With some voters still deciding “Why (or why not) to vote for Hillary Clinton” in the upcoming New York democratic primary on April 19th and democratic primaries to come --the one thing Hillary does not need is any self-inflicted campaign errors, that will cause voters to decide not to vote for Hillary.
Some advice for Hillary Clinton, Bill de Blasio, Leslie Odom Jr. and the writers of the weak and insipid joke about African-American C.P. (colored people’s) time.
I know that Hillary, Bill and Leslie are not racist. I am not sure who were the writers of the joke. If you are going to do racial humor as Paul Mooney stated during the Michael Richards racist controversy, it has to be funny with an out, so people know it is a joke and you don’t mean it.
If the joke is not funny you get the backlash manifested in the negative response to the writers, Bill’s, Hillary’s and Leslie’s C.P. time joke. Below is an example of how racial humor can be funny which causes an out, so people know the person telling the joke does not mean it.
Paul Mooney on Michael Richards: joke starts at 2:46 of video~
If the Republican Party had superdelegates, they could remedy themselves of the destructive political Amtrak name Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton has stated (paraphrasing her) that, Donald Trump is simply a reflection of the overall republican presidential candidates and Republican Party as a whole.
Donald Trump is exposing and highlighting the homophobic, xenophobic, discriminatory, sexist, racist and bigoted visage of the Republican Party.
All the democratic presidential nominees knew the rules going into the democratic presidential nomination process. The superdelegates will not be an issue because Hillary is going to win enough elected delegates to win the democratic presidential nomination --and in doing so she will continue to amass and finish with a huge lead in the popular vote.
The video of former New York senator Hillary Clinton having trouble swiping her subway card–is going to have an unexpected positive impact for Hillary. The unplanned subway swiping problems for Hillary will help her with thousands of New York subway riders; many who have the same subway card issue themselves–on many occasions.
Voters can identify with a presidential candidate, when they have similar experience with a problem or issue.
Who did George H.W. Bush lose to, I believe it was Bill Clinton.
The difference is that George H.W. Bush did not know how to use a grocery store scanner, not that the scanner malfunctioned like it does for other grassroots grocery store shoppers. His instance is out of touch and unidentifiable with grocery store shoppers and voters.
Hillary’s knew how to use her subway card–and her New York subway card malfunctioned like many grassroots New York subway riders cards malfunction. Hillary’s instance is identifiable to many subway riders and voters in New York.
George H.W. Bush is no Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton.
New York is a diverse state with voters of multiple ethnicities and high numbers African-American and Hispanic/Latino voters–bad news for Bernie Sanders and his hopes of winning the democratic presidential nomination.
Wyoming turned out to be a good night for Hillary. Despite losing the Wyoming caucus in a extraordinary low voter turnout (less than 300 voters) 55.7 to 44.3, closer than expected, she came away with the same amount of elected delegates 7 to 7.
Because Trump is the racist bigot that has come home to the Republican Party to roost. Trump is exposing and highlighting the racism and bigotry that is synonymous with the GOP.
Like Hillary has said, Trump is no different than the rest of the GOP. In order for them to deny Trump the nomination they will have to destroy their party. Far to many republican voters vote for Trump because they are racist and bigoted like him.
This is basically off topic but I don’t really buy this. The fact that the Republicans have a process that might lock in the win for a candidate with 35% of the vote is probably a big mistake, but I don’t see that this justifies the value of superdelegates.
For one thing, the second choice of the Republican party isn’t a lot better (I think he’s worse but I can see arguments either way). The party has gone crazy (though obviously you know this!).
But for another thing, if the real point was to act as a sober second thought, then the superdelegate system is poorly designed to do that. It’s sort of like taking away the president’s veto power and instead giving the president 10 votes in the senate.
Wisconsin was good for Sanders, Wyoming was good for Clinton, I don’t think either looks good or bad heading into New York. New York is going to make its own decision, and I think we have a lot of reason to think New York’s decision will be the party’s decision.
Hillary is going to win New York. After her win she will have increased her elected delegate and popular vote lead over Bernie Sanders–thus bringing an end to the Sanders campaign complaints over superdelegates, despite knowing the rules governing superdelegates before the start of the democratic presidential nomination process.
After April 19th–the path forward and chances of securing the democratic presidential nomination for Bernie will be daunting, practically impossible–and for all intended purposes and hopes over.
Like Hillary, Trump is leading the republican primary field in elected delegates and the popular vote. Unlike Hillary where the Democratic Party is not attempting to derail her nomination, the Republican Party establishment and RNC are attempting to derail Trump as it’s eventual nominee.
I would love to see Hillary run against Trump, because he is unelectable–and the GOP knows it.
If I were advising Donald Trump, I would advise him that the only way to make the GOP respect him as the republican presidential front-runner; and not continue to undermine his quest for the republican presidential nomination–is to threaten and make preparations to run as a protest third party candidate .
I don’t know who’s idea it was or why Hllary decided to be part of that joke–not a good idea or joke.
I also don’t understand who’s idea it was or why Hillary decided to have tonight’s debate against Bernie Sanders in Brooklyn. Why agree to debate him in Brooklyn were he was born, it only adds to the symbolism and aura of the debate for Bernie.
Since Bernie Sanders is the one who wanted and needed the debate, Hillary and her campaign should have demanded that tonight’s New York debate be held in Lower Manhattan, the home of Wall Street.
Bernie Sanders is basically a two issue candidate, who brings almost all issues back to income inequality and Wall Street demonization. There are thousands of voters who work on Wall Street or in a sector job related to Wall Street. Bernie Sanders railing against Wall Street in a debate held literally on or near Wall Street, would have been better for Hillary.
Debating Bernie Sanders in Lower Manhattan as he rants about Wall Street, would serve as motivation for Wall Street employees and employees working in jobs related to Wall Street–to decide "Why (** *** ***) to vote for Hillary Clinton.
Despite debating Bernie in Brooklyn, I expect Hillary to rise to the occasion and give a spirited, superb and smashing performance tonight.
It is the voting public that wanted and needed the debate. This will be the 9th DNC-sanctioned debate (originally only 6 were scheduled), compared to 26 by this time in 2008. Whichever of the candidates gets the nomination needed the extra practice, as the debates with Trump or Cruz will be blistering.
This is the fault of Wasserman Schultz, who is free to favor a candidate but should not be using her position to suppress dialogue in the people’s party, especially not over the objection of DNC co-chair and rising party star Tulsi Gabbard. (Gabbard was disinvited from the first debate for speaking out, a very GOP way of dealing with alternate opinions.)
[quote=“khepra, post:401, topic:72574”]
Bernie Sanders is basically a two issue candidate[/quote]
This is not true, however it makes good sense in the primaries to trumpet the 7% of issues on which he and Clinton disagree, especially as both Wall Street and war are issues which have been high on everyone’s minds this election cycle. Likewise it is reasonable for Clinton to trumpet the one issue, gun control, on which they differ and on which she is right and he is wrong.
Sanders is not in favor of dismantling Wall Street. He is in favor of jailing the people who subverted it to bring down the world economy. Clinton is evidently not in favor of this. Where do you stand? Do you not agree that a Goldman Sachs exec who deliberately initiated action that caused great misery around the planet should suffer at least as much as a teenager caught on the street with a few ounces of marijuana?
Well, she’ll win New York or she won’t, and whoever wins New York will almost certainly win the nomination. As for superdelegates, I maintain it is a terrible system. My analogy is the same as above. If you want a system where a body can override the vote you ought to give a group of people a veto rather than have them be part of the voting process. I think the superdelegates system in this case did hurt Sanders because the greatest thing the Sanders campaign had to overcome was the appearance that he couldn’t win. Regardless of whether I support Sanders or Clinton, though, I don’t think the superdelegates system is a good system for doing what people are saying it is supposed to do.
Trump is unelectable just like Trump was a flash in the pan in august, just like Trump’s views would marginalize him in September, just like everything Trump has said has been the end of the Trump campaign. Clinton has proven herself to be a very successful as a politician against other politicians. I’m far from convinced she knows how to campaign against Trump, and she’ll basically just have to hope the American superego beats the American Id. Sounds like an iffy bet.
I agree since Wall Street is her native land and those are her people. I’m glad to see you admit the analogy that as Brooklyn is to Sanders, Wall Street is to Clinton.
The April 19th primary is bring held in the state of New York.
Politics are local and Wall Street is located in Lower Manhattan and there are thousands of voters who work for Wall Street or are associated with jobs related to Wall Street. I hope Bernie rails about Wall Street tonight.
There is no evidence that President Obama has been, or Hillary will be, corrupted by Wall Street. The delusional and idiosyncratic attacks on the integrity of President Obama and Hillary over Wall Street, represent one reason why Bernie Sanders is far behind in elected delegates, the popular vote, states won and superdelegates–and after April 19th his campaign will be on life support and for all purposes over.
Now Bernie and his wife are demeaning and disrespecting the voters who participated in the southern democratic presidential primaries, where African-American voters overwhelming supported Hillary, helping her sweep the south. This current smear and demeaning of southern voters and primaries, is yet another reason why Bernie Sanders will not win the minority vote or the democratic presidential nomination.
Bernie Sanders also voted for the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill and the 1998 Minimum Sentences for Gun Crime Act, that led to unfair criminalization and incarceration of minorities. Bernie voted for the 1994 Crime Bills despite objecting to the sentencing provisions.
That was April 13, 1994. After uttering those words, Sanders went on to vote for the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (1994) and the Ominibus Crime Bill of 1994, a hallmark of Bill Clinton’s “tough on crime” agenda.
The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 passed the House just one week after Sanders made his impassioned speech, and Sanders voted for it. That act called for expanding the application of the death penalty on many more crimes, including large-scale drug trafficking. It also included a federal version of the “three strikes law,” requiring a mandatory life sentence for anyone convicted of a third serious crime.
That version of the bill ultimately didn’t become law, but instead a similar bill, the Omnibus Crime Bill, which not only expanded the death penalty but also decreased the minimum age for minors to be tried as adults, passed the House, once again with Sanders’ vote, and became law…
…Then in 1998, Sanders voted again to increase the length of sentences criminals must serve. The Minimum Sentences for Gun Crimes Act that passed House would have set a mandatory minimum of 10 years for crimes committed while in possession of a gun, 15 years for crimes committed while brandishing a gun, and 20 years for crimes committed while firing a gun. In the final version of the bill, the length of the sentences were cut in half.
Talk about politics and hypocrisy, where has the BLM protests and condemnation been regarding Bernie Sanders votes for the 1994 and 1998 Crime Bills–protests and condemnation similar to the BLM protestors who have protested Bill Clinton and Hillary over the 1994 Crime Bill.
Bill Clinton has apologized for the sentencing guidelines connected to the 1994 Crime Bill–Bernie Sanders has yet to apologize for voting to criminalize and target minorities.
Not as bad as Bush I’s “line in the sand” as a metaphor for standing one’s ground. Standing one’s ground should involve ground that’s significant, not a desert wasteland on behalf of idjit monarchs whose shirttail relatives are busily funding the new startup “Al Queda”.
