US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3640

On April 20 2016 11:48 Nyxisto wrote:


That's also the case for the Republican party, I really don't see how the alienation in the Democratic party is bigger than the respective Republican situation.

On April 20 2016 11:49 Sermokala wrote:

I think you underestimate the republican ability to have a "come to jesus" moment.

On April 20 2016 11:45 Adreme wrote:


I believe in 2008 Obama was doing far worse among Hilary's voters around this time to the point where there was a serious concern that Hilary voters going for McCain could be what loses democrats an unlosable election.

As for the general I honestly do not think she is as much worried about Trump or Cruz winning (there numbers are so dismal i wouldnt even worry about it) but she is worried about Bernie supporters staying home and not voting thus not giving her the numbers in congress she needs to do things. At her core she is a pragmatist and this is the more logical concern so its probably why she was talking about having plans to implement versions of Bernies ideas in her speech to try and make herself more acceptable in a general.

On April 20 2016 11:50 ticklishmusic wrote:
She definitely reached out in her speech today fwiw

Most of Sanders supporters are pretty happy with Clinton and v/v. I hope she reaches out to the others and she probably will, but at some point they have to meet her half way.

On April 20 2016 11:50 kwizach wrote:
Jeff Weaver, from the Sanders campaign, just admitted again (but even more clearly than before) on MSNBC that the Sanders campaign will try to win at the convention thanks to superdelegates even if Sanders is behind Hillary both in the popular vote and in the number of pledged delegates. Let that sink in. He supports the idea of superdelegates giving Sanders the nomination even if he loses the popular vote and has less pledged delegates than Hillary. Is anyone here going to defend that position?

I think there's no chance of that actually happening since Sanders will concede and work to support her, but it really shows the hypocrisy of the people working under him.

On April 20 2016 11:58 GreenHorizons wrote:


It's already been established the winner will be determined by super delegates barring something huge. There's no scandal in acknowledging that.

Not sure if anyone did the math on if super delegates followed their constituencies how that would add up?

On April 20 2016 11:53 ragz_gt wrote:


I feels that a lot of Sender's support who says would not vote for Clinton never voted and would not without Sender in the first place (same with Trump supporters). So it's less of a support lost than support never there.

On April 20 2016 12:03 kwizach wrote:

No, that is not what Weaver was saying here. Again, Weaver explicitly said that superdelegates should give Sanders the nomination even if he has LESS pledged delegates than Hillary and even if he has LOST the popular vote to Hillary. That is extremely different from simply saying that neither candidate is likely to reach the 2,384 delegate vote threshold through pledged delegates alone.

Don't try to obfuscate on this issue. Do you support superdelegates overturning the votes of the people who participated in the Democratic primary, and the results both with regards to the popular vote total and to the respective pledged delegates numbers? Jeff Weaver does.

On April 20 2016 11:58 oneofthem wrote:
the concern with the sandernistas is forward looking, not just this election. the new democrat is supposed to be about building trust in government and good governance. instead there is a bunch of conspiracy nuts running around telling people everyone is corrupt. it's precisely the wrong thing to happen in a time of weakness.

obama is once again the most influential piece and he more than bumbling sanders would do the work of pulling these tards back into the fold.

btw im pleased to report that hillary crushed bernie in my district, CD 10.
http://www.benchmarkpolitics.com/

On April 20 2016 12:06 GreenHorizons wrote:


Considering Hillary's national numbers have been falling I could see myself supporting that. If Hillary is losing 60-40 nationally during California, I think that would be 1 example of why I would support doing such.

I can think of other scenarios. Not sure if your complaint is about an inconsistency for Bernie's campaign or that you don't like the idea?

On April 20 2016 12:09 Djzapz wrote:

The conspiracy nuts existed before Sanders and will continue to exist after, and they're hardly the ones who build distrust in government. This theme is on both sides. The left wing nuts have these conspiracies, the right wing nuts have different conspiracies and they spout "from my cold dead hands" referring to the time they'll eventually open fire on government employees in the name of freedom.

Fucking distrust in government is a large chunk of Trump's platform, it's just spun differently. Thing is, you can blame Trump directly for that rhetoric, whereas the conspiracy rhetoric is one that only shitters adopt. Can't exactly control what those people will do or say.

On April 20 2016 12:11 CobaltBlu wrote:
Sanders continued insinuations that Clinton is corrupt and that there is some conspiracy has really eroded the positive view I had of him.

On April 20 2016 12:13 oneofthem wrote:

of course i can blame trump or sanders for obfuscating the discourse to their simple 'government is corrupt, we need revolution' stuff. two of the dimmest rocks leading the revolution is not going to get you good things.