New York primary is Tuesday, April 19

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Comments

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

She needs to do something. She might be too far ahead to lose it now, but, man, at this rate, she is going into the general election weak and limping.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Then how would you describe any possible Republican nominee at this point? Ted Cruz said in an interview that he would he believes pregnant rape victims shouldn't be allowed access to abortions. Nate Silver said in a piece today, Cruz would likely win an convention fight. Ugh.

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

But the Cruz statement is at least good for exciting his base. I'm not sure if Hillary has much of an excited base, except for possibly middle-aged Democrat women.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

It may excite his base (I haven't seen any reporting about this specific incident), but Cruz needs more than his narrow base to win an general election. And then there is Cruz's unsatisfactory polling within the Republican primary is only slightly better than Trump's too. That's what prompted my question to your point "she is going into the general election weak and limping."

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Democrats are supposed to be better than republicans. We agree that the GOP clown-car shit-show of a primary looks bad for them. Democrats are supposed to be better than that; not use the GOP stupidity as some sort of a benchmark.

Pretty typical Clinton-ite remarks tho. Whenever she gets in trouble for things she has done she highlights how they aren't as bad as the republicans.

Ain't a good look.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Democrats are supposed to be better than republicans. We agree that the GOP clown-car shit-show of a primary looks bad for them. Democrats are supposed to be better than that; not use the GOP stupidity as some sort of a benchmark.

You're wrong. Is this written somewhere in the Democratic supporters' handbook, or something you've dreamed up? I have a hunch why you would push for this. Democratic policies are better, absolutely. But the broader issue for me was: with all things being equal, what missteps by Republican candidates would make them to have to "do something?" or not go in a general election "weak and limping." Frankly, the situation is more dire for them.

I thought Cruz's comments on abortion in cases of rape (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/cruz-makes-his-case-against-abortion-rape-exception)would be more of a possible crippling position for Cruz in a general election. Republicans traditionally have run to the right in their primaries to win, but then have to run themselves ragged pivoting to the middle in the general, and they loose because they don't have much in the way of credibility. With Cruz's no-rape-exception comments, he's at an extreme spot from the start. As the link states, that's pretty radical for even the Republican party.

Pretty typical Clinton-ite remarks tho. Whenever she gets in trouble for things she has done she highlights how they aren't as bad as the republicans.

I didn't bring up Hillary in Ted Cruz's rape comment on abortion; you made that connection and went off on a tangent. In the context of this post/ threads, I'm not even sure what "trouble" Hillary is in, other than her recent losses to Bernie, so she could be going into the general election "weak and limping."

"No abortions for women who are raped," I think the Democratic candidates are in total agreement opposing Ted Cruz's policy; and I can't believe it wouldn't be mentioned in a campaign or brought up. The Democratic position on the issue is a winning one.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

"I didn't bring up Hillary in Ted Cruz's rape comment on abortion; you made that connection and went off on a tangent. "

Wow. Can you not follow a conversation??! I didn't bring up Ted Cruz at all, and I have no interest in discussing the GOP clown car of a primary. let's go back to where this started:

Hardblue: "She [Clinton] might be too far ahead to lose it now, but, man, at this rate, she is going into the general election weak and limping."

You: **Then how would you describe any possible Republican nominee at this point?**

You immediately change the topic to the GOP; we agree that Clinton is better than the GOP. What you seem to be unwilling to accept, is that she isn't coming off as a **STRONG** candidate. She may win the nomination, but unless the tide changes, she will win it, looking, pretty weak.

And OF COURSE whoever the GOP candidate is will come out looking weak, because they will not have won the primary, but will have been chosen at a brokered convention.

But you shift the topic from Clinton to the GOP. Which, again, is a typical Clinton-ite tactic. Instead of defending Clinton proper, you compare her to the GOP--**which is not a defense** it's misdirection.

"Sir you've been accused of stealing 3 candy bars"
"BUT LOOK AT THAT ARSONIST OVER THERE! IM A SAINT BY COMPARISON!"
"Ok. But you've been accused of stealing 3 candy bars."
"ARSONIST OVER THERE! EVERYONE LOOK OVER THERE, NOT AT ME!"

[garote]

"Typical Clinton-ite tactic?" Typical Bernie-bro tactic!

Bernie-bro tactic: Spend ten long months crapping all over Hillary, and her supporters, believing it will somehow generate increased support for Bernie. But the demographics are split along the same lines they were 10 months ago. Meanwhile the backlash for your suspiciously intense hate has rotted away a huge chunk of his momentum.

(Doesn't feel good, being accused of the worst of a made-up stereotype, does it? Quit throwing them around then.)

Bernie-bro tactic continued: Then crap on Hillary some more for potentially coming out of the primary covered in crap. That potentially weakened start wouldn't possibly have anything to do with your incessant crapping, oh no. It's everyone - anyone - else's fault. If she wins the primary and then gets swamped in the general election by a much larger Republican turnout, because you and the other Bernie-bros sat on your crap-fatigued asses at home, well, that'll just be proof that all your crapping was justified. Pass the toilet paper!!

I swear, if you took one tenth the time you spend crapping on Hillary and anyone who even appears to not hate Hillary enough, and used that time to talk up Bernie's plans and ideas, ... well, I don't know what would happen at this point, but I for one would really be surprised! Hah!

But, perhaps it's too late anyway at this point, right? Everyone's got too much crap on them, and the Republicans, bless their hearts, don't seem to mind the smell of crap all that much come general election time. So away we go, with four years of President Religious Nut and/or President Comacho...

I assume your actual position is similar to mine: Whether it's Hillary or Bernie late this year, you will vote Democrat. So perhaps it's time to retire the stereotypes on both sides, aye?

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

I see you missed the other thread where Oslo and a few other users berate me for *not* being a loyal democrat. I am not sure I would vote for Clinton in a general election.

Hint: I'm not a democrat at all. I'm a leftist, but I'm not a registered democrat.

Second hint: If you think I don't put time and energy into phone-banking and other GOTV like efforts for Bernie, you are very wrong.

Third hint: I live in a non-swing state, so I feel absolutely no reason to vote for a candidate I do not like. The vote in my state is pre-determined, and if my state swings it's vote, the election is already over.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

I see you missed the other thread where Oslo and a few other users berate me for *not* being a loyal democrat. I am not sure I would vote for Clinton in a general election.

I don't think anyone berated you. They were calm, and reasonable, as opposed what was tossed back their way.


I am not sure I would vote for Clinton in a general election.


The question posed was framed in a more nuanced way, even if ultimately your answer wouldn't be any different: If Hillary was the nominee, and a right wing fascist of the order of Donald Trump was the Republican nominee, could people sit out the election, and run the risk of a possible Trump presidency, because Hillary was the Democratic pick instead of Bernie Sanders?

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

You missed the part where Oslo told me that my time (and by extension my life, cause all life is, is a serious of moments) is worthless.

[garote]

I'm in the same boat over here in California: Democrat majority state for about the last 20 years, but still unclear who the preferred nominee is.

Question: How did NY go from 47 electoral votes in the 1940's to 29 votes today? Is the whole northeastern part of the country depopulating or something?!

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Question: How did NY go from 47 electoral votes in the 1940's to 29 votes today? Is the whole northeastern part of the country depopulating or something?!

The answer to your question is yes.

1944 California had 25 votes. But for 2012, it had 55.
Pennsylvania had 35 (1944) cf to 20 (2012).
Florida had 8 (1944) cf to 29 (2012).

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

I'll leave this here: