Democrats, Can We Agree?
I'm fairly certain there will be a third option in November. A better option. We don't have to stand for the lousy choices presented by the corrupt two party system.
dave said:
I'm fairly certain there will be a third option in November. A better option. We don't have to stand for the lousy choices presented by the corrupt two party system.
As I said, on Election Day, I expect all eligible voters to vote or not vote based on what they think will be best for their futures.
dave said:
I'm fairly certain there will be a third option in November. A better option. We don't have to stand for the lousy choices presented by the corrupt two party system.
A better option? A realistically electable option? Please tell.
It's Ralph Nader all over again. God help us. Do people REALLY not think that the country wouldn't have been better off with Gore in the White House instead of GWB? Do people honestly not think it matters who will fill what could be three Supreme Court vacancies over the next four years? It boggles the mind that people could be so dense. I'm all for passionate support of Bernie, who has a lot to offer. But to elect Trump due to some kind of childish snit fit is just incomprehensible to me.
tjohn said:
dave said:
Half of Sanders supporters won't vote for Clinton, according to a new Bloomberg poll. A Trump victory is in the hands of the superdelegates, I'm afraid.
I expect Sanders supporters to do what they thing will be best for their futures. If they want to have a temper tantrum and not vote against Trump on Election Day because they have ruffled tail feathers, that is their right.
Or they will write in for whom they consider the best candidate...........and not the lesser of two evils
author said:
tjohn said:
dave said:
Half of Sanders supporters won't vote for Clinton, according to a new Bloomberg poll. A Trump victory is in the hands of the superdelegates, I'm afraid.
I expect Sanders supporters to do what they thing will be best for their futures. If they want to have a temper tantrum and not vote against Trump on Election Day because they have ruffled tail feathers, that is their right.
Or they will write in for whom they consider the best candidate...........and not the lesser of two evils
Barring death, indictment or open Republican-party revolt, our next president will either be Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. If you're a Democrat and you write in another candidate, you are voting for Trump.
So Trump is using Sander's criticisms of Clinton in his speech Thanks Bernie!!
i expect that most Sanders voters will vote for Clinton in November. I expect that many Sanders voters will not vote for Hillary or Trump, those being the independents that wont vote for either Clinton or Trump and the republicans who supported Sanders but would never vote for Clinton and also a portion of the younger voters, who supported Sanders but won't bother to vote for Clinton in November.
All in all, the vast majority of democrats will turn out to vote for Clinton.
librarylady said:
So Trump is using Sander's criticisms of Clinton in his speech Thanks Bernie!!
this happens in all elections. if Sanders won the nomination, Trump would be using Clinton's criticisms.
dave said:
I'm fairly certain there will be a third option in November. A better option. We don't have to stand for the lousy choices presented by the corrupt two party system.
There will be many options for those who prefer the lesser of three evils or the lesser of four evils.
dave said:
Half of Sanders supporters won't vote for Clinton, according to a new Bloomberg poll. A Trump victory is in the hands of the superdelegates, I'm afraid.
Nonsense. At this point if the Democratic Party nominates someone other than Clinton it will increase Trump's chances exponentially. Unless, of course, the Republicans manipulate their convention and deny Trump the nomination.
Perhaps then their will be a viable third choice; A Clinton-Trump or Trump-Clinton Third-Party ticket.
librarylady said:
So Trump is using Sander's criticisms of Clinton in his speech Thanks Bernie!!
Bernie was supposed to run a campaign without criticism of his opponent?
LOST said:
dave said:
Half of Sanders supporters won't vote for Clinton, according to a new Bloomberg poll. A Trump victory is in the hands of the superdelegates, I'm afraid.
Nonsense. At this point if the Democratic Party nominates someone other than Clinton it will increase Trump's chances exponentially. Unless, of course, the Republicans manipulate their convention and deny Trump the nomination.
Perhaps then their will be a viable third choice; A Clinton-Trump or Trump-Clinton Third-Party ticket.
Here's the poll.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-06-22/nearly-half-of-sanders-supporters-won-t-support-clinton
There simply has to be a third option because the current options are an imbecile and a corrupt, dishonest, barely affable wife of a former president who wants to go head to head with Russia in Syria with a moronic no fly zone.
LOST said:
dave said:
Half of Sanders supporters won't vote for Clinton, according to a new Bloomberg poll. A Trump victory is in the hands of the superdelegates, I'm afraid.
Nonsense. At this point if the Democratic Party nominates someone other than Clinton it will increase Trump's chances exponentially. Unless, of course, the Republicans manipulate their convention and deny Trump the nomination.
Perhaps then their will be a viable third choice; A Clinton-Trump or Trump-Clinton Third-Party ticket.
Bernie or Biden would do much better against Trump than Hillary. After Trump's worst week and Hillary's best week, these polls are frightening:
Clinton up by 4 or 5 points nationally, very close races in OH, PA and FL.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/
dave said:
There simply has to be a third option because the current options are an imbecile and a corrupt, dishonest, barely affable wife of a former president who wants to go head to head with Russia in Syria with a moronic no fly zone.
You may see it that way but most people won't.
I could take any election over the last 30 years and point out the negatives of the two Major Party Candidates and yet not once was there an actual viable third option. The only one who even got more than handful of votes was Perot who was crazy.
imonlysleeping said:
author said:
tjohn said:
dave said:
Half of Sanders supporters won't vote for Clinton, according to a new Bloomberg poll. A Trump victory is in the hands of the superdelegates, I'm afraid.
I expect Sanders supporters to do what they thing will be best for their futures. If they want to have a temper tantrum and not vote against Trump on Election Day because they have ruffled tail feathers, that is their right.
Or they will write in for whom they consider the best candidate...........and not the lesser of two evils
Barring death, indictment or open Republican-party revolt, our next president will either be Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. If you're a Democrat and you write in another candidate, you are voting for Trump.
I have heard that all the way back to Lyndon Johnson vs Goldwater At least Goldwater was honest
author said:
imonlysleeping said:
author said:
tjohn said:
dave said:
Half of Sanders supporters won't vote for Clinton, according to a new Bloomberg poll. A Trump victory is in the hands of the superdelegates, I'm afraid.
I expect Sanders supporters to do what they thing will be best for their futures. If they want to have a temper tantrum and not vote against Trump on Election Day because they have ruffled tail feathers, that is their right.
Or they will write in for whom they consider the best candidate...........and not the lesser of two evils
Barring death, indictment or open Republican-party revolt, our next president will either be Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. If you're a Democrat and you write in another candidate, you are voting for Trump.
I have heard that all the way back to Lyndon Johnson vs Goldwater At least Goldwater was honest
And it has been true every single time. Name one third-party candidate who has been competitive in a general election in that timespan.
author said:
I have heard that all the way back to Lyndon Johnson vs Goldwater At least Goldwater was honest
Of course, back in the time of Goldwater, we hadn't elevated the politics of character assassination to the art form it now is. If I recall correctly, opponents of Martin Luther King opted to not make an issue of his philanderings, and that was one bitter struggle.
A small glimmer of hope. We need to get people to understand how totally slanted the media and the DNC have been in this primary.
http://usuncut.com/politics/nevada-reporter-chair-throwing/
LOST said:
dave said:
There simply has to be a third option because the current options are an imbecile and a corrupt, dishonest, barely affable wife of a former president who wants to go head to head with Russia in Syria with a moronic no fly zone.
You may see it that way but most people won't.
I could take any election over the last 30 years and point out the negatives of the two Major Party Candidates and yet not once was there an actual viable third option. The only one who even got more than handful of votes was Perot who was crazy.
At some point there will be change. Nothing goes on forever.
So far third party candidates have only been spoilers. As with Nader who helped to hand the election to Bush.
But lets assume we get a viable third party candidate who gets enough electoral college votes to prevent any of the candidates from getting a majority. Then the House of Representatives will choose the president, a Republican. And we know the the TEA party dominates the house.
In 1824, there wasn’t a 50-50 tie, but a split among four candidates
meant that no one received the required majority, so the election went
to the House. In that case, although Andrew Jackson won the popular
vote, the House selected John Quincy Adams as president.
http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2012/11/an-electoral-college-tie-explained/
dave said:
A small glimmer of hope. We need to get people to understand how totally slanted the media and the DNC have been in this primary.
http://usuncut.com/politics/nevada-reporter-chair-throwing/
Yes, there is much bias
Whereas media coverage helped build up Trump, it helped tear down
Clinton. Trump’s positive coverage was the equivalent of millions of
dollars in ad-buys in his favor, whereas Clinton’s negative coverage can
be equated to millions of dollars in attack ads, with her on the
receiving end. Of the eight news outlets in our study, Fox News easily
led the way. Clinton received 291 negative reports on Fox, compared with
only 39 positive ones, most of which were in the context of poll
results that showed her with a wide lead. By comparison, Sanders was the
subject of 79 positive reports on Fox and 31 negative reports.
http://shorensteincenter.org/pre-primary-news-coverage-2016-trump-clinton-sanders/
tjohn said:
Can we just give Sanders supporters participation trophies and get on with the business of stopping Trump?
Thank you.
I wonder if it is really so hard to see how dangerous Trump is. Hate Clinton all you want but open your ideas to the greater danger. Claiming they're equally bad is like saying you hate both brussels sprouts and bleach on your dinner plate.
dave said:
I'm fairly certain there will be a third option in November. A better option. We don't have to stand for the lousy choices presented by the corrupt two party system.
Whom do you think will be elected? I'm quite certain it will either be the Democratic nominee or the Republican nominee. There will be other choices, but one of those two will be elected. I'm willing to make a wager on that. If you bet against this, I'd like to know what your thinking is.
BG9 said:
dave said:
A small glimmer of hope. We need to get people to understand how totally slanted the media and the DNC have been in this primary.
http://usuncut.com/politics/nevada-reporter-chair-throwing/
Yes, there is much bias
Whereas media coverage helped build up Trump, it helped tear down
Clinton. Trump’s positive coverage was the equivalent of millions of
dollars in ad-buys in his favor, whereas Clinton’s negative coverage can
be equated to millions of dollars in attack ads, with her on the
receiving end. Of the eight news outlets in our study, Fox News easily
led the way. Clinton received 291 negative reports on Fox, compared with
only 39 positive ones, most of which were in the context of poll
results that showed her with a wide lead. By comparison, Sanders was the
subject of 79 positive reports on Fox and 31 negative reports.http://shorensteincenter.org/pre-primary-news-coverage-2016-trump-clinton-sanders/
The primary hadn't even begun by the time this study ended.
Try to pay at least a little attention.
Otherwise you're part of the problem.
dave said:
BG9 said:
dave said:
A small glimmer of hope. We need to get people to understand how totally slanted the media and the DNC have been in this primary.
http://usuncut.com/politics/nevada-reporter-chair-throwing/
Yes, there is much bias
Whereas media coverage helped build up Trump, it helped tear down
Clinton. Trump’s positive coverage was the equivalent of millions of
dollars in ad-buys in his favor, whereas Clinton’s negative coverage can
be equated to millions of dollars in attack ads, with her on the
receiving end. Of the eight news outlets in our study, Fox News easily
led the way. Clinton received 291 negative reports on Fox, compared with
only 39 positive ones, most of which were in the context of poll
results that showed her with a wide lead. By comparison, Sanders was the
subject of 79 positive reports on Fox and 31 negative reports.http://shorensteincenter.org/pre-primary-news-coverage-2016-trump-clinton-sanders/
The primary hadn't even begun by the time this study ended.
Try to pay at least a little attention.
Otherwise you're part of the problem.
I am paying attention. This thread is "can we agree." Not just on the primary. You pointed out bias and I've pointed out the same, more bias.
Well there you go. Of course she is nothing but a wife. A barely affable wife at that. Your misogyny is showing.
dave said:
barely affable wife of a former president
Hillary Clinton does not come across as particularly likable, but I have always believed that at least part of the problem is the observed fact that women in positions of power find it harder to be liked than men in the same position.
eliz said:
Well there you go. Of course she is nothing but a wife. A barely affable wife at that. Your misogyny is showing.
dave said:
barely affable wife of a former president
Hillary is significantly more experienced and accomplished than her husband was when he was the Democratic nominee. To dismiss her as nothing more than the wife of a former president seems wrongheaded at best.
I expect Sanders supporters to do what they thing will be best for their futures. If they want to have a temper tantrum and not vote against Trump on Election Day because they have ruffled tail feathers, that is their right.