She's exponentially better than Sanders...and I don't like her.

Well, nobody else is running, is probably one reason why she's doing well. Either nobody is ready or nobody wanted to cross her.

As exciting and great as this election is, it sure isnt producing a real candidate.

Ok, define "real candidate".

agreed here on everything

And let's not get all riled up over the "tough primary" situation here. No need to take the bait from the dedicated opposition... but just put yourself into the shoes of a loyal Dem for a minute.

She is a former Secretary of State and US Senator, seen by most within the party (and many beyond) as effective in both roles, and like it or not was a major policy player in a previous Dem administration. She has credentials for the role that very few aspirants possess. I know that this is not major speaking point as we mull over massive issues like the DNC database and the text of paid speeches and who said what in 1986 about guns... but once the party sorts itself out, the country will be reminded that she is an extraordinarily well qualified candidate. (Not merits, just resume)

She would also be the first woman president. Right, I know the luster has come off the diversity argument a good bit since Obama, but do not dismiss this as unimportant. When the Dems get together for their convention, there will be a whole wave of inspiration (both genuine and manufactured) around that point. Making history is exciting... in a "get to the polls" way.

Next...she is smart and articulate. Yes, she has delivery issues and can seem calculating or insincere. But in a debate setup against any of the likely suspects, she is going to be strong, effective, and persuasive on policy. She will be able to talk about "when I was negotiating with [head of state]" and "I worked across the aisle on [legislative issue]" and that stuff is going to stick. She will talk about the supreme court, women's issues, middle class stuff, and a range of relatively inoffensive Dem-friendly topics with absolute ease.

She may not be a perfect candidate, by any stretch. But the selection process is often about the "path to victory" and all that stuff makes a really good case. No party has an easy road to a third term, but she's a much stronger candidate than usual in many regards. In the prediction markets, you can take it to the bank that during the week of the Dem convention, as people gush over her service and dedication and accomplishments, the needle will move toward her as a material favorite in the race.


So... THAT is what Democrats see in her. Even if you don't love her or even like her, you see a solid chance to keep the White House and retain control of administrative policies, judicial appointments, and everything that comes with the Executive Branch. Party loyalists love electability, this isn't anything new.

A poor use of words by me.

How about no real stand outs.

I dont know. Im just not sure I like what is going to happen to the country in the next 4-8 years, whoever is elected.

Is there anyone out there that could unite the country and the completely fractured houses?

Nicely said, QuikSand.

Good points.

I think you will find that Dems are not that sold on her either. Basically the only option we were given was Sanders, who is not going to win a general election (see South Carolina as proof). She has the best chance to continue Obama's policies/worldview. Rubio gave a stump speech the other day where he said he would end all of Obama's executive orders on day 1 of his presidency-Cruz has said similar. We had eight years of the Republicans in Congress obstructing Obama's policies, I sure don't want four years of Rubio/Cruz gleefully destroying his legacy. Who the hell knows what Trump will do besides probably get us into a war after he insults one world leader after another. From a personal standpoint, none of the Republican candidates will support gay rights/marriage, and I shudder to think who they would nominate to the Supreme Court. Clinton is the one best suited to prevent all that from happening from the candidates we've been given.

She had so much appeal in the first Obama election because she was (and still is) what I call a "novelty" candidate. Becoming the first woman President of the US still appeals to many, who will vote for her just to say that they did-she got beat by an even bigger novelty candidate with Obama, and has no one standing in her way this time.

"You know she is a liar?"

This is politics we're talking about, right?

Nixon had pretty good creds too.

;)

No.

But that isn't the fault of the candidates from either party.

Eh, might as well throw this in the general D bin.

Why Is DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz Co-Sponsoring a Bill to Help Predatory Payday Lenders?

The article mentioned almost all the Democrats who are sponsoring the bill are from Florida... I'm sure if Jezebel actually cared about journalism it may think to see if most payday loan companies are based in FL. After all, there has to be a connection to the state in some way right? And if that is the case, then the Congresspeople are backing their constituents.

Which constituents, the lenders or people getting the loans? Or is it both because payday lenders are not bad?

You're going on IF? Don't break your back contorting yourself...

Congrats if you had Hillary Clinton winning American Samoa on PredictIt.

American Samoa Results Election 2016 - ABC News

Edit: It's kind of surprising that American Samoa has almost 70% as many delegates as Vermont does.

It's not going to help her much. They cannot vote in national elections. But hey, it sounds good.

Winning it is better than not winning it?

No, and if there was I'd hope that person would be putting his or her skills towards something more productive than running for public office.

In the sense that a few people may talk about it instead of ignoring her, sure. But actually making a difference, no it does not matter.

Sanders with a fairly substantial win in Oklahoma, though perhaps Oklahomans thought it was Barry Sanders on the ballot.

What's going to hurt is these massive margins for Clinton in Texas, Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia and Virginia. That's a lead more positive geography can't erase.

It doesn't matter for the general election obviously, it's just kind of amusing that several hundred voters in American Samoa can cancel out out much of Sanders' win in Vermont. Not that either are particularly important unless the race turned out to be super-close

Yeah, if Clinton wins MA as reported, it's pretty much over on the D side. The bastion up here didn't hold for Sanders.

It's been over since Nevada, but nobody wants to admit it.

Both are constituents. And people generally try to help out the companies that provide jobs in their district - even Bernie Sanders (see favorable regulations he's tried to get on behalf of dairy farmers, which are a sizable constituency in Vermont). It's almost always turns into a cost-benefit analysis. Or, to put it more crudely - welcome to politics.


The alternative being that there is something strange about Democrats in the state of Florida that makes them friendly to payday loan companies. I'm going to go with Occam's Razor here.

Yeah, the delegate math will be difficult for Sanders to erase. As of right now, and granted its still kinda early (though not THAT early), the NYTimes is projecting Clinton getting 335 delegates tonight with Sanders getting 145. That's almost a 200 delegate lead... of course that will shrink as Minnesota and Colorado votes come in more and more as the night continues.

Bernie declared winner of Mass.

And now Hillary declared winner of Massachusetts. Lol

Who called this? msn.com is saying Hillary won.

It seems like a shared datasource had some error. NYTimes apparently had Sanders has winner and then shifted it back to Clinton.

Then again, it only really matters in narrative as the delegates are just about evenly split either way, no?

With the real possibility of a tie happening at 269 each, you'd think an at large territory vote for president would happen.

538.com has called the nomination for Clinton. Essentially the math simply doesn't work for Sanders anymore. He might get victories, but not by enough to make big delegate scoops in the states he wins. Conversely, Clinton will win more states, and a number of those by a big enough margin to essentially take all of those states' delegates.

Due to the large minority population it would almost certainly go to the Dem, so the GOP would never agree to it.

Not unless they could somehow gin up a Missouri Compromise 2: Electric Boogaloo.

Since this race is, for all intents & purposes, over I'll indulge in a hypothetical

Let's pretend Romney had somehow managed to win four years ago.
I don't believe that would have produced any substantial difference to what we have currently, so leave pretty much everything that Obama has done intact.

What impact would running to replace Romney rather than to succeed Obama have had on this cycle's (D) primary?

I'm thinking largely here of Clinton vs Sanders, though if you feel strongly that it would have had a third major player then I suppose you're entitled to speculate down that path.

No.

The ACA, tax rates, maybe SS/Medicare, almost certainly Medicaid, climate change regulations, at least would all have looked different at the end of a Romney term.

Trump running as a Democrat and advocating:
1. The Friendship Ditch, which we would pay for through the sale of Trump Scout cookies.
2. The creation of a National CathedraMosque-a-gogue to bring all religions to DC.
3. Single payer health care.
4. Free tuition for all to Trump University.
5. Naming Diamond Joe Biden Imperial Vice President for Life.

I don't know. If he goes this far to the right, how is he going to survive a primary challenge from Kanye in 2020?

None of them would be able to beat Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho in the general election.

See I don't believe that. He's a surrender monkey looking for an opportunity to cave in. A percentage point here or there does not qualify as "substantial change" to me.

There's only one single issue (abortion) where I think he has any determination whatsoever, ironically the one place where I have a complete disagreement him.

ll he would have had to do is sign what was put before him. No way he vetoes bill after bill passed by a GOP legislature.

I'd guess Clinton and Biden would have been the big candidates, but if we assume that Romney spent 4 years rubber-stamping the GOP's legislation doing everything JPhillips lists, the tone of the race would likely have been much different. More "Let's decide on the best candidate, ASAP, to turf out Romney and stop the bleeding."



Exactly. It's not as if they didn't try to pass this stuff (or, more specifically, repeal it) during Obama's 2nd term anyway. Maybe the Democrats mount a successful filibuster in the Senate, but a lot of stuff gets wiped out.

Unless you're somehow suggesting, Jon, that Romney would actively defend Obama's 1st term achievements?

At that point they aren't Obama's 1st term "achievements", they're Romney's.

I don't believe there's a dime's worth of difference in the two people or their approaches to most topics. Remember, I saw the pair as being similar enough that I refused to vote for either four years ago. Given my feelings about one, that speaks strongly about my feelings for the other.

OK, I see what you're saying. I disagree, of course.

As you yourself point out, Romney will give in to prevailing winds, it seems to me that the most likely scenario still would have been his rubber-stamping of the bills coming out of a Republican Congress, which I assume would be mostly in the service of dismantling what passed in Obama's first term.

Clinton's Twitter account is amusing:

Hillary Clinton on Twitter: "How many more of these do we have to sit through? Asking for a friend. #GOPdebate https://t.co/AxGFlerSRW"

Hillary Clinton on Twitter: "#GOPdebate https://t.co/SGW200luN8"

Twitter....not CNN...not FoxNews...Twitter...I'm not talking about CNN...I'm talking about Twitter....folks....not FoxNews....Twitter....how's Twitter gonna make my teammates play better???

I think Lincoln would have had the best Twitter.

He did...as far as I'm concerned. :)

For someone who likes to post the same conservative Facebook memes that I see from my hometown's high school dropouts, you sure seem to enjoy this bagging on social media schtick.

Seriously folks, can't we just schedule as few debates as possible, at annoying times when viewership will be down, and limit the number of people allowed up on the stage, so that the presumptive nominee has as little risk as possible of being usurped? That's a much smarter long term plan than having people tune in to watch politicians actually speak, or having our agenda dominate the talking heads news cycle!

I'm going to guess that debates are like playoffs...more debates more money.

If debates have descended into a discussion of penis size leading to applause, then yes I'd agree we should schedule few debates at low viewership times.

The new hobby for my Sanders Facebook fanatics is to find old out of context Hillary Clinton quotes to make her seem racist, then chastise black people for voting for her.

Oh and they're still posting pictures of MLK and making up quotes for him where he's outraged that black people are voting for Hillary (who campaigned for Goldwater) over Bernie (who marched with him). I guess the idea that white liberals making up fake MLK quotes to attack black people for their voting choices might be incredibly offensive is completely lost on them.

Any publicity is good publicity, and people are talking about the Republican candidates and ideas, however illogical or bad some of them are. Presumably Bernie Sanders got into this race to make progressive ideas a part of the national discussion, and instead all most know about him is that he wants to abolish the military and turn us isolationist, give free college tuition to all/wipe away all student debt, and he's supported primarily by the unemployed because people never actually see him talk about lowering Medicare prescription drug costs, or helping rural areas transition to the 21st century economy, or the impending ecological disaster that we're already seeing with aquifers and the water table in this country. Of course Hillary's ideas are more in line with my own, but to channel JiMGA for a second, why the hell should I support a candidate who's so unwilling to take principled stands and prefers to maximize her personal chances at the Presidency over getting her/the party's ideas out there and trying to drive that debate. Let's not leave out LGBT people! Hillary Clinton on Gay Marriage 2004 - YouTube

Or the "working" class - Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton (2004) - YouTube

Seriously, this is the type of stuff I want to see her defend in a debate. I probably won't believe her (and that's more of a slur against politicians in general than her specifically), but I'm an adult and a bit of a policy wonk. I could handle some real talk about why you compromised in certain areas, or how/why your view on certain things has changed, before we get to the general debates and it turns into ad hominem attacks and a glossing over of her faults because she's going up against an R.

Gotta watch out for those real MLK quotes too! U of Oregon Debates Removing MLK Quote For Not Being Inclusive Enough | Mediaite

Ah, as NYTimes columnist, Charles Blow, put it "Berniesplaining" (I love that term).

Which, btw, really doesn't help with the stereotype of the condescending liberal dictating to the hoi polloi.

I love the term hoi polloi. ISiddiqui wins the rest of the page.

Any article that includes "student leaders" in the first sentence automatically loses me (in terms of relevance or even grenade-throwing distance of reality).

I've worked at a university for too long, I think.

America needs to spend some serious time watching Revenge of the Nerds or Animal House for awhile so that we remember how seriously to take the brilliant ideas of undergrads on just about anything.

I feel the Bern, but in Hillary v. Donald, I shall jump for Trump.

The past few election cycles have convinced me that one of the few things that might help save what's left of the country is raising the voting age by about a decade.

I meant to thank you for your reference to isidewith.com (forget which thread it was in). I'd never heard of it and spent about an hour answering all of the quiz questions...which was really enlightening for me in terms of understanding and thinking through the consequences of my fairly naive political gut feelings. It's an incredibly useful exercise to come up against the accepted belief that "I support concept x" and then have to put it into a context where you start wondering if you really support x...or if that's just something you inherited from your parents without ever really thinking about it.

So, anyway, thanks for that.

You are definitely more than welcome. I've consistently hyped it as being a great tool for anyone to explore no matter where they are on the political spectrum, not matter if they're my 180 degree opposite.

Information is a good thing, understanding your own position(s) is always a good thing.

And I've yet to see anything that felt partisian in either direction on that site.
They support the positions they assign with attributions & links, anybody can judge for themselves how accurate they feel it is.

Glad it was of some use for you.

I don't think this is as over as everyone thinks.
Ignoring the super delegates it stands 595 - 405*

Yeah that is still a big lead, but things are shifting back north.
Hillery's fire wall stands at 200 delegates...


*I am ignoring the super delegates because I can not see them deciding this.
If Bernie goes into the convention with a majority of elected votes...
Having spent the last year telling everyone how the Wall St./Washington establishment is screwing them over...
Only to have the Wall St./Washington establishment is screwing them over by choosing Hillery...

I do not see Hillery picking up many Bernie supporters.
On top of that, the Democrats risk losing an entire generation of voters, they will never trust the Democratic party again.

No mater how loyal they are to the Clintons, at some point self preservation will kick in.


AS always YMMV.

There is not a single supporter of Bernie Sanders that will, in the general election, vote for Trump/Rubio/Cruz or choose not to vote and by proxy help those guys and hurt the democratic nominee.

If they do, then they are complete frauds who have no clue whatsoever why Bernie Sanders is running or what Bernie Sanders stands for.

Please enlighten me...

In all honesty, if you think this is D vs. R.
I do not think you have a clue whatsoever why Bernie Sanders is running or what Bernie Sanders stands for.

Every four year people say they will never vote for one of the other primary candidates, and every four years almost all of them do. Trump may be an exception to that, but even then I expect most people that identify as GOP will vote for him. For the Dems, I'd be very surprised if significant numbers of Bernie supporters didn't vote for Hillary.

I know and agree normally.
Everyone I knew was pissed at Obama and still ended up voting for him.

But this is by far, not a normal election.
Everyone I know says they will vote for Bernie, if he does not make it, they will vote for Trump. They are tired of getting screwed by Wall Street and are willing to burn the house down if that is what it takes.

The whole "lesser evil" is not playing well here.

Then they are idiots because they're sabotaging chance to have a 5-4 anti-Citizens United majority on the SCOTUS. Getting rid of Citizens United is the only way someone like Bernie has a chance in the future.

Obama weighs Republican for Supreme Court
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...-idUSKCN0VX1LL

Yeah. I need to vote Demarcate to ensure a permanent right wing supreme court.

And? That was clearly a trial balloon designed to embarrass Republicans for refusing to hold hearings. Sandoval is not currently under consideration. Do you have a problem with Kagan or Sotomayor?

Last 4 Dem appointments: Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan. None of them right wing. None of them pro-Citizens United. But sure a news article about Obama considering a Republican erases all of that.

Bernie has run his entire campaign on small donors.
Millions at $20 a pop, at the risk of stating the obvious, Citizens United is not hurting him.

Yes it does.
How can Obama even consider a republican?...

For the last 40 years, the fall back argument has always been...
We need a demarcate in the White House in case of a Supreme Court nomination.
Now Obama is considering selling us out???

Except he's not. Sandoval isn't under consideration. The latest name being bandied about is Jane Louise Kelly, who is hardly a Republican.

Sandoval was under consideration.

"Was" and almost certainly just a political move to embarrass Republicans for refusing to hold hearings. Either way, everyone under consideration now is a liberal. And that same shortlist will be Hillary's.

Even if you don't care about Citizens United (which Bernie disagrees with you about), you can say goodbye to decisions like same sex marriage, Obamacare, any chance to reverse the birth control exception or Heller (2nd amendment).

I'm not sure you understand Citizens United. Bernie has raised $96 million to Hillary's $130 million. However, SuperPACs put Hillary up to $180 million and almost a 2:1 advantage over Bernie. If he somehow got the nomination, he'd probably get outspend 3:1. Without Citizens United, the PACs are limited and someone like Bernie with his small donors would have a much better chance.

I think technically we are on the same side.
I just see Hillery as the enemy(slave to Wall St).

And once Trump and Hillary are the only voices the differences between the two will be made clear. Are Bernie supporters really going to vote for the pro-torture, defund Planned Parenthood, 10 trillion tax cut for the wealthy, anti-immigration, etc. etc. etc. candidate?

I doubt it.

My point is/was Bernie is/was able to mount a viable campine without big doners.

Again being told to shut up and sit down does not work well.
Or do you think Hillery will listen to them?

Or maybe you are going to a special hell?

A viable campaign where he's going to lose by a fairly wide margin.

He has already won.
Look at how far left Hillery has shifted.*

*of course it is just an act, but still.

* Income and Wealth Inequality
It's Time to Make College Tuition Free and Debt Free
* Getting Big Money Out of Politics and Restoring Democracy (aka Citizens United)
* Creating Decent Paying Jobs
* A Living Wage
* Combating Climate Change to Save the Planet
* A Fair and Humane Immigration Policy
* Racial Justice
* Fighting for Women's Rights
* Fighting for LGBT Equality
* Caring for Our Veterans
* Medicare For All
* Fighting for Disability Rights
* Strengthen and Expand Social Security
* Fighting to Lower Prescription Drug Prices
* Improving the Rural Economy
Reforming Wall Street
* War Should Be the Last Option: Why I Support the Iran Deal
* Making the Wealthy, Wall Street, and Large Corporations Pay their Fair Share

That is what Bernie Sanders is running for (I got rid of the nebulous ones like "Family Values") - I put an asterisk in front of each of those that Hillary Clinton also supports to a great deal, quite a few even more so that Sanders. Keep in mind, while senator, Clinton's voting record was more liberal than Sanders.

How many of those so you think Trump supports? Cruz? Rubio?

So, yeah, if you support Sanders now and then plan on flipping when he loses the nomination - which he will lose - then you're a total fraud and a hypocrite.

I'm totally confused why you attempt to separate Trump and Sanders (but then, not really) here.

Also, Bernie will certainly be endorsing Hillary. So it'd be hilarious to see Bernie supporters who have been saying we need to listen to Bernie, but then reject his advice in the general election.

They all sound soooooo nice and happy. What are the pros and cons of each and how much will it cost and who pays?

So you are throwing a bunch of shit against the wall. Big deal.
* School lunch programs
* Ranger Rick
* Foo Fighters.

See how easy is...

I am a hypocrite.
I don't think anyone who is honest can claim not to be.
Not sure why I am a fraud though...

I am planing on writing in Sanders.

Well this thread got a whole lot more interesting.

Trying to figure out what the cons and costs for these are other than being hard or some people just not liking them.

* Getting Big Money Out of Politics and Restoring Democracy (aka Citizens United)
* Creating Decent Paying Jobs
* A Living Wage
* Racial Justice
* Fighting for Women's Rights
* Fighting for LGBT Equality

Are you really that obtuse?

It's the Bernie supporters saying they won't vote for Hillary and in the GOP it's the supporters of the non-Trump candidates saying they won't vote for Trump. Nobody is stamping their feet and saying they'll never vote for Rubio or Cruz or Kasich.

Once apon a time we, Americans, used to just do stuff.

How the fuck can you even throw that list out???
Fuck you.


* Medicare For All
Hillery "just say no" Clinton is for medicare for all?
Fuck you.

They agree on universal health care, but she'd prefer to do it incrementally, by adding on to the ACA, rather than starting from scratch.

Uh.. are you drunk (edit: Surtt)? I mean I realize its only like 12:30 in Eastern Standard Time, but still... WTF dude?

So someone who's take home is around $34,000
stick them, with $4000.00 a year premiums and $6000.00 deductible is ok?

Obama couldn't even get a public option to the ACA passed, with 59 Democrats in the Senate. What in the world makes you think you can get Medicare for All passed with far fewer than that?

He did not try.