clinton vs. sanders your vote? — Page 88

I said "which is a good thing" in this very thread!!!

To me the saddest thing so far has been watching the pre-packaged Republican line about the unrelenting pure evil of Hillary has be taken on and propagated by so many of these folks, which was the intent when it was first introduced. Brought to this very website, and pointed out immediately by a few of us, by LiarsHeadband, who became a political scold who ADMITTEDLY DOES NOT VOTE.

Topsy turvy world.

Updated On: 3/3/16 at 01:56 PM

Now that Romney is clearly hoping he is going to repeat his Salt Lake City Olympics Savior mythology, will he have to walk back (yet again!) his attempts to undermine Obama's achievement with the ACA when he exclaimed, "I invented that!"??????

Weird. Ann Coulter gave the presidency to Trump a moment after the Paris terror attacks.

I guess we can just call it a day.

Would she be allowed to chain smoke through the confirmation hearings?

There is an (anecdotal) group of GOP elders who have been strategically working to position Romney as the candidate at a brokered convention.

I found this:

Immunity means the Justice Department must forego bringing a case against him, but if the DOJ thought they had a case against Pagliano, they would not grant him immunity. They would prosecute that case, or else make a plea deal which could include the grant of immunity. They are granting him immunity because there is no case they are foregoing, so, this way, he can and will give them evidence.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/charlestiefer/2016/03/02/immunity-for-bryan-pagliano-will-help-end-the-hillary-clinton-email-inquiry/#389a78552dbc

Which criminal scandals?

"She is lucky that Bernie is of a higher calibre than he is."

I'd suggest that he's been the lucky one so far. For the most part, the Clintons and Hillary's surrogates have played nice. This is his first real exposure to scrutiny at the national level and even that's been blunted considerably by the barrage of attacks from the GOP on the presumptive nominee Hillary . Regardless of who sews up the Democratic nomination, it's likely to be one of the nastiest general elections in history.

In 2008 the upstart Obama didn't have an extensive record that could be used against him. On the contrary, the 4 leading contenders in this cycle on both sides have loads of negatives between them that are ripe for exploitation by the opposition.

ETA: A colleague is convinced that Obama will be forced to make a recess appointment to the Supreme Court as insurance in the event the election should be decided there akin to Bush v. Gore. I don't fully understand the time line where that's feasible though.

Updated On: 3/3/16 at 05:08 PM

In a general election, Trump is going to be absolutely ruthless and exploit Hillary's criminal scandals and her husband's perceived immorality. As Trump has said, "I haven't even started on her yet".

Trump is going to have to be very careful how he approaches Hillary, especially during the debates -- and, yes, it's because she's a woman. A grandmother, to boot. He can't talk to her like he did Rubio, Cruz, and Jeb, slinging insults about her appearance and calling her vile names to cover up the fact that he has nothing substantial to say. His base may love it, but the general public won't. During the 2000 NY Senate debates, Republican Rick Lazio tried to throw his weight around and approached Hillary's podium, and that backfired big time. He lost the female vote after that. And Lazio was very tame compared to Trump.

"I'm all for being enthusiastic about one's chosen candidate, but a lot of that behavior is really off-putting, especially because it's clear to me that Sanders is a stand-up person and someone who is absolutely to be admired."

I too believe that Sanders is a stand-up person despite his not being my choice for POTUS. He seems almost too nice to seek the office. Characterizing his attributes as negatives was definitely a poor choice of words. A more fitting description would be vulnerabilities in the context of the general election. I wish him the best regardless of the outcome. He and his wife Jane don't deserve what the GOP has in store for them if he sews up the nomination. It's all old hat for the Clintons at this point.

Updated On: 3/3/16 at 06:30 PM

These Republican Trojan "concerns" like the above mention "criminal" bs is what I am so sick of.

Yes, well, XTC wrote a perfect song about you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9t2j8NcVpW4

qolbinau said: ""Could the negative publicity from these scandals potentially be one reason why in nearly every poll Bernie Sanders beats Trump with a greater margin than Hillary Clinton?"

Not really. The reason Sanders beats anyone in polls is because no one has attacked him. And as a result, the general public doesn't even really know him. He has a long way to fall when/if that starts.

Reminder: Gallup's polls show that most Americans would not consider voting for a socialist for President. Americans would more likely support a Muslim or an Atheist than a socialist.

Bernie has faced almost zero scrutiny to this point. HRC and her campaign have rightly been nice to him. As have Republicans, who want Sanders as strong as possible for now to keep heat on Clinton. But Sanders' positions of socialism, raising taxes on almost all citizens, and greatly increasing the size of government are not popular. The populace at large knows Sanders as a crusty old gentleman who is sincere and wants to help the less fortunate. And he's popular with the kids.

But his policies under scrutiny will cause his support to wither. And that's just assuming he doesn't have skeletons in his closet we haven't heard about (there are rumors).

In short: Sanders numbers are artificially high because he is largely unknown.

Updated On: 3/4/16 at 02:47 AM