clinton vs. sanders your vote?- Page 91

[South Florida]

Posted: 3/6/16 at 9:20am

"South Florida, you're sounding desperate. Ever since SC, and especially after Super Tuesday, you've become nastier in your posts. I guess you're starting to see the writing on the wall."

Yup

[mar6411]

Posted: 3/6/16 at 9:56am

Jay Lerner-Z:  Totally agree about Ted Cruz.  I fear he is the anti-Christ.

 

Reg:  Thanks for that link!  I have already shared it.  

[PalJoey]

Posted: 3/6/16 at 9:59am

 

 

Sanders has no hope of winning the requisite number of delegates. He should;d withdraw.

 

He has already done his job: He brought Hillary from the center closer to the left. But I'm afraid his real plan all along has to destroy the Democratic Party he never belonged to as an Independent..

 

After he loses in Michigan, all his presence in the race will do is further poison his followers against Hillary. 

But how do you ask a man who doesn';t belong to the party to concede for the sake of the party? He cares as little for the sake of the Democratic Party as Trump does for the sake of the GOP. Both men would be content to see their respective parties splinter and disintegrate.

 

 

[PalJoey]

Posted: 3/6/16 at 10:03am

 

Reggie--that was an excellent blog from DailyKos by motocat. I saw itr briefly last month when it was posted and didn't read it because I thought it  was, well, just another blog on hating Hillary. But motocat's analysis is the best of blogging. I lobe this, from the final paragraph:

 

I hear a lot about the need to hold our media to a higher standard when it comes to the spread of information and narrative, but how we expect them to uphold those standards we seem so willing to abandon them ourselves? 

[madbrian]

Posted: 3/6/16 at 10:11am

PJ,

Back in 2008 you supported HRC's continued candidacy, even when it was obvious that Obama had become the inevitable nominee.  Don't Sanders and his supporters deserve the same?  If we want the party to rally around her, we need to allow them to get there.  HRC exited the race on her own terms, and did so with grace. This worked for us in 2008, and I think it will work again this year.

Updated On: 3/6/16 at 10:11 AM

[javero]

Posted: 3/6/16 at 10:29am

qolbinau wrote, "Considering what the taxes will pay for is absolutely important if it increases middle class net income, which is the most important outcome for increasing economic prosperity for middle class families."

 

There are many among the GOP (and some Libertarians) who feel that the federal government should not even be in the student loan guarantee or public health insurance businesses to begin with.  Are you certain the US government has the constitutional authority currently to guarantee free college tuition for all citizens?  And should that perk be extended to young adults whose citizenship is dubious?  I pose the latter question because after a few states extended lower in-state tuition rates to young adults whose immigration status was uncertain, and residing within their borders, all hell broke loose.  The point I'm trying to make is that the Spending Clause and the Interstate Commerce Clause have been stretched to the limit.  And there are still unresolved lawsuits challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (unfortunately aka Obama Care).

 

There's an interesting article that addresses the constitution question with respect to free public education at http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1882/Constitutional-Requirements-Governing-American-Education.html 

 

I'm not accusing Sanders of any sort of sleight-of-hand.  But, free stuff has to be paid for somehow.  Since he's asking ALL citizens and lawful residents to foot the bill, we all get to weigh in on the matter, including his opponents.  At least Ted Cruz calls for the abolition of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in exchange for adoption of his flat tax proposal.  What's not so obvious to me from the Sanders camp is what we're going to have to give up to sell his bundle of perks.  Any plan calling for an increase in taxes across the board without touching the spending side of the equation has a snow ball's chance in hell of getting off the ground.  It's tantamount to tax-and-spend which is anathema to those on the right.

Updated On: 3/6/16 at 10:29 AM

[HorseTears]

Posted: 3/6/16 at 10:39am

Agreed, Brian.  Also, while Sanders isn't beholden to the DNC, I don't believe we'll see a repeat of 1980.  Sanders cares too much about his progressive platform to jeopardize losing the White House to Cruz or Trump.   And, I imagine he believes that the longer he's in the race, the longer he can help attract and energize progressive voters in all national elections, not just for the Presidency.  

 

He will not damage Hillary the way Ted Kennedy damaged Carter.  I can forsee him dropping out of the race earlier than Clinton did in 2008 - sometime in late April or early May and he will quickly pivot to endorsing and stumping for Hillary and for progressive congressional candidates.  

 

And even if the Republicans just have a two man race between Cruz and Trump at that point, it will still be ugly and messy and such a distraction that Hillary will still emerge strong from the Dem primary.  

[madbrian]

Posted: 3/6/16 at 10:46am

Is Rubio endangering his long-term political career?  He is not running for reelection, so he will be out of the Senate come January.  Even if he doesn't win the presidency, he'd be a likely candidate for governor of Florida next cycle.  But if he loses the Florida primary to Trump, is he really viable?  

[javero]

Posted: 3/6/16 at 10:53am

"But if he loses the Florida primary to Trump, is he really viable?"

 

My take on it: (1) Rubio will come in 2nd to Trump in FL; (2) he'll land a gig on K St or at Faux News; (3) he won't be elected the next governor of FL, (4) Trump, Cruz, Rubio, and Kasich will enter a brokered convention in Cleveland with the outcome being a Cruz-Kasich ticket; and (5) Trump will sue the hell out of the GOP.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 3/6/16 at 11:22am

Wouldn't put it past either of them:

http://blackbag.gawker.com/is-donald-trump-running-a-false-flag-campaign-to-help-h-1723925057

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 3/6/16 at 11:24am

Thanks for the link Reg!

If the GOP does have a brokered convention, and do not nominate Trump if he has enough delegates, I believe that Trump will run as a third party candidate just to spite them. He will say they, like Cruz, cheated, and he will not honor a deal made with those who cheated at the end...  Part of me thinks despite what he says he would prefer Clinton (for the financial and international stability) over Cruz.  If Sanders happens to be the nominee of the Dems, then I would fear that Trump could win as a third party candidate.

Updated On: 3/6/16 at 11:24 AM

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 3/6/16 at 12:57pm

Wouldn't put it past either of them

 

Case in point to Reg's article. 

Updated On: 3/6/16 at 12:57 PM

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 3/6/16 at 1:39pm

It's not an article, its a diary.  And a very naive one at that.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 3/6/16 at 2:10pm

Let's meet in the middle and call it a blog, like the about Trump and Clinton working in collusion. 

[HorseTears]

Posted: 3/6/16 at 2:13pm

Can someone explain to me why the CA primary is all the way in June? My beautiful state offers 548 delegates - a number that has the potential to dramatically shape the Democratic race for the Presidency and, yet, will likely - again - have no impact on the race. The most progressive, populated and diverse state in the country, with the largest GDP in the nation and 8th largest GDP in the world wields no power or influence in Presidential politics. Yet, ****ing Iowa, does?? What is stopping us from moving our primary to earlier in the year?

[Borstalboy]

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

Whoever you support, you gotta admit:  This is stirring and beautiful.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XXEHZsAkR0

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 3/6/16 at 2:18pm

The most progressive, populated and diverse state in the country, with the largest GDP in the nation and 8th largest GDP in the world wields no power or influence in Presidential politics.

 

Where California goes, the nation goes, they said before Prop 8.  And they were right!  California banned same-sex marriage and the rest of the country went crazy to follow suit. 

 

The problem is staggered primaries, period.  

 

 

[HorseTears]

Posted: 3/6/16 at 2:39pm

Borstalboy said: "Whoever you support, you gotta admit:  This is stirring and beautiful.

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XXEHZsAkR0"

 

 

Wow.  That was really powerful.  Thanks for sharing, Borstal.  Apparently, Sanders will be running it on Spanish language media like Univision.  Yeah, whatever you think about Bernie, that is an exceptionally well produced spot.  And, for once, an ad that's not just about empty rhetoric.  

 

I think it's even more powerful than the Erica Garner endorsement ad.  

[javero]

Posted: 3/6/16 at 4:04pm

I am not heartless.  In fact, after viewing that video, I'm holding back tears.  While living in southern central PA some years ago I spent years teaching English as a second language to the children of migrant workers.  On average, those kids switch schools 8 times a years as their parents move from harvests of oranges in FL to tobacco & cotton in other southern states to apples in the NE to grapes & other produce in CA's Central Valley.  And there's an incredible amount of sexual abuse inflicted on the girls and young women residing in the migrant worker campsites which frequently goes unreported.  Bernie Sanders is a very fine fellow indeed.

 

But, what the very young mom in the video didn't recount was what circumstances led her to leave Mexico for the USA and whether she's in the country legally.  I'm neither comfortable with nor proud of politicizing her personal narrative but Ted Cruz and the Tea Party will.  I'm also starting to question just how effective government really is at improving the human condition, especially for the untouchable class that exists in all the industrialized nations of the West.  I'm all for charity stepping in to close any gaps.  It's too difficult to get the donor class to give a **** about anything that doesn't lower the price of luxury goods, their income tax burden, or the estate taxes passed onto the caretakers of their household pets.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 3/6/16 at 4:41pm

 

Back in 2008 you supported HRC's continued candidacy, even when it was obvious that Obama had become the inevitable nominee.  Don't Sanders and his supporters deserve the same?  If we want the party to rally around her, we need to allow them to get there.  HRC exited the race on her own terms, and did so with grace. This worked for us in 2008, and I think it will work again this year.

 

You're totally right. And it took her (and us) till June. 

 

But I hope when he steps aside, he does it with the graciousness she showed, ultimately accepting a cabinet position. Her more rabid supporters were few and, in the end, disloyal to her support of Obama. I worry that Bernie will have no loyalty to defeating the GOP candidate and will urge his supporters to stay home or vote for a third-party candidate.

 

 

Updated On: 3/6/16 at 04:41 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 3/6/16 at 4:48pm

I see no reason to believe he won't exhibit a similar graciousness.

 

I think we run the risk of doing what songanddanceman2 did for so long when he used to criticize Lady Gaga for not denouncing the rabidity of her ridiculous fans in saying things that would be hurtful to Madonna if she had feelings.

[HorseTears]

Posted: 3/6/16 at 4:53pm

Cabinet position?  No, thanks.  The only one he'd probably be remotely interested in is Treasury Secretary and, let's be honest, for all her talk about Wall Street reform, there is zero chance she's offering him that role.  He's still hugely popular in his home state and in good health.  We need powerful, progressive voices to remain in the Senate where they will have far more influence.  No Sanders in the cabinet and no Warren at the US Naval Observatory.  

[PalJoey]

Posted: 3/6/16 at 5:17pm

 

I agree that his voice is needed in the Senate. I think we need both him  and Elizabeth Warren as progressive voices in the Senate.

 

I'm afraid he'll decline to throw his support behind Hillary as Democratic candidate because he has always prided himself on being independent of the Democratic party. If he was never a Democrat before, why should he become one when Hillary has enough delegates to be the nominee?

 

Many of his supporters would applaud him if he said "Screw you!" to the Democrats. That could throw the election to Trump or Cruz.

[HorseTears]

Posted: 3/6/16 at 5:27pm

I just don't see any indication that he will do that.  Yes, he's progressive, yes he's fiercely independent minded.  But he's also  a career politician who understands how to operate within the system and also understands that any hope of even approaching his vision for a better, more just society would evaporate under a possible 8 year Republican term in which 3 or more new Supreme Court appointments will be made.  I fully expect him to endorse and campaign for Clinton just like - as much as I know she wants the Presidency with every fiber of her being - Hillary would do the same for him.  

[madbrian]

Posted: 3/6/16 at 5:35pm

I see no indication that he will not support her, and his recent stump speeches have steered clear of any substantive attacks against her.  I also don't see him in the Senate, but with the Dems having a shot at the majority, Harry Reid could use a plum committee chair to incite him to throw his support behind her.