mcintyre1
Footballguy
At least among the democrats that I personally know (maybe 15ish that I've explicitly talked about it with), this couldn't be further from the truth. Not a single one would have Hillary as their first choice.
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. (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter BigSteelThrill
- Start date
timschochet
Footballguy
Sorry McIntyre, let me clarify that. When NC referred to "everyone in the party" I assumed he was referring to the Democratic establishment, the people that actually run the Democratic Party. So in my reply I wasn't referring to regular folks.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Tim, Berbie might not "attack" Hillary but he will bring up the differences in corporate financing between the two of them. You won't see any Sid Blymenthals or Jim Carvilkes on his campaign that's fir sure.
timschochet
Footballguy
I'm not even sure he'll do this. We'll have to see.
I've watched and listened to Sanders a lot over the years. I don't recall him ever taking shots at a Democrat.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
I'm ok giving him the nomination right now.
mcintyre1
Footballguy
I largely agree, he won't ever run any attack ads, that's for sure. Some people took the last part of this twitter exchange between the two as a jab, though: "Thanks @HillaryClinton. Looking forward to debating the big issues: income inequality, climate change & getting big money out of politics."
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Mac, that's the kind of thing I'm talking about. That may not be an attack but if he doesn't raise that then he's sitting on a two legged stool.
My opinion-This won't be accurate. Bernie is too firey. I'd be willing to bet Hillary's campaign people are telling her not to get pulled into anything by his temper. The guy rrrreally cares and some issues really burn him. It'll stir the pot.
There's tons of articles already stating this is both good and bad for Hilary so that's already a reasonable debate with two sides. Others do feel as you do here.
Here's a decent article, you can tell at one point he wants to say "I'm not biting yet, let's see where she stands" and he mentions taxes and China production stealing american jobs which I mentioned above.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/05/01/bernie-sanders-signals-aggressive-challenge-to-hillary-clinton/
Homer J Simpson
I don't push
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
heh guy behind him almost wet himself
I hope the Bernie saying "starvation wages" sticks. He mentioned China, General Motors being supplanted by Walmart as the largest employer and...there he goes. Certain issues totally get him rollin'
NCCommish
Footballguy
To win a republican primary you have to take lunatic.positions. You can't gerrymander your way to the presidency. The GOP can't get out of it's own way at the national level.
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
Whoa..do we really have a dyed in the wool liberal lecturing us about gerrymandering?
WTF? You guys invented it.
And any republican we choose can't be any worse than the disaster that is currently POTUS or your already crowned corrupt nominee Hillary.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mister CIA
Footballguy
Precisely. For the next 18 months Hillary will stand tall for ice cream cones and grand-babies.Bri said:
Chadstroma
Footballguy
Seems like a reasonable response to my post to me.NCCommish said:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I don't know politics like you guys at all. I'm not even really into discussing them all that much. Sometimes a leader catches my eye and intrigues me for a while.
Can you tell me is 43 dollar average super low? That seems like an "everyman" type donation to me.
I envision Hillary calls GM or some company and has 1.5 mil while Bernie actually got citizens to donate.
Also, what's the significance of this if any?
Suppose Hillary gets a campaign fund of 50 mil from 20 corporations and Bernie gets a fund of 20 mil from 500k citizens.
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Yes that is super-low. That's the kind of contribution a college kid or working class person could make.
Hillary is in the San Francisco area this week raising money with a Silicon Valley group which just paid her $300,000, cash in pocket, for a single speech two months ago.
The significance of this is organization and grass roots support, momentum, and the sort of base Obama had in 2008. Though the difference between Sanders charisma and Obama charisma is like Ben Tate running skills vs Leveon Bell.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Well, he's criticizing her more than I would have thought. The litmus test of course is the debates next fall. We'll see if he really takes her on.
The Commish
Footballguy
Not even 5 pages in.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Campaign contributions are important for two reasons. One reason they're good is what you would expect -- to buy stuff. Campaign ads cost a lot of money, and there's other stuff to spend on too -- staff, offices, etc. Obviously, for this purpose, the more money the better, regardless of its source.
But the other reason campaign contributions are important is that they help campaigns to identify people that are strong supporters. Organizing a successful campaign takes a lot of volunteers, to knock on doors, make phone calls, etc. When a campaign has a long list of contributors, it can go back to those people again and again, asking for more money, asking for their time, encouraging them to talk to their friends about the candidate, etc. Regular people who contribute small amounts to a campaign tend to be very loyal -- they aren't doing it with some expectation of getting something in return, they just like the candidate and want to help. So having a giant list of the little people that contributed to you can be invaluable, much more so than a short list of rich people that gave a lot of money but probably aren't going to go out and knock on doors for you.
The candidate with the most money has a big advantage, but doesn't necessarily always win. The typical strategy for a candidate that is going to be overwhelmed financially is to try to build an army of volunteers. Sometimes it can work.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Good point, it's partly about generating excitement and enthusiasm in a campaign.
timschochet
Footballguy
Good article on Slate about how this helps Hillary. It pointed out that even when Bernie criticized the foundation (in response to questioning) he quickly shifted to attacking the Koch brothers.
I still don't think he has any serious interest in harming HILLARY or hindering her campaign in the least.
I still don't think he has any serious interest in harming HILLARY or hindering her campaign in the least.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
That quote is posted further up. I noticed that and actually I think that's not good for her. For one thing it's intellectually honest. Personally I think cash in pocket is worse but at any rate it's about purchasing of influence. Secondly, he is lumping her in with Republicans. For people who are thinking that Hillary is someone to consider because of what policies she will bring to the WH or at least to keep the GOP out it's something to consider.
Last edited by a moderator:
skol asylum
Footballguy
Whoa..do we really have a dyed in the wool liberal lecturing us about gerrymandering?
WTF? You guys invented it.
And any republican we choose can't be any worse than the disaster that is currently POTUS or your already crowned corrupt nominee Hillary.
The Commish
Footballguy
Thought I might be one of only a few that thought he was trying to lump her in with the GOP
timschochet
Footballguy
And I think you guys are both wrong. He's trying to change the subject, that's sll.Thought I might be one of only a few that thought he was trying to lump her in with the GOP
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
One thing is (I think) people trust Bernie. If he uses "koch" and "Hillary" in the same sentence, he might not only be right but people might listen to him.Thought I might be one of only a few that thought he was trying to lump her in with the GOP
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
Not sure which article you're reading. Think it might be different than what Saints and I are talking about. It's clear in the article we are talking about that he's concerned with the way our politics are run by a few billionaires. He's concerned of the shadiness of campaign financing and he specifically mentions the Clintons as part of that group along with the Koch brothers. What subject was being talked about that he changed from/to exactly?And I think you guys are both wrong. He's trying to change the subject, that's sll.Thought I might be one of only a few that thought he was trying to lump her in with the GOP
timschochet
Footballguy
I was referring to the Slate article.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
He was asked a specific question about Hillary. He broadened it, as if to say, "not just Hillary sucks, the whole system sucks." You are both right, sorta. There certainly was an element of criticism there, but he declined a specific opportunity to direct that criticism squarely at Hillary, choosing instead to make a bigger policy argument.
timschochet
Footballguy
The Rude Pundit, a very funny liberal blogger and frequent guest on the Stephanie Miller show, with his take on other candidacies (this was written a few days before Bernie announced, but it's still pertinent to this thread IMO):
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/
Yeah, yeah, yeah, the Rude Pundit feels your pain. He'd love, love, love for a real liberal to run for president. He says this pretty much every election, often supports whatever quixotic candidate is taking a shot this time until he (and, sadly, it's only been "he") drops out, and then votes for the moderate who he mostly agrees with on Supreme Court picks. In 2008, he supported Barack Obama because he thought the movement Obama had started would be transformative, not realizing that the president cared less about the movement than about governing from the presumptive middle (which, truth be told, Obama's pretty damn good at). Obama didn't move left. The middle moved right.
This time, though, it seems as if we're not getting the token liberal. And we're not getting anyone of color. Those who are remaining are either the white liberals who say they're not running - Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders - and the white dude who might - Martin O'Malley. If that liberal appeared, the Rude Pundit would love to jump on that bandwagon. But he or she won't be there this time. As much as we want to say that Hillary Clinton should have a primary candidate or whatever other bull#### we want to hide behind, the truth of the matter is, as everyone knows, very, very simple. Hillary Clinton is the nominee. She is more or less running as an incumbent. Last week, the Rude Pundit said this and was attacked on Twitter (which is the rhetorical equivalent of a gnat buzzing by you) for being racist because somehow he was dissing Obama. Sorry, but, Alan Keyes' paranoia aside, Obama can't run. And there is no man or woman of color who is even on the bench at this point, something that better be corrected or the Democrats will seem as out of touch as the Republicans.
So what are we left with? 18 months of #####ing about what Hillary Clinton is not? 18 months of pretending like that will do a ####### thing to move her to the left on some of her positions? No, what'll it do is, one more time, take the left out of the equation. Because if there's one thing that Team Clinton knows is that most of the people who complain about her not being progressive enough on Wall Street, on foreign affairs, on immigration reform, will still vote for her because who the #### else are they gonna vote for her? The ones who promise more Scalias and Alitos? Mike Huckabee? Jeb ####### Bush?
Oh, you can say, "Well, I'll just stay home," and then you're a selfish ####### idiot who doesn't give a #### about the future. In her powerful Facebook post on how women of color should confront a Hillary Clinton candidacy, Jada Pinkett Smith (yeah, a celebrity) says, "The only question I have been asking myself is if I’m suppose to vote for Hillary because she is a woman; will she take us to the mountaintop with her or will women of color once again be left out and left behind?" But she concludes in the most hopeful way possible: "Women of color and white women have been taking on the majority of their fights on the political platform on separate lines; can Hillary Clinton change that legacy through her journey to become president? Because if she can...she would not only have my vote...but she would have my heart." You got that? Pinkett Smith says that she is voting for Hillary Clinton. But she wants Clinton to be something more.
That's why the title of this post is not a threat. It's not marching orders. It's an opportunity. What if the left coalesced behind Clinton and did so early? Clinton has already made one of her big issues a constitutional amendment restricting money in politics. That's some Lawrence Lessig-level #### right there, even if she's raising metric assloads of cash to run for president. What if, instead of the usual cycle of pretending we can get a moderate candidate to veer left by viciously tweeting and blogging and giving Fox "news" a chance to say, "See? The Left doesn't like Hillary," we just said, "#### it. We back her. Now let's talk policy"? What if we made ourselves players instead of giddy, powerless outsiders?
Obviously, it could backfire. Obviously, the votes could be taken for granted and Clinton could play us like we've been played so many times (and that's especially true for people of color). But that's what will happen if liberals decide to be the headless opposition, as we learned with Bill Clinton, as we learned, to an extent, with Barack Obama. At the very least, a different tactic during campaign season would force Clinton to deal with liberals in a different way. If there's one thing that we know about Hillary Clinton, it's that she can eviscerate or at least isolate those who seek to destroy her or her family.
And we know that she privileges loyalty. Maybe this time we could play it differently. Just shut the #### up. Stop acting like there's gonna be any other choice. And behave as if this is the only one we have. Resignation doesn't have to be defeat.
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/
Yeah, yeah, yeah, the Rude Pundit feels your pain. He'd love, love, love for a real liberal to run for president. He says this pretty much every election, often supports whatever quixotic candidate is taking a shot this time until he (and, sadly, it's only been "he") drops out, and then votes for the moderate who he mostly agrees with on Supreme Court picks. In 2008, he supported Barack Obama because he thought the movement Obama had started would be transformative, not realizing that the president cared less about the movement than about governing from the presumptive middle (which, truth be told, Obama's pretty damn good at). Obama didn't move left. The middle moved right.
This time, though, it seems as if we're not getting the token liberal. And we're not getting anyone of color. Those who are remaining are either the white liberals who say they're not running - Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders - and the white dude who might - Martin O'Malley. If that liberal appeared, the Rude Pundit would love to jump on that bandwagon. But he or she won't be there this time. As much as we want to say that Hillary Clinton should have a primary candidate or whatever other bull#### we want to hide behind, the truth of the matter is, as everyone knows, very, very simple. Hillary Clinton is the nominee. She is more or less running as an incumbent. Last week, the Rude Pundit said this and was attacked on Twitter (which is the rhetorical equivalent of a gnat buzzing by you) for being racist because somehow he was dissing Obama. Sorry, but, Alan Keyes' paranoia aside, Obama can't run. And there is no man or woman of color who is even on the bench at this point, something that better be corrected or the Democrats will seem as out of touch as the Republicans.
So what are we left with? 18 months of #####ing about what Hillary Clinton is not? 18 months of pretending like that will do a ####### thing to move her to the left on some of her positions? No, what'll it do is, one more time, take the left out of the equation. Because if there's one thing that Team Clinton knows is that most of the people who complain about her not being progressive enough on Wall Street, on foreign affairs, on immigration reform, will still vote for her because who the #### else are they gonna vote for her? The ones who promise more Scalias and Alitos? Mike Huckabee? Jeb ####### Bush?
Oh, you can say, "Well, I'll just stay home," and then you're a selfish ####### idiot who doesn't give a #### about the future. In her powerful Facebook post on how women of color should confront a Hillary Clinton candidacy, Jada Pinkett Smith (yeah, a celebrity) says, "The only question I have been asking myself is if I’m suppose to vote for Hillary because she is a woman; will she take us to the mountaintop with her or will women of color once again be left out and left behind?" But she concludes in the most hopeful way possible: "Women of color and white women have been taking on the majority of their fights on the political platform on separate lines; can Hillary Clinton change that legacy through her journey to become president? Because if she can...she would not only have my vote...but she would have my heart." You got that? Pinkett Smith says that she is voting for Hillary Clinton. But she wants Clinton to be something more.
That's why the title of this post is not a threat. It's not marching orders. It's an opportunity. What if the left coalesced behind Clinton and did so early? Clinton has already made one of her big issues a constitutional amendment restricting money in politics. That's some Lawrence Lessig-level #### right there, even if she's raising metric assloads of cash to run for president. What if, instead of the usual cycle of pretending we can get a moderate candidate to veer left by viciously tweeting and blogging and giving Fox "news" a chance to say, "See? The Left doesn't like Hillary," we just said, "#### it. We back her. Now let's talk policy"? What if we made ourselves players instead of giddy, powerless outsiders?
Obviously, it could backfire. Obviously, the votes could be taken for granted and Clinton could play us like we've been played so many times (and that's especially true for people of color). But that's what will happen if liberals decide to be the headless opposition, as we learned with Bill Clinton, as we learned, to an extent, with Barack Obama. At the very least, a different tactic during campaign season would force Clinton to deal with liberals in a different way. If there's one thing that we know about Hillary Clinton, it's that she can eviscerate or at least isolate those who seek to destroy her or her family.
And we know that she privileges loyalty. Maybe this time we could play it differently. Just shut the #### up. Stop acting like there's gonna be any other choice. And behave as if this is the only one we have. Resignation doesn't have to be defeat.
The Commish
Footballguy
Sure....I agree with this. He certainly broadened it to make it about more than JUST Hillary, and he was careful not to exclude her.
The Commish
Footballguy
This is all about Hillary....why is it in the Bernie thread exactly? Close some of your tabs. You're confusing threads again.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
That this is a standard is worth criticizing but if it is the standard then by the end of this week the GOP has 2 Hispanics, 1 woman, 1 black, several candidates under 55, and candidates from California to Florida in the race. While the Demos currently have 3 old white candidates, including 1 woman who is married to a serial sexual harasser, and all three are from New England.
Sounds like if the Rude Liberal should recalibrate who is "out of touch."
Last edited by a moderator:
NCCommish
Footballguy
This liberal is against gerrymandering no matter which party does it. Again Liberal doesn't mean lockstep Democrat.Whoa..do we really have a dyed in the wool liberal lecturing us about gerrymandering?
WTF? You guys invented it.
And any republican we choose can't be any worse than the disaster that is currently POTUS or your already crowned corrupt nominee Hillary.
timschochet
Footballguy
I'm not confusing anything. Ultimately, this thread is all about Hillary.
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
I'm not trying to be, honestly. But what is the title of this thread? It's not "Bernie Sanders will run", it's "Bernie Sanders will run VS HILLARY".
NCCommish
Footballguy
And that article is an exercise in wish fulfillment. Hillary isn't a liberal. There will be no liberals in her advisory circle. Liberals will be ignored and.pushed aside again. Place at the table my ###. Constitutional amendment? Pie in the sky just some crap to say while you raise a billion dollars and sell your soul.
The Commish
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
It was the Bernie Sanders thread retitled to help MORONS who couldn't think. Thus I will re-title it again, for you.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Thanks BST. 
The Commish
Footballguy
Why do I have my doubts?
mcintyre1
Footballguy
Similar threads
