Is Bernie Defining Hillary?

[Motown_Johnny]

In today's CNN interview he did a great job spelling out policy differences between himself and Sec. Clinton.

In at least 2 instances, Sec. Clinton's position on the issue in question is not clear. She seems to be all over the place on the TPP and she refuses to take a position on the Keystone pipeline until after she is President. Sen. Sanders spelled out that his position is not Hillary Clinton's position on these, as well as other, issues.

She can now answer those statements or not. If she does not then she can expect him to continue making those statements and they will define her. If she does address those statements she will need to take a firm position on these issues.

I know he has been making similar statements for a while now, but today's seemed stronger and clearer than the ones I have previously heard. This may be a long term strategy for the run up to the debates.



Context:

[HappyPlace]

1. He's too busy. He did, however, define what she isn't.

He did that adroitly, I was impressed!

[orpupilofnature57]

2. He's defining the what and who that facilitates the misery of the world, and the shoe does fit .

[Hydra]

3. We pretty much know where Hillary stands on things, even when she refuses to comment n/t

[GitRDun]

4. She's letting him.

Where she is evasive, he will rightfully so define her.

Advantage, Bernie...

[L0oniX]

5. She waiting for the stats on how many jobs in China will be lost because of TPP.

[R B Garr]

6. Bernie just had his first foreign policy questions today.

He hasn't even defined himself yet.

[Motown_Johnny]

7. He did a great job on those.

I think he defined himself over 40 years ago. People are still learning who he is, but the fact that he has been preaching the same message for so long is a big part of his appeal.

[R B Garr]

9. Looked like he got a little testy at the follow-up questions, though.

As far as the 49 years, I always get a kick out of how few votes are needed in those small states to get someone elected. He's only needed a little over 100,000 to win; whereas a state like New York, it took Hillary Clinton about 29,999,000 (20 million). It just takes that many more people you have to convince in the larger states that can look daunting when you compare what it actually takes state by state.

[Motown_Johnny]

10. Money plays a bigger part in those larger states.

Most any well funded (D) could have won the two (and only two) elections which are Hillary's entire life's record of experience as a candidate (unless you count losing the primary in '08).

Lots of ads, lots of ads, lots of ads. In a state that leans (D) anyways.

Now running as a Democratic Socialist, that is a different story.

[R B Garr]

15. Yes, money, especially to stay on message, but it's still interesting to see the

constituency breakdowns. The whole selling/packaging of Sarah Palin used to irritate me when you look at the actual small number of voters who accounted for all her so-called popularity. Alaska has less than a million, about 800,000, and by stats, half of the people vote and in Alaska, it's a red state. So basically, 300,000 to 400,000 people were giving her the reputation of being a popular governor that was rammed down the airwaves all the time. That kind of stuff does crack me up coming from the OC/Los Angeles area where you pass a couple hundred thousand people just going to Starbucks.

[demwing]

12. Cool post bro

I can almost see you, getting a kick out of how few votes are needed in those small states to get someone elected.

The way you describe how you always do that, it just made me feel like I was right there with you, just the two of us, getting a kick out of how few votes are needed in those small states to get someone elected.

[R B Garr]

14. You've never looked through the election results? They are all over the websites like CNN

You click by state and you can see the vote totals down to the exact vote totals by party. 2000 was especially studied and I spent a lot of time on that going state by state, but it's pretty common knowledge that voting patterns/results are studied. Look up Wyoming and Cheney's totals and you'll get an idea of what I'm talking about. Look up anyone's election results and you can see how small the voting constituencies really are.

Seriously, Bernie's campaign is not going to mean that people don't study voting blocs and demographics just to coddle him more.

Do you have a college degree?

[Left coast liberal]

8. He is a pro: always on message, not negative, just truth!

STILL feeling the BERN!

[Puzzledtraveller]

11. He knows what he's doing.

He stays on message, he articulates his message, he doesn't evade and avoid giving particulars. He doesn't mud sling, he doesn't have to, on policy he only needs to state his positions.

[Le Taz Hot]

13. Somebody had to do it.

She sure isn't.