Offline
Here is a big reason many Sander's supporters will never support Clinton.
Here’s how much Hillary Clinton was paid for her 2013-2015 speeches:
Offline
I guess common don't like capitalism
Offline
Personally, I have no problem with Hillary making that much money from speeches, same as I don't begrudge CEO's from making whatever they make. I see no point in being "jealous" of what someone else was able to make, regardless of whether I think they earned it or deserved it.
Hillary isn't the first politician to make money from speeches, and won't be the last. But to Common's point, I think we all realize they didn't pay her to give these speeches because she is a great, motivational speaker. We all know they did this to gain influence, and Hillary, like many politicians, is willing to take every dollar.
I think Common is correct, there are some of Bernie's supporters who will look at things like this and never be able to support her.
Offline
She's working.
She's paying taxes.
Why would payment for speaking engagements be a negative thing?
In fact, if she's that much in demand then she's obviously very good at it. She has things to say that people want to hear.
Is Sanders pushing this? If so, I need to dial-down my opinion of him. I like the guy, he has a good attitude. But if he starts to go ugly under pressure then maybe he doesn't belong in high office.
Offline
I don't understand why it is OK, even inspirational, for someone to make a fortune speculating in real estate, or in extracting minerals from the earth, yet suspect to make a fortune by writing or speaking. In the absence of demonstrating a quid pro quo, I don't get Common's point.
BTW, didn't Churchill make a living by his wits, i.e. writing?
If Sanders supporters have a problem with this, then they, in my opinion, are welcome to support that populist hero who wrote The Art of the Deal.
Last edited by Goose (5/31/2016 6:31 pm)
Offline
Just how many is "many" anyway ?
Offline
tennyson wrote:
Just how many is "many" anyway ?
Excellent point.
If someone had taken a poll over Memorial Day 2008 of Clinton supporters, how many of them would have said that they would not support Obama? And how many of them eventually did?
The thread smacks of wishful thinking.
Offline
I don't know, recent history (since 1968), seems to suggest there is a good chance a significant portion of Sanders supporters will not vote for Clinton. In 1968 and 1980, the Dem primary had a "progressive" candidate challenge the parties "chosen" candidate, and in both of those elections the "party" candidate was not able to convince a significant portion of his primary challengers supporters to vote for them in November, and they lost.
I think the difference with 08 is that Hillary toned down her attacks by this point and was willing to play the party loyalist, while Bernie is not. Also in 08, the candidate who was considered "progressive" won the primary, where this time it is the parties chosen candidate who will win.
Offline
In 1980 the "chosen" candidate was a deeply unpopular incumbent.
Offline
Goose wrote:
tennyson wrote:
Just how many is "many" anyway ?
Excellent point.
If someone had taken a poll over Memorial Day 2008 of Clinton supporters, how many of them would have said that they would not support Obama? And how many of them eventually did?
The thread smacks of wishful thinking.
Just an observation. I always get a kick out of articles that are trying to make a point and they rely on words like some, many, etc (take your pick). Usually it is because it is not based upon any type of polling or sampling that can add support to their claim.
It may be true and most likely "some" Sanders supporter will not like her taking big money endorsements. But, I have NO IDEA just how many that might be ! I would imagine that even "some" Clinton supporters don't like the look of her taking the big money from the big players either.