Sanders v Clinton Campaign ads

32 comments on “Sanders v Clinton Campaign ads ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Lanthanide 1

   14 February 2016 at 9:26 am

   Bernie’s first one is pretty good. But the second is blah. Hillary’s are both ok.
   • AmaKiwi 1.1

     14 February 2016 at 10:15 am

     8 years as First Lady and 4 as Secretary of State to which I say, “Hillary, you weren’t a revolutionary then. Stop pretending to be one now. You’re a liberal. We need revolutionaries.”

     Enough is enough.
   • Pasupial 1.2

     14 February 2016 at 5:44 pm

     La

     I think Clinton’s are both blah, and do nothing to convince the watcher that she isn’t just remote from people, and selfservingly latching onto causes to boost her image rather than having any follow through. The first Sanders one strikes me as the better too, but they are probably smart to try tap into the America patriotic feeling at this stage when they must already have as many of the activists as they are going to get.

     There is a distinct upsurge in appealing to the black vote, with the southern primaries coming up. I think this Erica Garner one is powerful with how much space they give her, but the “Wheels of Inevitability” is shorter and will so probably be seen more:

     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oP4Xasc1t7Q
2. weka 2

   14 February 2016 at 10:40 am

   Broken Hilary Clinton, god I hope so.
3. weka 3

   14 February 2016 at 11:01 am

   A bit off topic, but following on from the superdelegate conversations over the past week,

   Here’s the consolation, however. Unlike elected delegates, superdelegates are unbound to any candidate even on the first ballot. They can switch whenever they like, and some of them probably will switch to Sanders if he extends his winning streak into more diverse states and eventually appears to have more of a mandate than Clinton among Democratic voters.

   Clinton knows this all too well; it’s exactly what happened to her in 2008 during her loss to Barack Obama. According to the website Democratic Convention Watch,1 Clinton began with a substantial advantage in superdelegates, leading Obama 154 to 50 when New Hampshire voted on Jan. 8, 2008. Obama narrowed his deficit in February and March, however, and overtook Clinton in superdelegates in mid-May. By the time Clinton ended her campaign on June 7, 2008, Obama had nearly a 2-to-1 superdelegate advantage over her.

   http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/superdelegates-might-not-save-hillary-clinton/
4. Dot 4

   14 February 2016 at 1:40 pm

   If Bernie Sanders is really a revolutionary leader
   he would have made more of an impression before now.
   • B 4.1

     14 February 2016 at 2:32 pm

     If you were to ask me, I think Sanders has made a huge impression on the American people and the people of the world. Even the bought and paid for media can’t ignore him and shutdown his spotlight. He has forced most of the other candidates, yes even on the republican side, to use the same tactics he is – but we all know who actually means what they are saying, everyone else has jumped on the bandwagon because they know their campaigns will suffer if they don’t.

     I guess impressions are somewhat personal opinion in this case, if you wait for a head in the sand media to see the shift in thinking Bernie has triggered then it is perhaps hard to see how extensive it actually is. Because of the huge political stage he stands on, whether he makes it or not, Bernie will be remembered as they guy who stood up and spoke about the things that history tells us gets a man killed. If you don’t think Bernie is a true revolutionary then neither was MLK.
     • AmaKiwi 4.1.1

       14 February 2016 at 6:28 pm

       A revolutionary would advocate overthrowing the present form of American governance.

       Saying that is illegal. It was the basis for jailing suspected communists in the 1950’s.

       IMO the US system of government is hopelessly out of date and shamefully undemocratic. Sanders cannot change that. But he could make improvements.
       • Colonial Viper 4.1.1.1

         14 February 2016 at 6:40 pm

         worth recalling that the system the Americans have today has been handed down to them from the “Founding Fathers.”

         Almost every single one of whom were wealthy land owning slave owners with no love of popular democracy as you could not trust the masses with that power. Blacks: no votes. Women: no votes. Senate: selected not elected. Etc.

         Put another way, the “Founding Fathers” were focussed on guaranteeing the freedoms and powers of the new American elite as separate from the European and British elite.
       • AmaKiwi 4.1.1.2

         14 February 2016 at 6:45 pm

         Post Script:

         When the USSR came apart some American politicians declared it proof their system was vastly superior, no doubt ordained by God.

         Having spent time in both the USA and the USSR, my reaction was, “The USA-USSR competition was a demolition derby between two clapped out garbage trucks.” It still is.
       • B 4.1.1.3

         14 February 2016 at 7:27 pm

         Completely understand where your logic is coming from but this seems to be more of a modern revolution idea, without the need for an over throw by sheer force. Is standing up and saying I am going to change who owns politics, media and flip the economy on its head not revolutionary thinking?

         Looking past the bullshit and the pathetic veil of a democracy American politics presents itself as, suggesting a change towards democratic socialism may not sound revolutionary, but relative to how things run at the moment it sure would be along the lines of a revolution.

         Always have to remember, in such a corrupt system where a lot of voters may not see outside their preconceived political views coming across as to extreme would only alienate people and paint a target on his back for the media and establishment politics to take pot shots at. While sticking strongly to truth and ideals, he still has to remain street smart.
   • Bill 4.2

     14 February 2016 at 6:55 pm

     He’s not revolutionary.

     He, like Corbyn, represents a last desperate dice roll for statism. It’ll fail, even though both men may become elected leaders of their respective countries.

     What comes after that will either be society’s complete capitulation to market economics, or its liberation from both market economics and thoroughly discredited notions of statism: depotism or democracy.
     • AmaKiwi 4.2.1

       15 February 2016 at 10:31 pm

       @ Bill

       “What comes after statism that will either be society’s complete capitulation to market economics, or its liberation from both market economics and thoroughly discredited notions of statism: depotism or democracy.”

       Or a third option: Complete collapse like the fall of the Roman empire.

       When Rome collapsed politically, so did its technology and infrastructure. Cities that enjoyed clean running water, efficient sewage systems, reliable food supplies, medicine, etc., would not experience them again for 1,500 years.

       Collapse is always close at hand, lurking in the shadows. Ask the people of Syria, Iraq, South Sudan, etc.
5. McGrath 5

   14 February 2016 at 3:03 pm

   Clinton has the problem where she comes across as false, and that the presidency should be hers only because “I’m Hillary and I deserve it”. Bernie on the other hand exudes confidence, honesty, and is not influenced by special-interest groups.

   Edit: Clarity
6. hoom 6

   14 February 2016 at 4:19 pm

   After the false Hope for Change from Obama I’m amazed that Bernie is doing well.
   I always thought Hillary would make a great Republican candidate…

   Despite my disappointment in Obama I can’t help but be hopeful that Bernie will succeed & actually bring the Change.
   • UncookedSelachimorpha 6.1

     15 February 2016 at 5:02 pm

     I’m hoping your hope comes true! A long way to go, but a Bernie win could be the first big shift in USA direction since Reagan took it down the dark path… (and NZ tagged along)
7. Colonial Viper 7

   14 February 2016 at 5:49 pm

   Clinton is the warmonger/bankster establishment choice. US$220,000 fee per corporate speech event anyone? It’s nothing more than legalised bribery.

   I’d vote Trump versus Clinton for the Presidency any day. We’d be far less likely to have a military or nuclear confrontation between Russia/China and the USA during a Trump presidency, compared to a hawkish Clinton presidency.
   • AmaKiwi 7.1

     14 February 2016 at 6:32 pm

     As Secretary of State, Clinton made the most outrageous claims for American exceptionalism. Ain’t gonna be no peace in the world if Hillary is in the oval office.
     • McFlock 7.1.1

       14 February 2016 at 6:35 pm

       On the other hand: Trump might not be faking just for the cheap seats.
       In which case the US and the globe is even more fucked.
       • AmaKiwi 7.1.1.1

         14 February 2016 at 6:51 pm

         All made possible by multinationals making millions selling nuclear technology to any scumbag dictatorship with money.

         Ain’t the free market wonderful? /sarc/
         • McFlock 7.1.1.1.1

           14 February 2016 at 6:57 pm

           That’s nice.

           However, the use of those weapons, by anyone, is probably more likely under trump than clinton. Not to mention the wall idea, his weapons-free attitude to syria, and the wee thing of mandatory documenting and tracking of people based solely on their religion.
         • Phil 7.1.1.1.2

           15 February 2016 at 1:35 pm

           multinationals making millions selling nuclear technology to any scumbag dictatorship with money.

           Without wanting to be glib about it, if you’re a dictator spending enough money that some overseas company is making ‘millions’ in profit from your nuclear (energy? weapons?) program, then you’re bad at dictatoring.

           If you look at the programs of Iran, Pakistan, India, North Korea, and so on, it’s pretty much all founded on the intellectual talent of their own citizens with Doctorates from Oxford, Harvard, etc.

           The technology is well understood and easy to replicate.
   • Andre 7.2

     14 February 2016 at 7:20 pm

     I spent the first half of the 90s in Philadelphia, when Trump was just a regional affliction instead of the global embarrassment he is today. How he operates was a fairly regular feature in the local news back then.

     While I would prefer Trump to any of the other Republicans, I’d vote for Clinton over Trump without hesitating. CV, I don’t think you’re far wrong in your assessment of Clinton, it’s that Trump is so ego-driven it’s impossible to predict how far he might be willing to go when it really came down to it. Whereas Clinton is very calculating. Which isn’t nice to be around in person, but is honestly a good thing in a POTUS.
   • Phil 7.3

     15 February 2016 at 1:27 pm

     We’d be far less likely to have a military or nuclear confrontation between Russia/China and the USA during a Trump presidency, compared to a hawkish Clinton presidency.

     No one, literally no one, is voting for Trump because he’d be less likely to go to war.
8. kenny 8

   14 February 2016 at 6:53 pm

   Clinton only wants to get elected, Sanders wants to change things for the better. She comes across as shallow, dishonest and un-authentic. She lacks the energy and enthusiasm for real change and is beholden to the money men of America.She is seen as being part of the Establishment of the past 40 years which has seen the steady decline of American supremacy and the likelihood of further decline.

   Once upon a time America was respected throughout the world, but not now.

   The young and socially aware know this and will vote accordingly.
   • UncookedSelachimorpha 8.1

     15 February 2016 at 5:09 pm

     Completely agree with Kenny.

     If Clinton wanted to something truly great for her country, she should recognise the dire state of the USA and the opportunity Bernie offers, and step aside. Would be a historic and heroic move.

     Won’t happen, but to me is the reality of the situation.
9. Michael 9

   14 February 2016 at 8:16 pm

   Clinton is about “me”, while Sanders is about “we”.

   Her messaging focuses on Clinton as a person, while Bernie’s messaging focuses on a social movement and the people.
   • Phil 9.1

     15 February 2016 at 1:25 pm

     Clinton is about “me”… Her messaging focuses on Clinton as a person

     Chicken and Egg?

     Clinton knows that one of her major weaknesses is, for want of a better word, charisma. Focusing the ads on Clinton as a person is a perfectly reasonable strategic response.
10. Phil 10

    15 February 2016 at 12:34 pm

    Look at the crowd shots from Sanders’ second ad…

    Whiter than the Oscars.
    • Crashcart 10.1

      16 February 2016 at 1:50 pm

      Most of them were taken in rallies in Iowa and New Hampshire where he was campaigning. It is not a surprise they would be white as snow. I think that is why on the later ones they went away from it as they copped a bit of flack for not being diverse in that add.
11. The Chairman 11

    15 February 2016 at 1:31 pm

    Outstanding indeed (first listed Sanders add)
12. Nck 12

    16 February 2016 at 8:45 am

    Feel the Bern….

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS