Let's talk about the debate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Republicans would relish running against Hillary.

She is detested by the Republican base and it would ensure a large turn-out. Combine that with the fact that some Bernie supporters would just not vote for her and her general lack of credibility and trustworthiness and Republicans think she would be beatable.

Embracing Obama as she did may play well for the primaries but it may not when it comes to the general but we know that she will happily discard Obama at that time.

Sanders does not evoke among Republicans the same sort of antipathy that Clinton does.

So you think that's why the Republicans were tweeting and emailing support for Sanders during the debate? Because they want to run against Hillary? That's a head scratcher.

Say what you will but Sanders polls better than Clinton against most of the Republican candidates.

Of course he does. Setting aside the fact that head to head polls are meaningless before the primaries, think about it. No one has spent a penny running attack ads against him yet. The media has barely started vetting him. You don't think that will change if he's the nominee?

Sanders was just like Trump last night, bragging about his poll numbers. It was hilarious. But seriously, tell us why the RNC was emailing on his behalf if they're dying to run against HRC. Tell us why Democrats should vote for a candidate who's supported by the RNC's head of strategy and comms.

[Anonymous]

The National Review urges Republicans to help Bernie: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420262/bernie-sanders-republicans-myra-adams

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Say what you will but Sanders polls better than Clinton against most of the Republican candidates.

Of course he does. Setting aside the fact that head to head polls are meaningless before the primaries, think about it. No one has spent a penny running attack ads against him yet. The media has barely started vetting him. You don't think that will change if he's the nominee?

Sanders was just like Trump last night, bragging about his poll numbers. It was hilarious. But seriously, tell us why the RNC was emailing on his behalf if they're dying to run against HRC. Tell us why Democrats should vote for a candidate who's supported by the RNC's head of strategy and comms.

I love how polls are meaningless when Sanders is doing well against Republicans but meaningful when Clinton is doing well against them. You realize that Sanders brought up the polls in the context of comments by the Clinton campaign about how she was more "electable".

I agree on one point: polls are pretty much meaningless at this point in the context of the general. But having passionate supporters who are really committed to a candidate makes a lot of difference as we saw with Obama in 2008.

With regard to why Republicans were tweeting for Sanders, it is just as meaningless if they had been doing so for Clinton. In fact, if they were tweeting for Clinton, I would wager that you would be telling me how it means nothing - and you would be right.

What the election will hinge on is whether a candidate can attract the base - and whether independents and moderates will vote for a particular candidate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Say what you will but Sanders polls better than Clinton against most of the Republican candidates.

Of course he does. Setting aside the fact that head to head polls are meaningless before the primaries, think about it. No one has spent a penny running attack ads against him yet. The media has barely started vetting him. You don't think that will change if he's the nominee?

Sanders was just like Trump last night, bragging about his poll numbers. It was hilarious. But seriously, tell us why the RNC was emailing on his behalf if they're dying to run against HRC. Tell us why Democrats should vote for a candidate who's supported by the RNC's head of strategy and comms.

I love how polls are meaningless when Sanders is doing well against Republicans but meaningful when Clinton is doing well against them. You realize that Sanders brought up the polls in the context of comments by the Clinton campaign about how she was more "electable".

I agree on one point: polls are pretty much meaningless at this point in the context of the general. But having passionate supporters who are really committed to a candidate makes a lot of difference as we saw with Obama in 2008.

With regard to why Republicans were tweeting for Sanders, it is just as meaningless if they had been doing so for Clinton. In fact, if they were tweeting for Clinton, I would wager that you would be telling me how it means nothing - and you would be right.

What the election will hinge on is whether a candidate can attract the base - and whether independents and moderates will vote for a particular candidate.

You're kidding. SMH.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Say what you will but Sanders polls better than Clinton against most of the Republican candidates.

Of course he does. Setting aside the fact that head to head polls are meaningless before the primaries, think about it. No one has spent a penny running attack ads against him yet. The media has barely started vetting him. You don't think that will change if he's the nominee?

Sanders was just like Trump last night, bragging about his poll numbers. It was hilarious. But seriously, tell us why the RNC was emailing on his behalf if they're dying to run against HRC. Tell us why Democrats should vote for a candidate who's supported by the RNC's head of strategy and comms.

I love how polls are meaningless when Sanders is doing well against Republicans but meaningful when Clinton is doing well against them. You realize that Sanders brought up the polls in the context of comments by the Clinton campaign about how she was more "electable".

I agree on one point: polls are pretty much meaningless at this point in the context of the general. But having passionate supporters who are really committed to a candidate makes a lot of difference as we saw with Obama in 2008.

With regard to why Republicans were tweeting for Sanders, it is just as meaningless if they had been doing so for Clinton. In fact, if they were tweeting for Clinton, I would wager that you would be telling me how it means nothing - and you would be right.

What the election will hinge on is whether a candidate can attract the base - and whether independents and moderates will vote for a particular candidate.

You're kidding. SMH.

Very incisive!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Republicans would relish running against Hillary.

She is detested by the Republican base and it would ensure a large turn-out. Combine that with the fact that some Bernie supporters would just not vote for her and her general lack of credibility and trustworthiness and Republicans think she would be beatable.

Embracing Obama as she did may play well for the primaries but it may not when it comes to the general but we know that she will happily discard Obama at that time.

Sanders does not evoke among Republicans the same sort of antipathy that Clinton does.

He's a joke among republicans!! The GOP won't vote for anyone except the GOP...

Actually BOTH HRC and Bernie are jokes!

I fear for our future....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Say what you will but Sanders polls better than Clinton against most of the Republican candidates.

Of course he does. Setting aside the fact that head to head polls are meaningless before the primaries, think about it. No one has spent a penny running attack ads against him yet. The media has barely started vetting him. You don't think that will change if he's the nominee?

Sanders was just like Trump last night, bragging about his poll numbers. It was hilarious. But seriously, tell us why the RNC was emailing on his behalf if they're dying to run against HRC. Tell us why Democrats should vote for a candidate who's supported by the RNC's head of strategy and comms.

I love how polls are meaningless when Sanders is doing well against Republicans but meaningful when Clinton is doing well against them. You realize that Sanders brought up the polls in the context of comments by the Clinton campaign about how she was more "electable".

I agree on one point: polls are pretty much meaningless at this point in the context of the general. But having passionate supporters who are really committed to a candidate makes a lot of difference as we saw with Obama in 2008.

With regard to why Republicans were tweeting for Sanders, it is just as meaningless if they had been doing so for Clinton. In fact, if they were tweeting for Clinton, I would wager that you would be telling me how it means nothing - and you would be right.

What the election will hinge on is whether a candidate can attract the base - and whether independents and moderates will vote for a particular candidate.

You're kidding. SMH.

Very incisive!

You don't deal in reality so there's really no point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Republicans would relish running against Hillary.

She is detested by the Republican base and it would ensure a large turn-out. Combine that with the fact that some Bernie supporters would just not vote for her and her general lack of credibility and trustworthiness and Republicans think she would be beatable.

Embracing Obama as she did may play well for the primaries but it may not when it comes to the general but we know that she will happily discard Obama at that time.

Sanders does not evoke among Republicans the same sort of antipathy that Clinton does.

He's a joke among republicans!! The GOP won't vote for anyone except the GOP...

Actually BOTH HRC and Bernie are jokes!

I fear for our future....

How dare you! Such sacrilege!!

Hillary's backers believe she will lead them to the promised land.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Say what you will but Sanders polls better than Clinton against most of the Republican candidates.

Of course he does. Setting aside the fact that head to head polls are meaningless before the primaries, think about it. No one has spent a penny running attack ads against him yet. The media has barely started vetting him. You don't think that will change if he's the nominee?

Sanders was just like Trump last night, bragging about his poll numbers. It was hilarious. But seriously, tell us why the RNC was emailing on his behalf if they're dying to run against HRC. Tell us why Democrats should vote for a candidate who's supported by the RNC's head of strategy and comms.

I love how polls are meaningless when Sanders is doing well against Republicans but meaningful when Clinton is doing well against them. You realize that Sanders brought up the polls in the context of comments by the Clinton campaign about how she was more "electable".

I agree on one point: polls are pretty much meaningless at this point in the context of the general. But having passionate supporters who are really committed to a candidate makes a lot of difference as we saw with Obama in 2008.

With regard to why Republicans were tweeting for Sanders, it is just as meaningless if they had been doing so for Clinton. In fact, if they were tweeting for Clinton, I would wager that you would be telling me how it means nothing - and you would be right.

What the election will hinge on is whether a candidate can attract the base - and whether independents and moderates will vote for a particular candidate.

You're kidding. SMH.

Very incisive!

You don't deal in reality so there's really no point.

Reality like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

[Anonymous]

Democrat here who was unsure about who she supports, Hilary or Bernie. Here's the thing. I don't agree 100% with Bernie's decisions regarding healthcare and some others. But his focus on taking money out of politics and breaking the banks is REALLY important. How can we have a functional political system when things that a majority of voters want cannot happen simply because it's money not votes or even knowledge and expertise that make decisions? If the system stays as is, who we vote for is meaningless because each person is simply a beholden to various wealthy groups.

This HAS to change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Republicans would relish running against Hillary.

She is detested by the Republican base and it would ensure a large turn-out. Combine that with the fact that some Bernie supporters would just not vote for her and her general lack of credibility and trustworthiness and Republicans think she would be beatable.

Embracing Obama as she did may play well for the primaries but it may not when it comes to the general but we know that she will happily discard Obama at that time.

Sanders does not evoke among Republicans the same sort of antipathy that Clinton does.

He's a joke among republicans!! The GOP won't vote for anyone except the GOP...

Actually BOTH HRC and Bernie are jokes!

I fear for our future....

How dare you! Such sacrilege!!

Hillary's backers believe she will lead them to the promised land.

Bernie supports believe that too!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Say what you will but Sanders polls better than Clinton against most of the Republican candidates.

Of course he does. Setting aside the fact that head to head polls are meaningless before the primaries, think about it. No one has spent a penny running attack ads against him yet. The media has barely started vetting him. You don't think that will change if he's the nominee?

Sanders was just like Trump last night, bragging about his poll numbers. It was hilarious. But seriously, tell us why the RNC was emailing on his behalf if they're dying to run against HRC. Tell us why Democrats should vote for a candidate who's supported by the RNC's head of strategy and comms.

I love how polls are meaningless when Sanders is doing well against Republicans but meaningful when Clinton is doing well against them. You realize that Sanders brought up the polls in the context of comments by the Clinton campaign about how she was more "electable".

I agree on one point: polls are pretty much meaningless at this point in the context of the general. But having passionate supporters who are really committed to a candidate makes a lot of difference as we saw with Obama in 2008.

With regard to why Republicans were tweeting for Sanders, it is just as meaningless if they had been doing so for Clinton. In fact, if they were tweeting for Clinton, I would wager that you would be telling me how it means nothing - and you would be right.

What the election will hinge on is whether a candidate can attract the base - and whether independents and moderates will vote for a particular candidate.

You're kidding. SMH.

Very incisive!

You don't deal in reality so there's really no point.

Reality like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Well, leading progressive economists and journalists who've reviewed the plan Sanders just released don't share your view of reality, at least as it applies to that. And that's opened the door to really looking at all his plans, and using terms like "half-baked" to describe them. But keep feeling the bern, my friend. The National Review thanks you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Democrat here who was unsure about who she supports, Hilary or Bernie. Here's the thing. I don't agree 100% with Bernie's decisions regarding healthcare and some others. But his focus on taking money out of politics and breaking the banks is REALLY important. How can we have a functional political system when things that a majority of voters want cannot happen simply because it's money not votes or even knowledge and expertise that make decisions? If the system stays as is, who we vote for is meaningless because each person is simply a beholden to various wealthy groups.

This HAS to change.

The president lacks the ability to change this.

I'm the poster who said earlier that Bernie's supporters are young and or naive up thread and haven' t posted since. But this thread just cements that opinion. Why in the world would you support someone offering policies you acknowledge can't be implemented? Especially when they can't be implemented because they are nonsensical. Add in his complete lack of any foreign policy experience. His poll numbers will fall once he draws media scrutiny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Democrat here who was unsure about who she supports, Hilary or Bernie. Here's the thing. I don't agree 100% with Bernie's decisions regarding healthcare and some others. But his focus on taking money out of politics and breaking the banks is REALLY important. How can we have a functional political system when things that a majority of voters want cannot happen simply because it's money not votes or even knowledge and expertise that make decisions? If the system stays as is, who we vote for is meaningless because each person is simply a beholden to various wealthy groups.

This HAS to change.

Spot on!

What I find really offensive is when politicians keep insisting that large contributions from special interests and lobbyists makes no difference in how they vote or what legislation they push.

When Goldman Sachs pays Hillary Clinton $600K for speeches does anyone believe it is because the content of her speeches are so profound? When foreign governments donate millions to the Clinton Global Initiative, does anyone really believe they are not looking to buy influence or favorable treatment in the future?

Is it just coincidence that Sanders and Trump - both who are not accepting funds from special interests and lobbyists - are the one who generate the most excitement and passion among their supporters and they turn out in the thousands at rallies?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrat here who was unsure about who she supports, Hilary or Bernie. Here's the thing. I don't agree 100% with Bernie's decisions regarding healthcare and some others. But his focus on taking money out of politics and breaking the banks is REALLY important. How can we have a functional political system when things that a majority of voters want cannot happen simply because it's money not votes or even knowledge and expertise that make decisions? If the system stays as is, who we vote for is meaningless because each person is simply a beholden to various wealthy groups.

This HAS to change.

The president lacks the ability to change this.

I'm the poster who said earlier that Bernie's supporters are young and or naive up thread and haven' t posted since. But this thread just cements that opinion. Why in the world would you support someone offering policies you acknowledge can't be implemented? Especially when they can't be implemented because they are nonsensical. Add in his complete lack of any foreign policy experience. His poll numbers will fall once he draws media scrutiny.

I'm not a politico, so yes, I'm sure my post was "naive," though I am not "young."

I didn't say all his policies can't be implemented. I actually the most important of these, related to the money in politics, can and MUST be implemented.