It is time sanders drops out.

[fskimospy]

So when given a choice, why are the majority of Democrats choosing to go with the default option rather than the better choice? Are they easily led? Is it strictly name recognition? Just as gullible as Republicans? I've been reading sites like DailyKos a lot lately trying to figure that out, and honestly nothing seems to make sense.

Could it be that an objective analysis of the situation shows that Sanders is a worse candidate? This is the same thing Republicans have tried to convince themselves of for years, that they would have won in 2008 if they had nominated a hardcore conservative instead of McCain. That they would have won in 2012 had they nominated a hardcore conservative instead of Romney. It's silliness

Sanders is ideologically extreme by objective measures and has unrealistic and poorly thought out policy proposals. Why is this a better candidate? Don't give me feel good or gut feeling reasons, tell me why Democrats would be better off nominating a candidate more likely to lose.

 

[SP33Demon]

So when given a choice, why are the majority of Democrats choosing to go with the default option rather than the better choice? Are they easily led? Is it strictly name recognition? Just as gullible as Republicans? I've been reading sites like DailyKos a lot lately trying to figure that out, and honestly nothing seems to make sense.

If Republicans were gullible then all of the attack ads from the establishment would be working as they normally do. They're not, so tell us how Repubs are gullible again? lol

Low IQ Dems are voting for name recognition, completely oblivious that Sanders is twice as strong a candidate vs Trump than the Shill. The polls are correct in head to heads and unfavorability.

 

[compuwiz1]

There are a lot of delegates to be had in the west. Sanders might not be as bad off as some think. California is a biggie and he is liked there, more than Hillary. I think when the west votes, Hillary might not fare as well and that line of thinking may keep Bernie in it, as long has he has the funds to keep going.

Right now we have the two worst candidates, in terms of trustworthiness, leading the pack.

 

[brianmanahan]

#bankrupt4bernie

LOL! i didn't see this, i love it

 

[Mursilis]

So when given a choice, why are the majority of Democrats choosing to go with the default option rather than the better choice? Are they easily led? Is it strictly name recognition? Just as gullible as Republicans? I've been reading sites like DailyKos a lot lately trying to figure that out, and honestly nothing seems to make sense.

Despite what so many of our left-leaning regulars here choose to believe, the GOP base isn't the only one which has chosen to reject science and reason. The Dem base isn't any smarter; they're just different in what they chose to reject (mostly sound economic principles). Neither side is all that bright.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

So when given a choice, why are the majority of Democrats choosing to go with the default option rather than the better choice? Are they easily led? Is it strictly name recognition? Just as gullible as Republicans? I've been reading sites like DailyKos a lot lately trying to figure that out, and honestly nothing seems to make sense.

I don't have an answer for that other than she is beyond established not only as a name but as a brand as well, also, and this is 100% speculation, some people may be drawn to her for her character (I'll wait for you to stop laughing/choking).....
Better? Good... And what I mean by that is, she stood by her cheating husband, stood right there with him, and some people respect and admire that, and think that says a lot about a persons character.
I am not agreeing with it, it's just a thought I had as to why some folks may be inexplicably drawn to her.

 

[Mursilis]

Sanders is ideologically extreme by objective measures and has unrealistic and poorly thought out policy proposals. Why is this a better candidate? Don't give me feel good or gut feeling reasons, tell me why Democrats would be better off nominating a candidate more likely to lose.

Because the GOP seems intent on nominating Trump, the equivalent of political suicide, and Sanders would have to punch a baby and kill a puppy on live TV to lose to that idiot (or at least I hope that's true, or I will have lost all faith in democracy).

 

[Mursilis]

I don't have an answer for that other than she is beyond established not only as a name but as a brand as well, also, and this is 100% speculation, some people may be drawn to her for her character (I'll wait for you to stop laughing/choking).....
Better? Good... And what I mean by that is, she stood by her cheating husband, stood right there with him, and some people respect and admire that, and think that says a lot about a persons character.
I am not agreeing with it, it's just a thought I had as to why some folks may be inexplicably drawn to her.

Oh please. She only stuck with him because he was her express elevator to national prominence, the U.S. Senate, and likely the Presidency. If not for Bill, Hilary would be just another "Who?" in national politics.

 

[fskimospy]

Despite what so many of our left-leaning regulars here choose to believe, the GOP base isn't the only one which has chosen to reject science and reason. The Dem base isn't any smarter; they're just different in what they chose to reject (mostly sound economic principles). Neither side is all that bright.

Out of curiosity, what sound economic principles do you think democrats reject?

 

[ivwshane]

There are a lot of delegates to be had in the west. Sanders might not be as bad off as some think. California is a biggie and he is liked there, more than Hillary. I think when the west votes, Hillary might not fare as well and that line of thinking may keep Bernie in it, as long has he has the funds to keep going.

Right now we have the two worst candidates, in terms of trustworthiness, leading the pack.

California has a proportional delegate system, so it's doubtful bernie would gain any significant ground unless he won something like 80% of the vote.

At this point in the game all Hillary has to do is maintain a vote of ~42% to beat bernie while bernie would need to win the rest of the states by around 75%.

 

[SP33Demon]

Because the GOP seems intent on nominating Trump, the equivalent of political suicide, and Sanders would have to punch a baby and kill a puppy on live TV to lose to that idiot (or at least I hope that's true, or I will have lost all faith in democracy).

The GOP is intent on Trump? lol you must be living in a cave somewhere.

 

[fskimospy]

California has a proportional delegate system, so it's doubtful bernie would gain any significant ground unless he won something like 80% of the vote.

At this point in the game ask Hillary has to do is maintain a vote of ~42% to beat bernie while bernie would need to win the rest of the states by around 75%.

100% of democratic primaries have a proportional delegate system. The reason why Hillary couldn't overtake Obama in 2008 is the same reason it is so unlikely Sanders will overtake Clinton. Her lead is actually quite a bit larger than his was.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Oh please. She only stuck with him because he was her express elevator to national prominence, the U.S. Senate, and likely the Presidency. If not for Bill, Hilary would be just another "Who?" in national politics.

No way am I implying WHY she did it. Just stating she did and some people respect and admire that, as far as I know that is exactly why she did it, to keep that in her back pocket to be used later, even if indirectly. She was pretty political in her early years as well. She's had her eye on the prize since she was at Maine South (an somewhat rival of the high school I went to, but a decade and a half later).

 

[ivwshane]

No way am I implying WHY she did it. Just stating she did and some people respect and admire that, as far as I know that is exactly why she did it, to keep that in her back pocket to be used later, even if indirectly. She was pretty political in her early years as well. She's had her eye on the prize since she was at Maine South.

If she had her eye on the prize early on then why did she not run for a political position earlier? Why would she fight for universal health care when it was so unpopular?

It's certainly clear that hillary has always loved politics, she's been involved in it since at least college but I haven't seen anything from her past (before she ran for Senate) that would give any indication that she was thinking big.

 

[Brainonska511]

It's certainly clear that hillary has always loved politics, she's been involved in it since at least college but I haven't seen anything from her past (before she ran for Senate) that would give any indication that she was thinking big.

It honestly sounds like a made-up narrative that feeds into the "power-hungry" and "uncaring" tropes that the anti-Clintons have been pushing.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I dunno man, I'm guessing here, based on what I've read, nothing more. I am guessing, again, that recently (past ~20 years) it's gone from being Sect of State to Prez and when she got so freaking close 8 years ago, she wasn't going to let anything stop her this time.

Again, guessing, nothing more, nothing less. The only person that is more contrary to their own beliefs is drumpf. that fucker.... well this isn't about him, sorry.

 

[ivwshane]

I dunno man, I'm guessing here, based on what I've read, nothing more. I am guessing, again, that recently (past ~20 years) it's gone from being Sect of State to Prez and when she got so freaking close 8 years ago, she wasn't going to let anything stop her this time.

Again, guessing, nothing more, nothing less. The only person that is more contrary to their own beliefs is drumpf. that fucker.... well this isn't about him, sorry.

Well you specifically said, "since main south" so I figured you had a reason for saying that. I agree that since the 90's, she has had her eye on the big price but before that she was simply an activist.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Wow, I thought she may have dabbled in politics in high school, she drowned herself in it
http://www.buzzfeed.com/christopher...-did-in-her-senior-year-of-high-sc#.htOo93EJW

 

[Mursilis]

Out of curiosity, what sound economic principles do you think democrats reject?

That goods and services of actual, tangible value (healthcare, education) can't be universally "free", for one? That huge underfunded pension liabilities will eventually come due? And while the Dems say that taxes need to be increased, how often do they actually do it? They're as committed to actually raising taxes as the GOP is to actually cutting spending (that is, not at all).

 

[Mursilis]

Wow, I thought she may have dabbled in politics in high school, she drowned herself in it
http://www.buzzfeed.com/christopher...-did-in-her-senior-year-of-high-sc#.htOo93EJW

Impressive find. I'm amazed she was so into politics even back then, only on the GOP side. I bet she'd be a Ted Cruz Republican today if she thought it'd get her into the White House.

 

[ivwshane]

That goods and services of actual, tangible value (healthcare, education) can't be universally "free", for one? That huge underfunded pension liabilities will eventually come due? And while the Dems say that taxes need to be increased, how often do they actually do it? They're as committed to actually raising taxes as the GOP is to actually cutting spending (that is, not at all).

Just a point of note; clinton and Obama both raised taxes and Democrat heavy California also voted to raise taxes (and it passed). So I'm not sure what you are basing that claim on.

 

[fskimospy]

That goods and services of actual, tangible value (healthcare, education) can't be universally "free", for one?

I guess to that I would say that they aren't saying that they are 'free' in the idea that they don't cost anything, but that they should be universally available.

To me this is an argument about priorities, not so much economics. That being said, assuming universal health care is the goal a socialized system seems to be more efficient given the evidence.

That huge underfunded pension liabilities will eventually come due?

This to me is a very interesting question. Research shows that for dollar in to retirement dollar out pensions are much more economically efficient than 401(k) plans. That being said, pensions have that enormous weakness of being underfunded by opportunistic individuals. I don't view this as an economic problem either. The economics says pensions, but the psychology might say 401(k).

And while the Dems say that taxes need to be increased, how often do they actually do it? They're as committed to actually raising taxes as the GOP is to actually cutting spending (that is, not at all).

Tax receipts as a percentage of GDP tend to rise under democrats, so I would say they do that reasonably well. Government spending as a percent of GDP? Not so well under republicans though, no. None of that means that higher taxes have to be a good thing, but I would argue that Democrats are considerably more likely to carry through. Reagan and GWB are great examples of this.

 

[stlc8tr]

California has a proportional delegate system, so it's doubtful bernie would gain any significant ground unless he won something like 80% of the vote.

At this point in the game all Hillary has to do is maintain a vote of ~42% to beat bernie while bernie would need to win the rest of the states by around 75%.

The NY Time's Upshot has a feature on this.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/03/16/upshot/clinton-sanders-democratic-delegate-lead.html

You have to get to 61-39 before it flips to Sanders.

 

[Mursilis]

Just a point of note; clinton and Obama both raised taxes and Democrat heavy California also voted to raise taxes (and it passed). So I'm not sure what you are basing that claim on.

Small potatoes, and what about capital gains rates? Still lower than ordinary income?

 

[ivwshane]

The NY Time's Upshot has a feature on this.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/03/16/upshot/clinton-sanders-democratic-delegate-lead.html

You have to get to 61-39 before it flips to Sanders.

Thank you for the correction