Oregoropa
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Hey Shooter, Want to go to Sizzler ?
Hey Shooter, Want to go to Sizzler ?
Hillary doesn't really excite many in her party, she'll be the practical vote, but she does excite the right.
I'll be honest, I've been totally out of the loop these last few weeks. Been trying to avoid politics for a while besides casual checking here and there. Can Sanders mathematically win the nomination? Or does Hillary essentially have it locked up?
Yes, because the "practical vote" is to choose someone who currently has unfavorability ratings as high as Trump in the latest polls compared to the one person out of the 23 that ran from the two major parties to actually have a positive rating with the American people, draws in millions of Independents into the fold, raises far more money, has no real personal or shady political baggage, secures the support of the young voters that can be members of the party for another six decades before they die, and handily out-duels Trump in general election polls by a wider margin - giving you not only a better chance of winning the Presidency but performing better in down ballot races.
And the upside to Clinton is that Fox News commentators won't be able to point and yell "Socialist!"...even though they still might for her given that they already did the same to Obama. What a positive!
New York state was the end of the line for Sanders. The loss there proved he wouldn't do all that well in the rest of the North Eastern states and therefore would only lose more ground to Clinton. That was the turning point from slim chance to no chance and Sanders' own campaign started laying people off not long after.
Even barely winning New York wouldn't have been enough as it would mean there would still have been a ton of pressure for a big win in California and that he wouldn't really knock it out of the park in the rest of those North Eastern states.
The rest of this race is for him to earn more delegates and have more power to affect the platform at the convention (and have a really good argument to be the nominee if Clinton were to croak or some major scandal to emerge).
I'm sorry, but I don't see the kid-glove approach actually existing from Clinton. Yes, she's not going to try to be too hard on Sanders because she wants those votes (particularly the Independents that aren't locks to vote for a D in November), but given the tactics she used against Obama last time, there's no way her and her team wouldn't have gone full throttle with personal and sharp political attacks if they really had anything on the guy. It's not like she was going to avoid doing that and risk losing the primary. He's clean and the best political attack she's been able to lob is over the tricky situation involving the ability to sue gun store owners and manufacturers.
The gender issue makes me question whether or not Clinton is so gung ho about the military because she feels that anything else will make her look weak because she's a woman. But that doesn't make me feel any better about her foreign policy, just sadder about sexism and the state of things.
I'm sorry, but I don't see the kid-glove approach actually existing from Clinton. Yes, she's not going to try to be too hard on Sanders because she wants those votes (particularly the Independents that aren't locks to vote for a D in November), but given the tactics she used against Obama last time, there's no way her and her team wouldn't have gone full throttle with personal and sharp political attacks if they really had anything on the guy. It's not like she was going to avoid doing that and risk losing the primary. He's clean and the best political attack she's been able to lob is over the tricky situation involving the ability to sue gun store owners and manufacturers.
Who said anything about personal attacks? Although I'm glad you believe he's clean.
But his lack of specifics and plan would be easy to wipe the floor with him, but she's not who you have to worry about, the right would have had a field day with him. You're convinced everyone would be enamored by his messiahship and just fall to their knees and watch America change overnight, but reality says otherwise. And there's no poll needed to understand that.
How about the fact that the second place candidate was way ahead of the first place candidate vs the GOP candidate in 2008 at this same point, and that those polls ended up being absolutely meaningless?Anyway, you slice it, it's just an opinion. You have no evidence that you are correct either.
But if all we have to go on our the polls, that's at least something in favor of my opinion compared to nothing in favor of yours.
You're arguing that Sanders should be the candidate because of how much better be polls vs Trump compared to Clinton...How is Clinton faring better against McCain in polling meaningless? Are you saying those polls were wrong? You will never know that because Clinton vs. McCain never happened.
Likewise, a poll showing Romney in the lead is similar to polls currently showing Trump closing the gap. What does that even remotely have to do with Sanders and Clinton? The key point is that Sanders always outperforms Clinton in the polls against Trump, not that Trump is currently faring quite well in polls which most are considering an outlier. You don't just invalidate one Democrat consistently outperforming the other just because polls are currently showing Trump doing better than expected against the Democrats. Apples and oranges.
It's like if I'm comparing two types of laundry detergent to remove a stain and one consistently fares better than the other. The stain suddenly being worse in another round of the experiment says nothing about the laundry detergents.
Anyway, you slice it, it's just an opinion. You have no evidence that you are correct either.
But if all we have to go on our the polls, that's at least something in favor of my opinion compared to nothing in favor of yours.
You're stating things you have no evidence for as facts.
Take a look at your minimum salary theory; it got ripped to shreds within minutes. The math didn't work and the theory as to where the money came from you had to backtrack on within the first post.
You're stating things you have no evidence for as facts. You can't say something will happen that won't happen in the first place because Sanders isn't the nominee. That's the same condescending tone from Clinton supporters that has been so annoying for the past few months, making an assumption for something we can never know the outcome of...basically, your equation happens to be...
Sanders + Socialist label = Crushing defeat!!
With all of the other scientific data saying the exact opposite.
I liked Sanders until I saw what his tax plan would do to my family's financial situation... and then I didn't.
I talked about minimum income and through out a random number ($1,000) and people started acting like it was some policy proposal. Those ripping it to shreds were taken guesses from my part as me actually saying it would work with those numbers and then used their own opinions to "rip it to shreds"...with unsurprisingly the loudest voices being the same people that support Clinton and her lower minimum wage.
It all depends on how you ask the question, who you ask the question of, and by which means.
Do you really want to keep calling this 'science'? Even Bernie would be embarrassed.
Glad to see we're back to the 'one Bernie fan vs. the Hillary diehards' shitfight. Diemen's call for peace has ceased prematurely.