I gave rational, fake news, FBI leaks etc. all going after Clinton would not have existed. You don't have to agree but it's logical.
-
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
I'm not sure what "fake news" or FBI leaks you are referring to. It is true that polls show a narrowing of Clinton's lead over Trump after Comey's announcement to Congress about re-opening the email investigation. Obversely, because of Russian interference with the release of DNC emails (with which the Trump campaign may have colluded), Clinton didn't get much of a bump after the release of the Hollywood Access video of Trump bragging about sexually assaulting women. Again, this wouldn't have happened if Sanders had been the candidate.
But certainly Sanders would have suffered other slings and arrows. Every instance of Sanders saying or hinting of "socialism" or its cognates would have been in every ad for Trump. It's just not a popular word among Americans. One of Sanders' major themes during the primaries was the "disaster" caused by the Citizens United decision, though he did welcome the nurse's union "sponsoring" his campaign, made possible by that decision. He probably would have welcomed the advertizing of other super PACs if he had been the candiate--but if he didn't, or if other super PACs didn't support him, his numbers probably would never have been as high as Clinton's. Certainly the Trump campaign or super PACs would have pointed to his hypocrisy about the nurses' union, in addition to the fact that the decision is law and there is no realistic way to change it. The issue of Sanders' wife (can't remember her name offhand) and the handling of the college (can't remember the name offhand) would certainly have gotten tremendous press if Sanders had been the candidate. She is under federal investigation, and it doesn't look good for her.
averageJOE
zombie
Basically...the difference is where their money comes from.
Centrists, AKA corporate democrats, rely on money from Wall Street, big pharma, big oil, ect. Which is why they will put the interests of their donors over the interest of the voters. One of the first thing the DNC did when electing Tom Perez is vote down the corporate money ban.
Progressives are fighting to get money out of politics. Sanders ran his whole campaign without a Super Pac and relied only on small dollar donations form voters.
During the 2016 primaries, 42.6% (about $97 million) of Sanders' campaign funding came from large individual contributions. Super PAC contributions for Sanders totaled about $5.6 million: https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate?id=N00000528
As of January 2016, the super PAC of the National Nurses United union had:
. . . spent close to $1 million on ads and other support for Mr. Sanders, the Democratic presidential candidate who has inspired liberal voters with his calls to eradicate such outside groups. In fact, more super PAC money has been spent so far in express support of Mr. Sanders than for either of his Democratic rivals, including Hillary Clinton, according to Federal Election Commission records.
Bernie Sanders Tops His Rivals in Use of Outside Money
Are there any of these progressives in Congress? If so,how did they get elected? I suspect one needs more than a word-of-mouth campaign to get elected to Congress.
Policy Consequences of Campaign Contributions
Are campaign contributions the functional equivalent of bribes? The conventional wisdom is that donors must get something for their money, but decades of academic research on Congress has failed to uncover any systematic evidence that this is so. Indeed, legislators tend to act in accordance with the interests of their donors, but this is not because of some quid pro quo. Instead, donors tend to give to like-minded candidates.[4] Of course, if candidates choose their policy positions in anticipation of a subsequent payoff in campaign contributions, there would be no real distinction between accepting bribes and accepting contributions from like-minded voters. However, studies of legislative behavior indicate that the most important determinants of an incumbent’s voting record are constituent interests, party, and personal ideology.
Are campaign contributions the functional equivalent of bribes? The conventional wisdom is that donors must get something for their money, but decades of academic research on Congress has failed to uncover any systematic evidence that this is so. Indeed, legislators tend to act in accordance with the interests of their donors, but this is not because of some quid pro quo. Instead, donors tend to give to like-minded candidates.[4] Of course, if candidates choose their policy positions in anticipation of a subsequent payoff in campaign contributions, there would be no real distinction between accepting bribes and accepting contributions from like-minded voters. However, studies of legislative behavior indicate that the most important determinants of an incumbent’s voting record are constituent interests, party, and personal ideology.
Campaign Finance: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty
Certainly Sanders would have been attacked differently but Sanders wasn't under investigation, I think that was detrimental to the DNC nominee, not to mention the Clintons being targets for decades. The big thing I kept hearing was the lesser of evils and I believe people had a harder time dubbing Sanders as evil. The Clintons have been dubbed evil since way back when Bill was pres. I don't know that any socialist arguments would have swayed progressives, certainly wouldn't sway me.
It's interesting that Sanders got 4 million fewer votes in the primaries than Clinton did even though no one "dubbed" him "evil".
What should be interesting is Sanders getting closer to the amount of votes Trump did in the primaries, that made him a solid candidate for the big race. From all the talk I heard I felt like people who were Sanders fans were less willing to go with Clinton than vice verse.
The most interesting vote was someone I talked to in RL who voted twice for Obama and couldn't bring themselves to vote for Clinton with all the vitriol coming out about her and avid Fox News watcher. I might ask them if they would have picked Sanders over Trump, had Hillary not been there.
If "getting closer to the amount of votes Trump did in the primaries" made Sanders "a solid candidate for the big race," then what does that mean for Clinton who got 4 million more votes than Sanders?
Anyway, you should avoid trying to reach conclusions based on the number of votes Sanders got in the primaries vs. the number Trump got. Trump had more than just one other competitor through out the primaries.
Yes, a number of people have noted that Sanders fans, once Clinton got the nomination, were willing to let Trump win. I don't find anything admirable in such attachment to Sanders.
The numbers were very interesting, Clinton got 3 million more votes in both the primaries and the final race. Almost like the votes didn't convert over because of people either going independent or staying home.
I know, and the combination of the other republican votes were more than Trumps, it would have been best if they didn't split up their vote up so horribly. Almost like they tried a little too hard to beat Trump, they had no consolidation, and they knew they were in trouble too late.
Yeah I don't know why Sanders loyalists were fine seeing Trump win, as if Clinton were really that evil in comparison.
Of course, I guess no one knows what portion of Sanders supporters may not have voted for Clinton, but I find the very idea very troubling.
Mister Silver
Faith's Nightmare
Yes, the pride radiating off you is obvious.
Wow. That isn't a claim deduced from any fact or set of facts, is it? If so, please provide the facts by which to make such deduction.
You don't have any facts, anything other than your value judgments?
Hillary Clinton is a person, not an "example" of some phenomenon.
It's stunning how happy you are to advertize your irrational animus toward someone as smart, capable and dedicated as Clinton is.
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
there should be formal declarations about where each party stands on all the main issues. they should convene to establish that. otherwise we are all left to wonder how far does an elected official go to get elected. they use use confusion, and ignorance as a device to get elected.
if there were formal declarations of intent, than perhaps we would have more political parties, and politicians would be forced to commit to what they are going to do before they do it.
but like anything politicians play to the majorities on empty promises, and swing voters decide who's in power.
if there were formal declarations of intent, than perhaps we would have more political parties, and politicians would be forced to commit to what they are going to do before they do it.
but like anything politicians play to the majorities on empty promises, and swing voters decide who's in power.
?? They're called party platforms. E.g., Democrats.org
https://gop.com/platform/
Note that the Democratic platform does not come in "centrist" and "progressive" versions.