Hillary Clinton is Done

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pundit on CNN this morning said Obama's SotU address favored Clinton. The message was center of the road and the country is in good shape, stay the course. The pundit said Sanders' message was the country needs radical change, the complete opposite campaign message from Obama's address..

Made sense to me.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Pundit on CNN this morning said Obama's SotU address favored Clinton. The message was center of the road and the country is in good shape, stay the course. The pundit said Sanders' message was the country needs radical change, the complete opposite campaign message from Obama's address..

Made sense to me.
Click to expand...
Having watched the speech, I didn't get that message (in bold). He didn't call for radical change, although suggesting parties put politics aside was pretty radical ;).

I think the tea leaves that was the speech will be read in whatever fashion the reader chooses.
 
logger said:
I can admit to my being a partisan.
Click to expand...

Actually an interesting side topic, partisan implies that one supports one party or another regardless of current policy positions or representatives. I identify with a Republican party that largely doesn't exist any more, and see little or nothing in either of the current two main parties that makes me feel they are inclusive of my perspectives and views. Technically I lean toward the Democratic party currently, but only because Sanders is running as a Democratic candidate. I don't really strongly support or like Sanders as an individual, but I like a lot of the policies that he is promoting moreso than any of the policies I see being put forth by any other parties or candidates.

I would admit to being a Progressive ideologue except that I am not uncompromising (I consider supporting Sanders to be a compromise) I just have limits as to where, what and how much I will compromise.
 
abaddon said:
Can anyone step up and discuss the actual issues as opposed to flinging insults at each other? It appears not.
Click to expand...


Well, the actual issue of this thread is whether Hillary Clinton's campaign for President has failed.

It hasn't.

The most recent claim was that Biden and Obama were throwing as much support as they could to Sanders without actually endorsing anyone. An article claiming to support this was posted. The article did not support this in any way whatsoever. It said that Obama could not endorse anyone with Sanders' point of view on gun control.

It also said that Biden thought he might have been able to win the nomination. I can't see how that's anti-Clinton. Presumably, Sanders, O'Malley, Jim Webb, Lincoln Chaffee and some others thought they could get by Clinton as well.

We await any new evidence that Clinton's campaign is, in any way, "done."


Skeptic Ginger said:
Pundit on CNN this morning said Obama's SotU address favored Clinton. The message was center of the road and the country is in good shape, stay the course. The pundit said Sanders' message was the country needs radical change, the complete opposite campaign message from Obama's address..

Made sense to me.
Click to expand...


It's necessarily true. Clinton was Obama's Secretary of State. She's the only candidate that was a part of his administration. So any defense of the general direction of the current White House favors Clinton.
 
Last edited:
Trakar said:
I just have limits as to where, what and how much I will compromise.
Click to expand...

This is the problem with the Left, they won't vote as a pack to make sure the Right doesn't win, they are too busy standing on principles and refusing to support those they don't like, even if those candidates are a better option that what the Right puts up.

We have the same trouble here. National, our mainstream Right wing Party knows that virtually everyone on the right of the spectrum will vote for them, so they are free to move into the centre, even getting into the centre left to catch up the swing middle ground voters and add them to the right hand block that they already dominate. Meanwhile our left hand block is not only being eaten away by National's move into the centre ground, but what is remaining is being fought over by two parties, one closer to the Centre and one out to the left. The trouble is that instead of supporting the main Left wing party and having instead split the vote, the only way to get a Left wing government in is to have a coalition between them, and one of them is so far left it scared the centrist voters away, the very people the Left need to win.

The Left need to realise what the Right has for a while. If you want your policies passed, then you need to take control, and to get control you need to support whoever your party puts up, even if it's an orangutan, because if you don't, then the other side gets the advantage. The right wing in the US has been trying to undermine the Left wing voting block as much as they can already with Gerrymandering, Voting ID, Hours and day changes to early voting. Why help them out and play right into their hands by splitting the Left vote in the General Election? Or worse, by simply not even bothering? Are principles really worth standing on when they allow a Cruz or Trump into office instead of someone that will continue what Obama started?
 
"Clinton should ABSOLUTELY be nervous about the state of the race with less than three weeks before voters in Iowa head to caucuses."

...

"That's why losing Iowa and New Hampshire, which now seems possible if not likely, is a nightmare scenario for Clinton. And one that should make her very nervous."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...us-at-all-about-bernie-sanders-she-should-be/

Chris Cillizza, notorious right-wing hack.
 
Loss Leader said:
...It's necessarily true. Clinton was Obama's Secretary of State. She's the only candidate that was a part of his administration. So any defense of the general direction of the current White House favors Clinton.
Click to expand...

I don't see that any of the Democratic party's candidates are in strong disagreement with the general direction of the Obama administration's policies and practices. Hillary herself has separated and distinguished herself from Obama as much any of the other Democratic candidates. I'm just trying to figure out how or why "any defense of the general direction of the current White House favors Clinton" especially in the primaries.
 
DavidJames said:
Having watched the speech, I didn't get that message (in bold). He didn't call for radical change, although suggesting parties put politics aside was pretty radical ;).

I think the tea leaves that was the speech will be read in whatever fashion the reader chooses.
Click to expand...
It depends on how you interpret "stay the course". That was my description but by that I mean keep going in the same direction, not put the ship in the dock, we're there.
 
DavidJames said:
Both candidates (especially HRC) made pretty vague statements. But as we should expect, the devil is in the details and the details are non-existent.

But at no point should we let that prevent us from screaming the world of Internet freedom is coming to an end.
Click to expand...

Policy wise it's not something I'm immediately concerned about, but IMO Clinton has had generalized problems with marketing herself and sending the right message, and these statements don't help her. Is it big compared to other thing that could be cited for this? Probably not going to be in the end, but she doesn't have the apparent teflon characteristic that Trump has afforded to himself in making those missteps. Also, I'm sure most peoiple agree to some degree of enforcement to cripple radical groups, it's just the way she addressed the free speech issue of it that can understandably irk some people, much as it did when Trump said similarly in a much more bombastic manner
 
Last edited:
Trakar said:
Actually an interesting side topic, partisan implies that one supports one party or another regardless of current policy positions or representatives. I identify with a Republican party that largely doesn't exist any more, and see little or nothing in either of the current two main parties that makes me feel they are inclusive of my perspectives and views. Technically I lean toward the Democratic party currently, but only because Sanders is running as a Democratic candidate. I don't really strongly support or like Sanders as an individual, but I like a lot of the policies that he is promoting moreso than any of the policies I see being put forth by any other parties or candidates.

I would admit to being a Progressive ideologue except that I am not uncompromising (I consider supporting Sanders to be a compromise) I just have limits as to where, what and how much I will compromise.
Click to expand...

"Partisan" does not derive from Upper Case P Partisan, meaning "political party". I'm as partisan as one can be. I'm resoundingly progressive/left and completely against the paleo conservative movement. I'm far from being a Democrat, though. And while we're at it, ask yourself how you term yourself a Republican. What policies and programs of the current GOP (or the GOP since 1986, allowing two decades which I feel is fair to define a party) do you support? It sounds like you're reliving memories of a time long since gone. I supported certain Republicans in the 60s. I haven't found one, other than on a micro local level, who I could support since then, though.
 
Foolmewunz said:
"Partisan" does not derive from Upper Case P Partisan, meaning "political party". I'm as partisan as one can be. I'm resoundingly progressive/left and completely against the paleo conservative movement. I'm far from being a Democrat, though. And while we're at it, ask yourself how you term yourself a Republican. What policies and programs of the current GOP (or the GOP since 1986, allowing two decades which I feel is fair to define a party) do you support? It sounds like you're reliving memories of a time long since gone. I supported certain Republicans in the 60s. I haven't found one, other than on a micro local level, who I could support since then, though.
Click to expand...

I am not alone in my stand against what the party has become, we just do not amount to a very significant presence,...currently. Perhaps, currently, my Republicanism is perhaps a bit more tradition than member of the choir. But I've always believed the idea that you don't bring your party back to reason by abandoning it to the idiots.
 
Trakar said:
I am not alone in my stand against what the party has become, we just do not amount to a very significant presence,...currently. Perhaps, currently, my Republicanism is perhaps a bit more tradition than member of the choir. But I've always believed the idea that you don't bring your party back to reason by abandoning it to the idiots.
Click to expand...

It's this "my party" thing, though. I grew up where and in an era that the two party system was bigoted cracker Democrats versus moderate Democrats. Had there been no moderate/liberal/progressive wing I would've ceased supporting the Democrats. (Jewish/Sicilian - we should be Democrats by birthright according to 50s and 60s demographics.)

Political party support shouldn't be carved in stone. Let's not consider it a Godwin but how do you think the actual socialists felt when Adolf and the boys took over their party? At that point, within a matter of months if not days or hours, you walk. The GOP has had thirty years to come up with sensible representatives, senators, governors or presidential candidates. That we consider GHWB to be their last moderate is more a statement as to how nutso they've gone than a declaration of his moderate/liberal status.

The traditional division of the major parties doesn't exist within the GOP any longer. You have far right and farther right. Even the moderately far right kneel to the Tea Party misanthropes for fear of losing the nomination, and not one rep or senator has stood up to the party machine and lockstep voting of the past seven years. In the case of the GOP you can actually take a stand against the party because the party has pretty good control of the candidates, programs and policies. At least the Dems are in a nice little factional battle.
 
Foolmewunz said:
<snip>

The traditional division of the major parties doesn't exist within the GOP any longer. You have far right and farther right. Even the moderately far right kneel to the Tea Party misanthropes for fear of losing the nomination, and not one rep or senator has stood up to the party machine and lockstep voting of the past seven years. In the case of the GOP you can actually take a stand against the party because the party has pretty good control of the candidates, programs and policies. At least the Dems are in a nice little factional battle.
Click to expand...

Just for the record, my view of things is the diametric opposite of yours. I see the GOP as fragmented and the Democrats as being the party of party discipline. All of the interesting ideological discussions are on the right. The left is mostly fighting about which way to frame the Republicans as stupid, idiotic, evil, racist, bigoted, xenophobes is most gratifying.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Just for the record, my view of things is the diametric opposite of yours. I see the GOP as fragmented and the Democrats as being the party of party discipline. All of the interesting ideological discussions are on the right. The left is mostly fighting about which way to frame the Republicans as stupid, idiotic, evil, racist, bigoted, xenophobes is most gratifying.
Click to expand...
Where are those conversations? They aren't going on in local races, they aren't going on congressional races and they clearly aren't going on in the presidential race where all they are doing is trying to win the title as the most "stupid, idiotic, evil, racist, bigoted, xenophobes"
 
DavidJames said:
Where are those conversations? They aren't going on in local races, they aren't going on congressional races and they clearly aren't going on in the presidential race where all they are doing is trying to win the title as the most "stupid, idiotic, evil, racist, bigoted, xenophobes"
Click to expand...

Well, besides the usual debate over foreign policy (i.e. the isolationist paleoconservatives and libertarians against the neoconservatives), there is a raging debate over how to deal with illegal immigration. The Democrats are in lockstep over illegal immigration, even though their current policy position hurts their base the most (by allowing more competition for unskilled labor).
 
sunmaster14 said:
Well, besides the usual debate over foreign policy (i.e. the isolationist paleoconservatives and libertarians against the neoconservatives), there is a raging debate over how to deal with illegal immigration. The Democrats are in lockstep over illegal immigration, even though their current policy position hurts their base the most (by allowing more competition for unskilled labor).
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm totally mad those darn Mexicans keep bringing their work ethic and need for a new pair of shoes to our economy. It's totally making white Americans look lazy and selfish. I hate them for that.
 
Jrrarglblarg said:
Yeah, I'm totally mad those darn Mexicans keep bringing their work ethic and need for a new pair of shoes to our economy. It's totally making white Americans look lazy and selfish. I hate them for that.
Click to expand...

Why "white?" I'm pretty sure that Hispanic and black citizens are hurt the most.
 
sunmaster14 said:
I see the GOP as fragmented and the Democrats as being the party of party discipline.
Click to expand...


I can't believe I'm saying this, but I agree with this one single sentence written by Sunmaster14.

Reagan's "Big Tent" was a true unification of a number of different factions. But, at least since the Tea Party, it's been destroying itself. The worst schism is between absolutists for various causes and those who understand that compromise is essential to getting anything done.

Consequently, you have fifty-three GOP candidates running in completely different directions. However, you have two Democratic candidates, one of whom is already running straight down the middle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom