Its time to throw the baby out with the bath water, Dump Hillary for Bernie and call it a day.

[Vitamin]

I really don't think Biden stands much of a chance againist Bernie.

 

[mightbe]

Biden is there to be the VP. The DNC wants to obliterate Sanders even worse than the Republicans do.

 

[TX-Beau]

Sanders isn't going to be the nominee. It's just not going to happen.

Plus he couldn't win if by some serendipity he was nominated.

 

[jbrown329]

I love Bernie, but I know he doesn't have a chance of winning the general election. To bad. The US needs a President with Bernie's vision. I live in a caucus state, so if Bernie is on the ballot, I'll vote for him in the primary. In the general, I'll support whomever gets the nomination.

 

[TX-Beau]

I love Bernie, but I know he doesn't have a chance of winning the general election. To bad. The US needs a President with Bernie's vision. I live in a caucus state, so if Bernie is on the ballot, I'll vote for him in the primary. In the general, I'll support whomever gets the nomination.

A sentiment so many of us share.

 

[eddielee]

Biden ranks high in the polls right now, so if he runs, he might beat both Hillary and Bernie.

 

[CoolBlue71]

A Bernie [Sanders] nomination will ensure an R presidency.

Not in the year 2008.

And not in the year 2016.

In 2008, there was no way the incumbent White House party—the Republican Party—was going to survive their efforts to hold the presidency with the aggregated poll numbers for the job performance of 43rd president George W. Bush. (He was constantly below 40 percent, nationwide, for at least the last two full years of his presidency.) That was obviously a party-flipping presidential election year.

The year 2016 is going to be dependent of what's going on in the nation, yes, but given that the job losses have recovered—that's good for the Democratic Party. But there's more to this.

We've had 57 presidential elections. They started in 1789 and then made the move to leap years beginning in 1792. The fourth, in 1800, kicked off realigning periods favoring one party over the other for which the voting electorate delivered dominant victories. What caused a presidential realigning period was a watershed event (or more than one) for the party that had power and ended up having been cast aside. The previous one was 1968. The Democrats won seven of nine cycles from 1932 to 1964. The realignment—going to the Republicans for seven of ten cycles (1968 to 2004)—was caused primarily through incumbent 36th president Lyndon Johnson (D-Texas) getting the nation too deeply involved in Vietnam. The previous realignment was in 1932. Prior to that, the Republicans won seven of nine cycles from 1896 to 1928. What caused that realignment was the Great Depression having struck on the watch of incumbent 31st president Herbert Hoover (R-California). I am one of those people who state that the 2008 presidential election was another realignment—going to the Democrats (2008 to 20xx)—thanks to incumbent 43rd president George W. Bush (R-Texas) getting us too deeply involved in Iraq and, of course, there was the economic meltdown which struck two months before that year's election.

We've been living in realignments for over 200 years. The out party has never stopped the in party from being able to win at least three consecutive elections. The Democratic–Republican Party won all seven elections of 1800 to 1824. The Democratic Party won six of the eight elections of 1828 to 1856. The Republican Party won seven of the nine elections of 1860 to 1892. Due the Panic of 1893, the slaughtering in the 1894 midterms of the Democrats under Democratic president Grover Cleveland, another realignment went to the Republicans with having won seven of nine cycles from 1896 to 1928. The Democratic Party won seven of nine from 1932 to 1964. The Republican Party won seven of ten cycles from 1968 to 2004.

So, given what's going on with Republicans not being able to stop the decline in whites' share of the presidential vote in steady decline (the party counts about 90 percent of their candidates' percentage of the U.S. Popular Vote from whites nationally), they have no choice but to sharply shift minorities—who are growing—in their direction. So there is the following question:

What, specifically, is happening from the current Republican Party—with their brand; with what they have to offer in policies—that would make anyone think they are doing just that?

 

[evanrick]

Sounds like democrats are more determined to hold onto the white house than the GOP.

I just want ppl to know the most left leaning candidates from both parties are getting more of their campaign contributions from small donors, that includes trump, clinton, sanders, etc.

People saying that Bernie cant win are too timid to vote for their conscience, thats what Hillary is for. vote for Hillary, since she seems to need some support right now.

im 30 years from now when you try to retire are you really going to be thankful that you voted for hillary or one of the establishment candidates?

at least we know where Trump, Sanders and Warren are on TPP,
Do you really think Biden will buck his party and go for TPP almost as badly as Hillarys answer on this disasterous trade deal that Canada already wants out of?

Hillary will be fighting liberals from day one with her wishy-washy moderation, and its better we score points off the GOP than other democrats.

 

[CoolBlue71]

Sounds like democrats are more determined to hold onto the white house than the GOP.

I just want ppl to know the most left leaning candidates from both parties are getting more of their campaign contributions from small donors, that includes trump, clinton, sanders, etc.

People saying that Bernie cant win are too timid to vote for their conscience, thats what Hillary is for. vote for Hillary, since she seems to need some support right now.

im 30 years from now when you try to retire are you really going to be thankful that you voted for hillary or one of the establishment candidates?

at least we know where Trump, Sanders and Warren are on TPP,
Do you really think Biden will buck his party and go for TPP almost as badly as Hillarys answer on this disasterous trade deal that Canada already wants out of?

Part of what that is is this: People aren't adjusting their thinking to a new period of our history. The meme still rages that the Democrats cannot win with an actual liberal. Well, do people think that the "Blue Firewall" of states which haven't carried Republican after the 1980s, and they're worth over 240 of the required-for-election 270 electoral votes, are going to flip Republican? Using Vermont's Bernie Sanders as an example: Are people seriously thinking that, if he were to get nominated, the Democrats definitely lose the majority of these 18 states (listed in order of electoral votes): California (55), New York (29), Illinois (20), Pennsylvania (20), Michigan (16), New Jersey (14), Washington (12), Massachusetts (11), Maryland (10), Wisconsin (10), Minnesota (10), Oregon (07), Connecticut (07), Maine (04), Rhode Island (04), Hawaii (04), Vermont (03), Delaware (03), and non-state District of Columbia (03)?

Let's observe that those double-digit electoral-vote states add up to 207 electoral votes. And let's also take into account that, with Elections 2008 and 2012, bellwether state New Mexico—the historically best-performing state in having carried for presidential winners (it's the only state that has done so more than 90 percent of its existence!)—averaged on par with Michigan for its level of Democratic strength. (While Michigan was at D+7.40, New Mexico carried 7.13 percentage points above the Democrats' winning margins with the 2008 and 2012 U.S. Popular Vote—above such double-digit base states as Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and Wisconsin in both elections.) Let's also factor Nevada having voted the same as New Mexico since the former's first election in 1912. (Exception: the split differences, with the Electoral College and the U.S. Popular Vote, between a 2000 George W. Bush and Al Gore—the only time these two states officially colored differently.) And there are also Iowa and New Hampshire—two states which produce margins very close to each other and which have Democratic tilts (meaning, if the party wins—they definitely carry)—which carried Republican just once after the 1980s. I think it would be naïve not to see that, when it comes to either party winning a given presidential election, the Democratic (not the Republican) Party is the one with the better map.

 

[Kulindahr]

I saw a piece saying that some poll showed Bernie losing to the GOP candidate unless it was a Sanders/Warren ticket.

IMO, though, the real issue here isn't liberal or whatever, it's about being populist. The corporations and the wealthy, who totally control the GOP and have somewhat of a chokehold on the Dems, don't want a populist because populists always have a libertarian streak that wants to topple power structures, and at the moment the power structure in the country that really matters is the absolute control of the wealthy over the de facto primary that really matters -- the money primary.

 

[jbrown329]

Sounds like democrats are more determined to hold onto the white house than the GOP.

I just want ppl to know the most left leaning candidates from both parties are getting more of their campaign contributions from small donors, that includes trump, clinton, sanders, etc.

People saying that Bernie cant win are too timid to vote for their conscience, thats what Hillary is for. vote for Hillary, since she seems to need some support right now.

im 30 years from now when you try to retire are you really going to be thankful that you voted for hillary or one of the establishment candidates?

at least we know where Trump, Sanders and Warren are on TPP,
Do you really think Biden will buck his party and go for TPP almost as badly as Hillarys answer on this disasterous trade deal that Canada already wants out of?

Hillary will be fighting liberals from day one with her wishy-washy moderation, and its better we score points off the GOP than other democrats.

As I said before, I'll vote for Bernie in the primary. Should he get the nomination, I would gladly vote for him.

 

[Kulindahr]

As I said before, I'll vote for Bernie in the primary. Should he get the nomination, I would gladly vote for him.

I despise Hillary enough I'm thinking of registering as a Democrat just to vote for Bernie in the primary.

 

[jbrown329]

I despise Hillary enough I'm thinking of registering as a Democrat just to vote for Bernie in the primary.

One has to look long term. Just who do you want picking Justices (SCOTUS)? Hillary or Trump?

 

[hotatlboi]

Not in the year 2008.

And not in the year 2016.

In 2008, there was no way the incumbent White House party—the Republican Party—was going to survive their efforts to hold the presidency with the aggregated poll numbers for the job performance of 43rd president George W. Bush. (He was constantly below 40 percent, nationwide, for at least the last two full years of his presidency.) That was obviously a party-flipping presidential election year.

The year 2016 is going to be dependent of what's going on in the nation, yes, but given that the job losses have recovered—that's good for the Democratic Party. But there's more to this.

We've had 57 presidential elections. They started in 1789 and then made the move to leap years beginning in 1792. The fourth, in 1800, kicked off realigning periods favoring one party over the other for which the voting electorate delivered dominant victories. What caused a presidential realigning period was a watershed event (or more than one) for the party that had power and ended up having been cast aside. The previous one was 1968. The Democrats won seven of nine cycles from 1932 to 1964. The realignment—going to the Republicans for seven of ten cycles (1968 to 2004)—was caused primarily through incumbent 36th president Lyndon Johnson (D-Texas) getting the nation too deeply involved in Vietnam. The previous realignment was in 1932. Prior to that, the Republicans won seven of nine cycles from 1896 to 1928. What caused that realignment was the Great Depression having struck on the watch of incumbent 31st president Herbert Hoover (R-California). I am one of those people who state that the 2008 presidential election was another realignment—going to the Democrats (2008 to 20xx)—thanks to incumbent 43rd president George W. Bush (R-Texas) getting us too deeply involved in Iraq and, of course, there was the economic meltdown which struck two months before that year's election.

We've been living in realignments for over 200 years. The out party has never stopped the in party from being able to win at least three consecutive elections. The Democratic–Republican Party won all seven elections of 1800 to 1824. The Democratic Party won six of the eight elections of 1828 to 1856. The Republican Party won seven of the nine elections of 1860 to 1892. Due the Panic of 1893, the slaughtering in the 1894 midterms of the Democrats under Democratic president Grover Cleveland, another realignment went to the Republicans with having won seven of nine cycles from 1896 to 1928. The Democratic Party won seven of nine from 1932 to 1964. The Republican Party won seven of ten cycles from 1968 to 2004.

So, given what's going on with Republicans not being able to stop the decline in whites' share of the presidential vote in steady decline (the party counts about 90 percent of their candidates' percentage of the U.S. Popular Vote from whites nationally), they have no choice but to sharply shift minorities—who are growing—in their direction. So there is the following question:

What, specifically, is happening from the current Republican Party—with their brand; with what they have to offer in policies—that would make anyone think they are doing just that?

While it's true that nothing is set in stone, Sanders would be an extremely weak general election candidate. Socialism is still a taboo word for most conservatives and moderates. Add to that the fact that it is historically very hard for the same party to win 3 times in a row, and I believe he would be very likely to lose.

 

[Kulindahr]

One has to look long term. Just who do you want picking Justices (SCOTUS)? Hillary or Trump?

Neither, but if those are the choices, then Trump. Both are pawns of the corporations, but Trump at least isn't interested in taking away our last line of protection against tyranny.

 

[Kulindahr]

While it's true that nothing is set in stone, Sanders would be an extremely weak general election candidate. Socialism is still a taboo word for most conservatives and moderates. Add to that the fact that it is historically very hard for the same party to win 3 times in a row, and I believe he would be very likely to lose.

I think Sanders could do a good job of actually communicating that he stands for the common person. He wants to make Social Security stronger, which should get him the elderly vote. He wants higher wages for those on the bottom, which should get him the poor vote.

His problem really is that he's a populist who doesn't quite sound like one. And it's past time to elect a populist; we've been electing the pawns of special interests for far too long.

Given the people/options out there, in cycnical moments I think the best possible future would be one where it's Sanders against Trump, but someone shoots Trump; Trump is replaced by Cruz, but someone shoots Cruz; Cruz is replaced by Walker, and it doesn't matter if anyone shoots Walker because the election is by then too close for him to have a prayer.

 

[jbrown329]

Neither, but if those are the choices, then Trump. Both are pawns of the corporations, but Trump at least isn't interested in taking away our last line of protection against tyranny.

How old are you? Young enough for the draft? The only way Trump will get the strongest army on the planet is to reinstate the draft. How many of America's sons, daughters, fathers and mothers are you willing to see die in a war with Iran?

I'm old enough to remember the fall of Saigon. I'm old enough that I remember the last few years of that war. A war with Iran would cost far more than Vietnam did. Both in lives and money.

 

[Kulindahr]

How old are you? Young enough for the draft? The only way Trump will get the strongest army on the planet is to reinstate the draft. How many of America's sons, daughters, fathers and mothers are you willing to see die in a war with Iran?

I'm old enough to remember the fall of Saigon. I'm old enough that I remember the last few years of that war. A war with Iran would cost far more than Vietnam did. Both in lives and money.

We already have the strongest military on the planet.

And hopefully the Iran treaty will be ratified before Trump ever gets to Washington.

The alternative is a woman dedicated to making the citizenry of this country so weak and dependent that when the religious right comes out in the open as the fascists they are the police state will already have everyone cowed. Give me an old-time Democrat who understands that the JPFO is right about the Second Amendment, and who can convince the left that being armed and dangerous should not be left to the plutocrats and theocrats.

 

[opinterph]

hopefully the Iran treaty will be ratified before Trump ever gets to Washington.

Treaty?

Iran deal: A treaty or not a treaty, that is the question (CNN; March 2015)

Iran Deal: Treaty or Not? (Roll Call; July 2015)

Kerry: Iran Deal Not a Treaty ‘Because You Can’t Pass a Treaty Anymore’ (CNS News; July 2015)​

 

[kallipolis]

That the United States, and the Iran military are already cooperating in a common cause against Islamic States indicates that the sanctions regime needed to be lifted....sowing the seeds of more cooperation in a neighbourhood where alliances that can stop the spread of IS will benefit the human race.

The Republicans playing control freak politics with words....is it a treaty, or not needs to be weighed against the possible collapse of the entire neighbourhood with the flood of refugees pouring out of Syria, into Europe one symptom of a region facing an implosion.