Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
DISCLAIMER: Please only vote if you are planning to vote in the PA primary on 04/26/16. I have chosen to make the poll anonymous so those who wish to vote don't have to fear future retaliation or personal attacks on here.
Pennsylvanians will be heading to the polls on Tuesday, April 26, 2016 to cast their ballots in favor of the Democratic Party's eventual nominee for our nation's presidency. Right now the two clear front-runners are former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, of Westchester County, NY, and U.S. Senator Bernard "Bernie" Sanders, a former Independent from Burlington, Vermont. Although the media remains biased in already tallying superdelegates MONTHS before the convention this summer when they actually make up their minds and cast their own votes (see 2008 when superdelegates "in the bag" early on for then-Senator Clinton changed their minds), Secretary Clinton currently has the edge over Senator Sanders, even without superdelegates being tallied.
Given that the Pittsburgh sub-forum is, by far, the most active sub-forum on here for Pennsylvania, I thought it would be prudent to post this thread in our city's sub-forum for discussion. As a registered Democrat myself who has voted for Democrats over Republicans in various races in a roughly 2:1 ratio since turning 18 a decade ago I decided to focus this poll on the Democratic race. Someone who is following the Republican race more closely should feel free to post a similar poll on here for that side of the political aisle.
If you wish to make your choice known, then feel free to post a reply with which candidate you're supporting and why. Please keep this thread calm and respectful---feel free to debate and critique positions, but do NOT attack each other individually. Thanks!
I plan to vote for Sen. Sanders. I know very well that he won't be able to deliver on most of his promises due to the presence of a very conservative Congress, but I admire him for his decades of governing with his finger on the pulse of the socioeconomic struggles of those of us in the working-class.
I'd rather have him shoot for a $15/hr. Federal minimum wage and be stonewalled by a Republican Congress down to $12/hr. rather than have his opponent go in at $12/hr. and be stonewalled down to $9/hr.
I'd rather have him push for Universal Health Care so the tens of millions in this country who remain uninsured due to being caught in the middle---"too rich" to qualify for an Affordable Care Act subsidy but "too poor" to afford $200/month for insurance plus out-of-pocket expenses---can have coverage. I'd rather pay $200/month more in taxes to have government-run insurance rather than $300/month to line the pockets of private health insurance executives.
Why won't Sec. Clinton release the transcripts of her speeches given to Wall Street? Her claim to do so "when others do the same" is laughable when Sen. Sanders hasn't given speeches to Wall Street.
I view a vote for Sec. Clinton to be an endorsement of a continuation of the status quo, and since I'm not happy with the status quo and also don't want to vote for the xenophobic "outsider" running on the GOP side I'm casting my vote for Sen. Sanders.
I watched "The Big Short" and suggest others do the same. If, after watching it, you aren't cautious about supporting a presidential candidate who is heavily-funded BY the same Wall Street-related interests that plunged us into the Great Recession, which stunted the socioeconomic advancement of we Millennials and hit the retirement accounts of Baby Boomers very heavily due to corporate avarice, then I don't know what to tell you.
I may sit out in November if Sen. Sanders isn't the party's nominee UNLESS Sec. Clinton and her supporters can convince me how to overlook my apprehensions about her close ties to Wall Street.
Neither? If I had to choose, it would be Sanders - as much as I think he lives in an economic bizarro world he at least comes across as a genuine caring nice guy rather than the narcissistic, lying, Wall Street loving, incompetent, FlipFlopping individual he's against. They being said, the Dem establishment has made it impossible for him to ever actually get the nomination with the undemocratic super delegates scheme.
If the general is Clinton-Trump god help us all - though I'm not actually too worried either way as those old white guys progressives deride 230+ years ago did a pretty good job at crafting a government that restrains the executive very well.
I plan to vote for Sen. Sanders. I know very well that he won't be able to deliver on most of his promises due to the presence of a very conservative Congress, but I admire him for his decades of governing with his finger on the pulse of the socioeconomic struggles of those of us in the working-class...
I am voting for Sanders. I also realize he will get nothing through, but it sends a message to Washington people are tired of the top taking everything. Heck even as an investor, it sickens me how much CEO's are bringing down. Most are making over a million a month and their companies aren't even doing that well, and most stock prices are flatlining now, but they give themselves huge raises and send much of their work overseas. Also, I think Sanders would do a good job internationally, which is important.
If Sanders doesn't get in, I will vote for Clinton. The GOP is too embarrassing this time around. I would even say borderline nuts. Not sure what happened to the republican party? They had one of the best presidents of all time with Eisenhower. He pulled money from the Pentagon and build infrastructure AND was fiscally conservative with a balanced budget. Would be great to get someone like that on the republican ticket.
I think by the time the primary comes around, the nomination will be already in the bag for Mrs. Clinton.
Although I can't see it going any other way even if it was contested. Democratic PA voters chose Clinton's wife in 2008 primary, and have generally been pretty difficult with insurgent "pie in the sky" candidates over the years, when the contest has been contested.
McGovern's positions really reflect Sanders' best among recent candidates, and the eventual 1972 candidate finished 3rd behind Humphrey and Wallace on his march to the nomination in that contest.
I think by the time the primary comes around, the nomination will be already in the bag for Mrs. Clinton.
Yeah, I was looking at the lineup of state primaries and most of the state primaries coming up will favor Clinton. It is kind of a bummer that NY and CA are so late in the primary voting. I think Sanders could do very well there and could have some momentum, but by the time it gets around to those powerhouse states, it will be too late. Sanders is what our country actually needs to rock the greed, but it isn't going to happen this time around. It will happen in my lifetime though. Eventually people are going to get tired of the top taking it all and leaving some crumbs.
I think by the time the primary comes around, the nomination will be already in the bag for Mrs. Clinton.
Although I can't see it going any other way even if it was contested. Democratic PA voters chose Clinton's wife in 2008 primary, and have generally been pretty difficult with insurgent "pie in the sky" candidates over the years, when the contest has been contested.
McGovern's positions really reflect Sanders' best among recent candidates, and the eventual 1972 candidate finished 3rd behind Humphrey and Wallace on his march to the nomination in that contest.
I think all the primary's should be the same day in every state so as not to influence voters in other states.
Kind of pointless to go vote when one candidate has it locked up.
I don't see anybody out scoring Trump or Hillary at this time.
So again the winner will come down to the least hated candidate.
I think all the primary's should be the same day in every state so as not to influence voters in other states.
We would have never had either Obama, nor Clinton, under a national kind of primary, as neither has nationwide exposure before they ran in the early primary states.
Quote:
Kind of pointless to go vote when one candidate has it locked up.
Much like most of our elections here in Pittsburgh.
Quote:
I don't see anybody out scoring Trump or Hillary at this time.
So again the winner will come down to the least hated candidate.
You'll have that some times, but both of those candidates that you dislike DO have millions of devoted supporters who think their pick would be the cat's meow as president. Sometimes they turn out better than you might think upfront, and sometimes your favorite wins and turns out to be a real lemon.
If (by some miracle chance) Sanders is on the ticket I'll vote him. If not, I'm switching parties to vote against Trump. I simply can't believe people believe he is actually trying to fix our country. That bastard is bored and just wants more power than he already has, and is using what he does best (lie to the uneducated) to get him that power. I am not the most PC person by any stretch of the imagination, but his message of hate and bigotry sickens me.
All I can say for certain is that Secretary Clinton's campaign staffers really need to strategize fastidiously if and when she secures the Democratic nomination to win over as many supporters of Senator Sanders as possible in November. While I may feel inclined to vote for Clinton merely as a vote AGAINST Donald Trump if he becomes the Republican presidential nominee, I have numerous friends on social media who proclaim they will under no circumstances vote for Secretary Clinton in November and will instead write-in Senator Sanders. If this happens, then Clinton will lose to the GOP nominee.
The sad thing is that as an individual who HAS voted for Republicans for offices in the past and likely WILL vote for Republicans in the future the GOP is missing out on my vote because if it was, let's say, Clinton vs. Kasich, then I may feel more inclined to vote for the latter. I can't vote for either Trump OR Cruz, though, as they are too far to the right socially, and I feel like one of those two will be the party's nominee. The Republican Party needs to realize that while many Millennials may share fiscally conservative principles with their party elders, they don't share many of the same views socially. The fact that "the gays", for example, were even mentioned at all in 2016 shows how far out-of-touch Republican party elders are with the future of the party, most of whom couldn't care less about one's sexual orientation. Unless the GOP starts pushing for candidates that are at least socially moderate, their party will not even be viable over the course of the next generation.
My problem with Hillary is that she's lied before and will lie again, especially on being an ally for the LGBT community when she's been on the record and on video saying marriage is between one man and one woman as recently as a few years ago. As much as you can call Bernie a "crazy commie grandpa" or a "socialist" (as if being a Democratic socialist is a sin) you can't really say he's dishonest. A lot of Clinton proponents try to argue that we "Bernie Bros" won't vote for Hillary because we're misogynistic. That's the case at all. I'd gladly had voted for Senator Elizabeth Warren, actually, for president if she had chosen to run, before Senator Sanders. I can't vote for a candidate that I feel is a liar, though. At least with Sanders you know you're getting "crazy hippy commie grandpa" because he's been that way for many decades. Hillary says she's "evolved", but she's worn SO MANY hats over the decades I can't tell if she's a Goldwater Republican or a Progressive Democrat anymore.
I have yet to meet a Hillary Clinton supporter that says they'll sit out in November if Bernie Sanders receives the nomination. If the mission of the DNC and/or Debbie Wasserman Schultz was to pull for Hillary as the party nominee, then they better back it up with a proper game plan to smooth over the apprehension Sanders's supporters have over her real (or perceived) allegiances to Wall Street.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
