clinton vs. sanders your vote?- Page 143

[PalJoey]

Posted: 6/1/16 at 4:05pm

Matthew Yglesias thinks Bernie is getting ready to withdraw.

 

VOX.COM: Why I think Bernie Sanders will drop out and endorse Hillary Clinton soon

http://www.vox.com/2016/6/1/11820854/sanders-drop-out-california

[madbrian]

Posted: 6/1/16 at 4:11pm

Steve Kornacki was filling in for Maddow last night, and made a similar case. At this point in 2008. HRC was at least as adamant about staying in until the convention as Sanders is now, and she was in a much stronger position then.  Also, the polls about the PUMAs in 2008 were far worse than the current numbers regarding the Bernie Bros regarding supporting their opponent.

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 6/2/16 at 11:02am

I would never vote for Donald Trump. I would never not vote at all. But I can't ever see myself voting for Hillary Clinton either. If it looked like their were any chance Trump was going to beat Clinton in NJ in the general I would vote for her. But I would be very depressed about it. But it looks like I'll be depressed no matter what the outcome of this election is. The most vunerable Americans can not surivive another 4 years of the status quo.
 

Why Some of the Smartest Progressives I Know Will Vote for Trump over Hillary

Even on Wall Street, a powerful Sanders contingent so hates what Clinton stands for—the status quo—they’ll pull the lever for almost anyone else.

"...the Democratic Party in the Clinton and Obama administrations has consistently embraced and implemented policies that strip workers of economic and legal rights to benefit investors and the elite professionals that serve them. Over time, the “neoliberal” economic order—which sees only good, never bad, in the relentless untrammeling of capital and the deregulation of markets—has created an unacceptable level of economic insecurity and distress for those outside the 1 percent and the elite professionals who serve them.

The result is that the U.S. economy is becoming lethal to the less fortunate, according to the New York Times, which reported this week that U.S. death rates have risen for the first time in a decade. The increase in death rates among less educated whites since 2001 is roughly the size of the AIDS epidemic. One cause, the opioid epidemic, resulted from Purdue Pharma overselling the effectiveness of reformulated OxyContin, then recommending higher dosages when it failed to work properly, which experts deemed a prescription for creating addicts, according to a number of lawsuits. This was permitted by the U.S. government, leading to thousands of unnecessary deaths. Despite President Barack Obama’s Panglossian claim that the economy is doing well, the spike in suicides to levels over those during the financial crisis belies that.

Yet the Clinton campaign is in such denial about this that it has become vitriolic in its verbal and tactical attacks on Sanders and his supporters—rather than recognizing that the stunning success of his campaign is proof of their abject policy failures. The message is clear: The Clintons believe, as Bill himself put it, that the true progressives have nowhere to go.

The Clintons’ dismal record, which Hillary cannot run away from, speaks for itself. And this is what makes many progressives I know unable to support her, even if she wins the nomination. Consider the reasons why they feel this way:

Social Security. Bill Clinton made a deal with Newt Gingrich to privatize Social Security, but Monica Lewinsky derailed his plans. Sanders has promised to strengthen Social Security. By contrast, Clinton wants to “preserve” it, which includes means-testing. That would put Social Security on a path to being a welfare program, not a universal safety net, making it vulnerable in the long run. Bill Clinton’s ending of welfare is an illustration of the regular pattern, dating back to England’s Poor Law of 1834, of gutting safety nets for the poor.

Climate change. Sanders calls for a full-bore, Marshall-Plan level commitment to reducing carbon output. Hillary talks about climate change but pushed for fracking in Europe while secretary of state. The Clintons remain firmly committed to fracking, which ruins water supplies and releases large amounts of methane.

Minimum wage. Inflation-adjusted minimum wage increases under Clinton were negligible—virtually identical to those under George H.W. Bush. Obama promised a minimum wage increase to $9.50 an hour and failed to act in the first four years of his presidency. Sanders wants to raise minimum wages to $15 an hour, while Clinton stands pat with the administration plan to increase wages to $12 an hour by 2020.

Trade deals. Bill Clinton ushered in NAFTA, which was touted as positive for growth and employment, and is now widely acknowledged to have cost nearly a million jobs. Even one of its chief promoters, former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich, now deems it to have been a failure for American workers. Hillary consistently backed the Trans-Pacific Partnership until Sanders made an issue of it, and she’s recently returned to supporting it. The potential growth and income gains from this agreement and its European sister, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, are only marginally positive, while the loss of national sovereignty would be enormous. These agreements would enable foreign investors to challenge laws for labor, environmental and consumer protection, for threatening future profits.

Health care. Sanders wants single-payer, government-provided health care. Around the world, single payer has uncontestably demonstrated that it delivers better results overall at vastly lower cost. Obamacare took single payer off the table, instead rearranging the current costly, clumsy system while guaranteeing profits for health insurers and Big Pharma. Clinton at most has offered patches, but the pressure from Sanders has compelled her to suggest an early buy-in for Medicare.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/wall-street-2016-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-213931#ixzz4AQz6Q7pS 
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

Updated On: 6/2/16 at 11:02 AM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 6/2/16 at 12:04pm

 

Why Some of the Smartest Progressives I Know Will Vote for Trump over Hillary

 

Then those are the stupidest "smartest progressives" who ever lived.

[madbrian]

Posted: 6/2/16 at 12:22pm

I consider Elizabeth Warren to be a very smart progressive, and I don't think she'll be voting for Trump/

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 6/2/16 at 1:07pm

madbrian said: "I consider Elizabeth Warren to be a very smart progressive, and I don't think she'll be voting for Trump/

 

"

 

Absolute bullsh!t. Warren is a faux-progressive. Several of her policy positions have changed significantly since become entrenched with D.C. cronies. 

[PalJoey]

Posted: 6/2/16 at 2:09pm

Oh, for crap's sake.

[BrerBear]

Posted: 6/2/16 at 2:10pm

The most vunerable Americans can not surivive another 4 years of the status quo.
 
Putting aside the very real point that Hillary is not status quo, I hope you and your "smart progressive" friends are smart enough to realize that it can get worse. Much worse.

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 6/2/16 at 2:12pm

Just for the sake of argument, do you care to expand on how she's not the status quo? And no, being a woman doesn't count. She is touting her presidency as another four years for Obama. Doesn't that technically meet the simple definition of status quo? I'm genuinely asking.

 

Simple Definition of status quo

• : the current situation : the way things are now

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 6/2/16 at 2:16pm

PalJoey said: " 

Why Some of the Smartest Progressives I Know Will Vote for Trump over Hillary

 

Then those are the stupidest "smartest progressives" who ever lived."

Ignoring any of the issues with her record brought up in the article and calling people who disagree with you stupid. The standard response.

Selecting one of the least popular candidates in history as your nominee and then blaming somene else is she loses, now THAT is stupid.

 

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 6/2/16 at 2:28pm

BrerBear said: "The most vunerable Americans can not surivive another 4 years of the status quo.
 
Putting aside the very real point that Hillary is not status quo, I hope you and your "smart progressive" friends are smart enough to realize that it can get worse. Much worse."

You do understand I didn't write that article correct? And that I said in the begining of my post that I would never vote for Trump.

And, since I work up close and personal with people living in poverty you can trust me that I do not need you to tell me things can get much worse. I have watched them get worse over the past 8 years.

[madbrian]

Posted: 6/2/16 at 2:30pm

Without diminishing the outcome of the POTUS election, the status quo will remain until there is a significant shift in Congress.  Its approval rating is somewhere around 13%, however it is likely that the vast majority of its members will be reelected.  POTUS is still critical for leadership, SCOTUS, and many other things, but no one will be able to accomplish real change without a fundamental shift in the House and Senate.

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 6/2/16 at 2:37pm

I agree madbrian. And my beef is not with Hillary Clinton alone, It's with the entire neo-liberal wing of the Democratic party. And you have plenty of them currently occupying seats in the House and Senate. 

[PalJoey]

Posted: 6/2/16 at 3:43pm

 

There is a chance that the Democrats can take both houses of Congress, but only if voters coalesce around the party, get out the vote and press the levers on the down-ticket races. 

Hillary Clinton is not the "least popular candidate." She's got 3 million more votes than Sanders so far--and counting!

The least popular candidate is Trump, and the Republican turnout is likely to be the lowest in many elections. If the Democrats unite, we can take both houses of Congress. Now THAT'S what I call a revolution!

 

[South Florida]

Posted: 6/2/16 at 4:58pm

"If it looked like their were any chance Trump was going to beat Clinton in NJ in the general I would vote for her. But I would be very depressed about it."

Erik, well done, we have to move on to acceptance.

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 6/3/16 at 7:32am

I didn't say she was the "least popular" candidate. I said she was one of them. And I'm talking about her favorability ratings. If you're going to use primary votes as measure of popularity than Trump is popular too. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B72Iiu2bIyo

[PalJoey]

Posted: 6/3/16 at 9:42am

 

I don't believe in favorability ratings. Politics should not be a popularity contest.

Too many unimportant variables are involved in favorability-poll questions, like "Could you have a beer with the candidate?" Or "What do you think the candidate does for a hobby?"

Hillary's got more primary votes than Trump too. Why have more people have voted for her in this election season than for any other candidate? Watch yesterday's speech.

 

[Kad]

Posted: 6/3/16 at 9:55am

Hillary's unfavorability ratings don't concern me if you look at those ratings over the course of two decades.

Does it help she's currently fending off two populist challengers? Absolutely not.

 

 

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/09/hillary-clintons-favorability-ratings-are-right-their-normal-groove

[PalJoey]

Posted: 6/3/16 at 11:29pm

 

The contest will be over Tuesday at 8 PM, when the New Jersey polls close and Clinton is declared the presumptive nominee.

But whether she goes to the convention having won in CCalifornia or not seems to be entirely up to Latino voters in California:

 

NATE SILVER, FIVETHIRTYEIGHT.COM: Hispanic Voters Will Decide Bernie Sanders’s Fate in California

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/hispanic-voters-will-decide-bernie-sanderss-fate-in-california/

 

 

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 6/4/16 at 12:22am

She needs to win California in order to shut Bernie and his "momentum" talk up. 

[StageManager2]

Posted: 6/4/16 at 10:25am

I think we all know Sanders' fate. If he barely wins CA, it won't change the outcome of the race. It'll just delay the inevitable. At least for one more week.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 6/4/16 at 12:38pm

Maddow said something interesting last night. Referencing when Trump became the official nominee because just reporters happened to call delegates and asked who they were voting for, and that accurate number pushed him to the required number he needed. Well, there are two primaries this weekend and with Clinton only needing 60 something in order to get to the number she needs, it's possible she gets extremely close today. Maddow went on to say that if the same thing happened with her that happened to Trump, it's very possible that even before Tuesday's primaries begin, they could call the race for her. 

That would drive Bernie's cult INSANE and I think I would love it.

[sabrelady]

Posted: 6/4/16 at 8:04pm

That would drive Bernie's cult INSANE and I think I would love it.

Oh Jordan U is my kinda guy!

[H.Higgins]

Posted: 6/4/16 at 8:43pm

His epic nonsense and disregard for math, reality, and doing the right thing continues:

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-06-04/sanders-says-clinton-can-t-claim-democratic-win-on-tuesday

 

But yeah, his campaign is totally about "us", not him. What an unbelievably selfish and entitled individual. This is the same person who said months ago that super delegates must support the will of the voters (back when he thought that will might favor him in the end), but now demands that they do the opposite and overturn the will of the voters and ignore the very clear fact that his Democratic opponent has won this process by every measurable metric (even humoring his proposal where super delegates choose to align with a candidate depending on how their state voted, she still wins). The arrogance is unreal.

[binau]

Posted: 6/4/16 at 10:01pm

PalJoey said: " 

Hillary Clinton is not the "least popular candidate." She's got 3 million more votes than Sanders so far--and counting!

"

The population of voters in the primary is different from the population of which the favourability ratings are sampled. Donald Trump has made similar arguments about himself when his popularity is questioned amongst the general population.