Democratic Nomination Thread

He had not much to gain by debating Bernie and a fair amount to lose. The big loser would have been Hillary and the big winner Sanders. Not much in that for Trump, who wants to win in November not pick the winner for the Dems in May.

 

Surprised he didn't it could fracture the democratic party more

 

It definitely had the potential to do that, since Hillary would have gotten nothing but trouble out of a debate in which she was not involved.

However it might have legitimized Bernie Sanders as an alternative to her in the eyes of California voters and led to a sound defeat of Hillary in the Democratic Primary.

My sense of things at this point is that Trump thinks he can beat Hillary if a few things go his way. He might be right on that or not, the electoral map certainly looks very foreboding for him and the GOP. However he has no idea if he has a chance against Sanders, or in the event the Democrats completely came undone before the convention against Joe Biden.

There was less to gain for him in the debate than it seems at first glance and more for Sanders to gain. That's a losing calculus for a guy who does not have good political instincts yet.

 

Is it too late for Bill to pardon her?

 

Few things being minority groups? I just don't see him winning with how he has treated some of his discussions(Wall...deportation...etc)

 

He doesn't need minority groups that tend not to vote republican anyways to vote for him. He just needs people not to turn out and vote for Hillary. The best way to do that is to continue to support the victim narrative of Bernie supporters that they are being screwed by the nomination process, not help Bernie get the nomination.

 

Hillary could have trouble in a few key states that Obama won, including Virginia, Ohio and Florida. She might have trouble in Colorado and Wisconsin. That'd be more than enough to give the election to Trump. He wouldn't have to win NY or California to squeak out a 272-266 win.

One of the big hitters in predicting elections, a model that has called every election since 1960, has Hillary getting 332 electoral votes to 206 for Trump. I think that's more likely than a narrow Trump victory but all it takes is a few states going red instead of blue and we're in no-man's land and it could go either way.

 

I understand both of your point of views but given the right reason those voters can show up like they did in 08, 12

 

There's a gaping difference between the public interest in Obama and their interest in Hillary.

 

First serious female candidate is a big thing just like first serious black candidate was. I don't think there's a gaping difference but Hillary is not naturally charismatic the way Obama is. That means she has a harder time capturing the interest that is there.

 

Ha, that's Rich.

 

I can see that

 

She was the first serious female candidate in 08 when she was expected to get the nomination.

And Obama's appeal extended beyond his race, so the dynamic of firsts doesn't negate the differences between them

 

If she gets the nomination, which at this point seems a foregone conclusion, she'll be the first serious female candidate for President. From the moment Obama got seriously involved in 2008 it seemed likely he was going to push Hillary out of the race eventually. One of the Clinton core groups is moderate southern african-americans and he was going to take that vote from her in the primaries. Doesn't mean a lot in the general but it's a key in the Democratic primaries.

 

That's very cringe-worthy.

That said, going from $9M in grants to $14M in grants over 3 years kind of puts it in perspective. The State Dept was sending major funds Laureate's way and then hired Bill and the funding went up 50%. That's a perfect example of how big NGO's operate to maximize the potential funding they will get. They hire connected people to ensure that funding levels increase.

The same is true for lobbyists and corporations all over the world. They're all hiring ex-gov to keep the cash flowing their way. That's a huge part of the problem we face in terms of figuring out where money should go. Whether you believe that the government should be funding a for-profit like Laureate or not the government clearly should not be funding a huge salary for Bill Clinton (or any other ex-gov who was hired to get more money out of the government.)

 

They state the following year jumped from 14 to 25 though. That's hefty.

Sent from my SM-N910U using Tapatalk