Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

BigBearJohn

(11,410 posts)
Fri May 27, 2016, 05:57 PM May 2016

Just because HRC has a 3 million vote lead does not mean she is "right" for the job

Having a majority of voters does not automatically confer proof that we are electing the best candidate for the presidency. If high vote numbers were the only criteria, then people voting for Trump would fall into the same boat.

For the first time in nearly a century we have a candidate who is 100% behind the "little guy" and cannot be influenced by Wall Street's billions. A man who dedicated his entire life to helping mankind. A man who will actually go down to his last breath trying to fulfill the Obama promises of "real change." Obama turned out to be moderate in so many of his positions. You'll never see Bernie trying to push through a program like TPP. You would never see Bernie appointing the kingpins of Wall Street to his cabinet or singing the praises of Ronald Reagan's leadership or trying to convince us to support fracking or to support the oil industry. Sending us to war would be his LAST choice.

We could have it all. We still might. One thing for sure I will never again seen a candidate of Bernie's heart or sterling character in my lifetime. NEVER!

4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Just because HRC has a 3 million vote lead does not mean she is "right" for the job (Original Post) BigBearJohn May 2016 OP
Plus, her popular vote "lead" is a lie. nt thereismore May 2016 #1
You had me at: Smarmie Doofus May 2016 #2
Well.... LenaBaby61 May 2016 #3
She doesn't have a 3million vote lead. n/t TIME TO PANIC May 2016 #4
 

Smarmie Doofus

(14,498 posts)
2. You had me at:
Fri May 27, 2016, 06:02 PM
May 2016

>>>If high vote numbers were the only criteria,
then people voting for Trump would fall into the same boat.
>>>

But the rest is SPOT-ON also.

K and R

LenaBaby61

(6,974 posts)
3. Well....
Fri May 27, 2016, 06:13 PM
May 2016

Bernie Sanders should have competed more in the South early on. But he and his camp, chose not to. In fact, Bernie Sanders said: "Having so many Southern states vote early ‘kind of distorts reality." Even though neither Bernie nor Hillary would win many if ANY Southern states in the GE, Hillary of course chose to compete there where part of her delegate lead came from because per her words "Every vote counts." Much later on, Bernie understood that he/team made a mistake mostly conceding the South to Hillary Clinton.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/04/13/having-so-many-southern-states-vote-early-kind-of-distorts-reality-bernie-sanders-says/

Sanders:“Secretary Clinton cleaned our clock in the Deep South, no question about it,” Bernie Sanders said during Thursday night’s Democratic debate in Brooklyn. “That is the most conservative part of this great country,” he continued. “But you know what, we’re out of the Deep South now. And we’re moving up.”

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-is-winning-the-states-that-look-like-the-democratic-party/

Moral of the story:There are Democratic "Little Guys/Gals" in DEEP southern states who vote too, and their votes count just as much as the votes counted in the East, North and West.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Bernie Sanders»Just because HRC has a 3 ...