US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3506

On March 31 2016 21:57 LemOn wrote:

Will his brand be ruined when he loses really?
He got more exposure than any businessman on his level in history ever did

On March 31 2016 18:07 SK.Testie wrote:


True, it's much better to keep an arms length away iirc. Bang-up job on Cologne btw. (And Hamburg, Bielefeld, Dusseldorf, Dortmund, Frankfurt, and Stuttgart).

‘Bernie or Bust’ Is Bonkers

What was Sarandon talking about with her coy language? “Bring the revolution”? Exactly what kind of revolution? “Explode”? Was the purpose to present this as a difficult but ultimately positive development?

The comments smacked of petulance and privilege.

No member of an American minority group — whether ethnic, racial, queer-identified, immigrant, refugee or poor — would (or should) assume the luxury of uttering such a imbecilic phrase, filled with lust for doom.

But I don’t doubt that she has met “some people” with a Bernie-or-bust, scorched-earth electoral portentousness. As The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this month, “A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll indicates one third of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders’ supporters cannot see themselves voting for Hillary Clinton in November.”

Be absolutely clear: While there are meaningful differences between Clinton and Sanders, either would be a far better choice for president than any of the remaining Republican contenders, especially the demagogic real estate developer. Assisting or allowing his ascendance by electoral abstinence in order to force a “revolution” is heretical.

This position is dangerous, shortsighted and self-immolating.

If Sanders wins the nomination, liberals should rally round him. Conversely, if Clinton does, they should rally round her.

This is not a game. The presidency, particularly the next one, matters, and elections can be decided by relatively small margins. No president has won the popular vote by more than 10 percentage points since Ronald Reagan in 1984.

If Sanders wins the nomination, liberals should rally round him.

On March 31 2016 23:28 corumjhaelen wrote:

Of course, but maybe those people who would not vote for Hillary are not "liberals".

On March 31 2016 23:47 TheTenthDoc wrote:


This reminds me of how silly it is to look at who picks up "independents" in primaries as a marker for appeal to the center or moderates when "independent" is increasingly a trendy label for "anti-establishment." I'm sure this effect has only become more pronounced since 2012, but it was definitely happening then and if another analysis were done it has only gotten stronger now.

http://www.people-press.org/2012/06/04/section-9-trends-in-party-affiliation/

Maybe some of the poll break down more than just self-identification to get at the moderate independents, but I have never seen that mentioned.

On March 31 2016 23:26 kwizach wrote:
A nice column by Charles Blow on Susan Sarandon's, and others', "Bernie or Bust":


Source

On April 01 2016 01:58 oneofthem wrote:
that's a weird question.

On April 01 2016 02:02 GreenHorizons wrote:


Not really, Republicans desperately don't want Trump and it looks like they may be able to stop him from winning before the convention (although still reasonably unlikely). If they did, one option would be to pick the guy running the best in heads up polls.

It's clear Hillary wouldn't be able to make Kasich into the villian that she could Trump or even Cruz, so I wonder whether Republicans would vote Kasich to beat Hillary.

Or would Bernie make you more likely to vote Kasich than him against Hillary would?

On April 01 2016 02:02 GreenHorizons wrote:


Not really, Republicans desperately don't want Trump and it looks like they may be able to stop him from winning before the convention (although still reasonably unlikely). If they did, one option would be to pick the guy running the best in heads up polls.

It's clear Hillary wouldn't be able to make Kasich into the villian that she could Trump or even Cruz, so I wonder whether Republicans would vote Kasich to beat Hillary.

Or would Bernie make you more likely to vote Kasich than him against Hillary would?

As an aside, it looks like Hillary had her first superdelegate defection today.

On April 01 2016 00:01 Mohdoo wrote:


Yeah, I feel like not too long ago, moderate meant that each party had some component that alienated that person. Now it seems to mean "I am resentful of the fact that my party doesn't fit me insanely well". That's why I think Bernie picking up independents is somewhat misleading. These are people who decided Obama isn't liberal enough, not people who are politically center.



I think it's interesting that the media is so non-focused on Cruz right now. Is there anyone liberal leaning on this board that would be more comfortable with Cruz than Trump?

On April 01 2016 02:02 GreenHorizons wrote:


Not really, Republicans desperately don't want Trump and it looks like they may be able to stop him from winning before the convention (although still reasonably unlikely). If they did, one option would be to pick the guy running the best in heads up polls.

It's clear Hillary wouldn't be able to make Kasich into the villian that she could Trump or even Cruz, so I wonder whether Republicans would vote Kasich to beat Hillary.

Or would Bernie make you more likely to vote Kasich than him against Hillary would?

As an aside, it looks like Hillary had her first superdelegate defection today.