For a candidate who must persuade American voters that she is fully committed to fully addressing the precarious economic position of tens of millions of Americans, Hillary Clinton’s “safe” choice of the pro-corporate centrist Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine may prove to be anything but sound judgment to counter the phony populism of Donald Trump.
"His consistently pro-corporate policies will win favor with donors and
Democratic big-wigs, but are alienating to much of the party’s base."
To my eye, these are the two reasons that Clinton chose as she did. Pass the cake.
So not only did they fudge the numbers in the primaries so as to ensure Clinton won , they are now going to Fudge the convention itself.
Are the Democratic establishment players too insulated, too arrogant, or just too damn stupid to see what is different in this election cycle?
This election is pivotal in US history and future and the two-party charade of domination by vested and corrupted interests has millions ready to respond in ways that will do the nation and wider world no good, but will not play their allotted roles any longer!
The Dem hierarchy mindset seems to misread nearly every sign that they are in deep do-do and millions will not respond favorably to Clinton's smarmy low-life manipulation....people have had a belly-full of her corrupt twin Bill, the Great Progressive Fraud, Barack Obama, who was the last straw for millions who felt, and were, betrayed by the Chicago political con-job passing himself-off as a Progressive.....hope turned to disappointment that turned to frustration that turned to anger...that has now come home to roost with contempt for the blatant machinations of the current player, the Red Queen, Hillary Clinton, who apparently believes she can BS and scare and buffalo independent voters and the Dem/progressive base by more of the same lies, deceit and betrayals as the last two frauds.........sorry, that pig will not fly!
Clinton doesn't seem to need Progressives.
And the fixation on the number--that Sanders has 13 million is a way of pretending there aren't millions more out there who want to and would have voted for him had primaries not disallowed them from doing so.
I think Sanders would probably have 42 million votes. Or more in an open system, one that wasn't controlled by Bill Clinton's friends and corrupt cronies within the DLC.
Please explain to me how the numbers were fudged?
I can'r wait for you to tell me how some votes weren't counted or lost or ... You know, specific evidence of actual fraud. You are sounding bit like some of my conservative friends.
I am opposed to caucuses, super-delegates, and open primaries in concert.
- Caucuses are easily the least "democratic" and least representative method to pick your candidate.
- Why do we actually need them? A shorter primary season would help eliminate some of the justifications for super-delegates. Of course, we have never had super-delegates actually selct the winner, so ...
- The Democratic Party is a PRIVATE party, not a PUBLIC party, i.e., they do NOT have to let anybody vote unless they are a Democrat , i.e., sign a card. Of course you do NOT really have to be a Democrat to do that, so I still wonder what the real problem is.
AS it turns out, it is state constitutionally illegal to have a closed primary in some states, so they must have a closed caucus instead. In our state we have both, though only the caucus counts. We also had different candidates wining each one. Sanders won the caucus, but Clinton won the primary.
Examples have been given for some time and there several lawsuits pending on the matter.
HRC does not deserve to be president
KInd of unconvincing, since they actually have no hard evidence. Lots of speculation. In fact, the language sounds like some of the same conservative rhetoric I hear every election about voter fraud.
I fully understand what loosing is about and how people always seem to look for somebody or something to blame. It happens every election cycle.
Even recent comments by Bernie seems to encourage people to stop damaging actions that could help elect Trump.
It goes beyond "fails" to inspire. It negatively inspires, motivating people to do the exact opposite of what a VP is supposed to do. Nobody who is undecided is going to decide in her favor based on this. Nobody sitting on the fence is going to fall off in her direction.
Don't these people have image consultants? Look at the picture of the two looking triumphal together. For one thing, Kaine is half a head taller than she is and comes across in the pictures as dwarfing her but, worse, their faces -- they look like an old married couple who've been together so long they've come to look alike. The VP is not supposed to look bigger than the president, but if you're a woman I guess you can't look like a hen pecking husband dominator. Hillary has managed to combine both into one. I wouldn't have picked Elizabeth Warren for her on image issues either, though she would bring in some if the anti bank crowd (which is smaller than it really ought to be). Those two would like like a group called Two Blond Seniors who had some hit singles several decades ago trying to set themselves up for a nostalgia circuit tour, hoping their fan base hadn't succumbed to permanent senior moments status. Hillary has begun to look to me like a snapping turtle with angry eyes and a neck that contracts into itself when she makes an emphatic utterance. Trump understands what the words "it's all about image" means. He may not understand much else, but he gets that.
Unless a miraculous groundswell for Jill Stein can happen despite a media freeze out, the Trump Administration will be loosing the lightning of his terrible swift sword very soon.
Spin it any way you like, but people always in their minds pick the better candidate between the two offered. That would be exactly the same result as picking the lesser of two evils. Sounds glass half empty or half full. Your choice of only tells people more about you than anything else.