HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » HassleCat » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2


Profile Information

Member since: Tue Mar 17, 2015, 12:56 PM
Number of posts: 6,409

About Me

I am a disgruntled former DU member. Most people here are fine, but the site is ruined by zealous Hillary supporters. DU took my money and put my account on everlasting review. Cowards. Dishonest cowards.

Journal Archives

What about Head Start?

Where do our candidates stand on full funding for Head Start, the pre-school program aimed at giving disadvantaged kids a chance to compete with all those Montessori toddlers? "Full funding" means giving the program enough money to allow it to accept all applicants.

What about the polls?

I'm wondering about the way polls are conducted in primary elections, particularly with regard to our party. We're only two states in, so it my be too early to tell, but there seems to be something wrong with the accuracy of the polls. In Iowa, most polls had Clinton with a small but comfortable edge, somewhere around 3 to 5 points, and we know it was much closer than that. In New Hampshire, the polls failed to predict the lopsided results. What's going on? My thought is that primary election polling emphasizes voters who are registered Democrats, and fails to pick up voters who just recently switched from I to D, or even from R to D. There is also that "poll of likely voters" thing, which used to be quite accurate, but may be missing younger voters now. Any thoughts?

Slate thought Bernie won the debate.

I thought this was interesting, since Slate has not been kind to Sanders in the past.


I will answer

We (Sandernistas) cannot reply to these accusations when they appear in the Clinton group, so I am reproducing the post here and responding to it.

This is a question every Bernie Sanders supporter must answer (thread title)

"Bernie Sanders is currently the beneficiary of an anti-Hillary Clinton ratfucking assault that would make Donald Segretti cringe. How can you possibly say he has clean hands in this matter?"

At the risk of being labelled a rat rapist, I will reply. We (Sandernistas) do criticize Clinton. Yes we do. We think she takes too much special interest money. We think her foreign policy is too hawkish. We think her third way strategy has hurt our party for 35 years. We think her support of the death penalty is dead wrong. We think she is waffling on some Social Security issues, although we can't be sure because she's so good at waffling it sometimes sounds decisive.

Is that an attack? I suppose it is. My criticism is your attack, I guess. And you are free to counterattack, although it appears Clinton supporters are not waiting for an invitation. Some of the things said about Sanders and his supporters are just as outrageous as the things said about Clinton and her supporters. So let's just get on with it and stop taking fake offense at each other, shall we? I think we all realize things get pretty nasty during the primaries, and there are going to be some outrageous fantasies and conspiracies proposed in support of or opposition to the candidates.

Iowa means nothing!

I seem to recall when it meant a great deal, back when the Clinton campaign thought they had it all wrapped up, when the polls showed her up by a nice margin, when the prognosticators said she had an 80 percent chance of winning, and so on, and so forth. Back then, in a time that now seems like the far distant past, Iowa was going to be the time and the place where Hillary Clinton would separate the wheat from the chaff, and claim her rightful place in history. And we would see Bernie Sanders fold like a wet paper bag, and he would grudgingly make a concession speech and urge everybody to vote for Clinton, and... and... well, many other wondrous things would occur.

Now Iowa means nothing, less than nothing. South Carolina is where the primary really begins, and that is where we will see the wonders and spectacles that nobody ever claimed we would see in Iowa.

No death blow tonight

It appears Clinton will eke out a close victory over Sanders. Probably. But the close finish casts doubt on the inevitable-ness of the Clinton path to the presidency. She looks vulnerable. Going into this thing, she had lock on the nomination. Now she has to fight for it, and that means going after Sanders much more aggressively, using negative campaign ads. This will affect her general election campaign somehow, but how? Will voters look at her more unfavorably? Beating up on poor old Bernie Sanders may not go down well, and the Clinton campaign will look for a way to hurt Sanders without appearing to mirror the right wing BS about socialists, communists, etc. That's difficult because Clinton, so far, has portrayed Sanders as too far left. Once again, our favored candidate is trying to position herself not too far left and not too far right. It usually works, but it gets trickier each election for our candidate to be like the Republicans, but not too much like them.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2