40
   

I'll Never Vote for Hillary Clinton

 
 
Blickers
 
  3  
Thu 19 May, 2016 11:37 pm
@Debra Law,
The Rasmussen Reports? Please. In 2000, their last poll before the election showed Bush with a 10 point lead over Gore.

You might as well ask the Republican National Committee who's ahead. Same difference.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  3  
Thu 19 May, 2016 11:42 pm
Snopes could find no evidence Sanders supporters threw chairs.
maporsche
 
  2  
Fri 20 May, 2016 12:06 am
@edgarblythe,
Cool. Just death threats then, yelling, and running towards the stage and throwing something (paper?) at the chairwoman.
Lash
 
  -2  
Fri 20 May, 2016 01:45 am
@maporsche,
A proper response to being cheated out of an election.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Fri 20 May, 2016 05:52 am
I'm not sure how this thread became all about Bernie Sanders, but let's agree, for argument's sake, that Sanders really is a divisive, megalomaniacal communist with no chance of winning in November. So he's a monster - so what? Why should that convince Sanders supporters to vote for Clinton?
revelette2
 
  3  
Fri 20 May, 2016 06:12 am
@joefromchicago,
Quote:
I'm not sure how this thread became all about Bernie Sanders, but let's agree, for argument's sake, that Sanders really is a divisive, megalomaniacal communist with no chance of winning in November. So he's a monster - so what? Why should that convince Sanders supporters to vote for Clinton?


Hyperbole much?

Anyhoo, it doesn't convince Sanders supporters to support Clinton. I think it is pretty clear, minds are made up (with some exceptions) one way or another.
0 Replies
 
revelette2
 
  2  
Fri 20 May, 2016 06:21 am
@edgarblythe,
Senator Boxer is a well respected senator is she not? At least I always thought so. Here is what she had to say, I really don't think she had reason to lie.


Quote:
After rowdy voters shouted down Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) during her keynote at the Nevada Democratic convention over the weekend, the senator said Wednesday the rowdy crowds made her feel frightened for her personal safety.


“It was a scary situation. I was there, I saw it,” Boxer said in an interview on CNN. “It was frightening. I was on the stage and people were six feet away from me. And if I didn’t have a lot of security, I don’t know what would have happened.”

Pressed about whether she felt physically threatened, Boxer responded she told Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) as much during a recent conversation after the convention.

“When you have people not listening to a word and angry, their faces red. They were shouting obscenities,” Boxer said. “It was a frightening situation. It was not under control.”

She also said the treatment she received was “nothing” compared to the “vile threats” the Nevada Democratic Party chair has received from angry Sanders supporters, who say the convention rules gave Clinton an edge.


source
JPB
 
  3  
Fri 20 May, 2016 06:55 am
@revelette2,
Interesting that TPM is still showing Bernie as an I-Vt.

More to the point of bad behavior at party events. People are pissed. They're acting out against the establishment and against establishment policies and procedures. I see more of the same coming in the months ahead.
JPB
 
  2  
Fri 20 May, 2016 07:02 am
@joefromchicago,
I imagine most of them will stay home (as they would have had Bernie not run) and the rest of them will split between Jill Stein and Hillary. I just don't see her as a candidate who will get folks out to the polls.
revelette2
 
  3  
Fri 20 May, 2016 07:03 am
@JPB,
I hope we don't see more of the same, what happened during and after the Nevada convention went beyond people expressing anger or disappointment and it would be nice if some on the Bernie side of this would at least say as much without saying a "but" which just erases what they said before the "but."

Actually, Bernie Sanders is still registered an Independent, he is just running for president as a democrat. Simple fact.

Quote:
However, when Sanders’ Senate campaign committee renewed its registration with the Federal Election Commission in October, it listed its party affiliation as “independent.”

The FEC continues to list that campaign committee and Sanders himself as independent and not affiliated with the Democratic Party


links embedded at the source
0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  2  
Fri 20 May, 2016 08:06 am
@joefromchicago,
Quote joe:
Quote:
but let's agree, for argument's sake, that Sanders really is a divisive, megalomaniacal communist with no chance of winning in November. So he's a monster - so what? Why should that convince Sanders supporters to vote for Clinton?


Because Sanders espoused liberal causes such as social justice, and so does Hillary. Sanders is perceived as being somewhat farther to the left than Hillary, (except on gun control), so the natural thing is for a disappointed Sanders supporter to vote for the person who at least somewhat represents their issues. The Republicans are against almost all social programs unless they it can be shown that those programs help the top 1%.

Besides, in 2000 a few liberals abandoned the Democratic Party because it was not ideologically pure enough, voted for Nader instead, and delivered the vote in Florida to Bush and the presidency to Bush. That's what the overwhelming evidence says.
edgarblythe
 
  0  
Fri 20 May, 2016 08:27 am
More from PDiddie
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://brainsandeggs.blogspot.com/
My two observations about Hillbot behavior this cycle are 1) they just don't care that she's a war-mongering, lying, corporate shill, and 2) they see people like me saying things like that about Hillary as a personal attack upon themselves. This is chosen ignorance. The blind who will not see.

It's hard to hold them fully accountable for their obtuseness and misdirected anger when it is coming directly from the top. I'm trying real hard, Ringo, to give 'em a pass, but on some level the only thing left to do is disengage. That's what I have done and am doing with the worst and dumbest among their lot.

-- Maha:

I told someone this morning that it’s starting to feel like 1971 again; Sanders supporters are the antiwar movement, and the Democratic Party and its loyalists are the Nixon Administration. What should have been a temporary disagreement is turning into a generation-changing moment that will hurt the Democratic Party for years to come.

It feels more like 1980 to me, with Sanders as Ted Kennedy and Clinton as Jimmy Carter. That ugly split in the Democratic Party gave us Ronald Reagan, and the Dems, in their shock, awe, and fear turned toward more autocratic, top-down authority in their candidate selection process, aka superdelegates, the unelected Democratic nobility.

What parties do tend to do is to react to the last election. 1972 was a real trauma for the Democrats—the beginning of the end of the New Deal coalition. Then Jimmy Carter loses in 1980—two Republican landslides in 10 years. In each case, the Democrats were very unhappy with their nominees and their president, for different reasons. They thought George McGovern was too far to the left, that his coalition alienated the regular party and so on. 1972 was also what created the Reagan Democrats who by 1980 were voting Republican.

[...]

How did the bitter fight between Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy for the Democratic nomination in 1980 figure in the Hunt Commission’s deliberations?

It was a particularly ugly fight that left very deep wounds in the party. As those floor debates were going on and Kennedy was making his statement speech, there were no party leaders on the floor. There was nobody there to put things back together.

The McGovern-Fraser reforms were aimed at opening up the party to other factions, particularly the anti-war faction in the late ’60s and early ’70s. But that didn’t mean that they wanted to cut out the entire party apparatus, which is what happened. A lot of what the Hunt Commission talked about was restoring the balance at the nominating convention.

The Hunt Commission brought the theory of superdelegates into practice; that, as Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has enunciated, "Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists."

Those dirty hippies. Freaking peasants, what do they know?
ehBeth
 
  3  
Fri 20 May, 2016 08:33 am
@JPB,
JPB wrote:

Interesting that TPM is still showing Bernie as an I-Vt.


that is how he identifies himself on his senate website
he has never changed that
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  3  
Fri 20 May, 2016 08:34 am
@JPB,
JPB wrote:
I just don't see her as a candidate who will get folks out to the polls.


the results in the primaries don't support that view

I posted a couple of articles that talked about that - one candidate gets people out to rallies, one candidate gets people out to vote. different candidates with different types of supporters
revelette2
 
  1  
Fri 20 May, 2016 08:35 am
@edgarblythe,
So now Hillary supporters are akin to Nixon and those who were for the Vietnam war? How low are you going to sink?
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  2  
Fri 20 May, 2016 08:40 am
@edgarblythe,
Quote:
superdelegates, the unelected Democratic nobility.

This continued complaint about superdelegates is pretty ridiculous.

a) The Democratic Party is actually an established organization. If you don't like the way it runs you can a) not be part of the Democratic Party or b) work within the organization to change the rules.
b) The superdelegates are actually elected. They're either elected to positions in the Democratic Party or they are elected office holders (and some former presidents). Out of the superdelegates, only 20 are not elected to the position that gives them a superdelegate vote.

Wikipedia entry for Democratic superdelegates wrote:

438 elected members (with 434 votes) from the Democratic National Committee (including the chairs and vice-chairs of each state's Democratic Party)
20 distinguished party leaders (DPL), consisting of current and former presidents, current and former vice-presidents, former congressional leaders, and former DNC chairs
193 Democratic members of the United States House of Representatives (including non-voting delegates from DC and territories)
47 Democratic members of the United States Senate (including Washington, DC shadow senators)
21 Democratic governors (including territorial governors and the Mayor of the District of Columbia).


This continued whining that the Democratic Party doesn't run the way you want it to now that you can be bothered to pay attention holds no water with me.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Fri 20 May, 2016 08:44 am
http://reverbpress.com/politics/voting-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders/
Not Sold On Clinton? 3 Reasons I’m Not Voting For Hillary

Here are three very good reasons why Hillary does not deserve to be elected
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Fri 20 May, 2016 09:04 am
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:
Because Sanders espoused liberal causes such as social justice, and so does Hillary. Sanders is perceived as being somewhat farther to the left than Hillary, (except on gun control), so the natural thing is for a disappointed Sanders supporter to vote for the person who at least somewhat represents their issues.

But that's the Clinton that Sanders voters have already rejected. If Clinton sticks to the positions in the general election that she held in the primaries, why shouldn't Clinton expect Sanders voters to make the same choice in the general election that they made in the primaries? If she doesn't offer Sanders voters anything different, why should they support her?

Blickers wrote:
Besides, in 2000 a few liberals abandoned the Democratic Party because it was not ideologically pure enough, voted for Nader instead, and delivered the vote in Florida to Bush and the presidency to Bush. That's what the overwhelming evidence says.

All the more reason for Clinton to reach out to Sanders supporters by modifying some of her more objectionable positions. It's not enough for her to say she's not Trump and expect everyone to vote for her. After all, that's a quality she shares with about 350 million other Americans - nothing terribly special about that.
engineer
 
  5  
Fri 20 May, 2016 09:13 am
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

But that's the Clinton that Sanders voters have already rejected. If Clinton sticks to the positions in the general election that she held in the primaries, why shouldn't Clinton expect Sanders voters to make the same choice in the general election that they made in the primaries? If she doesn't offer Sanders voters anything different, why should they support her?

In the primaries, the voters were offered two flavors of ice cream. If they decided on "Bernie's Yearning" over their usual flavor, fine. In the general election, they will have the ice cream they passed up before or toxic waste. Rocky Road tastes fine too.
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Fri 20 May, 2016 09:30 am
@engineer,
engineer wrote:
In the general election, they will have the ice cream they passed up before or toxic waste.

It's a shame that you'll only have two choices on the ballot in your state.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/24/2024 at 03:13:34