• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Sanders beats Clinton embarassingly, but did you know it?

 
 
 
Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
14,406
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
non-practicing agnostic
The fix is in for Hillary and has been from the beginning. DNC chair DWS has been a big Hillarite since 2008.
The only way she can be derailed is if the Congress appoints a special prosecutor to investigate her email affair because Loretta Lynch is a political appointee and thus will not do anything to derail the nomination of Hillary "it's my turn dammit" Clinton.
I wonder if Ken Starr is available. :)

The only question is, do Republicans think Hillary is very beatable and thus actually prefer her to be the nominee?
 
Derec said:
The fix is in for Hillary and has been from the beginning. DNC chair DWS has been a big Hillarite since 2008.
The only way she can be derailed is if the Congress appoints a special prosecutor to investigate her email affair because Loretta Lynch is a political appointee and thus will not do anything to derail the nomination of Hillary "it's my turn dammit" Clinton.
I wonder if Ken Starr is available. :)

The only question is, do Republicans think Hillary is very beatable and thus actually prefer her to be the nominee?
Click to expand...

The ONLY way she can be derailed? Really?

No other way at all? Nothing else she has ever done in the entirety of her life? She has been totally honest and forthright in every other thing she has done and only in her emails can anyone ever hope to find anything that would tarnish her otherwise pristine and oh so perfect record of goodness and light?
 
We always knew that Sanders was stronger in Caucus states. So what? When I went to my caucus, I was undecided. As I walked to it, I asked myself: "if I am just going to settle for Clinton, why am I even going?" So I went and caucused for Sanders, and this coming saturday I go to the district convention as a delegate. I imagine that lots of people who go to the caucus feel as I do, and they will be dominated by people who are not interested in settling for the easy choice.

However, there aren't very many caucus states left. Clinton is the easy choice, and she will probably do well in the remaining states.
 
Electoral Votes by each state that Bernie won:

Alaska: 3
Hawaii: 4
Washington: 12

Red or Blue?
Alaska is solidly red. They're going GOP regardless of who the candidate is
Washington is solidly blue. They're going Democrat regardless of who the candidate is
Hawaii tends toward blue, but also has a strong red presence

You have one state (Alaska) which no Democrat is going to win.
The next state, Washington, is a state which no Republican is going to win
Hawaii might swing but tends to be Democratic in national elections.

So in this little group, with respect to a general election, Hillary is not going to win Alaska in the general, will win Washington, may or may not win Hawaii, but probably will. And of those three states she made an appearance in Washington once. That tells you her strategy. Right now she's putting her resources where it matters.

Even if she loses Alaska and Hawaii, she still wins Washington, which nets her +5 electoral votes. So even though she loses to Bernie now in those relatively unimportant states, she wins about twice as many electoral votes as the Republican in the national.

Now, if Bernie begins taking big states and take vast chunks out of Hillary, it'll be something the press will begin to jump on. But for the time being, this is a small blip on the radar. At the same time, this story also has to compete with the bombings in Belgium and Pakistan. So there's that factor too. Similarly, Ted Cruz got a reprieve from his sex scandal as people focus on matters overseas.

It's possible that we'll look back on this weekend as the spark that Bernie needed in his eventual path to being the Democratic nominee, but for the time being, it doesn't look to be that important.
 
Three relatively small states with caucuses. The wins are again important to give the message meaning, but there are much bigger ones coming up. Clinton still has a strong lead in pledged delegates, but Sanders performance is giving strength to the message that musn't be ignored come the convention.
 
Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
It was the three-state sweep the Vermont senator had been waiting for -- and his margins of victory in Washington, Alaska and Hawaii were impressive, with every victory by at least 40 percentage points.
Click to expand...
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/28/polit...clinton-donald-trump-2016-election/index.html

This weekend was a 3 state sweep by Sanders.

In Alaska Clinton only got 18%, in Hawaii Clinton only got 30% and in Washington she only got 27%.
Click to expand...

But they're not wins which change the dynamic of the race. There's not a new story here, so there's not a lot to focus on.
 
braces_for_impact said:
Don't buy into the Lilly white narrative. Here's an excellent numbers drill down.
Click to expand...

You and Huffpost have it right. I have been looking at the Clinton lineup of black and brown leaders against Sanders and feel they have fallen into the color trap without a good reason. Dolores Huerta surprises me in that she picked some alleged immigration reform legislation (containing "guest worker provisions) that Sanders voted against. She completely ignored the meaning of "guest worker." In this regard, Sanders was more on the side of her people than she was. I feel that racial politics has NO PLACE WHATEVER IN THE SANDERS VERSUS HILLARY CONTEST. Not only is Sanders not a racist, he is also sensitive to the effects of our economic system on people of color.

The Clintons got their start in Southern State politics with its continuing racist flavor. The Clinton triangulation of conservative issues disgusts me. She loves war. She supports without any question...Israel. And she really has no real record on racial justice. The black appointees to the Clinton administration were not black activists so much as they were black corporatists. I really don't understand why anybody would feel any safer with Clinton in office than Trump.
 
ksen said:
ZiprHead said:
Bernie wins Hawaii, or as Republicans call it, Kenya.
Click to expand...

Another lily-white state for Bernie.
Click to expand...

Waitaminnut, Hawaiians aren't all White! Oh I see what you did there...very sneaky ksen.

Also, a couple of more things to add:
polling was once again wrong and way off;
Washington is not a small state--it's average size;
the news media, even liberal newspapers like the Washington Post and NY Times, since day 1 have been saying Sanders doesn't have a chance and have been not covering to any great degree his victories, which pretty much makes it a self-fulfilling prophecy as it discourages people from voting for him.

I didn't actually want to focus on the third bullet above except to discuss this concrete case of lack of media attention by asking who knew.
 
Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
I didn't actually want to focus on the third bullet above except to discuss this concrete case of lack of media attention by asking who knew.
Click to expand...

Whaddya mean? I tuned in to the CNN, MSNBC and Fox late Saturday night/Sunday morning to see what was going on and they had some tru crime story, NC anti-LGBTQ law coverage and a show about the latest Trump/Cruz spat respectively.

But tbf they did have the little scrolley thing at the bottom that eventually listed voting results.
 
ksen said:
Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
I didn't actually want to focus on the third bullet above except to discuss this concrete case of lack of media attention by asking who knew.
Click to expand...

Whaddya mean? I tuned in to the CNN, MSNBC and Fox late Saturday night/Sunday morning to see what was going on and they had some tru crime story, NC anti-LGBTQ law coverage and a show about the latest Trump/Cruz spat respectively.

But tbf they did have the little scrolley thing at the bottom that eventually listed voting results.
Click to expand...

And you think that is fair and will help us with the "democracy thingy.":thinking:
 
arkirk said:
braces_for_impact said:
Don't buy into the Lilly white narrative. Here's an excellent numbers drill down.
Click to expand...

You and Huffpost have it right. I have been looking at the Clinton lineup of black and brown leaders against Sanders and feel they have fallen into the color trap without a good reason. Dolores Huerta surprises me in that she picked some alleged immigration reform legislation (containing "guest worker provisions) that Sanders voted against. She completely ignored the meaning of "guest worker." In this regard, Sanders was more on the side of her people than she was. I feel that racial politics has NO PLACE WHATEVER IN THE SANDERS VERSUS HILLARY CONTEST. Not only is Sanders not a racist, he is also sensitive to the effects of our economic system on people of color.

The Clintons got their start in Southern State politics with its continuing racist flavor. The Clinton triangulation of conservative issues disgusts me. She loves war. She supports without any question...Israel. And she really has no real record on racial justice. The black appointees to the Clinton administration were not black activists so much as they were black corporatists. I really don't understand why anybody would feel any safer with Clinton in office than Trump.
Click to expand...

Because Trump sounds like an idiot and Clinton may be many things, but she is not nor does she sound like an idiot.

Whatever intellectual deficiencies Trump may or may not have, he is a particular kind of dangerous. He can draw crowds of angry people to him and have them do what he says. Clinton, on the other hand, can slip pass a sane person's bullshit detector and can seem to be a certain kind of person, while at the same time behaving in ways that betray the appearance.

They are both dangerous, just dangerous in different ways.
 
It could be argued that Hillary is more dangerous since she is more hawkish than Trump.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom