2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries

[Ultimate Paragon]

Maybe you should look at the source next time. I may dislike Hillary greatly, but if I saw some quote with her name attached, and the source being Fox News of all places, I'm not going to take it on face value given how untrustworthy, they've proven themselves to be.

Also my main beef is that those on the left in this country are far too willing to roll over an accept politicians who are in reality center-right on the political spectrum as representatives than those who are at least center-left, and we then complain why the public is getting shafted. You know that may just be the problem why we lack a social democracy here, and continue the "America is center-right" bs, add some personal issues that I've been having and you get a whole lot of misery on my part.

Hate to nitpick, but Sanders is a democratic socialist, not a social democrat.

[Dakota Bob]

What Bill Clinton did was shitty, tho. Fight me, casuals. Also, that's some typical media bullshit asking him about some completely irrelevant shit instead of the actual issues, like "hey Bernie you really wanna break up those big banks? why not elaborate on that?"

[nickiknack]

And I didn't call Sanders a "Social Democrat" in my post(though to be fair one could make the argument that's he's more a Social Democrat than a Democratic Socialist, but both are very, very similar to the point that the difference between the labels are murky at best), I didn't  even mention his name. My rant was about how a subset of "the left" in this country is more than willing to roll over an accept center-right people as representatives and continue the "America is center-right" mind set, which in my opinion undermines the left and what it has to offer.

[Ultimate Paragon]

And I didn't call Sanders a "Social Democrat" in my post(though to be fair one could make the argument that's he's more a Social Democrat than a Democratic Socialist, but both are very, very similar to the point that the difference between the labels are murky at best), I didn't  even mention his name. My rant was about how a subset of "the left" in this country is more than willing to roll over an accept center-right people as representatives and continue the "America is center-right" mind set, which in my opinion undermines the left and what it has to offer.

Alright.  Sorry I misunderstood you.

[rookie]

Nikki, I'm curious as to how you'd do that given the political reality that exists as it is today. To put it another way, how do you do this and pass it?

[The_Queen]

-snip-

Bernie speaking on Bill Clinton's affairs... In my opinion, the only thing that is totally disgraceful and unacceptable is Bernie's comments. First, Bill Clinton's extramarital affairs are personal issues between Bill and Hillary. Second, why is this even coming up unless, to some extent, Hillary is being defined by her husband... yay sexism. Third, Sanders saying "let's talk about the bloody issues" afterwards does not negate that he brought it up, or at least made the comment that Bill was "totally disgraceful and unacceptable." It would be as though I said "Bernie is a rat bastard, but let's not get into personal attacks." While I support her, I acknowledge that there is plenty in Hillary's past--that is not the Monica Lewinsky fiasco--that Sanders could've, and should've, attacked.

At the very least, maybe now the dems will start getting a little catty. Should make watching their race a bit more fun.

Sanders didn't bring it up though? He was asked a question about Bill Clinton, and the first thing he said was "Hillary Clinton is not Bill Clinton."

You can say that he shouldn't have even said the quoted sentence, and yeah that was unnecessary, but his response in context seems like a clear "No, I'm not doing this, I'm running against Hillary, not Bill"

Ah, thanks for providing that context. When I saw it, I only saw a video with a question, a clip of him saying what he did about Bill, and then the "bloody issues" comment as it was so close to when it happened, that other videos were not available. But, while that negates point #2 (Hillary being defined by Bill) it doesn't negate that marital affairs are nobody's business or that the comment on Bill was unnecessary to "the issues." Further, as a personal issue, I don't like those who delve into other's business of this sort.

Also, welcome back Nicki. I know you think this comment is insincere, but I do mean it.

ETA: I am not playing the "trans-card" but I do think that it factors into how I feel about personal matters. I have noticed that trans people, often being "in the closet" for years tend to value privacy. In that vein, I do not like when the media or paparazzi jump into other's lives and matters. Further, I do feel that the whole Monica Lewinsky fiasco was nothing more than a right wing attack on the Clintons to destroy them. Sure, Bill was the primary target, but the GOP was more than happy to collaterally injure Hillary. I also do not like smear campaigns of this sort.

[guizonde]

there's no easy way to put it. i agree with queen. however, if my outsider's two cents could be accepted...

when the clinton debacle blew up, i was young, but it became a staple of political science in france. one of my teachers summed it best as national hypocrisy on the part of the usa that is to be expected to understand the country. it's a puritan and morally conservative country on the outside, while remaining one of the most depraved on the inside. don't believe me? please refer to the number of churches, overt references to faith, and traditional values in american speech and politics and compare that to the world's first porn industry (i believe. india and japan were close behind before, now i don't know) and the rate of child teen pregnancies.

needless to say, it was seen as farcical from over here when it was a common occurence for our presidents to be accompanied to presidential functions by their presidential prostitutes and mistresses. i put those plural because one president actually had two simultaneously, not counting his wife (mitterand, 81-95, before you ask). i mean, sure adultery's bad, but it's to be expected from the political elite. a blowjob is not reason enough for a political scandal. unless it kills them (félix faure, 1895-1899, death by snoo-snoo. in office).

hell, françois hollande was the first president to divorce in office. it says a lot, but i don't know whethe it says more about one country or another.

[Askold]

Here's a funny interview with Bernie Sanders:

Do you think it’s fair that Hillary’s hair gets a lot more scrutiny than yours does? Hillary’s hair gets more scrutiny than my hair?


Yeah. Is that what you’re asking?

Yeah. O.K., Ana, I don’t mean to be rude here. I am running for president of the United States on serious issues, O.K.? Do you have serious questions?

Mwahaha! The more I hear about Sanders the more I like him. Honestly, the kinds of questions the politicians get asked is sad on several levels. But luckily the interview did get better:

I can defend that as a serious question. There is a gendered reason — When the media worries about what Hillary’s hair looks like or what my hair looks like, that’s a real problem. We have millions of people who are struggling to keep their heads above water, who want to know what candidates can do to improve their lives, and the media will very often spend more time worrying about hair than the fact that we’re the only major country on earth that doesn’t guarantee health care to all people.

It’s also true that the media pays more attention to what female candidates look like than it does to what male candidates look like. That may be. That may be, and it’s absolutely wrong.

Source: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/08/23/magazine/bernie-sanders-has-heard-about-that-hashtag.html?referer&_r=1

[Askold]

I heard from Wheaton that apparently there is a bunch of Bernie Sanders supporters who throw around racist and sexist comments on the net and otherwise attack Hillary supporters and non-whites.

Unfortunately I was distracted by the picture on the article...

...Because no matter how you feel about these people you have to admit that a guy who looks like he could fit in a post-apocalyptic raider gang and is armed with a club that has a sticker saying "FEEL THE BERN" is damn good comedy and someone should mod a gang that looks like him into Fallout 4.

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/users/2016/02/bernie_bros_are_bad_the_conversation_around_them_is_worse.html

Anyway, it does seem like the "Bernie Bros" are doing a lot of damage to their cause and honestly I don't see how they could even think that insulting people and smear campaigns could be helpful. (But then again, Finnish politics are lame compared to USA.)

[RavynousHunter]

Anyway, it does seem like the "Bernie Bros" are doing a lot of damage to their cause and honestly I don't see how they could even think that insulting people and smear campaigns could be helpful. (But then again, Finnish politics are lame sensible compared to USA.)

Fix'd that for ya.

[Delirium]

As a staunch feminist, it's really pissing me off how people *coughs Gloria Steinem coughs* are trying to spin supporting Hillary Clinton as some sort of feminist obligation. I'm sure all the women who will be negatively affected by her policies will feel so much better knowing that a woman fucked them over.

[nickiknack]

As a staunch feminist, it's really pissing me off how people *coughs Gloria Steinem coughs* are trying to spin supporting Hillary Clinton as some sort of feminist obligation. I'm sure all the women who will be negatively affected by her policies will feel so much better knowing that a woman fucked them over.

It's really fun knowing that I just want to not only get laid, but I'll be going to a special place in hell(according to former Sec. Of State Albright) while doing so

[mellenORL]

Daaannng. That's two major "senior moments" from otherwise venerable women. Wisdom is definitely not dependent on age.

[The_Queen]

I saw an interesting stat that got me thinking. Sanders and Hillary vote together 93% of the time. So, first, I really doubt that this 7% amounts to a huge revolution. And second, the real difference is not between the two of them, but between either of them in November and whatever paint-huffing luddite the GOP puts up for the presidency.

[dpareja]

Quinnipiac University poll:

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2324

Briefly:

For every single head-to-head matchup (Clinton/Sanders vs Trump/Cruz/Rubio/Bush/Kasich), Sanders wins all of them (with a statistical tie against Kasich) and Clinton loses all but Trump (and she's in a statistical tie with him) and isn't even in a statistical tie with Rubio and Kasich. Even putting Bloomberg in as an independent doesn't quite change things in the two cases they polled: Sanders-Trump-Bloomberg sees a tie between Sanders and Trump, and Sanders-Cruz-Bloomberg still has Sanders winning outside the margin of error.

Sanders has a 51% favorability rating to 36% unfavorable. Only Kasich (35-18) and Rubio (39-37) have higher favorability ratings than unfavorability ones; every other candidate has a higher unfavorability rating, with Clinton's and Trump's above 50%.

When it comes to whether people think the candidates are "honest and trustworthy": more than half say yes for Sanders, Bush, and Kasich, more than half say no for Clinton, Trump and Cruz, and Rubio is at 47% yes and 41% no.

"Strong leadership qualities": More than half think Clinton, Trump and Sanders do. No candidate polled over 50% no on this question. Bush and Kasich had more "yes" than "no," Rubio was the reverse, and Cruz had a tie.

"Cares about the needs and problems of people like you": Only Sanders polled above 50% yes on this question. Clinton, Trump and Cruz polled above 50% no (Bush polled at 50% no), while Rubio and Kasich had more yes than no.

"Right kind of experience to be President": Clinton, Sanders and Bush polled above 50%, with Clinton and Bush over 60%. Trump and Rubio polled over 50% no, Cruz had more no than yes, and Kasich had more yes than no.

"Shares your values": Only Sanders even touched 50% yes on this question. Clinton, Trump and Cruz had 50% no (Bush was at 50% no), while Rubio and Kasich had more no than yes.

"Would have a good chance of defeating <other party> nominee": Clinton and Trump polled over 50% yes. Sanders polled more yes than no, while Bush, Rubio, Cruz and Kasich all polled at over 50% no.

Methodology: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/us/us02182016_demos_Urpfd42.pdf