2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumPoll for *strong supporters* of Hillary only
Last edited Wed Oct 21, 2015, 05:54 PM - Edit history (2)
I am curious where most strong Hillary supporters on DU stand on this issue, underneath it all:
Are you pleased that Bernie is also running for the nomination?
Please choose the response you feel most passionately about.
(Also please consider kickin it if you are interested to see a more representative sample of DUers' opinions)
10 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Time expired | |
No, it is a distraction from her message and he is not meaningfully changing the dialogue | |
0 (0%) |
|
No, it is a distraction and I am opposed to his positions, generally | |
1 (10%) |
|
No, it is a distraction and he is hurting the party and/or her image | |
0 (0%) |
|
Yes, it is contributing to an important and healthy dialogue in the party | |
9 (90%) |
|
Yes, it is helping to highlight her strengths and give her practice at debates, etc. | |
0 (0%) |
|
Yes, it is helping to move her a little more toward the progressive end, which I appreciate | |
0 (0%) |
|
0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)JudyM
(29,122 posts)HerbChestnut
(3,649 posts)JudyM
(29,122 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Edit. Read too quickly. An option for me was up there. Thanks.
Might want to post this in the Hillary group. "Supporters of x only" ops seem to have a bad record in GD .
JudyM
(29,122 posts)Tipperary
(6,930 posts)I am a Hillary supporter, but that does not make me hate any other candidate. I like Bernie and O'Malley as well. I hope your poll will demonstrate to the contentious group on both sides that we can support one without dissing the other.
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)the "coronation" argument.
Plus, if Jim Webb's campaign caught fire (or if Biden ran and was Clinton's main competitor), having the main primary competition from Clinton's right positions her as less centrist in a general election which would have less appeal to most independents and on-the-fence moderate Republicans. Having Sanders run to Clinton's left, positions her as centrist for the general election which enhances her general election chances beyond the Democratic base.
I hope Sanders pulls off an upset win, but if he doesn't, no one should be more grateful for his campaign than Clinton.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)election, I can only imagine how her transition team will look like.
JudyM
(29,122 posts)msongs
(67,199 posts)BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)However, I do think the primary thus far has been a positive one, at least as played out in public, if not here on Internet message boards. It's useful to have a discussion of ideas, and the coverage of them gets our message out there.
If the primary was more like the circus of the GOP primary, I'd probably have a different opinion. It's one reason I'm glad Biden chose not to run-- from the things he was saying, it felt like he might have been more negative than the candidates we have already.
JudyM
(29,122 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)I think strong women rock... I was raised by a widowed mom...Hillary reminds me of my mom in appearance and demeanor...My dad was a Golden Gloves boxer and Purple Heart recipient but when it came to standing up for herself my mom was the strong one. My dad shied away from confrontation. My mom went head first into it.
If we had a parliamentary system and run offs I might be inclined to vote for Bernie but I have to navigate through the system we have and tactically I see Hillary as our best chance to hold the White House and prevent the Republicans From controlling all three branches of government.
I would also vote for an Obama third term if not for the 22nd Amendment.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts), too many of them at least, have handled themselves and the race and Bernie isn't enough of a leader to deal with them.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)presence. A lot of the people showing up to Sanders rallies are just people who support his message, which is very similar to Hillary's.
Polls show that most Sanders supporters like Hillary and vice versa. If the people who Sanders has energized end up turning out for Hillary that will be a big plus. A lot of this depends on Bernie. Can he keep them engaged if he's not the candidate? Will they stay interested in politics beyond just 2016? I don't know, but it's certainly possible.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Clinton is taking money, both personally and for her campaign, from the very wealthy because they want her to fight for their interests. Quid pro quo. Sanders wants to tax Wall Street speculation to pay for college education while Clinton wants college students to get a job like she did and ask the states to please hold down tuition. Really? That's a great example of how close they are.
Sanders supporters are very enthusiastic about having an honest candidate and many will not support a candidate that is owned by the billionaires, regardless if threatened with Trump. They see this as the last chance to get money out of politics.
The debates are another great example of the divide between the 1% and the 99%. The 1% (e.g., CNN) said HRC won and the 99% said Sen Sanders won.
If you really want to win in 2016, don't nominate the billionaires' candidate.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)can put up as presidential candidate.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)I have a feeling that a lot of those currently enthused because they see Sen Sanders as a much needed change, will be turned off if the billionaires once again buy the Presidency.
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)Oh, my God.
The only people who do not work in college are the children of the coddled. I had W-2 incomes from age 13 and worked from age 10. I had two jobs in college, and went on to get a PhD, and like ALL GRADUATE STUDENTS, I held jobs in graduate school. There is no virtue in not working. Work study is a normal part of college. I have never before seen anyone complain that they have to work 10 hours a week. Truly unreal.
Wall Street "speculation" also includes taxes on union pension funds and teacher retirement plans. Naturally their role in life is to ensure the children of the upper-middle class don't have to lift a finger. I have no sympathy for those who feel they are too good to work and expect the working poor to pay for their comfort. Meanwhile, the schools of the poor remain woefully underfunded so they by age 18 they don't stand a chance of being prepared for college. That is made possible by tax schemes in local communities, and Bernie has no plan to address any of it, nothing whatsoever on his website about education before college.
Clinton has policy proposals on both early childhood and K-12 education, which is where systemic inequality is solidified.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/early-childhood-education/https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/k-12-education/
Under Sanders plan, the benefits accrue most to those who can't currently receive need-based financial aid, the upper-middle class, who is just coincidentally Sanders support base (polling demonstrates his supporters average incomes of over $80k a year).
Clinton's plan involves cost-free community college and four-year tuition based on income. Based on income, meaning it does not target the upper-middle class but those who actually need it. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/college/
You can repeat claims that Clinton is the candidate of billionaires all day long, but it doesn't make it true. The majority of Democrats who average incomes below $30k and $50k a year support Clinton, and Sanders win the majority of voters who make over $80k a year.
The artifice of the 99% is itself a tool of class rule. It enables those making incomes in excess of $100k-300K a year to make the absurd claim they face the kind of exploitation suffered by the indigent and the working poor. They do not. They have more than 99.5% of people on planet earth and 80-97% of Americans. They are furious that the 1 percent (incomes of about $440k+) has even more. For centuries people like them reaped benefits of a capitalist system based on rampant inequality and exploitation of the working poor. Now that such comfort no longer automatically falls to them as they feel is their birthright, they are furious.
Now Clinton suggests the children of the upper-middle class might have to work 10 hours a week while in college? Meanwhile, millions of students across this country are now working 40 hours a week while going to school full time, but God forbid their kids work 10. Work, like the plebes? The horror!
You all claim to support socialism. Under socialism, everyone works. There is no option not to work. Socialism involves everyone contributing their share: from each his ability to each according to his need. Yet you find the idea that college students might have to work 10 hours a week unacceptable. Self-entitlement and socialism cannot coexist.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)jobs, hello. I am not against working but we need jobs. And the TPP will give away more jobs. The is no such thing as "cost-free" community college. Who is going to pay? I bet it won't be the 1%.
A tax on speculating on Wall Street wouldn't hurt normal investments, but is aimed at those that are using computers to manipulate the market with purchases as many as dozens per hour.
Few here support socialism. They do support social programs like public education, Social Security, Medicare, public police, fire depts, libraries, and prisons.
The billionaires are supporting Clinton for a reason. They are not altruistic. They expect a return on their investment a hundred-fold.
Sen Sanders and Clinton are on opposite sides of this class war. Regardless of what she says, she is part of the 1% and her friends and supporters are in the 1%.
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)Last edited Thu Oct 22, 2015, 02:35 PM - Edit history (1)
in which the white upper-middle class sees the Democrats as not serving their interests. We are undergoing a rapidly shifting demographic in terms of the ethnic make up of the country, and those who previously enjoyed uncontested privilege are angry at the Democrats. I expect they will make their migration to the GOP, while the growing generations of immigrants and people of color will become even more prominent in the Democratic Party. Such shits if party coalitions are part of American politics, as happening during the New Deal, following the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s, and the Reagan era.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)I think there's a pretty good argument for the DU admins to permanently delete GD-P the day the nominee clinches.
Logical
(22,457 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)The more the merrier in the primary as far as I am concerned. And I'm even open to having my mind changed, not that it has been yet.
tritsofme
(17,325 posts)Tipperary
(6,930 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)artislife
(9,497 posts)You don't want any other voices...
JudyM
(29,122 posts)and I think it's inportant to understand how that group feels about Bernie, at least on DU. It would also be interesting to see how others feel, as well, though, as you point out... Good for a different poll, maybe.
nevermind.
JudyM
(29,122 posts)for strong supporters who don't necessarily frequent that group.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)But yeah, I am glad Bernie is running. I think Bernie is a great guy and I like him keeping HRC's feet to the fire.