HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » If the head to head polls...

Fri Feb 19, 2016, 05:04 AM

 

If the head to head polls showed HRC doing BETTER than Bernie against the Rethugs...

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by one_voice (a host of the 2016 Postmortem forum).

...every HRC supporter here would be saying, over and over again, that those polls were infallible, that they proved we HAD to nominate HRC, and that Bernie should never even have run.

And we all know it.

17 replies, 3848 views

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 17 replies Author Time Post
Reply If the head to head polls showed HRC doing BETTER than Bernie against the Rethugs... (Original post)
Ken Burch Feb 2016 OP
PatrickforO Feb 2016 #1
delrem Feb 2016 #2
noiretextatique Feb 2016 #4
delrem Feb 2016 #6
noiretextatique Feb 2016 #9
delrem Feb 2016 #11
GoneFishin Feb 2016 #13
Peace Patriot Feb 2016 #5
delrem Feb 2016 #7
Divernan Feb 2016 #14
Cassiopeia Feb 2016 #8
Kentonio Feb 2016 #3
pdsimdars Feb 2016 #10
YOHABLO Feb 2016 #12
erlewyne Feb 2016 #15
jfern Feb 2016 #16
one_voice Feb 2016 #17

Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Fri Feb 19, 2016, 05:15 AM

1. Well, all polls are fallible but my biggest concern about Clinton is

that she may be indicted on this 'pay to play' deal with countries allegedly having to donate to the Clinton Foundation in order to have the USA sign off on arms deals.

I mean, imagine her getting the nomination after a 'not-so-clean' primary battle and then having her criminal indictment come as an October surprise.

I've never thought she could beat anyone in the general election. She could have beaten McCain/Palin in 08, sure, because Palin was such a foolish choice for VP and, well, because McCain. But her campaign then imploded because of her lack of true leadership skills. So fast forward to now, and it is just too late for her. She'd be the wrong candidate for us to advance. I really believe that.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatrickforO (Reply #1)

Fri Feb 19, 2016, 05:55 AM

2. I dunno if she could've beaten McCain/Palin in 08.

She has NONE of the charisma of Obama.
She inspired nothing. She was already running on empty.
People already knew who she was.

Now in 2016 she couldn't beat a turnip. The MSM and her billion dollar campaign can spin it as they want, but in a GE she won't inspire anything but revulsion at the idea of a president owing to such an incredible backlog of payola and graft. Her militarism is front and center - it's what she is, a hawk who will bring death and destruction to the tune of fat profits in a way not seen since Reagan. People won't want that on their conscience. They just won't - people have had enough and more than enough of the war profiteering, the payola, the corruption.

She hasn't a chance.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #2)

Fri Feb 19, 2016, 05:59 AM

4. folks need to get on the right side of history

and vote for the transformative candidate. if clinton wins, it will be incrementalism for the 99%. incrementalism does not apply to the 1%.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noiretextatique (Reply #4)

Fri Feb 19, 2016, 06:18 AM

6. People are being "incrementally" shafted.

Statistics prove it.

There is nothing forward about HRC's "incrementalism", it's just an empty slogan.

What does it mean re. Health Services? The first and ONLY thing you need to know is that it means that she backs private health insurance companies, EXCLUSIVELY. It means that she puts the parasitical profits of private insurance companies in the lead, as the ONLY consideration to account for and guarantee, then bullshits about how on that basis some kind of "incremental" movement toward "universal health care" will be forthcoming.

After which it's entirely a game of semantics. Because most countries with universal health care also allow citizens to supplement it with private insurance, they deny that such countries have single payer universal health care, ignoring or denying the fact that the only way that universal base is guaranteed and so can be *called* universal is through the single payer (gov't) insurance. I'm Canadian and Hillary Clinton's arguments are boggling, and I find it boggling that they have any traction.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #6)

Fri Feb 19, 2016, 06:47 AM

9. i'm American, and i am baffled

as to why anyone would support her. i am baffled about why she is even the corporatist dem candidate. she runs terrible campaigns, she lost to Obama, and she has a steamer trunk full of baggage. she says ridiculous things on a regular basis, as do her operatives, and she is a proven liar. they never planned on a Bernie.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noiretextatique (Reply #9)

Fri Feb 19, 2016, 07:38 AM

11. She has a machine.

First and foremost, it's a cash machine.
But more than that, it's a political cash machine.
More than that, it's a political cash machine where war profiteering is the prime economic mover.

Investment bankers and war profiteers love her because she and her husband have done so much to construct and invent the machine that serves them.

Electing her is the end.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #11)

Fri Feb 19, 2016, 07:44 AM

13. Winning at all cost is the end game, not helping the country.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatrickforO (Reply #1)

Fri Feb 19, 2016, 06:02 AM

5. I hadn't thought of that one in a while.

The Clinton Foundation arms deals. I just said to a Hillary supporter that what I needed on the Goldman Sachs transcripts was transparency and honesty, that I might accept a truly honest explanation if the transcripts are bad, as they probably are (say, "You can't run for president and win without big money, in the current system. I needed the money. And you can't successfully regulate them if you don't know them and they don't know you. I know it looks bad. My goals are good." --something along those lines.) I'm not against a canny president. And FDR was rich! I said she has two problems that could rob us of having a Dem president next year, that and the emails. Both need transparency and honesty for me to consider voting for her in November, if Bernie doesn't get the nomination.

Anyway, I was going on and on about this, and forgot about the Clinton Foundation, and just put the OTHER donors aside for the moment.

Gawd. The Clinton Foundation.

I'm also furious with her about Honduras (2009-ish). But that probably wouldn't lose her votes here, cuz almost no one knows about it.

Thanks for reminding me that she has, at the least, THREE big show-stopping problems!

It's such an amazing thing, in the USA, to have a truly clean candidate of known and proven integrity!

Bernie!

He's canny in a different way. Not slick. But smart. Very smart.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peace Patriot (Reply #5)

Fri Feb 19, 2016, 06:25 AM

7. If you push your finger in the swamp, there's no telling what you'll touch.

The problem isn't in describing in detail each individual noxious item, it's the fact that it's a swamp.

What she SAID in those speeches isn't essential - in fact it's meaningless. What's essential is that she was PAID, and paid again and again and again, to the tune of over $150 million between her and her husband, straight to their personal account, by lobbyists. The lobbyists didn't want WORDS, they didn't care if she read "My Pet Goat" to them, they cared that they bought her.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peace Patriot (Reply #5)

Fri Feb 19, 2016, 07:49 AM

14. Clinton Foundation donors awarded larger weapons deals from State Dept.

Of 20 nations that donated to the Foundation, 17 had more robust weapons transactions in the three fiscal years that State was led by Hillary than in the last three years of the previous administration. How do you convince a president who got elected in 2008 on an anti-war platform repudiating warmongering cowboy George W. Bush to ramp up arms deals to unsavory regimes in the Middle East? Slipping a fat envelope into the Clinton slush fund’s collection box couldn’t hurt. And evidently didn’t.
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/05/26/surprise-most-clinton-foundation-donors-got-larger-weapons-deals-from-hillarys-state-department/

Under Clinton’s leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data. That figure — derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012) — represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.

The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation, resulting in a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration. These extra sales were part of a broad increase in American military exports that accompanied Obama’s arrival in the White House.

American defense contractors also donated to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state and in some cases made personal payments to Bill Clinton for speaking engagements. Such firms and their subsidiaries were listed as contractors in $163 billion worth of Pentagon-negotiated deals that were authorized by the Clinton State Department between 2009 and 2012…

In all, governments and corporations involved in the arms deals approved by Clinton’s State Department have delivered between $54 million and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to the Clinton family, according to foundation and State Department records. The Clinton Foundation publishes only a rough range of individual contributors’ donations, making a more precise accounting impossible.


http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatrickforO (Reply #1)

Fri Feb 19, 2016, 06:34 AM

8. That may be why we're seeing the desperation.

Win the seat, or lose freedom (well kinda, she'll never serve a day in prison regardless of charge).

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Fri Feb 19, 2016, 05:56 AM

3. You mean exactly like they did last year when polling was favorable to them.

 

Back then it was all "Oh you Berniebros only read online polls because the real ones tell the truth!".

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Fri Feb 19, 2016, 07:37 AM

10. Amen to Ken

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Fri Feb 19, 2016, 07:43 AM

12. Something last night she didn't mention about Social Security Tax.

 

When asked what she would do to strengthen Social Security, she said that ideas included taxing the rich more but was vague on just how much that amount would be in terms of taxation. It was pointed out that the cut off point (or cap) is $118,500 (or about $120,000). She claimed to have several proposals but NEVER NEVER mentioned lifting the cap completely. We want to hear scrap the cap Hillary. She will not go there. Why???

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Fri Feb 19, 2016, 08:04 AM

15. Ten-four

Yep! Can't argue with that point.

Why do I dislike her ... didn't used to.

That old Tex Ritter song ... I used to love her

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Fri Feb 19, 2016, 08:08 AM

16. Well, they always claim she's the most electable anyways

Despite the general election matchups and favorable ratings very clearly showing otherwise. Facts don't matter, they argue anyways.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Fri Feb 19, 2016, 04:43 PM

17. Locking...

Doesn't meet SoP for GDP.

Statement of Purpose

A forum for general discussion of the Democratic presidential primaries. Disruptive meta-discussion is forbidden.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink