Underhill
Well-Known Member
Is this a test?
She wants to do more to separate commercial banking from investment banking...
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What Distinguishes “Centrist” and “Progressive” Democrats?
- Thread starter Nous
- Start date
Is this a test?
She wants to do more to separate commercial banking from investment banking...
I'm just trying to discern what it is exactly that supposedly distinguishes "progressive" from "centrist" Democrats. It seems that most people on this thread did not seem to think that there is any important distinction by which to identify two groups of Democrats.
That's easily done. What will it accomplish?
Apparently there isn't much worth saying about "campaign contributions" by corporations, eh?
Because I am pretty pessimistic of a large part of our society I am sure even the gender difference would have been enough. We apparently were still not ready. Sanders was gaining serious momentum as Clinton started sliding at the end of the primaries. That was not a good time for Dems to be slipping cause she already won by then. What changed during the primaries I wonder?
I'm not sure what you're saying here. I am also unaware that "Sanders was gaining serious momentum" toward the end of the primaries. Obviously, "momentum" is a metaphor here.
In any case, I do think a significant portion of the opposition to Clinton was and has always been misogynist. She is a smart, capable attorney--a lot of people can't tolerate that combination of pronoun, adjectives and occupation.
Just to note: During the last two months of the Democratic primaries, Clinton won 4 of 5 states/territories holding elections in May, and she won 8 of the 9 states/territories with elections in June: Results of the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 - Wikipedia Thus, these results certainly do not indicate that Sanders was “gaining serious momentum” or becoming more popular among voters toward the end of the primaries.
"Clinton won Iowa by the closest margin in the history of the state's Democratic caucus. O'Malley suspended his campaign after a distant third-place finish, leaving Clinton and Sanders the only two candidates. The electoral battle turned out to be more competitive than expected, with Sanders winning the New Hampshire primary while Clinton scored victories in the Nevada caucuses and South Carolina primary. "
Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 - Wikipedia
So, Sanders obviously wasn't "gaining serious momentum," but losing "momentum".
The way I read that is Sanders actually made it a competition( or more so than expected). Then Sanders won New Hampshire. It was just too late Clinton already won. Nobody else can say that they made it a competition in the primaries certainly not the republicans that were trying to beat Trump. We wouldn't have known when Clinton was landsliding states that it would end up 55% to 43%, that is a healthy chunk of Dems not going for Hillary. Who knows what could have happened with those votes if independents were allowed to vote the primaries in most states. I'd say the numbers were not that close at first, something started making Clinton slide even before Comey let her off the hook.
Whose expectations are these?
Why are anyone's undocumented expectations important to the topic here?
You're saying that Clinton had already won by the time of the second primary?
California, Texas, Ohio, Illinois were all open primaries, which Sanders lost.
Sanders could have run for President as an independent, or presumably the Socialist Party would have let him run. Why not blame Sanders for not doing that, rather than blaming someone else for his losing the Democratic nomination?
Are you referring to something real here? When did Clinton "slide"?
I'm not in the camp of blaming Sanders. Just saying he gave competition, too little too late but competition none the less. Sanders lacked three million votes but managed to beat popular votes of most the Republican candidates and just shy of even beating trump at the popular vote for primaries. Interestingly it was 3 Million popular votes difference in the main election.
I would have voted for Sanders had I been able to vote in the primaries, my state alone could have been much different.
'This should say a lot.
"Clinton won Iowa by the closest margin in the history of the state's Democratic caucus. "
Tell me how that is not Sanders giving some competition.
No clinton probably didn't slide, I need to take that back, more like Sanders got sporadic wins and not consistent enough. (I thought I remembered more consistency in the state wins)
As far as progressive vs liberal, Sanders had a "they took er jobs" mentality which kinda baffled me.
Evidence?
From Pew ...
Views on abortion by political party and ideology, 2017
Conservative Republicans are far more likely to say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases than to say that it should be legal (71% vs. 27%). Among moderate and liberal Republicans, opinion is more evenly divided: 54% say abortion should be legal, while 45% say it should be illegal.
The vast majority of liberal Democrats support legal abortion (91%) as do six-in-ten (61%) conservative and moderate Democrats. [emphasis asses - JS]
Conservative Republicans are far more likely to say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases than to say that it should be legal (71% vs. 27%). Among moderate and liberal Republicans, opinion is more evenly divided: 54% say abortion should be legal, while 45% say it should be illegal.
The vast majority of liberal Democrats support legal abortion (91%) as do six-in-ten (61%) conservative and moderate Democrats. [emphasis asses - JS]
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Limited access to abortion does not mean that abortion would be illegal. It actually means that abortion would be legal. It would just be limited in regards to how far along the pregnancy is.
More specifically to your statement, most Democrats don't want federal funding for abortions but I don't like what Texas does limiting clinic access and making people travel great distances.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
I agree. The Planned Parenthood fiasco is pretty absurd. They don't even use federal funds for abortions, yet Republicans constantly lie and claim that is what they primarily do. PP also provides subsidized health services for those who can't afford it. Then the Republicans say, "can't someplace else do it"? Which is ridiculous because PP is already in place and working fine.
Obviously the chronological results of the states' primaries cannot be used to measure whether a candidate became more (or less) popular during the primaries, since each state primary is an independent election. The fact that Clinton won Ohio on March 15, and Sanders won the next primary in Alaska on March 22 means nothing about anyone's increasing or decreasing popularity. It doesn't imply that any voter's support changed anywhere.
FiveThirtyEight provides an average of nationwide polls during the primaries, and shows that Clinton was more popular than Sanders throughout the primaries, ending in July 2016 with Clinton at 55.4% and Sanders 36.5%. This is almost exactly the same as the polls showed at the first of January 2016 (Clinton 55%, Sanders 30.3%). The closest the two of them got was in the latter half of April, with Clinton at 49.6% and Sanders at 41.5%: National Democratic Primary Polls - FiveThirtyEight
There is obviously no rational reason to believe that the nomination was "stolen" from Sanders, or that Sanders would have fared better than Clintion did in the general election against Trump.
Of course your aren't. No one would claim that you would ever blame Sanders for anything.
Indeed, a study by Analisa Packham of Miami University found that Texas' 2011 funding cuts to family planning clinics led to an increase in teen birth rates by 3.7-4.7% two years after the funding cuts, and 10.3-11.2% three years afterward, accompanied by an increase in abortion rates of 4.9% two years after, and 3.1% over three years: Family Planning Funding Cuts and Teen Childbearing
We probably will never know cause he didn't make it to the general election. What I couldn't see happening is Sanders having as big a target on his back as did Hillary. Seemed even the FBI was after her, they wouldn't have had as much ammunition on Sanders, that with the mysoginists coming out of the woodwork, Sanders could have done as well or even better.
We know that Clinton was always more popular among Democrats throughout the primaries.
I don't think that carried over to general election. Too many targets on that woman's back.
You can believe whatever you want. There is no rational reason to believe that Sanders would have gotten more votes than Clinton did in the general election.