Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forumJack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)daleanime
(17,796 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Bubzer
(4,211 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Territories even if Hillary loses Iowa and NH. Are you scared?
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)why would you do that? A few weeks ago, you guys wouldn't even believe this could happen.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)This is important.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)Cassiopeia
(2,603 posts)Change the narrative.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Defeated an incumbent, swing state, these two states has not always produced the president. Obama won Iowa and Hillary won NH in 2008.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)Tsongus came from the Lowell area right over the border. It was a big field and Clinton did not capture enough votes until June.
Here, the fear is one man wins both in what is essentially a two person race.
CW is that winning Iowa leads to a gain in national polling, as does NH. One question is IF this happens, why is the lift in Nevada, the next state. If the lift is enough and Sanders wins the first three, the huge lead Clinton has could shrink.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)How many delegates would he get?
karynnj
(59,504 posts)In 2008, Obama and Clinton both got 9 delegates from nh. Edwards got the remaining 4.
However. in addition to delegates, Sanders gets some momentum and HRC will be seen as not meeting expectations. Who knows how much that helps ... and the fact that it is not crazy to speak of this is a huge change from a year ago.
Cassiopeia
(2,603 posts)Clinton was supposed to walk away with this primary with 30 to 50 point blowouts. We didn't even need to hold an election, we should just crown her so as to not tarnish her reputation in any way.
Now it's a looking like HRH is going to be working on the grand comeback after the first 2 or 3 states while the media starts to buzz about Bernie because they finally have no choice.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)karynnj
(59,504 posts)Sanders entered the race in May last year. My husband and I went to the announcement because it is pretty rare that a politician comes to your town to announce and it was a very beautiful Burlington day and there bike "parking" was set up by the local bike group. Biking 4 miles along the lake to sit on the lake shore sounded good ... even if even people here thought it very very unlikely. Everyone I know hoped he could force discussion on important issues. I suspect that many many people would have been willing to bet he would never get more than say 15%.
The last two years have shown that Bernie's populist, FDR like Democratic socialism message and Bernie himself have garnered a huge amount of support. Watching his announcement speech, I was struck by how NOT CYNICAL it was. The solutions he spoke of were not alien, but from the best of American heritage of communities working for the people in them. It reaches back to a Norman Rockwell view of America - updated to be more diverse and modern. afterwards, I started to think how the American Dream from that period was a good life, where needs were met -- not where you too could own a megamansion, working 60 hours a week, motivated to make your family richer than 99% of the country.
When you look at the % of people convinced the country is not going in the right direction -- AND -- that the Republicans in Congress are liked less than their Democratic counterparts and far less than Obama, what we might be seeing is that there really is a lot of discontent with the status quo, that might even be not completely seen because Obama himself is respected by many.
The party very likely discouraged many younger Democrats, more mainstream than Bernie, from running. Oddly, they might not have done HRC a favor. I hypothesized that in 2008, in addition to Obama needing to run an excellent campaign and HRC at best a mediocre one, he needed the race to become a 2 person race so he could get all the not HRC vote. Given the complete lack of traction that O'Malley has received so far, this could end up another two person race. The issues of the two years are very very different -- but if the perception is accurate that this is a year that favors outsiders, in Bernie, we have a qualified, compassionate, literate, man of integrity ... while the Republicans have a hate filled likable only to his base person, prone to lies and making ugly comments - named either Trump or Cruz.
Months ago, Bernie was quoted as having told his wife, Jane, that she would like Iowa, because "it was like Vermont". In the coverage of Trump's stunt in Burlington, Chuck Todd and to a lesser degree Chris Matthews, both spoke of "crunchy granola" Burlington. Burlington is left leaning, but they completely missed how reasonably the town handled the mess Trump tried to inflict. I love that the people in City Hall, put letters that spelled WE WELCOME REFUGEES in the top windows on City Hall, which was across the street from the Flynn. (They lit up only the top floor - making the words shine through to the protesting crowd below in City Hall park. ) Though this hardly made the news, this was the city standing with the protesters. Not to mention, where the majority of the Trump people came from elsewhere, the majority of the protesters were local.
It is rather disappointing that Chuck Todd, in particular, ignored that the city maintained order in a tough circumstance instead mocking it. The contrast between the mayor, the chief of police, and the protesters to the hateful Trump. It would have been interesting if rather than adding to the political game play, they would have shown the very real decency of the town's reaction.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)does not always become the nominee. Hillary already has more super delegates than is available in Iowa and NH so if we want to talk about the number of delegate momentum we can do so.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)Why? superdelegates can change their choice at will. Although I still think HRC is the likely nominee, I also think that if Sanders manages what seems impossible even now and wins the majority of the pledged delegates, I predict that many many superdelegates, especially elected officials, will move to the candidate with the most pledged delegates. (Various Obama superdelgates, including John Kerry, made that point in February 2008 immediately after superTuesday. The reason given was that the idea of the superdelegates throwing the election to a candidate who gets fewer pledged delegates would lead to many thinking the process was not democratic. This point was raised only after the Clinton people spoke to the media arguing that if HRC "came close" and "won the primary popular vote" (something that really does not exist!), the weight of superdelegates could still give her the victory.
Personally, I can not imagine going into the general election, with HRC as the nominee if Bernie, without party support or anywhere near the same money, gets more pledged delegates. Consider that there are people already arguing that this is a rigged system, controlled by powers that be and money. I have resisted believing that that is really true - though obviously, it is clear that money, party support and media support are extremely helpful. (I am old enough to remember the view in 1968 that the nominee was picked by the party after Kennedy died, ignoring the fact that the sum of McCarthy and Kennedy votes dominated. I would have voted for Humphrey anyway - though I was only 18 and not old enough to vote --- many didn't. What is sad is that Humphrey was a progressive.)
There is a huge difference between that situation and if HRC is the nominee because she won the most pledged delegates.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)delegates, that is coming. When someone mentions momentum, the superdelegates is also momentum.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)she wins because of SD's, you will be okay with that?
Is that really what you're going with here?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Dawgs
(14,755 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)DNC primary. I think about the situation currently happening in the GOP with Trump running off the rail and realize this was some of the thoughts behind the development of super delegates.
Now to your question on if the people picks someone other than Hillary and she wins because of the SD's would I be okay with the sd making the final call, yes in a case where someone like Trump would be put on the ballot in the GE, yes. We are in the process of selecting a president of the US.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)The national poll between Hillary, Sanders and MOM. The GE will be between the DNC and GOP nominee. Perhaps poll numbers Sanders does not want to talk about.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Just imagine how Bernie's going to take off after that. No matter what DWS and her DNC machine does to suppress the debates... No matter how many AP articles downplay or ignore Sander's name in their above the fold articles... No matter how many corporate bobble heads sit around their circles while pretending Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton only matter...
No matter WHAT - When people show up in the primaries/caucus with the true grass root effort that has opened the door that big oil and Wall Street keep trying to shut in front of the American's faces... THIS is the candidate that connects to Americans.
Perogie
(687 posts)In the places where the candidates have spent the most time and people have been able to see and hear the candidates the most have decided Bernie is more electable. While nationally people have paid less attention to the candidates and most base their picks on a few news blurbs pick Hillary.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)sonofspy777
(360 posts)AND A GOOD START!
SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)Bernie is the one who can win all the way to the White House, and have great coattails.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)votesparks
(1,288 posts)Duckfan
(1,268 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)and kind of wish he'd speak like this more often.