March 29, 2016

Has anyone seen a negative ad from the Bernie campaign?

If so, post it here, and I'll cross post, or cover your head and tiptoe into GDP. I, personally, have not, and won't be surprised if there aren't any. (Depends on how one defines "negative" I guess.) But if they're there, I'd like to see them posted to this thread in GDP.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?
com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1599896

March 29, 2016

A civilized (!!) critique of a critique of the Rolling Stone HRC endorsement.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/110785289

I'm posting this mainly because it is an example of how we could be debating the issues instead of just yelling at each other without thinking.

March 29, 2016

Mother Jones on Hillary

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/03/hillary-clinton-fundamentally-honest-and-trustworthy

March 29, 2016

Mother Jones on Hillary

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/03/hillary-clinton-fundamentally-honest-and-trustworthy

March 28, 2016

Here's another good link I got from GDP.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/28/hillary-clinton-honest-transparency-jill-abramson

March 28, 2016

I think Chelsea is being swift-boated.

Edit after 25 replies. I was hoping to have a conversation about the targetting of Chelsea to make her look prone to gaffs. Instead we seem to have the same old re-hash of which health care plan is preferable. My point is that if Chelsea is stating positions her mother is taking publicly, then she's not making political gaffs. Instead people are twisting what she says. Since she's a relatively minor player, then this attention feels coordinated to me.

**** original post ****
Having read responses to a thread entitled

'Chelsea: Mom will do something to address “the crushing costs of Obamacare.” 'and seen that a lot of Clinton supporters are buying the idea that Chelsea makes unthinking troublesome remarks, it's dawned on me that this may well be a concerted plan to swift-boat her. Below is a discussion of the distortion in the "crushing costs" thread. But I want to point out the first "Chelsea gaff" that hit the news some months ago, where she was lambasted for suggesting that Sanders wanted to dismantle ObamaCare. Why was she lambasted? It's exactly what the Clinton campaign has been saying. To get rid of insurance companies is to dismantle Obamacare. But even Clinton supporters seemed to buy that it was a gaff.

I think we supporters should take the time to track back to the original context the next time Chelsea is a target.

Discussion of the "crushing costs" thread.
The actual quote was:

"She thinks either of those will help solve the challenge of kind of the crushing costs that still exist for too many people who even are part of the Affordable Care Act,"

Of course it has been a main feature of Clinton's agenda to address the remaining problems in the Affordable Care Act. How is this a gaff on Chelsea's part?

March 28, 2016

The depressing prevalence of smear tactics.

A thread in this forum was entitled Chelsea: Mom will do something to address “the crushing costs of Obamacare.” The actual quote was:

"She thinks either of those will help solve the challenge of kind of the crushing costs that still exist for too many people who even are part of the Affordable Care Act,"

To put a misquote in the subject is one more example of how "Hillary haters" will twist the truth. Notice I didn't say "Bernie supporters." I don't live in a black and white world the way the Hillary haters do. They even twisted the Fox news slanted report. Fox news was bad enough, although not strictly mis-quoting, 'Chelsea Clinton laments 'crushing' health care costs despite ObamaCare' and accompanies it with a really unflattering picture of Chelsea.

These misquotes and slanted reports can make even a dedicated Hillary supporter gasp a little. And it's work to find out the truth. Most responding to the thread in question didn't. How can we expect the average overworked undecided voter to fight back? Very depressing for American democracy.

March 27, 2016

for those of you who have abandoned GDP,

..you'll like to read this.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511582747#post44

March 27, 2016

Yet more evidence...

... re Hillary's continued concern for minorities.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/110782610

March 26, 2016

What's it like in a caucus?

Especially one in which the results are dominated by Sanders? Why does he have an edge in caucus states?

- Of course there's the demographic issue. Maybe caucuses are held in low population states with fewer minorities.

- Do far left democrats gravitate toward such states?

- In the caucus is a persuasive case made to vote for Sanders to keep his message strong, even if you want Hillary in the White House? The argument being that she'll be the nominiee anyway?

- Are people persuaded within the walls of the caucus for any reason?

- Is there some factor that keeps older Hillary voters home in larger numbers?

Any replies will be appreciated. I'm just curious.