So…you think the Party Machine is doing everything to stymie Bernie because they’re worried about electability issues?
Or is it more of a Big Donor/Fear type thing. You know…talks of Free Schools, Free health care, McGruff The Crime Dog on Wall St?
I think it’s the latter myself.
Rep. Clyburne’s endorsement of Hillary was a study in wack-a-doodle reality. I love to look at those faces when they do that politician thing.
That pure spoon fed BS. It takes a special breed of people to do that stuff.
I think that Hillary’s advantage within the Party establishment, is about long term relationships that she has established and cultivated over many years. She simply has garnered more loyalty amongst other members of the national Democratic Party establishment, than has Bernie. This is pretty much a matter of her being involved in national politics more than Bernie over the years.
And this is why she will win the nomination, despite Bernie doing an extraordinary job in being competitive and keeping the race close, so far. Keeping it close is not enough to overcome Hillary’s advantage in this regard.
I think that Hillary's advantage within the Party establishment, is about long term relationships that she has established and cultivated over many years. She simply has garnered more loyalty amongst other members of the national Democratic Party establishment, than has Bernie. This is pretty much a matter of her being involved in national politics more than Bernie over the years. And this is why she will win the nomination, despite Bernie doing an extraordinary job in being competitive and keeping the race close, so far. Keeping it close is not enough to overcome Hillary's advantage in this regard.You sound like a Clinton Campaign spokesperson. Bernie has been in politics longer than Clinton. He's just less pliable. She ain't won yet. What's Nevada? One town of Bureaucrats, and one giant amusement park with alot of service employees....the rest is desert. The Bundys come from Nevada. We'll see what happens in SC....
Bernie has been in politics longer than Clinton.Ah, but has he spent as much time cultivating insider connections and lining up favors and IOUs?
Bernie has been in politics longer than Clinton.Ah, but has he spent as much time cultivating insider connections and lining up favors and IOUs? Right....with Big money donors, Wall St and corporations. And all the other bought and paid for politicians who make that work. Unless of course you don't subscribe to Bernie's main campaign platform.... Removing the corrupting influence of big money in politics.
I think that Hillary's advantage within the Party establishment, is about long term relationships that she has established and cultivated over many years. She simply has garnered more loyalty amongst other members of the national Democratic Party establishment, than has Bernie. This is pretty much a matter of her being involved in national politics more than Bernie over the years. And this is why she will win the nomination, despite Bernie doing an extraordinary job in being competitive and keeping the race close, so far. Keeping it close is not enough to overcome Hillary's advantage in this regard.You sound like a Clinton Campaign spokesperson. Bernie has been in politics longer than Clinton. He's just less pliable. She ain't won yet. What's Nevada? One town of Bureaucrats, and one giant amusement park with alot of service employees....the rest is desert. The Bundys come from Nevada. We'll see what happens in SC.... Really? a campaign spokesman for Hillary who has already voted for Bernie? You don't think that it is more likely that I am just calling it as I see it? Which of us (you and I) are speaking from a more biased position? What we will see happen in SC is Hillary further increasing her delegate lead.
Which of us (you and I) are speaking from a more biased position?Well, let me ask you to clarify what you mean by "Clinton building relationships etc etc..." We'll start there.
Which of us (you and I) are speaking from a more biased position?Well, let me ask you to clarify what you mean by "Clinton building relationships etc etc..." We'll start there. You mean where I didn't say the words "Clinton building relationships etc etc...", but actually said "that Hillary’s advantage within the Party establishment, is about long term relationships that she has established and cultivated over many years. She simply has garnered more loyalty amongst other members of the national Democratic Party establishment, than has Bernie." ?
You mean where I didn't say the words "Clinton building relationships etc etc...", but actually said "that Hillary’s advantage within the Party establishment, is about long term relationships that she has established and cultivated over many years. She simply has garnered more loyalty amongst other members of the national Democratic Party establishment, than has Bernie." ?Yes, that. Thanks. Sorry-I hyper paraphrased... So explain that a little further if you will.
You mean where I didn't say the words "Clinton building relationships etc etc...", but actually said "that Hillary’s advantage within the Party establishment, is about long term relationships that she has established and cultivated over many years. She simply has garnered more loyalty amongst other members of the national Democratic Party establishment, than has Bernie." ?Yes, that. Thanks. Sorry-I hyper paraphrased... So explain that a little further if you will. Hillary has been in national politics since her husband first ran for President. Then she was an extraordinarily active First Lady. Then she ran a nationwide campaign for President, herself, in '08. Then she was Secretary of State. Throughout all of that she, no doubt formed friendships, and cultivated some loyalty from many political leaders that are important on the national scale.
So they guy you voted for, whose national platform is getting rid of the corrupting powers of big money in politics, and who has called Hillary Clinton out for being one of those beholden to big money and big interests is just making things up?
The Machine Politics of the Dems just want to PUSH Clinton because of the relationships she has built?
Tim you have a disconnect.
Now I have to sift through the sophistry you’ll call a rebuttal…
It’s right there in front of your face.
Vyazma-Or is it more of a Big Donor/Fear type thing. You know…talks of Free Schools, Free health care, McGruff The Crime Dog on Wall St? I think it’s the latter myself.and your response....
TimB-I think that Hillary’s advantage within the Party establishment, is about long term relationships that she has established and cultivated over many years. She simply has garnered more loyalty amongst other members of the national Democratic Party establishment, than has Bernie. This is pretty much a matter of her being involved in national politics more than Bernie over the years.
So...you think the Party Machine is doing everything to stymie Bernie because they're worried about electability issues? Or is it more of a Big Donor/Fear type thing. You know...talks of Free Schools, Free health care, McGruff The Crime Dog on Wall St? I think it's the latter myself...The above is your original post to which I responded. There are some inferences there. 1) an inference that there exists a monolithic "Party Machine" that is "doing everything" to stymie Bernie. 2) an inference that there are only two possible reasons that this monolithic "Party Machine" is "doing everything" to stop Byrnie, i.e., either because of the Party Machine's worry about his electability or because of the Party Machine's fear of losing big donors. (Hopefully, as you waded thru the "sophistry" above, you begin to recognize an inkling of how you couched your questions from a bit of a tunnel vision perspective.) Continuing my "sophistry": A more honest and broadened perspective, I think would have posed your questions in terms of the collection of individuals within the party, some of whom may, indeed, be concerned about Bernie's electability, some of whom may be concerned about getting money to get re-elected. Another problem with your general stance, re: the system being corrupted by donors, is the apparent assumption that this corruption has to always mean that all politicians will never do what is best for the public that they are meant to serve (if they take large donations). I don't make that assumption, hence the "disconnect" that you accused me of having is not there.
Yes. That’s what I thought.
Long winded Timmy.
zzzzzzzz…
Yes. That's what I thought. Long winded Timmy. zzzzzzzz....I go to all the trouble to respond to you, and this is my reward?
Yes. That's what I thought. Long winded Timmy. zzzzzzzz....I go to all the trouble to respond to you, and this is my reward? Tim you lost me at the canned Clinton Spokesperson bit. That was hilarious. There's no dialogue here between us. To me you have a one-dimensional view of politics. Very vanilla...uninteresting. Safe.
I think that Hillary's advantage within the Party establishment, is about long term relationships that she has established and cultivated over many years. She simply has garnered more loyalty amongst other members of the national Democratic Party establishment, than has Bernie. This is pretty much a matter of her being involved in national politics more than Bernie over the years. And this is why she will win the nomination, despite Bernie doing an extraordinary job in being competitive and keeping the race close, so far. Keeping it close is not enough to overcome Hillary's advantage in this regard.TimB, Nice assessment. Hilliary is the only potential authority for 4 years that talks about building on what we have in motion. All other candidates seem to want to come closer to starting over. Right now, at least politically I would rather see energy towards refining what is in motion rather than redefining what motion may be for the next 4years. :-) It was a very good assessment TimB.
You want a good “assessment”. Try this.
Bernie has little chance to win the Dem nomination on his current trajectory. So he needs to change his current trajectory. I would suggest that he enter a whole new tactical phase, and adopt some of the tactics that Trump has used to take over the Repub Party.
Specifically, Trump has actualized (probably hundreds of) millions of dollars worth of free advertising. He constantly calls news networks, radio stations, etc. and gets interviewed. He wages constant Twitter war. He says outlandish things that our media automatically covers, simply because they are outlandish.
Bernie could adopt some similar tactics. He could piggy-back off of Trump’s outlandishness. Bernie could recruit political comedy writers to help him wage a constant Twitter war with Trump. Bernie could constantly be getting himself interviewed on news shows, by subtly picking fights with Trump, every time he calls in. Trump would not be able to resist. There could be relatively constant news cycles of Bernie vs. Trump. If Bernie were to “win” a lot of these manufactured skirmishes, he just might have a chance to surpass Clinton’s built in advantage over him.
You want a good "assessment". Try this. Bernie has little chance to win the Dem nomination on his current trajectory. So he needs to change his current trajectory. I would suggest that he enter a whole new tactical phase, and adopt some of the tactics that Trump has used to take over the Repub Party. Specifically, Trump has actualized (probably hundreds of) millions of dollars worth of free advertising. He constantly calls news networks, radio stations, etc. and gets interviewed. He wages constant Twitter war. He says outlandish things that our media automatically covers, simply because they are outlandish. Bernie could adopt some similar tactics. He could piggy-back off of Trump's outlandishness. Bernie could recruit political comedy writers to help him wage a constant Twitter war with Trump. Bernie could constantly be getting himself interviewed on news shows, by subtly picking fights with Trump, every time he calls in. Trump would not be able to resist. There could be relatively constant news cycles of Bernie vs. Trump. If Bernie were to "win" a lot of these manufactured skirmishes, he just might have a chance to surpass Clinton's built in advantage over him.If he enters this tactical phase, wouldn't it be so much in contrast with the Bernie brand it would collapse his base and be a point of obvious ridicule? That could certainly be a danger. He would have to be quite sophisticated to pull it off. But, at this point, I think that drastic measures are in order if he is to have a chance.