Hllary Thumps Bernie in New York

[SimpleDon]

I don't think that Bernie running has hurt Clinton or the Democrats. This is what elections are for, to air issues and possible solutions. Many of the things that Bernie is running on need to be discussed in the public arena. The stock market transaction tax, the separation of consumer banking from investment and speculation banking, the increase in the minimum wage, an increase in Social Security payments for the working poor, and at the very least a reduction in the debt load of college students.

And Medicare for all would save everyone in the country on health care insurance and on the medical care that it buys.

These things are what the Democrats should be running on, not triangulation or boxing in the Republicans by moving to the right and being Republican Lite.

The question shouldn't be, "we can't get these things done with a Republican Congress, so why try?" It should be "if these are desirable things to do we will have no chance to do them if we don't start proposing and explaining them, will we?"

Movement conservatism has damaged the nation and its economy badly. But this is a secret that Democrats seem to want to keep now. No Democrat has ever been elected president who didn't propose to raise taxes on the wealthy. H Clinton would be the first.



I think that running Bernie or Elizabeth Warren for vice president would do nicely.

 

[SimpleDon]

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.

I am voting for Clinton too. But I have sent money to Bernie too. Yes, the country is not ready for Bernie's ideas, but they are good ideas and airing them in a presidential campaign is a way to lay the groundwork for them.

The way that you break up the banks is to separate consumer banking, the banking that is covered by the FDIC, from the investment banking, which at times has been more about speculation than investing

Both Clinton and Sanders are more qualified to be president than either Trump, Cruz or the other guy. But in Clinton we have the most qualified person to run for president than we have had in more than a generation.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

The Country is about ready for revolution. And the only people not ready for Sanders' ideas are the 535 people who work under that dome in the middle of DC and corporatists who own them.

With rare exception, every Clinton supporter I have talked to (alone and without an audience) agrees with almost everything Sanders says and will say while "I'm ready for those kind of changes, but the rest of the country isn't."

To which I reply, "Sweetie, you are the rest of the country."

And when fascism is rearing its ugly head, this is not the time to have courage fail, or talk and walk in the ways of appeasement and compromise.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The Country is about ready for revolution. And the only people not ready for Sanders' ideas are the 535 people who work under that dome in the middle of DC and corporatists who own them.

With rare exception, every Clinton supporter I have talked to (alone and without an audience) agrees with almost everything Sanders says and will say while "I'm ready for those kind of changes, but the rest of the country isn't."

To which I reply, "Sweetie, you are the rest of the country."

Actually, Trump supporters apparently are a good chunk of the rest of the country. There are plenty of Americans that don't want Medicare expanded for all Americans, or a minimum wage that isn't even on level with the minimum wage in the 70s adjusted for productivity and inflation ($22) / the $15 wage, reduced military presence, etc...

I'd say 60 to 70% of America is in line with Sanders, but the Republicans have done such a good job of lying to make people against Entitlements (while at the same time praising Social Security and Medicare), that it is very hard to convince them that these changes are needed and appropriate and very far from radical.

These people think the US Economy at this point is worse than when Obama took office. These people can't be convinced of anything. They take their Flavoraid three times a day and won't do otherwise (or think for themselves).

 

[RavenSky]

The title to this thread really needed to be "Hillary Trumps Bernie".

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The bad news about the GOP New York Primaries. Trump wins big. The good news. Cruz loses big

 

[RavenSky]

Hillary should nominate Sanders as her VP. It gets the Bernie fanatics out to the voter booth and puts and end to any idea of impeaching her for political ends.

I actually love that idea, especially since Bernie helps pull Hillary back to the left, too.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

It is notable that in New York, Hillary won with 1,054,083 votes. Sanders got 763,469.

Trump won with 524,932 votes, Cruz got 126,151 votes and Kasich got 217,904 votes. This seems to indicate a general election blowout for Hillary Clinton in November at least in New York State.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

The title to this thread really needed to be "Hillary Trumps Bernie".

That is actually what I thought it said at first

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Hillary should nominate Sanders as her VP. It gets the Bernie fanatics out to the voter booth and puts and end to any idea of impeaching her for political ends.

I actually love that idea, especially since Bernie helps pull Hillary back to the left, too.

Inauguration Day, Jan. 20, 2017
Clinton will be 69 years 2.9 mos. old
Sanders will be 75 years 4.4 mos.

For that reason alone, you probably won't get that ticket.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The title to this thread really needed to be "Hillary Trumps Bernie".

Someone should put "schlong" in there, too, but only with consent.

 

[RavenSky]

I actually love that idea, especially since Bernie helps pull Hillary back to the left, too.

Inauguration Day, Jan. 20, 2017
Clinton will be 69 years 2.9 mos. old
Sanders will be 75 years 4.4 mos.

For that reason alone, you probably won't get that ticket.

I agree.

Unfortunately, I don't think a Clinton/Warren ticket would work either. I'm not even sure this country is willing to elect one woman to this high an office, much less a two women ticket.

Another possibility might be Martin O'Malley. He is the typical white male, and younger than Clinton by about 15 years. He's not as progressive as Sanders, but more progressive on most issues than Clinton is now. He's been a governor - the one office a lot of people think is important in a presidential race and one office Clinton hasn't held.

 

[bilby]

I actually love that idea, especially since Bernie helps pull Hillary back to the left, too.

Inauguration Day, Jan. 20, 2017
Clinton will be 69 years 2.9 mos. old
Sanders will be 75 years 4.4 mos.

For that reason alone, you probably won't get that ticket.

Meh.

Our head of state is 90 today, and she lives as far from here as she could get without joining the space program.

People live long lives in the twenty-first century. Seventy-five is a spring chicken.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Inauguration Day, Jan. 20, 2017
Clinton will be 69 years 2.9 mos. old
Sanders will be 75 years 4.4 mos.

For that reason alone, you probably won't get that ticket.

I agree.

Unfortunately, I don't think a Clinton/Warren ticket would work either. I'm not even sure this country is willing to elect one woman to this high an office, much less a two women ticket.

Another possibility might be Martin O'Malley. He is the typical white male, and younger than Clinton by about 15 years. He's not as progressive as Sanders, but more progressive on most issues than Clinton is now. He's been a governor - the one office a lot of people think is important in a presidential race and one office Clinton hasn't held.

I don't know much about O'Malley. I'd like to see Clinton pick a younger politician with a promising future. I think that the more important issue is that the VP should ooze stability and a strong grasp of sound policy. This would dramatically contract the craziness that defines the Trump campaign.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

It is notable that in New York, Hillary won with 1,054,083 votes. Sanders got 763,469.

Trump won with 524,932 votes, Cruz got 126,151 votes and Kasich got 217,904 votes. This seems to indicate a general election blowout for Hillary Clinton in November at least in New York State.

Ya, when Utah's leaning democratic, New York isn't actually in play. It would have been great, however, if Clinton had only gotten two more votes in the primaries than Trump and the reason he didn't get as many was because his kids "forgot" to register to vote for him.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I agree.

Unfortunately, I don't think a Clinton/Warren ticket would work either. I'm not even sure this country is willing to elect one woman to this high an office, much less a two women ticket.

Another possibility might be Martin O'Malley. He is the typical white male, and younger than Clinton by about 15 years. He's not as progressive as Sanders, but more progressive on most issues than Clinton is now. He's been a governor - the one office a lot of people think is important in a presidential race and one office Clinton hasn't held.

I don't know much about O'Malley. I'd like to see Clinton pick a younger politician with a promising future. I think that the more important issue is that the VP should ooze stability and a strong grasp of sound policy. This would dramatically contract the craziness that defines the Trump campaign.

Julian Castro.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I don't know much about O'Malley. I'd like to see Clinton pick a younger politician with a promising future. I think that the more important issue is that the VP should ooze stability and a strong grasp of sound policy. This would dramatically contract the craziness that defines the Trump campaign.

Julian Castro.

Seems like a promising guy. HRC really likes him. Ironically, we don't really need him! The republicans are doing everything that they can do to piss off hispanic voters.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

The Country is about ready for revolution. And the only people not ready for Sanders' ideas are the 535 people who work under that dome in the middle of DC and corporatists who own them.

With rare exception, every Clinton supporter I have talked to (alone and without an audience) agrees with almost everything Sanders says and will say while "I'm ready for those kind of changes, but the rest of the country isn't."

To which I reply, "Sweetie, you are the rest of the country."

And when fascism is rearing its ugly head, this is not the time to have courage fail, or talk and walk in the ways of appeasement and compromise.

And that last sentence is where the conflict lies. Without exaggeration, we really do have fascists running against Hillary and Bernie, and those fascists have passionate support from a sizable percentage of the population.

I agree with a lot of what Sanders says, but there are too many unintended consequences that are unforeseeable if he were able to do what he says he wants to do. As much as I like the idea of the things he's saying, there are potentially disastrous outcomes that really could give rise to a guy like Cruz or Trump or even worse. This bloody shitrag of a Republican primary season has proven that no country is immune to succumbing to populist authoritarianism. I was naive enough to think we were past that. And with that in mind, it concerns me that should a leftist like Sanders win and then fail miserably, it could swing the door wide open for a authoritarian backlash.

Generally, the country is in far better shape now than when Obama took office. That used to be the measure: are we better off now than we were X years ago? But we are better off now than when Obama took office but millions don't seem to believe it or don't care. And that's scary. So Hillary is the safe choice now. She's not going to drive us off a cliff in the name of ideology. She'll keep things moving along and won't get us into any idiotic wars. And that's the best we can do right now given the anti-intellectual climate in the U.S.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I agree with a lot of what Sanders says, but there are too many unintended consequences that are unforeseeable if he were able to do what he says he wants to do.

Think outside the box. Are there things that Hillary could do where there also could be too many unintended consequences that are unforeseeable? It doesn't get a lot of press because the press is pretty terrible, but the wars and military "interventions" might be pretty serious from non-Bernie candidates with a lot of large consequences. They shouldn't be unforseeable by now but the analysis has been lacking discussion. Take for example recent news of Obama admission that he and Clinton did not have a good plan for Libya after helping to overthrow their govt. What else? Are we going to get a second round of "Welfare Reform?"

As much as I like the idea of the things he's saying, there are potentially disastrous outcomes that really could give rise to a guy like Cruz or Trump or even worse. This bloody shitrag of a Republican primary season has proven that no country is immune to succumbing to populist authoritarianism. I was naive enough to think we were past that. And with that in mind, it concerns me that should a leftist like Sanders win and then fail miserably, it could swing the door wide open for a authoritarian backlash.

Any Democrat that becomes President will be seriously obstructed by Republicans in Congress. The propaganda machine will make them look ineffective like Jimmy Carter and like a Muslim Communist like Obama. Therefore, you are going to get right-wing authoritarian backlash no matter what.

Your best option is to hope for someone who will change the game...someone who will try to get money less in politics and people more into it.

 

[RavenSky]

I don't know much about O'Malley. I'd like to see Clinton pick a younger politician with a promising future. I think that the more important issue is that the VP should ooze stability and a strong grasp of sound policy. This would dramatically contract the craziness that defines the Trump campaign.

Julian Castro.

I really like Julian Castro. Very very much, and was going to mention him as a possibility, too