I would love to see that ticket............in all reality I would love to see Bernie be the Dems candidate but won't happen
Hillary needs to answer one question
- Thread starter Funky Bunch
- Start date
I would love to see that ticket............in all reality I would love to see Bernie be the Dems candidate but won't happen
I think your first 3 questions are reasonable, and probably have mundane answers. I'd guess the answers look something like this:
[1] They weren't considered necessary to act upon right away.
[2] They were.
[3] Probably not.
My impression is that your 4th question reflects the deliberate distortion of the events that the Rs have been pushing for a very long time and which many people have bought, but just isn't particularly accurate. The Rs have put out a number of versions of this spin and this is the one they have finally settled on (I guess). That doesn't make it true.
The thing is that even if #4 is true, are we saying this is wrong or even unusual? Isn't it normal for administrations to spin events like this at least temporarily, until the situation stabilizes? Your question "why" is reasonable IF your facts are actually true. But the video was certainly part of the event, so the R spin is at least partly disingenuous.
I disagree with Castro. Few know who he is. He may be younger than Bernie, but he hasn't shown the ability to motivate millions or shift the conversation of the entire election, as Bernie has.
Not sure how you see her getting the female vote:
Looks like that may have been a temporary decline. She's bounced back since then.
Interesting to see which poll (or pole for Bill's sake) plays out. If Hillary can swing the female vote she stands a chance (scary) to be nominated. I don't trust her (or really any of the life-long politicians) or Trump.
I say if Harreld gets let go at the U of I that we nominate him, would really create conversation...
I say if Harreld gets let go at the U of I that we nominate him, would really create conversation...
Neither Castro has made himself visible enough to be an attractive candidate. If one of them wants in, he'd better get his PR folks working overtime.
Part of that calculation would be based on whether you think Rubio will make meaningful inroads into the Hispanic community. Most Hispanics, in my experience, are not like the Cuban refugees in Florida. Rubio is aligned with that minority of the Hispanic vote. So I'm not sure he's enough of a threat to take away H votes that the Ds have to match him on their ticket. Obama's push to normalize relations with Cuba also clarifies the distinction between parties.
I think Hillary should pick Elizabeth Warren. I know it seems odd that old people like Bernie or Lizzie could energize the youth vote, but I think they do. And that was a big part of Obama's success formula. Plus I think that ticket would get the Ds a bump among women voters without losing much of the male vote. Hillary already turns off a lot of white men. Adding Lizzie won't do any more damage, so there's a net gain. JMHO.
I don't think the Dems have to worry much about Rubio making inroads with Latinos. He "will suffer because of his opposition to Obamacare and to President Obama’s executive actions granting a deportation amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants...We find no evidence that Rubio’s candidacy will draw significant Latino support for his candidacy or for his party more generally,”
Plus in head to head matchups against Rubio, Hillary crushes him. Unless something radically changes, it seems the Dems once again have the Hispanic vote locked up.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ikely-to-earn-gop-new-hispanic-fans/?page=all
With Webb and Chafee already sidelined, if the Dems pick from primary candidates, that only leaves O'Malley.
Personally, I like Martin. Other than his surprisingly awful answer on Snowden, he's solid on most issues. And he's a likable personality. But there isn't much fire there to inspire voters. Especially when teamed with Hillary who seems to have been around since the dinosaurs (and probably was in the world view of half our Republican candidates).
So, anyway, they probably look outside the primary field.
Sherrod Brown? Might give them a chance to land Ohio - especially if Kasich isn't on the GOP ticket.
Cory Booker? Energizing the black vote was another winner for Obama. Could Cory do the same?
Why is it that we seldom hear mention of west coast options? Jerry Brown is probably too old, but worth considering. Kshama Sawant wasn't born in the US. Then again, neither was Ted Cruz. But that rule only seems to apply to Dems. Who else?
New York has a number of possibilities. If 2 New Yorkers can fudge their residency enough to be on the same ticket. How about Michael Bloomberg? Bill de Blasio? Andrew Cuomo? Kirsten Gillibrand?
Why is that? What are their ideals that you are in love with?
Serious question.
It makes me extremely uncomfortable when the Washington Times agrees with me.
Pro democracy.
Appropriately concerned about climate change.
Appropriately concerned about wealth inequality.
Pro universal health care and shoring up Social Security.
Plenty more, but that would be enough if that was all.
20 percent is a significant amount of people who were basically voting against the two parties putting forth candidates supporting NAFTA in that election.
Trump has come out against TPP and other free trade deals, and also against expansion of H-1B visa program as well, which appeals to many people across party lines who don't like these sellouts of American jobs that are sorely needed at this time.
Hillary Clinton isn't very clear in her history whether she supports free trade deals or not. She seems very poll driven on that issue, and she hasn't spoken in ages on H-1B visas but in last election came out speaking strongly in support of expanding that program. There is a youtube on line of that if you look for it. So she might lose that 20% voter segment (if it is similarly sized this time) to Trump on this, albeit Trump being a less than appealing candidate for many for other reasons. Many Democrats against TPP and H-1B might stay home in that matchup.
But Bernie Sanders has consistently and strongly spoken out against these free trade deals, and also against guest labor program expansion such as H-1B and H-2B too, so that issue would be a wash for voters, and it would be decided on other issues, which is why many reports have him doing better than Clinton against Trump in the GE.
That's why, if it seems that many of us supported Clinton against the lame investigation of Bengazi which was rather a pointless partisan witch hunt, we still aren't behind her in many other areas, and still have an issue with her judgement in putting email on a privatized email server (which isn't a philosophy that Democrats should support in privatizing government infrastructure like IT that should be used to help make government officials accountable if properly set up. If that infrastructure isn't well set up that had her make this move, she should have been more vocal about a need to fix this problem as a real leader should, not hide that she was doing it, even if many other pols, especially in the Republican administration before Obama's did so themselves a lot.
This whole Bengazi incident feels like a big distraction, perhaps even orchestrated by the corporate media and corporate PTB that want to either have her skewered by them, or have her look good, so that the battle in the GE will be between two candidates that they both control there. If at the start it had not been trying to look at the Bengazi crap, and more just an inquiry (and not expensive investigation) as to why she felt she needed to move email to a private server, then this would be a completely different conversation now.
I don't think Bernie would take himself out as a voice in the Senate to just help Hillary win this election. He's probably too old to run for president after Clinton leaves office, which would be an argument for some for him to take this slot. I also think that when we're in a very divided populace in both parties on whether we should vote for a candidate that is tied in to the corporate infrastructure or against it, that having a ticket split along those ideological lines is dangerous for the top of the ticket in terms of being a target for assassination by some crazies or other groups wanting to change the allegiance of leadership in that top spot.
I think this ticket would be hazardous to Hillary, just as I think if Bernie were to win the nomination taking her as his VP would also be hazardous to him, and I'd recommend in that instance he'd be better off taking someone like Elizabeth Warren with similar viewpoints and allegiances, to limit that potential concern.
With 40-50% of eligible voters not voting every election, you could make the argument that a plurality of Americans is "voting" against both major parties.
If we had mandatory voting, I suspect most current non-voters would become D or R lemmings like the rest of us. But wouldn't it be interesting if that did not happen?
I also keep thinking that we need a "None of the Above" option on all ballots.
And, of course, voting schemes like Instant Runoff Voting or Approval Voting might generate more interest in 3rd parties, as well as better turnout.
At the very least, why not require a majority to win, with a runoff if no candidate has a majority?
And, of course, the president should be elected by popular vote. I haven't crunched the numbers but with the outcome of the Electoral College decision coming down to just 6 or so medium-size "battleground states," that probably means that 60-80% of most voters' votes don't matter in the slightest. How can any of the arguments in favor of the status quo be stronger than doing away with that monumental disenfranchisement?
If we had mandatory voting, I suspect most current non-voters would become D or R lemmings like the rest of us. But wouldn't it be interesting if that did not happen?
I also keep thinking that we need a "None of the Above" option on all ballots.
And, of course, voting schemes like Instant Runoff Voting or Approval Voting might generate more interest in 3rd parties, as well as better turnout.
At the very least, why not require a majority to win, with a runoff if no candidate has a majority?
And, of course, the president should be elected by popular vote. I haven't crunched the numbers but with the outcome of the Electoral College decision coming down to just 6 or so medium-size "battleground states," that probably means that 60-80% of most voters' votes don't matter in the slightest. How can any of the arguments in favor of the status quo be stronger than doing away with that monumental disenfranchisement?
I have trouble putting Trump in the anti-TPP category. He's spoken against an element or 2, but has not, to my knowledge, rejected the whole deal, nor has he objected to the most dangerous parts of that deal. If he has come out firmly against the whole deal, please point me to that.
Ditto for Hillary. Her tepid rejection of it as probably not meeting her "high standards" and not being good enough for American jobs entirely skirts the main flaws of the deal.
Last edited:
I think adding public campaign financing to the mix as well, would help us get candidates get in to a race where they don't have to appeal to a lot of outside financing resources to compete with corporate supported candidates too. If you coupled that with instant runoff voting, and mandatory voting, I think we'd get a lot more "people" choices to the mix with a better shot at winning too. Even with public campaign financing, you have to get "viability" to be a candidate by collecting enough small donations from different voters in the constituency of the office being run for to be considered viable. That would cut out candidates like Kim Kardashian (though in her case perhaps she'd be heavily privately financed), who likely wouldn't be able to or wouldn't have time to run with such a support system. I think IRV though would make sure that a majority of voters would have you down as their first or second choice of who to win an office. I think you'd need to be qualified to get those kind of numbers.
Oh, so the State Dept received them from Hillary's personal server right after the Benghazi attacks and it took them over 2 years to review them?
According to the hearing, that's not what happened.
Clinton and her lawyers decided what she would turn over and deleted many emails in the process.
That would just change the battleground states. New York, California, Texas and Florida would be where the candidates focus most of their attention.
The problem with Castro is his name. It will help him with left-wingers, but they're going to vote Democratic anyway.
http://journalstar.com/news/state-a...cle_2d32849c-1f39-11df-8808-001cc4c002e0.html
From 2010, I don't know if it has change this cycle or not. Besides it is already a given that a Republican will carry the State, my vote is strictly for my own peace of mind.
