When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

@Lash,

Reminds me of the Republican stalwarts who insisted Barry Goldwater was going to show the Dems that the country was ready for him, Lash. Not sure how to get that across...which was the thrust of that response.

Back him for the top spot if you want. I love him myself.

But he is a loser for the party...and a loser is a loser.

If it happens, the considerable negative result of the happening will be on the heads of people like you.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I don't necessarily believe that Sanders is a loser. We haven't let anyone vote yet. I do think that on the major issues, Sanders and Clinton are not all that far apart and the vitriol being thrown from one camp to the next is out of place. The two camps need to be one in November so maybe a more cordial debate is in order.

1 Reply

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

I don't necessarily believe that Sanders is a loser. We haven't let anyone vote yet. I do think that on the major issues, Sanders and Clinton are not all that far apart and the vitriol being thrown from one camp to the next is out of place. The two camps need to be one in November so maybe a more cordial debate is in order.

My line, "Sanders is a loser"...was over the line. I realized before posting it that it could be read in a way that I did not intend...and then posted it anyway.

My bad. My sincere apologies to you and anyone else bothered by it.

He is a good man...and a guy much more in tune with my sentiments about humanity and America than ANYONE else in the race.

But...I am convinced he cannot win...and I would much rather have a less-in-tune winner than a totally in-tune loser in November 2016. In my opinion, a Republican winner in the Oval Office would be a disaster.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I don't think that is a big deal. Lash (and probably many others) are enthused about Sanders right now (and I suspect a large part of their attraction is that he's not a Clinton). All that said, I believe the prospect of Sanders being elected President are extremely remote, and, with that in mind, the Democrats will find other stronger candidates if Hillary starts to falter. I doubt that anyone mistook your meaning there . (Though tolerance in even small things like word choice, appears to have left our contemporary scene).

2 Replies

@Lash,

I had to think that one over for awhile. A progressive liberal wants to change things but realizes that you cant change government in a 4 year period, think Carter. Ronny Raygun started the ultra conservative movement 35 years ago. Its going to take the liberal democratic party at least 12 years to gain control of government for all the people. We have to have a democratic congress which is just what the republicans did to government. A republican congress. A progressive is willing to wait and work toward a fairer government. An ultra liberal wants to change the world in 4 years or sooner which is just what Bernie is. But he dosent have the horses to do so without a democratic house and senate. If elected he will be helpless to change anything.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Let me say that I agree with Frank 100%. If Bernie was to run in 8 years after we elect a democratic congress I would support him without any doubts, but at this time he would be a disaster even if elected.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Thank you, George.

0 Replies

@RABEL222,

Thank you, Rabel.

0 Replies

New poll numbers are out which drive home that generally we just dont like or trust Hillary. The D leadership (to include the moneymen) are idiots. They no longer know how to play this game.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

The trouble for Clinton started during a question-and-answer segment, when she was asked a yes-or-no question about whether she would ban the extraction of fossil fuels from public grounds. “The answer is no until we get alternatives in place,” Clinton answered. That response, in turn, prompted an aggressive follow-up from a second person in the crowd: “Is your refusal to take leadership on climate change due to the fact that you have contributions from the fossil fuel industry in your campaign?”

Clinton, who has spent the bulk of her campaign events fielding questions from pre-screened voters, appeared to get caught flat-footed.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/07/16/hillary_clinton_got_heckled_by_climate_activists_at_a_new_hampshire_town.html

This rather extreme isolation from real people and from journalists that Clinton continues to pursue is going to be a problem on the trail, and would be an even bigger one if we are stupid enough to put her in the POTUS chair. She may well think that she is maximizing her changes because she is politically stupid like that, but what she is primarily doing is telegraphing fear. She is afraid that she cant handle people the way real politicians do so she tries her damndest to not get into jams. The American people most certainly dont what someone unskilled and unconfident in that chair.

What in Hell was the D leadership thinking?

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

The American people most certainly dont what someone unskilled and unconfident in that chair.

Did not stop them in 2008 and 2012.

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

coldjoint wrote:

Quote:
The American people most certainly dont what someone unskilled and unconfident in that chair.

Did not stop them in 2008 and 2012.

Obama displayed both confidence and skill in 08, though by 12 we knew that he was politically and managerially incompetent. He was a risky bet in 08 but given the options one worth taking. I supported him back then, and he proceeded to let me down big time.

In hindsight though what I took for Obama political skill in 08 was mostly Hillary's lack of political skill. And the R's were totally ridiculous, so beating them was a cake walk. Mostly Obama was in the right place at the right time, it had nothing to do with him being good.

0 Replies

@RABEL222,

Rabel, it doesn't matter what party controls the House or Senate. You guys are thinking small. We're taking it all back.

If members of the House and Senate see the power of the people who sweep Bernie into office, they can either take their dirty money and run, which they'd be smart to do - or they can give up the millions they make in kickbacks - and stay.

If they stay, they will vote the will of the people, or they'll be fired.

The organizational meetings aren't just about getting Bernie elected. It's how we're going to make sure our so-called elected officials do what we want or get terminated. There will be no more obstructionism.

Look at the crowds he attracts. Watch his rise in the polls. There are currently 2275 grassroots meetings around the country with 500 to 5 people attending. These are workers, organizers not merely voters. And half the country hasn't even heard his name yet. Just wait.

The election is just the beginning.

1 Reply

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

Rabel, it doesn't matter what party controls the House or Senate. You guys are thinking small. We're taking it all back.

If members of the House and Senate see the power of the people who sweep Bernie into office, they can either take their dirty money and run, which they'd be smart to do - or they can give up the millions they make in kickbacks - and stay.

If they stay, they will vote the will of the people, or they'll be fired....

The election is just the beginning.

I think that is what everyone said after Obama was swept to office with control of both houses of Congress.

1 Reply

@engineer,

I don't think Obama's election equates with what's happening now.

Did O's organization continue working post-election?

1 Reply

@Lash,

Before the election they promised they would, very much like the promise you just made. And they are the same people. What makes you think they can do more this time than they did last time? Did they throw the bums who opp0sed Obama's reforms out? No, the switched the House to the Republican because Obama staved off fiscal collapse and passed a healthcare law that has dramatically reduced the uninsured in the US. And you think you can do better because?

1 Reply

@engineer,

Because this is a revolution that reaches across so-called parties that is mostly about getting big money out of politics. It's not about defeating Republicans. It's about defeating corruption.

It really is quite different than any election in my lifetime. It's more than an election.

2 Replies

@Lash,

"Getting big money out of politics" is an often heard phrase today, however I have the impression that people of different political political persuasions mean different things by it. Democrats generally don't include the (very large) direct contrtibutions by private and public sector labor unions and the (even larger) unaccountable expenditures they make on "public education on issues" which invariable also go to Democrats. Republicans of course focus their criticisms on precisely this area.

A usually overlooked fact is that a major factor in the now increased costs of presidential campaigns in particular is the passage from party conventions to public elections that has occurred in the primary elections for party candidates. Given that this alone requires all candidates to campaign in nearly all states in primary election campaigns , it represents a significant barrier to entry into the process and a very large increase in the total cost and money eventually raised.

In this area and many others unanticipated side effects often dominate. In addition the 'smoke filled rooms' of the old party process did indeed serve some useful public purposes.

0 Replies

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

It really is quite different than any election in my lifetime. It's more than an election.

A coalition of young people making lots of small donations, putting in lots of time on the ground, first to defeat the establishment in their own party then to win it all? Unless you are six, I think you've seen this in your lifetime. The rhetoric is similar, the message of hope and change, the villains are even the same.

Don't get me wrong, Obama will finish his term as the greatest job creation president of all time, the guy who got us out of two wars (kind of) and didn't start two or three others, the driver for a (small) healthcare revolution and the leader that broke decades long stalemates with Iran and Cuba. Under his leadership, the deficit has shrunk, the nation has become energy independent and gay rights have gone from a dream to a reality. Given that he started with an economy spiraling down into the great recession, that's not bad for the Obama revolution. If the Sanders revolution can claim half of that, I'm all for it Just don't pretend it's something new and that the entrenched interests of the world will be blown away by the storm-a-brewing. They've weathered that storm before and shown they can put up windbreaks faster than you can tear them down.

1 Reply

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know