these campaigns have nothing to do with informing a pathetically uninformed and disengaged public… it’s all about the billions to be made by the teevee/cable networks, the political consultants and assorted feeders who benefit. hell, within days of this election finally ending, you will see programming switch to who is going to run in 2020.
Discussion: Sanders On Long Campaign: 'Not Quite Sure This Is Best Way To Elect A President' (VIDEO)
1 Like
Baseball season, football season, basketball season take several months each to find a winner. Is that excessively long? And the presidential contest only happens once every four years!
What I’m saying is, that’s what makes it so delightful. You can tune in, tune out, check back to see how Team Bernie or Team Rubio is doing — and meanwhile, for the players it’s a test of stamina and strategy for the long haul.
It’s true, though, the skills tested may not have that much to do with governing. I’d prefer more of a parliamentary system myself (like Canada) where the leaders of both parties are in daily contention so it’s like the primary campaign and actual governance are conflated, eliminating the need for the long getting-to-know-you ritual we have in the U.S.
1 Like
Trump is winning THEIR primary because he’s an anti-establishment candidate. And Hillary is winning our primary because she’s an establishment candidate. So far, Hillary has won more total votes than Trump overall. So maybe once all the smoke and noise of the primary season has died down, it will become apparent that the majority of Americans prefer continuity with a program that’s working (albeit slowly) to heal the economy and restore American prestige in the world, rather than the radical buffonery Trump offers. At least, that’s my hope and what the polls show.
2 Likes
The bottom line is that when a little over half of the American people have participated in the political process … It is absurd for anybody to suggest that those people not have a right to cast a vote.
One needs to look at 1968 to see what happens when the Party establishment exercises its will behind closed doors and ignores millions of Democratic voters—many young idealistic first-time voters—who saw their hopes dashed at the Democratic Convention in Chicago. The result was riots and the election of Richard Nixon.
13 Likes
And Hillary, just one more thing, could you maybe, pretty please, stopping getting (sic) (some of) your fans to be such condescending and ageist twits,? Not really helpful. Thanks. 
3 Likes
Wait, are you the one who singlehandedly decides elections? I knew you were out there somewhere! What an honor to have you here on the TPM comment thread. I guess Hillary should have spent more quality time with you, and maybe cooked you some shrimp scampi — or do you prefer beef stroganoff? Maybe then we’d be looking at President Hillary in 2017 instead of President Fascist Clownface.
1 Like
And? Have you seen the republican debates? He made minced meat of establishment candidates because it’s so easy for him to set up an “us” vs “them” dynamic. The issues didn’t matter. Being right didn’t matter. Hillary plays into this narrative perfectly.
There may come a time when democrats win elections by virtue of simply outnumbering the republicans, as clearly much of the younger generation is far more progressive than their parents. But we’re not there yet.
1 Like
What do you mean by that specifically? The “Party establishment” did what behind closed doors?
Eatbees, a recent Quinnipiac poll Sanders beating Trump by 14 pts., and Cruz by 11, as opposed HRC’s doing so by 6 pts. and 3 pts. respectively. So perhaps a majority of Americans prefer a more liberal approach?
3 Likes
Oh, come on condew. “Scum” is beyond the pale. Please try to keep it civil.
I know, this election is all about Hillary; just ask her.
2 Likes
Shorter public funded campaigns…I’m all for it!
1 Like
And many of those protests would have been much more effective if they had taken place at the Republican convention in Miami in 1968. In retrospect, Hubert Humphrey would have been a much better President than Richard Nixon. The Chicago protests were aimed at the wrong target.
Besides, no one is suggesting that people not be allowed to cast a vote. What we’re suggesting is that sanders is sowing division which is being amplified by many of his supporters into fever pitch hyperbole which may be destructive to the party’s nominee in November.
Given your reference to 1968, perhaps such vitriol would be more effective if it were aimed at Republicans rather than fellow democrats.
If the problems are systemic, then one could argue that we need a much bigger change than anything Sanders is proposing. Why not move to a parliamentary system, which would ensure that the executive power is held by the same party as the legislative power, eliminating gridlock — and would provide for the possibility of elections whenever a party loses the trust of the people, rather than waiting four years come what may?
If the main systemic problem is corrupt money in politics, then the way to change this is by overturning Citizens United, clearing the path to real campaign finance reform. This will only happen with a constitutional amendment, or a change in the balance of the Supreme Court — something that has become a near-certainty with the death of Scalia and other likely changes in the court over the next president’s four-year term. Hillary is just as committed to overturning Citizens United as Bernie is, so the systemic changes you’re looking for will have a shot whoever is president.
A lot of politicians are principled. I would argue that Ted Cruz and Jeff Sessions are principled, we just don’t happen to agree with their principles because we can’t even imagine holding such principles seriously — but there are people who do. The principles represented in Congress are those chosen by the voters of the several States, which unfortunately include the states of Texas and Alabama, certainly not progresssive bastions. We do however have Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, Al Franken and many others on our side. And I would argue that Hillary Clinton, too — yes, poor unloved Hillary — is a principled politician who has consistently stood up over 30 years for the rights of women, children, minorities and others, and has been attacked and vilified for it as much as any politician in public life today, and is still standing, still fighting. Her principles just happen to allow her to take a little money on the side from Goldman Sachs (semi-snark). So Bernie is certainly not the only principled politician, however much he may have convinced you of that, nor do we need to vote for him to have principles in politics. It’s a question of which principles, and principles come in all flavors.
This is the ironic part, the part that gets me. Sanders’ voters are the least diverse you could imagine and still be a Democrat. It’s true that he’s bringing in young people, which you don’t mention — mostly white young people, but some minority youth as well. Young people went for Obama in 2008 and it’s good that Sanders is keeping them in the coalition. But aside from that, do you honestly think “independent voters” whatever that means are voiceless and disenfranchised? These voters are, as the history of Sanders’ primary wins proves, overwhelmingly white and fairly well off. Yet it is precisely the votes of ethnic minorities and the poor who are “traditionally underrepresented” in this country. Indeed those voters are being singled out, targeted by conservatives across the country in a coordinated attempt to suppress their vote. And whom do they tend to support? Hillary, usually by large margins. In choosing a candidate to support, I tend to look at who his or her other supporters might be — in other words, whose team am I joining? And it’s precisely because our nation’s least enfranchised communities support Hillary that she has my support.
If you want to kill neoconservatism or at least drive it crazy, vote for Trump. His chauvanistic populism (also called fascism) is far more antithetical to the neocons than Bernie’s weak-tea socialism. Neocons and Whole Foods socialists have coexisted in the advanced nations for the past 2-3 generations and feel entirely safe together. Bernie ain’t gonna change that.
Obama’s been working on that. Secretary Kerry is also doing a great job. Hillary will continue this work. You’ll be surprised!
Here, we completely agree.
1 Like
The reason for that, as has been said many times on these threads, is that the Republicans haven’t even begun tearing Bernie a new asshole yet, which will surely happen if he is the nominee — he’s still coasting on his curmudgeonly, grandfatherly image — whereas Hillary has been smeared with every kind of slime the right-wingers know how to throw at her (and her husband) for longer than some of Bernie’s supporters have been alive. The fact that she’s still standing up there with the composure she has, still smiling through the shitstorm and yes, winning votes, is for me testimony to her charisma and charm. I predict that in a one-on-one against either Trump or Cruz, Hillary’s numbers will remain solid, whereas Sanders’ will erode, hopefully not enough to mean a loss for our side (I believe either Democrat can win this cycle). But that’s neither here or there since the majority of Democratic voters are clearly putting their faith in Hillary as their champion and standard bearer.
1 Like
Trump has driven the Republican party to the point of insanity. Some of its most prominent members, such as Romney, are pretty much promising now that if Trump is the nominee, they will run a third-party candidate in November, splitting the conservative vote. Meanwhile, Hillary and the Democrats remain strong, civil, and on message. I see the likely outcome as very positive for our side. We may even win the House back!
Sanders continued campaigning does not hurt Clinton, she continues to hurt herself with her machine politics, neocon and neoliberal philosophy and the sucking of wall street cock.
This is ridiculous. Look, I (and large chunks of my good ol’ socialist Canadian brethren) think it should be Hillary too, she’s simply better positioned to win (and raise money) in the current environment… but you seem to be suggesting that Sander’s criticisms of his primary opponent are somehow a knock against him. They aren’t - in fact, they’re likely more honest and straightforward versions of the criticisms she’ll receive from Trump in the general.
Besides, you can see it with each debate - Hillary is getting stronger. She’s more confident in her responses, especially when it comes to defending some of her weak spots, and she’s learning how to counter the arguments (and applause lines) of a populist. Her campaign team is a well-oiled machine by this point, and the attacks against her are out in the public already. NOTHING about that could possibly be construed as a bad thing, especially since she’ll be running against Cruz or, most likely, Trump.
The one thing I could think of is the (relatively small amount of) money she’s spending - but do you really think Hillary Clinton, of all people, is going to have trouble raising more dough? She’s as well-connected as a person can be. Her opponent will be widely and thoroughly despised by the “elites”. I just don’t buy it.
Sorry man - but your post comes off as sour grapes IMO. Bernie should keep running until Clinton beats him. She’ll be better off for it.
If you are not winning the game, throw out the game.
Sounds familiar!
How is Sanders the Liberal Socialist Democrat winning the sparcely populated states?
Guns!