spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I'm not just making up this trustworthiness/integrity thing. Look at poll numbers:
Most troubling, perhaps, are the numbers on her credibility: Only 31 percent of adults interviewed think she’s honest, down 6 percent from her April score.
I don't think there is much incentive to lie. CU doesn't help all that much at the presidential general level, since there is massive diminishing returns on the money invested into the races (especially as PACs don't get preferential treatment wrt ads like campaigns do). It matters far more for downticket races, and boy I bet Clinton would love to have a favorable house in 2020+ rather than whatever the hell the current mess is.
I'm not just making up this trustworthiness/integrity thing. Look at poll numbers:
Most troubling, perhaps, are the numbers on her credibility: Only 31 percent of adults interviewed think she’s honest, down 6 percent from her April score.
I'm not just making up this trustworthiness/integrity thing. Look at poll numbers:
Most troubling, perhaps, are the numbers on her credibility: Only 31 percent of adults interviewed think she’s honest, down 6 percent from her April score.
The argument that Hillary is better than or even comparable to Bernie on race issues seems dubious to me. Hillary is pretty cozy with the private prison industry and is less likely than Bernie to push for relaxation of draconian drug possession laws. These issues, combined with Bernie's more leftist outlook on welfare programs and redistribution, make Hillary a much worse candidate on race relations, in my opinion.
If the argument is that Hillary is better at making nice-sounding statements on racial issues, that may be true (I'm not really sure), but in terms of policy Bernie seems like the clear winner here.
Weapons in Syria I've already mentioned, and Libya ended up being about as successful an intervention as anyone could've expected, with very little cost to us. She's not above using the military as a tool, but for her it's one that should be used sparingly. There's no indication that she would do anything like a Bush-style full scale invasion of Iran or Syria, barring extraordinary conditions.
That very much depends on what you were expecting. Libya was sold as a limited intervention to prevent an immanent humanitarian catastrophe, namely the wholesale slaughter of the population of Benghazi by government forces. However, it became immediate apparent that once bombs started dropping, the US wasn't going to be satisfied with stopping the advance of government forces until a negotiated settlement could be found; rather, US forces were going annihilate everything loyal to Qaddafi that moved until rebels could not only defend themselves, but they could walk over the ashes of Tripoli and establish their own government. Unfortunately, no one thought to check whether they would be able to do any such thing once they 'won.' The direct result is that Libya has gone from enjoying relatively high standards of living under Qaddafi (fifth highest per capita income in Africa, free health care, free public education, public education compulsory for both sexes) to now being a nightmare failed state--not only is this visible in the European context as Italians try to cope with the massive wave of boat people that Libya no longer even tries to secure its borders against, but if one actually attends to Libya itself, which the Western press mostly doesn't, one sees that the country has dissolved into an ongoing five-way (!) civil war including, charmingly, two distinct parliaments neither of which recognizes the other (and which also features, of course, armed support from outside parties like Egypt and Turkey). Turns out bombing an existing civil society entirely out of existence has repercussions. Libya is a nightmare and an object lesson in the consequences of hawkish foreign policy.
I am fond of Hillary in many ways. Libya, however, should be an albatross around her (and Obama's) necks. I can't say I saw it coming; I was full of cheery optimism at the time. But they, unlike me, had a responsibility to know better.
Thank you for posting this, I'm so tired of the Libyan War whitewashing.
Kaputa on
+1
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I trust Clinton more than any Republican in the field
Really the only choice I have this year is in the primaries, and we'll see how close that actually is when the voting starts
Campaign finance reform - Clinton has much more to personally lose than Bernie if this really happens.
She's already stated that a prerequisite for any Supreme Court nominations would be a willingness to overturn Citizens United, so I don't think you can so easily hand this point to Sanders
People don't want to give her credit for her statements. So she's not telling the truth despite there being no reason to lie.
Yeah this is not something you say unless you're dead serious. It's too easy to fact check, and it's not something you can hedge on later.
You either mean it or you don't say it.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Campaign finance reform - Clinton has much more to personally lose than Bernie if this really happens.
She's already stated that a prerequisite for any Supreme Court nominations would be a willingness to overturn Citizens United, so I don't think you can so easily hand this point to Sanders
People don't want to give her credit for her statements. So she's not telling the truth despite there being no reason to lie.
Yeah this is not something you say unless you're dead serious. It's too easy to fact check, and it's not something you can hedge on later.
You either mean it or you don't say it.
Like saying you are opposed to putting more boots on the ground in Iraq and then supporting more soldiers there?
0
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
Or you stab everyone in the back and only serve one term. Which ain't gonna happen. Plus, while Super PACs might be nice for Clinton personally (though not really, considering how they came about) they're still to the long term detriment of the Democratic party. Right now, I don't think it's had the huge impact that was feared mostly because the billionaires have more money than sense, and keep throwing cash at nutters or plain grifters, eventually (maybe) they'll figure things out and it'll be downhill from there.
If nothing else I think it'd be difficult to scrounge up a SCOTUS nominee that would go the right way on Hobby Lobby and Roe, but still think Citizens is A-OK.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
0
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
also, this talk of Hillary "needing" to address these trustability (for lack of a better word) claims in order to win the nomination are gooseshit.
she's crushing her competition in every metric, and it's only with the inclusion of a candidate who isn't actually running for president that any real movement in the polls has happened.
this race is hillary's to lose, and the money and endorsements show that.
Plus, the notion of a Democrat wanting to keep CU in place is ridiculous, the Koch brothers are hard R and so are most of the other billionaires that exploit that system.
+8
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
also, this talk of Hillary "needing" to address these trustability (for lack of a better word) claims in order to win the nomination are gooseshit.
she's crushing her competition in every metric, and it's only with the inclusion of a candidate who isn't actually running for president that any real movement in the polls has happened.
this race is hillary's to lose, and the money and endorsements show that.
all she needs to do is not fuck up.
*posted in 2008*
+1
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
also, this talk of Hillary "needing" to address these trustability (for lack of a better word) claims in order to win the nomination are gooseshit.
she's crushing her competition in every metric, and it's only with the inclusion of a candidate who isn't actually running for president that any real movement in the polls has happened.
this race is hillary's to lose, and the money and endorsements show that.
all she needs to do is not fuck up.
*posted in 2008*
when her competition includes the most charismatic and game changing politician in a generation i'll start to worry.
because 2016 is a lot of things, but 2008 it sure ain't.
edit
seriously, it took the perfect candidate in 2008 to beat her. the perfect candidate!
also, this talk of Hillary "needing" to address these trustability (for lack of a better word) claims in order to win the nomination are gooseshit.
she's crushing her competition in every metric, and it's only with the inclusion of a candidate who isn't actually running for president that any real movement in the polls has happened.
this race is hillary's to lose, and the money and endorsements show that.
all she needs to do is not fuck up.
*posted in 2008*
when her competition includes the most charismatic and game changing politician in a generation i'll start to worry.
Mike Gravel?
Kaputa on
+1
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Plus, the notion of a Democrat wanting to keep CU in place is ridiculous, the Koch brothers are hard R and so are most of the other billionaires that exploit that system.
I'm not saying she wants to keep it in place. I am saying that, while she probably believe in campaign finance reform, I'd expect her to push for it less than Sanders, who is actually eschewing the worst parts of the current system.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
also, this talk of Hillary "needing" to address these trustability (for lack of a better word) claims in order to win the nomination are gooseshit.
she's crushing her competition in every metric, and it's only with the inclusion of a candidate who isn't actually running for president that any real movement in the polls has happened.
this race is hillary's to lose, and the money and endorsements show that.
all she needs to do is not fuck up.
*posted in 2008*
when her competition includes the most charismatic and game changing politician in a generation i'll start to worry.
because 2016 is a lot of things, but 2008 it sure ain't.
edit
seriously, it took the perfect candidate in 2008 to beat her. the perfect candidate!
who's out there right now?
Look at how well Biden is doing despite not running? Name recognition + not Hillary Clinton seems like a pretty good formula.
0
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
also, this talk of Hillary "needing" to address these trustability (for lack of a better word) claims in order to win the nomination are gooseshit.
she's crushing her competition in every metric, and it's only with the inclusion of a candidate who isn't actually running for president that any real movement in the polls has happened.
this race is hillary's to lose, and the money and endorsements show that.
all she needs to do is not fuck up.
*posted in 2008*
when her competition includes the most charismatic and game changing politician in a generation i'll start to worry.
because 2016 is a lot of things, but 2008 it sure ain't.
edit
seriously, it took the perfect candidate in 2008 to beat her. the perfect candidate!
who's out there right now?
Look at how well Biden is doing despite not running? Name recognition + not Hillary Clinton seems like a pretty good formula.
no, and i know you're smarter than this so cut the bullshit.
Biden draws from the same subset of supporters, so of course he would decrease her "lead"
but he sure doesn't make anyone else perform "better"
edit
and also, even with the inclusion of Biden hilldawg still smokes the competition, it's just not as embarassing a loss.
Plus, the notion of a Democrat wanting to keep CU in place is ridiculous, the Koch brothers are hard R and so are most of the other billionaires that exploit that system.
I'm not saying she wants to keep it in place. I am saying that, while she probably believe in campaign finance reform, I'd expect her to push for it less than Sanders, who is actually eschewing the worst parts of the current system.
How can she push for it any harder than saying it is a goal of her campaign and that if elected she would only appoint SC justices that agree with overturning CU?
also, this talk of Hillary "needing" to address these trustability (for lack of a better word) claims in order to win the nomination are gooseshit.
she's crushing her competition in every metric, and it's only with the inclusion of a candidate who isn't actually running for president that any real movement in the polls has happened.
this race is hillary's to lose, and the money and endorsements show that.
all she needs to do is not fuck up.
*posted in 2008*
when her competition includes the most charismatic and game changing politician in a generation i'll start to worry.
because 2016 is a lot of things, but 2008 it sure ain't.
edit
seriously, it took the perfect candidate in 2008 to beat her. the perfect candidate!
who's out there right now?
Look at how well Biden is doing despite not running? Name recognition + not Hillary Clinton seems like a pretty good formula.
It's early days yet. This isn't Obama in his prime campaigning, and he didn't need that until way later in the primaries. Hillary isn't in that competition from Biden and likely won't ever be since he's not in the race and probably never will be.
Biden benefits from two things right now. One is that he just went through an unimaginable personal tragedy so he rightly gets a lot of sympathy and good will.
Secondly, he's not actually running so he hasn't had to make any concrete stances. He's the perfect alternate candidate because right now he can be anything people want him to be.
But none of that even matters because he probably won't run. He hasn't started yet and he's already announced that he won't be at the first debate.
+7
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
also, this talk of Hillary "needing" to address these trustability (for lack of a better word) claims in order to win the nomination are gooseshit.
she's crushing her competition in every metric, and it's only with the inclusion of a candidate who isn't actually running for president that any real movement in the polls has happened.
this race is hillary's to lose, and the money and endorsements show that.
all she needs to do is not fuck up.
*posted in 2008*
when her competition includes the most charismatic and game changing politician in a generation i'll start to worry.
because 2016 is a lot of things, but 2008 it sure ain't.
edit
seriously, it took the perfect candidate in 2008 to beat her. the perfect candidate!
who's out there right now?
Look at how well Biden is doing despite not running? Name recognition + not Hillary Clinton seems like a pretty good formula.
no, and i know you're smarter than this so cut the bullshit.
Biden draws from the same subset of supporters, so of course he would decrease her "lead"
but he sure doesn't make anyone else perform "better"
edit
and also, even with the inclusion of Biden hilldawg still smokes the competition, it's just not as embarassing a loss.
how is that better?
The point I was making is that people in Hillary's camp vs Sanders are choosing Biden over Hillary in significant numbers and he is not running. Name recognition plus not Hillary = choosing him over Hillary for a lot of people. If he actually ran, who knows what would happen. It was Hillary's turn in 2008 too and then someone else won because people liked someone who wasn't Hillary more than Hillary despite it being her turn.
+2
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
also, this talk of Hillary "needing" to address these trustability (for lack of a better word) claims in order to win the nomination are gooseshit.
she's crushing her competition in every metric, and it's only with the inclusion of a candidate who isn't actually running for president that any real movement in the polls has happened.
this race is hillary's to lose, and the money and endorsements show that.
all she needs to do is not fuck up.
*posted in 2008*
when her competition includes the most charismatic and game changing politician in a generation i'll start to worry.
because 2016 is a lot of things, but 2008 it sure ain't.
edit
seriously, it took the perfect candidate in 2008 to beat her. the perfect candidate!
who's out there right now?
Look at how well Biden is doing despite not running? Name recognition + not Hillary Clinton seems like a pretty good formula.
no, and i know you're smarter than this so cut the bullshit.
Biden draws from the same subset of supporters, so of course he would decrease her "lead"
but he sure doesn't make anyone else perform "better"
edit
and also, even with the inclusion of Biden hilldawg still smokes the competition, it's just not as embarassing a loss.
how is that better?
The point I was making is that people in Hillary's camp vs Sanders are choosing Biden over Hillary in significant numbers and he is not running. Name recognition plus not Hillary = choosing him over Hillary for a lot of people. If he actually ran, who knows what would happen. It was Hillary's turn in 2008 too and then someone else won because people liked someone who wasn't Hillary more than Hillary despite it being her turn.
ok
your point is wrong, as has been shown in this, and many other threads.
are we done here?
jmcdonald on
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
also, this talk of Hillary "needing" to address these trustability (for lack of a better word) claims in order to win the nomination are gooseshit.
she's crushing her competition in every metric, and it's only with the inclusion of a candidate who isn't actually running for president that any real movement in the polls has happened.
this race is hillary's to lose, and the money and endorsements show that.
all she needs to do is not fuck up.
*posted in 2008*
when her competition includes the most charismatic and game changing politician in a generation i'll start to worry.
because 2016 is a lot of things, but 2008 it sure ain't.
edit
seriously, it took the perfect candidate in 2008 to beat her. the perfect candidate!
who's out there right now?
Look at how well Biden is doing despite not running? Name recognition + not Hillary Clinton seems like a pretty good formula.
no, and i know you're smarter than this so cut the bullshit.
Biden draws from the same subset of supporters, so of course he would decrease her "lead"
but he sure doesn't make anyone else perform "better"
edit
and also, even with the inclusion of Biden hilldawg still smokes the competition, it's just not as embarassing a loss.
how is that better?
The point I was making is that people in Hillary's camp vs Sanders are choosing Biden over Hillary in significant numbers and he is not running. Name recognition plus not Hillary = choosing him over Hillary for a lot of people. If he actually ran, who knows what would happen. It was Hillary's turn in 2008 too and then someone else won because people liked someone who wasn't Hillary more than Hillary despite it being her turn.
ok
your point is wrong, as has been shown in this, and many other threads.
are we done here?
Where has anyone shown this to be wrong? I just see people disagreeing.
also, this talk of Hillary "needing" to address these trustability (for lack of a better word) claims in order to win the nomination are gooseshit.
she's crushing her competition in every metric, and it's only with the inclusion of a candidate who isn't actually running for president that any real movement in the polls has happened.
this race is hillary's to lose, and the money and endorsements show that.
all she needs to do is not fuck up.
*posted in 2008*
when her competition includes the most charismatic and game changing politician in a generation i'll start to worry.
because 2016 is a lot of things, but 2008 it sure ain't.
edit
seriously, it took the perfect candidate in 2008 to beat her. the perfect candidate!
who's out there right now?
Look at how well Biden is doing despite not running? Name recognition + not Hillary Clinton seems like a pretty good formula.
no, and i know you're smarter than this so cut the bullshit.
Biden draws from the same subset of supporters, so of course he would decrease her "lead"
but he sure doesn't make anyone else perform "better"
edit
and also, even with the inclusion of Biden hilldawg still smokes the competition, it's just not as embarassing a loss.
how is that better?
The point I was making is that people in Hillary's camp vs Sanders are choosing Biden over Hillary in significant numbers and he is not running. Name recognition plus not Hillary = choosing him over Hillary for a lot of people. If he actually ran, who knows what would happen. It was Hillary's turn in 2008 too and then someone else won because people liked someone who wasn't Hillary more than Hillary despite it being her turn.
Yeah, that happens in primaries. Nothing new here. Some people would like someone else who isn't Hillary, that's the nature of the beast. Not everyone is going to be on Team Clinton. Of course they usually are actually running, not being propped by the media as a means to create an artificial horse race. It isn't a horse race if one the horses isn't on the field.
This is not a dead heat in an election, it's early - when the campaigning is at its peak you'll know it. I assume you saw the 2008 primaries with Obama vs Hillary. The bad news is that Bernie's not Obama, and he'll need to brush up on his campaigning like Obama did to stalemate her. Obama is a brilliant, captivating politician with an amazing modern campaign structure, the chances of Bernie repeating that is very, very low. Especially since he can't match Obama's natural charisma.
0
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
edited October 2015
so this is amusing. went over to 538 for some math, and took a look at the endorsement tracker. the person behind hillary?
biden. (edit - with a whopping 3 endorsements!)
the only other actual declared candidate with an endorsement?
o'malley.
this is not a horserace folks. this isn't even a walk-a-thon.
also, this talk of Hillary "needing" to address these trustability (for lack of a better word) claims in order to win the nomination are gooseshit.
she's crushing her competition in every metric, and it's only with the inclusion of a candidate who isn't actually running for president that any real movement in the polls has happened.
this race is hillary's to lose, and the money and endorsements show that.
all she needs to do is not fuck up.
*posted in 2008*
when her competition includes the most charismatic and game changing politician in a generation i'll start to worry.
because 2016 is a lot of things, but 2008 it sure ain't.
edit
seriously, it took the perfect candidate in 2008 to beat her. the perfect candidate!
who's out there right now?
Look at how well Biden is doing despite not running? Name recognition + not Hillary Clinton seems like a pretty good formula.
It's early days yet. This isn't Obama in his prime campaigning, and he didn't need that until way later in the primaries. Hillary isn't in that competition from Biden and likely won't ever be since he's not in the race and probably never will be.
Maybe he's just ....
Biden his time?
You know what? Nanowrimo's cancelled on account of the world is stupid.
+1
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
so this is amusing. went over to 538 for some math, and took a look at the endorsement tracker. the person behind hillary?
biden. (edit - with a whopping 3 endorsements!)
the only other actual declared candidate with an endorsement?
o'malley.
this is not a horserace folks. this isn't even a walk-a-thon.
Thank you for declaring the primary campaign over in September. I'm sure that will save us all a lot of time. We can just hand Hillary her crown and be done with it, right?
You know perfectly well that these are the early days. By your rational, I'm pretty sure Hillary would have won in 2008.
also, this talk of Hillary "needing" to address these trustability (for lack of a better word) claims in order to win the nomination are gooseshit.
she's crushing her competition in every metric, and it's only with the inclusion of a candidate who isn't actually running for president that any real movement in the polls has happened.
this race is hillary's to lose, and the money and endorsements show that.
all she needs to do is not fuck up.
*posted in 2008*
when her competition includes the most charismatic and game changing politician in a generation i'll start to worry.
because 2016 is a lot of things, but 2008 it sure ain't.
edit
seriously, it took the perfect candidate in 2008 to beat her. the perfect candidate!
who's out there right now?
Look at how well Biden is doing despite not running? Name recognition + not Hillary Clinton seems like a pretty good formula.
It's early days yet. This isn't Obama in his prime campaigning, and he didn't need that until way later in the primaries. Hillary isn't in that competition from Biden and likely won't ever be since he's not in the race and probably never will be.
I lost respect for Biden when it came out he leaked to Maureen Dowd that emotional thing about his son wanting him to run for president. Joe that's pretty ass.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
so this is amusing. went over to 538 for some math, and took a look at the endorsement tracker. the person behind hillary?
biden. (edit - with a whopping 3 endorsements!)
the only other actual declared candidate with an endorsement?
o'malley.
this is not a horserace folks. this isn't even a walk-a-thon.
Thank you for declaring the primary campaign over in September. I'm sure that will save us all a lot of time. We can just hand Hillary her crown and be done with it, right?
You know perfectly well that these are the early days. By your rational, I'm pretty sure Hillary would have won in 2008.
you know the funny thing about 538?
historical data.
go take a gander. this is the last time i'll be responding to you in this thread.
so this is amusing. went over to 538 for some math, and took a look at the endorsement tracker. the person behind hillary?
biden. (edit - with a whopping 3 endorsements!)
the only other actual declared candidate with an endorsement?
o'malley.
this is not a horserace folks. this isn't even a walk-a-thon.
Thank you for declaring the primary campaign over in September. I'm sure that will save us all a lot of time. We can just hand Hillary her crown and be done with it, right?
You know perfectly well that these are the early days. By your rational, I'm pretty sure Hillary would have won in 2008.
It is early days, and right now she looks to be taking the crown. However, it's too early to say Bernie or Biden is going to take the nomination from her too. You do know what Obama did was extraordinary, right? And he still barely beat her in the primary.
so this is amusing. went over to 538 for some math, and took a look at the endorsement tracker. the person behind hillary?
biden. (edit - with a whopping 3 endorsements!)
the only other actual declared candidate with an endorsement?
o'malley.
this is not a horserace folks. this isn't even a walk-a-thon.
Thank you for declaring the primary campaign over in September. I'm sure that will save us all a lot of time. We can just hand Hillary her crown and be done with it, right?
You know perfectly well that these are the early days. By your rational, I'm pretty sure Hillary would have won in 2008.
In September 2007, the polls were roughly 37-20 Hillary Obama, with a jump for both of them halfway through (I assume a debate happened). In comparison, Hillary is, though dropping some, up more like 45-20 against Sanders in September. However, she has a huge advantage in terms of endorsements and solid favorability compared to in 2008.
If you put stock in the power of endorsements, there's no way Hillary could lose. If you put stock in the poll numbers, the only way Hillary could lose is if Sanders can manage to run a campaign as well as Obama's in order to take the lead. When you consider that Hillary's polling drop accelerated when Biden began being added to more and more polls, you can also at least assume the fact he's not running will not be detrimental to Hillary's chances.
I don't think it's 100% guaranteed she wins the primary, which is a lot more than I could say a few months ago, but it's still an incredible long shot, far beyond Obama's victory.
Also, SKFM, I think you need to distinguish "I think Hillary will win" from "I want Hillary to win."
You have an extreme level of vitriol for Clinton, but that doesn't mean that people saying "she's going to win" like her more than Sanders or are criticizing you for who you support. It just means they think she's going to win.
Plus, the notion of a Democrat wanting to keep CU in place is ridiculous, the Koch brothers are hard R and so are most of the other billionaires that exploit that system.
I see CU as similar to the filibuster. Both sides hate it when it's used against them, but neither side wants to really commit to getting rid of it, because then they won't be able to use it when they might need it.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Data showing Hillary with a lead and collecting significant numbers of delegates/enforcements: "it's so early stop the premature coronation."
Data showing Sanders gaining popularity and gains in the polls: "clearly this is proof of a revolution."
I never said that. I just don't want people locking onto the "Hillary can't lose, Sanders isn't electable" narrative and have that become a self fulfilling prophecy. She lost in 2008 and I am very hopeful that she will lost in 2016 and then will be done with the political scene forever.
Data showing Hillary with a lead and collecting significant numbers of delegates/enforcements: "it's so early stop the premature coronation."
Data showing Sanders gaining popularity and gains in the polls: "clearly this is proof of a revolution."
I never said that. I just don't want people locking onto the "Hillary can't lose, Sanders isn't electable" narrative and have that become a self fulfilling prophecy. She lost in 2008 and I am very hopeful that she will lost in 2016 and then will be done with the political scene forever.
In this very thread you have hand waved data that shows Hillary putting together a strong primary game and highly emphasized polls that show Biden drawing her support.
Yes we get it, you really really hate Hillary. That is crystal clear
Plus, the notion of a Democrat wanting to keep CU in place is ridiculous, the Koch brothers are hard R and so are most of the other billionaires that exploit that system.
I see CU as similar to the filibuster. Both sides hate it when it's used against them, but neither side wants to really commit to getting rid of it, because then they won't be able to use it when they might need it.
Both of the democratic candidates have said they are against it, one of whom has made it a key point to their potential SCOTUS picks (which is probably the most important thing for a president without control of the House). The narrative that Democrats want CU is bullshit, especially when it's far more likely to lose them house seats than it is to gain them the presidency.
Posts
pleasepaypreacher.net
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/07/16/Do-You-Trust-Her-Clinton-More-People-Say-No
This is something she needs to deal with if she wants to win, imo.
Yes, because it's not like there isn't more to that going on behind the scenes.
Vox put it best - imagine how the press would react if Hillary Clinton did what Joe Biden just did?
That is irrelevant. It's a perception she has to deal with, just like how Sanders is dealing with the unfair perception that he is bad on race.
If the argument is that Hillary is better at making nice-sounding statements on racial issues, that may be true (I'm not really sure), but in terms of policy Bernie seems like the clear winner here.
Thank you for posting this, I'm so tired of the Libyan War whitewashing.
Really the only choice I have this year is in the primaries, and we'll see how close that actually is when the voting starts
Yeah this is not something you say unless you're dead serious. It's too easy to fact check, and it's not something you can hedge on later.
You either mean it or you don't say it.
Like saying you are opposed to putting more boots on the ground in Iraq and then supporting more soldiers there?
If nothing else I think it'd be difficult to scrounge up a SCOTUS nominee that would go the right way on Hobby Lobby and Roe, but still think Citizens is A-OK.
she's crushing her competition in every metric, and it's only with the inclusion of a candidate who isn't actually running for president that any real movement in the polls has happened.
this race is hillary's to lose, and the money and endorsements show that.
all she needs to do is not fuck up.
*posted in 2008*
when her competition includes the most charismatic and game changing politician in a generation i'll start to worry.
because 2016 is a lot of things, but 2008 it sure ain't.
edit
seriously, it took the perfect candidate in 2008 to beat her. the perfect candidate!
who's out there right now?
I'm not saying she wants to keep it in place. I am saying that, while she probably believe in campaign finance reform, I'd expect her to push for it less than Sanders, who is actually eschewing the worst parts of the current system.
Look at how well Biden is doing despite not running? Name recognition + not Hillary Clinton seems like a pretty good formula.
no, and i know you're smarter than this so cut the bullshit.
Biden draws from the same subset of supporters, so of course he would decrease her "lead"
but he sure doesn't make anyone else perform "better"
edit
and also, even with the inclusion of Biden hilldawg still smokes the competition, it's just not as embarassing a loss.
how is that better?
How can she push for it any harder than saying it is a goal of her campaign and that if elected she would only appoint SC justices that agree with overturning CU?
It's early days yet. This isn't Obama in his prime campaigning, and he didn't need that until way later in the primaries. Hillary isn't in that competition from Biden and likely won't ever be since he's not in the race and probably never will be.
Secondly, he's not actually running so he hasn't had to make any concrete stances. He's the perfect alternate candidate because right now he can be anything people want him to be.
But none of that even matters because he probably won't run. He hasn't started yet and he's already announced that he won't be at the first debate.
The point I was making is that people in Hillary's camp vs Sanders are choosing Biden over Hillary in significant numbers and he is not running. Name recognition plus not Hillary = choosing him over Hillary for a lot of people. If he actually ran, who knows what would happen. It was Hillary's turn in 2008 too and then someone else won because people liked someone who wasn't Hillary more than Hillary despite it being her turn.
ok
your point is wrong, as has been shown in this, and many other threads.
are we done here?
Where has anyone shown this to be wrong? I just see people disagreeing.
Yeah, that happens in primaries. Nothing new here. Some people would like someone else who isn't Hillary, that's the nature of the beast. Not everyone is going to be on Team Clinton. Of course they usually are actually running, not being propped by the media as a means to create an artificial horse race. It isn't a horse race if one the horses isn't on the field.
This is not a dead heat in an election, it's early - when the campaigning is at its peak you'll know it. I assume you saw the 2008 primaries with Obama vs Hillary. The bad news is that Bernie's not Obama, and he'll need to brush up on his campaigning like Obama did to stalemate her. Obama is a brilliant, captivating politician with an amazing modern campaign structure, the chances of Bernie repeating that is very, very low. Especially since he can't match Obama's natural charisma.
biden. (edit - with a whopping 3 endorsements!)
the only other actual declared candidate with an endorsement?
o'malley.
this is not a horserace folks. this isn't even a walk-a-thon.
Maybe he's just ....
Biden his time?
Thank you for declaring the primary campaign over in September. I'm sure that will save us all a lot of time. We can just hand Hillary her crown and be done with it, right?
You know perfectly well that these are the early days. By your rational, I'm pretty sure Hillary would have won in 2008.
pleasepaypreacher.net
you know the funny thing about 538?
historical data.
go take a gander. this is the last time i'll be responding to you in this thread.
It is early days, and right now she looks to be taking the crown. However, it's too early to say Bernie or Biden is going to take the nomination from her too. You do know what Obama did was extraordinary, right? And he still barely beat her in the primary.
In September 2007, the polls were roughly 37-20 Hillary Obama, with a jump for both of them halfway through (I assume a debate happened). In comparison, Hillary is, though dropping some, up more like 45-20 against Sanders in September. However, she has a huge advantage in terms of endorsements and solid favorability compared to in 2008.
If you put stock in the power of endorsements, there's no way Hillary could lose. If you put stock in the poll numbers, the only way Hillary could lose is if Sanders can manage to run a campaign as well as Obama's in order to take the lead. When you consider that Hillary's polling drop accelerated when Biden began being added to more and more polls, you can also at least assume the fact he's not running will not be detrimental to Hillary's chances.
I don't think it's 100% guaranteed she wins the primary, which is a lot more than I could say a few months ago, but it's still an incredible long shot, far beyond Obama's victory.
Data showing Sanders gaining popularity and gains in the polls: "clearly this is proof of a revolution."
You have an extreme level of vitriol for Clinton, but that doesn't mean that people saying "she's going to win" like her more than Sanders or are criticizing you for who you support. It just means they think she's going to win.
I see CU as similar to the filibuster. Both sides hate it when it's used against them, but neither side wants to really commit to getting rid of it, because then they won't be able to use it when they might need it.
I never said that. I just don't want people locking onto the "Hillary can't lose, Sanders isn't electable" narrative and have that become a self fulfilling prophecy. She lost in 2008 and I am very hopeful that she will lost in 2016 and then will be done with the political scene forever.
In this very thread you have hand waved data that shows Hillary putting together a strong primary game and highly emphasized polls that show Biden drawing her support.
Yes we get it, you really really hate Hillary. That is crystal clear
Both of the democratic candidates have said they are against it, one of whom has made it a key point to their potential SCOTUS picks (which is probably the most important thing for a president without control of the House). The narrative that Democrats want CU is bullshit, especially when it's far more likely to lose them house seats than it is to gain them the presidency.