Compared to any Republican, the difference between Hillary and Bernie is rounding error.

[DanTex]

I would have thought that after Bush, there wouldn't be any more doubt about this. And I really hope it doesn't take another Republican presidency before "progressives" figure this out once and for all.

[DanTex]

2. It will always be the time for the best candidate that can actually win.

This time that candidate is Hillary. It's by no means guaranteed that she will win the GE, but she has the best chance, by far.

[DanTex]

5. Fair enough. Disagreement happens. Even on the internet!

[Exilednight]

4. I'm not hearing an argument as to what makes anyone think that Hillary can win the GE.

[DanTex]

7. Well, my argument:

She's polling better than anyone. She can raise massive amounts of money. She's not so far left as to be vulnerable to charges of being a radical. She's got support from a lot of influential people and groups. She's a very savvy politician, and she has a lot of experience at the national level.

[Exilednight]

9. Polls are irrelevant at this point, money is overrated and if she's so

Savvy; then why does she make such stupid mistakes like keeping emails that belong to the government on a private server if you are considering running for office again?

There are, also, a lot of influential groups lining up against her.

Her experience is nothing to brag about. Many view her as a carpetbagger to New York and her time as SoS yielded very little in terms of fundamental change.

[DanTex]

10. Well, I disagree with "irrelevant". Not as meaningful as polls the month before the election,

but they are the best data we have now.

And money definitely does matter. If it didn't, politicians wouldn't spend so much time raising it. If money wasn't a big deal, then Citizens United would be a big deal either. But it is. Because money is very important.

I guess we disagree about her political savvy. The emails thing isn't going to matter. She does have vulnerabilities, but that isn't one of them.

About her experience, yes, a lot of people don't like her, but there's no doubt that she's got much more national level experience than anyone else in the Democratic race right now, with the possible exception of Biden if he joins.


What I have not seen, at all, is any argument that Bernie is a viable candidate in the GE. The only argument is "anything can happen". Frankly, I don't want to chance the future of the nation on that.

[Exilednight]

11. Kerry lost due to an $800,000 commercial that ran for ten days based on a meaningless gaffe he made

Years prior. Hillary has a closet full of gaffes that Republicans are just chomping at the bit to roll out.

There's your proof that money doesn't matter and stupidity does.

Bernie can win because he is not prone to such things. He has a genuine vibe vs Hillary's scripted approach. Bernie seems approachable vs Hillary's stand-offish demeanor.

[DanTex]

13. Yet for some reason, you don't see many politicians turning down money.

Maybe they know something that you don't.

If there were any precedent whatsoever for someone like Bernie winning at a national level, being able to take states like Ohio, Florida, Colorado, Virginia, maybe. But there isn't. The only argument you are making is that you like him more than Hillary. But most Americans don't.

[Exilednight]

15. What do politicians do with most of that money? The majority of that money is

Spent throwing parties to raise more money, on image consultants, private planes, and a slew of other things that have little to do with developing a message.

How many national campaigns have you worked on?

[DanTex]

18. They spend it on, uh, campaigning.

You know hiring people, running ads, holding campaign events, GOTV, etc.

Please, tell me, in your theory of "money isn't important", why do politicians spend so much time and effort doing it? Are they all wrong? You know something that nobody else in the political world does?

Obama, for example, took some bad press when he decided not to take matching funds, and instead raise record amounts on his own. Do you think this is because he doesn't know anything about running national campaigns?

[Exilednight]

27. Let's take these one by one.

Campaigning: very little money is actually spent on campaigning: giving speeches, shaking hands, renting vans etc ...

GOTV is largely volunteer based. Little to no money is spent in this area.

Obama knows little about running a campaign, Acelrod and Plough know everything about running one.

If you saw the bottom line of what is spent on image consultants and overpriced dinners and hotel rooms - you'd gag in disgust.

People actually forming economic and domestic and foreign policy and doing research are primarily volunteers, unless they are campaign "staff".

[DanTex]

30. Well, you haven't answered my question.

Why do politicians spend so much time and effort raising money if it isn't that important. Surely it's not just so they can have nice meals and fly in jets?

[Exilednight]

33. I would argue that is the exact reason. Hillary wouldn't be

Be caught dead traveling from town to town in a Ford Focus, or stay in Super 8 hotel. She would find that beneath her. Image, to someone like her, is everything.

How many pictures of Hillary exist, and how many of those show her wearing something as simple as a pair of Levi's?

[DanTex]

38. OK, well it seems to that the much more logical explanation is that it takes money to win big

campaigns. But you're right, in the world where money and polls don't matter, maybe Bernie would have a chance.

And actually, Hillary did drive to Iowa in a van, but, yeah, I know, that doesn't count.

[Exilednight]

44. have you seen the van? I guarantee you it costs more than I made in the

Last three years, if not more, combined.

[DanTex]

47. No. I'm sure it's a nice van. Does this actually matter?

The point is, if what really mattered to her was travelling around in a G6, she could have done that. In fact, she can already do that, without running for president.

[Exilednight]

49. Image is everything. She could fly coach and it would be cheaper.

[DanTex]

51. Image is important when running a campaign. Everyone knows this, and pretending it's

not true is a route to losing.

[Exilednight]

53. That depends. Focusing too much on image can make you appear out of touch. Just ask

Edwards and Romney. Hillary is running this risk.

[DanTex]

56. Sure, but there's no evidence whatsoever that Hillary is at risk.

Like I said, your entire argument that Bernie stands a chance is basically "I like him." You ignore polls, you ignore money, you ignore the fact that large numbers of Americans thing "socialism" is a bad word, etc.

[Exilednight]

59. Americans think capitalism is a bad word. Why do polls

Matter when the majority of America isn't paying attention?

I, also, showed how as little as $800,000 brought down a candidate.

[DanTex]

63. Umm, really? Of course, I forgot that you don't believe in polls.

You judge public opinion based on what you personally believe, and then assume the rest of the country thinks the same thing.

And, no Kerry didn't lose just to a single ad. He (barely) lost to a huge and well-funded campaign that included the Swiftboating. Without the rest of the campaign, and only the Swiftboating, Kerry still wins.

[Exilednight]

64. It's obvious you've never been involved in a national campaign. Professional consultants

Don't put stock in position polls at this point.

Kerry lost due to one commercial that owned the news cycle 2 weeks.

[DanTex]

65. It's also obvious that you haven't either. At least not a winning one.

Maybe the "poll-free" kind of campaign where people just assume that the rest of the country thinks "capitalism" is a bad word simply because their group of friends believe that.

[Exilednight]

66. One losing, one winning. I worked in the Kerry campaign and the first

Obama campaign.

The reason Obama won was due to to Axelrod's internal polling and how to discard certain polls and pay attention to others.

No poll was considered serious until it was 6 weeks out, or immediately after a debate or major policy announcement. During the primary, national position pols were dumped in the trash. Only state polling mattered.

Axelrod's polling that he relied on was always well within the MOE, except one poll.

[DanTex]

67. Wonder what Axelrod would think of your theory that money doesn't matter.

Or your theory that Americans think "capitalism" is a bad word.

Or that trailing by 50 points at the moment is no big deal.

Or your theory that Obama only raised all that money so he could pamper himself and fly around in a private jet.

Or, for that matter, your theory that Bernie has as much of a chance as Hillary in a GE.

[Exilednight]

68. Again, one by one

Capitalism: during the Obama campaign, for the first time in 20 years a poll showed that the majority of Americans didn't believe capitalism was the best economy.

Socialism is viewed as favorable by about 36% of the population.

50 points wouldn't bother him. Obama was down 33 points to Hillary the first two months.

I'm not sure what Axelrod's theory is about cash.

If I had to speculate what David would say about Bernie; I bet he would say he could get elected if he was running the campaign.

[DanTex]

69. The first poll I was able to google up about capitalism and socialism.

Socialism 26-51 favorable-unfavorable. Capitalism 52-26 favorable unfavorable.
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/n76iu6bhcs/toplines_OPI_socialism_20150508.pdf

At this point, Obama was down 10-20 points, and equal in fundraising.

I'm pretty sure that Axelrod's theory of cash is the same as anyone else who has ever run a major campaign: cash good. If he didn't feel that way, it would be pretty strange for him to refuse matching funds and instead build up the biggest fundraising machine the country had ever seen. I mean, sure, he likes Obama, but going to all that effort just so that Obama gets to travel in fancy private jets seems a little excessive.

[leveymg]

50. Wish they were just gaffes. Instead, she has thirty years of scandal and failures under her belt.

There's a Gone With the Wind length spectacle of material for the GOP media hacks to work with going back to her career with the Rose Law Firm facilitating the work of BCCI, the Stephens, Worthen Bank, and Walmart.

It's staggering to me how much willful naivite and self-inflicted amnesia there is among some Third Way Dems. Corruption really is a gaping maw of political vulnerability for her candidacy in the general.

It's as if they have an override switch -- an all-powerful self-censor inside their heads -- that makes them avoid any exposure or contact with the cruel truth that some of their heroes -- e.g., the Clintons -- are compromised and playing both sides.

They refuse to deal with the record that documents Clinton's involvement with some of the most notorious intelligence and corruption scandals,. That's a long list of groups and individuals that includes Jackson Stephens, Iran-Contra, BCCI, Mena Airport, WAL*MART, Infosystems, the CIA, the NSA, Chinese Intelligence, Saudi GID, etc. Atop that, there are serious questions about Hillary's integrity and judgement in advocating for the neocon agenda, and her role as an advocate for the Iraq War Resolution and escalation of conflict with Iran.

This is not to say that the Clintons are worse than the Bush family, just that they are involved together in the same spooky underworld of global power players, crooked bankers, spies, terrorists, arms and drug dealers. Are they competitors or partners? Both. Frankly, that would normally disqualify someone from high public office. But, for those who want power in DC, some things have to be ignored.

Their heads must hurt from fighting cognitive dissidence all these years.

[DanTex]

52. The scandals are all phony though. Nothing sticks.

They are things like Benghazi and emails and whitewater.

[leveymg]

57. Benghazi and Whitewater were phony scandals. There are real ones that involve a bipartisan group of

power brokers in both parties that don't stick because they're too big to stick. The phony scandals are diversions from policies and personal enrichment schemes that involve top establishment figures and can't be admitted to by the leadership of either party. I referenced several of them involving the Clintons and the Bushes, above.

[DanTex]

58. In other words, none of them stick. Explain it how you want.

[leveymg]

62. Most of the biggest don't stick, with the notable exception of phony WMD

Last edited Sat May 30, 2015, 02:09 PM - Edit history (1)

That stuck because Bush crossed a good part of the CIA, and they aren't so easy to divert.

[CAG]

32. Have you ever noticed that polls are

Usually "irrelevant" to those that dont like the results of the polls?

[Exilednight]

46. Legitimate question: the average person doesn't pay attention

To politics until about 6 weeks from election.

Why are position polls relevant now?

[treestar]

6. The progressives' turn?

They have to convince large numbers of voters. In the Democratic party, large numbers of Democrats. They can't just demand a turn. Hillary was criticized for that.

[onehandle]

8. Hillary is going to win.

Twice.

Don't fret over DU.

[Exilednight]

12. I heard the same thing just before she lost in 2008. n/t

[onehandle]

14. There is no Obama.

He was a nationally known quantity in starting in 2004.

No one in their right mind thought he wouldn't be President some day.

There is no Obama this time.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. To suggest Bernie is a proxy for Barack Obama is as absurd as suggesting...

To suggest Bernie is a proxy for Barack Obama is as absurd as suggesting Adam Sandler is a proxy for Tom Hanks. Any argument that starts from that premise is irretrievably flawed.

[Exilednight]

28. his national status in 2008 is highly inflated. He gave a speech in 2004 and somehow

The myth was created that he became a household name, which isn't true.

[onehandle]

34. I meant amongst the politically aware.

Once everyone else saw him and heard him in 2008, his image and popularity snowballed.

If any candidate has a chance of this 'formula' to defeat Hillary, it's Martin O'Malley.

But...

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/marylanders-dont-like-martin-omalley-so-why-would-the-rest-of-america

There is no Obama.

[Exilednight]

35. You can't have it both ways. n/t

[aka-chmeee]

16. Well said! nt

[Scuba]

17. Compared to any progressive, the difference between Hillary and a Republican is social issues.

[DanTex]

19. And economic issues. Like privatizing social security, raising minimum wage, pretty much everything

[Scuba]

21. Hillary and Pete Peterson are way to close to trust her on Social Security.

[DanTex]

25. I don't know who that is. And I don't care. There is absolutely nothing to suggest Hillary

is going to privatize social security. This is precisely the kind of false negative attacks that Bernie Sanders, who likes and respects Hillary, has vowed not to make. If only his supporters were more like him.

For example:

"My only question to everybody who thinks we can privatize Social Security or undermine it in some way is, so then what's going to happen to all these people like you who worked 27 years at this other company? What's going to happen? It's just wrong," Clinton said.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/hillary-clinton-privatize-social-security-just-wrong

[TheKentuckian]

36. You can fuck Social Security every which way but loose without privatizing it.

She has been against revenues so isn't for protecting shit but her election chances by mouthing rhetorical boilerplate.

The chained CPI guy is a against privatization, some age increases advocates are also against privatization as are means testers and benefit cutters. Opposing privatization is not some holy grail.

Not knowing or caring about who the likes of Pete Peterson is part of the problem, pretending toxic corporate enabling and conservative influences away doesn't work.

[Scuba]

41. Then you should learn.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Peter_Peterson

Peter G. Peterson, born June 5, 1926, is a controversial Wall Street billionaire who uses his wealth to underwrite numerous organizations and PR campaigns to generate public support for slashing Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, citing concerns over "unsustainable" federal budget deficits.

http://stateofthedivision.blogspot.com/2010/01/hillary-clinton-speaks-from-peter-g.html

C-SPAN aired Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's remarks at the Peter G. Peterson Institute. Pete Peterson made billions as a private equity underwriter (PEU).

[DanTex]

45. Yes, she talked at the Peterson institute, therefore she must agree with him on social security.

Obviously. And don't get me started on the photo of her with Kissinger.

One last detail: Bernie Sanders says he "likes and respects" Hillary Clinton. What's that about? Can you really trust someone who likes and respects a person who has given a speech at a foundation run by a guy who wants to privatize social security? I don't think so. Better find someone new!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. There are a host of economic issues Hillary is different than the Republicans but you know that./NT

[Scuba]

22. There are a host of economic issues where Hillary advocates the exact same policies as Republicans.

But you knew that.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

26. Like protecting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, raising the minimum wage, and ...

Like protecting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, raising the minimum wage, and paid leave.

But you knew that.

[Scuba]

39. Protecting Social Security? I don't trust Hillary to do that, not when she hangs with Pete Peterson.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

40. I once hanged around a kid who became a soldier in the Gambino family . It didn't make me John Gotti

eom

[Scuba]

42. Hey, if taking speaking fees from a billionaire determined to slash Social Security doesn't ......

... bother you then you should continue supporting her.

It bothers the hell out of me.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

48. As long as the Clinton Foundation turned around and gave it to the poor.

Just as if John Gotti did it with his money.


Call it a form of penance.

[Cheese Sandwich]

24. Really? To me the differences seem huge.

On issues like free trade deals, voting or not voting for the Iraq war, Keystone XL pipeline, support for labor unions and worker co-ops, taxing Wall Street, breaking up the big banks, fighting for single-payer health care... I

I just see a lot of big differences so it's worth fighting for the best candidate.

[peacebird]

29. Yes, I agree. On big issues Hillary & Bernie are on opposite ends of the spectrum.

And bernie is my choice. He is really on fire in social media, and his message is reasonating with average folks.

[Doctor_J]

31. maybe at some point Clinton will reveal her views on issues, and your fantasy can be verified

Until then we have no way of knowing

[Man from Pickens]

37. War is a Rounding Error

[raouldukelives]

70. Aside from a few corpses, virtually the same. nt

[Man from Pickens]

71. What's a few hundred thousand war dead between Presidential candidates?

[cali]

43. not when it comes to issues of war and peace

[DCBob]

54. No shit... the 8 horrific years of Bush/Cheney took away any of my doubts.

[corkhead]

55. Personally I think the rounding error would more likely be between Hillary Clinton and Richard Nixon

than Hillary and Bernie

This my friend, is not a "rounding error":

The 31 times that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders disagreed happened to be on some the biggest issues of the day, including measures on continuing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, an immigration reform bill and bank bailouts during the depths of the Great Recession.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/28/upshot/the-senate-votes-that-divided-hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0

[kenfrequed]

60. Truth!

I also think there are a lot of independent people in this country that are sick of slick republican bullshit again and again and would like to hear a real progressive that isn't trying to talk us into another war. Rather than conceding that point in the name of "looking tough" and letting it be a null argument we should be selecting a candidate that will highlight the differences.

[DFW]

61. While you may be understating things a LITTLE bit,

I agree that the prospect of a Republican taking the White House next year reduces the Bernie vs. Hillary argument to a dispute over whether your last drink before execution will be Coke or Pepsi.