Attorney in Texas
Attorney in Texas's JournalIs Trump the only one actually seeking the people's votes for the 2016 Republican nomination?
Trump is clearly seeking the Republican nomination in 2016.
Kasich seems to be running for VP; he's in the race, but with zero chance of winning so what is his motive?
Carson seems to be running to promote book sales or to obtain a FauxNoise show; he's in the race without any path toward the nomination and yet he's not budging from the race so what is his motive?
Cruz seems to be running to set himself up as the teavangenical front-runner for 2020; he's smart enough to know that he cannot knock Trump off from the pedestal and -- even if he could -- Rubio would beat him to the top and yet he's showing no signs of backing off so what is his motive?
Rubio seems to be running to set himself up and the establishment front-runner for 2020; he's attacking Trump in a way that dispels the possibility that he wants to be Trump's VP and he's not focusing in on any state as if he plans on winning that state and he cannot win the nomination without winning any states so what is his motive?
Compare Clinton '16 to Kerry '04. Besides her gender, what does Clinton bring to the table that
Kerry didn't offer?
As a candidate, Kerry had a lot of advantages that Clinton does not enjoy (for example, Kerry's war hero status versus Clinton's fib about Bosnian sniper fire that has been humiliatingly disproved by video footage and which would be re-run ad nauseum if she were to make it to the general election).
Clinton does share some of Kerry's strengths (for example, foreign policy experience), but Kerry had some anti-war history and credibility as part of this foreign policy package and Clinton is pretty much a straight up neocon hawk with respect to her foreign policy (I'm not saying that Clinton is Dick Cheney because her domestic policy would be worlds better, but her foreign policy is pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty hawkish).
Comparing Clinton to Kerry, I see no area where Clinton is stronger except the appeal of electing the first woman president (which should have been a definite plus and should have been an electoral advantage that Clinton could have capitalized upon but her un-likability and un-trustworthiness perception among young voters, independent voters, and potential ticket-splitting Republican voters kills off this potential advantage; Clinton, if nominated, would be poised to get a historically low independent/crossover vote and turnout among young Democrats would be anemic).
What -- if anything -- does Clinton bring to the table that Kerry's unsuccessful 2004 campaign didn't offer?
Ohio +1%, West Virginia +18%, Massachusetts +3.5%, Colorado +6%, Alaska +14, Maine +15%, Vermont +74
Alaska - (Sanders 48%, Clinton 34%)Colorado - (Sanders 49%, Clinton 43%)
Maine - (Sanders 56%, Clinton 41%)
Massachusetts - (Sanders 47.5%, Clinton 44%)
Ohio - (Sanders 45%, Clinton 44%)
Vermont - (Sanders 83%, Clinton 9%)
West Virginia - (Sanders 57%, Clinton 29%)
The First Lady of Arkansas vs. a Jewish Civil Rights Activist Face Off in the Confederate Red States
Who do YOU think has the advantage in the Republican red states that used to be part of the Confederacy?
Is it the Clintons who are Arkansas royalty, who decimated welfare in the 1990s, who embraced the Defense of Marriage Act, who expanded the death penalty and stripped judges of discretion by requiring harsh private for-profit prison sentences for drug possession, who fought against business and financial sector regulations, and who broke the back of unions at WalMart and in a series of unfair trade agreements?
Or is it a Jewish liberal who has been arrested protesting for civil rights, who has fought to expand welfare and social security and a public right to health care, who voted against the Clintons' Defense of Marriage Act, who opposes the death penalty and favors decriminalization of marijuana possession, who has fought for protecting the public through increased financial sector regulation, and who has supported labor both on the picket line and in relentlessly opposing unfair trade agreements?
In the primary, Clinton may over-perform in the Confederate red states that vote Republican in general elections.
Once the race turns away from Dixie, however, Sanders will rise during the period from March 22 to April 9 (Sanders is strong in Alaska, Wisconsin, Idaho, Washington, Wyoming, Utah, Hawaii, and Arizona - a potential 8-for-8 Sanders winning streak). Between now and the part of the primary calendar that balances out Clinton's Confederate red state advantage, look for strong performances in Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Vermont, Kansas, Nebraska, Maine, Michigan, etc., etc., etc.
WE ARE DEMOCRATS AND WE WILL NOT LET THE REPUBLICAN STATES CHOOSE OUR PRESIDENT!
Do not buy into the false argument that Tuesday will end the race! Sanders will rise when the race moves away from the Confederate South.
And do not let the Clinton campaign try to tell you this is a racial issue -- it is NOT racial.
You know this not a racial issue because Washington DC has over 50% African Americans and Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and New York all have populations including about 20% African Americans or more and NONE of these are Republican territories.
The ex-Confederate Republican red states include Arkansas and Tennessee, which both have smaller percentages of African Americans than Washington DC, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, or New York.
This is a political and cultural divide. If it were a racial issue, it would exclude Republican Arkansas and Tennessee (with less than 20% African Americans) and it would include Democratic Washington DC, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and New York (with higher percentages of African Americans).
In the Old South, with its sad history, the First Lady of Arkansas has an advantage over a Jewish civil rights activist. If this surprises you, then you are overdue for a history lesson.
EDITED TO EMPHASIZE THIS POINT:
It is a fallacy that the most right-wing states have a primary-ending vote in the nominating process when (1) Hillary enjoys a home-field advantage in those right-wing states and (2) Sanders' progressive message has not been historically well accepted in those right-wing states and (3) the primary states that will balance this Confederate-state bias in favor of Hillary are less than a month away.
No single region (especially the furthest right-wing region in the nation) can substitute for a national nomination process that naturally balances deep-red southern states with northern, western, and eastern states to validate our process.
We cannot win a general election with a candidate who is widely distrusted and disliked
We Democrats like Hillary (well, at least the Democrats over 50 like her), but that's it. Outside of over-50-year-old Democrats, Hillary is disliked and disbelieved. Maybe Hillary can win the nomination with the support of over-50-year-old Democrats, but that is not a demographic that will win a general election.
The list grows! Sanders leads Alaska, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, West Virginia, Vermont, and is
ahead in the betting market for Minnesota, and the polls are closing and tight in Oklahoma, Missouri, Wisconsin, and beyond!
Alaska - (Sanders 48%, Clinton 34%)
Colorado - (Sanders 49%, Clinton 43%)
Maine - (Sanders 56%, Clinton 41%)
Massachusetts - (Sanders 47.5%, Clinton 44%)
Minnesota - (Sanders 59% chance, Clinton 41% chance)
Missouri - (Clinton 47%, Sanders 42%)
Oklahoma - (Clinton 46%, Sanders 44%)
Vermont - (Sanders 83%, Clinton 9%)
West Virginia - (Sanders 57%, Clinton 29%)
Wisconsin - (Clinton 45%, Sanders 43.5%)
The race also looks favorable in Kansas, Nebraska, Idaho, Washington, Wyoming, Utah, Hawaii, and Arizona.
This list is growing! Keep fighting! Keep donating! Keep phone banking!
Sanders beat projections in Iowa and New Hampshire, and fought a closer race in Nevada than Obama
versus Clinton in 2008.
This story that the Sanders movement or its supporters have "failed" is nonsensical crap.
Let's not forget, the DNC rigged the debates to cut off Jim Webb and Lincoln Chafee and Lawrence Lessig at their knees before the Iowa caucus. Martin O'Malley's candidacy survived but was mortally wounded by this gamesmanship. Sanders thrived despite these shenanigans.
Sanders was down by 55% a year before Iowa's caucus, down by 15% just a month before the caucus, and was down by over 5% on the day of the caucus:
The high priests of the establishment's conventional wisdom crowned Clinton with over a 70% chance of winning:
Sanders beat the shit out of those conventional expectations. The difference was a tiny fraction of one percent (the tightest caucus in history) and only a two voter-allocated-delegate distinction.
In New Hampshire, the success was even more dramatic. Sanders was 40% behind a year before the election, 7% ahead a month before the primary, and 14% ahead on primary day:
Sanders -- again -- crushed this projection with the actual vote by beating Clinton with a 22% margin and by winning 15 voter-allocated-delegates to Clinton's 9 (Sanders victory was beyond the maximum projected by the establishment's wisdom and Clinton's failure was worse than even their worst case scenarios).
Clinton's campaign had long bragged that ethnic voters in Nevada would make that state her firewall. In 2008, Clinton beat Obama by 5.7%. The polls had Sanders down by 55% a year before the caucus, down 13% a month before the caucus, and down by 3.5% on the day of the caucus:
Yet again, the Clinton campaign came with a pocketful of gamesmanship and shenanigans. Despite this, Sanders fought to a closer percentage than Obama (5.3% in 2016 versus 5.7% in 2008).
The suggestion that the Sanders movement or its supporters are not turning out is bullshit. Don't believe it.
Over the next 50 days, 31 more states will vote. Sanders has an excellent chance at winning a majority of those states (including Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Vermont, Kansas, Nebraska, Maine, Michigan, Alaska, Wisconsin, Idaho, Washington, Wyoming, Utah, Hawaii, and Arizona). There are a number of additional states that look very close so this list could grow.
Hillary was the first lady of Arkansas and her husband is beloved in his native Arkansas so expect her to do well in states that border Arkansas. Also, Clinton performs best in the old Southern Confederacy states that vote Republican in the general election. There are a lot of Arkansas-bordering states and Southern Confederacy red states on the calendar from February 28 to March 1. Expect Clinton to do well in these Southern Confederacy red states (but expect Sanders to do well in Colorado (Sanders 49%; Clinton 43%), Massachusetts (Sanders 49%; Clinton 42%), Minnesota (there isn't recent polling but a poll a month ago indicated a margin-of-error race and Sanders is a 2-to-1 favorite in the betting markets), and Vermont (Sanders 86%; Clinton 10%).
After the Southern Confederacy red states, there is a batch of 8 states from March 22 to April 9, and Sanders could easily go 8-for-8 during this stretch.
Keep up the hope. Keep up the faith. Keep up the fight.
DU would would support Clinton if Sanders is denied the nomination; others would support Jill Stein
I am a Democrat.
Sanders has (1) a good path forward to the nomination, (2) a better platform, (3) more personal appeal as a candidate, and (4) a better chance at beating the Republican nominee.
If the Democrats nevertheless foolishly nominate Clinton, I will go down with our ship (because I'm a Democrat). Then, I will pick myself up, brush off my jacket, and start working on Warren 2020.
Democrats should know that Clinton's triangulation strategy is not calculated to hold young Democrats or to win over liberal or progressive independents. This is especially true given that Jill Stein offers a very progressive alternative:
* a single-payer Medicare for all public health plan
* job creation by switching to 100% renewable energy by 2030 and by expanding public transportation
* promoting a living-wage ($15/hour federal minimum wage) and workers' rights to unionize
* abolish corporate personhood and Citizens United
* end the wars and drone attacks, cut the military 50%, close foreign military bases, stop arms sales to dictators
These are the type of ideas that Clinton mocks but which majorities of Democrats support. I'll stick with Clinton, but others will support a candidate who promotes a platform that reflects Democratic values. There are some who would rather go down fighting for what they believe than settling for a candidate who mocks what they believe and who is unlikely to win in any event.
Republican primary is a 1980 rerun. What if Trump plays the Reagan role? What if they cheat Trump?
Under either scenario, Sanders is our better choice.
The 1980 Republican primary had Republican establishment candidates such as senate minority leader Howard Baker, senator Bob Dole, CIA director/former RNC chair George H. W. Bush, and well funded ex-governor of Texas John Connally, and they lost to oddball former actor Ronald Reagan who won with a message that appealed to blue collar workers in both parties who felt like the system was rigged against them.
In 2016, Trump is playing Reagan's role in a rerun of 1980.
If Trump gets the nomination, his change message is not as strong as Sanders' hopeful change platform, but Trump's change message beats Hillary's status quo message. The system is broken, and voters in both parties and independents all want change. If Trump offers change and Clinton offers status quo, she loses. If Trump and Sanders both offer change, Sanders' change is a better model that speaks more to the voters and their aspirations so it is unsurprising that Sanders beats Trump most convincingly in head-to-head polls.
If Trump is robbed of the nomination by the Republican establishment, his disaffected supporters will gravitate as much to Sanders as to Rubio. Sanders will capture the Reagan Democrats who might be attracted to Trump's promise of change (along with blue collar Republicans who want change). Clinton holds zero appeal to change voters, and she cannot capitalize on the opportunity to win over blue collar Republicans storming out of the Republican party after the party cheats Trump out of the nomination at a brokered convention.
Profile Information
Member since: Sun Aug 2, 2015, 11:10 AMNumber of posts: 3,373
