After the platform was worked out and Sanders endorsed in New Hampshire, there was no doubt he would endorse. The dynamics with Cruz and Trump would quite different. Clinton never attacked Sanders' family like Trump attacked Cruz's, so it was always likely that they would eventually pull together by the time the convention rolled around. With that said, the median Sanders supporter is not as hardcore as the hecklers. Most of them are concerned about defeating Trump now.

I watched a combination of CSPAN.org (which has pretty poor streaming quality but no interruptions, no talking heads) until PBS. org (which had crystal clear streaming quality), which is basically the PBS Newshour You Tube infrastructure embedded on their website until their window of coverage closed at 10pm, then I clicked on CBS News website, which also had strong livestream quality but too much talking between their correspondents- thankfully the 'big speeches' went uninterrupted.

 

I guess I could've watch the last few speeches on an actual TV since I get CBS but the TV was in the other room and I was already comfy in bed with my laptop desk pulled over my bed. 

 

For some reason, I trusted that Sanders would not go rogue and he didn't. Some complained that he didn't mention HRC enough but considering the nature of his campaign's supporters, who I believe he didn't want to aliennate, I think had he done much more, it would've risked been seen as disingenuous, I thought that this was the best he could do without coming off as being 'bought' to his supporters.  

 

They've been attacking Trump for months! And Trump is as discredited as he's going to get - there are decades of dirt. The only thing to do now is keep hammering away at every minute detail of it.

I don't know the media just turns their head and laughs. Well at least they did. I haven't seen anyone really challenge him head to head. Those debates were a joke and the media let him run all over them. And we know the democrats have a track record of complacency IMO.

Elizabeth Warren has been bashing Trump non-stop and with far stronger words than anyone has to date.     Trump has a leg up on all televised debates.   He is a TV personality and knows the camera.   Hillary will have a hard time I think because he is so good on TV and she is so not. 

 

Thank you for your concern. If you think Trump is seriously going to do well in a live debate one on one you're living in a vastly different world from ours.

I'll say the same thing I said back when this forum was saying he was going to lose the republican debates:   The guy is a professional TV personality, a flim flam man in the PT Barnum vein.   He is not the underdog in televised appearances.  I do agree I live in a vastly different world than a lot of people here:   I don't get my information from the echo chamber.   I just use common sense.   But thanks for your concern about my current address.

^ Not everyone in this forum.  I haven't underestimated Trump since about February/March.  It doesn't matter if you are a good debater, when the person you are debating with keeps going off topic and mocking and insulting and people keep falling for it. It's worked for him so far and I'm very concerned it will continue to work.

The thing with Trump is that what he says sounds simple. It doesn't matter if it's insane, or nonsensical - it sounds simple and easy. And that's what a lot of people want. Worried about the economy? Hey, this guy will fire everybody on the take, and kick ass. Worried about wars? Hey, this guy will say, "You don't push us around," and kick ass. Look at the NATO mess (I would guess most Americans think NATO is what we use to send things into outer space) - a lot of people who actually know how the world works are horrified at his posturing, but all Joe Sixpack hears is that he's going to kick ass. 

 

When someone is this committed to being vague, it means they can be anything anyone wants them to be. I keep thinking about that quote from that Bernie sycophant earlier today - she said "a madman is doing more than Hillary Clinton to get progressive votes." And that makes no sense, given that he's said he will ignore long-standing international treaties, will build a wall to keep Mexicans out of the US, will only support SCOTUS justices who are just like Scalia, he will ban any Muslims from this country, he will kill the families of terrorists, he is anti-gay marriage, on and on and on. 

 

None of this is progressive. Yet he is so vacuous that people can pretend he is. 

 

This is why he's so dangerous and why the election will either be a solid win for him or a narrow victory for her.

^ Not everyone in this forum.  I haven't underestimated Trump since about February/March.  It doesn't matter if you are a good debater, when the person you are debating with keeps going off topic and mocking and insulting and people keep falling for it. It's worked for him so far and I'm very concerned it will continue to work.

His theme song should be "Razzle Dazzle" from Chicago:  Give em a fake and a finagle...Trump knows what he is doing.   If he was debating Obama I would say Obama would win easily.  If he was debating Bill I would say Bill would win easily.   I think even Bernie would win.  But Hillary isn't in that league.    She is not a compelling speaker at all.   I tried to watch her speech today at the military whatever, I turned it off it was awful.  Trump knows you gotta sell it.   I give him credit for that because that is an important thing to know.   I do find it funny that how she has been married to Bill something like 35, 40 years, and none of his slickness has rubbed off on her.    She could use a little slickness.

The thing with Trump is that what he says sounds simple. It doesn't matter if it's insane, or nonsensical - it sounds simple and easy. And that's what a lot of people want. Worried about the economy? Hey, this guy will fire everybody on the take, and kick ass. Worried about wars? Hey, this guy will say, "You don't push us around," and kick ass. Look at the NATO mess (I would guess most Americans think NATO is what we use to send things into outer space) - a lot of people who actually know how the world works are horrified at his posturing, but all Joe Sixpack hears is that he's going to kick ass. 

 

When someone is this committed to being vague, it means they can be anything anyone wants them to be. I keep thinking about that quote from that Bernie sycophant earlier today - she said "a madman is doing more than Hillary Clinton to get progressive votes." And that makes no sense, given that he's said he will ignore long-standing international treaties, will build a wall to keep Mexicans out of the US, will only support SCOTUS justices who are just like Scalia, he will ban any Muslims from this country, he will kill the families of terrorists, he is anti-gay marriage, on and on and on. 

 

None of this is progressive. Yet he is so vacuous that people can pretend he is. 

 

This is why he's so dangerous and why the election will either be a solid win for him or a narrow victory for her.

Lord. I was the typical angsty teen who thought most people were pretty stupid. I outgrew it late, but then I totally changed and started thinking most people have common sense. Looks like 16 year old me was right all along. How can anyone, ANYONE take this conspiracy theory spewing nut case seriously? I don't understand it, but it's happening right before out eyes.

 

It's because of the increasing belief in our society, spurred on when the media worked so hard to get W elected, that if you don't say things in a blunt, stupid way, then you're a fake and a phony and you don't understand "real Americans." Then there's the "they're all the same" that Naderites love and that the media also pushes. This encourages people to feel nothing will make a difference. And to be fair, to a lot of people who are struggling, the election may not make a difference. But there is still a clear difference, and most just don't bother to see it because they've been told so many times that everyone is the same. 

 

This type of stuff and the purity contests leads to a puffed-out arrogance that you see with morons like the people at the convention, where (correct me if I'm wrong) white people were screaming BLACK LIVES MATTER! to Cory Booker, a black man. No one with a brain in their head would have done that.

 

Hillary has a lot of problems of her own making, decades of lies, and there's also the charisma deficit, but if this were a country that had not spent decades rewarding stupidity and destruction because "he's a guy you could have a beer with," then more people would know that Trump is not an option.

 I do agree I live in a vastly different world than a lot of people here:   I don't get my information from the echo chamber.

 

We know. That's why you've been parroting conservative talking points for months.

 

This is why he's so dangerous and why the election will either be a solid win for him or a narrow victory for her.

 

I don't buy it. It's possible, yes, but I don't think it's probable. Not with Trump's numbers, not with his negatives and not with how he is already wriggling like a worm on a hook every day, every week post-primary.

 

I heard this same stuff about Romney - 'oh, he's too slick, he's a businessman, Obama is too passive, the country is so divided, if Obama wins it'll be real close.' Obama dismantled him and was done with him before 11 PM Eastern on election night. And Romney was far more viable than Donald Trump.

 

I'm tired of this frame where we insist the ignorant bigot or the right-wing slickster can always win by a rout at any given moment, but the liberal or progressive candidate can only ever barely eke out a win because the narrative is that America is too polluted to know better. It's self-defeating, it's depressive for turnout and for our own base, and it has been consistently proven wrong for the past eight years, at least at the presidential level.

Edited July 26, 20169 yr by Vee

 I do agree I live in a vastly different world than a lot of people here:   I don't get my information from the echo chamber.

 

We know. That's why you've been parroting conservative talking points for months.

 

 

 

Who is this we and us you keep yammering on about?   Is there some know-nothing cabal you are the spokesperson for?   You do them credit.

 

You were the one ranting about how everyone here's in an echo chamber but you.

I just saw Trevor Noah on CBS This Morning and I wish he would bring some of that insight to the Daily News because he was so good!  All I can think of is that with a bevy of writers, perhaps his unique sensibility is not truly coming through. I disagree with the notion that he's not intelligent enough to do the show, but I do think that he's not bringing enough of himself and his global perspective to the show- he's too safe and guarded.

 

By the way, in the early years of the Daily Show, John Stewart wasn't very impressive (and he definitely wasn't that funny) himself. Somewhere around the 3rd or 4th Season, he truly hit his stride and the show caught fire. We're not comparing John's early years but Stewart as his height to a fledgling New-Look Daily show. I'd like to see Noah, if/when he breaks free of the constraints and delivers the easy insight that he just did this morning. Even his Aussie accent was spot on!

Edited July 26, 20169 yr by DramatistDreamer

 I do agree I live in a vastly different world than a lot of people here:   I don't get my information from the echo chamber.

 

We know. That's why you've been parroting conservative talking points for months.

 

This is why he's so dangerous and why the election will either be a solid win for him or a narrow victory for her.

 

I heard this same stuff about Romney - 'oh, he's too slick, he's a businessman, Obama is too passive, the country is so divided, if Obama wins it'll be real close.' Obama dismantled him and was done with him before 11 PM Eastern on election night. And Romney was far more viable than Donald Trump.

I think you are underestimating the changes America has gone threw since 2012, and how much anger there really is from all sides regarding the disenfranchisement of American citizens and how rough the recession truly hit the majority of the USA. Comparing it to 2012 seems fallacious to me. Romney was more "viable" but that was also a time when American didn't have to languor in the effects of a down effected market. Yes, we are recovering, but that recovery still hasn't set in for a lot of people, and there's more part-time work than full time work, and what was lost is not recouped.People remember this which is what has galvanized the Republican Trump base, and it's what has empowered Sanders following, just at different demographics and spectrums.

 

Trump's White Blue Class worker's are pissed they lost their jobs, and they don't know how to compete in a global market without needed skills, and they want retribution. Hillary doesn't fit with this, and she's going to have real problems with that base. The other problem is that Bernie captured the progressive leftists and young voters. Hillary is leaning centrist, and she is losing in effect the young liberal voters who are up to their hairlines in debt by paying for colleges they can't pay for because they were promised a 40k job if they graduated college, and what materialized is a shift a Target part time working 24 hours a week. That's the demographic that Bernie captured and spoke to as if he was a student whisperer.

 

People are angry and they want real change, and Hilary feels tone deaf to that, consistently no matter what speech writers try and make her seem current and sympathetic. It's cringe worthy trying to hear her say things like "I am your Abuela" or "I want Pokémon Go in the Polls." Again tone deaf. Donald might not have the numbers but he is a threat because Hilary is off putting enough to keep people home, and have people discouraged enough to feel like nothing will ever change, or worse that she is just like Trump just in a different way. Some people are not at ease with Hilary's war hawk mindset and may feel she will spy on them, and be just as bad as Nixon. So it's one devil for another, and it's just which one do you want more of?

 

This is a long winded way of saying 2012 v. 2016 is an entirely different atmosphere with two entirely different candidates. Hilary is not as "warm" as Obama was, and the American citizens aren't as easily capitulated as they were in earlier years. Donald being "unpresentable" doesn't factor, because he wiped the floor with more respectable candidates anyway. That obviously doesn't mean anything to the larger party at this time frame.

Edited July 26, 20169 yr by Skin

The main difference between Romney and Trump is that Trump somehow manages to fool a lot of people that he's like them. Romney never could. 

 

I don't know how the election will go, but Nate Silver now saying Trump will win makes me wary, because he gets a lot of media attention and spins a lot of CW, and it will start to move closer to becoming a reality and a fact for more and more people.

I saw that too.

 

Hillary has 3 months to get people to change their minds about voting for her.