clinton vs. sanders your vote?- Page 137

[best12bars]

Posted: 5/13/16 at 9:48am

Sanders isn't going to drop out for the good of the party, because he isn't for the good of the party. He doesn't care about the party. He's not even a Democrat. He's running as a Dem just to suit his own interests. He has a much better change of winning as a major-party candidate. If he could have run as an independent and made any impact in the votes, he would have.

I'm surprised people like Feinstein aren't fully aware of this. Her comments sound naive. She's been in politics too long not to realize what he's doing.

[madbrian]

Posted: 5/13/16 at 10:02am

While Sanders is not dropping out, and continuing to hold big rallies, his funding is drying up, at least relative to prior months.  In fact, their approach in California is to rely on rallies and GOTV on college campuses.  In other words, no large-scale campaign ads in such a large state.  That's a losing strategy.

 

[StageManager2]

Posted: 5/13/16 at 11:21am

Why are celebs still supporting him? I just read that Rosario Dawson, Josh Hutcherson, and Frances Fisher ('membah huh?) were at some college the other day, registering people to vote. They must know that Sanders has no chance at this point, so why bother trying to recruit more voters? Don't they realize how damaging it is for Sanders to remain in the race, especially since he continues to go after Clinton, thereby giving the Republicans more ammo. Meanwhile, Trump has more or less clinched the Republican nomination, and now that his supporters have time to spare, they're probably registering as Democrats so they can vote for Sanders to stick it to Hillary. Ugh.

[madbrian]

Posted: 5/13/16 at 11:28am

If they're registering college kids, I'd think that would be a good thing.  Don't really see them jumping to Trump in the general.

[binau]

Posted: 5/13/16 at 11:57pm

" now that his supporters have time to spare, they're probably registering as Democrats so they can vote for Sanders to stick it to Hillary. Ugh."

 

I would find this to be an absurd proposition. Why would they do this? That may not help Trump in an election. Indeed, the polls suggest (and have suggested for a long time) it would be worse for Trump if Sanders were the nominee than Hillary. 

I realise that people seem to discount these polls, and while I think there is some merit to looking at them critically, I think it would be foolish to ignore them:

 

1. Yes, it is true that Bernie Sanders has been largely unknown and there is a risk that in a general election attacks on Bernie Sanders may reduce his popularity. In particular, his 'socialist' label and Trump's subtle suggestion that Sanders might be a communist (in several interviews he has said something like "he is a socialist, but could be more" and occasionally has dropped the 'c' word). However, let's not forget that Trump has A LOT of ammunition to exploit against Hillary Clinton, too - and as Trump has said recently, "he has barely even started". For example, I imagine he will really push Hillary's criminal FBI investigation and reinforce a perception held by some people that Hillary Clinton is corrupt (he has a nick name for her, "Crooked Hillary", as he talked about recently. Given Sanders has primarily been focussing on the actual issues, it's going to be a completely different dynamic for her when Trump stands on that stage accusing her of being a criminal and suggesting she may not even be eligible to be president (as he has currently touched upon interviews, but for the most part has been focussing on other republicans in the primary this year). In other words, both Clinton and Sanders will be attacked that could cause their popularity to reduce.

2. By the same token of being more unknown, let's not forget that there is also an opportunity for Sanders to increase in popularity and maintain (or increase) his lead over Trump once he discusses his policy ideas. We know from this primary that Sanders has been very successful at going from basically no supporters and being completely unknown to gaining a large number of followers and popularity in a short amount of time. A general election will only further increase his opportunity to gain more supporters as he advocates for his ideas.

3.Sanders' more conservative gun policies may appeal to swing republican voters. 


4. In many of the polls, the differences between Hillary and Sanders vs Trump are not negligible. 


5. We're getting closer and closer to the election now.

"Sanders isn't going to drop out for the good of the party, because he isn't for the good of the party. He doesn't care about the party. He's not even a Democrat. He's running as a Dem just to suit his own interests. He has a much better change of winning as a major-party candidate. If he could have run as an independent and made any impact in the votes, he would have."

I would say this is very true. But let's be clear when we are talking about his 'own interests' we should be talking about his vision for the country. "his own interests" makes it sound like he is doing this for personal gain (e.g., career ambition), which I personally don't believe is the case. No one pushes the ideas he does and challenges others like he does if they are just trying to forward their career.
 

"When Bernie is president, you won't have to work spam any more."

LOL.

 

 

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 5/14/16 at 1:33pm

I do think Sanders would win against Trump (and I also think Hillary will, and do think that all the polls at this point are pretty meaningless, but Sanders' positions on guns would certainly not swing Republican voters. Not only are his gun positions still pretty liberal (they're only to the right of Hillary) but Republicans would not vote for someone promoting the kind of programs Sanders advocates. 

The only reason Republicans won't vote for the party this year is because they can't stand Trump- he is absolutely odious, but that's true regardless of who he's running against. 

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/14/16 at 2:01pm

 

Don't be silly. No Republican would EVER vote for Bernie Sanders.

Because taxes.

 

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 5/14/16 at 2:08pm

Well, I know at least one who would- my father is a Reagan-loving Republican who would vote for him because he finds Trump repulsive. True, he would do it because he doesn't think Bernie (or Hillary, for that matter) would actually get anything done, but a vote's a vote. 

[madbrian]

Posted: 5/18/16 at 7:59am

The media's love for Sanders and outright contempt for Clinton is disgraceful, and any other politician would be complaining about it at the top of their lungs.  By any objective assessment, Sanders had a BAD day yesterday.  At the start of the day, he needed to win almost 70% of the pledged delegates to catch Clinton.  He won about 53% of the delegates yesterday.  So, he now needs to win over 70%.  In other words, his attempt to overtake is even further out of reach.  But, to listen to the media, you'd swear he was right at her (sensible) heels.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/18/16 at 8:12am

 

Get out of the race, you egomaniacal old kvetch. All you're doing now is helping Trump.

 

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 5/18/16 at 8:24am

madbrian said: "The media's love for Sanders and outright contempt for Clinton is disgraceful, and any other politician would be complaining about it at the top of their lungs.  By any objective assessment, Sanders had a BAD day yesterday.  At the start of the day, he needed to win almost 70% of the pledged delegates to catch Clinton.  He won about 53% of the delegates yesterday.  So, he now needs to win over 70%.  In other words, his attempt to overtake is even further out of reach.  But, to listen to the media, you'd swear he was right at her (sensible) heels.

 

"

 

It is in the media's interest to play up that race, since the Republican race essentially ended two weeks ago. They need a storyline to sell. You shouldn't be at all surprised about that. 

[madbrian]

Posted: 5/18/16 at 8:31am

There is no shortage of drama in a Clinton versus Trump general election.  The media doesn't need to prop up Bernie's irrelevant persistence.  Bad enough they don't scrutinize Trump as they should, but to elevate Sanders as well only diminishes Clinton.

I guess if there's good news, this could serve to energize Dems and help avoid complacency.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 5/18/16 at 10:45am

His speech last night was laughable. I can't tell if he still believes what he's saying about a "path to the nomination" or if he's just delusional at this point.  But really, enough is enough. It's over. 

[Miranda3]

Posted: 5/18/16 at 12:54pm

I love Rachel Maddow and perhaps I am overreacting to this, but still . . . last night immediately after Hillary was declared the apparent winner in KY, Rachel introduces a guest, the ONLY US Senator who is supporting Bernie (besides the Bern himself, of course), and he immediately opines that this was really a victory for Bernie because, after all, he came SO close after she had poured so many resources into KY.  And the poor independents were kept from voting for Bern because it was not an open primary.  So the subject turns to why didn't Hillary have a bigger win rather than to the fact that she did WIN.  But when Bern pulls out a close victory, or wins a caucus, it is a HUGE victory for the revolution and is indicative of some fatal flaw in Hillary's candidacy.  Switching topics:  I was hugely impressed by Joy Reid's commentary last night during the MSNBC primary coverage.  So glad to hear she has her own show again.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 5/18/16 at 1:01pm

Maddow is usually pretty even keeled, so I'm surprised by that.  She was the first one, to my knowledge, to declare the Democratic nominating contest "over" a couple of weeks ago.  

[madbrian]

Posted: 5/18/16 at 1:31pm

Maddow has been critical of Bernie's ongoing campaign, so I'd guess this senator just happened to be booked for that time slot.

[brdlwyr]

Posted: 5/18/16 at 1:56pm

 egomaniacal old kvetch.   So true! TIRESOME!  Where these BernieTots in 2010?

[Kad]

Posted: 5/18/16 at 2:10pm

I actually thought Sanders underperformed last night- especially in Oregon.

[madbrian]

Posted: 5/18/16 at 2:52pm

By the way, the media has all but ignored a story about the closing of Burlington College.  The school was forced to closed due to overwhelming debt incurred through the frivolous purchase of waterfront property made during Jane Sanders' tenure as president there.  Since she bills herself as a senior adviser to his campaign, this is fair game.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/burlington-college-jane-sanders-close-223222

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/18/16 at 4:29pm

 

If Hillary or Bill had bankrupted a college, it would be all over the news. But Bernie and Jane are only useful to the media insofar as they make Hillary look bad.

 

[Miranda3]

Posted: 5/18/16 at 4:50pm

Exactly!  And if Hillary were proposing free college for all, after Bill had bankrupted a college, the press would be all over the irony. 

[HorseTears]

Posted: 5/18/16 at 6:39pm

I feel like you guys must watch and read different things than I do.  The overwhelming amount of media coverage I've seen in the past few days has been very critical of Sanders.  

 

I do agree, though, that if the Clintons had been involved in the financial collapse of a college it would have had wall-to-wall coverage.  You're dead right on that.  

 

[South Florida]

Posted: 5/18/16 at 7:11pm

PJ, Mad Brian, you guys are as nauseating as the Bernie or bust crowd.

 

[South Florida]

Posted: 5/18/16 at 8:13pm

Having said that yes he should concede.

 

[BrerBear]

Posted: 5/18/16 at 9:46pm

From the latest New York Times article on "Bernie Sanders, Eyeing Convention, Willing to Harm Hillary Clinton in the Homestretch"

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/19/us/politics/bernie-sanderss-campaign-accuses-head-of-dnc-of-favoritism.html

"For weeks, some current and former Sanders campaign workers have privately acknowledged feeling disheartened about Mr. Weaver’s determination to go after the Democratic National Committee, fearing a pitched battle with the party they hope to support in the general election. The intraparty fighting has affected morale, they say, and raised concerns that Mr. Weaver, a longtime Sanders aide who more recently ran a comic book store, was not devoted to achieving Democratic unity. Several described the campaign’s message as having devolved into a near-obsession with perceived conspiracies on the part of Mrs. Clinton’s allies."

You don't say.

Time to stop pulling punches on Bernie.