Posted on 06/07/2015 8:44:26 AM PDT by Libloather
Could we see a repeat of 1968? Remember Gene McCarthy got over 40% of the vote against LBJ in the new Hampshire primary. LBJ won the primary but he won by a small margin, fell short of expectations.
I know this is a straw poll not an actual election. But Hillary is supposed to be an overwhelming front runner. If she is held to narrow margins of victory in Iowa and New Hampshire when the actual primaries and caucuses happen, I think all bets are off at that point.
The commie democrats have done their job well. We now have a generation totally dependent upon government for survival. They enjoy their slavery, don't mind that their freedoms are being taken away, just so long as the “free stuff” keeps coming.
Together, we finally have someone who can give a focal point such that we are enabled to set things right, even if only for a while. For a generation. I'll take that result. FDR's revolution lasted about a generation and there are still pieces there to be built upon. I'll take that. I want to be a part of making that happen. I don't want my kids worrying about health care anymore. I don't want my kids having to raise outrageous sums just to be educated. I don't want my grandchildren living underground because the surface is too dangerous because of heat or storms.
Oh, my.
whoa!
So in this straw Poll, less than half wanted Hillary. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.
Wisconsin Democrats swallowing the Kool Aid for Hillary at State convention. (and in other news, the Pope is still Catholic.)
FReep Mail me if you want on, or off, this Wisconsin interest ping list.
“I’ve been “talking” online to some liberals who are now rabid Sanders supporters. They don’t understand that the “rich” will be anyone with a job, a home and a few dollars in the bank, or that the “rich” include employers who may go bankrupt or have to shed employees to avoid bankruptcy. They think others will, pay for these things, when in reality, they will be the ones paying.”
Remind them of the liberal who, when she learned her healthcare was going up under ObamaCare, said: “I wanted everyone to have healthcare, but I didn’t want to be the one who paid for it.”
Is that their ages or the percentages they will get in the primary with a lower than expected 144% turnout?
With the current 49% to 40% split before Sanders had even campaigned, Hillary's supporters may soon be pushing for more people to run in the primary to dillute the anti-Hillary vote.
Please, Dems, nominate Bernie. Pretty please.
hillary only getting 49% of the “in crowd” vote, representatives at the state convention, is astoundingly bad.
I have a good friend who was all excited about her partially subsidized Obamacare plan. She bragged that she was paying $80 something a month in premiums, while I was paying around $235. She belittled me for opposing Obamacare and lorded it over me that I was wrong.
Then my friend had to use her cheapo plan. Turned out her plan had this little thing called a deductible — somewhere around $1500 to $2000 or so. When she developed arthritis in her right knee, her doctor sent her to physical therapy. One day she received a bill from the physical therapy doctors — $1200. Seems she had not met the deductible, so she was on the hook for the full cost of the therapy. Surprise!
“How do you like your ZeroCare now, bitch ?”
Yeah, wouldn’t that be great to follow behind the Socialist we already have.
My favorite quote from Margaret Thatcher, “The problem with Socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money”. Truer words were never spoken.
Now THAT is funny!
>>Hillary only getting 49% of the “in crowd” vote, representatives at the state convention, is astoundingly bad.<<
Yes, it is. Especially when you figure that her team had to know it was a risk, and probably lobbied hard to keep it from happening. Meanwhile Sanders is known for low-key campaigning, so his support was probably sincere, as opposed to orchestrated.
The Dems face a huge risk here, one I’ll call the Perot risk. If a large enough contingent of the Progressive base of the Dem Party want Sanders, but are denied him in spite of his obvious strength within the base, many Dems might desert the party and vote Sanders either as a third party candidate, or as a write-in.
In fact, the GOP should be doing all it can to get the Socialist Party of the U.S. (or whatever they’re called) to nominate Sanders as their presidential candidate in 2016. That would seal the deal, I think, as Sanders would pull off as many or more votes as Perot did from the GOP in 1992.
>>An avowed socialist get 40%. We are so screwed.<<
If, by “we,” you’re referring to the Democrat Party, you’re absolutely correct.
The party of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama is about to reap what they’ve sowed the past 8 years.
I suspect people are ready to cast a protest vote if someone with independence and real solutions doesn't come along. Sanders or Rand Paul would be a protest vote. So would a viable third-party ticket.
You go, Dummycrats!
I have got to get me one of those!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.