Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

[Skeptic Ginger]

Is it possible for you to respond to what people actually say, instead of what you think they're saying? Do you have to strawman everything?

The vast majority of Sander's supporters are Sander's supporters, not Hillary supporters, and are waiting to see what happens next. They may become Hillary supporters, or they might just stay home.

I take it I need to dumb it down for you

It's only in your imagination that the bulk of Sanders supporters are only Sanders supporters. It's only in your imagination that Sanders somehow owns them or has control over whether they will switch to Clinton or not.

The majority will support Clinton and in fact many of them have said so already.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

What happens if Hillary Clinton gets indicted?

An indictment or even a conviction would not prevent her from being elected to the presidency if she has the votes.

There is no law prohibiting a felon or even a prisoner from becoming president. Most states prohibit prisoners and ex-felons from voting, but nothing stops them running for office themselves.

If Hillary Clinton is indicted and faces trial over her unsecure email system, she could resist calls to drop out of the race and keep on running.

And if as president she is found guilty of mishandling classified information, she would be able to pardon herself. As complicated and unwieldy as the US Constitution is, there is no caveat that prevents a president using their pardoning powers on themselves, unless in cases of impeachment. Curiously, this issue last arose in 1998 when Bill Clinton was in trouble for the Lewinsky scandal.

http://www.9news.com.au/world/2016/06/03/13/41/what-happens-if-hillary-clinton-gets-indicted (June 3, 2016)

Another possible scenario: Joe Biden parachutes in on a last ditch effort rescue mission.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I take it I need to dumb it down for you

It's only in your imagination that the bulk of Sanders supporters are only Sanders supporters. It's only in your imagination that Sanders somehow owns them or has control over whether they will switch to Clinton or not.

The majority will support Clinton and in fact many of them have said so already.

We will have to see. Part of his strategy was to get people who normally don't vote in primaries to show up. He partially succeeded. They may not turn out in the general to some degree.

 

[bruto]

I take it I need to dumb it down for you

It's only in your imagination that the bulk of Sanders supporters are only Sanders supporters. It's only in your imagination that Sanders somehow owns them or has control over whether they will switch to Clinton or not.

The majority will support Clinton and in fact many of them have said so already.

I find it a little bit (searching for words here)....odd...that people who have called Trump a terrible and unsupportable candidate, a mistake, a cancer, have for the good of their party endorsed him, but that the much less radical accommodation of switching from Bernie to Hillary seems impossible to some.

 

[wareyin]

I find it a little bit (searching for words here)....odd...that people who have called Trump a terrible and unsupportable candidate, a mistake, a cancer, have for the good of their party endorsed him, but that the much less radical accommodation of switching from Bernie to Hillary seems impossible to some.

I agree, and it rather seems self-centered to me to see the claims from a losing candidate (and his backers) that 'Sanders/his supporters don't need Clinton, but Clinton needs him/them'. First, we know that the vast majority of Sanders supporters are going to vote Dem anyway, because backers of the losing candidate always say they will never vote for the winner of their party, but 70-90% of them do anyway. Second, like it or not, you only have 2 choices:Trump or Clinton. If Clinton isn't progressive enough for you, Trump is far far worse.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I find it a little bit (searching for words here)....odd...that people who have called Trump a terrible and unsupportable candidate, a mistake, a cancer, have for the good of their party endorsed him, but that the much less radical accommodation of switching from Bernie to Hillary seems impossible to some.

Or even odder that some Bernie supporters are considering a huge leap to supporting Trump. If there is any sincerity in their - Bernie's supporters - political beliefs, there is no way they can make that jump.

I presently still feel that it's posturing by the few. The Bernie thread here is all but silent. The idea of last-gasp support for Bernie is all tied up, completely, in trashing Hillary, now.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Well, Clinton's actions adding up to her "experience" have led to the destabilization/destruction of several countries and the death of tens, if not hundreds of thousands of human beings, and she's proud of it. I find it more than a little bit ... odd ... that people who claim to be humanists can wash that away so easily.

As far as I can see Teh Donald has nothing close to that blood on his hands, not to speak of Bernie.

 

[sunmaster14]

Clinton won the nomination. Why do all you Sanders supporters keep acting like Sanders won?

I'm not that worried that Clinton cannot beat Trump. She is truly Presidential while Trump is not. For every Sanders supporter that stays home or votes for the Green Party, the Republicans that actually use the brains in their heads will stay home or vote for Clinton or Johnson. The vast majority of Sanders supporters will vote for Clinton once Sanders stops calling her corrupt and they can see she isn't what Sanders has made her out to be.

Agreed. But in a Richard Nixony kind of way.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Well, Clinton's actions adding up to her "experience" have led to the destabilization/destruction of several countries and the death of tens, if not hundreds of thousands of human beings, and she's proud of it. I find it more than a little bit ... odd ... that people who claim to be humanists can wash that away so easily.

As far as I can see Teh Donald has nothing close to that blood on his hands, not to speak of Bernie.

Getting harder and harder to tell if Poe or not ....

 

[Childlike Empress]

Getting harder and harder to tell if Poe or not ....

Getting harder and harder to tell if shill or not .... joking.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Well, Clinton's actions adding up to her "experience" have led to the destabilization/destruction of several countries and the death of tens, if not hundreds of thousands of human beings, and she's proud of it. I find it more than a little bit ... odd ... that people who claim to be humanists can wash that away so easily.

As far as I can see Teh Donald has nothing close to that blood on his hands, not to speak of Bernie.

That's because you have the luxury of taking a complete moral stand from a distance. America doesn't have that luxury. As much as you may be cheering on a crash of the USA, imagining some sort of social revolution taking its place, that's all fantasy. There is a very real threat that The Orange Loser, if Clinton crashes, rides a complete Tea Party takeover of the country..... we call it coattails.

So, yeah.... bite your tongues, hold your noses.... Hillary is the nominee, and left-standing voters need to get out and vote for her and also vote for Democratic Senators, Congresspersons, Governors, State Reps, Sheriffs, District Attorneys, Mayors, Dog-Catchers, School Board Members, et al

And the nice old guy from Burlington who's proven that he has feet of clay just like everyone? I'll gain a lot more respect for him when he does something major to rebuild the progressive wing of the Democratic Party; it's been in decline since '44, outside of some wonderfully crazy pockets. LIKE Burlington, sections of Boston, San Francisco, NYC, Milwaukee, etc... [there are more, lefties please don't take exclusion from the list personally].

So what's your plan? I've repeated mine for months around here. Kibbitzing from the cheap seats is easy. Everyone in politics sucks.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Getting harder and harder to tell if shill or not .... joking.

Amerika !

 

[DavidJames]

Well, Clinton's actions adding up to her "experience" have led to the destabilization/destruction of several countries...

Please tell me the countries that were "stable" prior to HRC's involvement and specifically what actions she took which caused the destabilization, along with supporting evidence.

 

[Childlike Empress]

... imagining some sort of social revolution taking its place, that's all fantasy...

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).

Please tell me the countries that were "stable" prior to HRC's involvement and specifically what actions she took which caused the destabilization, along with supporting evidence.

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.

 

[varwoche]

Or even odder that some Bernie supporters are considering a huge leap to supporting Trump. If there is any sincerity in their - Bernie's supporters - political beliefs, there is no way they can make that jump ...

Indeed. But, there are some/many(?) Sanders supporters who are all about form, substance be damned. In this case, the form is being part of an angry movement. Trump has a lot to offer for these superficial dimwits.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

We will have to see. Part of his strategy was to get people who normally don't vote in primaries to show up. He partially succeeded. They may not turn out in the general to some degree.

Yes, but the number of Sanders supporters who are in this 'never voted before' group is smaller than you think when you look at the bigger picture.

Let's break it down: A lot of younger voters voting for the first time would have registered and voted anyway. It's not like young voters never join the voting rolls.

In 2008 over 130 million people voted for POTUS. Sanders has about 10 million voters so far in the primary. (http://www.electproject.org/2008g) (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_vote_count.html)

So when you peel away the voters who will vote for Clinton if Sanders loses, the newly registered voters who would have registered anyway that will also vote for Clinton if Sanders loses, you don't have this huge block of voters Sanders imagines will only vote for Sanders.

Trump has tepid support at best among many Republicans.This is not going to be a close race like it was in 2000. It's going to be a landslide like it was in 2008 once people see thin-skinned, racist, sexist Donald failing to act presidential because he can't help himself.

 

[Fudbucker]

I agree, and it rather seems self-centered to me to see the claims from a losing candidate (and his backers) that 'Sanders/his supporters don't need Clinton, but Clinton needs him/them'.

Was it self-centered when Obama needed Clinton's supporters? The winner of a hotly contested primary, like this one is, NEEDS the support of the loser, to have any chance of winning in a general election. The loser, by virtue of losing, needs nothing. The first thing the presumptive nominee in any party does is rally the base around him/her first, and that means reaching out to the people who lost and solidifying their support.

First, we know that the vast majority of Sanders supporters are going to vote Dem anyway, because backers of the losing candidate always say they will never vote for the winner of their party, but 70-90% of them do anyway. Second, like it or not, you only have 2 choices:Trump or Clinton. If Clinton isn't progressive enough for you, Trump is far far worse.

Of course there's a third choice: not giving a **** and staying home. Sanders supporters are overwhelmingly young voters, which creates a turn-out problem in-and-of-itself. They don't have to support Trump to hand Hillary a loss, they just have to not bother showing up at the polls. Since Hillary is a deeply disliked establishment candidate and not particularly inspirational, turnout (particularly of Sanders supporters) is going to be one of her biggest problems.

 

[Fudbucker]

I take it I need to dumb it down for you

It's only in your imagination that the bulk of Sanders supporters are only Sanders supporters. It's only in your imagination that Sanders somehow owns them or has control over whether they will switch to Clinton or not.

The majority will support Clinton and in fact many of them have said so already.

Yes, dumb it down for me, person who doesn't know how long a month is.

 

[wareyin]

Was it self-centered when Obama needed Clinton's supporters? The winner of a hotly contested primary, like this one is, NEEDS the support of the loser, to have any chance of winning in a general election. The loser, by virtue of losing, needs nothing. The first thing the presumptive nominee in any party does is rally the base around him/her first, and that means reaching out to the people who lost and solidifying their support.

I don't recall Clinton or her supporters making the selfish 'we don't need you, you need us' whine when Obama beat her. Perhaps you can provide a link if you think that's what happened?

Of course there's a third choice: not giving a **** and staying home. Sanders supporters are overwhelmingly young voters, which creates a turn-out problem in-and-of-itself. They don't have to support Trump to hand Hillary a loss, they just have to not bother showing up at the polls. Since Hillary is a deeply disliked establishment candidate and not particularly inspirational, turnout (particularly of Sanders supporters) is going to be one of her biggest problems.

In which case, they aren't progressive, or Democrats, and they would be happy with someone like Trump winning?

 

[Fudbucker]

I don't recall Clinton or her supporters making the selfish 'we don't need you, you need us' whine when Obama beat her. Perhaps you can provide a link if you think that's what happened?

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?

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?).

In which case, they aren't progressive, or Democrats they're kids and they would be happy with someone like Trump winning don't care who wins because they don't like either candidate.

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.