| |
Discussion: U.S. Election 2016: Primary Season
Member Since: 6/20/2012
Posts: 8,593
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Ramcoro
One of biggest reasons for supporting Bernie and hating Hillary is that he doesn't "play politics" and is "authentic" while Hillary is the opposite. Now you would defend Warren for doing what Hillary has been doing (playing politics and being programmatic).
Your defense sounds just like many peoples' post on here defending Hillary. Of course Warren is not committed, and she is free to change her mind with changing circumstance (just like how Hillary is free to change her mind?  ) |
With all due respect to everyone on here, but I don't sound nowhere nearly like anything that Retro, RatedG², Giselle, Bloo or MAKSIM say. But I also care enough about Warren's presence in the senate that I'd rather not have **** get thrown at her from Democrats and have her lose her seat because of her signature being on one more piece of paper in 2013 that would mean absolutely nothing in 2016. I'm all for her running on her progressive principles and that's exactly why I support her currently being the only Democratic female senator not to endorse Clinton, that's far more meaningful than her signature advocating Hillary to run, THREE years ago, before anyone had ever even alluded to announce their presidential bid and without her knowing if there would have been anyone more progressive, authentic, consistent, passionate and in-line with her own views running against Clinton.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/3/2010
Posts: 71,871
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/13/2010
Posts: 11,566
|
Quote:
Originally posted by heckinglovato
With all due respect to everyone on here, but I don't sound nowhere nearly like anything that Retro, RatedG², Giselle, Bloo or MAKSIM say. But I also care enough about Warren's presence in the senate that I'd rather not have **** get thrown at her from Democrats and have her lose her seat because of her signature being on one more piece of paper in 2013 that would mean absolutely nothing in 2016. I'm all for her running on her progressive principles and that's exactly why I support her currently being the only Democratic female senator not to endorse Clinton, that's far more meaningful than her signature advocating Hillary to run, THREE years ago, before anyone had ever even alluded to announce their presidential bid and without her knowing if there would have been anyone more progressive, authentic, consistent, passionate and in-line with her own views running against Clinton.
|
 Ok hunty
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/20/2012
Posts: 8,593
|
Massachusetts borders both New Hampshire and Vermont, I'm sure the numbers will shift drastically after the NH primary results, Sanders still needs to get his name out there. I'm sure he'll get bigger numbers in the most progressive state in America once he gets his message across.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/3/2010
Posts: 71,871
|
Screaming nvm I posted Maryland poll results. I just woke up again sorry  . There is one from December for Mass but like I said, poll results from over one month aren't relevant anymore
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 39,650
|
Quote:
Originally posted by heckinglovato
Massachusetts borders both New Hampshire and Vermont, I'm sure the numbers will shift drastically after the NH primary results, Sanders still needs to get his name out there. I'm sure he'll get bigger numbers in the most progressive state in America once he gets his message across.
|
nnn no
Hillary is extremely popular here in Mass.
NH is a weird state. Mass is much more diverse (we have like 7M people compared to NHs and Vermont's 1M)
Bernie may cut into her lead a bit considering how many massive universities we have though. He hosted a huge rally a while back if I recall.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/20/2012
Posts: 8,593
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Retro
If we lived in an ideal world where everything could totally happen and be free and whatever:
But we don't so in practice I'm more like
 |
Do you really change your principles based on the "world" you live in? This is terrible, this is exactly how you don't get change done.
I live in a country that's 999 times more conservative than the USA and I am completely aware that it will not recognize gay rights, many women's rights, free public healthcare, free college tuition, free speech, full access to abortion, etc. any time soon, but those are my principles and I will advocate for them regardless of how little the outcome might be.
If people had your kind of attitude then the countless progressive highlights that the world had achieved over the past decade would have never occurred, it's very pessimistic, backwards and cowardly to give up to the surrounding atmosphere.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/20/2012
Posts: 8,593
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Buddha!
nnn no
Hillary is extremely popular here in Mass.
NH is a weird state. Mass is much more diverse (we have like 7M people compared to NHs and Vermont's 1M)
Bernie may get CLOSE considering how many massive universities we have though. He hosted a huge rally a while back if I recall. |
Mess @ the "diverse" claim once again, Hillary gets the "diverse" vote because her name has been around for way too long and she's far more established than Bernie is, it's not Bernie's appeal to white voters that got him to tie Clinton in Iowa and will get him to win in New Hampshire, but his appeal overall. These two just happened to be very white states and he had to focus on them in his campaigns for obvious reasons. Yes, he still has a long way to go to get his name out there and the most progressive state in the nation that borders both Vermont and New Hampshire is certainly not out of reach.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/29/2011
Posts: 18,282
|
Quote:
Originally posted by heckinglovato
With all due respect to everyone on here, but I don't sound nowhere nearly like anything that Retro, RatedG², Giselle, Bloo or MAKSIM say. But I also care enough about Warren's presence in the senate that I'd rather not have **** get thrown at her from Democrats and have her lose her seat because of her signature being on one more piece of paper in 2013 that would mean absolutely nothing in 2016. I'm all for her running on her progressive principles and that's exactly why I support her currently being the only Democratic female senator not to endorse Clinton, that's far more meaningful than her signature advocating Hillary to run, THREE years ago, before anyone had ever even alluded to announce their presidential bid and without her knowing if there would have been anyone more progressive, authentic, consistent, passionate and in-line with her own views running against Clinton.
|
Her not signing the piece of paper wouldn't have cost her the election. No one forced her to do it. There is only two possible motivations: 1) she sincerely thought Hillary was the best choice or 2) she was playing politics (which is basically what you are arguing). It quite possible it is a combination of the two.
She's too popular to have lost an election because of something as trivial as whether to push someone to run. Hillary's record was very clear in 2013. Warren has criticized Hillary and Bill in the past. Bernie's record was also very clear in 2013 as well as other progressives. If she truly wanted someone as progressive as Bernie, she could have/should have push Bernie to run.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 39,650
|
Quote:
Originally posted by heckinglovato
Mess @ the "diverse" claim once again, Hillary gets the "diverse" vote because her name has been around for way too long and she's far more established than Bernie is, it's not Bernie's appeal to white voters that got him to tie Clinton in Iowa and will get him to win in New Hampshire, but his appeal overall. These two just happened to be very white states and he had to focus on them in his campaigns for obvious reasons. Yes, he still has a long way to go to get his name out there and the most progressive state in the nation that borders both Vermont and New Hampshire is certainly not out of reach.
|
But it's true sis. I don't see Bernie winning the major cities (Lowell, Boston, Springfield, etc) Way too many minorities and that is not Bernie's strong-suit. He just doesn't appeal to that kind of demographic. I mean, if he can beat Hillary that would be extremely impressive but don't get your hopes up. Plus Obama is still hugely popular here along with Clinton (who won in '08)
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/29/2011
Posts: 18,282
|
Quote:
Originally posted by RatedG²
Screaming nvm I posted Maryland poll results. I just woke up again sorry . There is one from December for Mass but like I said, poll results from over one month aren't relevant anymore |
True, but for context's sake Bernie already had his lead in NH in November/December. Massachusetts's primary isn't until March 1st anyways.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/20/2012
Posts: 8,593
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Ramcoro
Her not signing the piece of paper wouldn't have cost her the election. No one forced her to do it. There is only two possible motivations: 1) she sincerely thought Hillary was the best choice or 2) she was playing politics (which is basically what you are arguing). It quite possible it is a combination of the two.
She's too popular to have lost an election because of something as trivial as whether to push someone to run. Hillary's record was very clear in 2013. Warren has criticized Hillary and Bill in the past. Bernie's record was also very clear in 2013 as well as other progressives. If she truly wanted someone as progressive as Bernie, she could have/should have push Bernie to run.
|
I'm saying that her being the only female Democratic senator not to have her name on that paper would have been damaging especially since she's seen as a progressive feminist and that's how she solidly gets her popularity, the average American would not have understood her name not being on such pro-woman-power letter. Her advocacy for Hillary to run back in 2013 wasn't wrong or out of place since Hillary is a liberal and she had no idea who'd be running against here.
It just doesn't make sense to be claiming that she would be thinking about Bernie, an independent socialist back then, running for the Democratic primary, and she didn't get an opportunity to sign a letter to advocate for him to run so we also wouldn't know, and we also don't know what could have happened behind the scenes or whether she tried to convince anyone who's more progressive than Hillary to run for president.
The letter she signed back in 2013 was appropriate and definitely doesn't resemble an endorsement commitment, especially since she could advocate more than one person to run, and she might have done that for all we know, and obviously especially since she had no idea that Bernie would be running against Clinton three years beforehand.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/3/2010
Posts: 71,871
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Ramcoro
True, but for context's sake Bernie already had his lead in NH in November/December. Massachusetts's primary isn't until March 1st anyways.
|
True. Well in case you were interested it's here
Hillary: 52%
Sanders: 39%
December 16-20.
Margin of error: 4.8%
Now this was back when Martin O'Malley was still in and a slew of debates/town halls hasn't passed. But yeah just in case you needed some reference. Otherwise I wouldn't use this at all to declare anything. Nothing before New Hampshire id go on to say
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/29/2011
Posts: 18,282
|
Quote:
Originally posted by heckinglovato
Do you really change your principles based on the "world" you live in? This is terrible, this is exactly how you don't get change done.
I live in a country that's 999 times more conservative than the USA and I am completely aware that it will not recognize gay rights, many women's rights, free public healthcare, free college tuition, free speech, full access to abortion, etc. any time soon, but those are my principles and I will advocate for them regardless of how little the outcome might be.
If people had your kind of attitude then the countless progressive highlights that the world had achieved over the past decade would have never occurred, it's very pessimistic, backwards and cowardly to give up to the surrounding atmosphere.
|
Wait... you aren't even American? No shade, but what makes you so passionate about U.S. politics, especially domestic policy?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/20/2012
Posts: 8,593
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Buddha!
But it's true sis. I don't see Bernie winning the major cities (Lowell, Boston, Springfield, etc) Way too many minorities and that is not Bernie's strong-suit. He just doesn't appeal to that kind of demographic. I mean, if he can beat Hillary that would be extremely impressive but don't get your hopes up. Plus Obama is still hugely popular here along with Clinton (who won in '08)
|
Mess @ you ignoring my entire post about how Bernie's "appeal to white voters" is because he's only mainly campaigned in NH and IA, two states that are 95% white. He needs to get his name out there first, we don't know how well he does with minority voters, and it's plainly stupid to compare his minority appeal with someone who was FLOTUS, Senator from NY, previous presidential candidate and Secretary of State.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/20/2012
Posts: 8,593
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Ramcoro
Wait... you aren't even American? No shade, but what makes you so passionate about U.S. politics, especially domestic policy?
|
I lived in New Hampshire for a year and I'm applying to go back to the United States and hopefully become an American one day.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/20/2012
Posts: 8,593
|
Quote:
Originally posted by RatedG²
True. Well in case you were interested it's here
Hillary: 52%
Sanders: 39%
December 16-20.
Margin of error: 4.8%
Now this was back when Martin O'Malley was still in and a slew of debates/town halls hasn't passed. But yeah just in case you needed some reference. Otherwise I wouldn't use this at all to declare anything. Nothing before New Hampshire id go on to say |
This is exactly what I'm trying to say. A 13 point difference a month ago, when O'Malley was still in the race, before many debates took place and before his tie in IA and his (likely) win in NH. That Taxachusetts citizen is clearly underestimating the hype that will potentially be generated for Bernie over there.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/28/2009
Posts: 7,345
|
Quote:
Originally posted by heckinglovato
I lived in New Hampshire for a year and I'm applying to go back to the United States and hopefully become an American one day.
|
All these essays and you don't even have a vote?? 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/20/2012
Posts: 8,593
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Tinker
All these essays and you don't even have a vote?? |
Like I said before, I have recruited over a dozen friends back in New Hampshire to vote for Bernie, that has more influence than me casting one vote, I'm no different than an underage American who's volunteering for Bernie but isn't eligible to vote for him. But nice drag. 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 39,650
|
Quote:
Originally posted by heckinglovato
Mess @ you ignoring my entire post about how Bernie's "appeal to white voters" is because he's only mainly campaigned in NH and IA, two states that are 95% white. He needs to get his name out there first, we don't know how well he does with minority voters, and it's plainly stupid to compare his minority appeal with someone who was FLOTUS, Senator from NY, previous presidential candidate and Secretary of State.
|
I saw what you said about white voters, and I agreed hence why I ignored it. I mean he's campaigned here already so, and his message was still the same. He visited a College town right near the second biggest city in the state. "According to the Sanders campaign, Sanders, an independent U.S. senator from Vermont, plans to speak about "getting big money out of politics," combating climate change and making college affordable. All of those topics have been major platforms for his campaign.." He's not doing anything different, still trying to appeal to the same demographic (white college students.) This could change though!
|
|
|
|
|
|
