That's all well and good but this is Hillary. I don't agree with lumping everything Bill did onto her. She's her own person.
2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
That's all well and good but this is Hillary. I don't agree with lumping everything Bill did onto her. She's her own person.
true. But she did support his policies. read the entire link Grin.
Sounds like Al Sharpton met with Bernie and him with other black leaders will be meeting with both Sanders and Hillary to hear what they are proposing. Hillary cannot take the black vote for granted.
Its not novel to consider tougher law enforcement laws as "black issue", but since it was presented here I must say what I usually think: it sure does help make a racist argument against african-americans, since an underlying premise to make it a "black issue" is that african-americans will commit more crimes. I think one can argue the policies, but would be better off treating it as an issue for society as a whole and not more so for any particular group.
Well she's hardly not going to support his policies, is she?
Just judge her on her own merits and not what Bill did...good or bad.
the problem is blacks are more affected by law enforcement issues. they are poorer, not a level playing field. Think that is the issue. and Clinton has admitted it was a mistake.
its accountability.
Hillary's problem is that "slow and steady change" doesnt sell as well as "revolution".
She's been too cautious so far in an attempt to not move too much to the left.
She's been too cautious so far in an attempt to not move too much to the left.
If she does go to the left, her eventual pivot back to the center in the general election will see her getting attacked for being a flip-flopper. She already has a reputation for this and will do anything not to exacerbate the situation.
Why do black voters support Hilary? She's part of the establishment, whereas Sanders has come out supporting the big government and social security policies that support black people. Seems like they would be voting against their own interests.
The Clintons have always had strong support from the African-American community. There's a reason why Bill was jokingly referred to as America's first black President.
That and all previous presidents bar Kennedy and Johnson gave zero fecks about black people.
Thanks for explaining but could I just ask something else....why do they have these "delegates" as opposed to just adding up the votes and who are these "delegates" and how do you become one?
Delegates are people who can speak for the party at national convention. Different states have their total # delegates allocated and the person who has the most delegates wins the nomination for the party.
Carter?
Not really. Did he pass much legislation that was specific to blacks? I'm not aware of any but my knowledge is probably lacking on him.
I agree that he gave some fecks though.
Nixon wasn't all that bad, no? Southern strategy and campaign rhetorics aside.
Here's a viewpoint as to why he's not resonating as much with minorities - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...gle-with-black-and-hispanic-voters-heres-why/
think he cared obviously. but he was hamstrung being from a Southeren state.
I think you are right about her lack of message and all she wants is to be President.
By trying to out maneuver Sanders on the left and appear more progressive than him, the real progressives consider her a phoney. Now she is heading to South Carolina and will appear to be blacker than Obama. Clinton expects the African American community to come out on mass like they did for Obama and I am not sure that will be the case.
Still think she has the inside track on the nomination though. Sanders had all the advantages in Iowa and New Hampshire, now they are moving into States where the demographics favour Clinton. Add in Clinton's other advantages in money, organization and super delegates and she will be hard to beat.
He was against busing. He was actually fairly good on social issues.
pretty much agree. @Canuckred64
Also seems relevant
I can see where cynics are coming from. Obama was supposed to be the candidate who would shake up the Washington establishment and bring about much needed 'change' just like Bernie is going to bring about a 'revolution' now.
With Obama it is not just a case of being blocked by an obstructionist congress. For starters, he has been as close to wall street as any establishment candidate could be. He did actually appoint ex Wall Street honchos to important positions in Govt, something people are wary of Hillary doing as well. Warren is also at pains to point at every time she gets a chance, that his administration showed a distinct lack of will to hold any one accountable for that crash when in previous decades people had been prosecuted for fraud for similar wrong doings. It has been said that there were existing laws and provisions under which bankers should have been investigated under but nothing was done.
Then the much lauded Health care reform. I work for a company whose 90% of revenue is driven by ACA related exchanges, so I know first hand that it has actually helped a number of people in US. But it has also benefited the health insurance companies. The original bill was watered down by a Democratic congress at the behest of their lobby only, so as to make it acceptable to them.
While he has attempted to shut down Guantanamo, he has increased the drone attacks and expanded surveillance program under NSA. His administration has gone after whistle-blowers even harder than previous ones. Even on social issue like gay marriage, Obama was way behind the curve ball, only coming out in support when it was politically convenient to do so.
With Obama it is not just a case of being blocked by an obstructionist congress. For starters, he has been as close to wall street as any establishment candidate could be. He did actually appoint ex Wall Street honchos to important positions in Govt, something people are wary of Hillary doing as well. Warren is also at pains to point at every time she gets a chance, that his administration showed a distinct lack of will to hold any one accountable for that crash when in previous decades people had been prosecuted for fraud for similar wrong doings. It has been said that there were existing laws and provisions under which bankers should have been investigated under but nothing was done.
Then the much lauded Health care reform. I work for a company whose 90% of revenue is driven by ACA related exchanges, so I know first hand that it has actually helped a number of people in US. But it has also benefited the health insurance companies. The original bill was watered down by a Democratic congress at the behest of their lobby only, so as to make it acceptable to them.
While he has attempted to shut down Guantanamo, he has increased the drone attacks and expanded surveillance program under NSA. His administration has gone after whistle-blowers even harder than previous ones. Even on social issue like gay marriage, Obama was way behind the curve ball, only coming out in support when it was politically convenient to do so.
Hillary is still the clear favourites, everyone expected Sanders to win NH and then try to make a story about it when he did win.
If Sanders won by 20+% and Hillary still won more delegates then she is already the democratic nominee
It's just a procession at this point
It's just a procession at this point
When Joe Kennedy was made chair of the SEC I think Roosevelt said something like it takes a thief to catch a thief. There wouldn't be much point putting in some idealist who doesn't know how The Street works.
Carly 'I have experience in failing' Fiorina has suspended her campaign.
Last edited:
Good riddance to the hideous cnut.
Won't Sanders being president encourage democrat base to bother more with lower level elections though versus Hillary who not many seem excited about though?
Eric Holder went from Covington & Burling to "attorney general" back to Covington & Burling. Covington & Burling has all the big banks as their clients. They kept an corner office for him. Do you really think that this is not a problem?
Seeing Rubio is doing one on ones and now owning up to not doing well and dropping the ball at the debate. Should have gone with this line from the get go rather than the over defiant stuff. Now he really needs a big performance next debate.
Awful candidate.
Good candidates improve and grow as the campaign goes on. Rubio stumbled, but it is a long campaign, let's see if he can recover and gain something from his one bad night. If he can't he is done, but if he learns from it and grows as a candidate, it will make him stronger down the stretch.
Now, the polls underestimated Sanders by a pretty substantial margin in both states (5-6% on average).
http://i.imgur.com/CPwEMiX.jpg
That can be interpreted in 2 ways, I guess. Either they are systemically undersampling/underweighing the demographics that go for Sanders, or the polls are in general off this year. No other candidate shows a trend that holds for both states, so the suggestion isn't impossible.
I wonder what this means for the general election polls too. Is Hillary even further behind (are polls oversampling Dems)? Will Trump do better than suggested (are they undersampling independents - this is what I think is happening)? Or is Sanders going to be the main beneficiary; is he even better placed to win the general (is it the youth vote that isn't being counted)?
http://i.imgur.com/CPwEMiX.jpg
That can be interpreted in 2 ways, I guess. Either they are systemically undersampling/underweighing the demographics that go for Sanders, or the polls are in general off this year. No other candidate shows a trend that holds for both states, so the suggestion isn't impossible.
I wonder what this means for the general election polls too. Is Hillary even further behind (are polls oversampling Dems)? Will Trump do better than suggested (are they undersampling independents - this is what I think is happening)? Or is Sanders going to be the main beneficiary; is he even better placed to win the general (is it the youth vote that isn't being counted)?
Imagine if the choices were a 74 year old or a lunatic.
It could happen....
It could happen....
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/gerrymandering-made-impossible-democrats-win-house
This is what is happening at even lower levels and all across the board. For whatever reason, when it comes to local government, conservatives/republicans are just more locked in.
Imagine if the choices were a 74 year old or a lunatic.
It could happen....
Imagine 74 year old and a lunatic with McCain/Palin.
No, their greatest success is controlling 31 state governemnts, and affecting paractical issues for their benefactors (fracking, etc.)
For example, I now live in NC. The governor was a director in an energy firm. The firm was recently ound to have poisoned many groundwater sources. The federal govt did what it could in terms of a fine, but the state signed a deal which limited the compensation to lower 6 figures and no liability for any later spills. The NC state govt is now suing environmental groups who were trying to get a better settlement. The state education budget has been reduced quite drastically, and the state has fallen behind on most educational indicators. The last remaining Dem in office recently lost her senate seat. The governor is facing a challenge...from his legislature, for not signing some of the more right-wing bills they have passed.
They are, to use Trump's favourite word, winning. If I was a donor and my economic interests were represented by the tea party, I would have no reason to reverse course on this strategy which loses the presidency, blocks the federal govt, and controls practicalities on the ground.
:nod:
This is not just donors, lots of conservative groups and think tanks are also leaning this way....fine the demographics might be against us in General Elections, but so what? If we control things at ground level - a democratic president will be largely ineffective.
- Status