@Lash,
He is actually 274 behind with only 789 delegates left. Sanders needs 515 of the remaining delegates to end up with the majority. That means he needs almost 67% of them to have a chance. Of those 789 delegates 601 are from California and New Jersey. The latest polls show Hillary with over 50% in those 2 states. She will also be likely to get the majority in DC and Puerto Rico. If she only gets 40% in those 4 areas Sanders will need 100% of the rest of the remaining states and territories.
That is not going to happen. No matter how much you wish it to be possible.
My prediction still stands. Hillary will have 300 more regular delegates than Sanders and 800 more total delegates. That makes it not even close.
@sozobe,
Definitely agree with the general point you were making, my point is something I've been meaning to start a separate thread on sometime, comparing how we all weigh the importance of different issues. Like in the OP, I put a lot of weight on the judgement on the military misadventures.
@Lash,
Lash wrote:
You give up before you even start, and yeah, I'm not like that.
I remember you ridiculing those of us who said a black man could be elected president in America. Delusional or crazy - which did you call us?
You were wrong then, and you're wrong now.
Bernie still has a chance.
You just have no heart. I do. It's not an affliction.
Show me posts of mine ridiculing people or calling them delusional or crazy for supporting Obama, or admit you're a liar. And I don't call you delusional for supporting Bernie, but for declaring things like "
When he wins I'll rub it in your face." Saying
when someone who is hopelessly behind wins is delusional. I was very skeptical of Obama's chances, but my attitude back then was "I hope you guys are right, but I don't think so." Until after Iowa, then I was on board. You lie.
Heart isn't an affliction. If what you had was a good ole fighting heart, that would be endearing, and laudable.
But whatever it is you call yourself doing should be studied and entered in the DSM-V.
@Robert Gentel,
Ah, that makes sense. And yeah, I have many many misgivings about Hillary. Y'all know what I was like in 2008 and 2012 when it came to supporting Obama; I'm not that way with Hillary. I haven't contributed a dime, haven't gone to any rallies, haven't volunteered at all. (Yet anyway; I probably will before November.)
What bothers me re: Iraq is both her vote in and of itself but even more that she did not even read the 92-page classified NIE. (She said that someone briefed her on it.) It bothers me because it goes right to the heart of what is supposed to be her strength -- her intelligence and her nose-to-the-grindstone, unglamorous but effective hard work.
I do think she's a much better candidate now than she was in 2008, both in terms of how she's campaigning and her qualifications. I still was inclined to prefer Bernie and had to do a ton of research to decide. But the more research I did, the more I realized I couldn't support him, even if I was less than enthused by Hillary.
Anyway, yeah I agree the prioritization thing is interesting; we're all familiar with the single-issue voter (environment, say), but what you're talking about is different.
This is one of the most fascinating debates on A2K in a long time, and not because my "enemies" are sniping at one another. It's fascinating because it illustrates so many aspects of the way we think, and in particular, about politics.
As I've stated before, I don't want any of the people running for the office of the presidency to win it, but not because I think any one of them can single-handedly destroy America. If America is in decline and destined to fall, it is because of a long series of changes in our economics, our culture and our national character. No one president has moved us from the Land of Plenty to whatever we are now, because we were never a utopia, only something better than most other nations. If we are to fall, one president will be in office when the walls crumble and his or her actions may represent the final shove needed to topple our country, but they won't be the sole cause of the collapse.
I don't want Trump, Clinton or Sanders to be president because I don't believe any of them are capable of stemming the tide in which we find ourselves and that everyone of them will contribute, in their own ways, to further decline and maybe the fall.
That anyone thinks any of them is The Answer, boggles my mind.
A worthy president, IMO, is someone who either jerks the country back from dangerous unbalance or who helps restore equilibrium in a more subtle fashion. The two that come to mind are Reagan and Clinton. We can argue all day about their relative pluses and minuses, but the former jerked us back from teetering too far to the Left, and the latter (with help from a Republican congress) helped us remain balanced.
Going forward I think equilibrium is almost impossible and I will be looking for politicians who actually lead the way to what I believe is the ultimate future of this country - separate nations.
I suppose those of you who veer to the left may think we need a President who will jerk us back towards the center, but I would love to see the proof of your position. Particularly after eight years of a liberal POTUS (Please don't try and float the nonsense that Obama is a "moderate" or "conservative-lite"). And by "those of you" I mean Sanders supporters.
Anyone supporting Clinton has to know she is the ultimate Beltway insider. She's not going to shake up anything. It's why there are members of the GOP Establishment who would rather see her in the White House than Trump. If you think there's a good chance (not even a great chance) that she will be a transformative president you are delusional (a word that seems to be quite popular in this thread)
And those who support Sanders, you are delusional, not because you think he could still win, but because you believe he could deliver on all of his promises and rhetoric. He may have forced Clinton to parrot his positions during the primary, but you have every reason to believe she and Sanders are not the same. As soon as she wraps up the nomination, watch her tack to the center, and get all throaty about national defense.
Our political class is overwhelmingly corrupt (Clinton) and/or utterly self-centered (Sanders) - and this is true of both parties. There are some exceptions, but they won't be running for the presidency in November.
It would be nice to be able to feel that one of these candidates is the Leader America needs, but look what comes of you who do believe such nonsense...nasty infighting.
@sozobe,
How do you read "separate nations", Soz? I need another perspective.
@snood,
I'm trying to figure out how those nations would be divided....
Texas, for example, divides quite nicely based on population density. City folk vote majority Democrat, and rural folk vote majority Republican/Libertarian. I suspect it would also divide quite nicely along average education level.
@DrewDad,
I must've come in in the middle of it, because I'm not sure what two groups Finn is on about dividing.
@Finn dAbuzz,
In even the most red or blue states, the mix is never more dominate than 1/3 one way, 2/3 the other. To split the country would be impossible based on geography and likely based on wealth. For the blue, wealthy coastal states to cut loose the mostly poor, red southern states would create head aches on both sides.
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:No one president has moved us from the Land of Plenty to whatever we are now,
I'm curious... how would you describe the US right now?
@DrewDad,
Hopelessly divided.
In my lifetime we've passed through the following stages
1) No appreciable divide between Left & Right
2) Each side thought the other was misguided
3) Each side thought the other was stupid
4) Each side thinks the other is evil (now)
I don't see any chance at reconciliation and neither side is large enough to dominate the other based on narrow election results for long.
@engineer,
Impossible due to geography? How to explain Alaska and Hawaii?
The fact that "headaches" would be created is immaterial. No change comes without a headache.
Create a Red Nation and watch how much wealth moves from the current Blue States.
The "it can't happen here" is, largely, the position of those who believe their ideological preferences are on the rise.
Make no mistake, such a split will not happen without a significant economic catastrophe (like when payment is due on all of our debt).
It will require a weak federal government and desperation.
It may not happen in my life time, but it will happen.
I should add a caveat. Sooner, rather than latter the majority of American voters will be, essentially, paying no taxes and depending upon the State for their livelihood. If somehow the Left-wing leaders of that day are able to assure that those paying taxes have a nice life, the situation will endure, but that isn't ever going to happen.
One way or the other working people who support non-working people are going to have had enough. They will either join the non-workers, in which case the nation's demise will be that much sooner, or they will leave, or demand a split.
@Finn dAbuzz,
Right now, many poorer Americans are paying really high, significant portions of their income in taxes. Percentage wise, the poor pay a much higher percentage of their income in taxes than the rich. I don't see that changing anytime soon. If anything, it is going the other direction.
@engineer,
Oh baloney. The "poor" measurement floats at the will of progressives.
