Sanders campaign: Clinton won only states where we didn't compete

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

Clinton supporters like to pretend that she would do better than Sanders in the general election. This opinion is just that, an opinion. They have literally nothing upon which to base this belief.

He does, on average, like 2-3 points better than she does against Trump and Cruz. Hillary Clinton has already had the kitchen sink thrown at her by the Republicans and she's still winning. Bernie has never experienced an actual Republican opponent and his numbers would crater once he went through the usual negative campaigning and millions of attack ads.

I think that a lot of people are voting for Mrs. Clinton simply because she is a woman.
She has made that a campaign issue.

Yeah, I had to take down my Carly Fiorina sign before I could switch to Hillary /s

Thank you for making my point for me. She has made this an issue and women are a group that she is appealing to. Nobody can deny this. She is playing the gender card. People do vote on personality rather than on policy. Of course, I don't think this is the way to vote, but some people do. Fioriana and Palin are examples of this. There are limits. People don't tend  to have this as the only criterion. They don't usually switch parties because of gender or race. However, many are under the illusion that there isn't much of a difference between candidates of the same party; I am sure that some people don't realize how stark the contrast is between Clinton and Sanders, so they let themselves be swayed by the "vote for her, it's time for a woman" argument. Not that there's anything wrong with wanting to have a woman POTUS, since we have never had one, but really, do you want to vote based soley on that? That is the only reason I can think why people would chose someone whose policies are so inferior to Sanders'. $12 minimum wage? Really?

Reverse sexism is your argument for why Sanders is losing? Seriously? You're right though, people should look at the policy differences. And when they do, they'll realize that Clinton actually has policies and Sanders has unattainable pipe dreams.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Yeah because Sanders didn't compete in Massachusetts, Illinois, Missouri and Ohio (States he was being tipped to win)

He barley lost in 3/4 of those and even over performed a bit compared to the polls in IL and MA.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Clinton supporters like to pretend that she would do better than Sanders in the general election. This opinion is just that, an opinion. They have literally nothing upon which to base this belief.

He does, on average, like 2-3 points better than she does against Trump and Cruz. Hillary Clinton has already had the kitchen sink thrown at her by the Republicans and she's still winning. Bernie has never experienced an actual Republican opponent and his numbers would crater once he went through the usual negative campaigning and millions of attack ads.

I think that a lot of people are voting for Mrs. Clinton simply because she is a woman.
She has made that a campaign issue.

Yeah, I had to take down my Carly Fiorina sign before I could switch to Hillary /s

Thank you for making my point for me. She has made this an issue and women are a group that she is appealing to. Nobody can deny this. She is playing the gender card. People do vote on personality rather than on policy. Of course, I don't think this is the way to vote, but some people do. Fioriana and Palin are examples of this. There are limits. People don't tend  to have this as the only criterion. They don't usually switch parties because of gender or race. However, many are under the illusion that there isn't much of a difference between candidates of the same party; I am sure that some people don't realize how stark the contrast is between Clinton and Sanders, so they let themselves be swayed by the "vote for her, it's time for a woman" argument. Not that there's anything wrong with wanting to have a woman POTUS, since we have never had one, but really, do you want to vote based soley on that? That is the only reason I can think why people would chose someone whose policies are so inferior to Sanders'. $12 minimum wage? Really?

Reverse sexism is your argument for why Sanders is losing? Seriously? You're right though, people should look at the policy differences. And when they do, they'll realize that Clinton actually has policies and Sanders has unattainable pipe dreams.

Other than foreign policy, does she?  "Continuing the progress with Obama" isn't a policy, and it's obvious she only intends to dismantle what our sweet prince has done for us the first chance she gets as revenge for delaying Her Highness' rule by 8 years. 

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Obviously not true regarding Nevada and Iowa, although it's true Sanders put very little efforts in many of solid Hillary states.

[°Leprechaun]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Neither of them can accomplish much with a Republican congress. Clinton's proposals are so weak and pessimistic, like a $12 minimum wage. Sanders' plans are all reasonable, although that doesn't mean I think that he would get any of them passed. Clinton really isn't offering many new ideas. Just stay the course. She could be much worse on foreign policy than Obama. She has been too much of a hawk. Few people think that the Iraq war was a good idea. I don't think that she offers us much except a possible way to prevent the Republicans from damaging this country more than they already have. Yes, she would be better than Trump or Cruz, of course, but she is bland and uninspiring and has no vision for a better future. She is pretty much just "stay the course". Let's look at her proposal for a $12 minimum wage. Why be so "conservative". She might not get that passed, but you don't start a negotiation from your weakest point, you start with your boldest. If you go for $15 and only get $12 you have accomplished something. If you go for $12, you'll settle for something a lot lower. Does anyone really think that $12 is a decent wage for an average worker?

[Lief 🗽]

Bernie's campaign is run by idiots who have turned his treasury into a slush fund of college kid donations. Very sad.

[Wiz in Wis]

Yeah because Sanders didn't compete in Massachusetts, Illinois, Missouri and Ohio (States he was being tipped to win)

He barley lost in 3/4 of those and even over performed a bit compared to the polls in IL and MA.

barely losing is still losing. Over performing compared to polls is meaningless. Sander's strategy has been inconsistent, and now he seems to be completely relying on minimizing Clinton's wins, rather than touting his own. He is like a professional football player saying "Yeah, we lost the Superbowl, but our field goals were, on average, 12 yards longer than theirs, and we had a better 3rd down percentage." - Nobody cares how much you lose by, you still lose.

[°Leprechaun]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thanks for your two cents. Which is about what your brilliant well thought out insightful polemics are worth. What would we ever do without your superior wisdom? Not only that, we get them for free! What a bargain.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Yeah because Sanders didn't compete in Massachusetts, Illinois, Missouri and Ohio (States he was being tipped to win)

He barley lost in 3/4 of those and even over performed a bit compared to the polls in IL and MA.

barely losing is still losing. Over performing compared to polls is meaningless. Sander's strategy has been inconsistent, and now he seems to be completely relying on minimizing Clinton's wins, rather than touting his own. He is like a professional football player saying "Yeah, we lost the Superbowl, but our field goals were, on average, 12 yards longer than theirs, and we had a better 3rd down percentage." - Nobody cares how much you lose by, you still lose.

Not in non winner take all states.

[Wiz in Wis]

Yeah because Sanders didn't compete in Massachusetts, Illinois, Missouri and Ohio (States he was being tipped to win)

He barley lost in 3/4 of those and even over performed a bit compared to the polls in IL and MA.

barely losing is still losing. Over performing compared to polls is meaningless. Sander's strategy has been inconsistent, and now he seems to be completely relying on minimizing Clinton's wins, rather than touting his own. He is like a professional football player saying "Yeah, we lost the Superbowl, but our field goals were, on average, 12 yards longer than theirs, and we had a better 3rd down percentage." - Nobody cares how much you lose by, you still lose.

Not in non winner take all states.

The nomination is not proportional. He won't get to be the nominee 2/5ths of the time. He's losing the primary by a bigger margin than Hillary was in 2008, and his best states are largely done. His strategy has not paid off for him. He might have 40% of the delegates in Philly, but he's still not going to be the nominee.

[Beet]

I think that a lot of people are voting for Mrs. Clinton simply because she is a woman.
She has made that a campaign issue.

Yeah, I had to take down my Carly Fiorina sign before I could switch to Hillary /s

Thank you for making my point for me. She has made this an issue and women are a group that she is appealing to. Nobody can deny this. She is playing the gender card. People do vote on personality rather than on policy. Of course, I don't think this is the way to vote, but some people do. Fioriana and Palin are examples of this. There are limits. People don't tend  to have this as the only criterion. They don't usually switch parties because of gender or race. However, many are under the illusion that there isn't much of a difference between candidates of the same party; I am sure that some people don't realize how stark the contrast is between Clinton and Sanders, so they let themselves be swayed by the "vote for her, it's time for a woman" argument. Not that there's anything wrong with wanting to have a woman POTUS, since we have never had one, but really, do you want to vote based soley on that? That is the only reason I can think why people would chose someone whose policies are so inferior to Sanders'. $12 minimum wage? Really?

No one is voting for her simply because she is a woman unless they would also vote for Fiorina and Palin. They are women too, aren't they? The number of people I know who would vote for all three is zero.

And unless Sanders will implement a nationwide $15 minimum wage by executive order upon assuming office, there is no difference between him and Clinton on minimum wage.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Yeah because Sanders didn't compete in Massachusetts, Illinois, Missouri and Ohio (States he was being tipped to win)

He barley lost in 3/4 of those and even over performed a bit compared to the polls in IL and MA.

barely losing is still losing. Over performing compared to polls is meaningless. Sander's strategy has been inconsistent, and now he seems to be completely relying on minimizing Clinton's wins, rather than touting his own. He is like a professional football player saying "Yeah, we lost the Superbowl, but our field goals were, on average, 12 yards longer than theirs, and we had a better 3rd down percentage." - Nobody cares how much you lose by, you still lose.

Not in non winner take all states.

The nomination is not proportional. He won't get to be the nominee 2/5ths of the time. He's losing the primary by a bigger margin than Hillary was in 2008, and his best states are largely done. His strategy has not paid off for him. He might have 40% of the delegates in Philly, but he's still not going to be the nominee.

Comparing this election to any other election is ridiculous. How can you even suggest that the second half of this primary will be better then the first to Hillary?! Especially with California coming up.

[Virginiá]

Comparing this election to any other election is ridiculous. How can you even suggest that the second half of this primary will be better then the first to Hillary?! Especially with California coming up.

Demographics and polling for one. Numerous articles have been written about how difficult Sanders will have it after falling behind so much and so far he doesn't look set to get the delegates he needs from states like PA/NY/NJ.

As far as I know, Hillary is still polling ahead of Bernard in California, so while you may be expecting a Sanderslide there, it doesn't look like he get what he needs from that state yet.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Bernie's campaign is run by idiots who have turned his treasury into a slush fund of college kid donations. Very sad.

You know, at the beginning that might have been a joke. But now it is indeed pretty unconscionable for Sanders' campaign to go panhandling wide-eyed college kids who have student loans to pay only in order to fill Tad Devine's pockets.

[Oakvale]

Does anyone really think that $12 is a decent wage for an average worker?

Plenty of economists, most notably Alan Krueger, have backed a phased-in $12 minimum wage over a $15 min. wage, actually, so yes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Comparing this election to any other election is ridiculous. How can you even suggest that the second half of this primary will be better then the first to Hillary?! Especially with California coming up.

Demographics and polling for one. Numerous articles have been written about how difficult Sanders will have it after falling behind so much and so far he doesn't look set to get the delegates he needs from states like PA/NY/NJ.

As far as I know, Hillary is still polling ahead of Bernard in California, so while you may be expecting a Sanderslide there, it doesn't look like he get what he needs from that state yet.

Oh yes I can agree with you on that. Wall Street Journal, New York Times, CNN (Time Warner cough cough). Clinton was supposed to have this nomination wrapped up by now and Clinton's lead in California has fallen to single digits with 2 months to go.

[°Leprechaun]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, I do believe that Fiorina and Palin are, in fact, women.

They also made a big deal of this. Why on earth do you think McCain picked Palin in the first place. Yes, of course, there are few people who would vote for any woman, but I am not talking about the general election, I am talking about primaries, and we can argue until pigs fly as to whether this is a factor or not in why people are supporting Clinton, but the reality is that she has made her gender an issue. She has played the gender card and Albright has played the gender card from the bottom of the deck. It is politics at its worst.

As for the policy differences, if nothing get passed by Congress, then what good would Clinton do as POTUS? Clearly one major difference between the two is foreign policy. The POTUS is very powerful in what s/he can do. We know on this issue Clinton is far to the right.

[Wiz in Wis]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, I do believe that Fiorina and Palin are, in fact, women.

They also made a big deal of this. Why on earth do you think McCain picked Palin in the first place. Yes, of course, there are few people who would vote for any woman, but I am not talking about the general election, I am talking about primaries, and we can argue until pigs fly as to whether this is a factor or not in why people are supporting Clinton, but the reality is that she has made her gender an issue. She has played the gender card and Albright has played the gender card from the bottom of the deck. It is politics at its worst.

As for the policy differences, if nothing get passed by Congress, then what good would Clinton do as POTUS? Clearly one major difference between the two is foreign policy. The POTUS is very powerful in what s/he can do. We know on this issue Clinton is far to the right.

Jeez, you are going to need a fainting couch once you learn what they're saying about each other on the Republican side. I'll go get the smelling salts.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Man, being a political consultant for a campaign must be the easiest job in the world. It's coming up with analysis around par with poor-quality Atlas posts and half-baked plans and excuses; and for that you get paid a 6 figure salary and a chance to hobnob with the bigwigs of Washington.

[°Leprechaun]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually it's not as if those are the only choices, there is plenty of wiggle room in between.
For example $13.50 would be a good compromise.
My point is that, it is better to start negotiations from a point of strength rather than weakness. If you go for a $12 wage you aren't going to get it anyway, and you'd get a wage much lower. Of course, the GOP is not likely to approve of any change so all this may be moot.
I think we can afford a $15 minimum wage. It's not a radical idea. A radical idea would be something much higher.

[Lief 🗽]

No dude, people who actually know how economies work have said it's a radical idea we can't afford. Did you skip oakvale's post??

[°Leprechaun]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

OK, my statement isn't literally true, but my point was that Albright is nasty.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

No dude, people who actually know how economies work have said it's a radical idea we can't afford. Did you skip oakvale's post??

Can we afford more wars and tax cuts for the rich?

[Oakvale]

No dude, people who actually know how economies work have said it's a radical idea we can't afford. Did you skip oakvale's post??

Can we afford more wars and tax cuts for the rich?

What the hell are you talking about. Do you understand how minimum wages work?

[°Leprechaun]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, I realize that some people have this opinion, others do not.