• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Hillary Toast?

azgreg said:
Not saying I like the caucus method, but what about it is undemocratic?
Click to expand...

A very good question. My problem is the following.

1) Lack of uniformity. The whole process varies way too much from state to state. It should be the same method in every state. It is a major flaw of the American democracy.. pointed out by everyone involved in elections world wide..
2) The caucus method is limiting.. and can easily be manipulated if you ask me. Influencing people face to face in a small room... can be done rather easily.

My personal opinion is that to elect a candidate to any office.. if there is to be only one candidate... straight up and down vote between the candidates by all members of the party in each state. So if you want to vote for Hilary and make her the Democratic candidate, join the Democratic party and vote for her.

In Denmark, where I am from, we dont have only one candidate to a seat in Parliament.. we have several from each party. If you want to run, the you can. But the thing the party does and that varies from party to party, is to set the ranking of the candidates. Some parties have a vote among members in the district. Others negotiate their way... basically sitting down and saying.. which of these 4 candidates are most electable.. and he/she will be first on the listing.

So in the end, when there is an election, you can have a list per party of many candidates ranked according to the party rules. You can vote for the candidate (personal vote) or the party (party vote). The party vote is distributed to the candidate according to the ranking set by the party. So say there are 5 candidates.. to get elected you need 10k votes. Candidate 1 gets 7000 personal votes and the first 3000 party votes are given to him so that he can get elected. Candidate 2 gets 4000 personal votes and any left over party votes are given to him to see if he or she can get over the threshold.

Now there is one "but" situation... it is rare. If say the 5th candidate on the list gets 9000 votes for some reason, far more than the 4 above him.. the he will most likely get the party votes needed to get elected. Normally they rank them realistic though :)

My point is, that the over all election system is uniform and not easily manipulated... which is the total opposite of the Iowa causus and US election system..
 
calamity said:
Hillary Clinton is in trouble. A disappointing show in Iowa, and trailing big in NH, she will face an uphill battle from here on out.
Poll: Sanders doubles Clinton's NH support | TheHill

What caused her demise?

"It's Hillary, what else can we expect?" That would be my guess. From her email stupidity and deceptions to her general unlikable nature, there are many reasons that millions upon millions do not want her as president. I'm starting to agree. Something about the Clintons makes even voting for a religious candidate look appealing to this atheist.
Click to expand...


LOL....that's a strrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrretch. Considering that she won Iowa and has huge leads in most of the upcoming primaries. Why are you so desperate to take her out? Why not come up with a strong candidate yourself.
 
disneydude said:
LOL....that's a strrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrretch. Considering that she won Iowa and has huge leads in most of the upcoming primaries. Why are you so desperate to take her out? Why not come up with a strong candidate yourself.
Click to expand...

Looks to me like Bernie is the stronger candidate. Not good at winning coin flips though, however.
 
calamity said:
Hillary Clinton is in trouble. A disappointing show in Iowa, and trailing big in NH, she will face an uphill battle from here on out.
Poll: Sanders doubles Clinton's NH support | TheHill

What caused her demise?

"It's Hillary, what else can we expect?" That would be my guess. From her email stupidity and deceptions to her general unlikable nature, there are many reasons that millions upon millions do not want her as president. I'm starting to agree. Something about the Clintons makes even voting for a religious candidate look appealing to this atheist.
Click to expand...

O'Malley wasn't much of a challenge, but he was a minor distraction. Now that the race on the Democrat side is a two person race, I'd see Clinton pulling away after New Hampshire. Warts aplenty, but serious Democrats will see Hillary as their only hope between the two. What it may do is pump more air into the Bloomberg balloon that was floated a few days ago. Clinton took a hit yesterday, and will again in New Hampshire - but not fatal hits. If it was a broader race, like the Republicans, I could see a dark horse moderate coming up the middle to take it.
 
calamity said:
Looks to me like Bernie is the stronger candidate. Not good at winning coin flips though, however.
Click to expand...

Perhaps stronger with the liberal democratic base. I love Bernie. My only fear is that he would be like a Barry Goldwater in the GE. The Republicans know that the only shot that they have in the GE is by Bernie taking out Hilary for them. Their own sorry group of candidates won't be able to do it.
 
I like her over every GOP candidate but Kasich. But she's hard to like.
 
disneydude said:
Perhaps stronger with the liberal democratic base. I love Bernie. My only fear is that he would be like a Barry Goldwater in the GE. The Republicans know that the only shot that they have in the GE is by Bernie taking out Hilary for them. Their own sorry group of candidates won't be able to do it.
Click to expand...

If Rubio drops the bluster he showed in the last debate and presents himself as the calm, more honest alternative in the general election, he can easily beat Hillary. Rubio-Kasich would be formidable. I'd be worried if I was a D.
 
disneydude said:
Perhaps stronger with the liberal democratic base. I love Bernie. My only fear is that he would be like a Barry Goldwater in the GE. The Republicans know that the only shot that they have in the GE is by Bernie taking out Hilary for them. Their own sorry group of candidates won't be able to do it.
Click to expand...

That's the way I see it!
 
azgreg said:
Not saying I like the caucus method, but what about it is undemocratic?
Click to expand...
The Democratic Party has some 800 "SUPER DELEGATES". These S.D. are 100% establishment and are completely unelected. They're put in place to ensure that the appropriate establishment candidate wins. Republicans have them too but only about 200.
 
calamity said:
If Rubio drops the bluster he showed in the last debate and presents himself as the calm, more honest alternative in the general election, he can easily beat Hillary. Rubio-Kasich would be formidable. I'd be worried if I was a D.
Click to expand...

Rubio is probably the only GOP candidate that I honestly believe would have a shot. Kasich himself probably would run a strong challenge in the GE. That being said.....I don't see a Rubio/Kasich ticket being as formidable as you.
 
reinoe said:
The Democratic Party has some 800 "SUPER DELEGATES". These S.D. are 100% establishment and are completely unelected. They're put in place to ensure that the appropriate establishment candidate wins. Republicans have them too but only about 200.
Click to expand...

Sounds as though the Democrats are more efficient.

I suspect the Republican "establishment" wishes they had done what the Democrats did.
 
PeteEU said:
A very good question. My problem is the following.

1) Lack of uniformity. The whole process varies way too much from state to state. It should be the same method in every state. It is a major flaw of the American democracy.. pointed out by everyone involved in elections world wide..
2) The caucus method is limiting.. and can easily be manipulated if you ask me. Influencing people face to face in a small room... can be done rather easily.

My personal opinion is that to elect a candidate to any office.. if there is to be only one candidate... straight up and down vote between the candidates by all members of the party in each state. So if you want to vote for Hilary and make her the Democratic candidate, join the Democratic party and vote for her.

In Denmark, where I am from, we dont have only one candidate to a seat in Parliament.. we have several from each party. If you want to run, the you can. But the thing the party does and that varies from party to party, is to set the ranking of the candidates. Some parties have a vote among members in the district. Others negotiate their way... basically sitting down and saying.. which of these 4 candidates are most electable.. and he/she will be first on the listing.

So in the end, when there is an election, you can have a list per party of many candidates ranked according to the party rules. You can vote for the candidate (personal vote) or the party (party vote). The party vote is distributed to the candidate according to the ranking set by the party. So say there are 5 candidates.. to get elected you need 10k votes. Candidate 1 gets 7000 personal votes and the first 3000 party votes are given to him so that he can get elected. Candidate 2 gets 4000 personal votes and any left over party votes are given to him to see if he or she can get over the threshold.

Now there is one "but" situation... it is rare. If say the 5th candidate on the list gets 9000 votes for some reason, far more than the 4 above him.. the he will most likely get the party votes needed to get elected. Normally they rank them realistic though :)

My point is, that the over all election system is uniform and not easily manipulated... which is the total opposite of the Iowa causus and US election system..
Click to expand...
There are problems with the election process but your concerns are not legitimate.
 
disneydude said:
Rubio is probably the only GOP candidate that I honestly believe would have a shot. Kasich himself probably would run a strong challenge in the GE. That being said.....I don't see a Rubio/Kasich ticket being as formidable as you.
Click to expand...

The only problem with it is that the R base would not stand for two "establishment" candidates. But if they do go with the Florida-Ohio combination, it's going to be very difficult for the Democratic nominee to win.
 
Hillary is not a leader. She calculates everything politically. She doesn't stand up for principles unless it is safe to do politically.

She was so afraid of being painted as weak on national security that she voted for the Iraq War. She will try to blame it on the intelligence. But neither Obama, nor Bernie, voted for that because they are more principled candidates.

She is transparent in her motives. Once again, name recognition is not enough.

Feel the Bern.
 
Soho gator said:
I like her over every GOP candidate but Kasich. But she's hard to like.
Click to expand...

i would also pull the lever for rand paul before voting for hillary
kasich would make a great president. problem is he is a terrible campaigner
 
calamity said:
The only problem with it is that the R base would not stand for two "establishment" candidates. But if they do go with the Florida-Ohio combination, it's going to be very difficult for the Democratic nominee to win.
Click to expand...

Not really. When you look at the electoral map, the Democrats can lose both Florida and Ohio and win pretty comfortably. The biggest difference is that Republicans cannot afford to lose either. They are essentially "must wins" for them, absent a pretty remarkable pick up of every other swing state. The other reality is that Rubio doesn't necessarily deliver Florida. He's liked there...but not LOVED. Same with Kasich. Even with him as a VP...it is a hotly contested state.
 
Thorgasm said:
Hillary is not a leader. She calculates everything politically. She doesn't stand up for principles unless it is safe to do politically.

She was so afraid of being painted as weak on national security that she voted for the Iraq War. She will try to blame it on the intelligence. But neither Obama, nor Bernie, voted for that because they are more principled candidates.

She is transparent in her motives. Once again, name recognition is not enough.

Feel the Bern.
Click to expand...

That Bernie is genuine and Hillary is not definitely left its mark last night. Winning a small margin of delegates by coin toss is not a victory for Hillary, no matter how she tries to spin it. Her candidacy is in trouble. I suspect it's in big trouble.
 
Risky Thicket said:
Yes, I believe that may be part of it. It's nice to see a candidate who has integrity. I like a candidate who has a long history of admirable moral and ethical standards. I suppose every voter, Republican, Democratic, Independent, Libertarian, Green wants that in a candidate. Those attributes are rare and welcome these days. Yes, those attributes are part of reason why people support Sanders. It is part of the reason I support Sanders.

I don't know about the "they probably don't want the money grabber to win" part. What do you mean?
Click to expand...

You seem to have misunderstood me. When I was talking about "ethical and moral Democrats", I was talking about voters...not candidates. I don't think there are ANY ethical or moral Democratic candidates.

In respect to the "money-grabber" thing, I'm talking about Sanders' desire to increase taxes to pay for his government spending. Anyone with a lick of intelligence knows that taxing the rich isn't enough. To pay for everything he wants, he'll have to increase taxes on everyone...grab their money, that it.

As opposed to world-travel-experience-challanged people? Education-experience-challenged people? Military-experience-challanged people? White-life-experience-challanged people? As opposed to protestant-mainstream-religion-challange people?

As I understand the voting process it includes all eligible voters and all votes count - equally. As far as I know all candidates will take all legal votes they can get.

Young people have seen what apathy has done to the nation. They're seeing what apathy is doing to their present and they are rightfully concerned about what apathy will do to their future. They see a lot **** jobs with low pay. They see advanced education almost out of financial reach. They see almost all of their generation working - if they can find a living wage - for the corporation massa. They see home ownership less of a likelihood. They see delaying having children due to lack of a reasonably steady financial future. They see their medical costs and availability as a real concern. They don't know that they will ever have retirement or social security or if their social security will be turned over to Wall Street in yet another money transfer from the lower and middle classes to the wealthy ruling class.

So yeah, those "life-experience-challenged young people" probably have some valid concerns. No doubt they see that all of the greed of their parents' generation has left them holding check. They have had to grow up fast in the regard. Kudos to them for becoming involved in their own future in an effort to mitigate the damage.



Its Democrat establishment and yes, the ruling establishment that is both Republican and Democratic will do everything within their power to maintain the status quo.
Click to expand...

Those life-experience-challenged people haven't really grown up...and that's their problem and that's to Sanders' advantage.
 
calamity said:
That Bernie is genuine and Hillary is not definitely left its mark last night. Winning a small margin of delegates by coin toss is not a victory for Hillary, no matter how she tries to spin it. Her candidacy is in trouble. I suspect it's in big trouble.
Click to expand...

I have been saying it for some time now. The GOP has been campaigning against her like she was going to be the nominee, again. They don't study history. This will be 2008 all over again. I will not vote for Hillary under any circumstances. She is a phony. She can pretend that she has been fighting for the middle class for 25 years. If she has, she has failed miserably. I think we all know she really didn't though. She is a cronyist.
 
Thorgasm said:
I have been saying it for some time now. The GOP has been campaigning against her like she was going to be the nominee, again. They don't study history. This will be 2008 all over again. I will not vote for Hillary under any circumstances. She is a phony. She can pretend that she has been fighting for the middle class for 25 years. If she has, she has failed miserably. I think we all know she really didn't though. She is a cronyist.
Click to expand...

I just read the 538 article on the Hillary-Sanders race. Unlike, 2008, Hillary has a huge lead in the non-white vote, according to polls. She's also solid among moderates. Sanders has the liberal white vote, but little else.

Why Blacks and Latinos like Hillary is a mystery to me. And, it's possible that they can be swayed once the primaries come to their state.
 
Bernie is popular because stupid people who have never experienced living in a socialist country think its just this great and wonderful thing. A myth propagated by the left wing academia and media in this country of the last 40 years.
 
calamity said:
I just read the 538 article on the Hillary-Sanders race. Unlike, 2008, Hillary has a huge lead in the non-white vote, according to polls. She's also solid among moderates. Sanders has the liberal white vote, but little else.

Why Blacks and Latinos like Hillary is a mystery to me. And, it's possible that they can be swayed once the primaries come to their state.
Click to expand...

I don't know why any Hispanic would vote for a Democrat particularly a Mexican Hispanic. This is the political party that purposely enabled guns to be smuggled into Mexico with the express intent of those guns ending up in the hands of violent criminal under the guise of using them to get convictions later on. In reality it was just about scoring points for their anti-gun agenda here in the U.S. The end result however was that many Mexicans were killed by firearms that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder and the gang made sure would end up in the hands of violent criminals. Why would vote for someone who did that to your people and your country?
 
Hillary's problem is that she's boring. There has never been any excitement in her campaign. The same thing happened to her in 2008. Nobody cares. She starts out big, then peters out because she has no real plans, she just want to be President. She wants to be in the history books. She's an idiot.
 
Risky Thicket said:
Rubio or Cruz plan to send you more guns, more God, more social engineering, more war, more corporate favoritism, more climate denial, high education costs, more religion in the classroom, more prisons and more dark money control of elections and issues, more racial, religious and disability discrimination, and less personal freedom.

If you like that then go for it.
Click to expand...



well, look at that. Didn't even mention Hillary or the democrats, just spewed hate at Republicans.

Now that's adult debating!
 
calamity said:
Hillary Clinton is in trouble. A disappointing show in Iowa, and trailing big in NH, she will face an uphill battle from here on out.
Poll: Sanders doubles Clinton's NH support | TheHill

What caused her demise?

"It's Hillary, what else can we expect?" That would be my guess. From her email stupidity and deceptions to her general unlikable nature, there are many reasons that millions upon millions do not want her as president. I'm starting to agree. Something about the Clintons makes even voting for a religious candidate look appealing to this atheist.
Click to expand...



The demise is all on her.

The truth is the cause of her demise is the very thing she's been cultivating for going on 30 years, name recognition. The creation of a Hillary brand. And she succeeded, but people are finding out there's no substance there; she has no real experience beyond campaigning. She is now the old brand, the idea of a dynasty from Obama to Hillary to whoever is forgotten. Americans don't like royalty and she made herself into 'her majesty' who we know is a pretty nice girl but you have to have a belly full of wine.

Typical of the party where progress is doing the same thing, in a time North America is chasing "new", the Dems offer up two candidates who's average age is 71.

But she is far from out. No one expects her to do much in NH, and after that is where things get tough for Bernie and allegedly easier for her.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom