It doesn't really matter in the primary, because historically, black evangelicals still, by an overwhelming majority, vote for the big D. But between Hillary and Bernie, they both seem pretty lazy when it comes to courting religious folks.



[Edited on February 18, 2016 at 7:58 AM. Reason : sdfas]

2/18/2016 7:56:47 AM

Quote :

"I don't think that information matters in any possible way."

Quote :

"It doesn't really matter in the primary"

Of course. You have to remember this is Earl you're talking to

2/18/2016 8:26:26 AM

^^None of that has anything to do with the context we are talking about.

Blacks voting for Obama over R because he is a democrat is a statement that holds some weight
Blacks voting for Obama because he is black is a statement that holds some weight

Obama is not a "democratic socialist" and Obama is not Jewish. Comparing Bernie to Obama makes no sense in the context of this discussion.

We are not talking about Bernie vs Republicans. We are talking about Bernie vs Hillary.

Bernie is not polling well with blacks in the south but it is lazy and borderline racist to say that bernie is not doing well with minorities for some reason specific to them being minorities.

Blacks and latinos are overhwelmingly christian so of course voters who value christianity will vote for a christian before they vote for a "socialist" jew. Thats obvious to anyone who isn't lazy or racist. It may even sound like I'm being hypocritical but not believing jesus christ is savior is a valid reason to disqualify sanders from christian votes but there is no valid reason to disqualify sanders from minority vote.

Its almost as crazy as saying "Hillary doesn't do well with females" because Bernie got 85% of the young female vote. Its true that she didn't do well with young females but it had nothing to do with them being female just like this has nothing to do with race.

I'm really sick of it because there has been so much subtle sexism and racism coming from so called "liberals" in this election cycle.

2/18/2016 6:50:34 PM

Epic wonk fight:

Gerald Friedman's study on the economic impact of Bernie Sanders policies
http://www.dollarsandsense.org/What-would-Sanders-do-013016.pdf

Open letter from Alan Krueger, Austan Goolsbee, Christina Romer, and Laura D’Andrea Tyson to Gerald Friedman
https://lettertosanders.wordpress.com/2016/02/17/open-letter-to-senator-sanders-and-professor-gerald-friedman-from-past-cea-chairs/

Response from James K. Galbraith to Alan Krueger, Austan Goolsbee, Christina Romer, and Laura D’Andrea Tyson
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/ResponsetoCEA.pdf

[Edited on February 19, 2016 at 4:05 PM. Reason : ]

2/19/2016 4:03:06 PM

so hillary won nevada

2/20/2016 5:25:05 PM

cnn reporting this as an "impressive 4 point win"

2/20/2016 5:34:49 PM

but but but Bernie...something!

2/20/2016 8:09:31 PM

Bernie is announcing a victory despite the loss so the Bernie Bros or whatever we are calling them now will continue with their hands over their ears shouting lalalalalalalala

2/20/2016 11:13:31 PM

What was supposed to be a 40 point win was only a 4 point win. Sounds like a loss for Hillary's credibility as the strongest candidate.

Not including the superdelagates (whose votes are not official or locked in until the convention), the candidates are tied 51-51 on delagates officially earned from Iowa, NH, and Nevada. This thing is soooooooo far from over.

[Edited on February 22, 2016 at 4:08 PM. Reason : -]

2/22/2016 3:58:43 PM

^ Bernie has 70. Hillary 51
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/22/us/politics/delegate-count-leaving-bernie-sanders-with-steep-climb.html

Quote :

"Bernie is announcing a victory"

Where at?

Quote :

"This thing is soooooooo far from over."

Talk to me after Super Tuesday. I ain't saying it's over, but it's not looking good for ol Bern.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/sc/south_carolina_democratic_presidential_primary-4167.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ga/georgia_democratic_presidential_primary-5623.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/oh/ohio_democratic_presidential_primary-5313.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/tx/texas_democratic_presidential_primary-4158.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/va/virginia_democratic_presidential_primary-3922.html
http://www1.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/mn/minnesota_democratic_presidential_caucus-3585.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/al/alabama_democratic_presidential_primary-5791.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/co/colorado_democratic_presidential_caucus-5229.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/tx/texas_democratic_presidential_primary-4158.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/election_dates/

[Edited on February 22, 2016 at 4:38 PM. Reason : He's got Vermont and a slight lead in Mass...otherwise getting throttled everywhere]

[Edited on February 22, 2016 at 4:41 PM. Reason : If he had more than a week, maybe.]

[Edited on February 22, 2016 at 4:51 PM. Reason : V I was referring to Super Tuesday states...and is 208 a big enough sample size?]

2/22/2016 4:22:51 PM

he's leading WV

2/22/2016 4:45:22 PM

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/cornel-west-sister-hillary-clinton-is-the-milli-vanilli-of-american-politics/

2/22/2016 4:49:46 PM

I looked at that page before posting ^^^^. Most of the polls are outdated, and my guess would be Bernie has caught up or even pulled ahead in more liberal places like Colorado where the last major poll was in November.

EDIT: This shows Bernie up by 6: http://freebeacon.com/politics/free-beacon-poll-sanders-overtakes-clinton-in-colorado/?utm_source=Freedom+Mail&utm_campaign=5b18b26f44-WFB_Morning_Beacon_02_19_162_18_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b5e6e0e9ea-5b18b26f44-45638209

[Edited on February 22, 2016 at 4:55 PM. Reason : -]

2/22/2016 4:52:29 PM

Quote :

"Most of the polls are outdated,"

Some of the polls are outdated. Most are current.

Quote :

"my guess would be Bernie has caught up or even pulled ahead in more liberal places like Colorado where the last major poll was in November."

That's true...He appears to be doing much better in Colorado
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/269995-sanders-overtakes-hillary-in-colorado-poll


[Edited on February 22, 2016 at 4:57 PM. Reason : What other ST states is he doing better in?]

2/22/2016 4:54:08 PM

the bible belt is going to be painful for bernie. places like texas and nc are worth too much to ignore. its like winning the nomination is mostly about winning the south which is weird because you can punt it to republicans and do alright in the general.

[Edited on February 22, 2016 at 6:46 PM. Reason : SEC primaries]

2/22/2016 6:45:59 PM

Bernie will do well in cities like Austin and Houston. Hillary will win but I don't think she'll come out with as many more delagates as people may think.

2/22/2016 7:43:37 PM

I never thought of Houston as a liberal place. I can see Austin but Hillary has dominated suburban places like Vegas and I would think of that as a more like Houston than Austin.

2/22/2016 7:50:15 PM

Too bad so much of the democratic base is too dumb to really understand what Bernie stands for....
Thus is supporters are normalized to college educated progressives, hipsters, and democrats that hate Hillary

Although this is the main problem facing the Republican party in general. It is like we would be truly better off if voting were restricted to people that could pass some sort of intelligence test.

[Edited on February 22, 2016 at 8:00 PM. Reason : a]

2/22/2016 7:59:10 PM

^^You do know Houston is the 4th largest city in America, right?

2008 primary, dark blue is Clinton and light blue is Obama:


The northern patch of light blue is Dallas, the center-most clump is Austin, San Antonio, and College Station, and to the right of that is Houston.

Despite all the dark blue, Hillary only walked away with 51% of the vote.

[Edited on February 22, 2016 at 8:57 PM. Reason : =]

2/22/2016 8:56:48 PM

Quote :

"^^You do know Houston is the 4th largest city in America, right?"

Thats a bit misleading if you are responding to my stating it is suburban. It has the population density of a San Bernadino, Ca or a Naperville, Illinois. Just because the city limits are broad, doesn't make it a super urban place. I'm not saying they aren't democrats. I'm just saying they are much more moderate. That along with the HUGE population totals should produce a HUGE delegate win for Hillary.



I don't understand the comparisons to 2008 because Obama and Sanders are completely different and people like them for different reasons. Sanders appeals most to progressives and is Jewish which won't bode well in Texas. Hillary is getting that part of the Obama vote.

[Edited on February 22, 2016 at 9:13 PM. Reason : k]

2/22/2016 9:12:30 PM

I'm just showing that if Bernie can win big in just a few cities there will not be a huge win for Hillary.

Houston's population density is only low because if it's vast borders, but that does not mean it is without a more condensed urban area. It's way more like Boston or Atlanta than it is like Las Vegas.


Houston also had a lesbian mayor for the last 6 years and just inaugurated an African American mayor last month. It is an incredibly progressive city.

Quote :

"Sanders appeals most to progressives and is Jewish which won't bode well in Texas."

The only person in the entire country who seems to care that Bernie is Jewish is one precinct captain in Nevada (a Hillary supporter) who said "don't vote for the socialist Jew." But since you brought it up, a higher percentage of the Texas population is Jewish than Nevada or New Hampshire. And where do most of those Jews live? In Dallas and Houston.

2/23/2016 4:40:07 AM

it's not just progressives, he does well with everyone except for wealthy educated moderates and black people

2/23/2016 8:03:48 AM

And old rich people

2/23/2016 9:33:36 AM

Quote :

"Houston also had a lesbian mayor for the last 6 years and just inaugurated an African American mayor last month. It is an incredibly progressive city. "

I took a layoff versus living here. Houston no thanks, it is like a super-sized exaggerated version of Charlotte:

- SubUrban Sprawl galore
- Hot Humid Summers
- Douchey Conservative corporate culture
- Large Evangelical socially conservative family values population
- Car-Centric culture/infrastructure
- Disregard for the environment
- Texas

I am sure there is a decent of amount of urban progressive culture in the core. Just like how Charlotte has Plaza Mid and NoDA.

[Edited on February 23, 2016 at 12:48 PM. Reason : aa]

2/23/2016 12:47:37 PM

^^^^Except for the urban, hipsterish core of Houston- downtown, Montrose and Midtown- Houston is NOT a liberal enclave. It's sprawled out, suburban wasteland where people are outspoken conservatives, drive huge SUVs, and work for one of the oil companies. It's an oil town. Its demographics are actually pretty close to Las Vegas, which surprisingly make it one of the most diverse cities in the country. It's ethnically diverse, but it's nothing like Austin in terms of liberalism. Have you ever actually spent any time there?

2/23/2016 1:42:03 PM

Several years ago I was in a long-distance relationship with a girl who went to Rice University so I visited Houston several times. I was shocked by how unconservative I found many parts of the city to be.

In both the 2008 and 2012 generals Harris County went blue by the slimmest of margins. I'm not saying it is an overwhelmingly liberal place, but it isn't a conservative stronghold like most of the state is. Regardless, the only argument I'm really trying to make is we shouldn't expect a Clinton blowout in Texas as long as Bernie can do well in the big metropolitan areas (Dallas and Houston) and just some of the smaller cities and college towns (San Antonio, Austin, College Station).

2/23/2016 5:22:55 PM

Quote :

"Houston also had a lesbian mayor for the last 6 years and just inaugurated an African American mayor last month. "

Accepting gays and minorities is not "incredibly progressive" this is the problem with shifting what progressive means. Suddenly anything thats not hatred is "progressive". You can be liberal to a lot of different degrees. Hillary is going to win the moderate vote. Sanders base is much further left.

2/23/2016 8:28:52 PM

I also don't think that hanging around a liberal university campus like Rice, or with other Houston area college students is very indicative of the place overall. Let's face it: Houston and Austin are only 'liberal' and 'progressive' because they're located in Texas, although I'd argue Austin is much closer to the definition than Houston.

2/23/2016 8:48:04 PM

Quote :

"Sanders appeals most to progressives and is Jewish which won't bode well in Texas"

Quote :

"Accepting gays and minorities is not "incredibly progressive""

I'm confused.

2/23/2016 9:32:21 PM

http://gawker.com/hillary-clinton-s-wall-street-speeches-must-be-really-b-1761005364

2/24/2016 10:23:26 AM

Of course they are going to be bad, does anyone really think they would pay her millions so she could come give them speeches about how she is going to reel in their profits and bonuses? She is a total fraud.

2/24/2016 10:42:14 AM

Quote :

"Except for the urban, hipsterish core of Houston South-East Charlotte- downtown, Montrose and Midtown including Plaza Midwood and NoDA - Houston Charlotte is NOT a liberal enclave. It's sprawled out, suburban wasteland where people are outspoken conservatives, drive huge SUVs, and work for one of the oil Banking companies. It's a oil Banking/Finance town."

Your definition of Houston really does work perfectly for Charlotte.

Quote :

"Accepting gays and minorities is not "incredibly progressive" this is the problem with shifting what progressive means"

What is progressive today mean? Letting guys walk around with their wang hanging out in the womens locker room since they feel like a woman
and screaming about how cops are all racist black-haters that murder African-Americans as you shut down the Minneapolis airport?

[Edited on February 24, 2016 at 11:00 AM. Reason : a]

2/24/2016 10:59:46 AM

Can we talk about how hypocritical you democrats are? Republican candidates are always accused of being war hawks (sometimes, rightly so). But at least they are honest about it. Hillary will have taken over 5 times more money from weapons manufacturers than her republican opponent. Yet, she will still be presented as the candidate of "peace".

2/25/2016 12:27:29 AM

Quote :

"Hillary will have taken over 5 times more money from weapons manufacturers than her republican opponent. Yet, she will still be presented as the candidate of "peace"."

Except everyone knows she's a huge fucking hawk

2/25/2016 12:42:22 AM

Yes, but undoubtedly she'll still be painted as the less aggressive of the two, despite being the candidate with the biggest war boner since McCain.

It's not about the reality, anybody who has paid attention knows she's a hawk, it's about how she'll be presented. Much like she's being touted as gay friendly despite being much less so than Sanders.

She's a despicable human being.

2/25/2016 5:58:26 AM

Our media is pretty bad at peeling back the layers on a politicians rhetoric, but in Hillary's defense, she isn't holding campaign events and beating her chest about how she's gonna carpet bomb Iraq, or that targeting women and children is ok, or that water boarding is a great tool, or internment camps "might" be a good idea, etc.

Rhetoric matters, it's not everything, but because the press can only think in a dichotomy, it's easy to see why Hillary might be considered peaceful compared to the average GOP candidate.

2/25/2016 7:49:03 AM

Quote :

"Can we talk about how hypocritical you democrats are?"

1) as someone already stated, clinton is a war hawk and gets criticism from liberals about it

2) change from presidential candidates to all recipients and tell me if you see a trend in regards to party affiliation for top recipients other than Clinton. I don't even have to look it up to know what the results are going to be

2/25/2016 9:38:37 AM

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/02/25/3753582/hillary-clinton-black-lives-matter-superpredators/

[Edited on February 25, 2016 at 3:26 PM. Reason : ln]

2/25/2016 3:25:01 PM

sanders - shakes their hand, lets them speak
clinton - crosses her arms, kicks them out

2/25/2016 3:43:05 PM

Quote :

"She's a despicable human being."

She's a politician. No shit.

2/25/2016 4:07:45 PM

Quote :

"Yes, but undoubtedly she'll still be painted as the less aggressive of the two, despite being the candidate with the biggest war boner since McCain. It's not about the reality, anybody who has paid attention knows she's a hawk, it's about how she'll be presented. Much like she's being touted as gay friendly despite being much less so than Sanders. She's a despicable human being."

Hilary needs to be paid and influenced into being hawkish. The republicans live by it.

2/25/2016 4:51:40 PM

Hillary Clinton's war hawkishness is my least favorite of her character traits, followed closely by how fake she can be.

Sadly, she's not fake when it comes to her war hawkishness.

[Edited on February 25, 2016 at 6:57 PM. Reason : ]

2/25/2016 6:54:13 PM

Quote :

"Our media is pretty bad at peeling back the layers on a politicians rhetoric, but in Hillary's defense, she isn't holding campaign events and beating her chest about how she's gonna carpet bomb Iraq, or that targeting women and children is ok, or that water boarding is a great tool, or internment camps "might" be a good idea, etc. Rhetoric matters, it's not everything, but because the press can only think in a dichotomy, it's easy to see why Hillary might be considered peaceful compared to the average GOP candidate"

Ah so since she is a snake about it the it's ok for all the Democrats to support her

2/25/2016 9:31:01 PM

^ cool strawman

2/25/2016 9:44:12 PM

So it is perfectly fine to ignore her blatant hawkishness because she has a D beside her name?

2/25/2016 9:54:47 PM

Nope.

2/25/2016 10:22:11 PM

Glad you think that way, too bad others don't care just like people give the R's a pass on their bullshit.

2/25/2016 10:26:18 PM

I'm just pointing out the obvious reasons why the press can represent Hillary as a dove and get away with it. A) they are mostly lazy and superficial in analysis B) compared to a majority of the chest beating coming out of the GOP, she "sounds" WAY more dovish. What you do is the most important, but what you SAY is also a big deal IMO.

I don't get how conservatives can go on-and-on about how repulsive Hillary is, she's a hawk, corrupt, fake, how could anyone be so dumb as to vote for her, blah blah blah. And it's like, look at your own god-damn party. Everything you feel for Hillary I feel 10x for every fucking candidate the brain dead GOP has produced this cycle. I will GLADLY hold my nose and vote for the polished turd Hillary over whichever Indian food diaper the GOP ends up choosing.

You have to remove the stick from your own eye before you can point out the splinter in others. And yet, all we get from intelligent conservatives I meet and know, is a shrug and acknowledgement that their shit has gone off the deep end, they then immediately pivot into a rant about how terrible Hillary is.

Face it, if you are an THINKING conservative that's concerned for the country, hating on Hillary is all you have left. The GOP damn sure left you behind at some point in the last decade and the only plank you have left to agree with the party on is "Hillary bad, Obama bad."

2/26/2016 6:46:14 AM

Well I'm not a Republican so I would agree with most of your points except for Hildog being better. She is the same shit sandwich that the others are.

2/26/2016 9:25:11 AM

If we write out a list of all the ridiculous shit the GOP nominees have said you think you could match those with things Hillary has said? Hell just match these:

- The pyramids were used to house grain, I don't care what science and historians have said
- We should ban all Muslims from coming into the country
- Most Mexicans are criminals
- We need to disband the IRS

2/26/2016 9:38:13 AM