2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumACLU rating 93%, The Feminist Majority Endorsement "Preferred", NAACP rating 97%,
HRC rating 100%.
Bernie Sanders. Does that cover most of the concerns here? Hope so. Have a great evening DU. I had a tiring day and I'm not as spry as I used to be. Hasta mañana.
Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)panader0
(25,816 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Most of the time, I just write it off to demon possession
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)(In case there's any doubt)
HRC = Human Rights Campaign not Hillary Rodham Clinton
DJ13
(23,671 posts)Thank you!
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Good grief I was confused.
Thanks for that clarification.
And...GO Bernie!
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Run out and find me a four-year-old child, I can't make head or tail of it.
totodeinhere
(13,058 posts)people. I guess this is par for the course in any campaign, but there are those who are going around looking for any obscure reason or excuse to oppose Bernie simply because they are for another candidate not named Bernie.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)this just in! Bernie can't swim!!!
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)fredamae
(4,458 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)bobbobbins01
(1,681 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,989 posts)TheBlackAdder
(28,209 posts).
I find it rather humorous that people come to threads to just post those things because they really just object to the topic, not even relying on the content.
One day, these old cliches will be abandoned by non-tweens, just like the overuse of the term "jump the shark."
.
moobu2
(4,822 posts)Advanced any of the issues important to those groups 0%.
Response to moobu2 (Reply #15)
John Poet This message was self-deleted by its author.
cali
(114,904 posts)The first two are opinion, so fine. I think they're opinion that is easily countered, but still.... However, the claim that he's never advanced issues important to the groups in the op is simply a flat out.....
What's the opposite of respect? That's what I have for your opinion.
George II
(67,782 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)as mayor that have been replicated across the country.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/how-bernie-sanderss-radical-ideas-entered-the-municipal-mainstream-118447.html
Ascongressman he mastered the art of using the Amendment process. As Senator, in exchange for his vote on the ACA, he got hunters of millions for community healthcare centers, and that is a very big deal. CHCs provide primary care I including dentistry and psychological services on a sliding scale basis. If you can't afford anything, you don't pay.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/07/1399644/-Senantor-Sanders-Has-worked-with-The-Intractable-Congress
He's accomplished far more than that, but why bother. You have no interest in being intellectually honest. I will say this; your claim is no truer or better.than those who claim Clinton didn't accomplish anything and only got where she is by grabbing onto Bill's coattails.
George II
(67,782 posts)...without any of the problems of big cities or the United States.
But on the other hand Burlington Vermont is not prototypical of the average American city. It's a sleepy small town on the banks of Lake Champlain about 30 miles from the Canadian border and roughly 200 miles from any major city.
Unfortunately the second link is a highly subjective opinion piece with very few specifics, including that ACA example.
So tell me, if he's been so effective in Congress, why is it that about 120 current members of Congress have endorsed Clinton and ZERO have endorsed Sanders - not one!
If he was so effective in Burlington and the state of Vermont, why is it that the current mayor of Burlington has endorsed Clinton and the current Governor of Vermont (AND his fellow Senator from Vermont, Patrick Leahy) have endorsed Clinton. All of those are a lot closer to the two candidates than anyone writing a blog post on Daily Kos or posting on DU. I'm sure they know more about the ability of him to get things done in his home city, home state, and Congress.
That's why they've endorsed Clinton.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Because like many others they've calculated she will be the nominee and don't want to suffer political payback should they step out of line.
George II
(67,782 posts)ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)I'm not sure what's worse...whether you think everyone on here is an idiot who doesn't understand politics or that you actually believe Hillary is a saint who has everyone falling all over themselves to support her.
George II
(67,782 posts)....like to make stuff up and present it as "fact".
sibelian
(7,804 posts)and I think the second thing you said is ironic.
George II
(67,782 posts)....from calling anyone or implying that anyone is an idiot.
On the second one, ironic or not (I presume you're hinting that I "make things up" , the ACLU has not issued ratings for the 2016 Presidential candidates yet, so if Sanders is rated at "93%", the rating is either very old and not applicable to him as a Presidential candidate, or it's false and made up, like the statement that "he's the most popular Senator in his state".
Good day.
cali
(114,904 posts)And the fact that Bernie got that money to hugely expand chps is not subjective.
Hilly is the choice of Congress critters for a number of reasons; I'm sure some think her the best candidate. Others think she's the most electable. No one wants to be on her elaborate and tiered enemies list.
Personally, I think she's dishonest, had ghastly judgment and is corrupt.
George II
(67,782 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)approval rating. That will be the case nationally as more and more people learn who he is and when he wins the WH.
George II
(67,782 posts)I think you're using Sanders % of the vote last time he was elected. But his fellow Senator, Patrick Leahy (THE most popular Senator in his state) was elected with EIGHTY NINE PERCENT of the vote.
cali
(114,904 posts)Yes, Pat is popular but not as popular as he once was. There's rising sentiment that he's been in office long enough. Bernie is also much more.accessible than Pat. People are more familiar with him, and his constituent services are legendary.
George II
(67,782 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)But I live here and follow state politics avidly. I certainly know far more than you do.
George II
(67,782 posts)...is anecdotal, certainly not verifiable.
The only information we have is their relative success in their last elections, Leahy winning with 89% of the vote, Sanders with only 71% of the vote.
And to the person who mentioned it, 71% is NOT Sanders' "favorability" or "popularity" rating, just as the OP claim that his "ACLU rating" is 93%.
This has been educational everyone, thanks!
that's all your side has now. enjoy!
George II
(67,782 posts)....myself, and when I discovered that the ACLU hasn't done any ratings for Presidential candidates since the 2012 election (probably in 2011) I saw through the OP and gave up.
Lacking that, the OP is probably all fiction. But it makes for interesting discussions.
I notice too that mmonk posted that garbage and ran the other way. I guess it stunk so much even HE couldn't stand the smell.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)the last is an outright lie that you KNOW is a lie.
Pathetic.
I now have read everything I need to read from you.
/ignore.
Yeah, I always join ten thousand people at a gathering of people to listen to someone with 0% charisma speak.
And I don't know what you mean by "leadership qualities." I see a leader as someone who is willing to stand up for what is right even if it is politically inconvenient.
So... yeah. Try again.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)Maybe you should tell them who to vote for.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)I could post some uncomfortable links if you'd like.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)...presented so much fiction in so few words.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)....the ACLU hasn't released any ratings yet for any Presidential candidates, and from what I've seen they don't issue those ratings in percentages. I've asked the OP to clarify but mmonk seems to have disappeared.
druidity33
(6,446 posts)then why is this an issue for you? Why would anyone need to wait for the"Presidential candidate" ratings if the ACLU has rated him before? Do you think his rating would change or be different somehow?
George II
(67,782 posts)....the ACLU or any of the ratings that were presented in the OP. They were just flung out there in, what has been summarized as "14 words", without any idea where they came from. And quite honestly, they are highly questionable.
brooklynite
(94,598 posts)...Clinton will have the resources to run against the Republicans. I fear Sanders won't.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)assume he can compete
frylock
(34,825 posts)let the GOP throw their money away running ads that people will never see as they fast forward through commercials on their DVRs.
brooklynite
(94,598 posts)New Hampshire is nice and compact. How will he campaign in ten States simultaneously on Super Tuesday?
frylock
(34,825 posts)but I suspect he will continue to use volunteers who all seem eager to help.
brooklynite
(94,598 posts)...covering a State as big as Texas, where your target is 1 M votes? You'll need full-time staff in a lot of places.
Stellar
(5,644 posts)for giving an award to Donald Sterling (Basketball owner that didn't want Black people on his properties/facilities). They also gave an award to Chris Brown (beat up Rhianna) and to R. Kelly (having sex with under aged girls).
http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2014/04/29/308054638/the-naacps-less-than-sterling-intentions
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)Next, you'll be trashing Jesse Jackson for tweeting a picture of himself warmly greeting Bernie back in the olden timey days.
Stellar
(5,644 posts)No, I'll let you have Jesse Jackson.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)everyone who thought well of Bernie.
as for letting me "have" Jesse Jackson....
I'll take him....when he ran for President
he made more sense than any of the other candidates running.
Stellar
(5,644 posts)virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)Stellar
(5,644 posts)virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)I liked what he had to say.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)You're really going to attack the NAACP? You're really going there?
Stellar
(5,644 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)....were released in for the 2012 election.
Can you tell us from where you got that 93%?
SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)sibelian
(7,804 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)...a bunch of words and numbers thrown out there without any credibility or background.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)If people SAY things about them, that's different.