NH Primary

[gr8indoorsman]

What I'm watching for:

- Sanders' margin of victory. Bigger, smaller, or about what was expected (20s). Some polls have him 2-to-1 in NH. That'd be a landslide and I think would have to worry the Clinton camp even though she'll certainly be stronger in the south.

- How much did the cyborg performance hurt Rubio? Polls prior to Saturday had Rubio second, well behind Trump but a few points ahead of Cruz, and about 8-10% ahead of Bush and Kasich.

- Does Kasich make his move? NH seems ripe for the picking for the most centrist (in my view) candidate, but polls have him no better than fourth or fifth. Maybe Rubio's poor performance gives him a boost? (One can hope any loss for Rubio is a gain for Kasich, at least my opinion).

- Will any of the clown car suspend after tonight? Chris Christie is in an area he should be strongest, and had a good performance on Saturday. If he comes in a distant sixth, does he drop out? Does Fiorina call it a campaign? Carson and Bush stand to do better down south, I'd think, so I don't see them exiting. If Kasich totally bombs, which I don't think he will, does he pull the plug? It seems like the governors are having a staring contest to see who drops out first and hoping to pull the support from that camp. It'd be good if it works, but if they all hold on too long, it'll be the death of all three of them IMO.

- Post-primary speeches. Does Trump say anything other than, "I love everyone!" like after Iowa? His was the worst of the five speeches. Does Clinton say anything at all? Sanders will be entertaining as always. Does Rubio talk again if he finishes third or worse? I think he would trying to stop whatever bleeding there is, but it might come off poorly if he's not the top challenger to Trump.

- Will Hammons and Haas play like men or sissies as they did last year in East Lansing? (Sorry, wrong forum).

 

[jadeezra]

Fun night, taking my daughter to her first game tonight. Then the old man in me gets to sit down and watch politics afterwards

 

[qazplm]

"Though generally seen as cool-headed and quick on his feet, Rubio is known to friends, allies, and advisers for a kind of incurable anxiousness — and an occasional propensity to panic in moments of crisis, both real and imagined." Just saw this reported from one of Rubio's advisers...which, if I were Rubio I'd say, dude, stop helping me.

You've listed all of the key areas to watch for tonight. I suspect Bernie wins comfortably but not by 20 pts. I think the 2-5 finishers will more or less be within a few points of each other. I think maybe Fiorina drops out, but I suspect everyone else will try to hold on until at least SC.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Well:

- Sanders up 21% with 40% reporting. Check.

- Rubio has dropped from 2nd to 4th or 5th. It appears Kasich and Bush benefited the most from his and Cruz's dropoff.

- Kasich has capitalized, but I'm not sure it's inspiring. He was bound to do better in NH, but garnering 16-17% of the vote isn't moving the national needle for him, I don't think.

- It's clear that Christie and Fiorina, at least, should be done. There's no hope for them. I don't think there is for Carson either, but he'll hang around for the south, I'm sure. Really, this went about as bad as it could for those of us who want to see the clown car pared down quickly.

- Sanders' speech: good grief. I mean, he's a good speaker. He's inspiring. I just hope that people can see that 95% of what he preaches is impossible for him to impact as president. He's got nothing on foreign policy, in fact, his ideas on fighting terrorism are downright utopian, even moreso than our current policies. I fear that man as CinC, not because I think he'd actually use us, but because I think he'd further erode our capabilities.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

And now listening to Trump... I think I'm going to start drinking heavily between this and Sanders...

 

[jadeezra]

How is a single pay health care a pipe dream? I mean every other non 3rd world country utilizes some form of it?

Unless of course you think it stands little chance of getting through the republicans? Which unfortunately I agree and it's sad.

 

[laguna1]

Win or lose, Trump will say everyone else sucks.

 

[qazplm]

How is a single pay health care a pipe dream? I mean every other non 3rd world country utilizes some form of it?

Unless of course you think it stands little chance of getting through the republicans? Which unfortunately I agree and it's sad.

Well duh, it stands no chance because of the republicans. We couldn't even get the public option through with 59.5 democrats in the Senate and control of the House. So yes single payer is never going to happen.

What Sanders is selling to mostly young people and some others is the idea of revolution. Elect me, and we will sweep to power with such numbers that we will take the whole system down....but of course how often does that happen? And as I said before, there are no silent majorities on either side out there. Conservatives want to believe this country is secretly majority conservative, and liberals want to believe the opposite when the truth is there's a large minority who are both and then a decent chunk of folks who are either all over the place or single issue voters or, well, idiots who unfortunately vote (Hi Trumpeters!).

I think the media though will oversell these results. On the Dem side, NH is 90% white. The minority vote nationwide for Dems is almost 50%, so NH and IA aren't really reflective of the demo as a whole. Sanders winning by 21% erases some of that, and his dominance with independents says something about a GE, but most primaries and caucuses that remain don't have independents voting, and among Dems Hillary does much better (at worst even), and to this point, she does much better with minorities. So, if Hillary maintains those two things, she wins this rather easily (but the proportional delegate system draws this out)...if she does not, she's going to get toasted. She made a huge mistake talking to the finance sector for money. Granted, it probably wasn't easy to see that this would be the mood of the Dem electorate when she did it, but right now the ranking is Banking/Wall Street>>>>>>>>Satan>>Hitler>>>Justin Bieber>Stalin.

I still think she wins, but I don't know...and I fear if Sanders wins then you get Bloomberg who takes the moderate Dems, and Trump or Cruz win by default, and that would be an absolute nightmare for this country.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Obviously, I don't think Trump or Cruz by themselves would be a nightmare in the same way that I don't think Sanders by himself would be a nightmare in the same way that Obama hasn't been a nightmare, particularly in the second term. None of them is able to do everything or even most of what they say they want to accomplish because the Chief Executive just doesn't have that authority. Even Executive Orders can only go so far and are open to scrutiny by the SCOTUS (see the EPA carbon emissions suspension announced yesterday).

The nightmare occurs if Trump or Cruz wins the White House with Republicans keeping both houses in Congress. That would be bat-shit crazy, even I see that.

What I want, and it's apparently too much to ask, is for a candidate to come out and run on this platform:

- ACA isn't the end of the world. It doesn't work for everyone, and it's got some flaws. We don't need to fully repeal it because, let's face it, a lot of people like it. But we do need to fix it so there aren't triple-digit percent changes in premiums in some states, etc.

- The federal minimum wage should be raised, but $15 seems excessive, especially when paired with...

- The number of illegal immigrants in this country is out of control. We need to shore up the borders and then figure out what to do with them. One-shot amnesty and immediate citizenship isn't the answer, and deport e'erbody isn't feasible, but detention and deportation of criminals and their families along with a pathway to citizenship for law-abiding immigrants already here is probably the most feasible solution.

- ISIS is a threat and no one in the middle east is equipped to handle it. We've made a mess of things in Syria, and need to be more direct in our intervention there diplomatically and militarily.

- The Iranian nuclear deal is unlikely to be followed by Iran, but it was worth a shot.

- We need to curb public spending, starting with reforming the defense acquisition process and moving on to curbing other forms of government waste. Once we've got public spending under control, we should....

- work to simplify the federal income tax code, and revise the corporate tax code to keep more companies and jobs in the US.

- The 1% isn't inherently evil and they didn't all inherit their wealth nor win it by speculating on Wall Street. Many in the top 1% create wealth for thousands of other Americans by creating jobs and enabling others to create wealth. Without people like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, you might not have tens of thousands of app developers and software designers out there, etc. etc. Forced government redistribution of personal wealth is morally wrong and we already do it to a certain extent anyway.


There's some left/center. There's more right. But I guess that doesn't appeal to most Republicans, because it's only good if our team wins.

 

[lbodel]

Well:

- Sanders up 21% with 40% reporting. Check.

- Rubio has dropped from 2nd to 4th or 5th. It appears Kasich and Bush benefited the most from his and Cruz's dropoff.

- Kasich has capitalized, but I'm not sure it's inspiring. He was bound to do better in NH, but garnering 16-17% of the vote isn't moving the national needle for him, I don't think.

- It's clear that Christie and Fiorina, at least, should be done. There's no hope for them. I don't think there is for Carson either, but he'll hang around for the south, I'm sure. Really, this went about as bad as it could for those of us who want to see the clown car pared down quickly.

- Sanders' speech: good grief. I mean, he's a good speaker. He's inspiring. I just hope that people can see that 95% of what he preaches is impossible for him to impact as president. He's got nothing on foreign policy, in fact, his ideas on fighting terrorism are downright utopian, even moreso than our current policies. I fear that man as CinC, not because I think he'd actually use us, but because I think he'd further erode our capabilities.

The thing that gets lost in news coverage is the big picture.

While 1 state can certainly impact a race, a guy like Kasich spent a ton of time in NH because he knew it was a friendly area for him. It's great he got 16% - but for a state that he basically put all of his eggs in one basket for - that's not great. Not to mention that was his result with Rubio basically bombing.

I think what will be most interesting from the GOP side is what Christie/Bush do. While he may not be getting votes, Christie obviously made a huge impact in deflating Rubio's rise. The question would be whether Rubio can recover or not (that debate will certainly be memorable). Bush was also most effective against Trump in the last debate.

However, the flip side is that the more people in the field, probably the better for Trump. Trump has a relatively low ceiling for votes - he has a high unpopularity (but obviously a staunchly supportive base as well). So as the field narrows, it probably hurts Trump - but it needs to narrow to 2-3 candidates to really make a huge difference.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

How is a single pay health care a pipe dream?

Vermont.

And I don't believe there's majority support for national single-payer healthcare.

And the US would be by far (5x larger) the largest population to implement it, which matters when it comes to government programs. I am in favor of states implementing it as they see fit, and think state governments should be empowered to do so. Of course, that aligns with most of my political beliefs, that the Federal government should just butt out and worry about a strong national defense first and foremost.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

While 1 state can certainly impact a race, a guy like Kasich spent a ton of time in NH because he knew it was a friendly area for him. It's great he got 16% - but for a state that he basically put all of his eggs in one basket for - that's not great.

I think what will be most interesting from the GOP side is what Christie/Bush do.

However, the flip side is that the more people in the field, probably the better for Trump. Trump has a relatively low ceiling for votes - he has a high unpopularity (but obviously a staunchly supportive base as well). So as the field narrows, it probably hurts Trump - but it needs to narrow to 2-3 candidates to really make a huge difference.

Agreed. I think Kasich is happy with second, but essentially one out of every seven voters in a friendly state where you spent all your time is not a good result. And I think he's going to get stomped down south.

Christie is likely to suspend, I think. He's going home to talk with his wife. He's also not going to do better down south, and he got that 8% after disemboweling Rubio. Bush isn't going anywhere until after Super Tuesday, I don't think.

Agree about Trump.

 

[qazplm]

Agreed. I think Kasich is happy with second, but essentially one out of every seven voters in a friendly state where you spent all your time is not a good result. And I think he's going to get stomped down south.

Christie is likely to suspend, I think. He's going home to talk with his wife. He's also not going to do better down south, and he got that 8% after disemboweling Rubio. Bush isn't going anywhere until after Super Tuesday, I don't think.

Agree about Trump.

You can't disembowel a robot!

I kid, I kid.

Rubio 3.1 for President. Now, with new antivirus protection.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

You can't disembowel a robot!

I kid, I kid.

Rubio 3.1 for President. Now, with new antivirus protection.

Woo hoo! I converted qaz!

I thought his admission of blowing it Saturday to his cohort last night was a good move. Probably too little too late, we'll see. Fortunately for him, he's young and could make another run at it if this year doesn't work.

 

[jadeezra]

You know what I don't like most about all of this(btw guys you are great all made excellent points). Sanders crushes Clinton last night and now they are both walking away with 15 delegates apiece. That should be alarming for a conservative, a liberal , an independent or even a socialist

 

[jadeezra]

You know I like Rubio but I do think he needs a little more time under his belt. I think his time will come eventually

 

[gr8indoorsman]

WSJ reporting a senior Christie aide says Christie will suspend. That's what happens when you mess with RubioCop.

 

[qazplm]

Obviously, I don't think Trump or Cruz by themselves would be a nightmare in the same way that I don't think Sanders by himself would be a nightmare in the same way that Obama hasn't been a nightmare, particularly in the second term. None of them is able to do everything or even most of what they say they want to accomplish because the Chief Executive just doesn't have that authority. Even Executive Orders can only go so far and are open to scrutiny by the SCOTUS (see the EPA carbon emissions suspension announced yesterday).

The nightmare occurs if Trump or Cruz wins the White House with Republicans keeping both houses in Congress. That would be bat-shit crazy, even I see that.

What I want, and it's apparently too much to ask, is for a candidate to come out and run on this platform:

- ACA isn't the end of the world. It doesn't work for everyone, and it's got some flaws. We don't need to fully repeal it because, let's face it, a lot of people like it. But we do need to fix it so there aren't triple-digit percent changes in premiums in some states, etc.

- The federal minimum wage should be raised, but $15 seems excessive, especially when paired with...

- The number of illegal immigrants in this country is out of control. We need to shore up the borders and then figure out what to do with them. One-shot amnesty and immediate citizenship isn't the answer, and deport e'erbody isn't feasible, but detention and deportation of criminals and their families along with a pathway to citizenship for law-abiding immigrants already here is probably the most feasible solution.

- ISIS is a threat and no one in the middle east is equipped to handle it. We've made a mess of things in Syria, and need to be more direct in our intervention there diplomatically and militarily.

- The Iranian nuclear deal is unlikely to be followed by Iran, but it was worth a shot.

- We need to curb public spending, starting with reforming the defense acquisition process and moving on to curbing other forms of government waste. Once we've got public spending under control, we should....

- work to simplify the federal income tax code, and revise the corporate tax code to keep more companies and jobs in the US.

- The 1% isn't inherently evil and they didn't all inherit their wealth nor win it by speculating on Wall Street. Many in the top 1% create wealth for thousands of other Americans by creating jobs and enabling others to create wealth. Without people like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, you might not have tens of thousands of app developers and software designers out there, etc. etc. Forced government redistribution of personal wealth is morally wrong and we already do it to a certain extent anyway.


There's some left/center. There's more right. But I guess that doesn't appeal to most Republicans, because it's only good if our team wins.

I think they would be a nightmare as you agree because of the combination of them plus Congress. If Dems hold one branch, then it's a whole lot of nothing getting done.

To your points:

1. Plenty of folks on the left are fine with fixing the problems with the ACA...we could have had a much better bill if republicans had gotten on board at the start to come up with something tighter. So this is one of those pretty much everyone is on board except the right on this one.

2. I think liberals could be talked into less than $15 bucks, but that number wasn't pulled out of a hat...it's more or less what it should be if we'd kept the MW pegged to inflation all this time. But I agree that jumping straight to it is quite a shock to the system, and thus I think a graduated rise is better...spread out over several years and then a bill that pegs all future increases directly to inflation while also adjusting it by COLA just like we BAH in the military.

3. This is where you won't get agreement. First, the net influx is actually negative that is more people are now going south vice north of the border annually. Regardless, I don't agree and most liberal don't agree it's "out of control." Crime is still down nationwide and nowhere near 1980s highs. And unless we want food prices and construction costs to skyrocket...again, there's gray in this is what I'm saying.

4. ISIS is a threat, but it's not nearly the threat some folks make it out to be. And there are always going to be these threats. You don't ignore them, but you also don't need to send troops everytime either unless we just want to make a 51st state somewhere over there and just plop down a couple of brigades, some air and navel assets and have perpetual war for the next 2-3 generations.

5. I think we will come to find the deal is being followed and will continue to be followed.

6. I'm all for cutting out fraud waste and abuse, and the military certainly has a ton of that. But too often what this ends up meaning is cutting social programs, again.

7. I think everyone agrees in simplifying the code as a general principle. Obama has even suggested a flat corporate tax rate much lower than 35% while getting rid of all the loopholes. It went nowhere.

8. The 1%? Are they evil in the sense of twirling mustaches and urinating on poor people? No. Are the ways the rules are designed to benefit them and only them toxic to our republic? You betcha. We had different rules in the 50s-70s, and rich people did really really well. why not go back to them?

 

[qazplm]

You know what I don't like most about all of this(btw guys you are great all made excellent points). Sanders crushes Clinton last night and now they are both walking away with 15 delegates apiece. That should be alarming for a conservative, a liberal , an independent or even a socialist

I think there are three ways to go:

1. winner takes all. I don't like this for a primary. But it's an option, and it's, mostly, what the republicans do.

2. proportional: pro is that you get a fair reading, con is that it drags out a contest even when your leader wins every state if they don't win it by enough which can damage your leader.

3. mix of proportional/winner take all: I like this one the best. You give some delegates proportionally, and then the winner gets another batch of delegates. It makes winning important but also gives someone who finishes second early on a chance.

I think the bigger problem is starting with two states that aren't particularly fully representative of either party. I'd like to see starting off with say half a dozen states, randomly selected each cycle, all within a few days of each other (to allow candidates some ability to visit each one on the eve of election but also forcing candidates to choose to some degree as well).

 

[gr8indoorsman]

I think they would be a nightmare as you agree because of the combination of them plus Congress. If Dems hold one branch, then it's a whole lot of nothing getting done.

To your points:

1. Plenty of folks on the left are fine with fixing the problems with the ACA...we could have had a much better bill if republicans had gotten on board at the start to come up with something tighter. So this is one of those pretty much everyone is on board except the right on this one.

2. I think liberals could be talked into less than $15 bucks, but that number wasn't pulled out of a hat...it's more or less what it should be if we'd kept the MW pegged to inflation all this time. But I agree that jumping straight to it is quite a shock to the system, and thus I think a graduated rise is better...spread out over several years and then a bill that pegs all future increases directly to inflation while also adjusting it by COLA just like we BAH in the military.

3. This is where you won't get agreement. First, the net influx is actually negative that is more people are now going south vice north of the border annually. Regardless, I don't agree and most liberal don't agree it's "out of control." Crime is still down nationwide and nowhere near 1980s highs. And unless we want food prices and construction costs to skyrocket...again, there's gray in this is what I'm saying.

4. ISIS is a threat, but it's not nearly the threat some folks make it out to be. And there are always going to be these threats. You don't ignore them, but you also don't need to send troops everytime either unless we just want to make a 51st state somewhere over there and just plop down a couple of brigades, some air and navel assets and have perpetual war for the next 2-3 generations.

5. I think we will come to find the deal is being followed and will continue to be followed.

6. I'm all for cutting out fraud waste and abuse, and the military certainly has a ton of that. But too often what this ends up meaning is cutting social programs, again.

7. I think everyone agrees in simplifying the code as a general principle. Obama has even suggested a flat corporate tax rate much lower than 35% while getting rid of all the loopholes. It went nowhere.

8. The 1%? Are they evil in the sense of twirling mustaches and urinating on poor people? No. Are the ways the rules are designed to benefit them and only them toxic to our republic? You betcha. We had different rules in the 50s-70s, and rich people did really really well. why not go back to them?

Just stating what I want out of a candidate. You are entitled to your opinion. I recognize that no one is espousing all of these things and that most will disagree with the parts of it.

 

[qazplm]

Just stating what I want out of a candidate. You are entitled to your opinion. I recognize that no one is espousing all of these things and that most will disagree with the parts of it.

And I was just stating my thoughts to that from a liberal POV.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

And Fiorina is out... Down to six. Sigh.

 

[Purdue97]

Obviously, I don't think Trump or Cruz by themselves would be a nightmare in the same way that I don't think Sanders by himself would be a nightmare in the same way that Obama hasn't been a nightmare, particularly in the second term. None of them is able to do everything or even most of what they say they want to accomplish because the Chief Executive just doesn't have that authority. Even Executive Orders can only go so far and are open to scrutiny by the SCOTUS (see the EPA carbon emissions suspension announced yesterday).

The nightmare occurs if Trump or Cruz wins the White House with Republicans keeping both houses in Congress. That would be bat-shit crazy, even I see that.

What I want, and it's apparently too much to ask, is for a candidate to come out and run on this platform:

- ACA isn't the end of the world. It doesn't work for everyone, and it's got some flaws. We don't need to fully repeal it because, let's face it, a lot of people like it. But we do need to fix it so there aren't triple-digit percent changes in premiums in some states, etc.

- The federal minimum wage should be raised, but $15 seems excessive, especially when paired with...

- The number of illegal immigrants in this country is out of control. We need to shore up the borders and then figure out what to do with them. One-shot amnesty and immediate citizenship isn't the answer, and deport e'erbody isn't feasible, but detention and deportation of criminals and their families along with a pathway to citizenship for law-abiding immigrants already here is probably the most feasible solution.

- ISIS is a threat and no one in the middle east is equipped to handle it. We've made a mess of things in Syria, and need to be more direct in our intervention there diplomatically and militarily.

- The Iranian nuclear deal is unlikely to be followed by Iran, but it was worth a shot.

- We need to curb public spending, starting with reforming the defense acquisition process and moving on to curbing other forms of government waste. Once we've got public spending under control, we should....

- work to simplify the federal income tax code, and revise the corporate tax code to keep more companies and jobs in the US.

- The 1% isn't inherently evil and they didn't all inherit their wealth nor win it by speculating on Wall Street. Many in the top 1% create wealth for thousands of other Americans by creating jobs and enabling others to create wealth. Without people like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, you might not have tens of thousands of app developers and software designers out there, etc. etc. Forced government redistribution of personal wealth is morally wrong and we already do it to a certain extent anyway.


There's some left/center. There's more right. But I guess that doesn't appeal to most Republicans, because it's only good if our team wins.

I do not even think Trump or Cruz with both Houses is a nightmare. The reason being look what happened with Obama when he had both houses minus 1 seat in the Senate from being veto proof. The party in control gets power drunk, and a sizable enough faction will break away because the proposed legislation is not "right" or "left" enough. Little if anything gets done.

I mean, stating that one thinks either candidate with both houses of congress is a nightmare is basically stating that one thinks a single party in both houses of congress will get its act together and agree on something. Just do not see it.

And for the record I am an ABC voter-Anybody but Clinton/Cruz. And I really do not see myself voting for Trump either-especially in a primary.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

I mean, stating that one thinks either candidate with both houses of congress is a nightmare is basically stating that one thinks a single party in both houses of congress will get its act together and agree on something. Just do not see it.

It's a good point, and that power served to put the Republicans back in control because it mobilized the voter base in the off years when otherwise it might not have been.

The more I think about the GE, the more I don't know if I can get behind Clinton, even against Trump/Cruz, almost solely because of SCOTUS appointments. That alone may have a bigger impact long term than anything else the next president does.

 

[SDBoiler1]

It's a good point, and that power served to put the Republicans back in control because it mobilized the voter base in the off years when otherwise it might not have been.

The more I think about the GE, the more I don't know if I can get behind Clinton, even against Trump/Cruz, almost solely because of SCOTUS appointments. That alone may have a bigger impact long term than anything else the next president does.

From my point-of-view, the Clintons and the Bushes are just two sides of the same coin.

If you ask me, (almost) anybody but a Bush, Clinton, or Sanders will work.

qaz said months ago that Clinton was a shoo-in to win, but she's having the fight of her life against a proud Democratic Socialist. She has lost almost all credibility - she has extremely low trustworthiness at this point and even women are losing their zeal for her. I must give Sanders credit in that he is a straight shooter. He will not cow to the big money interests. I also think he is very naïve - most of the things he's saying he'd do in office cannot or will not happen because the country can't afford to do them. We're already on the road to financial ruin, and if he gets elected, this country will be ruined. Bernie, like Trump, does a good job of tapping into American distrust of the current governmental structures and "powers that be", although Bernie is probably more pure is his stances than Trump.

I think the "powers that be" will never allow a guy like Sanders to win because he'll try to shackle some of the institutions they hold dear - Wall Street, for instance. They will not stand for that. They'll take him out if necessary.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Sanders will not be able to accomplish 95% of what he says he wants to do, so no, the country will not meet financial ruin if Sanders is elected. Frankly, the presidency is highly overrated in terms of domestic policies and programs, which is why I care less (though I still care some because judicial appointments and veto authority will affect domestic policy) about that and social issues when picking a president, and more about foreign policy, their role as CinC and generally how I think they will be perceived/received by the rest of the world. In those three regards, Sanders is an absolute joke.

The president doesn't have the authority to do what Sanders wants to do. The president can submit a budget proposal, but it doesn't go anywhere without support in congress.

IMO the real danger with Sanders is if he is able to mobilize the D base because of his promised "revolution", and whether that's going carry the Democrats back to the Senate majority. I'm not sure who I think is more likely to bring that outcome on D side, but I think the presence of Sanders displaying the "true progressive" vs. Hillary might serve to have the opposite effect. In other words, no matter which one wins, the Democrats may not get the same turnout they would have if Hillary had just marched on with a united party unopposed.

We'll see.

 

[qazplm]

From my point-of-view, the Clintons and the Bushes are just two sides of the same coin.

If you ask me, (almost) anybody but a Bush, Clinton, or Sanders will work.

qaz said months ago that Clinton was a shoo-in to win, but she's having the fight of her life against a proud Democratic Socialist. She has lost almost all credibility - she has extremely low trustworthiness at this point and even women are losing their zeal for her. I must give Sanders credit in that he is a straight shooter. He will not cow to the big money interests. I also think he is very naïve - most of the things he's saying he'd do in office cannot or will not happen because the country can't afford to do them. We're already on the road to financial ruin, and if he gets elected, this country will be ruined. Bernie, like Trump, does a good job of tapping into American distrust of the current governmental structures and "powers that be", although Bernie is probably more pure is his stances than Trump.

I think the "powers that be" will never allow a guy like Sanders to win because he'll try to shackle some of the institutions they hold dear - Wall Street, for instance. They will not stand for that. They'll take him out if necessary.

Yeah I never used the words "shoo-in." I've said the same things throughout that the dem candidate has strong built-in demo advantages and that Hillary is very likely to win the nomination, which she still is. Put those two together and you get why the political trade sites still list here as a strong favorite