Hllary Thumps Bernie in New York

[dismal]

The establishment (both the party and particular news media strongly connected to the party) has largely supported Clinton since before day 1

And the voters, let's not forget the voters.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

The establishment (both the party and particular news media strongly connected to the party) has largely supported Clinton since before day 1

And the voters, let's not forget the voters.

Bring back the bosses

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The establishment (both the party and particular news media strongly connected to the party) has largely supported Clinton since before day 1

And the voters, let's not forget the voters.

Hey, just because several million more Democrats have voted for her than him doesn't mean that she somehow has more support.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Bernie wins the states that will go red anyway or will go blue regardless of candidate (Nevada). Hillary wins the big states with the most electoral votes, i.e the states she could be counted on to win in the general.

This is often the analysis left out by Sanders' supporters who are far more vocal than Clinton's supporters.

It's not that I don't like Bernie, I do. But it's in states like New York and California where the rubber meets the road in a Presidential election. And in California, Hillary leads by 12 points as of now. Once that happens, it's all over.

Yes, I know, there's a controversy about the voting in New York right now, but even if you divide those votes 50/50, Hillary still wins easily.

At this point Sanders is becoming a detriment to the Democratic hopes for a third straight successful run for the White House. Once Hillary takes California, Bernie should call it quits and begin supporting Hillary in order to make sure there's no GOP kind of fuck up once the convention rolls around.

Drumpf is going to be the GOP nominee. He just trounced Ted Cruz in New York which means that one's all over except for the comb-over before Cruz gets what's left of his ass handed to him in California, which should end the delegate issue for the GOP once and for all. That ends the glorious spectacle of what was looking to be a contested GOP convention.

First, Hillary won southern states. Is it your contention that southern states don't go red anyway, that Clinton is going to take the South?
Second, as someone who supports Bernie Sanders' campaign, I have no problem seeing, hearing, reading, and generally enduring a plethora of extremely vocal Clinton supporters.
Third, what do you think Clinton should do to gain the support of Sanders Voters? What parts of Sanders' platform should she adopt in whole, which ones in part? Or is it your contention that Clinton change nothing and that Sanders simply call for supporters of his campaign to now support the Clinton campaign as is?

$15 minimum wage and some sort of health care push. I'd like to see banks split up, raise liquidity requirements and let the banks figure it out themselves.

BTW, I find it highly ironic that the 2016 Clinton Campaign and its surrogates keep calling for Sanders to stop running when in 2008 Clinton wouldn't stop running until the primaries on the planet Xaxxon were over.

That's not irony.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The establishment (both the party and particular news media strongly connected to the party) has largely supported Clinton since before day 1

And the voters, let's not forget the voters.

Wait, individual voters can't make a difference, therefore, their opinion means nothing.

 

[dismal]

And the voters, let's not forget the voters.

Wait, individual voters can't make a difference, therefore, their opinion means nothing.

The problem here for the Bern is not any one individual voter. It's the multitudinous multitudes of them who don't vote for him.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Wait, individual voters can't make a difference, therefore, their opinion means nothing.

The problem here for the Bern is not any one individual voter. It's the multitudinous multitudes of them who don't vote for him.

But if no individual vote matters, no vote matters, therefore Clinton and Sanders are on even terms.

 

[Horatio Parker]

This from my favorite election site:

For national opinion to come into line with what Sanders needs, there would have to be a change from Clinton +9.5% to Sanders +12%. That’s a 22-point swing. To put that into perspective, that is about how much the Clinton-Sanders margin has moved over the last seven months, since the start of August. Going forward, opinion would have to start moving about three times faster. And for this to happen, Sanders would have to start to cut into Clinton’s support, which has stayed in the 50-55% range this whole season. Basically, her support would have to drop to 40%. That simply isn’t going to happen.

And we'll have Bernie to kick around for a while:

Although Sanders’s optimistic outcome is highly unlikely, he will probably still keep saying it until there are so few delegates left that it becomes impossible, even if he wins every single one.

That won’t happen until the very end. On the last day of voting on June 7th, nearly 17% of all delegates will be determined, in California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, and South Dakota. As long as Sanders stays above 39.1% of pledged delegates, he can still say, technically speaking, that a last-minute win in June can put him over the top.

http://election.princeton.edu/2016/03/26/no-path-forward-for-sanders/

 

[dismal]

The problem here for the Bern is not any one individual voter. It's the multitudinous multitudes of them who don't vote for him.

But if no individual vote matters, no vote matters, therefore Clinton and Sanders are on even terms.

It's times like these that make me concerned you are an engineer. I hope you do a better job with the bridges.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But if no individual vote matters, no vote matters, therefore Clinton and Sanders are on even terms.

It's times like these that make me concerned you are an engineer. I hope you do a better job with the bridges.

Hey, I'm just applying your voting logic in the real world.

 

[dismal]

It's times like these that make me concerned you are an engineer. I hope you do a better job with the bridges.

Hey, I'm just applying your voting logic in the real world.

No, you're not applying "my logic". My logic (aka "reality") is that your individual vote has a vanishingly small likelihood of mattering. My logic is not that the accumulation of many votes does not matter.

Maybe this helps:

dismal point: One barbarian at the gate is not a threat to Rome.
Higgins fail: You said one barbarian at the gate is not a threat to Rome, so you must also be saying 1,000,000 barbarians at the gate is not a threat to Rome.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

First, Hillary won southern states. Is it your contention that southern states don't go red anyway, that Clinton is going to take the South?
Second, as someone who supports Bernie Sanders' campaign, I have no problem seeing, hearing, reading, and generally enduring a plethora of extremely vocal Clinton supporters.
Third, what do you think Clinton should do to gain the support of Sanders Voters? What parts of Sanders' platform should she adopt in whole, which ones in part? Or is it your contention that Clinton change nothing and that Sanders simply call for supporters of his campaign to now support the Clinton campaign as is?

$15 minimum wage and some sort of health care push. I'd like to see banks split up, raise liquidity requirements and let the banks figure it out themselves.

BTW, I find it highly ironic that the 2016 Clinton Campaign and its surrogates keep calling for Sanders to stop running when in 2008 Clinton wouldn't stop running until the primaries on the planet Xaxxon were over.

That's not irony.

Yeah it is.

irony -- a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects

I expect a woman who said this

... people have been trying to push me out of this ever since Iowa and ... I find it curious because it is unprecedented in history. I don’t understand it and between my opponent and his camp and some in the media, there has been this urgency to end this and you know historically that makes no sense, so I find it a bit of a mystery. ... I’ve been around long enough. You know my husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere around the middle of June ...

to expect and support a primary election season that runs to the end.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Hey, I'm just applying your voting logic in the real world.

No, you're not applying "my logic". My logic (aka "reality") is that your individual vote has a vanishingly small likelihood of mattering. My logic is not that the accumulation of many votes does not matter.

That isn't true. You have spoken against such a thing.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

$15 minimum wage and some sort of health care push. I'd like to see banks split up, raise liquidity requirements and let the banks figure it out themselves.

BTW, I find it highly ironic that the 2016 Clinton Campaign and its surrogates keep calling for Sanders to stop running when in 2008 Clinton wouldn't stop running until the primaries on the planet Xaxxon were over.

That's not irony.

Yeah it is.

irony -- a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects

I don't think there really can be an ironic turnout for what she is asking. What your example is one of hypocrisy, not irony. Irony is going about Path A to avoid Outcome B, and getting to B regardless.

 

[dismal]

No, you're not applying "my logic". My logic (aka "reality") is that your individual vote has a vanishingly small likelihood of mattering. My logic is not that the accumulation of many votes does not matter.

That isn't true. You have spoken against such a thing.

Cite?

 

[fromderinside]

RE: barbarian at the gate voter

A lesson on voting and barbarians.

One vote made a difference in who pays most of the freight for water fees is wateraplenty here on the coast. The choice was between absentee landlords and water users. The water users wound up paying for our sewer remake by one vote. Whatever your notion is of fairness making poor people pay the brunt of a city mistake - putting water purification on a berm - is pretty harsh. Had the vote gone the other way property taxes would have been levied to pay the freight. Most property taxes are paid by absentee landlords here in speederfundus.

BTW my wife and I were the last two to vote. We voted for the eventual payees.

So how is it that one , in this case two, barbarians at the gate - we were recent additions to speederfundus - are not a threat dismal? How?

 

[Colonel Sanders]

Bernie wins the states that will go red anyway or will go blue regardless of candidate (Nevada). Hillary wins the big states with the most electoral votes, i.e the states she could be counted on to win in the general.

This is often the analysis left out by Sanders' supporters who are far more vocal than Clinton's supporters.

It's not that I don't like Bernie, I do. But it's in states like New York and California where the rubber meets the road in a Presidential election. And in California, Hillary leads by 12 points as of now. Once that happens, it's all over.

Yes, I know, there's a controversy about the voting in New York right now, but even if you divide those votes 50/50, Hillary still wins easily.

At this point Sanders is becoming a detriment to the Democratic hopes for a third straight successful run for the White House. Once Hillary takes California, Bernie should call it quits and begin supporting Hillary in order to make sure there's no GOP kind of fuck up once the convention rolls around.

Drumpf is going to be the GOP nominee. He just trounced Ted Cruz in New York which means that one's all over except for the comb-over before Cruz gets what's left of his ass handed to him in California, which should end the delegate issue for the GOP once and for all. That ends the glorious spectacle of what was looking to be a contested GOP convention.

First, Hillary won southern states. Is it your contention that southern states don't go red anyway, that Clinton is going to take the South?
Second, as someone who supports Bernie Sanders' campaign, I have no problem seeing, hearing, reading, and generally enduring a plethora of extremely vocal Clinton supporters.
Third, what do you think Clinton should do to gain the support of Sanders Voters? What parts of Sanders' platform should she adopt in whole, which ones in part? Or is it your contention that Clinton change nothing and that Sanders simply call for supporters of his campaign to now support the Clinton campaign as is?

BTW, I find it highly ironic that the 2016 Clinton Campaign and its surrogates keep calling for Sanders to stop running when in 2008 Clinton wouldn't stop running until the primaries on the planet Xaxxon were over.

The point was that much was made of Bernie winning states that he won't win in the general, while Hillary wins the states that matter the most and will win them in the general.

I'm voting for Hillary for a few reasons

1. I think she has the best chance of winning. Sanders hasn't really had to face the scrutiny that she has, but once the campaign for the general election begins, his policies, which at this time would be disastrous for the country, would suddenly begin to come into focus. He says he's going to break up the big banks. What does that even mean? How is he going to do that? What's the timetable? And all this stuff about free college education and a precipitous increase in taxes on corporations and the wealthy? It'd be a disaster if he could push it through rapidly. Simply put, the country isn't ready for it yet. The groundwork hasn't been laid.

2. She has the experience. Hillary's been a lawyer, a Senator, and Secretary of State. She's worked at local, state, and federal levels for over 40 years. And dammit, the woman's a survivor. Nobody takes what she's taken who doesn't have skin like an elephant's hide. She isn't perfect, but I don't demand perfection from the people I vote for; just a high level of competence. And she has that.

3. Supreme Court Justices. This is the most important. I trust her to put socially conscious, but largely well-balanced justices on the court. I have no idea what Bernie would do. In the next four years, we're gonna see at least two new justices, and possibly a third appointed to SCOTUS. And they need to make laws that can stand the test of time. 5-4 decisions constitute the law of the land, but they're precarious. That's why the GOP is refusing to do its job (I think they've waived their right to do their job--fucking bastards). They understand the number of 5-4 decisions that have been handed down and how easily many those decisions can be reversed. By putting well-balanced justices on the Court, you ensure to some degree that politics plays a lesser role than it has since Scalia first slithered onto the bench before doing us all a favor and dying unexpectedly.

Again, who would Bernie try to put on the Court? I just don't know. But I think he would try to put more prominently leftist justices there than is healthy for the country and the system. The effect could and would likely be a continuance of the Court being a political body rather than the neutral, carefully considered body it's supposed to be.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

$15 minimum wage and some sort of health care push. I'd like to see banks split up, raise liquidity requirements and let the banks figure it out themselves.

BTW, I find it highly ironic that the 2016 Clinton Campaign and its surrogates keep calling for Sanders to stop running when in 2008 Clinton wouldn't stop running until the primaries on the planet Xaxxon were over.

That's not irony.

Yeah it is.

irony -- a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects

I don't think there really can be an ironic turnout for what she is asking. What your example is one of hypocrisy, not irony. Irony is going about Path A to avoid Outcome B, and getting to B regardless.

So irony and hypocrisy are now mutually exclusive?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

First, Hillary won southern states. Is it your contention that southern states don't go red anyway, that Clinton is going to take the South?
Second, as someone who supports Bernie Sanders' campaign, I have no problem seeing, hearing, reading, and generally enduring a plethora of extremely vocal Clinton supporters.
Third, what do you think Clinton should do to gain the support of Sanders Voters? What parts of Sanders' platform should she adopt in whole, which ones in part? Or is it your contention that Clinton change nothing and that Sanders simply call for supporters of his campaign to now support the Clinton campaign as is?

BTW, I find it highly ironic that the 2016 Clinton Campaign and its surrogates keep calling for Sanders to stop running when in 2008 Clinton wouldn't stop running until the primaries on the planet Xaxxon were over.

The point was that much was made of Bernie winning states that he won't win in the general, while Hillary wins the states that matter the most and will win them in the general.

And she also won states that she won't win the general. And if the election season so for has shown anything at all it is this, no election is a sure thing. Clinton knows this, which is why she has been running for the 2016 nomination since 2009.

I'm voting for Hillary for a few reasons

1. I think she has the best chance of winning. Sanders hasn't really had to face the scrutiny that she has, but once the campaign for the general election begins, his policies, which at this time would be disastrous for the country, would suddenly begin to come into focus. He says he's going to break up the big banks. What does that even mean? How is he going to do that? What's the timetable? And all this stuff about free college education and a precipitous increase in taxes on corporations and the wealthy? It'd be a disaster if he could push it through rapidly. Simply put, the country isn't ready for it yet. The groundwork hasn't been laid.

2. She has the experience. Hillary's been a lawyer, a Senator, and Secretary of State. She's worked at local, state, and federal levels for over 40 years. And dammit, the woman's a survivor. Nobody takes what she's taken who doesn't have skin like an elephant's hide. She isn't perfect, but I don't demand perfection from the people I vote for; just a high level of competence. And she has that.

3. Supreme Court Justices. This is the most important. I trust her to put socially conscious, but largely well-balanced justices on the court. I have no idea what Bernie would do. In the next four years, we're gonna see at least two new justices, and possibly a third appointed to SCOTUS. And they need to make laws that can stand the test of time. 5-4 decisions constitute the law of the land, but they're precarious. That's why the GOP is refusing to do its job (I think they've waived their right to do their job--fucking bastards). They understand the number of 5-4 decisions that have been handed down and how easily many those decisions can be reversed. By putting well-balanced justices on the Court, you ensure to some degree that politics plays a lesser role than it has since Scalia first slithered onto the bench before doing us all a favor and dying unexpectedly.

Again, who would Bernie try to put on the Court? I just don't know. But I think he would try to put more prominently leftist justices there than is healthy for the country and the system. The effect could and would likely be a continuance of the Court being a political body rather than the neutral, carefully considered body it's supposed to be.

OK

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

$15 minimum wage and some sort of health care push. I'd like to see banks split up, raise liquidity requirements and let the banks figure it out themselves.

BTW, I find it highly ironic that the 2016 Clinton Campaign and its surrogates keep calling for Sanders to stop running when in 2008 Clinton wouldn't stop running until the primaries on the planet Xaxxon were over.

That's not irony.

Yeah it is.

irony -- a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects

I don't think there really can be an ironic turnout for what she is asking. What your example is one of hypocrisy, not irony. Irony is going about Path A to avoid Outcome B, and getting to B regardless.

So irony and hypocrisy are now mutually exclusive?

Irony is irony. If something isn't actually ironic, it isn't ironic.