Bernie is winning the nomination race and here's whyFollow

Considering the front runners' policies you're not building any bridges out of 'em.

Edited, Apr 9th 2016 1:15am by lolgaxe

Yeah, I've seen people saying that everyone else was saying it. I've seen no actual people going on record making the prediction themselves, much less anyone actually half qualified to make such a prediction. It's sort of a "everyone knows this is true" thing but with no foundation.

It's basically an Appeal to Popularity (with a dash of Appeal to Authority) to set an agenda. "Everyone predicted that this would happen but it didn't so that proves my point. Why would you argue with me when everyone knows it's true?"

How do we know that everyone predicted this without any actual predictions? I guess it's just obvious.

Also......is just silly talk. She was a senator and Secretary of State and a member of the outgoing administration. She's an avid policy wonk and understands the wheels of government. She, frankly, supports 98% of the same stuff Sanders does simply as a virtue of their shared place on the political spectrum. You're free to not like her or her positions but it's just petulance to say that the only thing she has going for her is her name.

Speaking of the outgoing administration, let me remind you all of an election that both Sanders supports and Republicans keep wanting to sweep under the rug: 2008. Sanders supporters don't like being reminded of it because Sanders isn't going to get an Obama ending to his insurgent campaign. Republicans don't like being reminded of it because it pretty much discredits the "Oh, the Democratic primary and Clinton are in soooo much trouble" line. But in 2008, you had a Hillary Clinton who expected to win by early March. Instead, she got bogged down by a virtual tie during the Feb 15th elections and then outflanked by Obama in the next series of contests. Her campaign was in shambles by late February, having not expected or planned for a prolonged contest. Major staff issues, Clinton had to keep pumping her own money into the campaign to stay afloat, etc. Amusingly enough, in 2008 Gbaji said that Clinton would easily win against this inexperienced, first term senator with the weird name and scary un-American, foreign past. She was owed the 2008 election and her machine would crush Obama easily. Now it's "But that was Obama she lost against! You can't compare that election to Bernie Sanders!"

This cycle? You can repeat the "everyone knows she was supposed to win by..." canard but someone who obviously didn't blithely expect to win by March is Hillary Clinton. Her 2012 campaign is running rings for the long game around her 2008 campaign. Sanders is going for the same youth voter bloc and first-time voters that Obama did but he isn't making the numbers. Sanders tried the same caucus sweep that Obama used in 2008 and Clinton outmaneuvered him to secure a lead that Sanders can't beat. Clinton is sitting in the Obama seat this cycle (albeit with an even larger lead), waiting to run down the clock while Sander's supporters are stuck making the same PUMA-esque threats we got from the losing campaign in 2008. That sort of planning suggests a lot more to me than "a friend of a friend says that Clinton has to have a 600 delegate lead by March 3rd or she's weak!"

Edited, Apr 9th 2016 12:03pm by Jophiel

Besides, "X will win early" requires you to ignore that the parties won't allow it because a longer contest allows them to showcase their people and policies, and the news won't allow it because a short contest reduces ratings and page views.

Everybody knows who Hillary Clinton is. Wife of the President, Senator, Secretary of State. But she was also a Goldwater Girl, a Young Republican when Bernie was protesting Vietnam. Her voting record, and support of issues such as trade agreements, Wall Street and bailouts, war in the Middle East, fracking, prisons...these things are all negatives. She's Republican-lite. She is the establishment. Now she's agreeing with Bernie on certain stances, things she used to be against, because she sees how well Bernie is received with everything he's stood for for fifty years. It's political opportunism.

Edited, Apr 11th 2016 8:50pm by Debalic

I'm not going to pretend I know anything about all this primary election stuff, or that I've even attempted to research it-- but I imagine Bernie probably wants to win.

Nobody cares about that. People are voting now who were born well after the first Gulf War; what people were doing around Vietnam is ancient history.

To some people, sure. To most people? Probably not, as evidenced by her lead. Granted, most primary voters aren't in love with ALL of those things but then they don't place a ton of weight on most of them either. And all of them have their supporters: people who support trade, people who understand that the collapse of the banking system would be a bad thing, people who've enjoyed $1.79 gas (and the resulting economic boost) this past year, etc.

She's a left-centrist. She's a political workhorse. That appeals to a lot of people who are more concerned about keeping the economy stable than tearing down Wall Street. She's a pragmatist which appeals to people who realize that "free college" isn't going to be accomplished by a Sanders administration but maybe stuff like student loan reform can be. If someone sincerely can't find any real differences between her and Trump or Cruz or Ryan or whoever then I doubt I'll be the one to convince them. They can go vote Green Party or something in November -- playing in the Ralph Nader sandbox worked wonders in Florida, Nov 2000.

However, back to the original point, Clinton isn't just a name. After a couple decades, people are fairly aware of who they're voting for.

Edited, Apr 12th 2016 8:50am by Jophiel

Poor Sanders, at first he was just the guy who stuck around to make sure the democrats were at least a little talked about with Hillary locking up the nomination and the Republicans grabbing all the headlines. Now to find out if he had tried a little harder he might have actually been popular enough to win the nomination.

Life is such a tease sometimes.

The New York Daily News feels the same way I do! Well, especially after Sanders' disastrous interview with them.

That is why the "Republican-lite" "Goldwater girl" is winning the nomination race.

It's also kind of funny how Trump's kids, who live in an environment where putting their names on things is learned before walking, forgot to register to vote. Also he's complaining about the system being rigged against him.

Now they'll know how Al Gore felt!

It only makes sense because facts don't affect Trump voters. I literally heard a person today on MSNBC supporting Trump who says that her top two issues are the price of health care and college debt. When she asked how Trump would help her, she said that she didn't know, but she's sure it would be better.

The irony is that he used the bankruptcy system rules to play the game. This type of behavior is not new to him and he spun his bankruptcies as him playing the system. SO, it's completely hypocritical to complain about playing the system.

It make sense that he'd use the argument. I'm not saying that he has a good case.

Nine polling organizations have released data this month about New York and none of them say that.