| |
Discussion: U.S. Election 2016: Primary Season
Member Since: 8/7/2015
Posts: 23,857
|
Quote:
Originally posted by TheLastChord
Can't Hillary pick Obama as her VP and Bill as her Secretary of State?
Is that legal?  cause those two already won GE elections? |
That'd be cheating since they're practically 1-2 moves away from the presidency.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/20/2011
Posts: 3,218
|
I'm almost certain Hillary won't win CA. I think the Little Bernsters are gonna pull crazy numbers with young people on the day and I actually think the Latino vote will be close to even. He's only down by single digits and there still is over a month to go. By 2nd/3rd week of May I expect to see polls hitting 50/50, maybe even 52/48 to Bernie.
But the thing is even with all that, Hillary is able to counter with huge numbers of early voting with older voters which her campaign has been extremely effective with.
I think Bernie will win but only by 5 points, absolute max 10. Our friends over on Reddit talking 30/40 point wins are simply delusional. And unfortunately for them that's the margin they would need to overtake in pledge delegates.
The only way I see Hillary winning CA is if she sweeps 5-0 next week (including a couple of big margins), a win in Indiana & a relatively good showing in Oregon (e.g. keeping it under a 20 point loss). That may be enough to break the backs of the most staunchest Bernie stans and really slow down the enthusiasm, especially considering she should be able to hit the pledge/super combo required before CA. But I think that might be asking a lot as she'll be wanting to pivot to Trump over May/June.
Either way I expect Bernie to pull out June 8th and endorse Hillary, he won't wanna go to DC and end on a low note.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 59,596
|
There isn't much use in speculating. Hillary has basically won the Democratic nomination and anything from here on out is just for perks. Bernie winning in CA wouldn't really do anything but it would be pretty cool if he did just to show how diverse the Dems have become. It'd be like a final hurrah if it happened. But the more interesting race is to see if Trump can make it to the delegates he needs for the nomination.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/30/2011
Posts: 2,986
|
Trump-Kasich would be really interesting actually, given that Hillary is currently winning against one of them in hypothetical polling and losing to the other.  I can't see Kasich swinging a state other than probably Ohio, though. Trump is still Trump as you say.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 144
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Danny789
As someone who came into this election undecided and chose Hillary
but still sees Bernie as an exceptional man. I'm excited to see what Sanders
can accomplish with his new found notoriety and Clinton's support, once he's back in the senate.
|
I don't think he'd have much support from the Clinton's, at least not long term. Clinton's can be very bitter about being opposed.
Quote:
Originally posted by Reza
I used to respect him but his attacks on Hillary are a mess and he seems so bitter and willing to say anything to make her look bad. I don't respect him and most of RNC probably feels the same  |
Not to be too school yard but in a cycle where they were civil she fired the first shots both figuretively via Krugman and the like and literally by branding him a liar over a something that most reasonable people would accept as truth even if Hillary clings to a technicality to justify herself and heavily implying he was unqualified...just like she did with Obama.
Sure his firing back is ham fisted but most of it is valid. While I've said before Bernie had a greater leeway to be negative about her than the other way around since her supporters would still be willing to vote for him if he were the nominee whereas his not so much but on the flip side as Jill Stein pointed out there are some shots he just can't fire. He's pushed the boundaries of what the Dems will allow him to say about her without pulling the plug on him but at best he can only allude to her conveniently changing her stance on things after receiving big wads of cash but those examples are out there.
Right now it's not so nicey-nice with Hillary. If she's got one of Super pacs investing one million dollars into online attacks on Bernie - a candidate who for all intents and purposes is no competition any more (so much for party unity) it shows that she may not think he's all that out of the race or she's out for revenge which would make her the bitter one, no?
I'm not sure why respect from the RNC should be all the important a factor in arguing in defence of a nominee from the DNC but Bernie has a better track record of working across party lines than her and without selling to boot.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/4/2014
Posts: 3,730
|
Quote:
Originally posted by CLNC
I don't think he'd have much support from the Clinton's, at least not long term. Clinton's can be very bitter about being opposed.
Not to be too school yard but in a cycle where they were civil she fired the first shots both figuretively via Krugman and the like and literally by branding him a liar over a something that most reasonable people would accept as truth even if Hillary clings to a technicality to justify herself and heavily implying he was unqualified...just like she did with Obama.
Sure his firing back is ham fisted but most of it is valid. While I've said before Bernie had a greater leeway to be negative about her than the other way around since her supporters would still be willing to vote for him if he were the nominee whereas his not so much but on the flip side as Jill Stein pointed out there are some shots he just can't fire. He's pushed the boundaries of what the Dems will allow him to say about her without pulling the plug on him but at best he can only allude to her conveniently changing her stance on things after receiving big wads of cash but those examples are out there.
Right now it's not so nicey-nice with Hillary. If she's got one of Super pacs investing one million dollars into online attacks on Bernie - a candidate who for all intents and purposes is no competition any more (so much for party unity) it shows that she may not think he's all that out of the race or she's out for revenge which would make her the bitter one, no?
I'm not sure why respect from the RNC should be all the important a factor in arguing in defence of a nominee from the DNC but Bernie has a better track record of working across party lines than her and without selling to boot.
|
well said
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/3/2010
Posts: 71,871
|
Quote:
Originally posted by CLNC
I don't think he'd have much support from the Clinton's, at least not long term. Clinton's can be very bitter about being opposed.
Not to be too school yard but in a cycle where they were civil she fired the first shots both figuretively via Krugman and the like and literally by branding him a liar over a something that most reasonable people would accept as truth even if Hillary clings to a technicality to justify herself and heavily implying he was unqualified...just like she did with Obama.
Sure his firing back is ham fisted but most of it is valid. While I've said before Bernie had a greater leeway to be negative about her than the other way around since her supporters would still be willing to vote for him if he were the nominee whereas his not so much but on the flip side as Jill Stein pointed out there are some shots he just can't fire. He's pushed the boundaries of what the Dems will allow him to say about her without pulling the plug on him but at best he can only allude to her conveniently changing her stance on things after receiving big wads of cash but those examples are out there.
Right now it's not so nicey-nice with Hillary. If she's got one of Super pacs investing one million dollars into online attacks on Bernie - a candidate who for all intents and purposes is no competition any more (so much for party unity) it shows that she may not think he's all that out of the race or she's out for revenge which would make her the bitter one, no?
I'm not sure why respect from the RNC should be all the important a factor in arguing in defence of a nominee from the DNC but Bernie has a better track record of working across party lines than her and without selling to boot.
|
Nah the Clintons can be bitter but they will obviously still be cordial with Sanders. Things were so much worse back in 2008 with the Obamas and they're very close right now. This is just politics
And I sorta agree with you on the second but sort of disagree. She definitely did not allude to him being unqualified at all. She only questioned if he knew what he was doing. When asked about his qualifications, three times, she never once said "no he's not qualified". Instead, he said she wasn't qualified and used fake quotes (actually made up) and said she called him unqualified first which was not the case at all. I do agree he has more room to be negative, as you said more of her supporters would support him compared to the other way around, that we can agree on. And she never got her super pacs to attack Bernie online, she didn't coordinate with the super pacs who are involved in that. But when you have swaths of Bernie supporters online daily making sexist, insulting, and downright awful comments about Hillary, a fellow democrat, in the race that isn't about the issues then you better expect something to happen.
Disagree with him having a better track record of working across the aisle. There's no evidence of him working across the aisle to push his agenda forward in any way (as in universal health care, free college, re-instating glass stegall, tough on Wall Street, etc). There are examples of her working across the aisle to push her agenda though.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/20/2012
Posts: 8,593
|
Quote:
Originally posted by CLNC
I'm not sure why respect from the RNC should be all the important a factor in arguing in defence of a nominee from the DNC but
|
I was gonna say... Like...?
ــــــــــــــ
Anyways, my current top (and only) picks for Hill's VP nominee:
1. Bernie Sanders (party unity, millennials, sane anti-establishment, white males, hype)
2. Brian Sandoval (JESUS @ the amount of conservatives and moderates he'd swing, especially against Trump)
3. Martin Heinrich (extremely appealing)
Notes:
ــــ She doesn't need a woman, an African-American or a Latino; she's got those votes on lock. If anything, it may just hurt the ticket.
ــــ Warren is not going to leave the Senate, it's just not gonna happen.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/3/2010
Posts: 71,871
|
Quote:
Originally posted by heckinglovato
I was gonna say... Like...?
ــــــــــــــ
Anyways, my current top (and only) picks for Hill's VP nominee:
1. Bernie Sanders (party unity, millennials, sane anti-establishment, white males, hype)
2. Brian Sandoval (JESUS @ the amount of conservatives and moderates he'd swing, especially against Trump)
3. Martin Heinrich (extremely appealing)
Notes:
ــــ She doesn't need a woman, an African-American or a Latino; she's got those votes on lock. If anything, it may just hurt the ticket.
ــــ Warren is not going to leave the Senate, it's just not gonna happen. |
Sandoval would be very interesting and cool! 
I think the progressives will drag her for him though lol
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/3/2011
Posts: 4,231
|
Sandoval would be very good, but yeah... the progressives will make her pay.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/17/2013
Posts: 19,066
|
IDK if Kasich would want to be associated with Trump.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/21/2012
Posts: 28,099
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/5/2011
Posts: 15,589
|
I just googled those choices. Sandoval is a Republican. Huh
The other one is from New Mexico.
-
Anyway, it's not hard to find a 40something white man in the US. She'll figure it out
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/20/2012
Posts: 8,593
|
Quote:
Originally posted by RatedG²
Sandoval would be very interesting and cool!
I think the progressives will drag her for him though lol |
Maybe at the beginning, when she first announces the pick. Progressives usually look at the bigger picture and would realize eventually that this is one of the most liberal people in Republican politics.
Quote:
Originally posted by Damien M
I just googled those choices. Sandoval is a Republican. Huh
|
Um, that's kind of the entire point? Representing herself as an alternative to Trump for conservatives, moderates as well as liberals. He doesn't have public stances on many issues yet and he's pretty open-minded on key issues like abortion, same-sex marriage (kinda), the environment, etc. He's also gotten things done in NV.
Quote:
Originally posted by Damien M
The other one is from New Mexico.
|
O...k?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/30/2011
Posts: 6,407
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Mitch.
I'm almost certain Hillary won't win CA. I think the Little Bernsters are gonna pull crazy numbers with young people on the day and I actually think the Latino vote will be close to even. He's only down by single digits and there still is over a month to go. By 2nd/3rd week of May I expect to see polls hitting 50/50, maybe even 52/48 to Bernie.
But the thing is even with all that, Hillary is able to counter with huge numbers of early voting with older voters which her campaign has been extremely effective with.
I think Bernie will win but only by 5 points, absolute max 10. Our friends over on Reddit talking 30/40 point wins are simply delusional. And unfortunately for them that's the margin they would need to overtake in pledge delegates.
The only way I see Hillary winning CA is if she sweeps 5-0 next week (including a couple of big margins), a win in Indiana & a relatively good showing in Oregon (e.g. keeping it under a 20 point loss). That may be enough to break the backs of the most staunchest Bernie stans and really slow down the enthusiasm, especially considering she should be able to hit the pledge/super combo required before CA. But I think that might be asking a lot as she'll be wanting to pivot to Trump over May/June.
Either way I expect Bernie to pull out June 8th and endorse Hillary, he won't wanna go to DC and end on a low note.
|
Even if Bernie were to miraculously manage a 40 point win in California, that would net him 190 delegates in a race where he'll be behind by 300+ delegates.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/21/2012
Posts: 28,099
|
Hillary will not pick a Republican. That's a dead issue.
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 9/16/2011
Posts: 18,555
|
Clinton will win Cali. If she managed to win against Obama, who was actually charismatic and inspiring (back in 2008, people see through his teleprompter speeches now), he'll win against Bernie. Besides, all the Latinos (who occupy half of California at this point, which is why everyone who is non-Hispanic and lives in California should understand that voting for Trump is a MUST) will vote Clinton. Oh God, I really have a bad feeling that Hillary will win the entire election.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/21/2012
Posts: 28,099
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Jolie's Lips
Clinton will win Cali. If she managed to win against Obama, who was actually charismatic and inspiring (back in 2008, people see through his teleprompter speeches now), he'll win against Bernie. Besides, all the Latinos (which consists half of California at this point, which is why everyone who is non-Hispanic and lives in California should understand that voting for Trump is a MUST) will vote for Bernie. Oh God, I really have a bad feeling that Hillary will win the entire election.
|
Well I'll take all of Hillary's baggage over let's turn the clock back 100 years' Republicans any day.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/5/2011
Posts: 15,589
|
Quote:
Originally posted by heckinglovato
Maybe at the beginning, when she first announces the pick. Progressives usually look at the bigger picture and would realize eventually that this is one of the most liberal people in Republican politics.
Um, that's kind of the entire point? Representing herself as an alternative to Trump for conservatives, moderates as well as liberals. He doesn't have public stances on many issues yet and he's pretty open-minded on key issues like abortion, same-sex marriage (kinda), the environment, etc. He's also gotten things done in NV.
O...k?
|
My point is Hillary won't pick a Republican. That makes no sense + it'd embarrass the Dem party.
Besides, conservatives loathe Hillary and they'd laugh in the face of such blatant pandering.
And re: NM, i think there are more important swing states (like Ohio) if we're picking obscure people from random states
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 9/16/2011
Posts: 18,555
|
If the Republicans are gonna set us back a hundred years, the Democrats will set us back 200 years, back when California belonged to Mexico. Imma let you think about that one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
