Only for folks that are stuck in a pre-1970 mindset.
Again, the idea that staying at home âhelps the other sideâ makes no sense at all. If you are staying at home, then neither side gets your vote. I wouldnât vote for Sanders no matter what, so itâs not like he is missing out on a vote he could have gotten.
Suppose I could be forgiven for missing itâŚ
If you want to beat the GOP, then nominate someone that moderates can actually vote for.
So you are saying I should use my primary vote to keep the Overton window moving every rightward. No thanks.
If you want to vote for the most extremely liberal person you can find, then you are going to lose the center.
this is untested at best.
That attitude is why we lost what used to be the center.
1 Like
Depends who has control of the House in 2020. Obama was in office in 2010 and look how gerrymandering turned out there.
Really ridiculous that in the 21st century we are leaving gerrymandering up to politicians. Should be done by an objective computer model at this point.
2 Likes
No matter who wins, if they have a âDâ next to their name, the Republicansâ next eight years will be:
- Obstruct
- Investigate
- Impeach
I say this based on the past 15 years of having a Democratic president.
It does not matter who that President is. This is the GOP playbook. Given that as what the Râs are going to be doing for the next nine years (including of course this last year of the Obama presidency), we just need to put the best candidate into the White House, one who can:
- Get elected (a fairly low bar with the current crop of GOP candidates, but not a gimme)
- Carry on his/her coat tails some improvement in House and Senate party balances
- Will push for Democratic goals including cementing and advancing healthcare, reigning in corporate welfare, and addressing income inequality
- Will combat retrograde goals including reducing religious freedom for non-majority religions (and non-religions), restricting and redefining voting rights, restricting access to womensâ healthcare, enforcing minority bigotted worldviews at the expense of human rights, etc.
- Will nominate progressive (or at least not regressive) justices to all benches including the Supreme Court
I think both candidates will do all of the above, although I think personally HRC will do them better than Bernie. That said, itâs a question of degree of favor not a âI would hate to see X in officeâ.
2 Likes
That it should be, though 2010 was a midterm, 2020 is a presidential year, Demâs best chance for quite some time to undo some damage.
1 Like
Ah, those were the days! Mister, we could use a man like Herbert Hoover, er Bill Clinton again.
Well, we are closer to the regulation of speculative investing that prevailed in Hooverâs day, so thatâs something. I guess the author of the 90s book, Nickel and Dimed, just completely missed the signs that âeveryone was richerâ.
Imagine the next eight years: Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia (both 79) retire, replaced by liberal HRC appointees. RBG and Breyer replaced with younger liberal justices. That would tilt the balance to 6-3 with Thomas, Roberts and Alito in the minority. Alito would be 74 by HRCâs eighth year, and Thomas 76. With the writing on the wall (i.e. permanent minority status), one may decide to call it quits early, leading to a 7-2 bias. Now can we get behind that, people???
4 Likes
Iâm not sure how you missed it - because it was in that same comment, you just decided to edit it out and misquote me. I said I would most likely vote for a third party. I was responding to someone who was talking about people who donât show up to vote - something I never said I would do.
The point being, Obama didnât even try. Never spent a second trying to bring the Cheney cabal or Wall Street to task. Didnât do anything to actually cure whatâs wrong with America, just got real good at applying the bandaids. The people who brought the crash and the international disgrace are still there, and stronger than ever. Itâs the root cause of all our troubles. Ignore them and let them consolidate even more power and see what happens nextâŚ
Pretty much agree with everything you said.
1 Like
This has about the same importance for our way of life as things like, well, houses. It should be the foremost thought of everyone not crazy in the United States.
That alone, in fact, should have eliminated most of the drama to-day on this threadâŚbecause the conversation would have been very simple:
"(1) Will the Democratic Nominee appoint a Progressive SCOTUS Justice?
(2) Based on the most concise analysis, which Democratic Nominee has the best chance of defeating the Republican GOP Nominee for President."
3 Likes
a much smaller part ofyoucommemt is what I missed, again, I suppose one could be forgiven.
I stand by 3rd party is equal to a vote for repub, because math.
but whatever, if you are truly in Boston the dem gets the EVs anyhow, so you go ahead, take your ball and go home.
Itâs always someone elseâs fault, isnât it!
I agree that this issue should be foremost in peopleâs minds. I honestly donât think the answer to your question #2 is obvious. The answer should be obvious butâŚ
1 Like
Using your definition of atheist, wanna bet?
Iâll leave it to you to issue the diatribe on what he didnât do. He also didnât get me that puppy I wanted for Christmas
2 Likes
Iâm not sure I would call this âsubtle.â I mean he did stop short of actually endorsing her, but this was pretty close.
This is very good for Hillary, especially just before Iowa. Also very good for her in South Carolina.
Only positive for the Bernster is it reinforces his positioning as the anti-establishment candidate. However, to most Democrats, Obama is the one part of the establishment they like better than just about any other part of the establishment. So I think itâs still a pretty big net-positive for Hillary.
4 Likes
No, someone commented on how your posts made her think about Andrew Sullivan, and how he must be feeling about this election, it being his first time to vote as an American citizen.
The particular part of your answer I take issue with is the one I quoted.
Which isâŚlets bring up the cloud of âscandalâ, even though you donât anticipate a scandal. But its the Clintons, so a real scandal is a always possible. Cause you just canât trust those ClintonsâŚalways up to something devious.
Its a fact free hit piece. And I find it rather ironic since the only scandalous thing I have seen in the Democratic race so far is Bernieâs chief data guy hacking into the DNCâs database to grab a bunch of data about Hillary voters. And then screaming victim when they got caught.
But you donât see many Clinton supporters saying âUnless Bernie gets caught cheating again, which I donât anticipate. But since its Bernie,its always a very real possibility that his campaign will get caught cheatingâ
2 Likes
Seeing as you had to actually edit my comment to remove the part that said I would vote third party, I donât buy your excuse.
That is not how math works. Using your logic, couldnât you also claim that my vote for a third party is a vote for dems?
And when asked if Sanders could be compared to Obama during his 2008 presidential campaign, Obama said, âI donât think thatâs true.â
He also told Politico that Sanders has benefited from his status as the underdog candidate. âI think Bernie came in with the luxury of being a complete long shot and just letting loose,â he said. âI think Hillary came in with the both privilege â and burden â of being perceived as the front-runner. Youâre always looking at the bright, shiny object that people havenât seen before â thatâs a disadvantage to her," Obama added later in the interview with Politico.
Hmmm. Maybe itâs just the way Politico presented his answer, but here they have him saying thereâs no comparison between 2008 and this year, immediately followed by naming several strong similarities.
But maybe Obama was just too polite to say âI know Barack Obama, Barack Obama is a friend of mine, and the senator from Vermont is no Barack Obama.â That does seem to be the basic argumentâŚand itâs a pretty good one, so far as it goes.