Sanders killed it on the debate last night, especially coming off a "scandal" that could have ruined a lesser person's chances
Bernie still has a demographic problem. He's doing well with younger voters, who are notoriously lazy about showing up at the polls. Hillary polls better with older voters, who have plenty of time to stand in line to vote, and are not cynical at all about voting. Middle aged Democrats are more divided. He needs to win more of them over, and do it quickly. Most of the controversial database information seems to have been about demographics, which probably just confirmed what he already knew anyway. I've been aware of the age distribution stats for months. Several polling organizations have published their findings.
As for the debate last night, I'd say they all did pretty well. (Well, maybe the DNC didn't fare so well, after being pegged for unfairly dinging Bernie's campaign... and scheduling the debate for a Saturday night... opposite a major league football game. :facepalm: ) I think O'Malley had the roughest night, mainly due to his rougher comments that sounded mroe fitting for the Republican stage. (I got the feeling he was testing out his own Trumpy waters to see if he could get some more traction, of any kind.) Overall, they presented a much more united Democratic front, while pointing out their different ideas in a mostly adult manner. I'm admittedly a Sanders fanboy, but even still... I think he came away the strongest in the debate. Mainly because he beefed up his talking points and was smart on foreign issues.
I think that is a pipe dream, at least in regards to private wealth. The rich will just take there assets offshore.
I honestly don't mind if either Clinton or Sanders is elected, but when it comes down to it, I hope there is only one of them to vote for because otherwise they split up the vote. I've been saying Hillary all along namely for that reason, for not wanting to split up the vote. Sanders kind of lines up with this guy Richard D. Wolff from what I understand. He's not a communist but he has decided and published videos and articles about how we've basically exhausted capitalism due to large corporate control. That's how I understand what he says anyway. Some of it feels hard to hear... but anyway, from what I understand Sanders sounds like the same stuff. Here is a link http://rdwolff.com/content/alternatives-capitalism And a video... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnI7cfIbkBc
This is a great example of why it is even more important to vote in every election rather than just the presidential election. This is a valid question, and Sanders knows it won't be easy. He has been saying from day one he can't do any of this alone - he is asking for direct participation from those who agree with him. I agree with this sentiment - as long as Americans remain apathetic congress will continue to hold our country hostage. I do think he will probably be able to work well along bipartisan lines, however. He doesn't follow a false dichotomy; he follows logic and common sense.
Well, there will be only one when it comes to the general election, Sanders won't be going third party. However, you can easily give Sanders your vote in the primary, where it's not a split vote, but one to decide which one will be going into the general election. I agree, if only for the reason that Republicans hate Hillary more... so they would probably be less likely to work with her. I wouldn't be surprised if they stymied her presidency the way they've done to Obama... agreeing on day one to block everything. (Even if it's just to prove a girl can't do it.) With Bernie, they have an old white guy... not black, not Hispanic, not female. Nothing for them to secretly plot against for being "other". He's also been an independent until this election, so there's more of a chance he could work across the aisle. On the other hand, like you say, this is why we need to show up at off-year elections. If Dems showed up in non-presidential elections in the same numbers, we could have a majority in Congress right now.
I have an acquaintance who is thirty-six. Next year will be the first time he has ever voted. wtf! Yeah, but congress doesn't do the same.
I've actually came across a few republicans who have registered as a democrat so they can vote for Bernie. I think a lot of people are so eager to see someone with honesty and integrity they're willing to look past the evil S word.
I think they do that because they know that the repubs have a better chance against Bernie, than they do against Hillary.
I don't have to try mentioning it to see what they'd say, I've seen and heard it more than enough to have a very clear idea of what the standard Republican response would be, lol. But like Meliai alluded to, there are a measurable amount of Republicans who are either considering switching sides or already have, just to vote for Bernie. Not only does he have honesty and integrity, but he's agreeable with them on a few topics. Except that they don't. Just about every poll on the matter shows Bernie as a stronger candidate against any Republican, as compared to Hillary.
There was a poll that said sanders would win in a landslide against any republican, yet he trails Hillary by twenty-three points. So explain to me how that works. Polls are like a barking dog. After awhile you realize it means nothing.
Traditional polls aren't really relevant anymore. Not many people still have landlines. Plus I think they only poll registered democrats. Sanders will get a lot of independent votes and votes from people like me who have never registered with a party. Bernie sanders wins by a huge margin on online polls, which aren't that accurate either, but still, getting around 80% on online polls is pretty astounding
Clinton wants to levy an exit tax on corporations planning to move operations over seas to a nicer tax climate. It's interesting but I don't think it will be enough to stop the problem.
Well my vote is for Clinton, she is trustworthy; she is the best qualified and mature candidate among all, Former First Lady, former US Senator from New York, former Secretary of State. Many people feel tenderly for the Clinton years, and it is easy to see why, eight years of peace and of prosperity that were followed by 8 years of 2 recessions and 2 wars. Bill Clinton left office with the largest surplus budget in US history, and the first since the 1950s. Who wouldn't want to bring back such an administration, especially after the disastrous Bush years. I am not seeing a downside here to another Clinton Presidency. Let's hope Michelle Obama takes up politics in Illinois! Hillary Clinton is competent, highly intelligent, and well connected. She has all the skills necessary to be a great President, and as a plus point, her husband was one of the two best Presidents of the past 50 years. Her political views, which are somewhat left of center, are in the right place to protect and continue the economic growth of the Obama years and to oversee the dramatic evolution to self-sustenance and ruler stability that is occurring in the Middle East. Her policy for Muslims is also very good and trustworthy, specially after the Trumps statement about Muslims.
Aside from your lofty campaign rhetoric, why don't you give us some specific examples of times that she's been more trustworthy, qualified, and mature than Sanders. Give us some specific examples of times that she was right and Sanders was wrong. Because you make those claims in the first sentence and then follow them up with how great it was when Bill was in office, how terrible Bush was and then imply that if we vote for her....it will be the good old days all over again. Why should we believe that? Because Bill will be back or because of Hillary being in office? What specific accomplishments should we look at during her time as Sec. of State to give us an idea of what her foreign policy would look like?
