Who knows whether it’s worked, eh.
In any case, from what I’ve read, NatMcG is too late to the game:
At the height of Churchill’s popularity he received an offer of $5000 a lecture for a Nation-wide tour of America. “That’s an unbelievable figure,” said Churchill … “In that case,” said Churchill, “it would prove that America is the first country which went from Barbarism to Decadence, without a certain intervening period of civilization.”
And yet, somehow not playing out that way in caucus-land, is it?
Don’t get me wrong – I can’t fault the obvious enthusiasm for the dream, but don’t let it become a pair of blinders (or VR goggles, as it were). I recall the same enthusiasm for candidate Obama eight years ago – and by the very same people – that was just as quickly replaced by five years of complaining – by the very same people. I mean, I get that people like the guy; so do I. I’m just not convinced they quite understand the job they’re trying to elect him to, and how they think everything will be better and different and sunshine and ponies this time around.
And, for the record: my lawn. Off it.
Too bad we can’t translate that into getting out of the back-slapping GOP morass in which we as a state find ourselves continually.
What I want to see is Trump win the GOP primary, initiating a FOX news freakout so bad that FOX starts plugging Bernie Sanders
That’s advertising on his behalf, not having shot by mob figures.
So is Sanders still almost exclusively winning Blue States while Clinton is still winning almost exclusively Red States?
Yeah. Pretty Much. Clinton is locking up states she can’t win, and if it gets her the nomination,
Blue States <======= Hostages.
You can always donate to the Clinton Foundation in return for favorable arms deals. That still seems to be legal.
I would like to see a lot less imperialism, but I don’t much like the idea of everyone in the world getting to vote on laws that affect me. We’re one of the countries with a stronger tradition of civil liberties, and there’s still more than enough authoritarians to go around.
Have you not been paying attention to American politics for the past couple of decades?
I suppose I would be better able to donate to his campaign if I had more money. I don’t really care where it comes from.
You can send your money to me, and in return I will promise to vote for Sanders. I mean, I was going to anyway but the money wouldn’t hurt.
I really wish I could afford not to be.
Let’s all hope this is life imitating art, where the good guys seem screwed until the very last moment, and then the fucking death star goes boom.
What would be kind of cool is if Sanders holds Hillary’s feet to the fire: “Look, you’re going to be the nominee. But listen to what all these people are saying. If you want to make them happy, help us in 2018. Give us the ammo we need. Lets see a progressive as the Treasury Secretary. These are the people who will break for Trump if you don’t show that you’re fighting FOR them.”
I don’t know what he’d be holding out for, but that’s one way out of the sticky wicket, and one reason to keep going: until he gets the assurances he needs that the ideas he’s promoting aren’t going to be ignored, he might as well be a bit of a thorn in her side.
i make honestly poverty-level wages, but i have donated twice so far to bernie’s campaign (EDIT: in the past two or three weeks). i have no problem voting for hillary if she becomes the nominee, because seriously even with all her faults she’s a million times better than any alternative on the republican side – but just watching and listening to bernie, and reading his history… he’s the most impressively progressive and honest candidate i think i’ve seen in my lifetime, and i would be so goddamn proud to have him as my president.
As a foreigner, it’d make me prouder to be a human. Funny how the ‘elite’ drag us all down…
[quote=“NatMcG, post:29, topic:74653”]
Hillary dominates in the Deep South. Bill was the Bubba President … but more importantly knowing a little about the South – it’s stuck in time. What I think is democrats in the South do not believe America is ready for Bernie, and they probably have heard less of his message. Examining the demographics where he does well along age and income lines in other states, Bernie loses those demographics in the South because those folks are surrounded by backwards and couldn’t envision Sanders winning as President, so they stay safe with a Hillary vote.[/quote]
So a few points.
First if you want to keep criticizing Trump for being racist against Muslims and Mexicans you should also be careful when stereotyping entire regions as “backwards” and “stuck in time”.
But as to Hillary vs Bernie supporters I would characterize the break a little different. In that Hillary appeals to pragmatists and Bernie appeals to idealists.
I think this explains the age discrepancy, people are more idealistic when they’re young and shift to pragmatism with age.
Similarly with Hillary’s huge minority support I think it makes sense since idealistic minority activists are generally thwarted by the establishment. The idea of an allied member of the establishment may sound like a much better bet.
Personally I’m a bit more of a pragmatist so I would vote for Hillary if I were an American.
Ahhhh… no you aren’t. A pragmatist, that is, not in the true sense of the word. You are an outsider whose opinion has been skewed by our 'news’media. Hillary Clinton is not going to do well against the Republican frontrunner, Donald Trump. Frankly, he’ll crush her. She is a good bet against a Rubio or a Cruz, but neither of these men has been able to cut into Trump’s commanding lead.
The candidate who most calms your nerves is not likely to be the winner this year. This is neither a good nor a bad thing, it just is.
Furthermore, at this point in history, I’d argue that opting for business as usual is anything but pragmatic.
Hmm, why do people keep saying this? It doesn’t really seem like there’s a whole lot of data putting this narrative forward.
I’ll stick with Silver and the nuts who invest in PredictWise futures. The prediction markets seem to be fairly indicative, they’re sitting on Hillary winning it all at just shy of 70%.
I like Bernie, and I support some of his policies, but I don’t think he’d be a very strong president. My perception is that Hillary would be more able (of the two) to get things done by hook or by crook.
That being said, I refuse to vote for someone who wants to be president, so I’m writing in Elizabeth Warren.
I find that really unlikely. Trump doesn’t inspire the Republican party, he inspires a fringe element of the Republican party. If you nominate any roughly generic democrat (ie Hillary) you should win barring a “November surprise”.
Sanders is a wild card, he’s wildly popular among liberal Democrats but the US doesn’t have enough liberal Democrats to win an election, it may not even have enough to win a Democratic primary.
Sanders might rally the base, but he needs independents too. Think of the people in 2004 who thought Bush was better than Kerry, those are some of the people who you need to vote Democrat. I think Hillary has a far better chance of appealing to them, if for no other reason than they don’t think she’ll try to do anything crazy and they don’t like the word “socialist”.
