User Controls
Can Bernie beat Hillary?
-
2016-02-23 at 8:19 AM UTCI wouldn't have thought so originally. A Vermont jedi Socialist, a political outsider who hasn't changed in 30 years, against the establishment Democrat whose husband conceived NAFTA and gave us the best eight years in human history. Half of all DNC superdelegates are on her side but he managed to tie up New Hampshire. He's building support fast, I'm just not sure if it's enough to beat the first woman president-to-be.
-
2016-02-23 at 8:31 AM UTCNo. But it doesnt matter. Trump gonna fuck them niggas up.
-
2016-02-23 at 8:31 AM UTCI'm surprised how well he's done too but I still don't think he has a real chance. It was a smart move to not harp on Benghazi, wins him points for looking like he took the high road while everyone else is doing his smear job for him. But it won't get him out of the primaries, the Clinton name carries too much weight, too much anxiety about how an old (especially with the possibility of Rubio on the other side) self proclaimed socialist will fare in the generals.
-
2016-02-23 at 11:23 AM UTC
All bets on SC ronaldo trump. Bernie would be a dope prez. Hillary is a jedi shill that laughs about murdering gadaffi WE CAME HE SAW HE DIED HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
-
2016-02-23 at 2:26 PM UTCSo I wrote a really long post, and then my browser crashed and erased it. So now this is all you get. The short answer is that there's no way Sanders will win and most people could tell that from the beginning. The short reason why is because he doesn't have enough money, and his major source of revenue (The Democratic Party) will run candidates who will reliably serve their interests over good candidates who might actually win. Case in point, they managed to run John Kerry against Bush in 2004, which would have been an easy win considering his approval rating at the time if they would have picked someone better. Kerry had an inconsistent voting history as a senator, was a horrible speaker, not nearly photogenic enough, and not media savvy enough. Hillary is similar. She can't live down the email scandal, she isn't photogenic, she's clearly a overachieving egomaniac who can barely contain her glee at all of this newfound positive attention without constantly giving foot-in-mouth sound bytes like an overstimulated child (which is cringey to watch), she's enslaved to corporate interests, she lives in the shadow of her husband, and she'll never live down the email scandal. Also, anybody who says that The Affordable HealthCare Act "is one of the best achievements by The Democratic Party in history" should just fucking kill themselves.
That's why the party was blocking Sanders' access to data that put him at an advantage to beat Hillary earlier this year. Sure, he did all this dick-waving about running as an independent candidate, but he knew he couldn't.
I've been saying it since this started. Trump is going to win if he doesn't lose interest in the race or have some kind of faux pas. I'm not exactly thrilled about it, but these elections are always very predictable and anyone who understands sociology can see the winner typically about a year and a half in advance. Trump will exacerbate racial tensions in the United States beyond what they already are, will improve the economy, and will give us a better relationship with Russia but a worse relationship with China and Mexico. -
2016-02-23 at 6:44 PM UTC
I'm surprised how well he's done too but I still don't think he has a real chance. It was a smart move to not harp on Benghazi, wins him points for looking like he took the high road while everyone else is doing his smear job for him. But it won't get him out of the primaries, the Clinton name carries too much weight, too much anxiety about how an old (especially with the possibility of Rubio on the other side) self proclaimed socialist will fare in the generals.
All of this is true, but the results out of NH came as a big surprise for me. He started six points behind and came out with just as many delegates for a historic win. There's no minimizing this victory, he's garnering shocking support and if he keeps it up at this rate, I really do think he's got a shot. I'm not sure how he'd fare in the general, but the GOP would definitely have to change their aim. -
2016-02-23 at 7:03 PM UTC
So I wrote a really long post, and then my browser crashed and erased it. So now this is all you get. The short answer is that there's no way Sanders will win and most people could tell that from the beginning. The short reason why is because he doesn't have enough money, and his major source of revenue (The Democratic Party) will run candidates who will reliably serve their interests over good candidates who might actually win. Case in point, they managed to run John Kerry against Bush in 2004, which would have been an easy win considering his approval rating at the time if they would have picked someone better. Kerry had an inconsistent voting history as a senator, was a horrible speaker, not nearly photogenic enough, and not media savvy enough. Hillary is similar. She can't live down the email scandal, she isn't photogenic, she's clearly a overachieving egomaniac who can barely contain her glee at all of this newfound positive attention without constantly giving foot-in-mouth sound bytes like an overstimulated child (which is cringey to watch), she's enslaved to corporate interests, she lives in the shadow of her husband, and she'll never live down the email scandal. Also, anybody who says that The Affordable HealthCare Act "is one of the best achievements by The Democratic Party in history" should just fucking kill themselves.
That's why the party was blocking Sanders' access to data that put him at an advantage to beat Hillary earlier this year. Sure, he did all this dick-waving about running as an independent candidate, but he knew he couldn't.
I've been saying it since this started. Trump is going to win if he doesn't lose interest in the race or have some kind of faux pas. I'm not exactly thrilled about it, but these elections are always very predictable and anyone who understands sociology can see the winner typically about a year and a half in advance. Trump will exacerbate racial tensions in the United States beyond what they already are, will improve the economy, and will give us a better relationship with Russia but a worse relationship with China and Mexico.
1. While the deck is stacked against him, the delegates who decide his fate in the primary are by no means committed to Hillary. This race is as much to win their support as much as the public's, and if he can accomplish that he has a real chance. The first step was getting his name out there, and anybody you ask can see just how well he's done it.
2. I would vote Kerry if he was introduced in 2016.
3. The email scandal is going the way of Benghazi--a smear attempt that never quite lands. The average voter doesn't understand it because her detractors were obfuscating the process from day one and it'll be forgotten by the time we vote in the general.
4. Trump hasn't secured his election by any means. It's not even likely the GOP will nominate him as their candidate, I estimate he's more likely to go third party and further divide the right wing. If anything, his participation guarantees the most likely scenario: Hillary will win. -
2016-02-24 at 2:15 AM UTC
1. While the deck is stacked against him, the delegates who decide his fate in the primary are by no means committed to Hillary. This race is as much to win their support as much as the public's, and if he can accomplish that he has a real chance. The first step was getting his name out there, and anybody you ask can see just how well he's done it.
2. I would vote Kerry if he was introduced in 2016.
3. The email scandal is going the way of Benghazi–a smear attempt that never quite lands. The average voter doesn't understand it because her detractors were obfuscating the process from day one and it'll be forgotten by the time we vote in the general.
4. Trump hasn't secured his election by any means. It's not even likely the GOP will nominate him as their candidate, I estimate he's more likely to go third party and further divide the right wing. If anything, his participation guarantees the most likely scenario: Hillary will win.
He's not going to win man. I like Sanders too, but so many Sanders fans have this massive fucking delusion that we're going to rise up against all odds and get that guy elected with super-Democracy-powers or something. It's just that though - a delusion.
Again, elections are about money, and Bernie doesn't have the money to win. The money he needs to win is being wielded by the endorsement of Democratic party, and you're fooling yourself if you think they aren't dedicated to Hillary. I already know that they are. Not because I'm some kind of genius, but because donations are public. You can just go online and see who is spending money on who - and you're in for a shock judging by how much faith you have in Sanders. If they weren't already endorsing Hillary, why would they block Sanders from having access to data that put him at odds with her? Why did media outlets under Democratic control consistently say Hillary won the debates earlier this year (even though independent polls said otherwise)? Come on Zanick, don't buy into the hype. They've already made their decision. Pending disaster or some kind of crazy faux pas on her part, she's getting that nomination because they're already investing the money in her.
2. I'm glad you would vote for Kerry if he would be introduced in 2016, but your vote would be wasted because he would not win - just like he lost in 2004 when he was racing against a much weaker candidate. I don't really see what your point is here. Your vote doesn't represent most everybody else's. That isn't how this works.
3. It won't be forgotten because the Republican party won't let it be forgotten. Just like Kerry's "I voted for it before I voted against it." It's a significant talking point demonstrating that she can't handle basic security protocol as secretary as state, and people are definitely not going to forget that as she's running for president.
4. Your entitled to your own opinion about Trump, but all the records indicate otherwise. You're right in saying that Trump will break up the Republican party if he goes independently, but you seem to think the Republican party doesn't know that and they're just going to bow out of the election by letting him do so.
Regardless, GOP controls congress and has most regions under control through gerrymandering. We've also just had eight years of a Democratic candidate. Donald Trump is kicking fucking heads in right now, is the most media savvy candidate we've had in years, is independently wealthy, and is leading in basically everything.
In spite of all of this, to think that Sanders is somehow going to walk out of this as the new President of the United States is pretty unreasonable in my opinion.
EDIT - Sorry if this post makes me sound like an arrogant prick but I've literally been arguing with like four different people about this same topic all day. -
2016-02-24 at 7:21 AM UTC
He's not going to win man. I like Sanders too, but so many Sanders fans have this massive fucking delusion that we're going to rise up against all odds and get that guy elected with super-Democracy-powers or something. It's just that though - a delusion.
Again, elections are about money, and Bernie doesn't have the money to win. The money he needs to win is being wielded by the endorsement of Democratic party, and you're fooling yourself if you think they aren't dedicated to Hillary. I already know that they are. Not because I'm some kind of genius, but because donations are public. You can just go online and see who is spending money on who - and you're in for a shock judging by how much faith you have in Sanders. If they weren't already endorsing Hillary, why would they block Sanders from having access to data that put him at odds with her? Why did media outlets under Democratic control consistently say Hillary won the debates earlier this year (even though independent polls said otherwise)? Come on Zanick, don't buy into the hype. They've already made their decision. Pending disaster or some kind of crazy faux pas on her part, she's getting that nomination because they're already investing the money in her.
Like they were committed to her in 2008? It's not because they're such good friends, it's because they didn't think they have a choice at the time. They're invested in her because she's the most qualified establishment candidate on the stage right now, and there's a political outsider who's garnering support that could threaten that, they want to insulate he. Until just this year, he's been a no-name Socialist jedi from Vermont: now he's the first non-Catholic to win a US primary, and in NH he was the choice of every demographic (men, women, new voters, elderly voters, etc.) except higher income; it's definitively historic and his progress won't go unnoticed. If Bernie presents himself to be the more viable option, each DNC delegate is able to reconsider and if he's done his due diligence in playing catchup, it might be enough to tip the scale in his favor. I agree that this is unlikely, but this hypothetical has crossed the minds of everyone who plans to vote in the general election and that by itself speaks to the reality that Bernie might have a a better shot than we previously expected.
Honestly, I didn't think it looked favorable for him either. I thought he had made meager successes and exaggerated them by shouting a lot about revolution. His buzz words seemed too large to be true, but just try to imagine him in office. He's a career politician, he knows he can't just walk into a Republican-controlled Congress and make his vision happen before our eyes. What I think we could expect is for him to draw some boundaries, make strategic compromises and work with teams across the aisle to get incrementally more progressive moves through legislation. Nothing happens instantly, but now that I've seen him make real strides towards the primary, I'm reminded of how Hillary faltered against Obama. Nothing is certain until it's already happened, just remember going forward that the race has only gotten closer thus far, and Hillary's not the one closing in.2. I'm glad you would vote for Kerry if he would be introduced in 2016, but your vote would be wasted because he would not win - just like he lost in 2004 when he was racing against a much weaker candidate. I don't really see what your point is here. Your vote doesn't represent most everybody else's. That isn't how this works.
I didn't mean it as an option, just that there are Democrats outside of the primary who I respect and could be a reasonable answer to Bernie's populist appeal without carrying the weight Hillary seems to--although I'm also not convinced she's as bad as people say.3. It won't be forgotten because the Republican party won't let it be forgotten. Just like Kerry's "I voted for it before I voted against it." It's a significant talking point demonstrating that she can't handle basic security protocol as secretary as state, and people are definitely not going to forget that as she's running for president.
The GOP will scream and point until their jaws get sore but, as usual, alert fatigue will set in and the 24-hour news cycle will put it out of circulation. She hasn't been charged with anything, so it can go away just as easily as it came into the public view.4. Your entitled to your own opinion about Trump, but all the records indicate otherwise. You're right in saying that Trump will break up the Republican party if he goes independently, but you seem to think the Republican party doesn't know that and they're just going to bow out of the election by letting him do so.
Regardless, GOP controls congress and has most regions under control through gerrymandering. We've also just had eight years of a Democratic candidate. Donald Trump is kicking fucking heads in right now, is the most media savvy candidate we've had in years, is independently wealthy, and is leading in basically everything.
I may hate his politics, but he's nonetheless one of the most important figures in the upcoming elections. Trump will fracture the GOP whether he gets the nomination or not, and they absolutely know it. He endorses social security, plans to expose and handle the exploitative practices of hedge managers on Wall Street, and he wants to unify these populist views with tough (and what some would call deeply racist) immigration and diplomacy. His opinions are becoming the gold standard for the Republican electorate and he's changed the game so that all other candidates are falling over themselves to match his mojo. All of their campaigns work for him, every utterance of his name is a glowing endorsement. He's played this so smartly that he's become the most dangerous man in politics and the right wing isn't going to forget his influence for years. From a Democrat's perspective, it almost looks like he's damaging their credibility.Sorry if this post makes me sound like an arrogant prick but I've literally been arguing with like four different people about this same topic all day.
Nah, you're fine. I find debate stimulating. -
2016-02-24 at 5:46 PM UTC
So I wrote a really long post, and then my browser crashed and erased it. So now this is all you get. The short answer is that there's no way Sanders will win and most people could tell that from the beginning. The short reason why is because he doesn't have enough money, and his major source of revenue (The Democratic Party) will run candidates who will reliably serve their interests over good candidates who might actually win. Case in point, they managed to run John Kerry against Bush in 2004, which would have been an easy win considering his approval rating at the time if they would have picked someone better. Kerry had an inconsistent voting history as a senator, was a horrible speaker, not nearly photogenic enough, and not media savvy enough. Hillary is similar. She can't live down the email scandal, she isn't photogenic, she's clearly a overachieving egomaniac who can barely contain her glee at all of this newfound positive attention without constantly giving foot-in-mouth sound bytes like an overstimulated child (which is cringey to watch), she's enslaved to corporate interests, she lives in the shadow of her husband, and she'll never live down the email scandal. Also, anybody who says that The Affordable HealthCare Act "is one of the best achievements by The Democratic Party in history" should just fucking kill themselves.
That's why the party was blocking Sanders' access to data that put him at an advantage to beat Hillary earlier this year. Sure, he did all this dick-waving about running as an independent candidate, but he knew he couldn't.
I've been saying it since this started. Trump is going to win if he doesn't lose interest in the race or have some kind of faux pas. I'm not exactly thrilled about it, but these elections are always very predictable and anyone who understands sociology can see the winner typically about a year and a half in advance. Trump will exacerbate racial tensions in the United States beyond what they already are, will improve the economy, and will give us a better relationship with Russia but a worse relationship with China and Mexico.
Are you voting for Trump? I personally if I could vote would vote for Sanders. Even though I tend to lean more towards Republicans. I didn't take too good of a look at the other Republican candidates this year on the account of not being able to vote but Jeb Bush stuck out to me as a good candidate, despite what certain people may think of his brother. Rubio was interesting to me, but I something about him that I just don't think he would be the right man for the job. God I can't stand Hilary Clinton.
But, who are you voting for EZ? -
2016-02-28 at 7:51 PM UTChttp://predictwise.com/politics/2016-president-democratic-nomination
Boom, high of 20%, now at 4%.
The Ron Paul of the left, although he did have much more support and better odds, to be fair. Anyone who genuinely believed he was going to become president was very naive. Hopefully this will cause more people to become disillusioned and turn away from hoping that statism, the political system, will ever bring the change they want. It seems this is what happened to many Ron Paul supporters, people who became interested in libertarianism because of him; there was a massive surge in support for anarcho-capitalism. I don't have any faith the typical Bernie Sanders supporter will go through a similar transformation, though, they'll likely slide back to being generic Democrats. -
2016-02-28 at 8:05 PM UTCIf Bernie Sanders becomes president i'm joining ISIS.
-
2016-02-28 at 11:51 PM UTCIf Sophie joins ISIS I'm running for president.
-
2016-02-29 at 1:10 AM UTC
If Sophie joins ISIS I'm running for president.
So the cycle continues... -
2016-02-29 at 7:55 PM UTCDid anyone see the debate where trump expertly pointed out that Iraq and Libya would be better with Gadaffi and sadam.. Now we have a decade long conflict and ISIS.. GREAT JOB HILLARY "LETS BOMB THE NIGGER" SHIFTER OF SANDS BRINGER OF DRONES KILLER OF DIPLOMATS "BECAUSE OF A MOVIE" DESTROYER OF MUSLIMS CLINTON. and remember trump hates muslims. BOMB LIBYA . "peoples revolution" "maybe we shouldnt bomb these leaders" "FUCK YOU ITS DEMOCRACY"
-
2016-02-29 at 10:52 PM UTCBefore democratic primary in south carolina both bernie and hillary had 40 delegates +/- 2. Unfortunately its all an illusion, superdelegates have already pledged, with 502 for hillary and 70 for bernie, with a total of ~1200 needed. The whole thing is a sham
-
2016-03-01 at 12:59 AM UTCTrump will win and Democrats will never recovery
-
2016-03-01 at 2:10 AM UTC
Jeb Bush stuck out to me as a good candidate
Opinion discarded.
