Jump to content

DID YOU FEEL THE BERN?


Justus
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

I love election years. Bernie's campaign is freaking out too. LAY THEM OFF! CUT STAFFERS!

Its just amazing that Sanders thought he ever had a chance to win it all. Which reality is he occupying?

 

Well, according to many of the Sanders supporters I know, the reality where Clinton is 3.2 million votes ahead of him only due to rampant voter fraud because nobody is actually voting for her? Apparently, he's still gonna win... somehow :)

 

INVESTIGATE CLINTON!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Its just amazing that Sanders thought he ever had a chance to win it all. Which reality is he occupying?

 

Sanders wasn't that far away from winning. A few more early victories and he wins.

 

Politics tends to be obvious in hindsight. Now we treat Romney and Kerry like they never had a chance, but it's forgotten that Kerry was so competitive that news organizations were preparing Kerry administration pieces based on early exit polls and Romney was probably leading until Hurricane Sandy made Obama look presidential in the closing days.

 

It will be written that Trump couldn't be stopped, but he was actually the beneficiary of a series of amazing pieces of luck (Huge field that didn't winnow, Bush and Christie going kamikaze on Rubio, Kasich staying in the race to block for him, getting a layup in New York when it looked like Cruz would deny him the first ballot delegate victory).

 

Sanders came close. Just a bit more breaking his way and he would have gotten the momentum to take down Clinton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Politics tends to be obvious in hindsight.

In many cases, yes.

 

But in this case, if just some things go as expected, Clinton still wins fairly easily. Sure, had more votes gone Sanders's way, he woulda won. Duh. That's how it works in most free and fair elections.

 

The Democratic prog activists are incredibly noisy and aggressive (as activists are wont to be), and their presence highly exaggerated, given how many of them are narcissistic millennials who are plugged in to social media 24/7 and convinced that their opinions are correct and really matter (haha, they don't matter any more than yours or mine). But there are also plenty of Democrats who aren't into the brand of progressivism Sanders was peddling as well as party loyalists willing to vote for whoever they are told to support. Anybody with a basic understanding of demographics and math could see that Sanders was overperforming.

 

Was Camp Clinton right to be nervous and annoyed? Sure. It wasn't the coronation they had hoped for; it is clear that there are many people in her own party who don't just support other candidates, but straight up can't stand her (will they at least support her in order to #NevarTrump?), and she was pulled further to the left than she wanted to go. But she was always heavily favored, and rightly so.

 

I tried to explain to a hardcore Sandernista a few weeks ago that unless Clinton utterly self-destructs (gets caught on tape using racial epithets to insult a supporter, gets arrested, etc.), New York + the 26th primaries would be the death knell for Sanders. She's still not speaking with me, but being right was so worth it.

 

I get that Clinton is a weak, propped-up candidate with a ton of negatives, and I get that Sanders said a lot of things that have major surface-level appeal to many Democrats, independents, and even some Republicans, but don't act like it was ever that close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude poe, what in the world are you talking about?

Sanders' fate was sealed on Feb 27, when Clinton decisively won SC by 47 points. Until then, it wasn't entirely clear what would happen, given the close result in NV and Sanders' win in NH.

After SC though, it was pretty obvious that Sanders' support came from one demographic of the Democratic party, and that he would never have wide enough appeal to win the nomination. Everything after then was just going through the motions, and when Clinton resoundingly came in ahead on Super Tuesday, literally no one that follows politics was surprised. Well, I guess, except you?

 

This race was never close. Sanders wins SC and sure- different story, but losing by 47 points isn't exactly what I would call close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had hope for Sanders because unlike Clinton young voters were embracing Sanders and voting for him where as Clinton's biggest challenge is getting younger voters to buy into her and actually vote. Also Sanders really broke fundraising records. However I am not delusional and know Clinton always would be the Democrats choice - like or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Generally speaking, young people's understanding of politics is limited to a dim awareness that it provides opportunities for haughty moralizing and free stuff.

 

And Sanders outspent Clinton 2-1 in New York with that amazing fundraising of his and still got spanked.

 

Why does "young people support him" and "he broke fundraising records" make Sanders appealing to you?

:confused:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest El Chalupacabra

 

I love election years. Bernie's campaign is freaking out too. LAY THEM OFF! CUT STAFFERS!

Its just amazing that Sanders thought he ever had a chance to win it all. Which reality is he occupying?

 

Not sure what reality Bernie's from, but I can say what era he is stuck in: the late 1960s/early 1970s would be my guess.

 

When I look at Sanders, I look at probably the last hurrah of the hippie subset of the boomer generation running for president. Assuming whomever is elected serves 2 terms, we are looking at 2024 for the next president, which is the election where likely all of those running for president will be of the Generation X age group.

 

Whether or not we will be better off is another question. Technically, Obama is a Gen Xer. So is Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, and Marco Rubio and a good portion of the failed GOP contenders of 2016. I had hoped that Gen X would do better, possibly even fix the crap mess the Boomers have left behind since the 1990s, but so far, I remain unimpressed. In fact, I venture to say we will be even worse off with Gen X political leaders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude poe, what in the world are you talking about?

 

Sanders' fate was sealed on Feb 27, when Clinton decisively won SC by 47 points. Until then, it wasn't entirely clear what would happen, given the close result in NV and Sanders' win in NH.

 

Saying that his fate was sealed in the 4th contest is a lot different than saying that he never had a chance. If he did. He does just a bit better in Iowa and wins by half a dozen points followed by a strong victory in New Hampshire, he probably wins Nevada. He would have been 3-0 before dropping S. Carolina. That changes the whole picture nationwide. Clinton would still dominate the south, no doubt, and it probably would have only flipped Massachusetts on Super Tuesday, but it would have been a much closer contest.

 

 

 

Well, I guess, except you?

 

I was surprised it was as close as it was. But, as I said, it wasn't crazy to think that Sanders had a viable path. You just moved the goalpost to after S. Carolina.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure what reality Bernie's from, but I can say what era he is stuck in: the late 1960s/early 1970s would be my guess.

Bernie and his rhetoric genuinely worries me.

 

There are many very real and troubling economic problems facing young people -- and really, pretty much any non-homeowner who isn't making, say, $150k can't feel terribly safe at this moment in history.

 

I don't remember the late 1970s and the despair of stagflation, but I can't remember a time in my life where simply being 2-3 paychecks ahead and saving some money was as difficult for so many people as it is now.

 

Now part of it is no doubt cultural (people wanting to live a certain lifestyle and going into debt to support it), I won't argue that, but there's a lot more going on than people living beyond their means and making dumb choices, and I think Sanders properly diagnoses several of these problems.

 

I don't have a prob with that and I'm glad he's saying something. It's his remedies that are troubling.

 

"Free School!" and "$15!" are some of the stupidest cures I've ever heard in my life, and I'm somebody who strongly believe higher education needs to be reformed (especially economically), and that the minimum wage does need to go up in many cases.

 

And let's be honest, even with the Republicans losing a few senators as expected, "medicare for all" has a better chance of passing with Donald freakin' Trump. I think we've reached a point where health care is so expensive, confusing, and frustrating for average people that single payer looks like the least bad option (maybe this was Obamacare's goal all along?), but it's where gay marriage was 15 years ago -- something that is obviously going to happen, but incrementally and with several big fights along the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not moving the goalposts poe. My position has always been that Sanders never had a chance. He did not have a path to victory; let me be clear here, in no world (absent some crazy unpredictable black swan event occurring) was Sanders ever in the running. This was not a close election, period.

 

SC merely confirmed that. On that date his fate was sealed- before then, he was still technically in it and some uncertainty lingered in the air, but his chances were realistically next to nothing. SC just confirmed what all of us already knew.

 

And that is- Sanders appealed to one segment of the party- young, white progressives that weren't overly sympathetic to SJW noise and found Sanders' economic message appealing. That was it and it was pretty obvious- a significant amount of polling going into the primaries showed that Sanders was not winning blacks. The gap was too big and he wasn't going to close it. Sanders never won a poll, not a single one in SC.

 

You're talking about SC as if he was in striking distance. He was not. Sorry, but you're just wrong on this one- this isn't like something that's up for interpretation. SC was not close, it was never going to be close, and once the results came in and it confirmed that Sanders wasn't competitive in the black vote, the game was over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

You're talking about SC as if he was in striking distance. He was not.

 

No, I'm just talking about it as if it wasn't the whole race. Even today, with the race effectively over, Sanders is only 4 points behind Clinton nationally in the RCP average. If he came that close from the support of a single group, then he sure as heck had a viable path to the nomination if he could have built some momentum beyond them.

 

It wouldn't have taken a black swan event for Sanders get another 10 points and grab a hold of the lead among pledged delegates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not the whole race but it's very instructive because it confirmed that Sanders had a limited base. Contrast this to 2008, when Obama won SC by 30 points and lost NH by less than 3 points. Now that was a close race- because both candidates had a large base of support (Obama- youth, blacks, and the anti-Iraq vote; Clinton- establishment, older voters, and at least early on- women), and on top of that, both candidates had in-roads to each other's bases as well. After SC, it wasn't particularly clear who would edge out who, or who the establishment would side with- complicated even further on Super Tuesday when Clinton picked up NY and CA.

 

That's not the case this year. Clinton had most Dem factions behind her, and it wasn't really in question. Sanders had to find a base of voters somewhere if he didn't have establishment support. If he couldn't make the black vote at least somewhat competitive, then he was never going to cobble together enough support to run it close in the big states.

 

He needed more than 10 points poe. Sanders was behind an average of almost 30 points in SC. Some polls had Clinton ahead by upwards of 50. Even if he had more momentum out of the first three states, he was not going to close that gap. The gap being important, again, not so much because of anything special about SC per se, but moreso because it demonstrated he had a ceiling of support in the Dem base. Now let's say Sanders had won a few polls in SC and was running an average of only, say, 10 points behind Clinton in SC. Couple that with a decisive win in IA- OK, now it's a whole different race.

 

But those circumstances were not the ones that actually existed, and everyone serious about politics recognized that. Not exactly sure why you're having trouble with this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clinton had most Dem factions behind her, and it wasn't really in question.

Nobody supports Clinton. The only "Dem factions" behind Hillary Clinton are the voter suppression bloc and hacked voting machines.

 

Sorry, I read something very similar to that this morning and feel a continuous need to interject it into Hillary/Bernie discussions.

 

Carry on :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not the whole race but it's very instructive because it confirmed that Sanders had a limited base.

 

He's only 4 points down today. Are you saying that he managed to hit his absolute maximum potential?

 

 

 

He needed more than 10 points poe. Sanders was behind an average of almost 30 points in SC.

 

Why do you keep going back to South Carolina? It's not the only state. You keep bringing up this single state and extrapolating it across the nation.

 

Fact is that Sanders has nabbed 45% of the pledged delegates for the Democrats even with the race effectively being over for awhile now. With the method that Democrats apportion their delegates, a 10% increase in his polls would absolutely have made a difference. It's almost a direct trade-off, you do 10% better you get 10% more delegates and your opponent gets 10% less. So really, it would have only taken about a 5 point increase in Sanders' support to take the lead in pledged delegates, and that would have made all the difference.

 

It only took a pretty small lead in bound delegates for the superdelegates to abandon Clinton and go to Obama last time. I see no reason to believe that they wouldn't have done the same this time around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest El Chalupacabra

 

Not sure what reality Bernie's from, but I can say what era he is stuck in: the late 1960s/early 1970s would be my guess.

Bernie and his rhetoric genuinely worries me.

 

There are many very real and troubling economic problems facing young people -- and really, pretty much any non-homeowner who isn't making, say, $150k can't feel terribly safe at this moment in history.

 

I don't remember the late 1970s and the despair of stagflation, but I can't remember a time in my life where simply being 2-3 paychecks ahead and saving some money was as difficult for so many people as it is now.

 

Now part of it is no doubt cultural (people wanting to live a certain lifestyle and going into debt to support it), I won't argue that, but there's a lot more going on than people living beyond their means and making dumb choices, and I think Sanders properly diagnoses several of these problems.

 

I don't have a prob with that and I'm glad he's saying something. It's his remedies that are troubling.

 

"Free School!" and "$15!" are some of the stupidest cures I've ever heard in my life, and I'm somebody who strongly believe higher education needs to be reformed (especially economically), and that the minimum wage does need to go up in many cases.

 

And let's be honest, even with the Republicans losing a few senators as expected, "medicare for all" has a better chance of passing with Donald freakin' Trump. I think we've reached a point where health care is so expensive, confusing, and frustrating for average people that single payer looks like the least bad option (maybe this was Obamacare's goal all along?), but it's where gay marriage was 15 years ago -- something that is obviously going to happen, but incrementally and with several big fights along the way.

 

Yeah, but to me it's only scary if Sanders actually believes his own rhetoric. It's hard to say if Sanders is saying those things to get elected, which I think he is. But if he does believe what he is saying, then yeah, Free School and $15 minimum wages are troubling because I don't see how they are economically viable. Well, the former isn't unless drastic cuts in other spending and/or tax increases are made, and the latter could be done, but do you see CEOs giving up their golden parachutes to make it happen? Heh, not likely.

 

As for single payer, who is to say that this whole debacle wasn't all part of the plan to move to single payer all along? A crisis (the Obamacare debacle) had to be created to push people towards single payer. That is what I have thought for some time, anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can sympathize with younger Bernie supporters because I can easily see the 19 year old version of myself being passionately apologetic for him as well.

He certainly has some great proposals that I would love to see take place, but I suppose the 32 year old version of myself has become far more realistic and cynical about how the meat really is made. Great ideas and proposals are one thing, having the weight or machinery to actually make them happen are another. I think the Obama administration has taught me much in that regard, because while I would have loved to have seen many of his proposals as a candidate take place, I can begrudgingly understand why they haven't actually taken place in 7+ years. True universal health care or Guantanamo's end being among them.

In truth, a President Sanders wouldn't have been able to actually enact the majority of what he'd been preaching. The GOP would have thrown rhetoric, muck and roadblocks at his "socialist agenda" with no abandon. Absolutely everything would have turned into a half-hearted and mostly ineffective compromise. I'm lukewarm on Hillary, but as corrupted and as institutionally moderate as she is, she'll still be able to be more effective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Generally speaking, young people's understanding of politics is limited to a dim awareness that it provides opportunities for haughty moralizing and free stuff.

 

And Sanders outspent Clinton 2-1 in New York with that amazing fundraising of his and still got spanked.

 

Why does "young people support him" and "he broke fundraising records" make Sanders appealing to you?

:confused:

 

He doesn't appeal so much to me for these reasons but they seemed like good indicators that Bernie had figured out what Clinton could not - connect to younger voters. This was in the earlier part of the campaign. Most of my interest has waned in that department but I do think that as most jobs in America are service industry related now a living wage is a good thing to think about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Poe I don't think he's necessarily hit his absolute maximum potential. A few things go differently, and I could see him winning a couple more states here and there (MA is one that comes to mind). But yeah, Sanders came pretty close to his ceiling- there were nearly ideal conditions for him this cycle. No other serious contenders. Running against an unlikeable candidate that doesn't excite the left that has a reputation for being crooked and, on top of that, isn't a particularly good campaigner. It's hard to imagine a better set of circumstances for him. Had just one other serious candidate ran, Sanders probably wouldn't have won a single state.
I keep going back to SC because the state demonstrated that Sanders was having trouble with a core Democratic demographic that he had to be competitive in if he was gonna have a chance on Super Tuesday. No, I'm not extrapolating the results to across the country. Stop putting words in my mouth. I don't think I ever said those results were the same everywhere. What I am saying is that the results were a very strong indicator that not only confirmed polling data going into the primaries, but also confirmed the size of his base and allowed one to pretty accurately predict Super Tuesday if you were paying attention.
I have explained this three times now. I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to understand. Is it because you're biased against Clinton? Well, I can certainly sympathize with that- I prefer Sanders to Clinton myself. But I'm not going to let that distort my analysis. Or is it, rather, what I suspect- that you made an off hand comment about this race that you didn't expect any scrutiny over, and was not prepared to actually defend the point to someone who knows what they're talking about? I think that's what happened here. You didn't know that, for example, Clinton's victory was so lopsided in SC (again, 48 points), and you probably also didn't know (until I posted the link) that Clinton had won 34 straight polls in SC, by margins as high as 70 points. I'm guessing you didn't know that going into SC, Sanders was behind nationally with women by around 25 points, and with blacks by overwhelming numbers- typically over 50 points. The closest I saw him was maybe behind by 30, where in some polls (like the Feb PPP one), Sanders was behind 82 to 8.
I'm not sure in what world a candidate that was that behind with those core demographics- perhaps the most important ones in the Dem base- is considered to be in a "close race." Whatever shred of doubt existed in most sane people was quickly extinguished in SC, when it became clear that Sanders was not going to close the gap with those demographics, at least not quick enough for Super Tuesday.
As far as Sanders getting 45% of the pledged delegates so far... ah, I see. I think I understand why you're so confused now. You seem to think that because Sanders isn't that far behind Clinton in pledged delegates ('only' a few hundred), that a minor move could make up that difference. OK, I'll take this opportunity to teach you a little. Since there aren't any other serious candidates and because Sanders has a base (albeit one not big enough to win), Sanders was always going to win a certain number of contests. The problem is, he had a ceiling of support and once he hits that ceiling, each additional delegate over a certain point becomes harder and harder to get. It is similar to the general election- each party is nearly guaranteed somewhere between 40-45%, after that point, each additional percentage point becomes tougher and tougher and you have to put in more (effort, time, money, etc) for each vote you get out of it. In other words, those last 10% you talk about with Sanders may look not insurmountable, but is in reality a mile-long chasm that Sanders was never going to jump over. It's sort of like when you watch the Olympics and you see a runner in a long distance race keeping pace with the leader, except maybe 20m behind. You would think you could just close that 20m with a little extra push, but in reality that 20m right there is everything and some people can train their whole life and will never have the athleticism to close that little gap.
For Sanders to clear that chasm, he would've had to win some big states that he was not competitive in. Like FL and its 246 delegates, which Sanders lost by the way, by over 30 points. For Sanders to be competitive in those states, he would've needed a larger base and momentum from Super Tuesday. In Super Tuesday, Sanders won 4 elections to Clinton's 8, and of course, of Clinton's 8, she had all the big states. Like VA and its 109 delegates (Clinton won by almost 30 points), Texas and its 251 delegates (Clinton won by over 30 points), or Georgia and its 117 delegates (Clinton won by 43 points). Maybe you were surprised by this, but not I, since after SC, it was clear that Sanders had not closed the gap enough with the demographics that he needed to, in order to be competitive in Super Tuesday.

And finally, as far as your Obama comment goes... I mean, let's be clear here. Are you seriously suggesting that Sanders can be, in any way, shape or form, compared to Obama? The mere fact that you are actually suggesting that Sanders could've been in the position to do what Obama did is... well, quite frankly, it means I am about to lose interest in continuing this conversation since you may not be ready to discuss politics at my level. Are you a college student or something? You do understand that Obama was in a completely different position right? He had a different (and larger) base, he was an excellent campaigner, he had the black vote, there were a completely different set of issues back then, and Obama had demonstrated he could win in various areas of the country, as well as big states. He narrowly beat Clinton on Super Tuesday (in delegate count) which allowed him to start chipping away at the establishment's support for Clinton from early Feb. After all that, Obama was in a position to win support of superdelegates. Exactly how was Sanders going to get into that position if he never had a chance to even tie on Super Tuesday- if all the things I listed that Obama had, Sanders had none of? The mere fact that you think a unique set of circumstances could be repeated, despite every single initial condition being completely different, is... it's remarkable.

You keep saying there was a path for Sanders, well let's see it. What states on Super Tuesday do you actually think he had a chance to flip? Clinton increased her lead to about 200 delegates after Super Tuesday, so show me which ones Sanders could've won. MA? OK, I'll give you MA. Let's say he gets a narrow win there- he gets one pledged delegate over Clinton and maybe some of MA's unpledged. That's not 200 yet. So where else? He's losing every other state by at least 30 points, so I'm eager to hear what you got.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, but to me it's only scary if Sanders actually believes his own rhetoric. It's hard to say if Sanders is saying those things to get elected, which I think he is. But if he does believe what he is saying, then yeah, Free School and $15 minimum wages are troubling because I don't see how they are economically viable. Well, the former isn't unless drastic cuts in other spending and/or tax increases are made, and the latter could be done, but do you see CEOs giving up their golden parachutes to make it happen? Heh, not likely.

As far as I know, Bernie's always been singing the same tune; maybe he knows he's fudging some of the facts along the way, making things sound more viable than they are in the hopes of that "political revolution" carrying him over the finish line, but I think he truly means much of what he says. And frankly, I have respect for that. He's one of the few politicians I can think of who is both crafty enough to win and willing to clearly state his positions without equivocation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest El Chalupacabra

I can sympathize with younger Bernie supporters because I can easily see the 19 year old version of myself being passionately apologetic for him as well.

 

He certainly has some great proposals that I would love to see take place, but I suppose the 32 year old version of myself has become far more realistic and cynical about how the meat really is made. Great ideas and proposals are one thing, having the weight or machinery to actually make them happen are another. I think the Obama administration has taught me much in that regard, because while I would have loved to have seen many of his proposals as a candidate take place, I can begrudgingly understand why they haven't actually taken place in 7+ years. True universal health care or Guantanamo's end being among them.

 

In truth, a President Sanders wouldn't have been able to actually enact the majority of what he'd been preaching. The GOP would have thrown rhetoric, muck and roadblocks at his "socialist agenda" with no abandon. Absolutely everything would have turned into a half-hearted and mostly ineffective compromise. I'm lukewarm on Hillary, but as corrupted and as institutionally moderate as she is, she'll still be able to be more effective.

That's kind of why I question if he even believes what he is preaching, because the guy has been around the block. He knows how Washington works. He IS a Washington insider. So, I think what he has been saying all along is populist red meat for the DNC base to get elected, and nothing more. If he did really believe he could get even half of what he is talking about through, then that tells me he is way out of touch with how things work, which in of itself is scary for someone who is president.

 

What is sad is of the 5 still running between the DNC and GOP, Hillary Clinton seems the most reasonable out of the bunch. And I can't stand her, so it really pains me to say it. I may have to just throw my vote away to the libertarian geek, again.

 

 

Yeah, but to me it's only scary if Sanders actually believes his own rhetoric. It's hard to say if Sanders is saying those things to get elected, which I think he is. But if he does believe what he is saying, then yeah, Free School and $15 minimum wages are troubling because I don't see how they are economically viable. Well, the former isn't unless drastic cuts in other spending and/or tax increases are made, and the latter could be done, but do you see CEOs giving up their golden parachutes to make it happen? Heh, not likely.

As far as I know, Bernie's always been singing the same tune; maybe he knows he's fudging some of the facts along the way, making things sound more viable than they are in the hopes of that "political revolution" carrying him over the finish line, but I think he truly means much of what he says. And frankly, I have respect for that. He's one of the few politicians I can think of who is both crafty enough to win and willing to clearly state his positions without equivocation.

 

 

Well, it is not to say Sanders doesn't LIKE what he is saying and isn't consistent with what he says, and maybe in "his" perfect world, he would enact them, but I think he has just been around too long to know better that there is no way to actually pass his agendas.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it is not to say Sanders doesn't LIKE what he is saying and isn't consistent with what he says, and maybe in "his" perfect world, he would enact them, but I think he has just been around too long to know better that there is no way to actually pass his agendas.

Could be.

 

But it's not like he plans on his "revolution" happening overnight. He knows that it is impossible to raise the minimum wage to $15 tomorrow (my city has a high cost of living and is phasing in $14.75 by 2022, and even that is problematic). Or that we can just immediately open up all schools.

 

From his rhetoric, it appears he is banking on his election causing a huge wave that washes away all those nasty Republicans and fiscally moderate Democrats, then having 2-3 more justices die so he can get to work without being blocked at every turn.

 

It's a highly appealing narrative, though also highly unrealistic... and it also echos the beliefs of many socialist true-believers I've known throughout my life (come on, team! Capitalism is almost dead... just one more election then we'll be there!), so I have no reason to think he doesn't believe it himself.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still baffled by this idea that somebody with such a minimal political track record, other than her last last name and what that has caused to get handed to her thus far, gets the support she does. Then you factor in her scandal. After that, Benghazi. Then you can even factor in her being fired from the Watergate Investigative Committee for unethical behavior and lying to her superiors. What the hell, aside from shady dealings, has this old hag ever accomplished? Besides the fact that she possesses a vagina and switches positions more than the entire roster over at Brazzers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still baffled by this idea that somebody with such a minimal political track record, other than her last last name and what that has caused to get handed to her thus far, gets the support she does. Then you factor in her scandal. After that, Benghazi. Then you can even factor in her being fired from the Watergate Investigative Committee for unethical behavior and lying to her superiors. What the hell, aside from shady dealings, has this old hag ever accomplished? Besides the fact that she possesses a vagina and switches positions more than the entire roster over at Brazzers.

Not being Donald Trump.

Not being Ted Cruz.

Not being Bernie Sanders.

 

Sufficient these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still baffled by this idea that somebody with such a minimal political track record, other than her last last name and what that has caused to get handed to her thus far, gets the support she does. Then you factor in her scandal. After that, Benghazi. Then you can even factor in her being fired from the Watergate Investigative Committee for unethical behavior and lying to her superiors. What the hell, aside from shady dealings, has this old hag ever accomplished? Besides the fact that she possesses a vagina and switches positions more than the entire roster over at Brazzers.

Holy shit somebody call the burn clinic!

 

I wouldn't go that far with my criticism of her, but I do get where you are coming from. I wonder how well Sanders would have done against Biden?

 

Not being Donald Trump.

Not being Ted Cruz.

Not being Bernie Sanders.

 

Sufficient these days.

Yeah, that definitely helps too... lol.

 

Also factor in name recognition and tying herself to an economic era many older voters perceive with rose-colored glasses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.