What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Bernie Sanders HQ! *A decent human being. (5 Viewers)

This poll has more info than the last one. Sanders is +2 from the Morning poll, so there's confirmation there in a 2nd poll. Sanders is ***winning 35-32 among Demo NH men, and he's trailing just 38-35 with voters who know both candidates. This will only add more vigor to Sanders and help fundraising. He's going to narrow that Iowa number too.

 
wdcrob said:
Dems have a history of falling in love with the liberal.
Click to expand...
I don't believe this bears out. Yes Obama in 2008 was more liberal than Hillary, but not as liberal as John Edwards. In 2004 the liberal candidate was Howard Dean. In 2000 the liberal candidate was Ralph Nader. I think the Dems love liberals, in the end, about as much as the GOP loves conservatives.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
wdcrob said:
Dems have a history of falling in love with the liberal.
Click to expand...
I don't believe this bears out. Yes Obama in 2008 was more liberal than Hillary, but not as liberal as John Edwards. In 2004 the liberal candidate was Howard Dean. In 2000 the liberal candidate was Ralph Nader.I think the Dems love liberals, in the end, about as much as the GOP loves conservatives.
Click to expand...
Ralph Nader wasn't a Dem

 
Fennis said:
timschochet said:
wdcrob said:
Dems have a history of falling in love with the liberal.
Click to expand...
I don't believe this bears out. Yes Obama in 2008 was more liberal than Hillary, but not as liberal as John Edwards. In 2004 the liberal candidate was Howard Dean. In 2000 the liberal candidate was Ralph Nader.I think the Dems love liberals, in the end, about as much as the GOP loves conservatives.
Click to expand...
Ralph Nader wasn't a Dem
Click to expand...
True but he was the liberal choice. BTW Bernie isn't a Dem either.

 
Robert Kennedy was not a liberal. He's regarded as a liberal icon today mainly because he got shot. But in 1968 the liberal favorite was Eugrne McCarthy, and Kennedy, the establishment centrist, trounced him.

McGovern did win the nomination mainly because Ed Muskie destroyed himself. But McGovern's failure in the election (one of the worst ever) made a lot of Dems vow never to choose the liberal again.

 
timschochet said:
Robert Kennedy was not a liberal. He's regarded as a liberal icon today mainly because he got shot. But in 1968 the liberal favorite was Eugrne McCarthy, and Kennedy, the establishment centrist, trounced him.

McGovern did win the nomination mainly because Ed Muskie destroyed himself. But McGovern's failure in the election (one of the worst ever) made a lot of Dems vow never to choose the liberal again.
Click to expand...
The similarities end there, and somewhat abruptly. Kennedy, pushed to abandon his ambivalent stance toward Vietnam by the party's younger, antiwar leaders, underwent in the Senate a very public evolution in his convictions about the war abroad and poverty at home. His rise as a national figure coincided with, and to some extent made possible, the rise of social liberalism as the dominant force in Democratic politics. Ultimately, Kennedy's campaign to cleanse the Democratic soul, and his own, took on almost religious overtones, even before his assassination at the Ambassador Hotel.

Clinton, on the other hand, wants nothing to do with ideological crusades, and she has thus far resisted the pull of rising antiestablishment forces -- bloggers, donors and activists -- who are fast becoming today's equivalent of the 60's left. Instead, Hillary (as she is universally known) has navigated with extreme caution through the party's fast-changing landscape, and if she has evolved as a public figure, it is in a way that has distanced her from the party's more liberal base. She has never renounced her initial support for the invasion of Iraq, and has in fact lobbied for recruiting an additional 80,000 Army troops. She has recently taken the opportunity, in much publicized speeches, to denounce unwanted pregnancies and violent video games. And at a time when the new activists brand any bipartisan cooperation as treachery, Clinton seems to pop up every week next to some conservative who has joined her on an issue like health-care modernization or soldiers' benefits.

In fact, among pundits and strategists of both parties as well as the reporters who cover them, a story line about Clinton has now taken hold, and it goes like this: While she is at heart a more stridently liberal and polarizing figure than her husband, Hillary Clinton is now consciously reinventing herself publicly as a middle-of-the-road pragmatist. According to this theory, she has resolved, along with her cadre of canny advisers, to brazenly "reposition" herself as the kind of soothing centrist that middle-class white voters might actually accept as the first female president. "A couple of weeks ago, certainly a couple months ago, Hillary was off there on the left," Chris Matthews, a reliable gauge of predictable Washington wisdom, told his viewers on MSNBC in May. "We thought of her with Barbra Streisand, Barbara Boxer, Rob Reiner, Chuck Schumer even. Now I see her as sort of part of this drift toward the center."
Click to expand...
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/02/magazine/mrs-triangulation.html?_r=0

That's the NYT in 2005. Plus ca change.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
“Let me tell you a secret: we’re going to win New Hampshire,” Sanders told upwards of 1,000 supporters gathered in Keene, N.H., the Keene Sentinel reported.
Click to expand...
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-07/bernie-sanders-we-re-going-to-win-new-hampshire-

Bernie has a chance here. A chance. Win NH and finish within 10 in Iowa.

Then what? South Carolina might be a wipeout, he's trailing Joe Biden there right now. He will have to figure out how to run and win a national campaign and also he may get laid out in the South on Super Tuesday. But a win in NH and a strong finish in IA could give him some big momentum for fundraising and support which he would then have to capitalize on in a widow of opportunity.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
“Let me tell you a secret: we’re going to win New Hampshire,” Sanders told upwards of 1,000 supporters gathered in Keene, N.H., the Keene Sentinel reported.
Click to expand...
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-07/bernie-sanders-we-re-going-to-win-new-hampshire-

Bernie has a chance here. A chance. Win NH and finish within 10 in Iowa.

Then what? South Carolina might be a wipeout, he's trailing Joe Biden there right now. He will have to figure out how to run and win a national campaign and also he may get laid out in the South on Super Tuesday. But a win in NH and a strong finish in IA could give him some big momentum for fundraising and support which he would then have to capitalize on in a widow of opportunity.
Click to expand...
The masses are rumbling down here a little bit. In a general election, he doesn't have a chance, because, well, people here are pretty simple minded and the "All Republicans" button is used a lot. These are the same people who continue to vote Lindsey Graham into office, so....... :oldunsure:

 
You may be right about those rumblings...

‘Who the Hell is Bernie Sanders?’ These Southerners want everyone to know....

Here they all were at a gathering for the democratic socialist senator from Vermont, whose mad-as-hell campaign for president has been drawing crowds that have surprised even Sanders. In New Hampshire, more than 700; in Minnesota, more than 3,000; in Des Moines this past Friday, a raucous crowd of 700 people turned out for a no-frills rally, about the same number that came to a Hillary Rodham Clinton event featuring a live band and burgers.

And now, on a Sunday afternoon, Atlanta.

More than 100 people streamed into a place called Manuel’s Tavern, one of more than a dozen “People for Bernie” events around the country on this weekend in which Sanders himself would not appear.

In the Atlanta version, it was a gathering of ardent progressives but also relative newcomers to this world, people slightly surprised that it was the rumpled, white-haired Brooklyn native — who speaks of reversing “grotesque” income inequality, getting billionaires out of politics and the need for “political revolution” — who was best articulating their growing unease with the direction of the country.

These people included Friedman, his gray hair closely clipped, his glasses wire-rimmed.

“If you look at his 12 points,” he said, referring to agenda items such as taxing the wealthiest, breaking up big banks and free college tuition, “they are more aligned with mainstream Americans than other candidates, particularly if you do away with labels — that ‘socialist’ label.”

Friedman said his own politics had not changed that much since he first voted Democrat in 1968 after the Bobby Kennedy assassination; rather, he said, the party had moved further away from his values, so far that he was now slapping on a People-for-Bernie name tag.

“I was curious about what is happening here,” he said, explaining why he came. “I want to learn more about his position on foreign policy.”

...
Click to expand...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/grass-roots-effort-tries-to-spread-support-for-sanders-for-president/2015/06/16/f73f79c0-1056-11e5-a0dc-2b6f404ff5cf_story.html

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
timschochet said:
Robert Kennedy was not a liberal. He's regarded as a liberal icon today mainly because he got shot. But in 1968 the liberal favorite was Eugrne McCarthy, and Kennedy, the establishment centrist, trounced him.

McGovern did win the nomination mainly because Ed Muskie destroyed himself. But McGovern's failure in the election (one of the worst ever) made a lot of Dems vow never to choose the liberal again.
Click to expand...
The similarities end there, and somewhat abruptly. Kennedy, pushed to abandon his ambivalent stance toward Vietnam by the party's younger, antiwar leaders, underwent in the Senate a very public evolution in his convictions about the war abroad and poverty at home. His rise as a national figure coincided with, and to some extent made possible, the rise of social liberalism as the dominant force in Democratic politics. Ultimately, Kennedy's campaign to cleanse the Democratic soul, and his own, took on almost religious overtones, even before his assassination at the Ambassador Hotel.

Clinton, on the other hand, wants nothing to do with ideological crusades, and she has thus far resisted the pull of rising antiestablishment forces -- bloggers, donors and activists -- who are fast becoming today's equivalent of the 60's left. Instead, Hillary (as she is universally known) has navigated with extreme caution through the party's fast-changing landscape, and if she has evolved as a public figure, it is in a way that has distanced her from the party's more liberal base. She has never renounced her initial support for the invasion of Iraq, and has in fact lobbied for recruiting an additional 80,000 Army troops. She has recently taken the opportunity, in much publicized speeches, to denounce unwanted pregnancies and violent video games. And at a time when the new activists brand any bipartisan cooperation as treachery, Clinton seems to pop up every week next to some conservative who has joined her on an issue like health-care modernization or soldiers' benefits.

In fact, among pundits and strategists of both parties as well as the reporters who cover them, a story line about Clinton has now taken hold, and it goes like this: While she is at heart a more stridently liberal and polarizing figure than her husband, Hillary Clinton is now consciously reinventing herself publicly as a middle-of-the-road pragmatist. According to this theory, she has resolved, along with her cadre of canny advisers, to brazenly "reposition" herself as the kind of soothing centrist that middle-class white voters might actually accept as the first female president. "A couple of weeks ago, certainly a couple months ago, Hillary was off there on the left," Chris Matthews, a reliable gauge of predictable Washington wisdom, told his viewers on MSNBC in May. "We thought of her with Barbra Streisand, Barbara Boxer, Rob Reiner, Chuck Schumer even. Now I see her as sort of part of this drift toward the center."
Click to expand...
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/02/magazine/mrs-triangulation.html?_r=0

That's the NYT in 2005. Plus ca change.
Click to expand...
I wasn't making a Hillary comparison here, so I'm not sure what the point of your rebuttal is.

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
Kucinich was the Bernie Sanders equivalent in two recent Democratic primaries. He never got much support.
Click to expand...
In fairness to Dennis, more of a crowded field though. Also, he's not as dynamic as Bernie. But put him against Hillary right now, with no Sanders, and I think he'd been doing nearly as well as Sanders has.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
You may be right about those rumblings...

‘Who the Hell is Bernie Sanders?’ These Southerners want everyone to know....

Here they all were at a gathering for the democratic socialist senator from Vermont, whose mad-as-hell campaign for president has been drawing crowds that have surprised even Sanders. In New Hampshire, more than 700; in Minnesota, more than 3,000; in Des Moines this past Friday, a raucous crowd of 700 people turned out for a no-frills rally, about the same number that came to a Hillary Rodham Clinton event featuring a live band and burgers.

And now, on a Sunday afternoon, Atlanta.

More than 100 people streamed into a place called Manuel’s Tavern, one of more than a dozen “People for Bernie” events around the country on this weekend in which Sanders himself would not appear.

In the Atlanta version, it was a gathering of ardent progressives but also relative newcomers to this world, people slightly surprised that it was the rumpled, white-haired Brooklyn native — who speaks of reversing “grotesque” income inequality, getting billionaires out of politics and the need for “political revolution” — who was best articulating their growing unease with the direction of the country.

These people included Friedman, his gray hair closely clipped, his glasses wire-rimmed.

“If you look at his 12 points,” he said, referring to agenda items such as taxing the wealthiest, breaking up big banks and free college tuition, “they are more aligned with mainstream Americans than other candidates, particularly if you do away with labels — that ‘socialist’ label.”

Friedman said his own politics had not changed that much since he first voted Democrat in 1968 after the Bobby Kennedy assassination; rather, he said, the party had moved further away from his values, so far that he was now slapping on a People-for-Bernie name tag.

“I was curious about what is happening here,” he said, explaining why he came. “I want to learn more about his position on foreign policy.”

...
Click to expand...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/grass-roots-effort-tries-to-spread-support-for-sanders-for-president/2015/06/16/f73f79c0-1056-11e5-a0dc-2b6f404ff5cf_story.html
Click to expand...
This story bothers me a bit, though, because Sanders supporters need to do a better job of winning people over before going off the deep end into the Occupy rhetoric. They'll turn people off that might be supporters because of his integrity and honesty rather than their agreement with his political ideology.

 
timschochet said:
Fennis said:
timschochet said:
wdcrob said:
Dems have a history of falling in love with the liberal.
Click to expand...
I don't believe this bears out. Yes Obama in 2008 was more liberal than Hillary, but not as liberal as John Edwards. In 2004 the liberal candidate was Howard Dean. In 2000 the liberal candidate was Ralph Nader.I think the Dems love liberals, in the end, about as much as the GOP loves conservatives.
Click to expand...
Ralph Nader wasn't a Dem
Click to expand...
True but he was the liberal choice.BTW Bernie isn't a Dem either.
Click to expand...
Bernie became a Dem to run for the nomination. Nader didn't. Nader not being a dem is one of the reasons why he received minimal support from liberals.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
wdcrob said:
urbanhack said:
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
Kucinich was the Bernie Sanders equivalent in two recent Democratic primaries. He never got much support.
Click to expand...
Kucinich comes off as a little weenie man.
Click to expand...
I'd have to go look at the actual legislation they've supported, but off the top of my head I don't recall Sanders being quite so crackpotish as Kucinich.
Click to expand...
The two cannot reasonably be compared, in career, charisma (yes, Sanders gets knocked of that, but he has a style) or campaign record, they are different.

 
Bernie has the benefit of being a grassroots alternative to the corporatism that clinton represents. With no other viable candidates, he becomes a rallying point for the ant-corporate/anti-clinton vote. Jim Webb screwed the pooch here...

 
Bernie made a brilliant proposal yesterday: he offered to debate any of the GOP candidates who wants to go one on one with him, right now.

I gotta hand it to him, that is thinking outside the box and it is very smart. And if I were one of the Republicans way down in the polls like Fiorina, Jindal, Perry, etc., I'd take him up on it.

 
timschochet said:
Bernie made a brilliant proposal yesterday: he offered to debate any of the GOP candidates who wants to go one on one with him, right now.

I gotta hand it to him, that is thinking outside the box and it is very smart. And if I were one of the Republicans way down in the polls like Fiorina, Jindal, Perry, etc., I'd take him up on it.
Click to expand...
I think they get banned from the sanctioned debates if they participate in an unsanctioned one.
 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
timschochet said:
Bernie made a brilliant proposal yesterday: he offered to debate any of the GOP candidates who wants to go one on one with him, right now.

I gotta hand it to him, that is thinking outside the box and it is very smart. And if I were one of the Republicans way down in the polls like Fiorina, Jindal, Perry, etc., I'd take him up on it.
Click to expand...
I think they get banned from the sanctioned debates if they participate in an unsanctioned one.
Click to expand...
Because the GOP is pure crap.

 
BigSteelThrill said:
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
timschochet said:
Bernie made a brilliant proposal yesterday: he offered to debate any of the GOP candidates who wants to go one on one with him, right now.

I gotta hand it to him, that is thinking outside the box and it is very smart. And if I were one of the Republicans way down in the polls like Fiorina, Jindal, Perry, etc., I'd take him up on it.
Click to expand...
I think they get banned from the sanctioned debates if they participate in an unsanctioned one.
Click to expand...
Because the GOP is pure crap.
Click to expand...
The Dems have the same rule.

The problem for these candidates, is that, like the Democrats, the GOP has imposed an exclusivity rule for participants in party-sanctioned debates this year. Candidates must pledge only to participate in debates sponsored by the Republican. If they appear in alternate, unsanctioned debates, they are excluded from all future debates sanctioned by the Republican Party.
Click to expand...
That being said, I'm not sure if the rule only applies to intro-party debates or all.

I can't imagine Bernie'd be willing to throw away debating Hillary for a chance to square off against Cruz.

 
Gawain said:
BigSteelThrill said:
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
timschochet said:
Bernie made a brilliant proposal yesterday: he offered to debate any of the GOP candidates who wants to go one on one with him, right now.

I gotta hand it to him, that is thinking outside the box and it is very smart. And if I were one of the Republicans way down in the polls like Fiorina, Jindal, Perry, etc., I'd take him up on it.
Click to expand...
I think they get banned from the sanctioned debates if they participate in an unsanctioned one.
Click to expand...
Because the GOP is pure crap.
Click to expand...
The Dems have the same rule.

The problem for these candidates, is that, like the Democrats, the GOP has imposed an exclusivity rule for participants in party-sanctioned debates this year. Candidates must pledge only to participate in debates sponsored by the Republican. If they appear in alternate, unsanctioned debates, they are excluded from all future debates sanctioned by the Republican Party.
Click to expand...
That being said, I'm not sure if the rule only applies to intro-party debates or all.

I can't imagine Bernie'd be willing to throw away debating Hillary for a chance to square off against Cruz.
Click to expand...
No. You have an unknown/unnamed source talking about possibilities. And Bernie just said F U to that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BigSteelThrill said:
Gawain said:
BigSteelThrill said:
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
timschochet said:
Bernie made a brilliant proposal yesterday: he offered to debate any of the GOP candidates who wants to go one on one with him, right now.

I gotta hand it to him, that is thinking outside the box and it is very smart. And if I were one of the Republicans way down in the polls like Fiorina, Jindal, Perry, etc., I'd take him up on it.
Click to expand...
I think they get banned from the sanctioned debates if they participate in an unsanctioned one.
Click to expand...
Because the GOP is pure crap.
Click to expand...
The Dems have the same rule.

The problem for these candidates, is that, like the Democrats, the GOP has imposed an exclusivity rule for participants in party-sanctioned debates this year. Candidates must pledge only to participate in debates sponsored by the Republican. If they appear in alternate, unsanctioned debates, they are excluded from all future debates sanctioned by the Republican Party.
Click to expand...
That being said, I'm not sure if the rule only applies to intro-party debates or all.

I can't imagine Bernie'd be willing to throw away debating Hillary for a chance to square off against Cruz.
Click to expand...
No. You have an unknown/unnamed source talking about possibilities. And Bernie just said F U to that.
Click to expand...
Time work?

http://time.com/3847335/democratic-presidential-debates-exclusive/

Here's discussion from demunderground

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026807859

It's silly on both sides.

 
Gawain said:
BigSteelThrill said:
Gawain said:
BigSteelThrill said:
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
timschochet said:
Bernie made a brilliant proposal yesterday: he offered to debate any of the GOP candidates who wants to go one on one with him, right now.

I gotta hand it to him, that is thinking outside the box and it is very smart. And if I were one of the Republicans way down in the polls like Fiorina, Jindal, Perry, etc., I'd take him up on it.
Click to expand...
I think they get banned from the sanctioned debates if they participate in an unsanctioned one.
Click to expand...
Because the GOP is pure crap.
Click to expand...
The Dems have the same rule.

The problem for these candidates, is that, like the Democrats, the GOP has imposed an exclusivity rule for participants in party-sanctioned debates this year. Candidates must pledge only to participate in debates sponsored by the Republican. If they appear in alternate, unsanctioned debates, they are excluded from all future debates sanctioned by the Republican Party.
Click to expand...
That being said, I'm not sure if the rule only applies to intro-party debates or all.

I can't imagine Bernie'd be willing to throw away debating Hillary for a chance to square off against Cruz.
Click to expand...
No. You have an unknown/unnamed source talking about possibilities. And Bernie just said F U to that.
Click to expand...
Time work?

http://time.com/3847335/democratic-presidential-debates-exclusive/

Here's discussion from demunderground

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026807859

It's silly on both sides.
Click to expand...
They arent the same as one has already done it while one hasnt. And Bernie wont go along with it.

 
I think a Sanders/Clinton ticket would beat any of the American Horror Story Freak Show candidates on the GOP side.

 
Bernie getting big crowds and the money keeps pouring in. Might want to look at some polls in early states where Hillary has gone from unbeatable to up by 8-10 points. In a month. Oh and she was already forced to go against Obama on fast track. It's still an exceptionally slim chance but I so want to see her sulk off into the sunset and take the Big Dog with her.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Binky The Doormat said:
AcerFC said:
On bill mahr now
Click to expand...
I want to like him but how's the crazy meter looking tonight?
Click to expand...
I don't think there is anything crazy about Bernie. A lot of his positions actually have majority bi-partisan support but DC hasn't been listening to anyone that doesn't have a big check to wave under their nose. I have been watching a lot of Bernie's speeches going back several years. This guy is consistent. This stuff isn't some poll tested campaign this is what he thinks is right and necessary. He has been fighting for these things for years. Clinton's sudden populism rings ever so hollow in comparison.

 
proninja said:
Binky The Doormat said:
AcerFC said:
On bill mahr now
Click to expand...
I want to like him but how's the crazy meter looking tonight?
Click to expand...
What has he said or done that you think is crazy? I don't get the "Bernie Sanders is crazy" thing.

Neither does Jon Stewart. Watch the video.
Click to expand...
The video of Clinton trying to sound like some low country grandma just really paints such a clear picture of the difference between these two. Hillary will say anything, do anything to convince you to vote for her no matter how dishonest she has to be. I don't think we'll be seeing any video like that of Bernie.

 
NCCommish said:
Binky The Doormat said:
AcerFC said:
On bill mahr now
Click to expand...
I want to like him but how's the crazy meter looking tonight?
Click to expand...
I don't think there is anything crazy about Bernie. A lot of his positions actually have majority bi-partisan support but DC hasn't been listening to anyone that doesn't have a big check to wave under their nose. I have been watching a lot of Bernie's speeches going back several years. This guy is consistent. This stuff isn't some poll tested campaign this is what he thinks is right and necessary. He has been fighting for these things for years. Clinton's sudden populism rings ever so hollow in comparison.
Click to expand...
You know I'm libertarian, but I could see giving Sanders 4 years to implement/discuss many of his ideas. Sanders is the type of candidate that I like, plays to his beliefs, doesn't spit on his finger and stick it into the air to test the wind direction.

 
Caught him on Bill Maher. First I've seen of him. I liked what he said and would entertain voting for him. He doesn't look presidential, though. Sadly, I think that actually matters.

 
proninja said:
Binky The Doormat said:
AcerFC said:
On bill mahr now
Click to expand...
I want to like him but how's the crazy meter looking tonight?
Click to expand...
What has he said or done that you think is crazy? I don't get the "Bernie Sanders is crazy" thing.

Neither does Jon Stewart. Watch the video.
Click to expand...
I don't think he is crazy. I am just waiting for it. It just seems like the more time some of our more free thinkers have in the media, they eventually expose a couple of screws loose. I want to like him.

 
General Malaise said:
Caught him on Bill Maher. First I've seen of him. I liked what he said and would entertain voting for him. He doesn't look presidential, though. Sadly, I think that actually matters.
Click to expand...
It does matter to some but I'd still vote for the guy. Still in my little politically perfect world James Webb would be President and devoted to foreign affairs, and Sanders would be Czar of domestic affairs.

 
NCCommish said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Bernie's becoming a problem for you know who....

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/245496-sanders-surge-is-becoming-a-bigger-problem-for-clinton
Click to expand...
Look at the ego on those guys. Bernie's supporters aren't going to tire and we don't think he isn't electable. I hope he rubs their smarmy face in a couple early primary defeats then we'll see the testy, thin skinned Hillary again. Then it's truly game on.
Click to expand...
Bernie is here to stay and I'm not sure her $2,000,000,000 will make a difference.

 
Mister CIA said:
NCCommish said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Bernie's becoming a problem for you know who....

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/245496-sanders-surge-is-becoming-a-bigger-problem-for-clinton
Click to expand...
Look at the ego on those guys. Bernie's supporters aren't going to tire and we don't think he isn't electable. I hope he rubs their smarmy face in a couple early primary defeats then we'll see the testy, thin skinned Hillary again. Then it's truly game on.
Click to expand...
Bernie is here to stay and I'm not sure her $2,000,000,000 will make a difference.
Click to expand...
I think that statement is going to haunt her. The American people realize that when a small group of people give you that kind of money they want something and it probably isn't anything we want.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
As we were saying.... what a funny time for CBS to float this.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/will-bernie-sanders-have-trouble-getting-on-the-new-hampshire-ballot/#postComments
Click to expand...
im not smart enough to understand all of this, but I would think the exact opposite. Would think Hillary would much rather see Bernie in gen election. When was the last time any independant made any waves. Nader? And he didn't even move the needle. But if she ran and lost in primary, her whole candidacy could be in trouble.
 
AcerFC said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
As we were saying.... what a funny time for CBS to float this.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/will-bernie-sanders-have-trouble-getting-on-the-new-hampshire-ballot/#postComments
Click to expand...
im not smart enough to understand all of this, but I would think the exact opposite. Would think Hillary would much rather see Bernie in gen election. When was the last time any independant made any waves. Nader? And he didn't even move the needle. But if she ran and lost in primary, her whole candidacy could be in trouble.
Click to expand...
I don't know the right answer to this. I think Bernie would be more of a problem in the general, but this is just one state, if it was just NH Hillary splitting or losing NH would not be that big of a problem for her (4 EVs?), but halting or denting Bernie's progress in the early primaries could be a big deal.

Apparently this is the source, WaPo piece by Charles Bass, who is NH GOP.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bernie-sanderss-primary-problem/2015/06/18/9a089abc-1523-11e5-9ddc-e3353542100c_story.html

Bernie Sanders’s primary problemAddressing hundreds of supporters while campaigning in Keene, N.H., last month, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) declared: “Let me tell you a secret: We’re going to win New Hampshire!”

He has some reason to feel confident, given that a new poll put him just 10 percentage points behind front-runner Hillary Clinton in the Democratic presidential primary in the Granite State. But before he pops the champagne corks, I have a secret of my own to share with the senator: He may not qualify for the New Hampshire ballot as a Democrat.

...Once Sanders appears at the New Hampshire secretary of state’s office to file to compete in the Democratic primary, it is quite possible that someone will challenge his declaration of candidacy, and it’s likely that the state Ballot Law Commission would agree with the challenge. ...

Interestingly, the Democratic establishment, including the Clinton campaign, might not want to see such a challenge succeed, since it could force Sanders to run as an independent — which in turn could split the left and throw the state’s electoral votes to the Republican nominee in November.

...
Click to expand...
I just don't think this is appearing out of thin air.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Did Barack Obama Destroy Abortion Rights By Lying About Codifying Roe v. Wade? (6/26/22 7:24 PST)
Replies
4
Views
538
squistion
squistion
GordonGekko
Revisiting The Young Turks 2016 Election Meltdown Over Trump's Stunning Victory (7/7/2022 9:35 PST)
Replies
16
Views
465
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
How Hillary Clinton's Toxic "Rape Narrative" Helped To Destroy Roe Vs Wade (5/9/22 5:07 PST)
Replies
22
Views
817
jm192
jm192

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 6 (members: 0, guests: 6)
Top