clinton vs. sanders your vote?- Page 131

[StageManager2]

Posted: 4/21/16 at 8:37pm

As long as he quits attacking Hillary and the Dems in general.

[Kad]

Posted: 4/22/16 at 10:08am

I would love to see Elizabeth Warren run someday, as she, for me, bridges the gap between Sanders and Clinton and lacks both of their flaws. But she's 66 now and, more importantly, genuinely does not seem interested in the presidency.

Hopefully this progressive push will see a new generation of leaders emerge, and this drive does not evaporate in July. I also hope this sees leadership shakeup within the DNC, as Debbie Wasserman Schultz has done a terrifically poor job this primary season- she doesn't seem to grasp the optics of the things she does or says, which makes for a bad figurehead for the party.

[madbrian]

Posted: 4/22/16 at 10:11am

"I would love to see Elizabeth Warren run someday, as she, for me, bridges the gap between Sanders and Clinton and lacks both of their flaws."

 

Yup.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 4/22/16 at 10:44am

Warren is going to be 67 years old when Clinton is sworn into office next year, which means that in 8 years, at the end of Clinton's 2nd term, she'll be 75. That might just be too much for her at that age, sadly. 

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 4/22/16 at 1:16pm

Warren is great, but I am happy she isn't running. The Senate needs strong voices, and she's great there- I see no reason for her to leave. For that matter, I hope Clinton doesn't pick a Senator for her running mate. We don't need to lose any seat to a potential Republican challenger.

[madbrian]

Posted: 4/22/16 at 1:46pm

Since Massachusetts currently has a Republican governor, it's unlikely Clinton will choose Warren.  Same goes for Booker.

[Kad]

Posted: 4/22/16 at 2:09pm

Booker also has Wall Street tries. After the flack Clinton has gotten, she would want to avoid that like the plague.

[South Florida]

Posted: 4/22/16 at 5:30pm

Well said Kad.  Both of your last quotes.

 

[binau]

Posted: 4/23/16 at 9:52am

The only way I can think Bernie could still be the nominee (assuming he doesn't have landslide victories going forward, which seems unlikely) is if the GOP nominate John Kasich at a contested convention and then Bernie is able to convince Superdelegates that he will be the only democratic nominee able to compete with Kasich in a general election (Kasich beats Clinton in almost every poll, and Sanders beats Kasich in almost every poll).

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_kasich_vs_sanders-5817.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_kasich_vs_clinton-5162.html

An unlikely scenario, but there is no way in my opinion he could convince superdelegates to switch to him if Trump or Cruz is the nominee. It just wouldn't make any sense.

 

[H.Higgins]

Posted: 4/23/16 at 12:19pm

And overturn the will of the people? Thank you for (unknowingly) pointing out the hypocrisy, opportunism, and desperation of the Sanders campaign. Can you imagine the firestorm if the tables were turned with Sanders having the massive lead in both pledged delegates and individual votes and that no good, very bad Hillary Clinton had the nerve to suggest that the superdelegates should just disregard that and go with her instead? And based on some meaningless general election match-up polls taken months in advance, for a candidate who has not been properly vetted, is largely unknown to most of the American people, and has been given a giant free pass by the media, at that? Amazing. And you wonder why Hillary's supporters get "emotional". It's because of things like this. She is winning. She is winning by every measure. Yet, we have to face an onslaught from surrogates and campaign staff who constantly remind us that their candidate is the better choice because he is an "outsider" and a "pure" idealist running against the "system" when, in reality, he is a career politician and is perfectly happy to play the game and use that "system" as long as it gets him ahead. As this goes on, we also have to continually hear about how we "better be nice to Bernie's supporters" because we are going to need them in the general election. Why doesn't anyone have to be nice to Hillary's supporters? It would seem to be because we are all known Democrats and our votes can be taken for granted because everyone knows we will show up for the candidate on the left in the fall, regardless who it ends up being or how disappointed we are that it wasn't our preferred candidate. It speaks volumes about both Sanders and many of his supporters that we cannot count on the same. Unbelievable.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 4/23/16 at 1:37pm

Patrick Healy (I miss him on the theater beat, but he's good at this!) has a terrific article in the Times about the search for Hillary's eventual running mate. They currently have a list of 15-20 candidates they're going to vet, and she's not opposed to an all female ticket. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/us/politics/hillary-clinton-vice-president.html

 

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/23/16 at 2:07pm

 

His election coverage has been terrific.

 

[binau]

Posted: 4/23/16 at 6:54pm

H.Higgins said: "And overturn the will of the people? Thank you for (unknowingly) pointing out the hypocrisy, opportunism, and desperation of the Sanders campaign. Can you imagine the firestorm if the tables were turned with Sanders having the massive lead in both pledged delegates and individual votes and that no good, very bad Hillary Clinton had the nerve to suggest that the superdelegates should just disregard that and go with her instead? And based on some meaningless general election match-up polls taken months in advance, for a candidate who has not been properly vetted, is largely unknown to most of the American people, and has been given a giant free pass by the media, at that? Amazing. And you wonder why Hillary's supporters get "emotional". It's because of things like this. She is winning. She is winning by every measure. Yet, we have to face an onslaught from surrogates and campaign staff who constantly remind us that their candidate is the better choice because he is an "outsider" and a "pure" idealist running against the "system" when, in reality, he is a career politician and is perfectly happy to play the game and use that "system" as long as it gets him ahead. As this goes on, we also have to continually hear about how we "better be nice to Bernie's supporters" because we are going to need them in the general election. Why doesn't anyone have to be nice to Hillary's supporters? It would seem to be because we are all known Democrats and our votes can be taken for granted because everyone knows we will show up for the candidate on the left in the fall, regardless who it ends up being or how disappointed we are that it wasn't our preferred candidate. It speaks volumes about both Sanders and many of his supporters that we cannot count on the same. Unbelievable.

 

"

Lol wow. Of course I acknowledge it would be a controversial decision and at this stage of the race, I'm not personally advocating for it (though I will be honest and say if it happened, I wouldn't be disappointed). Agree it's hypocritical because if the tables were turned and it was Hillary, there would be riots from the Sanders supporters. 

Some further opinions that the general election polls are indeed too early to be accurate at this stage: 

http://time.com/4305514/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-general-election-polls/

 

 

Updated On: 4/23/16 at 06:54 PM

[binau]

Posted: 4/23/16 at 7:08pm

One thing I wish the media would stop doing is reporting delegate totals including Superdelegates.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-delegate-tracker/

Misleading the public into thinking that Hillary is further ahead than she actually is (particularly earlier on in the race).

 

Updated On: 4/23/16 at 07:08 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/23/16 at 7:34pm

 

They are not "misleading the public into thinking that Hillary is further ahead than she actually is."

She actually IS that further ahead.

 

[binau]

Posted: 4/23/16 at 7:48pm

You would know better than I do that the extra 450 superdelegates aren't fixed (particularly earlier on in the race). 

Updated On: 4/23/16 at 07:48 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/23/16 at 8:51pm

I'm talking pledged delegates and math.

Clinton has more than double the lead In pledged delegates than Obana had In 2008. What’s more, Clinton’s current pledged-delegate lead is bigger than Barack Obama’s final lead in 2008 with pledged and superdelegates combined.

Updated On: 4/24/16 at 08:51 PM

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 4/23/16 at 9:14pm

The organization I work for is for Hilary. I'm not. Bill Clinton was at my job a couple of weeks ago...didn't care to go see him. Have no idea where she was but she sent hubby in her place. 

Im voting for Sanders. 

Oh and this primary last week was soooo rigged. 

Updated On: 4/23/16 at 09:14 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/23/16 at 9:15pm

And can we all agree to retire the erroneous notion that Hillary is in some way "dishonest"?

 

She is NOT.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/opinion/sunday/is-hillary-clinton-dishonest.html

[Auggie27]

Posted: 4/23/16 at 9:29pm

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/04/22/open-letter-bernie-sanders/AfEtRwYJmTJ5lTNIuw4q8O/story.html

 "An open letter to Bernie Sanders."

Points worth considering, surely.

Updated On: 4/23/16 at 09:29 PM

[madbrian]

Posted: 4/24/16 at 7:56am

Clinton currently leads Sanders by about 275 PLEDGED delegates, and she is likely to pick up another 30-40 on Tuesday.  She also leads in popular vote by over 2.5 MILLION.  Sanders is only as close as he is due to winning caucuses in mostly GOP states.  He has no valid case for flipping superdelegates; they're smart enough to know that the polls showing him doing better than Hillary at this point in time will never hold up.  Both he and Kasich are benefiting from the lack of media scrutiny, as well as the lack of any attacks from their opponents.

Also, Sanders is being credited for running a great campaign.  Maybe.  He certainly tapped into the far left of the party and energized them.  However, he didn't follow through with any depth.  Almost a year into his campaign, he still isn't competent discussing foreign policy.  And he can't even speak in any details about how his grand ideas can be implemented.  And this is while running against HRC, a former SecState and one of the most formidable candidates to run in a generation.

Updated On: 4/24/16 at 07:56 AM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/24/16 at 10:28am

 

Actually, it was a rotten campaign, filled with stirring slogans and empty promises but devoid of any depth. And a terrible choice of campaign manager forced his campaign to descend into politics-as-usual attack tactics.

He will get credit for bringing young people to the party, and remembered along with Bobby Kennedy, Eugene McCarthy, George McGovern, and Jerry Brown.

A younger left-leaning politician will come after him, hopefully soon--and hopefully smarter. Maybe that person will even be the first Jewish presidential candidate to succeed. Maybe that person will be Russ Feingold.

 

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 4/24/16 at 10:54am

You all need to roll a joint, knock back a few drinks and RELAX. With how many corrupt cronies are sitting in Congress now, including former influence-peddlers and bundlers and lobbyists, it really doesn't matter who the next President is. They could be "revolutionary" or they could be "pragmatic," but they'll definitely be ineffective. This is not a monarchy. This is a country bought by private corporations, foreign terrorist organizations and wealthy billionaires. There are no outsiders and the role of President has been diminished over the last 15 years. I would recommend directing all of this ridiculous energy to movements that actually matter, like Democracy Now or Democracy Spring.  xoxo

[madbrian]

Posted: 4/24/16 at 10:59am

Unless the Constitution has been changed, the POTUS still nominates justices to the SCOTUS.  Since the next POTUS will probably nominate two or three justices, it matters.

[StageManager2]

Posted: 4/24/16 at 1:55pm

Oy, Rosario Dawson evoked Monica Lewinsky at a Delaware rally yesterday:

 

Dawson told the Wilmington, Delaware, crowd: “We are literally under attack — not just for supporting the other candidate. "I’m with Monica Lewinsky on this … bullying is bad,” she said, adding that she believes the attacks she cited are “a campaign strategy” of Clinton’s team. Dawson went on to briefly praise Lewinsky, who was at the center of a sex-scandal with Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton, during their time in the White House.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/rosario-dawson-monica-lewinsky-222352

 

If anything, Dawson sounds like the bully here, using Lewinsky as an anti-Clinton dog whistle to garner political points.