Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 06, 2016, 12:40:04 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Election 2016 predictions are now open!.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 261
101  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Why hasn't Elizabeth Warren endorsed Bernie? on: April 03, 2016, 03:58:11 am
It's the same reason why Wall Street doesn't back Bernie. It's useless to waste capital, financial or political, on a destined loser.

That's not the only reason why they don't back him

I'm sure. Roll Eyes

In the alternate reality where Bernie becomes the nominee, you'd better believe there'd be a Wall Street-backed superPAC behind him.
102  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Why hasn't Elizabeth Warren endorsed Bernie? on: April 03, 2016, 02:05:39 am
It's the same reason why Wall Street doesn't back Bernie. It's useless to waste capital, financial or political, on a destined loser.
103  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Why Hasnít Bernie Sanders Released His Tax Returns? on: April 02, 2016, 08:34:58 pm
All I will say is that if Clinton supporters think Sanders is being negative right now, they need to brace themselves for the GE. Bernie's "attacks" on Clinton will seem like a cuddling session compared to the Benghazimail mud Republicans will sling at her.

Except Republicans don't have street cred with the progressive base. Sanders is literally telling lies about Clinton and pitting left-wing voters against her. It's a damn shame and not at all helpful.
104  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Opinion of Bernie's Income Tax Plan? on: April 02, 2016, 04:13:02 pm
Taxing high incomes more is everything I hate about the left - they want to give it all to the illegals, to the Muslims, and to successful people they throw up a big middle finger and say, we want to give it to losers.

(And my point about Muslims was just that liberals care about not offending Muslim sympathies - refusing to even call it radical Islamic terrorism - yet they certainly don't care about outright stealing hordes of money from successful people for no other reason than "fairness.")

You do realize - given your demographic profile and the, uh, somewhat fragile state of mind demonstrated by your posting history -  that you represent more of a "terror" threat than all but an almost negligibly small share of American Muslims?

I mean, I enjoy trolling message boards (yes, even the fundie segment had a good bit of trolling in it), but it's not like I say a word of this stuff outside of it, so whatever.  That's part of my shtick is to go a bit overboard, I'll admit  My main point was that I oppose raising taxes on 6-figure incomes to redistribute it more to those in lower rungs and that I do favor encouraging success.

First, let's stop equating wealth with success.

Second, "encouraging success," if we are defining success your way, requires giving people the tools they need to succeed. Most of those tools come in the form of policies and programs that I expect you would reject as "special treatment." These programs require funding.

I have no issue with job-training programs, subsidized tuition, etc.  All I'm saying is that the tax code to fund such programs should be relatively flat, except perhaps with some progressivism once we get to 1 million dollar plus incomes.

Raising the revenues necessary to fund the programs you suggest requires the tax brackets and tax rates to at least remain similar to what they are now. Flattening everything would mean putting the burden on people who are less able to afford it, which would basically neutralize the effects of the training programs and tuition subsidies in the first place.

I suppose only applying a flat rate above a certain "subsistence" income of say, 20-30,000 dollars might be the solution to that.  I suppose the problem then would be increased taxes on the middle class; in that case, some pretty progressive taxation on capital gains and 10 million+ in income could be utilized.  Of course, spending could also be cut elsewhere in the budget to pay for more job-training and subsidized tuition; I'd probably look to entitlement reform to help recoup some costs.

So the solution involves a poor black single mother having to choose between job training for her kid or healthcare under Medicaid? Christ.
105  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Opinion of Bernie's Income Tax Plan? on: April 02, 2016, 02:17:18 pm
Taxing high incomes more is everything I hate about the left - they want to give it all to the illegals, to the Muslims, and to successful people they throw up a big middle finger and say, we want to give it to losers.

(And my point about Muslims was just that liberals care about not offending Muslim sympathies - refusing to even call it radical Islamic terrorism - yet they certainly don't care about outright stealing hordes of money from successful people for no other reason than "fairness.")

You do realize - given your demographic profile and the, uh, somewhat fragile state of mind demonstrated by your posting history -  that you represent more of a "terror" threat than all but an almost negligibly small share of American Muslims?

I mean, I enjoy trolling message boards (yes, even the fundie segment had a good bit of trolling in it), but it's not like I say a word of this stuff outside of it, so whatever.  That's part of my shtick is to go a bit overboard, I'll admit  My main point was that I oppose raising taxes on 6-figure incomes to redistribute it more to those in lower rungs and that I do favor encouraging success.

First, let's stop equating wealth with success.

Second, "encouraging success," if we are defining success your way, requires giving people the tools they need to succeed. Most of those tools come in the form of policies and programs that I expect you would reject as "special treatment." These programs require funding.

I have no issue with job-training programs, subsidized tuition, etc.  All I'm saying is that the tax code to fund such programs should be relatively flat, except perhaps with some progressivism once we get to 1 million dollar plus incomes.

Raising the revenues necessary to fund the programs you suggest requires the tax brackets and tax rates to at least remain similar to what they are now. Flattening everything would mean putting the burden on people who are less able to afford it, which would basically neutralize the effects of the training programs and tuition subsidies in the first place.
106  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Opinion of Bernie's Income Tax Plan? on: April 02, 2016, 02:11:05 pm
Are people on here seriously trying to say that the vast majority of rich people have gotten there through their own efforts and merits?

You gotta be kidding me.
70% of billionaires in this country are self-made. A majority of billionaires grew up in poor or middle-class circumstances.

"Self-made" does not always involve effort and merit. Good on them for capitalizing on the special opportunities they were given to work hard and rise out of their social milieu, but not everyone is afforded those same special opportunities. I would be curious to know the breakdown between "poor" and "middle-class" origins (and indeed the definitions of both) in the example you provide. There are people who start in life far worse than that, and if they find themselves in the double-jeopardy situation of also having dark skin or coming from a depressed neighbourhood, well... things are even harder.

North American social systems and institutions, from universities to hospitals, are sites of social performance, and in these playing fields what may look like getting ahead based on merit really involves invisible helping hands that privilege certain kinds of people. The odds that Laquisha Jackson makes it to college and then graduates into a stable job are a lot slimmer than the odds of William Fairchild from Bridgeport, Connecticut doing the same. One faces roadblocks every step of the way; the other has the gates held open for him throughout the whole journey. How many of those billionaires started off as black kids from Harlem?
107  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Opinion of Bernie's Income Tax Plan? on: April 02, 2016, 01:54:00 pm
Taxing high incomes more is everything I hate about the left - they want to give it all to the illegals, to the Muslims, and to successful people they throw up a big middle finger and say, we want to give it to losers.

(And my point about Muslims was just that liberals care about not offending Muslim sympathies - refusing to even call it radical Islamic terrorism - yet they certainly don't care about outright stealing hordes of money from successful people for no other reason than "fairness.")

You do realize - given your demographic profile and the, uh, somewhat fragile state of mind demonstrated by your posting history -  that you represent more of a "terror" threat than all but an almost negligibly small share of American Muslims?

I mean, I enjoy trolling message boards (yes, even the fundie segment had a good bit of trolling in it), but it's not like I say a word of this stuff outside of it, so whatever.  That's part of my shtick is to go a bit overboard, I'll admit  My main point was that I oppose raising taxes on 6-figure incomes to redistribute it more to those in lower rungs and that I do favor encouraging success.

First, let's stop equating wealth with success.

Second, "encouraging success," if we are defining success your way, requires giving people the tools they need to succeed. Most of those tools come in the form of policies and programs that I expect you would reject as "special treatment." These programs require funding.
108  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Opinion of Bernie's Income Tax Plan? on: April 02, 2016, 01:18:37 pm
Honestly, people deserve to keep the majority of the money they earn.  I really don't care if it's more beneficial to society to take more of rich people's money.  It's still their money, and frankly, many of them are superior to the losers who get women's studies degrees, smoke pot all day, and then whine about their minimum wage job.  Taxing high incomes more is everything I hate about the left - they want to give it all to the illegals and to Democratic voting blocs, and to successful people they throw up a big middle finger and say, we want to give it to losers.  Frankly, if you're intelligent and determined enough to become a petroleum engineer, actuary, or whatever and command a high income, then I happen to believe that you shouldn't pay more than 50% of your income to the government just because Uncle Sam thinks that it would be better to encourage "better social outcomes."  

And look, I understand that not everyone in poverty is in it because they deserved it, but penalizing rich people because of other people's choice to do drugs, not take their education seriously, etc. is flat-out wrong.

Aww. Someone who believes their success is based on "merit" and inherent superiority. That's cute. <3
109  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Krugman: Time for Sanders to start acting responsibly on: April 02, 2016, 12:52:31 pm
Sanders is running more than anything against a corrupt system. We don't live in a pure democracy, of course, where every issue is decided by referenda. Sanders is a human being and therefore he is going to make strategic mistakes, but his message is positive. He has a bold positive message for the future.

Clinton, to me at least, represents the old thinking of politics as usual which has failed us.

None of this has to be personal. I am glad that both of them have made the campaign about ideas, policies, the direction of the country. There are many things that Clinton supports that are good, like sensible gun control. It represents a campaign about visions for the future. Both candidates are likely to take us in a better direction in general than the Republican alternatives. There remains the concern about whether Clinton can add to and improve on things that Obama has done. My biggest concern is what kind of foreign policy we can expect from President Clinton.

What people fail to understand is that it's not "politics as usual." It's frankly just "politics." Obama was something new and radical and different. Someone who promised to bring change to the system. And look what happened. The system works the way it works for a reason, and it's not going to turn on its head just because a raving naive politician wills it to.

There's no indication whatsoever that Bernie offers anything that has any chance of actually changing the way things are done. You may say that we'll never know unless we try, but trying for something when there's an overwhelming risk of it becoming a devastating belly flop is irresponsible, and it speaks to the reasons why Bernie is drawing support from relatively secure white folks who can afford to take the risk. I mean, what I'm saying is pessimistic because it implies that there's never any sense in trying, but... there's not. The American political system was always intended to be a system that facilitated incremental changes, so the best choice is a politician who knows how to work within that system to get positive things done. Bernie has been in the system shouting about his brand of radical politics forever with very little to show for it. His becoming president is not going to magically change things, especially when his fiery base gets disillusioned and runs out of patience after the first 100 days of nothing seeming to change. If by some stretch of bad fortune he wins the presidency, it will frankly be the worst thing for the left that I could possibly dream up. He has raised the bar so impossibly high that he will be unable to score any kind of win at all. Surrounded by the context of government and not high-flying speeches or 10,000-person crowds, he will be like a balloon that keeps spewing air from its blowhole in a slow leak. Flailing and desperate, he will be cast aside almost at once. Good luck Democrats.

Of course, Bernie doesn't actually care about that. He's convinced that his fantasy is bulletproof.

Obama's idea of "changing politics as usual" was MUCH different than Sanders'.

Obama's moronically naive idea was that he would be "post-partisan" and compromise with wolvish Republicans in a system that is, despite his hopes, fundamentally zero-sum.

The "compromises" he got were cuts to social security and extensions on tax cuts for the rich.

He still channelled people's thirst for change into a movement that was going nowhere. That's no different than what Sanders is doing. You have to follow the rules to change the rules. Instead, he's inciting an angry mob that will help him break down the front door of government. Fine. Maybe he'll make it inside, but then the mob is going to disperse and he'll have no friends to help him with his quest.

He has done nothing to help build a friendly Congress, has shown no loyalty to the party he's using to make his pet project a reality (I use the word "reality" lightly), and is only going to create more frustration if he somehow manages to win, because he has exerted no effort thinking about how to actually translate his dreams into real change. If he had thought about it, he almost certainly would have re-evaluated his dreams to bring them down closer to earth (see his plan for free college that relies on the charity of Republican governors... ha!). So as it stands, the whole thing is one big con. And after 2008, I would think people would be a bit wiser to it. Instead they're just digging their heads further into the sand.
110  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Is Clinton to the right of Obama? on: April 02, 2016, 12:42:03 pm
Ambition is certainly a part of her metrics, which is the case for virtually every politician. If she has a Democratic Congress, she will fight for the things she believes in that could be considered most left-wing; she will want something meaningful to be a part of her legacy, just like how Obama pushed for the Affordable Care Act when he had the chance, even though there were a lot more pressing short-term priorities at the time that, arguably, he neglected and even worsened in the pursuit of health care reform. The country has weathered the storm now, so in ten years' time all people will see is Obamacare. So the legacy projects are almost always worthwhile. Hillary will be "to the left" if she has a left-wing Congress.

If Congress is relatively Republican, she might appear to be a little more of a centrist because she'll fight for things she cares about and believes can pass.

I mean, a common hit against her is that she's flexible and too willing to make deals with the devil, but the truth is, that's what most people would want in a president. Not everyone is an idealogue. Can I peg down her ideology? Not completely? And that's fine. I'd rather see the country make up some ground than have a president who chooses to stubbornly fall on her sword out of some desire for "ideological purity."

111  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Krugman: Time for Sanders to start acting responsibly on: April 02, 2016, 12:27:02 pm
Sanders is running more than anything against a corrupt system. We don't live in a pure democracy, of course, where every issue is decided by referenda. Sanders is a human being and therefore he is going to make strategic mistakes, but his message is positive. He has a bold positive message for the future.

Clinton, to me at least, represents the old thinking of politics as usual which has failed us.

None of this has to be personal. I am glad that both of them have made the campaign about ideas, policies, the direction of the country. There are many things that Clinton supports that are good, like sensible gun control. It represents a campaign about visions for the future. Both candidates are likely to take us in a better direction in general than the Republican alternatives. There remains the concern about whether Clinton can add to and improve on things that Obama has done. My biggest concern is what kind of foreign policy we can expect from President Clinton.

What people fail to understand is that it's not "politics as usual." It's frankly just "politics." Obama was something new and radical and different. Someone who promised to bring change to the system. And look what happened. The system works the way it works for a reason, and it's not going to turn on its head just because a raving naive politician wills it to.

There's no indication whatsoever that Bernie offers anything that has any chance of actually changing the way things are done. You may say that we'll never know unless we try, but trying for something when there's an overwhelming risk of it becoming a devastating belly flop is irresponsible, and it speaks to the reasons why Bernie is drawing support from relatively secure white folks who can afford to take the risk. I mean, what I'm saying is pessimistic because it implies that there's never any sense in trying, but... there's not. The American political system was always intended to be a system that facilitated incremental changes, so the best choice is a politician who knows how to work within that system to get positive things done. Bernie has been in the system shouting about his brand of radical politics forever with very little to show for it. His becoming president is not going to magically change things, especially when his fiery base gets disillusioned and runs out of patience after the first 100 days of nothing seeming to change. If by some stretch of bad fortune he wins the presidency, it will frankly be the worst thing for the left that I could possibly dream up. He has raised the bar so impossibly high that he will be unable to score any kind of win at all. Surrounded by the context of government and not high-flying speeches or 10,000-person crowds, he will be like a balloon that keeps spewing air from its blowhole in a slow leak. Flailing and desperate, he will be cast aside almost at once. Good luck Democrats.

Of course, Bernie doesn't actually care about that. He's convinced that his fantasy is bulletproof.
112  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Federal judge makes gay adoption legal in all 50 states on: April 02, 2016, 02:45:21 am
Mainstream gays and lesbians cleaned up their act and such is their reward.

Can you explain what you mean by this?

More precisely, mainstream gays and lesbians cleaned up their image by denouncing the perverts who exploit children. 

Yes, it really was such a shame that the majority of us were implicitly endorsing pedophilia for so long simply by existing and refusing to buy into the notion that we were similar enough to the pedophiles that we had to clarify our stance.

Roll Eyes
113  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Gov. Deal vetoes religious liberty bill on: March 31, 2016, 11:31:27 am
Coward. The people wanted it signed. Go with the people not big business.

The irony of this statement even tickles me and I'm a conservative.

Do you not realize it really was religious freedom protections(backed by the grassroots) vs big business (who want special rights for the lgbt).

"Special rights?" F-ck off, you are literally the worst.

It's a special right to ask for assurances that I will not be shamed at and turned away from a restaurant? The only "special right" I see in this situation is the right we'd be giving lunatic bigots to treat a particular group of people like garbage.

It only seems like a special right to you because you are used to moving through society with your privilege unimpeded. How horrible and unfair that you are forced to tolerate the presence and legitimacy of people who are different! Poor little put-upon JCL! Cry
114  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: The "You" in 2006 time-travels to right now... your reaction? on: March 31, 2016, 11:18:07 am
I'm no longer fat, I wear nice clothes, I'm basically openly gay, I live in Vancouver away from my family with a half-time live-in boyfriend, I'm a grad student, my parents are going through a nasty divorce because my dad cheated on my unemployed mom, and they're about to trade in a family home that's personally very meaningful and worth quite a bit of money for two one-bedroom apartments, leaving my sister and I without any decent prospect of an inheritance, which is shallow but still sh-tty. Basically, my life now would be close to unfathomable for 2006 me. The only constant is my extremely poor work ethic.

As for politics, I was not very politically inclined then. 2016 me would have presented things in a slightly warped way that I think would have swayed 2006 me over to most of my opinions. He would probably have a decently positive impression of Obama though, because the guy really has grown into his role since 2009. I feel like you'd have to see Obama looking like he was too green for the job in the early days to actually believe it. That being said, 2006 me would be terrified of ISIS and all that's been going on in Europe and he'd be really surprised that terrorism isn't dominating the national conversation. 2006 me probably would believe that ISIS wouldn't be an issue (or at least as terrifying) under Bush, and there'd be a sense that the world is kind of falling apart.

There is a possibility I would have completely bought into everything Trump has been saying and that I'd find it completely entertaining. That scares me.

Also 2006 me would be shattered because I'd shame the sh**t out of him for being such a gross slob. I'd also ask him to do some things differently, like make more of an effort to enjoy undergrad and maybe to starve myself for a bit a few years earlier than I did in reality so I'd be confident enough to actually have sex in undergrad. I would really lay into him, because it's a formative ten years, and although I've changed in so many ways, some really bad tendencies have carried over that would have been good to address.
115  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Primary Election Polls / Re: WI - Marquette University: Sanders up 4, Cruz up 10 on: March 30, 2016, 12:48:34 pm
Well my vote will be for Kasich, wondering if I should switch and vote for Clinton instead. If Sanders only wins by 4 or so it's pretty humiliating for him, and a reason we should abolish the caucus.

Vote for whichever race seems closer by Election Day. Right now it's looking to be the Dem race.
116  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Writing a paper on Quebec on: March 29, 2016, 01:25:25 am
Well, I will say that it is an extremely ambitious topic for a paper so short, but if you are planning to keep things broad I guess I would suggest stringing the paper together through an analysis of a few key events. In other words, looking at change over time through these events as a lens.

If you send me your e-mail address in a PM I can send you a bunch of digital books and articles I have in my library. Most of it accumulated during my research process for a paper on the October Crisis, but there's a lot of stuff I didn't use that goes way beyond the FLQ, temporally and thematically.

Maybe it's too late for me to be sending resources though haha, so I'll leave it up to you. I'm not sure I have the time to read anything at the moment, unfortunately, and it probably wouldn't be worth your while anyway, because I don't know too much about Quebec other than what you'd get from a survey Canadian history course.
117  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Gallup: Clinton's supporters more enthusiastic than those of Sanders on: March 29, 2016, 12:56:07 am
What a terribly skewed poll. How can Democrats possibly be more enthusiastic about supporting a neoliberal warmongering corporatist as opposed to the progressive democratic socialist who ISN'T on Wall Street's payroll? I call foul!

Perhaps it's because not everyone has been brainwashed by the mischaracterizations of Hillary coming from Bernie Sanders and his frothing-at-the-mouth supporters...
118  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: 4 way presidential race? on: March 28, 2016, 02:02:54 pm
This is the ideal scenario, new guy.  It would be wild and fun and Sanders would certainly win. 

You're kidding, right?

No one would win a majority of EVs, the election would go to the House, and Cruz would win.
119  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Who wins Wisconsin?(D) on: March 28, 2016, 01:26:59 pm
Hillary's been leading all the polls and she's actually contesting the state. I could see Bernie pulling it off, but I don't think it will be anything to write home about.
120  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Clinton Strategist: No More Debates Unless Bernie Sanders Changes His Tone. on: March 28, 2016, 01:20:54 pm
That's pretty reasonable. He's on the brink of doing more harm than good.
121  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Republicans/Conservatives Who Will NOT Vote for Trump Sign In Here on: March 27, 2016, 10:48:02 pm
It's only "dumb" because Republicans should have realized that the spirit behind Donald Trump's rise is what's been animating the Republican base for years, even if it hadn't completely bubbled to the surface like it's doing now.
122  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: The Reasons Why I Voted on: March 27, 2016, 07:36:14 pm
Roll Eyes
123  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: CA: Deal Reached to Raise Minimum Wage to $15/hour on: March 27, 2016, 04:21:54 am
That's $19.90 CAD. Holy feck.
124  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Give a Donald Trump-style response to the previous poster's question on: March 27, 2016, 12:48:35 am
I have to be honest with you, the guy choked. He's a choke artist. He had a chance to beat Obama and he blew it, okay? He blew it. Completely blew it. I have to tell you, I love the Mormons. You know, I'm a Presbyterian, so it's kind of so-so, but the Mormons are great people. And most of all they love America. They know we are going to make America so great, possibly and probably the greatest it's ever been. I love 'em. But Mitt Romney? C'mon. He's really a Mormon? I'm kidding. I'm kidding, okay? I have to say that, because these scum at the back of the room... You know, people in the media are despicable; the worst in America. But I have to say I'm kidding, or it gets totally out of hand. I'm kidding. But I wonder, sometimes, if Romney is really even a Republican, to be frank. They keep saying, you know, "if you add up his result and his result, Trump is losing!" "Trump is losing, Trump is losing!" That's what they say. You wanna know something? These people have no idea. We have the stupidest people. And Mitt Romney, he says "never Trump, never Trump!" I mean, "never Trump"... what is that? This is a movement folks, and I'm telling you... I'm absolutely telling you... we are growing this party. Hillary? She's old news; she doesn't scare me at all. Because she can't look America in the face and tell people the truth. You don't get that with me, right? Right, this guy knows. This guy knows. But you don't get that with me, because it's so obvious what's wrong in this country and I say it like it is. Some people say I talk too much, to tell you the truth. But I say what I believe. And the political correctness... I have to tell you, the political correctness is destroying this country. It's radical Islamic terrorism, and we know that. I mean, call it what it is! There's something funny going on, and we need to figure out what's going on if we're truly, truly serious. So I have the no Muslims thing. No Muslims, temporarily, until we can figure this out. And these people... they go nuts when I say that. Totally nuts. But it's not controversial, people. It's... Again, look: It's political correctness. That's what Hillary Clinton does to America, believe me. And if she's allowed to run... I mean, I don't know that she will be... there's some terrible, terrible stuff... if she's allowed to run, we'll stop all that. I'll tell you one thing, people are going to say "Merry Christmas." We have to take back this country, and the truth is, we are going to make America great again. No more stupid, like Mitt Romney. What's he even talking about? It's crazy.

What do you look for in a woman?
125  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Democratic Freak States Holy Saturday results thread (1st caucuses begin @1pmET) on: March 26, 2016, 04:47:01 pm
At this point, the only two people in the history of the modern Democratic Party primary system who did better than Bernie Sanders but didn't win the Democratic nomination were Gary Hart and Hillary '08.

That's because most candidates get the message and drop out when it becomes clear they don't have a chance and are polarizing the party.

And yes, that's an indictment of Hillary in 2008 too, but at least she eventually decided to stop villifying her opponent. Sanders hasn't yet clued in on why that's important.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 261


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines