Where has the Wall Street smears against Hillary Clinton gotten Bernie Sanders?
It has gotten Bernie behind in elected delegates, the popular vote, states won and superdelegates.
Bernie’s Wall Street attack on Hillary is a artful smear because there is no examples that Bernie Sanders, his campaign or supporters can provide that proves Hillary has ever been corrupted by Wall Street.
Bernie had better hope that the new poll out tonight is a outlier.
destructive political Amtrak name Donald Trump
Ripping on Amtrak? Your other reputation-management clients are showing.
They aren’t smears, but they’ve got him this far (so far):
At the very least, he’s forced Clinton to acknowledge that there are people whose vote she needs who are far to the left of her natural position. I dread to think what her campaign would have been like if Martin O’Malley had been her only opposition.
They’ve also let the DNC know that millions of people are not happy with the status quo and (as with the election of Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader in the UK) have hopefully signalled the beginning of the end of corporate crony, hawkish “third way” politics.
Hopefully he’ll also help to get progressive politicians like Tim Canova and Zephyr Teachout elected to Congress.
Both Bernie and Hillary have both talked about the importance of a united Democratic Party going forth in the 2016 presidential general election.
I don’t think either candidate needs to be forced to acknowledge the importance of party unity.
Time for fireworks, the national anthem just ended. Time for a spirited debate.
Go Hillary.
Vote for her because she’s a wonderful actress.
You mean where have Bernie Sanders’ honest opinions, honestly expressed gotten him? I think they’ve gotten him the support of many people who feel the same way. I can imagine this could be confusing for a Clinton supporter, but campaigning honestly on issues you feel are important and then winning or losing based on whether the electorate agreed those issues are important isn’t something you do to “get” somewhere.
Not really. He’d better hope that the polls are significantly misrepresenting what is really going on in the public. Anyone who is looking at polls and saying they can’t be wrong by double digits in Sander’s favour is saying they can’t possibly be as wrong as five of the last seven predictions were. I’m not saying that argument can’t be made - I think we all expect New York polls to be better than Alaska polls for good reason. Right now I expect Clinton to win, and if she wins by 17 then I don’t think Sanders will have much hope of getting the nomination unless Clinton introduces some kind of “give dysentery to all Calfiornians” policy. I wouldn’t give 1000 to 1 odds, though, and a 17 point spread in actual voting intentions would support something more like 1,000,000 to 1.
Why (** *** ***) to vote for Hillary Clinton ~
Because unlike Bernie Sanders, Hillary’s appeal and support represents a more ethnically diverse voting electorate, that is representative of the Obama coalition and Democratic Party as a whole, that is more ethnically inclusive than the predominantly white Republican Party.
Bernie Sanders, his wife, campaign and supporters are faced with the stark reality-- that they are trailing in elected delegates, states won, the popular vote and superdelegates.
Specifically, Bernie and his wife have begun to make comments about the order in which the Democratic Party has chosen to hold its primaries and caucuses during this 2016 democratic presidential nomination cycle. Insinuating that the order of the 2016 democratic presidential primaries and caucuses are the reason why Bernie Sanders campaign is in peril and on the verge of certain demise.
Complaining about Hillary Clinton’s election success in the south, enhanced by overwhelming support from African-Americans and other minorities is telling. Complaining about Hillary Clinton’s success in the south, diminishes the facts and understates the problem Bernie Sanders has with ethnically diverse voters–voters that comprise a significant portion of the Democratic Party.
Below is a interesting excerpt from Nate Silver’s 538~Here is the link to the full article: Clinton Is Winning The States That Look Like The Democratic Party | FiveThirtyEight
…I have a few problems with this line of argument, which seems to imply that Democratic voters in the Deep South don’t reflect the larger Democratic electorate. (The remarks Thursday night echo previous comments made by Sanders and his campaign.) Consider Sanders’s reference to the term “Deep South,” which traditionally describes Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina: These are five of the only six states, along with Maryland, where at least a quarter of the population is black. Given the United States’ history of disenfranchising black voters — not to mention the importance of black voters to Democrats in November — it’s dicey for Sanders to diminish Clinton’s wins there…
…And the sort of wishful thinking Sanders is engaged in can cut both ways. Yes, Clinton’s lead would be considerably narrower (although she’d still be winning) without delegates from the Deep South. But what if you excluded delegates from caucuses, where Sanders has gained a net of 150 delegates on Clinton? Without those delegates, Sanders couldn’t even maintain the pretense of a competitive race.
Not only are most of those caucus states extremely white and therefore poorly representative of Democrats’ national demographics — many of them (such as Idaho and Nebraska) are also quite red. Furthermore, caucuses tend to disenfranchise voters by making it harder to vote. Our demographic modeling suggests that this has hurt Clinton and that Sanders wouldn’t have won by the same enormous margins if those caucus states had held primaries instead.
But overall, the math is pretty simple. Sanders is winning states that are much whiter than the Democratic electorate as a whole, Clinton is winning states that are much blacker than the Democratic electorate as a whole, and Clinton is winning most of those states that are somewhere in the middle, whether they’re in the South (like Virginia) or elsewhere (like Ohio or Nevada). That’s why she’ll probably be the Democratic nominee.
This is why she’s winning, not why to vote for her.
I will continue to follow my conscience and support the person I think has the best policies. You never know, maybe Clinton/TBD will be the ticket I like best in the general (admittedly, unless TBD is fucking awesome, I doubt it).
That’s the reality of where they stand in the primaries and caucuses so far, and probably will stand at the end of the primary season, but it doesn’t answer the question of why to vote for Clinton.
If you could name some actual policies or positions where the two candidates disagree and where Clinton’s stand is better for the Democratic electorate, that would be really helpful in this argument. I can name one immediately, gun control, but I personally believe that Sanders policies on war, health care, bank regulation, and trade agreements overshadow that one.
As I just pointed out in another thread, I completely get why the African-American community, which sees Clinton as a friend, and would be loyal to her over someone they don’t really know much about. If there is some other reason to prefer her over Sanders, I would like to hear that, since even though I am not African-American I will generally support any policies which are good for African-Americans, as these same policies are usually good for 99% of us.
By the way, @khepra, I just want you to know that I really admire and respect your willingness to continue to engage, both here and in the pyramid thread, despite the fact that the majority of the posters are disagreeing with you.
Bernie Sanders record of involvement with projects that have positively impacted (on a grassroots level) the lives of people dwarfs in comparison to that of Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton.
When you spend your life helping people they will support you, no matter what the media or adversarial politicians say. When you spend your life helping people the white noise, political and media propaganda will have no impact on what people think of you, because you have positively impacted their lives on a grassroots level.
Hillary and Bill Clinton on a grassroots/kitchen table level, have positively impacted the lives of millions of people, including and specifically minorities.
Because of Hillary and Bill Clinton:
Millions of children and adults have been helped and lives saved by the “State Children’s Health Insurance Program”–the “Children’s Defense Fund”–providing HIV research, treatment, education and intervention in Africa and America, where Aids is of epidemic proportions–raising millions of dollars for the United Negro College Fund…
…during Bll Clinton’s presidency, which Hillary played a significant role, reducing the crime rate by 50% which saved thousands of minority lives–significantly reducing minority unemployment --engaging in minority economic development…
…Hillary worked with iconic children’s rights advocate Marian Wright Edelman to desegregate schools in the south–Hillary worked to positively impact the lives of children through the “Children’s Defense Fund”
“CDF is pleased to recognize Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has been a tireless voice for children. She’s brilliant. She cares deeply about children. She perseveres. She’s an incredibly hard worker, and she stays with it. She’s done extraordinarily well in everything she’s ever done. and I’m just so proud of her,” said Marian Wright Edelman, President of the Children’s Defense Fund.
The list goes on…
Minorities do not vote for Hillary Clinton because they simply like her, they do so because they know the Clinton’ s record and it has positively benefited them on a grassroots level–no amount of political race baiting will change that.
Why (** *** ***) to vote for Hillary Clinton
Because she is standing her ground and refusing the unprecedented and sexist request initiated by MSNBC’s Chuck Todd to release her paid Wall Street speeches. Unfortunately Hillary is not being served well by her campaign strategists.
First, the request to release Hillary’s Wall Street speeches came during a democratic presidential debate. Chuck Todd interjected himself into the debate–and in unprecedented fashion tag-teamed with Bernie Sanders during a back and forth with Hillary; and requested Hillary to release the transcripts of her paid Wall Street speeches.
Bernie Sanders and his campaign in conjunction with Chuck Todd have seized on the unprecedented and sexist request to attack Hillary. Bernie Sanders cannot give paid speeches it is forbidden by law for sitting U.S. Senators to do so.
There has been no example shown were any political decision by Hillary has ever been corrupted by Wall Street influence. The only reason why Chuck Todd, Bernie Sanders, his campaign and Bernie supporters want to see and examine Hillary’s paid Wall Street speeches–is they are looking for and hoping to find something that is harmful, detrimental and damaging to Hillary’s presidential campaign and aspirations.
This is what Hillary’s paid campaign strategists should be advising her to do in my opinion.
So we are not being unprecedented and sexist–all candidates whether it is a paid Wall Street speech, a paid speech to a convention of dog catchers or “any paid or unpaid speech”–all candidates in 2016 running for president (republican or democrat) should be requested to release that/those speeches given at any time during their political or private life.
All 2016 presidential candidates (republican or democrat) should release that/those paid or unpaid speeches so anyone can examine that/those paid speeches to see if anything can be found that would be harmful, detrimental and damaging to their presidential campaign and aspirations.
I am sure Bernie Sanders has given some radical and socialist speeches during his life–release the transcripts. After all the republican and democratic presidential candidates release their paid or unpaid speeches–then Hillary should gladly do so.
This way we are not engaging in sexism and applying one unprecedented set of standards to Hillary; and not the name unprecedented standards to the male republican and democratic presidential candidates.
I think the context justifies the request. A new discussion is starting on how special interests influence our representatives, and how many of our current problems might be traced back to a status quo where private access to politicians is acceptable and politicians aren’t keeping promises to the public. When we look at nearly every other developed nation in the world and see a better functioning government with a better supported and happier population, we have to acknowledge something is wrong here.
Hillary Clinton is running as the status quo candidate, an extension of Obama, and shes asserting that she is basically uncorruptable by special interests. She’s also arguing that it is futile to challenge this system because that’s just the way things are and you just have to know how to work around it like she does. When you make extraordinary claims like that, and you happen to meet with the criminals that ruined millions of lives (and admit it!), you invite extraordinary scrutiny.
I agree that it should be the standard that presidential candidates release transcripts of their paid speeches, that precedent should start right here. Bernie Sanders has now released his 2014 tax returns, and presumably based on his debate will release others as his wife Jane Sanders finds time.
What determines that order - age before wealth?
Sexist?
Seems like the Clinton campaign that to ask about potential corruption by Goldman Sachs and others is sexist. I’m glad you got the memo from the command center for the astroturfing.
I guess Clinton should ask for that, huh?
Ironically:
Do you understand why people want to know what Clinton said in those speeches?
Sexism?
What do you mean radical? Like pay a living wage? Don’t go to war? Refinancing student debts helps the economy more than refinancing giant investment bank debt? That kind of radical?
I’m with you then. Release the transcripts.
Am I wrong, @Cowicide?
You’re not only wrong, you’re also a big, sexist meanypants.
