“Are you really going to vote for Clinton just because she isn’t Trump?”
Yes? I would literally elect Chef Boyardee because he isn’t Trump.
Why you should Vote for Hillary if you are a Bernie supporter
College costs:
Bernie: Free. Hillary: Significantly cheaper than currently, free for those who need it. Trump: Defrauded poor and working class people for 10s of thousands of dollars of tuition.
Minimum wage:
Bernie: 15 Hillary: 12-15 Trump: Imported undocumented workers and underpaid them to work on his projects. Currently makes his clothing line in China for tiny wages.
Immigration: Hillary and Bernie: Path to citizenship. Trump: THROW THEM OUT! BUILD A WALL!
Taxes: Bernie: Deep tax increases on the wealthy (and middle class). Hillary: Some tax increases on the wealthy. Trump: Cut’em. Cut’em all!
Racism: Bernie: Solving income inequality will solve racism. Hillary: we need a good plan to increase opportunities to minorities beyond solving income inequality. Trump: Yeah, dun care.
Sexism: Bernie: Solving income inequality will solve sexism. Hillary: Full support of all equal rights issues. Trump: Ladies, all your vag are belong to me (no fatties).
Gun control: Bernie: Mayyyyyybbbie, if you convince me hard enough. Hillary: Yep. Trump: Shoot’em if you gott’em.
Please do not listen to 25 years of GOP propaganda. Hillary has worked on progressive causes for 40 years.
She was the 11th most liberal senator while in the Senate.
Due to Republican hatred, she is the most investigated person in the country and nothing has ever come of it. She is not a criminal, she could not be a criminal, they would have found something they could have trumped up charges on in 25 years of endless, ongoing investigations. She’s been abused by the GOP and burned by the press over and over and is still pursuing her goal. She is smart and ambitious and experienced and tenacious and knowledgeable and practical and none of those are bad things for a President. Jill Stein may be a nice woman, but she has no governmental experience and practically no platform. Gary Johnson is a Republican who cares less about social issues. Hillary and Bernie have more politically in common than any other candidates. Please, if you care about the issues that Bernie cares about, think about voting Hillary.
Now those Hillary supporters can vote for Bernie too as she doesn’t need your vote anymore.
Also file is labeled “060416” as in 6/4/16. They planned this three days ago.
what the FUUUUUUUCK
Make this VIRAL!
But like was there any indication she wouldn’t win?
CONSPIRACYYYY.
considering that neither of them can actually win the number of delegates required to win the nomination until July, yeah, there’s a lot of indication that she might not
Scummy damn politics.
Having worked at a newspaper, it’s likely that they had three versions of this story ready to go, with accompanying graphics: Clinton wins, Bernie wins, too close to call. It is very common to pre-write these kinds of stories so that you can just rework the lede/first paragraph quickly and published as quickly as possible. (Being the first to publish something like this is still not inconsequential to people in the news business.) Graphics were likely created even before the story was written and stockpiled similarly so that they don’t have to give their graphic artists, if they even have them anymore and didn’t make a reporter do it, overtime on primary day.
Dewey defeats Truman is the most famous example of this going wrong for a paper but obits for public figures get mistakenly published every now and again too. I believe a paper here (Canada) forgot to remove a mention of Harper announcing that he would step down as Conservative leader after he got trounced in our last election because everyone assumed he would and then he didn’t.
In a more lighthearted example, the paper I interned for had an On This Day In History section that reporters wrote for on slow news days. It all went into a calendar and would get filled in based on how many inches we needed. I think the last one I wrote was published two years after I started interning there.
I would guess that secret is a stand in for Secretary of State and that there was also a senator or equivalent for Bernie winning the day. Depends on the AP naming conventions, which I confess I don’t know. This is way more likely to be a matter of places like AP filing as much as they can in advance and being super understaffed than a conspiracy.
And before anyone accuses me of shilling for Hilary, I am Canadian. I don’t care who you elect as long as it’s not Trump. My politics are more aligned with Bernie’s than any other US candidate and here I vote Liberal or NDP. Most of the Democrats in the US wouldn’t be progressive enough for either of those parties.
She is a beast and I adore her. Also, what she’s saying and the WAY she says it throughout this interview is so important to listen to. The arguments on the Democratic side are about how best to make progress, the most assured way forward. The goals are the same and the distinction between methods is a matter of degrees.
And, of course, the key point that each Democratic candidate, even on their worst day, is 10000% better than the alternative.
Today is more or less the day that the Democratic nominee is decided.
It is in, in fact, very decisively going to be Hillary Rodham Clinton.
I can already feel the outrage that is about to pour out on this site: the conspiracy theories, the bungled attempts at “math” (which, btw, are almost always inaccurate or wrong), the ugly, sexist memes of HRC that we can all laugh at because hey, if it’s HRC, who gives a fuck?
But before you angrily typesmash into your keyboard about how the establishment is rigged and how the DNC better abide by the “will of the people” and hand the nom to Sanders on a silver platter, I’d like to ask you to take a deep breath and step back for a moment.
First, you need to accept that the fact that Sanders has come so far is a big fucking DEAL. Last year, he was an unknown. This year, he proved to be an excellent challenge to the Democratic establishment, and he’s already inspired dozens of copycats around the country to challenge establishment corruption. It’s a GREAT thing.
But let’s not pretend that he was/is a perfect candidate. I’d actually argue that him and HRC are probably no more and no less “corrupt” or “twisted” than the other. This was especially true in the last few weeks of the campaign, where he got especially ugly and weird, whether it was racking up no less than 639 pages of FEC violations (the irony) to not denouncing the violence and personal death threats sent to super delegates (how hard is it to JUST say “that’s not OK!”? i mean really) to falsely accusing HRC of FEC violations (spoiler: she has none). Honestly, if Tumblr had bothered to vet Sanders even a quarter as much as they did HRC, he would not be this site’s favorite grandpa.
But that’s all counterproductive now. So as tempting as it is, I’m gonna let it go.
Now I’m gonna say something controversial:
HILLARY CLINTON? SHE’S NOT A TERRIBLE PERSON.
There. I said it. What a shocker.
People go on and on about how Sanders got the millennial vote (and handily, at that), but what they always leave out is that HRC got literally EVERY OTHER demographic. Why?
No really, why?
Simple: she LISTENS to them. And then she translates what she’s heard into policy.
Her job isn’t to preach at the bully pulpit. She listens. There’s a reason why she doesn’t hold rallies of thousands, but has garnered the vote of top people at practically every demographic or movement , whether it was the mothers of the movement (incl travyon martin and sandra bland’s mother), the fuckING human rights campaign, planned parenthood, literally every minority vote EVER, and others.
And she turned those inputs into real policy. No for real. Go read her policy statements. They are the most well-researched, detailed, boring things ever. They are GREAT. Her inner policy nerd probs came out because her plans are the most well researched of any candidate possibly ever, and will also put you right to sleep because of how disgustingly long and well written they are.
Now ppl are gonna say “oh she panders” or whatever but yA KNOW WHAT?!?
She also fucking follows through. For real.
Let’s take a famous example: HRC was against gay marriage until like 2013!1!1
(so was Obama, but i mean whatever right? he’s a guy so we cut him slack)
Also, she is the ONLY presidential candidate to have walked in a lgbt pride parade, EVER. (this pic is circa like 2002)
How’s that #throwbackthursday for ya?
My point is: she’s not right on the issues 100% of the time (wow she’s human?!? no wAY) BUT she will fight for the issues and get shit done.
So my plea is this:
Look for the good in HRC.
She’s a thoughtful person and a listener – those who know her have said that the former is in fact her best trait. Think she’s too center or right on your fave issues? FUCKINGTALK ABOUT IT.Let her campaign know.
I’m not asking anyone to tattoo HRC on their chest or start phonebanking for her tomorrow or anything like that. (In fact, don’t, that’s weird as shit)
Vote for Bernie in whatever primaries are left and do not feel the need to suddenly become a living breathing campaigner .
This has been a tough, tough election and I get that it will be very hard to get over the negative image you have of HRC, but I trust that people are smart enough to get it done. So do it, I beg of you.
And finally, like every pretentious ass post on this website ends…
REBLOG. SPREAD THIS SHIT LIKE WILDFIRE.
thx
There’s also the story Andrea Mitchell told tonight on MSNBC – about Hillary during her tenure as First Lady, traveling to China to give a speech about women’s rights, despite the resistance from the State Department. She hid the speech from them during the trip overseas, refusing to allow it to be vetted. There are dozens upon dozens of stories like that, before, during and after when she was last in the White House.
A lot of people either don’t remember or weren’t alive to know just how galvanizing, how much of a force Hillary was when Bill Clinton took office, and how unprecedented it was (outside of a few powerful examples, such as Eleanor Roosevelt) for a First Lady to be quite so strident and purposeful in matters of state – how much of a shock to the system it was to Washington. Hillary has always been controversial and a firebrand in her own way; she has always been despised by the GOP, which has thrown everything they have at her for almost 25 years but never taken her down. She has been tested, burnt, bowed but never broken. She’s been fighting for the issues she believes in since before she was Hillary Clinton. And she never stops working.
Sanders supporters, believing they had been treated unfairly, rushed the stage, threw chairs and were shouting obscenities, according to veteran Nevada journalist Jon Ralston. Even after the convention concluded, many refused to leave and had to be escorted out by security.
Since then, Lange, the Nevada Democratic chairwoman, said she’s been receiving threats from Sanders supporters.
“It’s been vile,” she told the New York Times. “It’s been threatening messages, threatening my family, threatening my life, threatening my grandchild.”
Hey, Sanders supporters? Specifically the minority of you who are doing this kind of thing (I fully realize that most of you are capable of not acting like crazed Trump supporters) — stop.
Seriously. This is not helping your candidate. Yelling and berating people on the internet who you think are supporting Clinton is not helping your candidate. Yelling at people in real life, threatening people for supporting candidates other than yours is absoutely not helping your candidate. What it does is make people like me, who loved the idea of a Sanders candidacy from the very moment it was announced, start to creep towards being a Clinton supporter because they don’t want to be associated with this kind of behavior.
This just makes people think that Sanders is the Trump of the left, and I don’t mean in the sense of him being anti-establishment. I mean in the sense of people thinking his supporters are a threat, that this is the sort of behavior he condones (I know Bernie does not condone this behavior — he said so himself).
Also, I’ve heard more than a few Bernie supporters saying they’ll support Trump if it comes down to a Clinton-Trump race. To which I say, look at Sanders’ positions. Look at Clinton’s. Look at Trump’s. Which one is closer to Sanders? I guarantee you, it’s not the tiny-handed guy with the orange hair and complexion.
I’ve been reading about this all day and it’s infuriating. There’s been a problem of harassment and threats from a certain wing of the Sanders crowd for a while, and it just seems to be getting worse. There’s something incredibly depressing about how predictable the threats and misogynistic insults are, and how predictable the responses by commenters saying hey, really she deserves all these death threats and implications that people are going to hurt her grandkids because they don’t agree with how she called a voice vote, and that probably this is just HRC supporters pretending to be angry Bernie supporters in order to make themselves look like victims. Because we all know that there are never real cases of harassment and slurs and death threats, especially not against women.
But you know what else makes me mad? The absolutely anemic response from Sen. Sanders himself. A candidate isn’t responsible for everything his or her supporters do, but that candidate does control the tone they set and how they respond. I went to go look up his full response because I though maybe the articles I was reading were taking his quotes of context. You can find it here, and see that it actually begins by saying that people are rightfully angry, and the DNC actually needs to change its ways. So that’s the tone. Here’s the bit where he actually addresses the threats and harassment (bolding mine):
“Within the last few days there have been a number of criticisms made
against my campaign organization. Party leaders in Nevada, for example,
claim that the Sanders campaign has a ‘penchant for violence.’ That is
nonsense. Our campaign has held giant rallies all across this country,
including in high-crime areas, and there have been zero reports of
violence. Our campaign of course believes in non-violent change and it
goes without saying that I condemn any and all forms of violence,
including the personal harassment of individuals. But, when we speak of
violence, I should add here that months ago, during the Nevada campaign,
shots were fired into my campaign office in Nevada and apartment
housing complex my campaign staff lived in was broken into and
ransacked.”
So in short: Of course we condemn violence, not that there’s any going on, and actually we’re the real victims of violence! And whatever happened is your fault anyway! There’s one line about condemning non-specific violence embedded in an otherwise angry and defensive statement.
You know what? When people on your team are sending threats against someone’s grandchildren and calling her “cunt” and “bitch” and telling her they want to see her publicly executed you don’t get to take umbrage at the details of how voice votes are counted or whether there were proper parking accommodations until after you’ve engaged with that fact and tried to make it right. That fact doesn’t get to be an afterthought in your response. Let’s talk about the process and how messy and ridiculous caucuses are in general, and details of delegate registration! Process matters and we should all know more about it then collectively we do, and we should engage with how to make it work better. But if that’s what you think is the most important thing to address here, then you need to take a cold hard look at your priorities.
…sorry for posting this rant all over your very reasonable post, bobcatmoran. Please address all hate mail to me, not her etc.
Because I am annoyed about people saying “Hillary Clinton is basically a Republican” I’m going to do some math. As a bonus point, I’ll have “Bernie Sanders is not nearly as extremist as you’ve been told.”
In the modern era, we have a wonderful thing called a NOMINATE score. Based on who a lawmaker votes with, and how frequently, it clusters lawmakers into groups (it turns out, in the US, there are exactly two and they correspond – not surprisingly – to left and right), it assigns a lawmaker a numerical assessment of their ideological position. It’s not perfect, and there are some more precise methods, but it is pretty darn good and most importantly, it’s utterly objective. It doesn’t rely on gut feelings or pet issues. It’s mathematically deduced from voting patterns.
So we can get a mathematical answer to “How liberal or how conservative is Hillary Clinton?” It won’t be based on anyone’s opinion, just on how she actually voted, and who she voted with.
I’m going to use NOMINATE scores from the 110th congress, because it’s the only Senate that contains both Clinton and Sanders, and also has several other useful benchmark senators. (By convention, left-wing ideology is negative numbers on the NOMINATE scale, because negatives are on the left side of a graph. I’m going to stick to that to avoid confusion.) The scale is -1 to +1, with -1 being a perfect liberal partisan, +1 being a perfect conservative partisan, and 0 being a totally balanced centrist.
During the 110th Congress, the Democratic + Independent senate caucus had 51 members, ranging from Sanders (most liberal, a -0.523) to Ben Nelson (most centrist at -0.035). Imagine we had all the senators standing in a line, arranged by NOMINATE score, with Sanders at the left and Nelson on the right.
Now, imagine you take this line and cut it in half. You can’t, quite, because there are an odd number of senators (51), so the man in the middle – Oregon’s own Ron Wyden (at -0.324) – has to pick a side. Oregon’s a pretty liberal state, and Wyden is a pretty liberal guy, so let’s put him on the left. So now there are two groups – 27 leftist democrats (+ independent) running from Sanders to Wyden, and 26 centrist democrats (+ independent) running from future VP and American’s weird uncle Joe Biden (at -0.321) to Ben Nelson.
We know where Sanders is: he’s out holding down the left flank. Where’s Clinton? If you believed the line that “Clinton is basically a Republican,” you’d say definitely on the right side, probably out by Nelson, right?
Nope.
She’s on the left side. At #13th most liberal member of the senate, with a NOMINATE score of -0.381, she’s at the precise middle of the left wing of the Democratic party. She’s not right wing. She’s not a centrist. She’s not even with Joe Biden at the center of the Democratic party. She’s standing comfortably in the middle of the Democratic left.
As it happens, this was also Obama’s last term in the Senate. So where’s he? He must be off well to the left of Clinton, right? I mean, it’s a truism that Clinton is to the right of Obama … but nope. Even though their scores are almost identical, Obama at -0.363 is a small but noticeable step to the right of Clinton.
Sanders, though, wow, he’s way out in left field, right? At -0.523, he must be well outside the range of reasonable, right? A total nutjob.
Not really.
At -0.523 he is the most liberal senator in the 110th congress (although, in the present congress, he’s actually third behind Warren and Baldwin). But how extremist is that, exactly? Let’s look at the other side for some context.
Imagine a dark mirror of Bernie Sanders, from the evil Star Trek universe, goatee presumably included. Where our Bernie Sanders is a leftist, this Bernie Sanders is a rightist, with exactly the same amount of intensity. He’d easily be the most right-wing Republican, though, right?
Hahahah. No.
The most right-wing Republican in the 110th is Tom Coburn of Oklahoma at 0.807. Holy shit! That’s way more conservative than Sanders is liberal! Imagining our Mirror Bernie, he’d be hovering around 10th place for “most partisan,” right about with John Cornyn at 0.517. Still a pretty strong ideologue but nowhere near the level of the hardcore wingnuts. And, most notably well more moderate than President George W Bush, who in the 110th clocks in at 0.729, on the extreme edge of political partisanship.
Sad note: if you look at the modern senate, the Republicans have entrenched even more. The most extreme republican in the 113th Congress was Mike Lee, at 0.986. The degree to which he’s not a utterly complete right-wing extremist is a rounding error.
So, that’s what’s up with the political alignments of the Democratic primary candidates, and math.
I don’t think this takes into account the issue of riders. Still, it’s interesting.
Donald Trump actually defended Bernie Sanders as a fellow outsider against the ‘corrupt’ establishment
This is quite shocking to me tbh
satan himself is defending Bernie, at this point i am convinced the apocalypse is nigh
Excuse me everyone i’m going ice skate in hell!
goddamn it, when the canadian blood is spilt on american soil, the apocalypse will begin.
This is like when Vader defended Luke against the Emperor.
No, it’s not. Vader defended Luke against the Emperor because he loved his son. Trump is defending Bernie because he’s afraid of Hillary.
YOU GUYS DON’T FALL FOR THIS. SERIOUSLY DON’T.
Trump is doing this very, very deliberately. He’s already cast himself as the “establishment outsider” and now he’s casting Bernie in that same light so that people who would have voted for Sanders instead of Clinton in the General Election, will now vote for Trump.
YOU CANNOT FALL FOR THIS.
Honestly, you people can’t honestly really believe that voting for fucking Trump is better than voting for any democrat, can you? You really can’t, right?
This is a clever ruse? Something to get people scared and riled up? You wouldn’t actually do this to your fellow citizens, would you?
OK, guys, this is kind of true, but also really misleading. Here’s what Snopes has to say about it: Snopes article.
The upshot: These are laws and practices that are ALREADY IN PLACE and have been for years. New York State does not allow passive electioneering, which is what “wearing Bernie gear to the polls” falls under. And they aren’t cutting polling hours. It’s just that some counties (it seems like they’re mostly in upstate and western NY?) have shorter polling hours for primaries than they do for general elections.
Snopes:
“There were grains of truth to the rumors circulating among voters ahead
of New York’s primaries. Voters were not allowed to engage in “passive
electioneering” via shirts, hats, or buttons within 100 feet of a
polling place on election Day. However, no one would lose the right to
vote, and the law was typically described as “rarely enforced.” A voter
might be asked to turn their shirt inside out or leave a hat in the car,
but would not be denied at the voting booth. Also, it was false that
any counties had primary hours cut; the law dictating a shorter voting
window throughout the state of New York was in effect before 1982, and
had nothing to do with the 2016 primaries.“
Of course, if someone at a polling place chooses to be an asshole, they can be an asshole, but that’s a whole other story.
eirenical17 