Clinton’s lead is evaporating, and anxious Democrats see 2008 all over again

[US Conservative]

Sanders is a good candidate.

Are you jealous that DEMS have two candidates they like to choose from, whereas REPUBS are choosing between giant douches and turd sandwiches ?

Your choices are a socialist who will lose, or a criminal who is as likely to go to jail as win the presidency. :lol:

 

[eohrnberger]

I'm glad to see Hillary's lead in the polls evaporating.

It instills a small and meager hope that the electorate recognizes her for what she is, her transgressions, and her violations of law, which, frankly, do indeed disqualify her as a presidential candidate, in anyone's mind but the most unintelligent and most partisan hard core ideologues, all of whom will be quite disappointed I predict.

On the other hand, this same system and the same electorate are so pissed off at the establishment politicians and the establishment government that they are likely to support and elect a demagoguing candidate such as Trump, akin to burning it all down to start over. That's quite worrisome. Let's hope that the establishment politicians and the establishment government take this as a wake up call to change their ways (rather doubtful).

Everyone realizes that all these predictions are all on an election that is still just under a full year away, right? Lots can change in the intervening time.

I'm disgusted with Obama - his policies, performance and ideology, disgusted with the congress, disgusted with the Democrats (excess government everything), and disgusted with the Republicans (ineffective against Obama his policies and the liberal / progressive agenda, and they are about as useful as tits on a boar), disgusted with US politics in general, and have no emotional investment in any of the present candidates of either party, which is probably a good thing.

 

[coyotedelmar]

Why do Dems want her? I think that there is a large portion of the Democratic party that is moderate/centrist. They have always had a love affair with the Clintons. They have been successful in pulling the Democratic party to the center. Liberal Democrats, like myself, are supporting her primarily because we know that we cannot afford a Cruz/Rubio/Trump Presidency who will push a right-wing social agenda and move our country backwards.

I don't think a large portion even really want her. Still feel a lot of the support is due to no better option (well I think O'Malley is a better option still but he has no traction with voters) with some of it the Identity Politics "we need a women president," types.

 

[Absentglare]

Common sense tells us no way an openly avowed socialist could win the Presidency. But then, that common sense is based on a false assumption: The public is educated.

That's not common sense, that's ideological bias.

 

[Renae]

That's not common sense, that's ideological bias.

No, common sense. A representative republic built upon personal freedom, individual achievement backed up by a constitution designed to prevent government from being an onerous burden on the people should never voluntarily elect a man whose political views are would subvert personal freedom, diminish individual achievement through an overly burdensome government system. However to retain the freedoms enshrined in the constitution requires a well educated voting public smart enough not to heed the sirens song of false hope socialist sing. Sadly the dumber our schools the more appealing socialism is. A correlation that speaks volumes about the entire premise of socialism.

 

[Absentglare]

No, common sense. A representative republic built upon personal freedom, individual achievement backed up by a constitution designed to prevent government from being an onerous burden on the people should never voluntarily elect a man whose political views are would subvert personal freedom, diminish individual achievement through an overly burdensome government system. However to retain the freedoms enshrined in the constitution requires a well educated voting public smart enough not to heed the sirens song of false hope socialist sing. Sadly the dumber our schools the more appealing socialism is. A correlation that speaks volumes about the entire premise of socialism.

Vladimir Lenin claimed that a necessary principle under socialism is, “He who does not work shall not eat” in The State and Revolution.

Socialism is not the restriction of freedom. In fact, it can be considered freedom from the distinguishing characteristic of capitalism: making money for not working, but owning capital.

 

[Renae]

Vladimir Lenin claimed that a necessary principle under socialism is, “He who does not work shall not eat” in The State and Revolution.

Socialism is not the restriction of freedom. In fact, it can be considered freedom from the distinguishing characteristic of capitalism: making money for not working, but owning capital.

No. You are a jealous, greedy person who thinks you can force ithers to work for your benefit against thier will. Who gives two dhits if some one else has invested wealth allowing them not to have to "work"? for the record Socialism has the same nonworking class, the political elite. So your claim is a flase outrage.

 

[Absentglare]

No. You are a jealous, greedy person who thinks you can force ithers to work for your benefit against thier will. Who gives two dhits if some one else has invested wealth allowing them not to have to "work"? for the record Socialism has the same nonworking class, the political elite. So your claim is a flase outrage.

If you want to reward laziness, to reward people for not producing, by all means.

Your speculations about who i am as a person are irrelevant.

Your misunderstanding of socialism is also irrelevant.

 

[Renae]

If you want to reward laziness, to reward people for not producing, by all means.

Your speculations about who i am as a person are irrelevant.

Your misunderstanding of socialism is also irrelevant.

I am not the one that thinks wealthy people are lazy do nothings. BTW, ever read the story of the pilgrims? The real one? They tried your ideas, almost killed them all.

 

[Absentglare]

I am not the one that thinks wealthy people are lazy do nothings. BTW, ever read the story of the pilgrims? The real one? They tried your ideas, almost killed them all.

That wasn't what i said.

Capitalism rewards the ownership of capital through a chaotic economy. Socialism is an engineered economy, a directed economy.

Capitalism leads to market failures like monopolies, oligopolies, unemployment, and excessive profit. The consolidation of wealth actually slows down the economy. As poor people lose access to the articles of production, the economy becomes less productive.

 

[Jack Hays]

That wasn't what i said.

Capitalism rewards the ownership of capital through a chaotic economy. Socialism is an engineered economy, a directed economy.

Capitalism leads to market failures like monopolies, oligopolies, unemployment, and excessive profit. The consolidation of wealth actually slows down the economy. As poor people lose access to the articles of production, the economy becomes less productive.

You are correct that socialism is an engineered economy. That is why socialist economies innovate so little: they can only make known products.

 

[Absentglare]

You are correct that socialism is an engineered economy. That is why socialist economies innovate so little: they can only make known products.

Well, there's no good reason why there couldn't be a way for organizations in a socialist economy to be created that does incentivize innovation in, at least, limited and defined ways. Further, i can assure you that the ability to share solutions across different companies in the tech world could accelerate innovation. For every competitor, we waste another set of engineer's time developing a new solution for a previously solved problem.

Actually, i think the reason we don't see a lot of innovation out of Asia is cultural. There is a stronger emphasis on harmony and fitting in, a conformity that tends to dis-incentivize expressions of creativity.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Some leading Democrats are increasingly anxious about Hillary Clinton’s prospects for winning the party’s presidential nomination, warning that Sen. Bernie Sanders’s growing strength in early battleground states and strong fundraising point to a campaign that could last well into the spring.

What seemed recently to be a race largely controlled by Clinton has turned into a neck-and-neck contest with voting set to begin in less than three weeks.

On Capitol Hill and in state party headquarters, some Democrats worry that a Sanders nomination could imperil candidates down the ballot in swing districts and states. Others are expressing a sense of deja vu from 2008, when Clinton’s overwhelming edge cratered in the days before the Iowa caucuses.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...d8db3c-bacc-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html

This really puts democrats in a tight spot. Do they support the marxist who would lose a general? Or do they support the flawed candidate who is likely to end up in jail?

If I was a democrat, I'd be frustrated right now.

Hillary's main problem is that she has all the charisma of a rabid skunk suffering from diarrhea. Knowing that, she desperately decided to employ her husband to campaign for her. However she first made the mistake of publicly attacking Trump for his disrespect for women. Trump deserved the attacks, however he responded by making Bill Clinton's sordid past with women a public issue as well as Hillary covering up for him and attacking his victims as bimbos. That destroyed Hillary's I am a staunch advocate for women persona. The best previous example of such poor consideration was John Kerry running for president touting himself as a war hero in the very war that he joined Jane Fonda to loudly protest.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Didn't you already make this thread ?

Sanders is not a marxist. Socialism originated before Karl Marx.

Sanders is a marxist. So are Hillary and Obama.

 

[Jack Hays]

Well, there's no good reason why there couldn't be a way for organizations in a socialist economy to be created that does incentivize innovation in, at least, limited and defined ways. Further, i can assure you that the ability to share solutions across different companies in the tech world could accelerate innovation. For every competitor, we waste another set of engineer's time developing a new solution for a previously solved problem.

Actually, i think the reason we don't see a lot of innovation out of Asia is cultural. There is a stronger emphasis on harmony and fitting in, a conformity that tends to dis-incentivize expressions of creativity.

Little innovation from socialist economies anywhere.

 

[fmw]

Didn't you already make this thread ?

Sanders is not a marxist. Socialism originated before Karl Marx.

True. The ancient caveman tribes were socialist.

 

[Absentglare]

Little innovation from socialist economies anywhere.

There aren't a lot of socialist economies and the ones that are there were not well attempted.

I don't agree that we have enough information to conclude that socialism is the cause. I think socialism is more likely to appeal to a culture that is less conducive to innovation. I don't consider that a genuine value judgement on socialism.

Further, many of the democratic socialist governments in Northern Europe, which Sanders uses as models, endure considerable innovation.

 

[Jack Hays]

There aren't a lot of socialist economies and the ones that are there were not well attempted.

I don't agree that we have enough information to conclude that socialism is the cause. I think socialism is more likely to appeal to a culture that is less conducive to innovation. I don't consider that a genuine value judgement on socialism.

Further, many of the democratic socialist governments in Northern Europe, which Sanders uses as models, endure considerable innovation.

We have the entire history of the Soviet Union and its satellites.

 

[US Conservative]

Hillary's main problem is that she has all the charisma of a rabid skunk suffering from diarrhea. Knowing that, she desperately decided to employ her husband to campaign for her. However she first made the mistake of publicly attacking Trump for his disrespect for women. Trump deserved the attacks, however he responded by making Bill Clinton's sordid past with women a public issue as well as Hillary covering up for him and attacking his victims as bimbos. That destroyed Hillary's I am a staunch advocate for women persona. The best previous example of such poor consideration was John Kerry running for president touting himself as a war hero in the very war that he joined Jane Fonda to loudly protest.

Agreed, its a sign of a very poor campaign. I actually think she is running a worse one this time.

This is her being asked about being interviewed by the FBI-note how pleasant her glare is...

People are watching this stuff-what is she thinking?

 

[Hawkeye10]

Agreed, its a sign of a very poor campaign. I actually think she is running a worse one this time.



People are watching this stuff-what is she thinking?

In the last month it sure does look that way, but does it matter? Does even a terrible Hillary with weak D support stay in because she convinces the D's that even a bad Hillary beats Trump and rules are rules? Look at how much humiliation JEB! is willing to go through rather than admit the the people dont want him. I gather that is the mindset at the moment, that it is Hillary unless she is on charges and that Trump is bush league so maybe Hillary sucking does not mattter, but then again every day now sees new people coming forwards with mea culpas on their evaluation of Trumps skills and support levels. And if she leaves Bernie still has to be dealt with, and since rules are rules no Hillary means that the nomination is his if he wants it even though he has no chance of winning and I dont think that he wants the gig anyways.

I'll say this, the D's might well have really screwed the pooch last year when they decided to hold a coronation for Hillary, before the first vote is cast this run might not be salvageable.

I'll also say this: for about 2 years now the R elite have been saying that they were convinced that Hillary would be easy to beat, and almost no one believed them. Maybe they had her pegged correctly.

 

[SmartCat]

Do you find it humorous that DEMS might be the ones to stop her in the primaries?

Cruz or Trump would murder her in a general, but apparently democrats are concerned that may never happen-as she wont make it that far.

According to the recent averages posted by Real Clear Politics, Hillary is ahead by 2.5%.
RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton

According to the recent averages posted by Real Clear Politics, Ted Cruz is ahead of Hillary by 1.8%.
RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton

 

[US Conservative]

According to the recent averages posted by Real Clear Politics, Hillary is ahead by 2.5%.
RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton

According to the recent averages posted by Real Clear Politics, Ted Cruz is ahead of Hillary by 1.8%.
RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton

Yes, weve heard that for months.

But she's lost her lead to Bernie, and there are polls that have either Trump or Cruz beating her.

She isn't resonating.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Agreed, its a sign of a very poor campaign. I actually think she is running a worse one this time.

This is her being asked about being interviewed by the FBI-note how pleasant her glare is...

People are watching this stuff-what is she thinking?

She is definately running a worse campaign this time...probably mostly due to all of the skeletons in her closet just in the time period that she served as Secretary of state.

 

[SmartCat]

Yes, weve heard that for months.

But she's lost her lead to Bernie, and there are polls that have either Trump or Cruz beating her.

She isn't resonating.

Fortunately, Bernie Sanders is.

--------

NBC News January 17, 2016

Bernie Sanders outperforms Hillary Clinton in a hypothetical general-election matchup against Donald Trump, according to the results from the new NBC New/Wall Street Journal poll.

Sanders leads Trump by 15 points nationally over Trump, 54 percent to 39 percent, while Clinton's advantage over Trump is 10 points, 51 percent to 41 percent.
Poll: Sanders Outperforms Clinton in Matchup Against Trump - NBC News

 

[SmartCat]

We have the entire history of the Soviet Union and its satellites.

Their examples are irrelevant to the United States for two reasons. They started in under developed countries. They were dictatorships. Even then the Soviet government carried Russia from semi feudalism to the space age while enduring the Nazi invasion.