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

[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?

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

Obviously you don't if you are supporting Trump, your credibility goes out the window.

[Wiz in Wis]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

So is Tad Devine constantly intimating that African American voters, essentially, aren't worth competing over, or that certain states count more than others... politics ain't beanbag.

[Landslide Lyndon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

So is Tad Devine constantly intimating that African American voters, essentially, aren't worth competing over, or that certain states count more than others... politics ain't beanbag.

To be fair, Devine's comments are more asinine than nasty.

[Oakvale]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

There's far more credible support from labour economists for a $12 min. wage than a $15 one. This isn't really debatable.

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?

Obviously you don't if you are supporting Trump, your credibility goes out the window.

Sorry me no read good. Please explain to me what your point is. Thanks.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

So is Tad Devine constantly intimating that African American voters, essentially, aren't worth competing over, or that certain states count more than others... politics ain't beanbag.

Literally in the Clinton play book.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It's true, but it's his fault for not competing. I can't help but think he could have had a shot with a better campaign strategy.

[/]

It's true, but it's his fault for not competing. I can't help but think he could have had a shot with a better campaign strategy.

Iowa? Nevada? Massachusetts?

[Beet]

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.

Of course her gender is an issue, it's a part of who she is. If sexism weren't an issue, she wouldn't be running as the first female president in a country where women are half the population. We'd have women as well represented as men in the top echelons of the party/movement. We just disagree on this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, she has far more experience and knowledge of foreign policy.

[Wiz in Wis]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

So is Tad Devine constantly intimating that African American voters, essentially, aren't worth competing over, or that certain states count more than others... politics ain't beanbag.

Literally in the Clinton play book.

Unless you are quoting 2008 Hillary, I have no idea what you are referring to? I look forward to your copious links to all the times Hillary or her staff have dismissed states in this cycle.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It's true, but it's his fault for not competing. I can't help but think he could have had a shot with a better campaign strategy.

Iowa? Nevada? Massachusetts?

All close wins by Hillary that could have been offset by Bernie's wins. What's sealed the deal for Hillary was the South (+Ohio).

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

So is Tad Devine constantly intimating that African American voters, essentially, aren't worth competing over, or that certain states count more than others... politics ain't beanbag.

Literally in the Clinton play book.

Unless you are quoting 2008 Hillary, I have no idea what you are referring to? I look forward to your copious links to all the times Hillary or her staff have dismissed states in this cycle.

They've written off most caucuses, believing they are sexist dwellings.

[°Leprechaun]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, I totally believe that we should have a woman president and that it would be a good thing, in fact, that would be one good thing about voting for her; but that is obviously not my point. What she and Albright have specifically said on the issue, and that people are ignoring the huge differences between the two candidates is what bothers me. Would Sanders be any weaker on issues important to blacks or women? Of course not; he would better, in my opinion. Clinton stated that she is not part of the establishment because she is a woman. Albright has demonized women who don't vote for Clinton. Obviously it is wrong to vote for a woman because she is a woman even if you don't agree with her positions. I didn't vote for Palin and I wouldn't vote for Fiorina, and I don't feel that Clinton's gender is a very good reason to vote for, especially when there are women out there who are much better. Obviously I wouldn't have a problem with Warren, had she run. I am glad that the Democrats are pushing for full equality. Ferraro and Pelosi were as close as we have come. It would be a step forward to have a woman as POTUS, but we don't want the wrong woman. Considering that Sanders is more in tune with the progressive wing of the party, and it would be a mistake to support someone because having a woman president is a good idea. I was glad to see Obama get elected, but we haven't solved racial issues in this country just because he happened to be black and we aren't going to solve gender issues in this country simply by virtue of having a female POTUS.

[°Leprechaun]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which is useless if you don't know what you are doing.
Sanders has plenty of experience. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous. He clearly has shown better judgment than Clinton and would do so in the future.

[Shadows]

.......
“There’s no risk. She’s done very well in the debates. The debates have been very good, but Sen. Sanders doesn’t get to decide when we debate, particularly when he’s running a very negative campaign against us. Let’s see if he goes back to the kind of tone he said he was going to set early on. If he does that, then we’ll talk about debates," Benenson said.
.......
"So no chance of a New York debate?" Bolduan pressed.
“I didn’t say that," Benenson said. "I said we’re going to see what kind of tone he sets."

Enough of the good guy non-sense, I've had it with this mud-slinging b***h. If Bernie supports her, I am over with bernie. This is a person who is pure evil - She will observe the tone & monitor over the next many days & then decide - It's like she owns it when & what to do - Like she is giving stuff to a beggar.

She can go to hell - And to hell with the debates -

I will take Monster Trump who can be controlled in a Dem Senate & house to this pure evil of a woman although I would never vote for Trump. But I hope she loses in the GE - whether it is to Trump or Cruz or whoever it is!

Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-debates-221292#ixzz44EUugaNC
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-debates-221292#ixzz44EUmr4ds
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

[Shadows]

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.

Of course her gender is an issue, it's a part of who she is. If sexism weren't an issue, she wouldn't be running as the first female president in a country where women are half the population. We'd have women as well represented as men in the top echelons of the party/movement. We just disagree on this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, she has far more experience and knowledge of foreign policy.

She has amazing experience of being one of the worst SOS ever in line with many GOP SOS. Voted for the Iraq War & then took that learning & massacred Libya destroying that country & turning it into ISIS. Now wants to do the same with Assad.

I used to think she is probably stupid & a hawk who never learned - But maybe in addition, it is also because she is bought by the Saudis & Arab states funding her to throw Assad!

Even an idiot like Trump would destroy her in a GE concerning Foreign Policy concerning she is a disaster

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

"Yeah you're winning by a solid margin, but it's because we really didn't try. If we had really tried we'd TOTALLY be winning right now"

[Virginiá]

I will take Monster Trump who can be controlled in a Dem Senate & house to this pure evil of a woman although I would never vote for Trump. But I hope she loses in the GE - whether it is to Trump or Cruz or whoever it is! [/b]

Good riddance then. If you would help endanger this country's future prosperity and safety by supporting a terrible person like Trump just because you didn't get the candidate you wanted, then you really shouldn't even be in the party anyway.

The way things are going, you might as well start packing your bags now.

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, I totally believe that we should have a woman president and that it would be a good thing, in fact, that would be one good thing about voting for her; but that is obviously not my point. What she and Albright have specifically said on the issue, and that people are ignoring the huge differences between the two candidates is what bothers me. Would Sanders be any weaker on issues important to blacks or women? Of course not; he would better, in my opinion. Clinton stated that she is not part of the establishment because she is a woman. Albright has demonized women who don't vote for Clinton. Obviously it is wrong to vote for a woman because she is a woman even if you don't agree with her positions. I didn't vote for Palin and I wouldn't vote for Fiorina, and I don't feel that Clinton's gender is a very good reason to vote for, especially when there are women out there who are much better. Obviously I wouldn't have a problem with Warren, had she run. I am glad that the Democrats are pushing for full equality. Ferraro and Pelosi were as close as we have come. It would be a step forward to have a woman as POTUS, but we don't want the wrong woman. Considering that Sanders is more in tune with the progressive wing of the party, and it would be a mistake to support someone because having a woman president is a good idea. I was glad to see Obama get elected, but we haven't solved racial issues in this country just because he happened to be black and we aren't going to solve gender issues in this country simply by virtue of having a female POTUS.

Fortunately Albright is not on the ballot, or a major part of Hillary's campaign in any way. And anyone who thinks she meant her comment literally is absurd.

Clinton is definitely not a part of the establishment with respect to her being a woman. One of the things that bothers me when the Sanders people call her 'establishment' or 'business as usual' is that in this aspect, she most definitely would not be.

No one supports Clinton solely because she is a woman, but her being a woman is still an important plus. Whether it's a tie breaker for you depends on how important you view breaking down that barrier compared to the net total of other issues. FWIW, I don't think Sanders is running a issues-based campaign, either. He's running a personality-based campaign, based on the notion that he's more honest than her. And a lot of his supporters are supporting him solely due to that.

IMO Hillary was right about Assad and if he had been taken out in 2011 there would have been no ISIS, while Libya was an understandable humanitarian intervention, and the country is still better off than Syria.

[Virginiá]

Shadows is from India. Like most foreign Ron Paul/Bernie Sanders supporters, he somehow thinks we give a sh_t what he thinks and that posting on an obscure internet forum about who he supports will influence peoples' opinions

Ugh if that's true, then that's even worse. I don't understand why he's posting like he actually has any stake in the race.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Shadows is from India. Like most foreign Ron Paul/Bernie Sanders supporters, he somehow thinks we give a sh_t what he thinks and that posting on an obscure internet forum about who he supports will influence peoples' opinions

Ugh if that's true, then that's even worse. I don't even understand why he's posting here, let alone posting like he actually has any stake in the race.

Well...

Clearly one major difference between the two is foreign policy.

Lol they're literally the same. Oh he opposed a war years ago, big deal. He still supports or doesn't give a crap about 90% of what the US has done abroad.

[Shadows]

I will take Monster Trump who can be controlled in a Dem Senate & house to this pure evil of a woman although I would never vote for Trump. But I hope she loses in the GE - whether it is to Trump or Cruz or whoever it is! [/b]

Good riddance then. If you would help endanger this country's future prosperity and safety by supporting a terrible person like Trump just because you didn't get the candidate you wanted, then you really shouldn't even be in the party anyway.

The way things are going, you might as well start packing your bags now.

I would not support someone who voted for the Iraq War & then took the learning from it & led the push to massacre Libya and now wants to do the same in Syria. I am not worried about safety with Trump - I am worried about Trump's economic policies, attack on minorities, authoritarian tendency, horrible words & many other things.

But when it comes to Foreign Policy, Clinton is a proven monster compared to a potential monster in Trump. Atleast Trump is not dumb & if he is surrounded be good legally sound intelligent people, I think he will show better judgement that Clinton.

I dislike Clinton for many things but mainly her foreign policy -  I would never support a warmonger. I would never support Trump either whom I dislike substantially more & I don't want to see him as President!

[Shadows]

Shadows is from India. Like most foreign Ron Paul/Bernie Sanders supporters, he somehow thinks we give a sh_t what he thinks and that posting on an obscure internet forum about who he supports will influence peoples' opinions

Ugh if that's true, then that's even worse. I don't even understand why he's posting here, let alone posting like he actually has any stake in the race.

I'm currently on and exchange program - Don't worry! I would be canvassing for Bernie in Texas in 4-5 months hopefully for the GE!

[IceSpear]

"Yeah you're winning by a solid margin, but it's because we really didn't try. If we had really tried we'd TOTALLY be winning right now"

Yes, the good old fashioned 5 year old strategy.

By the way, most of the states Bernie won Hillary didn't seriously compete in either.

[Virginiá]

I would not support someone who voted for the Iraq War & then took the learning from it & led the push to massacre Libya and now wants to do the same in Syria. I am not worried about safety with Trump - I am worried about Trump's economic policies, attack on minorities, authoritarian tendency, horrible words & many other things.

But when it comes to Foreign Policy, Clinton is a proven monster compared to a potential monster in Trump. Atleast Trump is not dumb & if he is surrounded be good legally sound intelligent people, I think he will show better judgement that Clinton.

I'm not going to derail this thread with a discussion about any perceived policy weaknesses of Clinton, so let me just say that if you're disgusted with Hillary's FP, then you should be very afraid of Trump in terms of foreign policy. He can suggest what his goals will be, but not only does Trump flip-flop almost on a daily basis, but he has to work with foreign leaders. He knows nothing about foreign policy and he could get this country into some serious sh**t with foreign powers. It's dangerous to put a thin-skinned, vindictive moron like Trump in charge of our armed forces and diplomatic relations. Anyone who has paid attention to this race so far shouldn't have to be told that.

Your logic on that doesn't make any sense.

[°Leprechaun]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course, it is. I am just arguing that it is not the most important issue.
I do think that some people are making much more important than it is and
are not aware of how different Sanders and Clinton are on many issues.