Oh No, The New Awesome Primary Thread

They are going to paint Clinton as a socialist too. They are going to make unrealistic attacks against any Democratic candidate. Hillary Clinton also has issues that certain people think makes her unelectable.The rest of your post doesn't deal with.my question at all. Basically, seems you have nothing except your own biases. Both candidates are highly electable. I support Sanders right now, but if Clinton wins the nomination, I will be ready to support her with my time, energy and money. I expect ALL Clinton supporters to do the same if Sanders gets the nomination.

The rest of what I said are on topic. We're talking about electability of a candidate FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION. Electability has everything to do with the perception of the general public at large.How on earth can you talk about the general election and ignore the public perception of certain concepts?Speaking as an atheist gay person, I will never support an atheist gay candidate in the primaries. Why? Because the current American public at large are still too bigoted to elect an atheist gay candidate in the general election.And as I said before, the word socialist is still a dirty word in the English language.

quote:

---

They are going to make unrealistic attacks against any Democratic candidate.

---

Yes. And in fact, they have been doing that to Obama all this time.But there is a difference between the republicans trying to paint the democratic candidate as socialist and the democratic candidate actually labeling himself as a socialist. Do you not see the difference?And here is another reason why Sanders is not a good candidate for the greater good of the nation.Obama couldn't even get the republicans to go along with noncontroversial policies like funding our nation's infrastructure. What on earth makes you think Sanders can do to make them go along with providing free public college for all?

Um but as fare as i can see Bernie is outperforming Hillary against every republican candidate, and he only ties with Cruz but beats every other republican too. And berny even has a tendency to outperform polls. If i where a betting man id put my money on berni for the win.

The American system is deceptive. Right now, the people who participate in the primaries tend to be those on the far left or those on the far right. And this is the danger of basing your opinion on the polls at the moment.Most people are not far right or far left. Most people are somewhere in the middle. They also tend not to participate in the primaries. They come out in droves for the general election, though.I'm as far left as one can be. Trust me on this. But those of us who participate in the primaries should think farther ahead.Like I said regarding the republican candidates. The wackos of their party are winning right now because their far right are clamoring to those who are most extreme. Ted Cruz being endorsed by pastors that call death to gay people and Trump being endorsed by white supremacist groups might make these candidates popular right now in the primaries, but they are due for a rude awakening when the general election comes around.Let's try not to choose an unelectable socialist to pit against a right wing wacko that they will elect to represent them.

In other words all you have are your perceptions and biases. Well people like you are why nothing seems to change. I vote for the person I think is the best person for the job.You still have not addressed why he is unelectable but Clinton is. Do you think Clinton is not going to be attacked by the right?So if Sanders wins primary, will you support him?

Assertion after assertion. Can you provide some evidence showing polls are skewed? Or is is this all part of your crystal ball?We are talking about polling here not caucus goers. If your assertions were correct than all the candidates have been hard left and hard right, since they are the only ones that vote in primaries. Ergo, we have never had a centrist President.Alas, historical results shows that your whole premise is faulty. Yes, we should. It is insulting that you think you know what we are all thinking. We are thinking beyond the primaries and thinking beyond the 2016 election. We are motivating and mobilizing millions of disaffected voters that are tired of the same old same old. That same old, same old comes from the Democratic Party as well as the Rethugs. Just look at who is in charge of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, as much a corporate stoogie as you can get. She actively fights progressive candidates and causes.Again I ask, will you support Bernie Sanders if he is the Democratic candidate?

I have already answered this question directly. You seemed to just ignored it because it's not the answer you were looking for.Let me elaborate on my answer.Yes, they will attack any candidate we put forward. Look at Obama. He's as moderate as they come, but they've been portraying him as a secret muslim atheist devil-worshipping baby-eating Nigerian communist.But see, as much as how they've come up with all kinds of lies to attack Obama, the only people who actually believe them are the right wing parts of the populous.Most people never bought into all the demonizing.I expect the same to happen to Hillary. They'll probably call Hillary the whore of babylon or some other nonsense. But it will only work with those already too blinded by this jebus thing to know any better.With Sanders? They don't need to do any demonizing. He's already done it for them. He calls himself a democratic SOCIALIST (a dirty word in the English language).The American populous have been trained in the last 50 years to associate the word socialist with stalinist communism. That's not going to change until all the baby boomers are dead from old age. Actually, I do want to see change. I'm just more realistic in that I'd rather push for gradual change rather than drastic change.Voting for the person you think is best for the job is a terrible way to go about it.Let me ask you again. Obama couldn't even get the republicans to agree to something as obvious as funding the nation's infrastructure rebuild and repair. How on earth do you expect Sanders to get the to agree to something like free public college for all?Sure, I would love to see that. But getting someone like Sanders into office will ensure nothing will ever get done in the next 4 years.Will I support Sanders if he becomes the dem nominee? What kind of question is that? Do I even have a choice?Gee, let see. Either support Sanders or support someone that will throw gay rights progress back by 50 years. Well, gee, I wonder who am I going to vote for? Edited by Lammy, : No reason given.

Ok sure mate, il bet you one cheers +, that bernie wins.

Actually, I personally don't care all that much who wins as long as it's not white-supremacist Trump or killing-the-gays Cruz.If Hillary wins, at least some things will get done in the next 4/8 years. If Bernie wins, well, we'll just have a do-nothing federal government for the next 4 years.

Yea but thats the problem with democrats in america, republicans propose something far right the dems something a little left, they compromise in the middle right.

My ears are ringing. I suppose at that time, you will give my last post "Message 76 (776853)" in the thread "Presidential Candidates" a reply? (Seems a lot of my non-supporters in that thread scampered silently away.)By the way, you can add another point to my list: it appears when Hillary was Secretary of State, she sought and received advice from another war criminal, . . . Henry Kissinger. The youngsters don't know that name, . . . but I know you do.

Since at this stage in the process I don't follow all the political stuff carefully, but rather loosely, on a ballpark level, so I have a broad idea of who stands for what, I may miss some things that might be important to know.I do usually ignore accusations of Republican perfidy among Leftists, but I found myself wanting to know if you have any kind of legitimate justification for your accusation here, or you just invented it out of sheer malice: Please, if possible, give me a quote and/or a reference so I can verify the accuracy of your view of Trump as a white supremacist and of Cruz as supporting gay murder.Thank you.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Trump has received overwhelming support from various white supremacist groups around the country. This is a fact unless you've been living under a rock.While he has not outright said he was a white supremacist, he has welcomed their support with open arms.Ted Cruz late last year attended a christian coalition conference where a speaker name Kevin Swanson raved on and on about "death to the gays" right before he introduced Cruz onto the stage.While Cruz has not outright said death to gays, he has welcomed Kevin Swanson's support with open arms. When asked about it by CNN, Cruz has not distanced himself from Swanson and actually sited religious liberty.Both of these candidates know that to come out and outright say these things would be political suicide. Instead, they let us know they approve these various messages of hate by welcoming those who say these things with open arms and neither confirm nor deny their support for these rhetoric.Added by edit.If I remember correctly from your posts, you yourself fantasize... ugh never mind.Edited by Lammy, : No reason given.

With Trump, we'll start with this little beauty:"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending the best. They're not sending you, they're sending people that have lots of problems and they're bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. ... And some, I assume, are good people."Give me some time for more - I'm just about to eat, so I'll come back later. (Others, please pile in).

I doubt the various quotes will work. Why? Christians usually deny their hate is hate. Trump can come right out and say "death to all people of color" and they would still deny he's racist.I'm gay, so I've learned how to read between the lines to understand people's true views. I've also found that white protestants tend to be dense when it comes to discrimination probably because they've never experienced discrimination (direct and indirect).