Being in government doesn't make you apart of the establishment
The powerful ones in government are the establishment. The ones that take large amounts of money from corporations are the establishment. The ones who are funded by Super PACS are the establishment. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is the establishment. Jeb Bush is the establishment. Hillary and Bill are the establishment.
Someone really let you guys run wild last night, didn't they?
Quote:
Originally posted by Mike91
In terms of delegates, sure. Doesn't change the fact that he's beating her in a few national polls.
Quote:
Originally posted by Mike91
He is in a few national polls.
Um, one. Literally one ever. Please try again.
Quote:
Originally posted by Mike91
Ummm... it is an issue. It's one of the reasons why her honest and trustworthy numbers are tanking.
They're not tanking though? They're pretty static when looking at her overall career? Because she's dealt with this bull **** for 24+ years? So like no?
Quote:
Originally posted by Marvin
You can't be both, Hillary.
But like, she can. She doesn't have to be as balls to the wall liberal as the most liberal man in Congress to be progressive, but at the same time can just as well draw attention to being more moderate than him because more GE voters prefer moderates.
Like. Her entire point is that she's a progressive but more moderate than Bernie. Is everyone just missing this or do people really think that Bernie's the only progressive on earth and you have to be as liberal as him to use the label?
Quote:
Originally posted by Marvin
It doesn't really matter; it's more of the entire machine behind Hillary. She's corrupt and will do whatever her lobbyists tell her to do all while saying the opposite. I don't want that in office. I'd rather have Trump and his antics over that.
I don't trust her and can't vote for someone I don't trust.
This is such CRAP. Give me ONE example of a time that lobbying influenced a VOTE she made. Just one. You literally can't. You're buying into the propoganda and bull that people around you are spreading. You're falling victim to insurgent radicals and the RNC's minions.
When you try to prove any of this, you find that the proof is not there. The best you have is attempting to tie campaign contributions to stances when those stances are entirely pragmatic and real and have no necessary connection to her policy proposals. It literally means NOTHING that the health care industry has in total contributed $13m to her, because her "no single-payer" thing is entirely realistic and reasonable and would have happened anyway.
Trying to prove Hillary's "corruption" and "greed" is like trying to light a match. Underwater. In the middle of the deepest trench in the Pacific Ocean. Without a match.
It's like trying to make fetch happen - it's not going to happen.
Quote:
Originally posted by Marvin
The fact that's she trying to be seen as moderate is something else that annoys me. You're either moderate or you're not. This entire campaign she's tried her best to remain as neutral as possible in efforts to please everyone (all Democrats/liberals) just for votes.
All I'm seeing with that list is that Hillary isn't an actual liberal
Quote:
Originally posted by Marvin
I've seen tons of people saying they won't for Hillary no matter what for various reasons. The more I follow this nomination, the more I become one of those people.
And screaming @ people still acting like the email scandal is no big deal. I can't wait until they're all released.
That's an unreasonable, uninformed, and politically dangerous stance, but do you. If you want to contribute to a Trump Presidency solely because you don't like her for, um, no discernible evidence-supported reason, then that is fine.
Now, it would be better if you said something like "if/when Bernie loses I'll vote for the Green Party candidate because they best align with my views," and I'd have little room to argue since I plan to vote Bloomberg if Hillary loses, for exactly that reason... but you didn't.
The email scandal is, as it has always been, nothing. It will continue to be nothing. I'm sorry for that, since you clearly want it to be something.
Oh yeah, two new Texas polls. Clinton +29 and Clinton +40 in both.
Clinton will be in a great spot even if she barely loses some states on Super Tuesday. She is ahead by double digits in at least half of them. The only state Bernie can say that for is Vermont.
So why is Hillary polling so well? Don't give me an answer like "because she's the better candidate ". I want to know reasons why she's doing well. Is it because it's "her turn"? Do her policies resonate better with Dems? Did Millenials give up on voting? Are older people trying to prevent a Bernie nom? Are people afraid of socialism-related ideas? Could it even be because people want to see a female president?
A large number of the states are Southern Democrats who are mostly of a different breed to the Dems in other regions. Bernie might be seen as 'too' left.
Not Bernie possibly losing every state except his home state.
Interesting that Oklahoma is the only "competitive" state for him outside N.E. Why OK?
Not all of those polls are up to date though. He's polling close in Colorado and Minnesota as well (two caucus states). He's also doing well in Massachusetts, meaning that may bold well for some NE states (not all, but some). If people are expecting a TKO on Super Tuesday, y'all gonna have to continue to wait. He has to complete in the mid - late March big prize states like Michigan, Florida, Ohio, and Illinois. If nothing by then, it'll be an inevitable type of situation after that.
Quote:
Originally posted by hooky
So why is Hillary polling so well? Don't give me an answer like "because she's the better candidate ". I want to know reasons why she's doing well. Is it because it's "her turn"? Do her policies resonate better with Dems? Did Millenials give up on voting? Are older people trying to prevent a Bernie nom? Are people afraid of socialism-related ideas? Could it even be because people want to see a female president?
It's a combination of factors. Most traditional democrats know Hillary Clinton and not so much Bernie. Familiarity for some people is a good thing while it's not such a good thing to others. For me personally, I just think she the better and more "well-rounded" candidate. I feel confident with her on things almost across the board whereas Bernie, he has his areas (National Security/Foreign Policy being the main one). Plus, some people are looking for a pragmatist. That right there aligns with how Hillary has sold herself as someone with a pragmatic approach and mindset, while they mold Bernie into a person with unrealistic ambitions in a GOP controlled congress.
these "protesters" are something else 
. Trump gonna snatch Florida from Rubio and Ohio from Kasich!
.
". I want to know reasons why she's doing well. Is it because it's "her turn"? Do her policies resonate better with Dems? Did Millenials give up on voting? Are older people trying to prevent a Bernie nom? Are people afraid of socialism-related ideas? Could it even be because people want to see a female president?