B-Man Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 Polls: Clinton (national) lead (over the Bern) down to single digits 3/8/2016 The Hill ^ Hillary Clinton's lead over Democratic presidential rival Bernie Sanders has narrowed, according to the latest national polls released Tuesday. Clinton is favored to beat Sanders by 7 points, 49 to 42 percent, among registered Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents in the ABC News/Washington Post poll. That's the closest margin ever between the pair in the poll, which recorded a 52-point lead for Clinton, 68 to 16 percent, last July. It's also the first time Clinton has slipped below 50 percent from Democratic-leaning voters.
Chef Jim Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/03/07/bernie-sanders-clarifies-ghetto-remark-that-prompted-social-media-outcry/ “What I meant to say is when you talk about ghetto, traditionally what you are talking about is African American communities,”
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 Bernie wins in Michigan but comes away with fewer delegates. Unbelievable
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 Bernie wins in Michigan but comes away with fewer delegates. Unbelievable Denocrats. Bernie should understand though, he earned the win but he's only entitled to his fair share of delegates. The democrat party knows best what to do with the rest of his delegates.
keepthefaith Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 Denocrats. Bernie should understand though, he earned the win but he's only entitled to his fair share of delegates. The democrat party knows best what to do with the rest of his delegates. Bernie realizes now that he should have made an effort to purchase the superdelegates in advance. Hillary beat him to the punch.
B-Man Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 Poll: 33% of Sanders Supporters Wouldn't Vote for Clinton [Video At Source] WSJ Live ^ | March 9, 2016 A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll indicates one third of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders' supporters cannot see themselves voting for Hillary Clinton in November.
Chef Jim Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 Poll: 33% of Sanders Supporters Wouldn't Vote for Clinton [Video At Source] WSJ Live ^ | March 9, 2016 A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll indicates one third of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders' supporters cannot see themselves voting for Hillary Clinton in November. Yes I've mentioned that. Many of the Bernie supporters I know really dislike Hillary. Almost as much as they dislike Trump......almost.
reddogblitz Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 Yes I've mentioned that. Many of the Bernie supporters I know really dislike Hillary. Almost as much as they dislike Trump......almost. Bernie's mY guy, but I will NOT vote for Hillary under any circumstances.
Chef Jim Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 Bernie's mY guy, but I will NOT vote for Hillary under any circumstances. I'd be interested in hearing why on both accounts. Why is Bernie your guy and why you would never vote for Hillary?
dave mcbride Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 (edited) Bernie's mY guy, but I will NOT vote for Hillary under any circumstances. I don't really get this because Sanders isn't running a cult-of-personality campaign and isn't asking for people's vote on those grounds; his campaign is instead highly policy-oriented. Whatever one thinks of Clinton personally, she's the candidate most likely to implement policies that come closest what he's advocating. Since not voting for her is effectively half a vote for Trump or Cruz or whoever, you're effectively "voting" against his policy agenda, or rather the closest approximation of it that will be on offer in November. This could be just me; I've never really understood why people vote for someone based on whether they "like" the person or not. It's about policy for me at the end of the day. Edited March 9, 2016 by dave mcbride
Azalin Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 This could be just me; I've never really understood why people vote for someone based on whether they "like" the person or not. It's about policy for me at the end of the day. If I voted for the candidate whose policies I support, then I'd never vote. I don't believe a word any of them say. I always vote against the one whose policies I hate the most.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 I don't really get this because Sanders isn't running a cult-of-personality campaign and isn't asking for people's vote on those grounds; his campaign is instead highly policy-oriented. Whatever one thinks of Clinton personally, she's the candidate most likely to implement policies that come closest what he's advocating. Since not voting for her is effectively half a vote for Trump or Cruz or whoever, you're effectively "voting" against his policy agenda, or rather the closest approximation of it that will be on offer in November. This could be just me; I've never really understood why people vote for someone based on whether they "like" the person or not. It's about policy for me at the end of the day. Because she's disingenuous, shrill and a crook? Say no to the harpy in 2016.
DC Tom Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 I don't really get this because Sanders isn't running a cult-of-personality campaign and isn't asking for people's vote on those grounds; his campaign is instead highly policy-oriented. Whatever one thinks of Clinton personally, she's the candidate most likely to implement policies that come closest what he's advocating. Since not voting for her is effectively half a vote for Trump or Cruz or whoever, you're effectively "voting" against his policy agenda, or rather the closest approximation of it that will be on offer in November. This could be just me; I've never really understood why people vote for someone based on whether they "like" the person or not. It's about policy for me at the end of the day. I'm not terribly inclined to worry about a Presidential candidate's policies. Management and executive ability are more important at that position. For Congressional races, that's when I worry more about policy, since they're the ones that are supposed to be writing legislation.
dave mcbride Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 I'm not terribly inclined to worry about a Presidential candidate's policies. Management and executive ability are more important at that position. For Congressional races, that's when I worry more about policy, since they're the ones that are supposed to be writing legislation. That's not how the system works these days, however. For better or worse, the Madisonian republic doesn't really exist anymore and much of policy is created by the executive and implemented by agencies. There has been a slow accretion of of executive power since the end of World War II, and it doesn't matter whether the president has been Republican or Democrat - they all have increased executive power vis-a-vis the other branches. Many hate this book's argument - https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-executive-unbound-9780199765331?cc=gb&lang=en- but I think the world it depicts accords with our reality, more or less. The point is, presidents make policy.
GG Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 That's not how the system works these days, however. For better or worse, the Madisonian republic doesn't really exist anymore and much of policy is created by the executive and implemented by agencies. There has been a slow accretion of of executive power since the end of World War II, and it doesn't matter whether the president has been Republican or Democrat - they all have increased executive power vis-a-vis the other branches. Many hate this book's argument - https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-executive-unbound-9780199765331?cc=gb&lang=en- but I think the world it depicts accords with our reality, more or less. The point is, presidents make policy. Doesn't help that the electorate is going gaga about another authoritarian emperor wannabee, after the last 7 years of solid fun.
DC Tom Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 That's not how the system works these days, however. For better or worse, the Madisonian republic doesn't really exist anymore and much of policy is created by the executive and implemented by agencies. There has been a slow accretion of of executive power since the end of World War II, and it doesn't matter whether the president has been Republican or Democrat - they all have increased executive power vis-a-vis the other branches. Many hate this book's argument - https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-executive-unbound-9780199765331?cc=gb&lang=en- but I think the world it depicts accords with our reality, more or less. The point is, presidents make policy. I know. That doesn't mean I have to compromise my principles.
dave mcbride Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 I know. That doesn't mean I have to compromise my principles. Fair enough!!
2020 Our Year For Sure Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 (edited) I don't really get this because Sanders isn't running a cult-of-personality campaign and isn't asking for people's vote on those grounds; his campaign is instead highly policy-oriented. Whatever one thinks of Clinton personally, she's the candidate most likely to implement policies that come closest what he's advocating. Since not voting for her is effectively half a vote for Trump or Cruz or whoever, you're effectively "voting" against his policy agenda, or rather the closest approximation of it that will be on offer in November. This could be just me; I've never really understood why people vote for someone based on whether they "like" the person or not. It's about policy for me at the end of the day. I'd like to get rid of the two party system. They both take the dirty money and in my opinion both stand in the way of a democracy that represents everyone. I think Bernie is running with an eye toward bringing change down the line even if he loses, and in that spirit I'll take a look at whatever third party candidates are out there. If voters and politicians see an independent do better than expected maybe it helps me get the President I want in 4 or 8 years. I'll probably find my best policy match to boot. Edited March 10, 2016 by Aaron
Nanker Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 I'd like to get rid of the two party system. They both take the dirty money and in my opinion both stand in the way of a democracy that represents everyone. I think Bernie is running with an eye toward bringing change down the line even if he loses, and in that spirit I'll take a look at whatever third party candidates are out there. If voters and politicians see an independent do better than expected maybe it helps me get the President I want in 4 or 8 years. I'll probably find my best policy match to boot. That we have a "Two Party System" is the biggest political fallacy of our time. Ever hear of the Libertarian Party, the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party, the Green Party, the American Communist Party? There have been and continue to be a host of others too. But why when we have all these political channels from which to choose to support does it come down to a "two party system" only? These other channels haven't proven viable yet. They don't gain traction with the general population. Why's that? The avenues and doors are there, it's just that not many people open them and enter therein. So how exactly do you see "getting rid of the two party system" exactly?
B-Man Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 Just got a text from my daughter............she's at the Bernie rally in Orlando. She says there is a lot of enthusiasm.
Recommended Posts