardened old political battle axe. She will pull strings, she will make threats, she will cut back room deals, she will sic the DOJ on uncooperative people. She will continue to be utterly ruthless and she has the Washington DC insider clout to do it.
C)She won't waste the political capital Obama did trying to be bipartisan. She will kick ass from day one.

What are her policy goals and how will she achieve them given the reality of the Tea Party? Or do you think the Tea Party won't attempt to obstruct her and her nefarious liberal agenda?

Donald Trump is busy destroying the Tea Party. By the time he's done the democrats might be able to explain that their agenda is better for blue collar folks than the GOP agenda. Even if it is only a few of them, it'll be a start in the right direction.
Tom

[proudfootz]

Clinton's abilities to. . . ?

Like, I get the appeal of Clinton, but what makes you think she'll be able to get more done than Obama did?

If the Democratic party, which includes Sanders and Clinton, do this right:
A) The Senate will turn blue and all kinds of things become possible that Obama can't do without Congressional support.
B) Clinton will pursue her agenda more forcefully. She is a hardened old political battle axe. She will pull strings, she will make threats, she will cut back room deals, she will sic the DOJ on uncooperative people. She will continue to be utterly ruthless and she has the Washington DC insider clout to do it.
C)She won't waste the political capital Obama did trying to be bipartisan. She will kick ass from day one.

What are her policy goals and how will she achieve them given the reality of the Tea Party? Or do you think the Tea Party won't attempt to obstruct her and her nefarious liberal agenda?

Donald Trump is busy destroying the Tea Party. By the time he's done the democrats might be able to explain that their agenda is better for blue collar folks than the GOP agenda. Even if it is only a few of them, it'll be a start in the right direction.
Tom

That would be good if it works out that way.

[Columbus]

That would be good if it works out that way.

Come post election day in November, I'm expecting to savor the screams of the dying enemies and the lamentation of their women
Tom