Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

[jhunter1163]

"Skeptic" Ginger, listen, you are off the timeline. It looks like the pre$$titute media will announce Rotten Clinton's win three hours before the California booths are closing...

Well, yes, because she'll actually clinch with the delegates she wins in New Jersey, which just happens to be three hours ahead of Pacific Standard Time. Don't tell me you forgot about the other states voting Tuesday, CE?

 

[bruto]

You're wrong. Both Bernie and Trump are entirely fueled by utter disgust with the political class, which amounts to a political revolution already. If the Democratic Party really goes along with nominating the epitome of status quo politics, they'll have nobody to blame but themselves for what follows, which could quite well be a Clinton presidency with civil war like opposition. I don't wish for that at all, as you should know (insinuating that I do is part of your defense mechanism for the rather ugly position you have taken in this unraveling drama).




You're smart enough to know about it already. Libya, Honduras, even back to Yugoslavia where she was pressing on Hubby to start the bombing. Look it up. You're not going to waste my time with JAQing off.

I would dispute that basic premise. It's certainly true that Bernie has been a political outlier in many ways, and has expressed a wish for great change in many things, and this is a big factor in his popularity among many who have been disenchanted with business as usual, but he is a career politician. He has gained a good deal of political experience, and has kept his career on its path in part by recognizing what he can and cannot do. He has, throughout that career, worked within the political system, used political parties when it was advantageous to do so, worked with other politicians, and made great effort to broaden his constituency and speak to the concerns of the many. I like Bernie, and I think he might well make a good president, but that's partly because he is not a wild-eyed inexperienced radical, even if he is more radical than most. He works hard at doing the thing in the way the system allows it to be done.

I doubt very much that there will be a civil-war type opposition at least from him or from the majority of his supporters, even though many will be disappointed and some downright angry. But we can leave the civil war to the Tea Party and those who have made a long time career of talking, if not daring to participate in, armed revolution and rebellion and other forms of anti-democratic stupidity.

 

[wareyin]

Do you have a link to where Sanders or any of his surrogates have actually said this? In any case, it's not whining to assert that, as a Bernie supporter, Clinton NEEDS my vote. I don't need hers. What's she going to do to get the votes of people like me?

? That has been said in this very thread. In fact, you just said it. What's she going to do? How about not be Trump?

What's actually happening right now are behind-the-scenes negotiations to get Sanders to drop out and support Clinton. I'm guessing a prime-time speaking slot and input on the VP choice (and maybe a cabinet position?).

What's happening is negotiations to get the loser to drop out and support the winner? Like happens for every election? Gasp, the horror.

You think you're going to get millennials to show up at the polls with a lesser-than-two-evils argument? This is why Clinton has to get Sanders on board. Clinton is not going to turn-out the youth vote. Bernie will. That gives him a lot of leverage.

Hmm, you are saying that those who don't normally vote might not vote this time? Well, ok.

 

[Fudbucker]

? That has been said in this very thread. In fact, you just said it. What's she going to do? How about not be Trump?

Anonymous forum goers are not spokespeople for major candidates. Pointing out that Clinton needs to earn my vote is not "whining". I am under no obligation to vote for Clinton. The fact that Clinton is not Trump is a necessary condition to get my vote, not a sufficient one.

What's happening is negotiations to get the loser to drop out and support the winner? Like happens for every election? Gasp, the horror.

You sarcasm is wasted here. I have no problems with Bernie dropping out after getting some concessions from Clinton. That's what I expect to happen after Tuesday, barring some incredible victory in California. If Bernie lingers around and still keeps attacking Clinton, I will lose a lot of respect for him.

Hmm, you are saying that those who don't normally vote might not vote this time? Well, ok.

More like, there's this politician who can deliver millions of votes for you. You can tell him to go pound sand, and hope you don't need those voters (or assume they'll crawl over broken glass to vote against Trump), or you can make nice with him and have his support. Which do you think the smart move is, politically? Of course we know what the smart move is and Bernie is going to score some major concessions from Clinton.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... I have no problems with Bernie dropping out after getting some concessions from Clinton. ...

And just what are these 'concessions'?

 

[Childlike Empress]

I would dispute that basic premise.

You're wrong, mostly because you misrepresent my "basic premise", which was about both the Sanders and the Trump movement. None of them can live up fully to the demands of their respective movements, but the demands are closer to each other than people stuck in that silly two-party thinking can imagine. Clinton is done - they'll happily chant it together, and that's a good thing.

 

[DavidJames]

You're smart enough to know about it already. Libya, Honduras, even back to Yugoslavia where she was pressing on Hubby to start the bombing. Look it up. You're not going to waste my time with JAQing off.

In other words you're blowing smoke.

I'm not surprised.

 

[Childlike Empress]

In other words you're blowing smoke.

I'm not surprised.

No, in other words I (and the readers) know that your "question" was not genuine. To your surprise, I'm sure.

 

[Fudbucker]

And just what are these 'concessions'?

A prime-time speaking slot at the convention, input on the VP choice, maybe a pledge from Clinton to tack further left on healthcare or student loans or subsidies for college tuition. Maybe a cabinet position for Sanders. Clinton got SoS, which is a pretty nice plum.

Haven't you ever negotiated before? If Bernie has something Clinton wants, which she very much does, she's going to have to play ball with him, and that is probably going to mean tacking further left than she wants to go. But she can't afford to alienate Sanders, so it's going to be interesting to see how it plays out. As a union negotiator, I would love to be in the room to see how they reach an agreement.

 

[wareyin]

Anonymous forum goers are not spokespeople for major candidates. Pointing out that Clinton needs to earn my vote is not "whining". I am under no obligation to vote for Clinton. The fact that Clinton is not Trump is a necessary condition to get my vote, not a sufficient one.

When did the claim become "spokespeople for major candidates"? I didn't state it that narrowly, so why do I need to support it that narrowly? And when your choice is binary, your necessary condition becomes sufficient.

You sarcasm is wasted here. I have no problems with Bernie dropping out after getting some concessions from Clinton. That's what I expect to happen after Tuesday, barring some incredible victory in California. If Bernie lingers around and still keeps attacking Clinton, I will lose a lot of respect for him.

I've already lost a lot of respect for him. He has lost, big time. Trying to force concessions with this bad of a losing hand only makes him look pathetic, and Clinton look magnanimous if she grants a single one.

More like, there's this politician who can deliver millions of votes for you. You can tell him to go pound sand, and hope you don't need those voters (or assume they'll crawl over broken glass to vote against Trump), or you can make nice with him and have his support. Which do you think the smart move is, politically? Of course we know what the smart move is and Bernie is going to score some major concessions from Clinton.

How do you think Sanders can deliver the numbers, when you claim those voters would never vote for Clinton?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

A prime-time speaking slot at the convention,

He's screwing that over by maintaining a campaign stance for that speech instead of a concession speech.

input on the VP choice, maybe a pledge from Clinton to tack further left on healthcare or student loans or subsidies for college tuition. Maybe a cabinet position for Sanders. Clinton got SoS, which is a pretty nice plum.

I'm pretty sure he has no leverage on the VP choice.

She's plenty to the left on healthcare, student loans and subsidies for college tuition. There is little to no concessions needed there.

And I can't picture any cabinet position he is suited for. Certainly not SoS, which is about interaction with foreign countries, something he has avoided.

Haven't you ever negotiated before? If Bernie has something Clinton wants, which she very much does, she's going to have to play ball with him, and that is probably going to mean tacking further left than she wants to go. But she can't afford to alienate Sanders, so it's going to be interesting to see how it plays out. As a union negotiator, I would love to be in the room to see how they reach an agreement.

This is a fantasy. Clinton needs his supporters, but doesn't need Sanders to get them.

If anything, Sanders continuing to give his followers false hope is only going to make them more angry by convention time. Even if he moves to support Clinton, by waiting that long he's actually losing leverage because his followers are not going to follow him at that point, they will see him as a traitor to the cause.

 

[The_Animus]

Reality will really suck for a number in this thread when it hits. With Hillary's nomination and eventual victory.

Reality will really suck for everyone with Hillary's nomination and victory.

Just half of democrats will pretend it doesn't.

 

[uke2se]

Reality will really suck for everyone with Hillary's nomination and victory.

Just half of democrats will pretend it doesn't.

More of the same - given "the same" means Obama's policies - seems like a good thing to me.

 

[Fudbucker]

When did the claim become "spokespeople for major candidates"? I didn't state it that narrowly, so why do I need to support it that narrowly? And when your choice is binary, your necessary condition becomes sufficient.



I've already lost a lot of respect for him. He has lost, big time. Trying to force concessions with this bad of a losing hand only makes him look pathetic, and Clinton look magnanimous if she grants a single one.




How do you think Sanders can deliver the numbers, when you claim those voters would never vote for Clinton?

I didn't say they won't vote for Clinton, they won't turn out for Clinton. Once you get them in the voting booth, they'll vote for Clinton over Trump.

 

[Travis]

You're smart enough to know about it already. Libya, Honduras, even back to Yugoslavia where she was pressing on Hubby to start the bombing. Look it up. You're not going to waste my time with JAQing off.

Evidence that it was Hillary that destabilized these nations?

Reality will really suck for everyone with Hillary's nomination and victory.

Just half of democrats will pretend it doesn't.

Please do elaborate on the coming Hillary policies that will cause America to crash and burn.

 

[Fudbucker]

He's screwing that over by maintaining a campaign stance for that speech instead of a concession speech.

I'm pretty sure he has no leverage on the VP choice.

She's plenty to the left on healthcare, student loans and subsidies for college tuition. There is little to no concessions needed there.

And I can't picture any cabinet position he is suited for. Certainly not SoS, which is about interaction with foreign countries, something he has avoided.

This is a fantasy. Clinton needs his supporters, but doesn't need Sanders to get them.

If anything, Sanders continuing to give his followers false hope is only going to make them more angry by convention time. Even if he moves to support Clinton, by waiting that long he's actually losing leverage because his followers are not going to follow him at that point, they will see him as a traitor to the cause.

I was going to write a long reply, but it's not needed. Is the Clinton campaign so stupid, they're going to alienate the only likable person left in the race (and his army of millions of small donors)? No, they're not that stupid. Sanders will have input in everything from a $15 minimum wage plank of the DNC platform to who the VP will be to possible cabinet positions. Lurking behind everything is Bernie's (very real) threat of a chaotic ugly contested convention.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I was going to write a long reply, but it's not needed. Is the Clinton campaign so stupid, they're going to alienate the only likable person left in the race (and his army of millions of small donors)? No, they're not that stupid. Sanders will have input in everything from a $15 minimum wage plank of the DNC platform to who the VP will be to possible cabinet positions. Lurking behind everything is Bernie's (very real) threat of a chaotic ugly contested convention.

You are shifting the subject from Sanders giving a major policy speech to Sanders having a say in the platform.

If Sanders wants to give a speech continuing to challenge Clinton on the convention floor after he lost the popular vote, there's a good chance they'll give him a not-in-prime-time slot.

If he concedes before the convention, they will shower him with prime time and platform influence.

 

[Fudbucker]

Evidence that it was Hillary that destabilized these nations?

Evidence that Hillary destabilized Libya? Do you even follow politics?

"The president was wary. The secretary of state was persuasive. But the ouster of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi left Libya a failed state and a terrorist haven."

Her conviction would be critical in persuading Mr. Obama to join allies in bombing Colonel Qaddafi’s forces. In fact, Mr. Obama’s defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, would later say that in a “51-49” decision, it was Mrs. Clinton’s support that put the ambivalent president over the line.

The consequences would be more far-reaching than anyone imagined, leaving Libya a failed state and a terrorist haven, a place where the direst answers to Mrs. Clinton’s questions have come to pass.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-libya.html?_r=0

Please do elaborate on the coming Hillary policies that will cause America to crash and burn.

I'm sure domestically, Obamacare will have more patches slapped on it, income inequality will continue to grow, as it has under Obama, and a couple liberal judges will be appointed to SCOTUS. We might even get some kind of immigration reform done. Clinton's domestic agenda will basically be Obama part 3, complete with Obama's chumminess towards Wall Street and look-the-other-way policy on fracking and coal mining.

It's Clinton's foreign policy that's the scary part. She blew it with her vote on Iraq. Libya has been a total disaster. Who knows what new Middle East adventure we might embark on. "Advisers" in Ukraine? A dust-up with Putin over Estonia? Never underestimate Clinton's ability to make a bad situation worse.

 

[Fudbucker]

You are shifting the subject from Sanders giving a major policy speech to Sanders having a say in the platform.

If Sanders wants to give a speech continuing to challenge Clinton on the convention floor after he lost the popular vote, there's a good chance they'll give him a not-in-prime-time slot.

If he concedes before the convention, they will shower him with prime time and platform influence.

That's my point. Clinton will give up a lot to get Bernie out of the way so she can focus on Trump.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Evidence that Hillary destabilized Libya? Do you even follow politics?...

Why yes, yes I do.

Like Syria, a revolution started in Libya before the US got involved. From Clinton herself, she said there were no good options. Don't intervene and Kadaffi slaughters millions or intervene and millions die in the civil war.