40
   

I'll Never Vote for Hillary Clinton

 
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Mon 23 May, 2016 01:24 pm
When Kerry kept switching positions, even Democrats were disturbed. But nothing shakes the faith in Clinton.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Mon 23 May, 2016 01:52 pm
@engineer,
I won't get into every point, because this one illustrates it perfectly

Yes, Sanders wants state sponsored health care and Clinton wants state subsidized healthcare

Clinton wants to keep it as is and as is is getting to be more and more unworkable. People cannot afford healthcare the way Clinton wants it to be. It is not a slight difference at all. My wife has a pension that guarantees her Aetna health insurance. But she can't afford to go to the doctor, because of deductibles and the company's refusal to pay for things she needs. There is a whole thread on a2k about high health care costs. Obamacare is like a bandaid on a broken leg.
revelette2
 
  1  
Mon 23 May, 2016 02:03 pm
BernieOrBust: Why 20 Percent of Sanders Supporters Say They Would Vote for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton
Quote:


While 88 percent of Clinton supporters said they would also back Sanders if he were the Democratic nominee, only 66 percent of Sanders backers said they would support Clinton over Trump.

A new ABC News/Washington Post poll showed similar but less drastic results, with 20 percent of Sanders supporters saying they'd vote for Trump over Clinton.


Quote:
But while the strategy "makes sense" at first glance, in the end, Sanders and Trump are "practically opposites" in most meaningful ways, Politico concluded. And Democratic voters, particularly young Democratic voters, see that.

Politico pointed to Harvard's Institute of Politics' finding last month that voters under 30 years of age overwhelmingly prefer Clinton over Trump (61 percent to 25 percent).

But such voters, Sanders has argued, see supporting Clinton over Trump in November as "the lesser of two evils."


Quote:
Bernie Loses His Halo vs. #BernieOrBust
That support took a hit on Monday, however, when a Politico article titled "Bernie Loses His Halo" made waves on Twitter.

The piece began by asking, "Is the left turning on its darling, Bernie Sanders?" after Markos Moulitsas, the founder and publisher of the liberal weblog Daily Kos, criticized the candidate for doing too little to denounce death threats his supporters made toward members of the Nevada Democratic Party at a raucous convention on May 14. "The problem isn't Bernie Sanders' supporters," Moulitsas wrote. "It's Bernie Sanders himself … [He] refuses to forcefully and unambiguously reject that violence, instead rationalizing and explaining it away with a mix of grievances and outright conspiracy theory."

According to Politico, Moulitsas' fault-finding signaled that "it's no longer taboo in liberal circles to attack Sanders as he drags out the nomination process at a time when many are itching to turn their fire on Donald Trump. And if his reputation in the party is being damaged outside his base, that will make it harder for him to extract concessions from Clinton regarding the platform and party nomination rules at the convention."
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  5  
Mon 23 May, 2016 02:17 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:
Yes, Sanders wants state sponsored health care and Clinton wants state subsidized healthcare

Clinton wants to keep it as is and as is is getting to be more and more unworkable. People cannot afford healthcare the way Clinton wants it to be. It is not a slight difference at all. My wife has a pension that guarantees her Aetna health insurance. But she can't afford to go to the doctor, because of deductibles and the company's refusal to pay for things she needs. There is a whole thread on a2k about high health care costs. Obamacare is like a bandaid on a broken leg.

<sigh>

That's what the Clintons actually wanted back in '92. Problem is, state-sponsored healthcare won't pass.

snood
 
  2  
Mon 23 May, 2016 02:25 pm
@DrewDad,
I feel your pain
Lash
 
  0  
Mon 23 May, 2016 02:27 pm
@DrewDad,
We weren't ready for a black president then. We weren't ready for gay marriage then.

We are now. It is time for universal healthcare.
DrewDad
 
  5  
Mon 23 May, 2016 02:38 pm
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

We weren't ready for a black president then. We weren't ready for gay marriage then.

We are now. It is time for universal healthcare.

I'd prefer a universal, single-payer healthcare system.

I remember, though, the histrionics about healthcare rationing, doctors leaving the field, government overreach, etc.

I guess Bernie can magically get it passed when it's failed time and time again, eh? He'll declare he has a "mandate" and try to push it through in the first 100 days? Please explain to me why he won't fall flat on his face like everyone else that's tried it?
Lash
 
  0  
Mon 23 May, 2016 02:51 pm
@DrewDad,
The same reason people laughed at him for the past twenty years and today he commands millions' devotion and is knocking on the Oval Office door.

Timing.
DrewDad
 
  2  
Mon 23 May, 2016 02:54 pm
@Lash,
"devotion?"

Really?

And he's not knocking on the Oval Office door, either. He's just another also-ran at this point.
Lash
 
  0  
Mon 23 May, 2016 03:03 pm
@DrewDad,
Yes. Devoted supporters.

http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-sanders-seattle-rally-media/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-does-bernie-sanders-draw-huge-crowds-to-see-him/2015/08/11/4ae018f8-3fde-11e5-8d45-d815146f81fa_story.html

He's had thousands standing in the rain for hours, waiting enthusiastically to hear him.

Nobody else has.

You may be able to avoid a lot of facts, but not this one.

If Clinton had been able to muster a tenth of Bernie's enthusiasm, he'd no longer be a player --- but he IS.
revelette2
 
  3  
Mon 23 May, 2016 03:04 pm
@Lash,
Quote:
and is knocking on the Oval Office door


Delusional

DrewDad
 
  1  
Mon 23 May, 2016 03:05 pm
@Lash,
Can I get a count on those to see if they add up to millions?

I'm certain he has some devoted followers.
0 Replies
 
revelette2
 
  2  
Mon 23 May, 2016 03:07 pm
@Lash,
Quote:
Needed to win nomination: 2,383
Hillary Clinton: 2,293 (includes 525 superdelegates)
Bernie Sanders: 1,536 (includes 39 superdelegates)


source
Lash
 
  0  
Mon 23 May, 2016 03:15 pm
@revelette2,
You have nothing to add but a personal attack? That's sad.
revelette2
 
  3  
Mon 23 May, 2016 03:27 pm
Quote:
Donald Trump has gained on Hillary Clinton in recent national polls after becoming the presumptive GOP nominee this month. But Trump may also be helped by the ongoing primary battle between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Although Clinton’s substantial lead in pledged delegates (and larger lead in overall delegates) makes her the all-but-certain Democratic nominee, her lack of support from Sanders voters is harming her general election numbers.

According to the most recent YouGov poll, 61 percent of Sanders voters have an unfavorable view of Clinton, against just 38 percent with a favorable one. YouGov has been tracking these numbers for several months,1 and they’ve gradually gotten worse for Clinton:

https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/silver-bernclinton-11.png?w=575&h=497

The good news for Clinton is that she has the opportunity to gain ground among Sanders voters if and when she officially wraps up the nomination, just as Trump did among Republicans. Although many Sanders supporters will start the general election campaign with a negative view of Clinton, they aren’t necessarily eager to vote for Trump. In the YouGov poll, just 55 percent of Sanders supporters said they’d vote for Clinton over Trump in November. However, only 15 percent said they’d vote for Trump. That leaves 30 percent of Sanders voters who say they are undecided, would vote for a third-party candidate or would sit out the election.

There’s a key twist, though, in tracking how Sanders voters are affecting Clinton’s general election prospects. Unless you break out the numbers for Sanders voters specifically, as YouGov does, you may miss their importance.

That’s because a lot of Sanders voters don’t identify as Democrats. Exit polls have been conducted in 27 primary and caucus states so far, and Clinton has won among voters who identify as Democrats in all but Vermont, New Hampshire and Wisconsin (where she tied Sanders). But she’s won self-identified independents only in Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi. (I keep using that term “self-identified” because the exit poll asks voters how they “usually think of” themselves — Democrat, Republican or independent. A voter’s self-identification may differ from her party registration, and some states do not have party registration at all.)

Clinton dominates among Democrats, Sanders among independents
(graph at the source)

Overall throughout the primaries and caucuses, I estimate, Clinton is beating Sanders by 27 percentage points among self-identified Democrats but losing to Sanders by 31 points among voters who call themselves independents but voted in the Democratic primaries.2 This might be confusing because we usually think of independent voters as being moderate. Sanders voters, however, are definitely to the left of Clinton, but a lot of them don’t like to call themselves Democrats. (Sanders himself, of course, has repeatedly been elected to Congress as an independent and did not officially declare himself to be a Democrat until November.) As a result, about 40 percent of Sanders’s primary and caucus voters identify as independent, as Republican or with some party other than Democrats, according to my estimates.

Thus, citing Clinton’s reasonably strong general election numbers among self-identified Democrats — she had the support of 87 percent of Democrats in a recent NBC News/SurveyMonkey poll in her matchup against Trump, for instance, and 83 percent in a Fox News poll that showed her behind Trump nationally — may miss her problems among liberal-leaning, Sanders-voting independents. In the Fox News poll, only 30 percent of independents went for Clinton, and in the SurveyMonkey poll, just 36 percent did. But both surveys showed a large pool of undecided independents, potentially the Sanders voters that YouGov identified.

If Clinton wins over those voters, she’ll gain a few percentage points on Trump in national and swing state polls, and the race will potentially look more like it did in March and April, with Clinton having a fairly comfortable lead over Trump. If not, the general election could come down to the wire.


source

So what we are looking at is a bunch of stubborn Sanders voters choosing to cut off their noses to spite their faces. If Sanders won the general, he would have gotten killed by the republicans and all the whining about rules would have gotten him nowhere fast. Those much smarter than I have shown just how little difference there is between Sanders's views and Clinton views, yet, Sander supporters plus Sander's himself would rather win some nonsensical point than win an election and get some badly needed progressive ideas passed.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  3  
Mon 23 May, 2016 03:32 pm
@Lash,
To be fair, she also posted the numbers that would bear out the assertion that your spoutings are delusional.

I mean, it's "knocking at the oval office door"

contrasted with this:

Needed to win nomination: 2,383
Hillary Clinton: 2,293 (includes 525 superdelegates)
Bernie Sanders: 1,536 (includes 39 superdelegates)

From Wikipedia
Delusional : Believing with with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary such as religious belief.
Lash
 
  -2  
Mon 23 May, 2016 03:34 pm
@revelette2,
Wrong.

Superdelegates aren't supposed to vote unless the convention elite deem the nominee to be unsatisfactory. (fascists)

The count is

Cheater: 1768
Great Guy: 1497

Not that much.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Mon 23 May, 2016 03:36 pm
@snood,
The definition from Wiki on "Delusional" is spot on! Especially on the fact that it contrasts it to "religious belief."
My sister is very religious, and she can't understand why I'm an atheist.
Lash
 
  -2  
Mon 23 May, 2016 03:38 pm
@Lash,
http://truthinmedia.com/reality-check-democrats-superdelegate-problem/

Democrats, look what your party is doing. Cutting off democracy.
snood
 
  3  
Mon 23 May, 2016 03:43 pm
@Lash,
The same rules that she lost by in 2008, she's winning by now. The same.
She's gotten more popular votes and more pledged delegates and she will be the nominee in November.
I, for one expect you'll still be whistling in the dark even then.
 

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 0.1 seconds on 04/27/2024 at 09:08:11