|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 25 2016 02:25 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2016 02:19 Mohdoo wrote:On May 25 2016 02:10 Jormundr wrote:On May 24 2016 23:55 Mohdoo wrote:
It doesn't matter how many she agreed to because there is no sense in having a debate right now. Criticize Clinton for not having debates before, but obsessing over it now is just cringey. People who are able to see how against the wall Sanders is right now are not going to view this favorably. Yelling for debates in Cali won't help. Black people still exist. Black people are Clinton's strongest defenders and they will make sure Clinton gets California.
As for $, Clinton has much more in reserves, or did. Bernie is spending til broke whereas Clinton has been spending conservatively. Think about how many states Bernie outspent Clinton in. It's always been a short term kamikaze campaign. It doesn't matter that he raised an unprecedented amount. It fizzled into nothing and his campaign didn't manage it well. Remember how much Sanders spent in NY? And my larger point was to show how Sanders supporters are not nearly as committed or resilient as they are given credit for. As soon as the memes were shown to be wrong about his chances, support has plummeted. Yeah it's not surprising to find that hillary supporters don't expect Hillary to do what she said she would. You boiling this down to "said she would" is exactly the overly simplistic thinking that people keep pointing out. It's not black and white. There is no benefit to having a debate right now. There's not even an effect. This idea that voters need more of an opportunity to understand what each candidate believes is just silly. I don't think we have ever been as blasted with political news. You have to try seriously hard to not know Sanders vs Clinton at this point. And for those who don't know about the candidates, another debate won't be what does the trick. They probably won't watch that one either. What you want out of a debate is for Bernie to have an opportunity to look better. When you're guy is down for the count, I'm sure anything feels like a great idea. It is fascinating to see how you are still even paying attention to the primary. Clinton has been running a general election campaign for over a month. Bernie got somewhat close, but there can only be one winner. I said exactly what happened. You can justify it however you like, but she said one thing and did another. You can call it her "evolving" or whatever, but it's a large reason why the Bernie or bust crowd exists. It's hard to decide between Trump and Hillary when they both evolve too often. (P.S. evolving is a polite way of saying that someone has no real convictions and is more than happy to lie every time it benefits them)
Can you explain what benefit you see in having a debate right now? As a result of a debate, what would happen?
|
On May 25 2016 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2016 02:25 Jormundr wrote:On May 25 2016 02:19 Mohdoo wrote:On May 25 2016 02:10 Jormundr wrote:On May 24 2016 23:55 Mohdoo wrote:
It doesn't matter how many she agreed to because there is no sense in having a debate right now. Criticize Clinton for not having debates before, but obsessing over it now is just cringey. People who are able to see how against the wall Sanders is right now are not going to view this favorably. Yelling for debates in Cali won't help. Black people still exist. Black people are Clinton's strongest defenders and they will make sure Clinton gets California.
As for $, Clinton has much more in reserves, or did. Bernie is spending til broke whereas Clinton has been spending conservatively. Think about how many states Bernie outspent Clinton in. It's always been a short term kamikaze campaign. It doesn't matter that he raised an unprecedented amount. It fizzled into nothing and his campaign didn't manage it well. Remember how much Sanders spent in NY? And my larger point was to show how Sanders supporters are not nearly as committed or resilient as they are given credit for. As soon as the memes were shown to be wrong about his chances, support has plummeted. Yeah it's not surprising to find that hillary supporters don't expect Hillary to do what she said she would. You boiling this down to "said she would" is exactly the overly simplistic thinking that people keep pointing out. It's not black and white. There is no benefit to having a debate right now. There's not even an effect. This idea that voters need more of an opportunity to understand what each candidate believes is just silly. I don't think we have ever been as blasted with political news. You have to try seriously hard to not know Sanders vs Clinton at this point. And for those who don't know about the candidates, another debate won't be what does the trick. They probably won't watch that one either. What you want out of a debate is for Bernie to have an opportunity to look better. When you're guy is down for the count, I'm sure anything feels like a great idea. It is fascinating to see how you are still even paying attention to the primary. Clinton has been running a general election campaign for over a month. Bernie got somewhat close, but there can only be one winner. I said exactly what happened. You can justify it however you like, but she said one thing and did another. You can call it her "evolving" or whatever, but it's a large reason why the Bernie or bust crowd exists. It's hard to decide between Trump and Hillary when they both evolve too often. (P.S. evolving is a polite way of saying that someone has no real convictions and is more than happy to lie every time it benefits them) Can you explain what benefit you see in having a debate right now? As a result of a debate, what would happen?
Its been a while since we have seen them both publicly in the same place. It would be nice to see them both on the same stage and not through the snipe fills social media lens. And more public discussion is rarely bad as long as both sides are game.
|
On May 25 2016 02:42 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2016 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:On May 25 2016 02:25 Jormundr wrote:On May 25 2016 02:19 Mohdoo wrote:On May 25 2016 02:10 Jormundr wrote:On May 24 2016 23:55 Mohdoo wrote:
It doesn't matter how many she agreed to because there is no sense in having a debate right now. Criticize Clinton for not having debates before, but obsessing over it now is just cringey. People who are able to see how against the wall Sanders is right now are not going to view this favorably. Yelling for debates in Cali won't help. Black people still exist. Black people are Clinton's strongest defenders and they will make sure Clinton gets California.
As for $, Clinton has much more in reserves, or did. Bernie is spending til broke whereas Clinton has been spending conservatively. Think about how many states Bernie outspent Clinton in. It's always been a short term kamikaze campaign. It doesn't matter that he raised an unprecedented amount. It fizzled into nothing and his campaign didn't manage it well. Remember how much Sanders spent in NY? And my larger point was to show how Sanders supporters are not nearly as committed or resilient as they are given credit for. As soon as the memes were shown to be wrong about his chances, support has plummeted. Yeah it's not surprising to find that hillary supporters don't expect Hillary to do what she said she would. You boiling this down to "said she would" is exactly the overly simplistic thinking that people keep pointing out. It's not black and white. There is no benefit to having a debate right now. There's not even an effect. This idea that voters need more of an opportunity to understand what each candidate believes is just silly. I don't think we have ever been as blasted with political news. You have to try seriously hard to not know Sanders vs Clinton at this point. And for those who don't know about the candidates, another debate won't be what does the trick. They probably won't watch that one either. What you want out of a debate is for Bernie to have an opportunity to look better. When you're guy is down for the count, I'm sure anything feels like a great idea. It is fascinating to see how you are still even paying attention to the primary. Clinton has been running a general election campaign for over a month. Bernie got somewhat close, but there can only be one winner. I said exactly what happened. You can justify it however you like, but she said one thing and did another. You can call it her "evolving" or whatever, but it's a large reason why the Bernie or bust crowd exists. It's hard to decide between Trump and Hillary when they both evolve too often. (P.S. evolving is a polite way of saying that someone has no real convictions and is more than happy to lie every time it benefits them) Can you explain what benefit you see in having a debate right now? As a result of a debate, what would happen? Its been a while since we have seen them both publicly in the same place. It would be nice to see them both on the same stage and not through the snipe fills social media lens. And more public discussion is rarely bad as long as both sides are game.
"It would be nice" is not a good reason. What ambiguity still exists? If someone is on the fence about who to vote for, what new information do you see coming out of a debate? Discussion is not a bad thing, but discussion between the person who lost and the person who won is not constructive. Especially not in a combative setting.
|
On May 25 2016 02:45 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2016 02:42 Plansix wrote:On May 25 2016 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:On May 25 2016 02:25 Jormundr wrote:On May 25 2016 02:19 Mohdoo wrote:On May 25 2016 02:10 Jormundr wrote:On May 24 2016 23:55 Mohdoo wrote:
It doesn't matter how many she agreed to because there is no sense in having a debate right now. Criticize Clinton for not having debates before, but obsessing over it now is just cringey. People who are able to see how against the wall Sanders is right now are not going to view this favorably. Yelling for debates in Cali won't help. Black people still exist. Black people are Clinton's strongest defenders and they will make sure Clinton gets California.
As for $, Clinton has much more in reserves, or did. Bernie is spending til broke whereas Clinton has been spending conservatively. Think about how many states Bernie outspent Clinton in. It's always been a short term kamikaze campaign. It doesn't matter that he raised an unprecedented amount. It fizzled into nothing and his campaign didn't manage it well. Remember how much Sanders spent in NY? And my larger point was to show how Sanders supporters are not nearly as committed or resilient as they are given credit for. As soon as the memes were shown to be wrong about his chances, support has plummeted. Yeah it's not surprising to find that hillary supporters don't expect Hillary to do what she said she would. You boiling this down to "said she would" is exactly the overly simplistic thinking that people keep pointing out. It's not black and white. There is no benefit to having a debate right now. There's not even an effect. This idea that voters need more of an opportunity to understand what each candidate believes is just silly. I don't think we have ever been as blasted with political news. You have to try seriously hard to not know Sanders vs Clinton at this point. And for those who don't know about the candidates, another debate won't be what does the trick. They probably won't watch that one either. What you want out of a debate is for Bernie to have an opportunity to look better. When you're guy is down for the count, I'm sure anything feels like a great idea. It is fascinating to see how you are still even paying attention to the primary. Clinton has been running a general election campaign for over a month. Bernie got somewhat close, but there can only be one winner. I said exactly what happened. You can justify it however you like, but she said one thing and did another. You can call it her "evolving" or whatever, but it's a large reason why the Bernie or bust crowd exists. It's hard to decide between Trump and Hillary when they both evolve too often. (P.S. evolving is a polite way of saying that someone has no real convictions and is more than happy to lie every time it benefits them) Can you explain what benefit you see in having a debate right now? As a result of a debate, what would happen? Its been a while since we have seen them both publicly in the same place. It would be nice to see them both on the same stage and not through the snipe fills social media lens. And more public discussion is rarely bad as long as both sides are game. "It would be nice" is not a good reason. What ambiguity still exists? If someone is on the fence about who to vote for, what new information do you see coming out of a debate? Discussion is not a bad thing, but discussion between the person who lost and the person who won is not constructive. Especially not in a combative setting.
Well in California there is a pretty good reason for more Hispanic people to get familiar with her positions on and roles in Latin America. I know Honduras has been a pretty big issue the corporate media has mostly ignored.
On campaign financing, yeah Obama hasn't been the ideal person to point to when it comes to big money not having influence.
For an example of questionable campaign finance through victory funds, follow the money from the Obama Victory Fund to the 4900 group through Virginia for an example. Then find something the 4900 group has put their name on.
|
All it can do is hurt hillary at this point. There is no reason for her to debate anymore. It's the best strategic move.
|
On May 25 2016 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2016 02:45 Mohdoo wrote:On May 25 2016 02:42 Plansix wrote:On May 25 2016 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:On May 25 2016 02:25 Jormundr wrote:On May 25 2016 02:19 Mohdoo wrote:On May 25 2016 02:10 Jormundr wrote:On May 24 2016 23:55 Mohdoo wrote:
It doesn't matter how many she agreed to because there is no sense in having a debate right now. Criticize Clinton for not having debates before, but obsessing over it now is just cringey. People who are able to see how against the wall Sanders is right now are not going to view this favorably. Yelling for debates in Cali won't help. Black people still exist. Black people are Clinton's strongest defenders and they will make sure Clinton gets California.
As for $, Clinton has much more in reserves, or did. Bernie is spending til broke whereas Clinton has been spending conservatively. Think about how many states Bernie outspent Clinton in. It's always been a short term kamikaze campaign. It doesn't matter that he raised an unprecedented amount. It fizzled into nothing and his campaign didn't manage it well. Remember how much Sanders spent in NY? And my larger point was to show how Sanders supporters are not nearly as committed or resilient as they are given credit for. As soon as the memes were shown to be wrong about his chances, support has plummeted. Yeah it's not surprising to find that hillary supporters don't expect Hillary to do what she said she would. You boiling this down to "said she would" is exactly the overly simplistic thinking that people keep pointing out. It's not black and white. There is no benefit to having a debate right now. There's not even an effect. This idea that voters need more of an opportunity to understand what each candidate believes is just silly. I don't think we have ever been as blasted with political news. You have to try seriously hard to not know Sanders vs Clinton at this point. And for those who don't know about the candidates, another debate won't be what does the trick. They probably won't watch that one either. What you want out of a debate is for Bernie to have an opportunity to look better. When you're guy is down for the count, I'm sure anything feels like a great idea. It is fascinating to see how you are still even paying attention to the primary. Clinton has been running a general election campaign for over a month. Bernie got somewhat close, but there can only be one winner. I said exactly what happened. You can justify it however you like, but she said one thing and did another. You can call it her "evolving" or whatever, but it's a large reason why the Bernie or bust crowd exists. It's hard to decide between Trump and Hillary when they both evolve too often. (P.S. evolving is a polite way of saying that someone has no real convictions and is more than happy to lie every time it benefits them) Can you explain what benefit you see in having a debate right now? As a result of a debate, what would happen? Its been a while since we have seen them both publicly in the same place. It would be nice to see them both on the same stage and not through the snipe fills social media lens. And more public discussion is rarely bad as long as both sides are game. "It would be nice" is not a good reason. What ambiguity still exists? If someone is on the fence about who to vote for, what new information do you see coming out of a debate? Discussion is not a bad thing, but discussion between the person who lost and the person who won is not constructive. Especially not in a combative setting. Well in California there is a pretty good reason for more Hispanic people to get familiar with her positions on and roles in Latin America. I know Honduras has been a pretty big issue the corporate media has mostly ignored.
Why do you think Hispanics need more information? What has uniquely prevented them from acquiring information already?
|
On May 25 2016 02:51 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2016 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 25 2016 02:45 Mohdoo wrote:On May 25 2016 02:42 Plansix wrote:On May 25 2016 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:On May 25 2016 02:25 Jormundr wrote:On May 25 2016 02:19 Mohdoo wrote:On May 25 2016 02:10 Jormundr wrote:On May 24 2016 23:55 Mohdoo wrote:
It doesn't matter how many she agreed to because there is no sense in having a debate right now. Criticize Clinton for not having debates before, but obsessing over it now is just cringey. People who are able to see how against the wall Sanders is right now are not going to view this favorably. Yelling for debates in Cali won't help. Black people still exist. Black people are Clinton's strongest defenders and they will make sure Clinton gets California.
As for $, Clinton has much more in reserves, or did. Bernie is spending til broke whereas Clinton has been spending conservatively. Think about how many states Bernie outspent Clinton in. It's always been a short term kamikaze campaign. It doesn't matter that he raised an unprecedented amount. It fizzled into nothing and his campaign didn't manage it well. Remember how much Sanders spent in NY? And my larger point was to show how Sanders supporters are not nearly as committed or resilient as they are given credit for. As soon as the memes were shown to be wrong about his chances, support has plummeted. Yeah it's not surprising to find that hillary supporters don't expect Hillary to do what she said she would. You boiling this down to "said she would" is exactly the overly simplistic thinking that people keep pointing out. It's not black and white. There is no benefit to having a debate right now. There's not even an effect. This idea that voters need more of an opportunity to understand what each candidate believes is just silly. I don't think we have ever been as blasted with political news. You have to try seriously hard to not know Sanders vs Clinton at this point. And for those who don't know about the candidates, another debate won't be what does the trick. They probably won't watch that one either. What you want out of a debate is for Bernie to have an opportunity to look better. When you're guy is down for the count, I'm sure anything feels like a great idea. It is fascinating to see how you are still even paying attention to the primary. Clinton has been running a general election campaign for over a month. Bernie got somewhat close, but there can only be one winner. I said exactly what happened. You can justify it however you like, but she said one thing and did another. You can call it her "evolving" or whatever, but it's a large reason why the Bernie or bust crowd exists. It's hard to decide between Trump and Hillary when they both evolve too often. (P.S. evolving is a polite way of saying that someone has no real convictions and is more than happy to lie every time it benefits them) Can you explain what benefit you see in having a debate right now? As a result of a debate, what would happen? Its been a while since we have seen them both publicly in the same place. It would be nice to see them both on the same stage and not through the snipe fills social media lens. And more public discussion is rarely bad as long as both sides are game. "It would be nice" is not a good reason. What ambiguity still exists? If someone is on the fence about who to vote for, what new information do you see coming out of a debate? Discussion is not a bad thing, but discussion between the person who lost and the person who won is not constructive. Especially not in a combative setting. Well in California there is a pretty good reason for more Hispanic people to get familiar with her positions on and roles in Latin America. I know Honduras has been a pretty big issue the corporate media has mostly ignored. Why do you think Hispanics need more information? What has uniquely prevented them from acquiring information already?
Many don't have access to social media, many people are just recently tuning in, many people get their information exclusively through corporate media, I could go on, I presume that's not a serious question.
|
On May 25 2016 02:45 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2016 02:42 Plansix wrote:On May 25 2016 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:On May 25 2016 02:25 Jormundr wrote:On May 25 2016 02:19 Mohdoo wrote:On May 25 2016 02:10 Jormundr wrote:On May 24 2016 23:55 Mohdoo wrote:
It doesn't matter how many she agreed to because there is no sense in having a debate right now. Criticize Clinton for not having debates before, but obsessing over it now is just cringey. People who are able to see how against the wall Sanders is right now are not going to view this favorably. Yelling for debates in Cali won't help. Black people still exist. Black people are Clinton's strongest defenders and they will make sure Clinton gets California.
As for $, Clinton has much more in reserves, or did. Bernie is spending til broke whereas Clinton has been spending conservatively. Think about how many states Bernie outspent Clinton in. It's always been a short term kamikaze campaign. It doesn't matter that he raised an unprecedented amount. It fizzled into nothing and his campaign didn't manage it well. Remember how much Sanders spent in NY? And my larger point was to show how Sanders supporters are not nearly as committed or resilient as they are given credit for. As soon as the memes were shown to be wrong about his chances, support has plummeted. Yeah it's not surprising to find that hillary supporters don't expect Hillary to do what she said she would. You boiling this down to "said she would" is exactly the overly simplistic thinking that people keep pointing out. It's not black and white. There is no benefit to having a debate right now. There's not even an effect. This idea that voters need more of an opportunity to understand what each candidate believes is just silly. I don't think we have ever been as blasted with political news. You have to try seriously hard to not know Sanders vs Clinton at this point. And for those who don't know about the candidates, another debate won't be what does the trick. They probably won't watch that one either. What you want out of a debate is for Bernie to have an opportunity to look better. When you're guy is down for the count, I'm sure anything feels like a great idea. It is fascinating to see how you are still even paying attention to the primary. Clinton has been running a general election campaign for over a month. Bernie got somewhat close, but there can only be one winner. I said exactly what happened. You can justify it however you like, but she said one thing and did another. You can call it her "evolving" or whatever, but it's a large reason why the Bernie or bust crowd exists. It's hard to decide between Trump and Hillary when they both evolve too often. (P.S. evolving is a polite way of saying that someone has no real convictions and is more than happy to lie every time it benefits them) Can you explain what benefit you see in having a debate right now? As a result of a debate, what would happen? Its been a while since we have seen them both publicly in the same place. It would be nice to see them both on the same stage and not through the snipe fills social media lens. And more public discussion is rarely bad as long as both sides are game. "It would be nice" is not a good reason. What ambiguity still exists? If someone is on the fence about who to vote for, what new information do you see coming out of a debate? Discussion is not a bad thing, but discussion between the person who lost and the person who won is not constructive. Especially not in a combative setting.
You asked for reasons. Not for reasons you would agree with. I can see merit to the debate, even if Clinton doesn't 100% benefit from it. I agree that there are reasons for her not to as well, including it could be more combative and turn off voters who want the primary season to be over.
|
On May 25 2016 02:53 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2016 02:51 Mohdoo wrote:On May 25 2016 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 25 2016 02:45 Mohdoo wrote:On May 25 2016 02:42 Plansix wrote:On May 25 2016 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:On May 25 2016 02:25 Jormundr wrote:On May 25 2016 02:19 Mohdoo wrote:On May 25 2016 02:10 Jormundr wrote:On May 24 2016 23:55 Mohdoo wrote:
It doesn't matter how many she agreed to because there is no sense in having a debate right now. Criticize Clinton for not having debates before, but obsessing over it now is just cringey. People who are able to see how against the wall Sanders is right now are not going to view this favorably. Yelling for debates in Cali won't help. Black people still exist. Black people are Clinton's strongest defenders and they will make sure Clinton gets California.
As for $, Clinton has much more in reserves, or did. Bernie is spending til broke whereas Clinton has been spending conservatively. Think about how many states Bernie outspent Clinton in. It's always been a short term kamikaze campaign. It doesn't matter that he raised an unprecedented amount. It fizzled into nothing and his campaign didn't manage it well. Remember how much Sanders spent in NY? And my larger point was to show how Sanders supporters are not nearly as committed or resilient as they are given credit for. As soon as the memes were shown to be wrong about his chances, support has plummeted. Yeah it's not surprising to find that hillary supporters don't expect Hillary to do what she said she would. You boiling this down to "said she would" is exactly the overly simplistic thinking that people keep pointing out. It's not black and white. There is no benefit to having a debate right now. There's not even an effect. This idea that voters need more of an opportunity to understand what each candidate believes is just silly. I don't think we have ever been as blasted with political news. You have to try seriously hard to not know Sanders vs Clinton at this point. And for those who don't know about the candidates, another debate won't be what does the trick. They probably won't watch that one either. What you want out of a debate is for Bernie to have an opportunity to look better. When you're guy is down for the count, I'm sure anything feels like a great idea. It is fascinating to see how you are still even paying attention to the primary. Clinton has been running a general election campaign for over a month. Bernie got somewhat close, but there can only be one winner. I said exactly what happened. You can justify it however you like, but she said one thing and did another. You can call it her "evolving" or whatever, but it's a large reason why the Bernie or bust crowd exists. It's hard to decide between Trump and Hillary when they both evolve too often. (P.S. evolving is a polite way of saying that someone has no real convictions and is more than happy to lie every time it benefits them) Can you explain what benefit you see in having a debate right now? As a result of a debate, what would happen? Its been a while since we have seen them both publicly in the same place. It would be nice to see them both on the same stage and not through the snipe fills social media lens. And more public discussion is rarely bad as long as both sides are game. "It would be nice" is not a good reason. What ambiguity still exists? If someone is on the fence about who to vote for, what new information do you see coming out of a debate? Discussion is not a bad thing, but discussion between the person who lost and the person who won is not constructive. Especially not in a combative setting. Well in California there is a pretty good reason for more Hispanic people to get familiar with her positions on and roles in Latin America. I know Honduras has been a pretty big issue the corporate media has mostly ignored. Why do you think Hispanics need more information? What has uniquely prevented them from acquiring information already? Many don't have access to social media, many people are just recently tuning in, many people get their information exclusively through corporate media, I could go on, I presume that's not a serious question.
What in the world makes you think Hispanics don't have access to social media? I assure you Hispanics are just as likely to use social media as other races. Why do you think Hispanics ignored the race until now? This makes no sense at all. Are you using "Hispanic" to mean recently immigrated people or something?
|
On May 25 2016 02:56 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2016 02:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 25 2016 02:51 Mohdoo wrote:On May 25 2016 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 25 2016 02:45 Mohdoo wrote:On May 25 2016 02:42 Plansix wrote:On May 25 2016 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:On May 25 2016 02:25 Jormundr wrote:On May 25 2016 02:19 Mohdoo wrote:On May 25 2016 02:10 Jormundr wrote:
[quote]
Yeah it's not surprising to find that hillary supporters don't expect Hillary to do what she said she would.
You boiling this down to "said she would" is exactly the overly simplistic thinking that people keep pointing out. It's not black and white. There is no benefit to having a debate right now. There's not even an effect. This idea that voters need more of an opportunity to understand what each candidate believes is just silly. I don't think we have ever been as blasted with political news. You have to try seriously hard to not know Sanders vs Clinton at this point. And for those who don't know about the candidates, another debate won't be what does the trick. They probably won't watch that one either. What you want out of a debate is for Bernie to have an opportunity to look better. When you're guy is down for the count, I'm sure anything feels like a great idea. It is fascinating to see how you are still even paying attention to the primary. Clinton has been running a general election campaign for over a month. Bernie got somewhat close, but there can only be one winner. I said exactly what happened. You can justify it however you like, but she said one thing and did another. You can call it her "evolving" or whatever, but it's a large reason why the Bernie or bust crowd exists. It's hard to decide between Trump and Hillary when they both evolve too often. (P.S. evolving is a polite way of saying that someone has no real convictions and is more than happy to lie every time it benefits them) Can you explain what benefit you see in having a debate right now? As a result of a debate, what would happen? Its been a while since we have seen them both publicly in the same place. It would be nice to see them both on the same stage and not through the snipe fills social media lens. And more public discussion is rarely bad as long as both sides are game. "It would be nice" is not a good reason. What ambiguity still exists? If someone is on the fence about who to vote for, what new information do you see coming out of a debate? Discussion is not a bad thing, but discussion between the person who lost and the person who won is not constructive. Especially not in a combative setting. Well in California there is a pretty good reason for more Hispanic people to get familiar with her positions on and roles in Latin America. I know Honduras has been a pretty big issue the corporate media has mostly ignored. Why do you think Hispanics need more information? What has uniquely prevented them from acquiring information already? Many don't have access to social media, many people are just recently tuning in, many people get their information exclusively through corporate media, I could go on, I presume that's not a serious question. What in the world makes you think Hispanics don't have access to social media? I assure you Hispanics are just as likely to use social media as other races. Why do you think Hispanics ignored the race until now? This makes no sense at all. Are you using "Hispanic" to mean recently immigrated people or something?
No I mean many suffer from similar conditions as many impoverished people in America (speaking of low income Hispanics), many are older and get their information primarily from TV/corporate media, and like most of America they aren't tuned into the details (especially ones not covered by corporate media). I also said "more Hispanic people" as California has a higher number of Hispanic people than any other previous state and shares a voting day with state that has the highest proportion of Hispanic/LatinX voters. So more Hispanic people will be paying closer attention than they probably did to the New Hampshire campaigning for example.
You know you've gone too far with the race baiting when even I see it as obvious crap.
|
On May 25 2016 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2016 02:25 Jormundr wrote:On May 25 2016 02:19 Mohdoo wrote:On May 25 2016 02:10 Jormundr wrote:On May 24 2016 23:55 Mohdoo wrote:
It doesn't matter how many she agreed to because there is no sense in having a debate right now. Criticize Clinton for not having debates before, but obsessing over it now is just cringey. People who are able to see how against the wall Sanders is right now are not going to view this favorably. Yelling for debates in Cali won't help. Black people still exist. Black people are Clinton's strongest defenders and they will make sure Clinton gets California.
As for $, Clinton has much more in reserves, or did. Bernie is spending til broke whereas Clinton has been spending conservatively. Think about how many states Bernie outspent Clinton in. It's always been a short term kamikaze campaign. It doesn't matter that he raised an unprecedented amount. It fizzled into nothing and his campaign didn't manage it well. Remember how much Sanders spent in NY? And my larger point was to show how Sanders supporters are not nearly as committed or resilient as they are given credit for. As soon as the memes were shown to be wrong about his chances, support has plummeted. Yeah it's not surprising to find that hillary supporters don't expect Hillary to do what she said she would. You boiling this down to "said she would" is exactly the overly simplistic thinking that people keep pointing out. It's not black and white. There is no benefit to having a debate right now. There's not even an effect. This idea that voters need more of an opportunity to understand what each candidate believes is just silly. I don't think we have ever been as blasted with political news. You have to try seriously hard to not know Sanders vs Clinton at this point. And for those who don't know about the candidates, another debate won't be what does the trick. They probably won't watch that one either. What you want out of a debate is for Bernie to have an opportunity to look better. When you're guy is down for the count, I'm sure anything feels like a great idea. It is fascinating to see how you are still even paying attention to the primary. Clinton has been running a general election campaign for over a month. Bernie got somewhat close, but there can only be one winner. I said exactly what happened. You can justify it however you like, but she said one thing and did another. You can call it her "evolving" or whatever, but it's a large reason why the Bernie or bust crowd exists. It's hard to decide between Trump and Hillary when they both evolve too often. (P.S. evolving is a polite way of saying that someone has no real convictions and is more than happy to lie every time it benefits them) Can you explain what benefit you see in having a debate right now? As a result of a debate, what would happen?
Oh there's not much benefit to her at all, which is why I doubt she'll do it. That's also why I doubt she'll raise a solitary finger to help the 99.99% of Americans who aren't part of her social class. I mean if she was a person worthy of holding the office of president then she would see the benefit in actually making her words mean something. But she isn't. She's a liar who has spent her entire life working her way higher in our government without managing to hold any convictions. She will do anything to be president, nobody is questioning that. The question is what she will do if she gets there, which nobody has a real answer for because she consistently does things like this.
|
I dont think the argument that there is no merit to the debate. Debates always have merit.
But Hillary has no reason to it because Sanders and co arent pushing for dissemination of information or policy positions. Maybe their own but there is no interest in debate in the purest sense of a term. Its at best a platform for attack. A meaningful conciliatory debate will not benefit Sanders position so hes looking for a fight.
I can see why Hillary doesnt want to do it. There is nothing to gain for her and plenty to lose considering the shitfest it will turn into
|
On May 25 2016 02:56 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2016 02:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 25 2016 02:51 Mohdoo wrote:On May 25 2016 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 25 2016 02:45 Mohdoo wrote:On May 25 2016 02:42 Plansix wrote:On May 25 2016 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:On May 25 2016 02:25 Jormundr wrote:On May 25 2016 02:19 Mohdoo wrote:On May 25 2016 02:10 Jormundr wrote:
[quote]
Yeah it's not surprising to find that hillary supporters don't expect Hillary to do what she said she would.
You boiling this down to "said she would" is exactly the overly simplistic thinking that people keep pointing out. It's not black and white. There is no benefit to having a debate right now. There's not even an effect. This idea that voters need more of an opportunity to understand what each candidate believes is just silly. I don't think we have ever been as blasted with political news. You have to try seriously hard to not know Sanders vs Clinton at this point. And for those who don't know about the candidates, another debate won't be what does the trick. They probably won't watch that one either. What you want out of a debate is for Bernie to have an opportunity to look better. When you're guy is down for the count, I'm sure anything feels like a great idea. It is fascinating to see how you are still even paying attention to the primary. Clinton has been running a general election campaign for over a month. Bernie got somewhat close, but there can only be one winner. I said exactly what happened. You can justify it however you like, but she said one thing and did another. You can call it her "evolving" or whatever, but it's a large reason why the Bernie or bust crowd exists. It's hard to decide between Trump and Hillary when they both evolve too often. (P.S. evolving is a polite way of saying that someone has no real convictions and is more than happy to lie every time it benefits them) Can you explain what benefit you see in having a debate right now? As a result of a debate, what would happen? Its been a while since we have seen them both publicly in the same place. It would be nice to see them both on the same stage and not through the snipe fills social media lens. And more public discussion is rarely bad as long as both sides are game. "It would be nice" is not a good reason. What ambiguity still exists? If someone is on the fence about who to vote for, what new information do you see coming out of a debate? Discussion is not a bad thing, but discussion between the person who lost and the person who won is not constructive. Especially not in a combative setting. Well in California there is a pretty good reason for more Hispanic people to get familiar with her positions on and roles in Latin America. I know Honduras has been a pretty big issue the corporate media has mostly ignored. Why do you think Hispanics need more information? What has uniquely prevented them from acquiring information already? Many don't have access to social media, many people are just recently tuning in, many people get their information exclusively through corporate media, I could go on, I presume that's not a serious question. What in the world makes you think Hispanics don't have access to social media? I assure you Hispanics are just as likely to use social media as other races. Why do you think Hispanics ignored the race until now? This makes no sense at all. Are you using "Hispanic" to mean recently immigrated people or something?
Mexicans and south americans tend to be pretty damn poor and don't often have a whole lot of computers. Same with black people. What, you think hillary kept bernie off the tv for so long for shits and giggles? She did it because it benefited her to use her connections to keep him out of the news until it became impossible to deny that he existed with a straight face. You think that the media, with their raging hardon for social media in the past couple years didn't notice the massive amount of interest that people had in bernie? Yet they still pretended he was on a lower level than Chafee and Webb, who were quite obviously less popular and less likely to take the presidency than Incontrol.
|
On May 25 2016 03:14 Rebs wrote:
I dont think the argument that there is no merit to the debate. Debates always have merit.
But Hillary has no reason to it because Sanders and co arent pushing for dissemination of information or policy positions. Maybe their own but there is no interest in debate in the purest sense of a term. Its at best a platform for attack. A meaningful conciliatory debate will not benefit Sanders position so hes looking for a fight.
I can see why Hillary doesnt want to do it. There is nothing to gain for her and plenty to lose considering the shitfest it will turn into
I don't think anyone's arguing she want's to do it (despite saying a candidate should "debate anytime anywhere") it's that like any of her positions she'll tell you "yeah I'll do that" then when there's nothing in it for her, say "my time would be better spent elsewhere".
It's clear she never intended to do it in the first place and her word was worthless, for someone most of the country already doesn't trust, that's not good.
|
On May 25 2016 03:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2016 02:56 Mohdoo wrote:On May 25 2016 02:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 25 2016 02:51 Mohdoo wrote:On May 25 2016 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 25 2016 02:45 Mohdoo wrote:On May 25 2016 02:42 Plansix wrote:On May 25 2016 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:On May 25 2016 02:25 Jormundr wrote:On May 25 2016 02:19 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
You boiling this down to "said she would" is exactly the overly simplistic thinking that people keep pointing out. It's not black and white. There is no benefit to having a debate right now. There's not even an effect. This idea that voters need more of an opportunity to understand what each candidate believes is just silly. I don't think we have ever been as blasted with political news. You have to try seriously hard to not know Sanders vs Clinton at this point. And for those who don't know about the candidates, another debate won't be what does the trick. They probably won't watch that one either.
What you want out of a debate is for Bernie to have an opportunity to look better. When you're guy is down for the count, I'm sure anything feels like a great idea. It is fascinating to see how you are still even paying attention to the primary. Clinton has been running a general election campaign for over a month. Bernie got somewhat close, but there can only be one winner. I said exactly what happened. You can justify it however you like, but she said one thing and did another. You can call it her "evolving" or whatever, but it's a large reason why the Bernie or bust crowd exists. It's hard to decide between Trump and Hillary when they both evolve too often. (P.S. evolving is a polite way of saying that someone has no real convictions and is more than happy to lie every time it benefits them) Can you explain what benefit you see in having a debate right now? As a result of a debate, what would happen? Its been a while since we have seen them both publicly in the same place. It would be nice to see them both on the same stage and not through the snipe fills social media lens. And more public discussion is rarely bad as long as both sides are game. "It would be nice" is not a good reason. What ambiguity still exists? If someone is on the fence about who to vote for, what new information do you see coming out of a debate? Discussion is not a bad thing, but discussion between the person who lost and the person who won is not constructive. Especially not in a combative setting. Well in California there is a pretty good reason for more Hispanic people to get familiar with her positions on and roles in Latin America. I know Honduras has been a pretty big issue the corporate media has mostly ignored. Why do you think Hispanics need more information? What has uniquely prevented them from acquiring information already? Many don't have access to social media, many people are just recently tuning in, many people get their information exclusively through corporate media, I could go on, I presume that's not a serious question. What in the world makes you think Hispanics don't have access to social media? I assure you Hispanics are just as likely to use social media as other races. Why do you think Hispanics ignored the race until now? This makes no sense at all. Are you using "Hispanic" to mean recently immigrated people or something? No I mean many suffer from similar conditions as many impoverished people in America (speaking of low income Hispanics), many are older and get their information primarily from TV/corporate media, and like most of America they aren't tuned into the details (especially ones not covered by corporate media). I also said "more Hispanic people" as California has a higher number of Hispanic people than any other previous state and shares a voting day with state that has the highest proportion of Hispanic/LatinX voters. So more Hispanic people will be paying closer attention than they probably did to the New Hampshire campaigning for example. You know you've gone too far with the race baiting when even I see it as obvious crap.
When I googled race baiting, it said it is using racial stuff to intimidate someone. What have I done to intimidate you using race stuff? I asked why you think Hispanics have poor access to social media. Sanders leads among young Hispanics, as he does with all young people. But the same is not seen with older Hispanics.
Either way, none of this matters. How about this, how many voting delegates do you see Bernie coming out of next Tuesday with? How about California?
|
On May 25 2016 03:23 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2016 03:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 25 2016 02:56 Mohdoo wrote:On May 25 2016 02:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 25 2016 02:51 Mohdoo wrote:On May 25 2016 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 25 2016 02:45 Mohdoo wrote:On May 25 2016 02:42 Plansix wrote:On May 25 2016 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:On May 25 2016 02:25 Jormundr wrote:
[quote]
I said exactly what happened. You can justify it however you like, but she said one thing and did another. You can call it her "evolving" or whatever, but it's a large reason why the Bernie or bust crowd exists. It's hard to decide between Trump and Hillary when they both evolve too often.
(P.S. evolving is a polite way of saying that someone has no real convictions and is more than happy to lie every time it benefits them) Can you explain what benefit you see in having a debate right now? As a result of a debate, what would happen? Its been a while since we have seen them both publicly in the same place. It would be nice to see them both on the same stage and not through the snipe fills social media lens. And more public discussion is rarely bad as long as both sides are game. "It would be nice" is not a good reason. What ambiguity still exists? If someone is on the fence about who to vote for, what new information do you see coming out of a debate? Discussion is not a bad thing, but discussion between the person who lost and the person who won is not constructive. Especially not in a combative setting. Well in California there is a pretty good reason for more Hispanic people to get familiar with her positions on and roles in Latin America. I know Honduras has been a pretty big issue the corporate media has mostly ignored. Why do you think Hispanics need more information? What has uniquely prevented them from acquiring information already? Many don't have access to social media, many people are just recently tuning in, many people get their information exclusively through corporate media, I could go on, I presume that's not a serious question. What in the world makes you think Hispanics don't have access to social media? I assure you Hispanics are just as likely to use social media as other races. Why do you think Hispanics ignored the race until now? This makes no sense at all. Are you using "Hispanic" to mean recently immigrated people or something? No I mean many suffer from similar conditions as many impoverished people in America (speaking of low income Hispanics), many are older and get their information primarily from TV/corporate media, and like most of America they aren't tuned into the details (especially ones not covered by corporate media). I also said "more Hispanic people" as California has a higher number of Hispanic people than any other previous state and shares a voting day with state that has the highest proportion of Hispanic/LatinX voters. So more Hispanic people will be paying closer attention than they probably did to the New Hampshire campaigning for example. You know you've gone too far with the race baiting when even I see it as obvious crap. When I googled race baiting, it said it is using racial stuff to intimidate someone. What have I done to intimidate you using race stuff? I asked why you think Hispanics have poor access to social media. Sanders leads among young Hispanics, as he does with all young people. But the same is not seen with older Hispanics. Either way, none of this matters. How about this, how many voting delegates do you see Bernie coming out of next Tuesday with? How about California?
I won't explain it to you then.
Well Democratic polling has been inexplicably terrible this election so it's pretty tough to guess. But like I said before, it's always possible Bernie mentions to pledged delegates they don't have to stay pledged to Hillary.
One thing's for sure, if/when Hillary loses the general her supporters won't be able to say they weren't told that it would happen if they chose Hillary over Bernie to send into the general. As clear as Hillary is the preference of D primary voters Sanders is the preference of practically everyone else (not supporting Trump) and would pick up far more of Hillary's votes than Hillary would of Bernie's.
|
On May 25 2016 03:36 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2016 03:23 Mohdoo wrote:On May 25 2016 03:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 25 2016 02:56 Mohdoo wrote:On May 25 2016 02:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 25 2016 02:51 Mohdoo wrote:On May 25 2016 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 25 2016 02:45 Mohdoo wrote:On May 25 2016 02:42 Plansix wrote:On May 25 2016 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
Can you explain what benefit you see in having a debate right now? As a result of a debate, what would happen? Its been a while since we have seen them both publicly in the same place. It would be nice to see them both on the same stage and not through the snipe fills social media lens. And more public discussion is rarely bad as long as both sides are game. "It would be nice" is not a good reason. What ambiguity still exists? If someone is on the fence about who to vote for, what new information do you see coming out of a debate? Discussion is not a bad thing, but discussion between the person who lost and the person who won is not constructive. Especially not in a combative setting. Well in California there is a pretty good reason for more Hispanic people to get familiar with her positions on and roles in Latin America. I know Honduras has been a pretty big issue the corporate media has mostly ignored. Why do you think Hispanics need more information? What has uniquely prevented them from acquiring information already? Many don't have access to social media, many people are just recently tuning in, many people get their information exclusively through corporate media, I could go on, I presume that's not a serious question. What in the world makes you think Hispanics don't have access to social media? I assure you Hispanics are just as likely to use social media as other races. Why do you think Hispanics ignored the race until now? This makes no sense at all. Are you using "Hispanic" to mean recently immigrated people or something? No I mean many suffer from similar conditions as many impoverished people in America (speaking of low income Hispanics), many are older and get their information primarily from TV/corporate media, and like most of America they aren't tuned into the details (especially ones not covered by corporate media). I also said "more Hispanic people" as California has a higher number of Hispanic people than any other previous state and shares a voting day with state that has the highest proportion of Hispanic/LatinX voters. So more Hispanic people will be paying closer attention than they probably did to the New Hampshire campaigning for example. You know you've gone too far with the race baiting when even I see it as obvious crap. When I googled race baiting, it said it is using racial stuff to intimidate someone. What have I done to intimidate you using race stuff? I asked why you think Hispanics have poor access to social media. Sanders leads among young Hispanics, as he does with all young people. But the same is not seen with older Hispanics. Either way, none of this matters. How about this, how many voting delegates do you see Bernie coming out of next Tuesday with? How about California? I won't explain it to you then. Well Democratic polling has been inexplicably terrible this election so it's pretty tough to guess. But like I said before, it's always possible Bernie mentions to pledged delegates they don't have to stay pledged to Hillary. One thing's for sure, if/when Hillary loses the general her supporters won't be able to say they weren't told that it would happen if they chose Hillary over Bernie to send into the general. As clear as Hillary is the preference of D primary voters Sanders is the preference of practically everyone else (not supporting Trump) and would pick up far more of Hillary's votes than Hillary would of Bernie's.
Ok, how about this: will Bernie hit 55% in California?
|
On May 25 2016 03:40 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2016 03:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 25 2016 03:23 Mohdoo wrote:On May 25 2016 03:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 25 2016 02:56 Mohdoo wrote:On May 25 2016 02:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 25 2016 02:51 Mohdoo wrote:On May 25 2016 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 25 2016 02:45 Mohdoo wrote:On May 25 2016 02:42 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Its been a while since we have seen them both publicly in the same place. It would be nice to see them both on the same stage and not through the snipe fills social media lens. And more public discussion is rarely bad as long as both sides are game.
"It would be nice" is not a good reason. What ambiguity still exists? If someone is on the fence about who to vote for, what new information do you see coming out of a debate? Discussion is not a bad thing, but discussion between the person who lost and the person who won is not constructive. Especially not in a combative setting. Well in California there is a pretty good reason for more Hispanic people to get familiar with her positions on and roles in Latin America. I know Honduras has been a pretty big issue the corporate media has mostly ignored. Why do you think Hispanics need more information? What has uniquely prevented them from acquiring information already? Many don't have access to social media, many people are just recently tuning in, many people get their information exclusively through corporate media, I could go on, I presume that's not a serious question. What in the world makes you think Hispanics don't have access to social media? I assure you Hispanics are just as likely to use social media as other races. Why do you think Hispanics ignored the race until now? This makes no sense at all. Are you using "Hispanic" to mean recently immigrated people or something? No I mean many suffer from similar conditions as many impoverished people in America (speaking of low income Hispanics), many are older and get their information primarily from TV/corporate media, and like most of America they aren't tuned into the details (especially ones not covered by corporate media). I also said "more Hispanic people" as California has a higher number of Hispanic people than any other previous state and shares a voting day with state that has the highest proportion of Hispanic/LatinX voters. So more Hispanic people will be paying closer attention than they probably did to the New Hampshire campaigning for example. You know you've gone too far with the race baiting when even I see it as obvious crap. When I googled race baiting, it said it is using racial stuff to intimidate someone. What have I done to intimidate you using race stuff? I asked why you think Hispanics have poor access to social media. Sanders leads among young Hispanics, as he does with all young people. But the same is not seen with older Hispanics. Either way, none of this matters. How about this, how many voting delegates do you see Bernie coming out of next Tuesday with? How about California? I won't explain it to you then. Well Democratic polling has been inexplicably terrible this election so it's pretty tough to guess. But like I said before, it's always possible Bernie mentions to pledged delegates they don't have to stay pledged to Hillary. One thing's for sure, if/when Hillary loses the general her supporters won't be able to say they weren't told that it would happen if they chose Hillary over Bernie to send into the general. As clear as Hillary is the preference of D primary voters Sanders is the preference of practically everyone else (not supporting Trump) and would pick up far more of Hillary's votes than Hillary would of Bernie's. Ok, how about this: will Bernie hit 55% in California?
I can't say definitively, and I can't know to what extent the process will be influenced, but I would include that in the realm of strong possibilities, yes.
I have to say I am a bit curious as to why people think polling from the same firms, same states, same times, same methodologies (basically), have had such drastically different results in accuracy between Democrats and Republicans, in both pre-election and exit polls.
|
I predict a 38% for bernie in cali. This is just my gut instinct based off no facts. Don't hate.
|
Analysis of the Sanders movement by Krugman. Worth a read, even though I don't completely agree, since he thinks Sanders ideas are for now unpracticale, at least in the way they are presented.
But I'm afraid, he is right for the biggest part.
In short, it’s complicated – not all bad, by any means, but not the pure uprising of idealists the more enthusiastic supporters imagine.
The political scientists Christopher Achen and Larry Bartels have an illuminating discussion of Sanders support. The key graf that will probably have Berniebros boiling is this:
Yet commentators who have been ready and willing to attribute Donald Trump’s success to anger, authoritarianism, or racism rather than policy issues have taken little note of the extent to which Mr. Sanders’s support is concentrated not among liberal ideologues but among disaffected white men.
The point is not to demonize, but, if you like, to de-angelize. Like any political movement (including the Democratic Party, which is, yes, a coalition of interest groups) Sandersism has been an assemblage of people with a variety of motives, not all of them pretty. Here’s a short list based on my own encounters:
1.Genuine idealists: For sure, quite a few Sanders supporters dream of a better society, and for whatever reason – maybe just because they’re very young – are ready to dismiss practical arguments about why all their dreams can’t be accomplished in a day.
2.Romantics: This kind of idealism shades over into something that’s less about changing society than about the fun and ego gratification of being part of The Movement. (Those of us who were students in the 60s and early 70s very much recognize the type.) For a while there – especially for those who didn’t understand delegate math – it felt like a wonderful joy ride, the scrappy young on the march about to overthrow the villainous old. But there’s a thin line between love and hate: when reality began to set in, all too many romantics reacted by descending into bitterness, with angry claims that they were being cheated.
3.Purists: A somewhat different strand in the movement, also familiar to those of us of a certain age, consists of those for whom political activism is less about achieving things and more about striking a personal pose. They are the pure, the unsullied, who reject the corruptions of this world and all those even slightly tainted – which means anyone who actually has gotten anything done. Quite a few Sanders surrogates were Naderites in 2000; the results of that venture don’t bother them, because it was never really about results, only about affirming personal identity.
4.CDS victims: Quite a few Sanders supporters are mainly Clinton-haters, deep in the grip of Clinton Derangement Syndrome; they know that Hillary is corrupt and evil, because that’s what they hear all the time; they don’t realize that the reason it’s what they hear all the time is that right-wing billionaires have spent more than two decades promoting that message. Sanders has gotten a number of votes from conservative Democrats who are voting against her, not for him, and for sure there are liberal supporters who have absorbed the same message, even if they don’t watch Fox News.
5.Salon des Refuses: This is a small group in number, but accounts for a lot of the pro-Sanders commentary, and is of course something I see a lot. What I’m talking about here are policy intellectuals who have for whatever reason been excluded from the inner circles of the Democratic establishment, and saw Sanders as their ticket to the big time. They typically hold heterodox views, but those views don’t have much to do with the campaign – sorry, capital theory disputes from half a century ago aren’t relevant to the debate over health reform. What matters is their outsider status, which gives them an interest in backing an outsider candidate – and makes them reluctant to accept it when that candidate is no longer helping the progressive cause.
So how will this coalition of the not-always disinterested break once it’s over? The genuine idealists will probably realize that whatever their dreams, Trump would be a nightmare. Purists and CDSers won’t back Clinton, but they were never going to anyway. My guess is that disgruntled policy intellectuals will, in the end, generally back Clinton.
The question, as I see it, involves the romantics. How many will give in to their bitterness? A lot may depend on Sanders – and whether he himself is one of those embittered romantics, unable to move on.
source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
