"Hillary, as a moderate centrist, is far, far more likely to win the general election than Sanders."

What do you base that on? Certainly not polls or favorability numbers. Sanders is the only candidate who has net positive favorability numbers. Lots of people really dislike Hillary.

Republicans aren't fascists, they're corporatists. Government exists to defend the homeland and support the corporations, nothing more. Evangelical Christianity injected stuff about abortion.

Unfortunately, the problem is that many Democrats are more corporatist than progressive at this point as well. Hillary is the main one that comes to mind.

Then elect as President a series of Youtube videos featuring cute kittens.

I'd rather Sanders win than Hillary too, but I'm not letting my desire skew my perception.

The reason why voter turnout is so high is because of sanders. The flame go out cold when Hillary tales the nominations. Perhaps some people will still settle for Hillary, I will, because I like both candidates, but a lot of voters are people who voted for the intention of Bernie being the nominee.

Like I said, I don't care if Hillary gets the nomination, as long as she has the popular vote. If she doesn't, she's gonna be in for a rough time.

I'll also reiterate, that if Hillary gets the nomination from the popular vote, that's different than if her political connections to snag superdelegate endorsements makes the difference. I really, really don't want to vote for someone that plays those kinds of bullshit games.

Hillary is very progressive, just because she might be taking "evil bank money" does not dismiss her stance on healthcare, women's rights (abortion, equal pay, etc), minority rights, immigration, gun control, and what not.

Given the level of state control that fascism employed, it's hard to really find that in the Republicans. There's no significant paternalist faction there. If there was a paternalist faction, and there were people that overlapped with the conservatives in it, then they'd have actual fascists, but as far as I'm aware you don't find any significant paternalist Republicans at all. Which is a shame, because a moderate Paternalist Republican would be a more acceptable alternative.

Evangelical Christianity was late to the party on abortion. They were pro-choice until the late 1970s. It was a scheme to coalition with the Catholics to get Republicans in power to implement neoliberal economic policies. Most of the pro-life crusaders in the Evangelical Christianity cut their teeth as segregationists and ardent anti-communists.

Corporatism is not just some random word you can throw around, it has a specific political meaning and it's completely consistent with fascism, as Mussolini's Italy was a corporatist economy. Not all corporatist economies are fascist though. Other examples of corporatism are Mexico in the 60s/70s and Germany since forever.

I have a real bone to pick with Obamacare. How we created a system that, instead of fighting the health insurance companies, we made one that invited them into the official government system, is disgusting. These are companies that make billions of dollars (many of it redirected to lobbying) by gambling with the health of America. And we wonder why health care costs are so high.

"Hillary is very progressive, just because she might be taking "evil bank money" does not dismiss her stance on healthcare, women's rights (abortion, equal pay, etc), minority rights, immigration, gun control, and what not."

Someone needs to tell her that because she came here to Columbus and "plead guilty" to being a moderate. She's also a notorious and rather bloodthirsty hawk.

Putin, your point is duly noted.

Her stance on healthcare ... you mean the health care plan that helped consolidate big healthcare insurance companies over smaller, local healthcare insurers, after funding to the Clintons by big healthcare insurance?

Yeah. Progressive.

"She's also a notorious and rather bloodthirsty hawk."

+1

They don't call her a "progressive" in Iraq and Libya.

If Trump wasn't such a racist douche I would vote for him over Clinton in a heartbeat. He's socially fairly moderate on all non-race related issues and isn't afraid to say screw you to Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Hillary might be progressive compared to most Republicans, but she certainly isn't progressive *FOR A DEMOCRAT*. Most of her positions are pretty standard for the party there... gun control being the one thing she's gone out on a limb on (and given the NRA's strong ties to the Republicans, weakening the NRA would be a reasonable long term strategy too). She is definitely stronger than Bernie on gun control, but he's picked his battles elsewhere.

Hillary also flip flops quite a bit. When she was First Lady she lobbied Bill to veto a bankruptcy bill, an identical version of which came up to the Senate while she was Senator and she voted for it. People also forget that in 2008 she ran to Obama's right, trying to appeal to white working class voters. Trying to fan the flames of the Jeremiah Wright fiasco and making a big deal out of Farrakhan's endorsement, are just two examples of her tactics. She is principally an opportunist. There are a few issues she is genuinely progressive on, but even guns and gay rights she has flipped on.

Hillary is about political expediency, she is more influence by Republicans than by her voters

@Putin that sounds more to me like developing her POV than flip flopping. I also don't hold the same views I did four years ago ;)

It's just a coincidence that her POV development coincided with the financial interests of her campaign contributors.

"developing her POV", nice. We are talking about seasoned politicians here, Demon.

Why hire spin writers at all when people brainwash themselves.

Well lets not forget the danger a 3rd party poses this election cycle. I for one am very concerned about this lemonparty thing I keep hearing about.

"Well lets not forget the danger a 3rd party poses this election cycle. I for one am very concerned about this lemonparty thing I keep hearing about."

No. Don't worry about it. Trolls like the lemonparty are just superficial attention whores. They come and go. Best thing to do is ignore them.

Yea but very popular with seniors... ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Mayor Bloomberg is a legitimate threat because he has loads of money and could hand the election to the Republicans out of spite to the left.

If Trump, Bloomberg, Kasich, and Sanders (presuming none win their respective nomination) all ran as independents, we would have an actual multipartisan election where we have the option to vote for our preferred candidate rather than desperately holding hope in a lesser evil and thinking that it will be better in future elections (during which time 5% of your life has gone by).

Multipartisan elections are terrible in a winner take all election. You'd have a president with no legitimacy unless you had a run off, and with a run off you'd still have the 'lesser of two evils' problem.

http://www.theonion.com/article/demoralized-jeb-bush-succumbs-new-hampshire-heroin-52327