Update to Snapshot: Hillary/Bernie
under Policy diffs only...
Bernie's are longer (beats Trump by more, helping other Dem candidates) based on head-to-head general election polls since 2/10/2016
Some Republicans have switched...
Why this Reagan Conservative Voted for Bernie
We have the Liberal Plutocratic Party and the Conservative Plutocratic Party. They both serve the same master. Who's more likely to protect us, a multi-millionaire corporate lawyer or a sub-millionaire social democrat?
You said "Her goals beyond that are unclear." about Rosemary Stein. Actually, her goals are very clear if you did the research on her. http://drrosemarystein.com/positions.html She is also exremely qualified http://drrosemarystein.com/about.html
I realize the Indy believes that HRC is the "safe" pick, even though she's uninspiring and has no real intention of driving actual progressive change. However, the counter to that would be the clusterF that is the GOP. With that much disarray, now is actually the best time to put up a real candidate. Bernie is unassailable from a personal standpoint, as opposed to HRC. This makes the Trump-Sanders debate much more winnable.
I'm shocked that the INDY decided to endorse Hillary Clinton. The least you could have done is acknowledge the sharp divide that faces the Democrats at this point and give space to both of them, maybe with a split picture of the two? Therefore letting voters decide between two Democratic candidates representing two very different paths. In this pick, the INDY appears to be tone-deaf to the population it serves. Makes me wonder about the other endorsements. Obviously I'm a Bernie supporter, and there are LOTS of us around here. What happened? We'll never know, but you have me saying WTF?
Journalists who cannot see beyond engineered political rhetoric and talking points of the day are in essence nothing more than shills for the political establishment. Nowhere is this more evident than the comparison here of Burr to Brannon in the primary contest for U'S Senate. Perhaps it would serve all of our interests if the journalist here would delve into a candidate's reasoning on the issues behind stand they take rather than always condensing our choices down to (always) two, usually illusory dichotomies, both enabling the major parties to continue our republic's slide into the oligarchy we have become, but few will discuss...
3 key issues: trade, war and Wall St., make Bernie's "coattails" longer (beats Trump by more and helps other Dem candidates). Consider head-to-head general election polls since Feb. 10, 2016... http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/why-…
I agree with the Indy's (narrow) endorsement of Hillary in the primary. I appreciate Bernie's platform (and Bernie) but I've come to believe that incremental progress achieves our goals more quickly than the promise of "revolution."
"Don't make promises you can't keep."
Judging from the above, you made a HUGE mistake endorsing Clinton. She is old-school with a bit of liberal veneer. Sanders is not only progressive, yet solid, as an Independent he doesnt have the rather corrupt baggage of the democratic party and many dem politicians. He will be able to reach Independents. Clinton won't. Sanders is the stronger candidate.
Don't fight it. You know you'll vote for Hillary, so suck it up and stop whining. Make the Clintons whole again!
I am leaning strongly toward Sen. Sanders: I am impressed with his integrity and I really "feel" that when I listen to him. I can't say either of those things about Sec. Clinton. I also increasingly think he is the more electable candidate, particularly against Donald Drumpf (I like entertain myself by imagining what those debates would look and sound like...). But I am not adamant about it and apparently the Indy is not the place to look for unbiased help with my decision. If the editorial board was indeed so divided, the "Team Hillary" "super-delegate" editor in chief must have put a pretty heavy thumb on one side of the scale. When you add in the condescending Indy cover with the bold print "Don' Fight It" I was left somewhere between aggravated and infuriated...Did anyone else find that choice of phrase odd...the classic phrase popular with men who force their unappreciated sexual attentions on women. Like other commenters, I think an unbiased vetting of both would have been more appropriate and I was personally pleased to see that the People's Alliance took the tact of endorsing Clinton OR Sanders. JW Finch
Folks at the Indy are probably basing this off the defeatist mindset of "We like Sanders but he wont win". And this is a mindset I dont understand. We arent voting in the general right now, we are voting in the Primary. If Sanders won the primary the polls show him doing best against all GOP candidates. So that defeatist mind set actually is false. Hopefully one day we can get a real progressive in the White House.
Or better yet. Maybe Hillary gets indicted so Bernie wins by default. That would be a big dose of Karma for the Clintons.
An publication named Indy, backing the Neoliberal Centrist Right candidate... Irony. Apparently the Editor in Chief needs to be fired, as he is driving the Progressive car right into neoliberal country.
You have a candidate you could barely mention anything bad about (minus him being more pragmatic about guns), and with lists and lists of bad things about Clinton, you still endorse Clinton? Endorsements are supposed to be based on evidence and facts... Seems like your Editor In Chief just chose to commit Propaganda suicide, judging from the other posters here. Very disappointing. I always do my own research on all candidates, but I know a few that take this publication seriously. I am quite sure their position will change after this rag hits their inbox. You blew this one... BIG TIME!
Bernie caucused with the Democrats for many years as an Independent Vermont Senator so I'm pretty sure he can work with Democratic legislators. At this point the Republicans aren't going to work with anyone.
I would rather vote for someone like Bernie who has great ideas for change. Even if he only accomplishes 10% of his goals, that is a massive improvement over Hillary. Hillary might accomplish 100% of her goals but her policies only continue to protect rich white people. I'd rather see someone represent the people even if we only move a few steps in the right direction. That's better than moving in the wrong direction.
I'm deeply saddened by this. I've always thought this source was antiestablishment. But you are endorsing Hillary, Ross, and Cooper of all people? I guess money is power.
How could you get this so wrong, Indy? It's a damn shame. I second others who have written that this ends my trust in Indy endorsements. The days of me taking your voter guides into the polls with me are over. It's telling, that the cover of your print issue reads "Don't fight it"—a phrase quite often used by someone trying to do something really bad to you against your wishes.
I will vote for the Democratic nominee. For those who insist on demonizing HRC, she is NOT the enemy. I admire both candidates. From Nate Silver's fivethirtyeight.com last year, Harry Enten wrote this article titled "Hillary Clinton was liberal. Hillary Clinton is Liberal." http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/hillary-clinton-was-liberal-hillary-clinton-is-liberal/
If we were voting for an Emperor, I would support Sanders - but we are voting for a President. Hopefully someone who might actually get something positive done. That is why I'm supporting Clinton. I think that even if Sanders were elected, he would be on the same path as Obama - someone who did not get much done because of implacable opposition from Republicans. I'm not even sure how deep his support would be among Democratic legislators since he is not and has not been a Democrat. I am not convinced that Clinton can accomplish much, but I think and am hopeful that she can get more done than Sanders.
I have serious reservations about Clinton - she is not a progressive - but this is not a progressive country, it is filled with very mean, very ignorant people. It is also filled with people who only show up during Presidential election years, pay no attention to local or state elections and therefore enable reactionary Republicans to take over state houses, redistrict Dem voters out of existence, etc, etc. ad nauseum.
Poll after poll shows that Bernie Sanders can win over any Republican candidate, while Clinton has a much less safe margin or loses outright. I'm so disappointed that your editor-in-chief "put his thumb on the scale" for your endorsement and more so that you perpetuate the myth of Clinton's electability. I'm a woman and a feminist who wants the candidate who will do the most good for everyone. That's Bernie Sanders by a landslide. See a collection of polls here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/la…
Hillary Clinton??? From what USE to be the progressive voice for North Carolina? So, what you're saying is: Vote for the oligarchy; Vote for Wall Street; Vote for corporate socialism; vote for more war that the defense contractors and their investors profit from and the middle class and working poor pay for; vote for Monsanto and the death of food; vote for fossil fuels and the death of the planet; vote to send more jobs overseas and to further privatize profit; vote for continued insurmountable student debt; vote for the 1% instead of voting for your own self interest; vote for Walmart wages as it'll be the only job you can get. There's a reason Alice Walton, Goldman Sachs, Citi bank, et al. are supporting her for president too. How utterly shameful. As a former native and 7th generation North Carolinian, reading this endorsement by the Indy completely affirms my decision to have moved to Oregon over 2 years ago. I no longer recognize it. Good luck!
Indy Week • 201 W. Main St., Suite 101, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation