I agree more with Bernie, but am supporting Hillary.

[AthenaAwakened]

I'm going blue, no matter who. The same applies to the down ticket races. I would have liked to have seen Harry Reid be willing to strip the Republicans of all ability to block legislation, other than a majority vote on the floor, in 2009 when they made it clear they were unwilling to cooperate with President Obama.

Left leaning voters, do need to get off their collective asses and vote in every election; only voting for president isn't enough. If the Democrats aren't liberal enough for you, work within the party to get it where you want it to be. It's not going to happen overnight, but you're going to have to do with the Democrats what the Religious Right did with the Republicans if you want the policies you want enacted.

Here's a thought or two

The so called Left wing party could try running actual left wing candidates more as a rule than a novelty
AND on those rare occasions when an actual left wing candidate does run, members of that so called left wing party could vote what they profess to be their morality and not their machinations.

 

[Terrell]

I'm going blue, no matter who. The same applies to the down ticket races. I would have liked to have seen Harry Reid be willing to strip the Republicans of all ability to block legislation, other than a majority vote on the floor, in 2009 when they made it clear they were unwilling to cooperate with President Obama.

Left leaning voters, do need to get off their collective asses and vote in every election; only voting for president isn't enough. If the Democrats aren't liberal enough for you, work within the party to get it where you want it to be. It's not going to happen overnight, but you're going to have to do with the Democrats what the Religious Right did with the Republicans if you want the policies you want enacted.

Here's a thought or two

The so called Left wing party could try running actual left wing candidates more as a rule than a novelty
AND on those rare occasions when an actual left wing candidate does run, members of that so called left wing party could vote what they profess to be their morality and not their machinations.

The Green party candidate is not going to get elected for president. As far as I know no Green party candidate has ever gotten even a single electoral vote in a Presidential election. They've never controlled the House or the Senate. As far as I know they've never controlled any state Assembly or state Senate. Have the Greens ever even elected a mayor of any major city in the United States? Protest votes by left leaning voters aren't going to get you anything except Republicans; same applies if you don't vote. How does that help your cause? If anything all it does is get you further away from what you want.

If you want more left leaning candidates you have to help them get on the ballot, starting at your local & state level and working your way up. Without a cooperative Congress neither Bernie Sanders nor Jill Stein will be able to do a damn thing to advance the agenda you want. Without getting the politicians you want elected in down ticket elections you don't get the laws you'd want at the state level and you don't get a "bench" of candidates to run for the higher offices. Those laws passed at the state level are very important; look at the abortion issue, and the so-called "religious conscious" laws that are being passed at the state level.

In order to do that you need to find candidates to your liking and run them in Democratic primaries, work hard for them, and do this over the course of several elections. To get what you want, you'll likely have to work for a generation to make it even plausible. If you're not willing to do the necessary work don't expect anyone as liberal as you want; you're not going to get it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Here's a thought or two

The so called Left wing party could try running actual left wing candidates more as a rule than a novelty
AND on those rare occasions when an actual left wing candidate does run, members of that so called left wing party could vote what they profess to be their morality and not their machinations.

The Green party candidate is not going to get elected for president. As far as I know no Green party candidate has ever gotten even a single electoral vote in a Presidential election. They've never controlled the House or the Senate. As far as I know they've never controlled any state Assembly or state Senate. Have the Greens ever even elected a mayor of any major city in the United States? Protest votes by left leaning voters aren't going to get you anything except Republicans; same applies if you don't vote. How does that help your cause? If anything all it does is get you further away from what you want.

They are a party that haven't really won anything. Federally only a single US House Seat.

If you want more left leaning candidates you have to help them get on the ballot, starting at your local & state level and working your way up. Without a cooperative Congress neither Bernie Sanders nor Jill Stein will be able to do a damn thing to advance the agenda you want. Without getting the politicians you want elected in down ticket elections you don't get the laws you'd want at the state level and you don't get a "bench" of candidates to run for the higher offices.

This is one of those pragmatic understandings that some people just seem to have a hard time accepting. Sanders could win the Presidential election, but not get anything done. Hell, Obama had both houses of Congress and still could barely get things through!

Right now, the battle isn't the Presidential election. It is convincing the idiots that don't vote in the Mid-term elections to actually vote when it matters just as much.

 

[repoman]

You know, the constitutional convention pandora's box the TYT and Wolf-Pac is involved in may be the only way to change the electoral and governmental structure to be more parlimentarian and get rid of First Past the Post elections. This sould ve a side effect

 

[Tristan Scott]

Back in 2008 many of these same supporters, and first time voters came out and helped elect President Obama. Then they abandoned him, few of them showing up in the 2010 elections, allowing the Republicans to reclaim the house. This trend repeated in 2014 and the republicans took the senate as well.

The thing these people don't seem to understand is that a president really can't change much of anything without congress. If all you do is show up every four years to vote for president, your not going to make much of anything happen. If you want the country to go more towards socialism you are going to have to work your butt off at the local level to get a socialist leaning congressman elected in your district. Sanders' supporters seem to think that all they need to do is get him elected president and all the goodies he's promising will magically happen. They evidently weren't paying attention in civics class.

I don't agree with this at all.

1. In the first place, Obama violated his campaign promise of change. He immediately installed the same banksters, Tim Gieghner et all in his cabinet. NO BANKSTERS WENT TO JAIL.

Exactly which "bankster" should have gone to jail?

2. In the 2nd place, Obama or Bernie for that matter can and should rein in the plutocracy that is spoiling the US right now. The president does not need congress for this. Evidently YOU were not paying attention in civics class when Theodore Roosevelt busted up trusts and monopolies. HE DID NOT NEED CONGRESS. And Bernie will not need congress to bust up the banks that are too big to fail.

He needed the Sherman Anti- Trust Act, a law passed by congress. He also needed a sympathetic court.

3. Hillary is pro NAFTA, TPP, and anti middle class just like Obama is. And that is precisely why Trump would do better for our failing middle than her. Had I known that Obama was so anti middle class I would not have voted for him and sat out the last election. But if you are in the top 1% then I agree you should vote for Hillary because that is why the Koch brothers are now supporting her.

I don't think her position on trade is anti-middle class. She says her position on any trade agreement is: "First, it should put us in a position to protect American workers, raise wages and create more good jobs at home. Second, it must also strengthen our national security. We should be willing to walk away from any outcome that falls short of these tests. The goal is greater prosperity and security for American families, not trade for trade's sake."

What I never seem to understand is why people think trade agreements send jobs overseas. Jobs go overseas whether we have trade agreements or not. That is a simple fact. What we try to do with trade agreements is make the impact of that fact more favorable to us.

Saying Obama is Anti-middle class is ludicrous. Here is a link that will show just how ludicrous it is: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiW05G8iavMAhVFxmMKHXliCgUQFggdMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpleasecutthecrap.com%2Fobama-accomplishments%2F&usg=AFQjCNF1v99soeT0ll_bz8D76sA1ChEAyQ&sig2=H93fy7PLtbz8zn4bmqDX2A

 

[arkirk]

I know Hillary Clinton has such a terrible past I could NEVER VOTE FOR HER. Where do you get the idea that because a politician is "blue" that they are true "blue?" Our country really cannot take too much more of these neoliberal politicians robbing us. The Clintons are crooks...both of them. Get it? Crooks pure and simple. People who accept the status quo in today's America have such low moral standards there possibly is no helping them. I have voted Green in the last four elections and probably may do so again if Clinton gets the nod from the money sucking democrats. It should be a matter of party honor to put some distance between the party and the likes of these pure lying self enriching prigs. It will be a cold day in hell before any Clinton gets an X on the ballot from me. Ask me why...the crime bill and the Clinton's association with CCA. The welfare reform bill. These creeps (Clintons) profiteered on both Katrina and the Haiti earth quake. This woman is a war monger and a corporate whore. Current politicians are just too willing to sacrifice the public good for money. If Hillary gets it, I will vote again for Jill Stein. Laugh if you will but your bitch is no good and that pretty much makes what you do no better than what I may do.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I know Hillary Clinton has such a terrible past I could NEVER VOTE FOR HER. Where do you get the idea that because a politician is "blue" that they are true "blue?" Our country really cannot take too much more of these neoliberal politicians robbing us. The Clintons are crooks...both of them. Get it? Crooks pure and simple. People who accept the status quo in today's America have such low moral standards there possibly is no helping them. I have voted Green in the last four elections and probably may do so again if Clinton gets the nod from the money sucking democrats. It should be a matter of party honor to put some distance between the party and the likes of these pure lying self enriching prigs. It will be a cold day in hell before any Clinton gets an X on the ballot from me. Ask me why...the crime bill and the Clinton's association with CCA. The welfare reform bill. These creeps (Clintons) profiteered on both Katrina and the Haiti earth quake. This woman is a war monger and a corporate whore. Current politicians are just too willing to sacrifice the public good for money. If Hillary gets it, I will vote again for Jill Stein. Laugh if you will but your bitch is no good and that pretty much makes what you do no better than what I may do.

Bill Clinton was the best president that we had last century since FDR (IMO). Who did you like better? Ford? Reagan? I see no reason why HRC will follow in Bill's footsteps.

- - - Updated - - -

Back in 2008 many of these same supporters, and first time voters came out and helped elect President Obama. Then they abandoned him, few of them showing up in the 2010 elections, allowing the Republicans to reclaim the house. This trend repeated in 2014 and the republicans took the senate as well.

The thing these people don't seem to understand is that a president really can't change much of anything without congress. If all you do is show up every four years to vote for president, your not going to make much of anything happen. If you want the country to go more towards socialism you are going to have to work your butt off at the local level to get a socialist leaning congressman elected in your district. Sanders' supporters seem to think that all they need to do is get him elected president and all the goodies he's promising will magically happen. They evidently weren't paying attention in civics class.

I don't agree with this at all.

1. In the first place, Obama violated his campaign promise of change. He immediately installed the same banksters, Tim Gieghner et all in his cabinet. NO BANKSTERS WENT TO JAIL.

2. In the 2nd place, Obama or Bernie for that matter can and should rein in the plutocracy that is spoiling the US right now. The president does not need congress for this. Evidently YOU were not paying attention in civics class when Theodore Roosevelt busted up trusts and monopolies. HE DID NOT NEED CONGRESS. And Bernie will not need congress to bust up the banks that are too big to fail.

3. Hillary is pro NAFTA, TPP, and anti middle class just like Obama is. And that is precisely why Trump would do better for our failing middle than her. Had I known that Obama was so anti middle class I would not have voted for him and sat out the last election. But if you are in the top 1% then I agree you should vote for Hillary because that is why the Koch brothers are now supporting her.

Please be specific: what laws did Tim Gieghner violate?

 

[Tristan Scott]

I know Hillary Clinton has such a terrible past I could NEVER VOTE FOR HER. Where do you get the idea that because a politician is "blue" that they are true "blue?" Our country really cannot take too much more of these neoliberal politicians robbing us. The Clintons are crooks...both of them. Get it? Crooks pure and simple. People who accept the status quo in today's America have such low moral standards there possibly is no helping them. I have voted Green in the last four elections and probably may do so again if Clinton gets the nod from the money sucking democrats. It should be a matter of party honor to put some distance between the party and the likes of these pure lying self enriching prigs. It will be a cold day in hell before any Clinton gets an X on the ballot from me. Ask me why...the crime bill and the Clinton's association with CCA. The welfare reform bill. These creeps (Clintons) profiteered on both Katrina and the Haiti earth quake. This woman is a war monger and a corporate whore. Current politicians are just too willing to sacrifice the public good for money. If Hillary gets it, I will vote again for Jill Stein. Laugh if you will but your bitch is no good and that pretty much makes what you do no better than what I may do.

You see lies like this published all the time from conservative groups like Carl Rove's American Crossroads. We saw this kind of crap surface all during Clinton's presidency. The haters will sink as low as it takes to get attention. I think Secretary Clinton will do just fine without your vote.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I know Hillary Clinton has such a terrible past I could NEVER VOTE FOR HER. Where do you get the idea that because a politician is "blue" that they are true "blue?" Our country really cannot take too much more of these neoliberal politicians robbing us. The Clintons are crooks...both of them. Get it? Crooks pure and simple. People who accept the status quo in today's America have such low moral standards there possibly is no helping them. I have voted Green in the last four elections and probably may do so again if Clinton gets the nod from the money sucking democrats. It should be a matter of party honor to put some distance between the party and the likes of these pure lying self enriching prigs. It will be a cold day in hell before any Clinton gets an X on the ballot from me. Ask me why...the crime bill and the Clinton's association with CCA. The welfare reform bill. These creeps (Clintons) profiteered on both Katrina and the Haiti earth quake. This woman is a war monger and a corporate whore. Current politicians are just too willing to sacrifice the public good for money. If Hillary gets it, I will vote again for Jill Stein. Laugh if you will but your bitch is no good and that pretty much makes what you do no better than what I may do.

You see lies like this published all the time from conservative groups like Carl Rove's American Crossroads. We saw this kind of crap surface all during Clinton's presidency. The haters will sink as low as it takes to get attention. I think Secretary Clinton will do just fine without your vote.

That's President Clinton. I see no reason that we can't just start calling her that now. It's not like she has any competition for the job.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Here's a thought or two

The so called Left wing party could try running actual left wing candidates more as a rule than a novelty
AND on those rare occasions when an actual left wing candidate does run, members of that so called left wing party could vote what they profess to be their morality and not their machinations.

The Green party candidate is not going to get elected for president. As far as I know no Green party candidate has ever gotten even a single electoral vote in a Presidential election. They've never controlled the House or the Senate. As far as I know they've never controlled any state Assembly or state Senate. Have the Greens ever even elected a mayor of any major city in the United States? Protest votes by left leaning voters aren't going to get you anything except Republicans; same applies if you don't vote. How does that help your cause? If anything all it does is get you further away from what you want.

If you want more left leaning candidates you have to help them get on the ballot, starting at your local & state level and working your way up. Without a cooperative Congress neither Bernie Sanders nor Jill Stein will be able to do a damn thing to advance the agenda you want. Without getting the politicians you want elected in down ticket elections you don't get the laws you'd want at the state level and you don't get a "bench" of candidates to run for the higher offices. Those laws passed at the state level are very important; look at the abortion issue, and the so-called "religious conscious" laws that are being passed at the state level.

In order to do that you need to find candidates to your liking and run them in Democratic primaries, work hard for them, and do this over the course of several elections. To get what you want, you'll likely have to work for a generation to make it even plausible. If you're not willing to do the necessary work don't expect anyone as liberal as you want; you're not going to get it.

who said anything about the green party?

The title of the thread is

I agree more with Bernie, but am supporting Hillary.

And as for getting stuff done? What makes you think Clinton would get anything done? Other than wholesale and nearly wholesale capitulation to the GOP?

 

[J842P]

The Green party candidate is not going to get elected for president. As far as I know no Green party candidate has ever gotten even a single electoral vote in a Presidential election. They've never controlled the House or the Senate. As far as I know they've never controlled any state Assembly or state Senate. Have the Greens ever even elected a mayor of any major city in the United States? Protest votes by left leaning voters aren't going to get you anything except Republicans; same applies if you don't vote. How does that help your cause? If anything all it does is get you further away from what you want.

If you want more left leaning candidates you have to help them get on the ballot, starting at your local & state level and working your way up. Without a cooperative Congress neither Bernie Sanders nor Jill Stein will be able to do a damn thing to advance the agenda you want. Without getting the politicians you want elected in down ticket elections you don't get the laws you'd want at the state level and you don't get a "bench" of candidates to run for the higher offices. Those laws passed at the state level are very important; look at the abortion issue, and the so-called "religious conscious" laws that are being passed at the state level.

In order to do that you need to find candidates to your liking and run them in Democratic primaries, work hard for them, and do this over the course of several elections. To get what you want, you'll likely have to work for a generation to make it even plausible. If you're not willing to do the necessary work don't expect anyone as liberal as you want; you're not going to get it.

who said anything about the green party?

The title of the thread is

I agree more with Bernie, but am supporting Hillary.

And as for getting stuff done? What makes you think Clinton would get anything done? Other than wholesale and nearly wholesale capitulation to the GOP?

The right wing hates her, I wonder how much they'll be willing to work with her compared to Obama.

 

[Terrell]

The Green party candidate is not going to get elected for president. As far as I know no Green party candidate has ever gotten even a single electoral vote in a Presidential election. They've never controlled the House or the Senate. As far as I know they've never controlled any state Assembly or state Senate. Have the Greens ever even elected a mayor of any major city in the United States? Protest votes by left leaning voters aren't going to get you anything except Republicans; same applies if you don't vote. How does that help your cause? If anything all it does is get you further away from what you want.

If you want more left leaning candidates you have to help them get on the ballot, starting at your local & state level and working your way up. Without a cooperative Congress neither Bernie Sanders nor Jill Stein will be able to do a damn thing to advance the agenda you want. Without getting the politicians you want elected in down ticket elections you don't get the laws you'd want at the state level and you don't get a "bench" of candidates to run for the higher offices. Those laws passed at the state level are very important; look at the abortion issue, and the so-called "religious conscious" laws that are being passed at the state level.

In order to do that you need to find candidates to your liking and run them in Democratic primaries, work hard for them, and do this over the course of several elections. To get what you want, you'll likely have to work for a generation to make it even plausible. If you're not willing to do the necessary work don't expect anyone as liberal as you want; you're not going to get it.

who said anything about the green party?

The title of the thread is

I agree more with Bernie, but am supporting Hillary.

And as for getting stuff done? What makes you think Clinton would get anything done? Other than wholesale and nearly wholesale capitulation to the GOP?

Seriously? Do you really believe that I don't think you're talking about the Green Party? You've said before, in other threads, that you won't vote for Hillary. You've already complained both in this thread & in other ones about the Democratic Party being insufficiently liberal for your views. Bernie is too far behind in the delegate math to realistically catch up to Hillary, in pledged delegates. Where else you're going to go; when Hillary gets the nomination? The next step leftward is the Green Party.

Clinton won the Democratic primary in New York on Tuesday by what looks to be about a 15 percentage point margin. While that generally matches pre-election polls, it is a devastating result for the Sanders campaign. The outcome almost certainly ensures that Clinton will beat Sanders in the elected delegate count after the final Democratic votes are counted in June.

Clinton entered the night with an elected delegate lead of about 205. That means, of course, that Sanders needs to catch-up. In order to do so, he has to win states with big delegate totals because of the proportional allocation rules that Democrats use in their primaries. Late last month, Nate calculated that Sanders needed to win New York by about 9 pledged delegates to remain on track for the nomination. Instead, Sanders lost the state by about 30 delegates or more. That’s a swing of about 40 delegates or more. To give you an idea of how big of a swing that is, that’s about double the total available delegates in Montana, which is expected to be a strong state for Sanders.

Sanders’s loss in New York means that he needs to do even better in upcoming contests than we originally thought to have any shot at winning more elected delegates than Clinton. More specifically, he’ll need somewhere in the area of 59 percent of the remaining elected delegates to eliminate his deficit to Clinton — he needed 57 percent before the night began. That means that he needs to win a state like Pennsylvania by closer to 10 percentage points instead of the 7 percentage points Nate originally calculated. (Sanders is behind in the Pennsylvania polling average by 14 percentage points.)

Indeed, the math just doesn’t look like it’s on Sanders’s side in upcoming contests. Besides Pennsylvania, he’s behind in all three of the other states with the biggest delegate prizes left on the calendar. He’s down 23 percentage points in Maryland — we originally estimated a 9-point Sanders loss would signal he was “on track.” Sanders trails Clinton by 9 points in New Jersey, which he originally needed to win by 6 points. Most importantly, he’s trailing by 13 percentage points in California, where he needed to win by 15 points.


Put simply, Sanders can’t win the Democratic nomination without a minor miracle. That doesn’t mean Sanders won’t continue to campaign, and minor miracles do sometimes happen. But the media shouldn’t sugarcoat this. There’s a reason the Sanders campaign is talking up superdelegates: Clinton can see the nomination in sight. Tonight reaffirmed that she is almost certainly going to be the Democratic nominee for president.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/new-york-primary-presidential-election-2016/

Oh and before you complain about 538, here are some links to other sources:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/21/politics/bernie-sanders-delegates-hillary-clinton-2016/

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/20/upshot/realistically-bernie-sanders-cannot-afford-losses.html?_r=0

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/2016-election-primaries-the-home-stretch-by-the-numbers/

Have you changed your mind and are now willing to vote for Hillary? If not, why isn't my conclusion that you're thinking about the Green Party unreasonable? Is there some other 3rd party you're thinking about; if so what's their track record by comparison?

The OP title is irrelevant to my response to you, since you didn't write it. You didn't say you were voting for Hillary, the OP did, not you.

When it comes to Hillary, I don't need the Democratic party to move left to satisfy me. Scalia is dead, I'd rather her be picking the nominee than anyone the Republicans are going to pick. It's not going to get a left wing Supreme Court, but I'm happy with it being just a little less conservative. If all she does is play defense against the religious conservatives that's good enough for me.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

who said anything about the green party?

The title of the thread is

I agree more with Bernie, but am supporting Hillary.

And as for getting stuff done? What makes you think Clinton would get anything done? Other than wholesale and nearly wholesale capitulation to the GOP?

Seriously? Do you really believe that I don't think you're talking about the Green Party? You've said before, in other threads, that you won't vote for Hillary. You've already complained both in this thread & in other ones about the Democratic Party being insufficiently liberal for your views. Bernie is too far behind in the delegate math to realistically catch up to Hillary, in pledged delegates. Where else you're going to go; when Hillary gets the nomination? The next step leftward is the Green Party.

Clinton won the Democratic primary in New York on Tuesday by what looks to be about a 15 percentage point margin. While that generally matches pre-election polls, it is a devastating result for the Sanders campaign. The outcome almost certainly ensures that Clinton will beat Sanders in the elected delegate count after the final Democratic votes are counted in June.

Clinton entered the night with an elected delegate lead of about 205. That means, of course, that Sanders needs to catch-up. In order to do so, he has to win states with big delegate totals because of the proportional allocation rules that Democrats use in their primaries. Late last month, Nate calculated that Sanders needed to win New York by about 9 pledged delegates to remain on track for the nomination. Instead, Sanders lost the state by about 30 delegates or more. That’s a swing of about 40 delegates or more. To give you an idea of how big of a swing that is, that’s about double the total available delegates in Montana, which is expected to be a strong state for Sanders.

Sanders’s loss in New York means that he needs to do even better in upcoming contests than we originally thought to have any shot at winning more elected delegates than Clinton. More specifically, he’ll need somewhere in the area of 59 percent of the remaining elected delegates to eliminate his deficit to Clinton — he needed 57 percent before the night began. That means that he needs to win a state like Pennsylvania by closer to 10 percentage points instead of the 7 percentage points Nate originally calculated. (Sanders is behind in the Pennsylvania polling average by 14 percentage points.)

Indeed, the math just doesn’t look like it’s on Sanders’s side in upcoming contests. Besides Pennsylvania, he’s behind in all three of the other states with the biggest delegate prizes left on the calendar. He’s down 23 percentage points in Maryland — we originally estimated a 9-point Sanders loss would signal he was “on track.” Sanders trails Clinton by 9 points in New Jersey, which he originally needed to win by 6 points. Most importantly, he’s trailing by 13 percentage points in California, where he needed to win by 15 points.


Put simply, Sanders can’t win the Democratic nomination without a minor miracle. That doesn’t mean Sanders won’t continue to campaign, and minor miracles do sometimes happen. But the media shouldn’t sugarcoat this. There’s a reason the Sanders campaign is talking up superdelegates: Clinton can see the nomination in sight. Tonight reaffirmed that she is almost certainly going to be the Democratic nominee for president.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/new-york-primary-presidential-election-2016/

Oh and before you complain about 538, here are some links to other sources:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/21/politics/bernie-sanders-delegates-hillary-clinton-2016/

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/20/upshot/realistically-bernie-sanders-cannot-afford-losses.html?_r=0

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/2016-election-primaries-the-home-stretch-by-the-numbers/

Have you changed your mind and are now willing to vote for Hillary? If not, why isn't my conclusion that you're thinking about the Green Party unreasonable? Is there some other 3rd party you're thinking about; if so what's their track record by comparison?

The OP title is irrelevant to my response to you, since you didn't write it. You didn't say you were voting for Hillary, the OP did, not you.

When it comes to Hillary, I don't need the Democratic party to move left to satisfy me. Scalia is dead, I'd rather her be picking the nominee than anyone the Republicans are going to pick. It's not going to get a left wing Supreme Court, but I'm happy with it being just a little less conservative. If all she does is play defense against the religious conservatives that's good enough for me.

When Martin Luther King first met with the city fathers and the bus company of Birmingham, it was his plan and the agreed strategy of the Montgomery Improvement Association, to ask for a more humane segregation of the buses. After being in the same room with these men, it became clear that that would never happen. The segregationists had no intention of moving at all in their position. Changing segregation to something nicer was not their intent. So King and the MIA changed tactics and took bus segregation on head on. It was the right thing to do. It was what the people he represented wanted. 381 days, many beatings, incidents of police harrassment against black and white citizens, crimes of arson, and whole lot of shoe leather later, bus segregation in Montgomery was no more.

Long is the struggle and hard the fight, but if you are willing to settle for shit, all you will ever get is shit.

I am not willing to settle, and believe it or not, you don't really want me too.

 

[Terrell]

Seriously? Do you really believe that I don't think you're talking about the Green Party? You've said before, in other threads, that you won't vote for Hillary. You've already complained both in this thread & in other ones about the Democratic Party being insufficiently liberal for your views. Bernie is too far behind in the delegate math to realistically catch up to Hillary, in pledged delegates. Where else you're going to go; when Hillary gets the nomination? The next step leftward is the Green Party.

Clinton won the Democratic primary in New York on Tuesday by what looks to be about a 15 percentage point margin. While that generally matches pre-election polls, it is a devastating result for the Sanders campaign. The outcome almost certainly ensures that Clinton will beat Sanders in the elected delegate count after the final Democratic votes are counted in June.

Clinton entered the night with an elected delegate lead of about 205. That means, of course, that Sanders needs to catch-up. In order to do so, he has to win states with big delegate totals because of the proportional allocation rules that Democrats use in their primaries. Late last month, Nate calculated that Sanders needed to win New York by about 9 pledged delegates to remain on track for the nomination. Instead, Sanders lost the state by about 30 delegates or more. That’s a swing of about 40 delegates or more. To give you an idea of how big of a swing that is, that’s about double the total available delegates in Montana, which is expected to be a strong state for Sanders.

Sanders’s loss in New York means that he needs to do even better in upcoming contests than we originally thought to have any shot at winning more elected delegates than Clinton. More specifically, he’ll need somewhere in the area of 59 percent of the remaining elected delegates to eliminate his deficit to Clinton — he needed 57 percent before the night began. That means that he needs to win a state like Pennsylvania by closer to 10 percentage points instead of the 7 percentage points Nate originally calculated. (Sanders is behind in the Pennsylvania polling average by 14 percentage points.)

Indeed, the math just doesn’t look like it’s on Sanders’s side in upcoming contests. Besides Pennsylvania, he’s behind in all three of the other states with the biggest delegate prizes left on the calendar. He’s down 23 percentage points in Maryland — we originally estimated a 9-point Sanders loss would signal he was “on track.” Sanders trails Clinton by 9 points in New Jersey, which he originally needed to win by 6 points. Most importantly, he’s trailing by 13 percentage points in California, where he needed to win by 15 points.


Put simply, Sanders can’t win the Democratic nomination without a minor miracle. That doesn’t mean Sanders won’t continue to campaign, and minor miracles do sometimes happen. But the media shouldn’t sugarcoat this. There’s a reason the Sanders campaign is talking up superdelegates: Clinton can see the nomination in sight. Tonight reaffirmed that she is almost certainly going to be the Democratic nominee for president.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/new-york-primary-presidential-election-2016/

Oh and before you complain about 538, here are some links to other sources:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/21/politics/bernie-sanders-delegates-hillary-clinton-2016/

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/20/upshot/realistically-bernie-sanders-cannot-afford-losses.html?_r=0

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/2016-election-primaries-the-home-stretch-by-the-numbers/

Have you changed your mind and are now willing to vote for Hillary? If not, why isn't my conclusion that you're thinking about the Green Party unreasonable? Is there some other 3rd party you're thinking about; if so what's their track record by comparison?

The OP title is irrelevant to my response to you, since you didn't write it. You didn't say you were voting for Hillary, the OP did, not you.

When it comes to Hillary, I don't need the Democratic party to move left to satisfy me. Scalia is dead, I'd rather her be picking the nominee than anyone the Republicans are going to pick. It's not going to get a left wing Supreme Court, but I'm happy with it being just a little less conservative. If all she does is play defense against the religious conservatives that's good enough for me.

When Martin Luther King first met with the city fathers and the bus company of Birmingham, it was his plan and the agreed strategy of the Montgomery Improvement Association, to ask for a more humane segregation of the buses. After being in the same room with these men, it became clear that that would never happen. The segregationists had no intention of moving at all in their position. Changing segregation to something nicer was not their intent. So King and the MIA changed tactics and took bus segregation on head on. It was the right thing to do. It was what the people he represented wanted. 381 days, many beatings, incidents of police harrassment against black and white citizens, crimes of arson, and whole lot of shoe leather later, bus segregation in Montgomery was no more.

Long is the struggle and hard the fight, but if you are willing to settle for shit, all you will ever get is shit.

I am not willing to settle, and believe it or not, you don't really want me too.

I've already laid out what people have to do if they want candidates that are more left leaning. I also pointed out that it won't happen overnight. Do you have a better alternative than Hillary as far as the current situation goes? One that even if it doesn't advance your cause, does less damage, if any, to it? There are really only 2 choices here that are realistic, Hillary or the Republicans.

 

[Tristan Scott]

And as for getting stuff done? What makes you think Clinton would get anything done? Other than wholesale and nearly wholesale capitulation to the GOP?

I guess this begs the question "why do you think she will capitulate to the GOP"?

Bear in mind that compromise is not capitulation. Compromise is a requirement in a democratic republic, it's the ONLY way we grow. Compromise requires strong leadership, but also must be demanded by the people. too many of US are unwilling to compromise and don't want our representatives compromising either.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And as for getting stuff done? What makes you think Clinton would get anything done? Other than wholesale and nearly wholesale capitulation to the GOP?

I guess this begs the question "why do you think she will capitulate to the GOP"?

Bear in mind that compromise is not capitulation. Compromise is a requirement in a democratic republic, it's the ONLY way we grow. Compromise requires strong leadership, but also must be demanded by the people. too many of US are unwilling to compromise and don't want our representatives compromising either.

During the Obama administration, compromise included agreeing to terms so the Republicans wouldn't default the US Economy.

The word compromise and US Government these days has a perverted meaning.

 

[Tristan Scott]

Long is the struggle and hard the fight, but if you are willing to settle for shit, all you will ever get is shit.

I am not willing to settle, and believe it or not, you don't really want me too.

Of course there are things that are unacceptable and that we should never be satisfied with, but we also have to realize that real change is made incrementally. Montgomery wasn't the first step and it wasn't the last step, it was just a step in the process of changing people's behavior. The process will probably last forever, and all we can do is continue to move it forward, right?

 

[Tristan Scott]

I guess this begs the question "why do you think she will capitulate to the GOP"?

Bear in mind that compromise is not capitulation. Compromise is a requirement in a democratic republic, it's the ONLY way we grow. Compromise requires strong leadership, but also must be demanded by the people. too many of US are unwilling to compromise and don't want our representatives compromising either.

During the Obama administration, compromise included agreeing to terms so the Republicans wouldn't default the US Economy.

The word compromise and US Government these days has a perverted meaning.

I guess so, but the real problem is that the congressmen who gave in and compromised got hell from their constituents, and some of them lost their re-election to tea-party candidates because of it. The voters are the problem, they are terribly un-informed and mis-informed.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

During the Obama administration, compromise included agreeing to terms so the Republicans wouldn't default the US Economy.

The word compromise and US Government these days has a perverted meaning.

I guess so, but the real problem is that the congressmen who gave in and compromised got hell from their constituents, and some of them lost their re-election to tea-party candidates because of it. The voters are the problem, they are terribly un-informed and mis-informed.

Actually it really started in 2010 when people didn't go out and vote and a bunch of tea-bagging supporters replaced Democrats in Congress in a landslide victory because Obama signed a health care bill. Which of course, goes back to the "misinformed" issue.

 

[RVonse]

I know Hillary Clinton has such a terrible past I could NEVER VOTE FOR HER. Where do you get the idea that because a politician is "blue" that they are true "blue?" Our country really cannot take too much more of these neoliberal politicians robbing us. The Clintons are crooks...both of them. Get it? Crooks pure and simple. People who accept the status quo in today's America have such low moral standards there possibly is no helping them. I have voted Green in the last four elections and probably may do so again if Clinton gets the nod from the money sucking democrats. It should be a matter of party honor to put some distance between the party and the likes of these pure lying self enriching prigs. It will be a cold day in hell before any Clinton gets an X on the ballot from me. Ask me why...the crime bill and the Clinton's association with CCA. The welfare reform bill. These creeps (Clintons) profiteered on both Katrina and the Haiti earth quake. This woman is a war monger and a corporate whore. Current politicians are just too willing to sacrifice the public good for money. If Hillary gets it, I will vote again for Jill Stein. Laugh if you will but your bitch is no good and that pretty much makes what you do no better than what I may do.

+2