Support NeoGAF

[tokkun]

Isn't he beating every Republican candidate in the polls? I'm not so sure now but I remember reading that some time ago.

I don't know, but such comparisons are meaningless at this point. No one has been seriously attacking him on either the right or the left, whereas Clinton has been under attack since before she declared as a candidate. If the right saw him as a serious threat and started going after him over socialism, redistribution of wealth, and the tax increases needed for his proposals, you would see his negatives skyrocket - there is a lot more red meat there for conservatives than in lost emails.

The other important question is whether Sanders could mobilize Democratic minority voters, who were so crucial in the last 2 Presidential elections and who stayed home when Republicans won huge majorities in the midterms. And he is currently polling way behind Clinton with those groups.

 

[Maledict]

He's just falling in line with the party, and still, Hillary is "supposed" to be the nomination. I still like Frank, but people said the same about Obama and the country supported his message the first time around enough to over come the odds of what everyone thought his chances were.

No they didn't say the same about Obama *at all*. Half the establishment, including many key figures like Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer and easy weight donars, we relishing for Oabam to get into the race and behind him all the way.

People *really* seem to have forgotten what actually happened in 2008. The notion that Sanders is repeating what Obama did is factually wrong - it also ignore the fact that the establishment figures who were supporting Obama against Clinton are now solidly lined up behind Clinton,

 

[noshten]

Trump and Carson are leading in the polls for the GOP, but yeah sure Bernie Sanders stands no chance. I'm sure Trump/Carson and the rest of the circus will easily beat him in a general. All the GOP need to do is play soundbites of socialism like they did against Obama, perhaps ask Bernie if he was born in America.

Spoiler

/s

 

[BertramCooper]

Trump and Carson are leading in the polls for the GOP, but yeah sure Bernie Sanders stands no chance. I'm sure Trump/Carson and the rest of the circus will easily beat him in a general. All the GOP need to do is play soundbites of socialism like they did against Obama, perhaps ask Bernie if he was born in America.

Spoiler

/s

Just because the GOP is behaving recklessly doesn't mean that Democrats should as well.

And if the GOP sobers up and picks someone electable while Democrats go for Sanders, it could get very ugly. Marco Rubio, for instance, would probably slaughter Bernie Sanders.

Democrats' inherent advantages in the Electoral College don't give the party carte blanche to pick fringe candidates.

 

[noshten]

Just because the GOP is behaving recklessly doesn't mean that Democrats should as well.

And if the GOP sobers up and picks someone electable while Democrats go for Sanders, it could get very ugly. Marco Rubio, for instance, would probably slaughter Bernie Sanders.

Democrats' inherent advantages in the Electoral College don't give the party carte blanche to pick fringe candidates.

Doesn't make a difference by the time the GOP circus is finish every single one of their establishment candidates will be knee deep in sh*t. There would be far more soundbites and flip flops to make Romney look like the best candidate they have put forward in the last 12 years.

Marco Rubio would certainly not slaughter Sanders in an general - that the type of rhetoric you'd like to maintain but it's far removed from the reality of the situation.

Marco Rubio is far more fringe than Sanders, which is reflected by their polling numbers. Having 25% Nation Wide despite the first debate only now coming up is certainly as far removed from a fringe candidate as possible.

 

[giga]

Isn't he beating every Republican candidate in those hypothetical "what if" polls? I'm not so sure now but I remember reading that some time ago.

Nope.

 

[hoos30]

I guess people just have to wait until an "unimportant" election to vote for real progress.

I'm sure they'll let us know when a election is unimportant enough for people to vote for their beliefs.

No, you show up for your midterm and local elections to build a base of support. Waiting until the presidential years to support a fairy tale candidate has not and will never work.

 

[rbanke]

I think this mentality that 'so and so is a shoe in' is a huge problem in politics. Idealy, we should all feel like it's anyone's game because it could be. The older I get the more disenfranchised with the entire political system I become and this is a very large reason.

 

[zero shift]

I don't know, but such comparisons are meaningless at this point. No one has been seriously attacking him on either the right or the left, whereas Clinton has been under attack since before she declared as a candidate. If the right saw him as a serious threat and started going after him over socialism, redistribution of wealth, and the tax increases needed for his proposals, you would see his negatives skyrocket - there is a lot more red meat there for conservatives than in lost emails.

The other important question is whether Sanders could mobilize Democratic minority voters, who were so crucial in the last 2 Presidential elections and who stayed home when Republicans won huge majorities in the midterms. And he is currently polling way behind Clinton with those groups.

To be fair it depends how good of a debater Sanders is. If he is good enough to beat Hillary he'll be good enough to fan the flames. If he isn't good enough to fan the flames then he isn't good enough to beat Hillary. It sort of does make the "what if" scenario a bit meaningless, as well as the fear of a hypothetical "too left" candidate kind of nonsensical. The party that has a problem of pandering too much to its radical base and not enough to the general voter are the Republicans and not the Democrats. If anything the Democrats have the opposite problem.

 

[BertramCooper]

Doesn't make a difference by the time the GOP circus is finish every single one of their establishment candidates will be knee deep in sh*t. There would be far more soundbites and flip flops to make Romney look like the best candidate they have put forward in the last 12 years.

And Sanders will likely be knee-deep in shit once GOP operatives have actually started digging into his past. If you Sanders supporters somehow think that Bernie Sanders doesn't have a few skeletons in his closet, you're in for a rude awakening.

Marco Rubio would certainly not slaughter Sanders in an general - that the type of rhetoric you'd like to maintain but it's far removed from the reality of the situation.

Marco Rubio is far more fringe than Sanders, which is reflected by their polling numbers. Having 25% Nation Wide despite the first debate only now coming up is certainly as far removed from a fringe candidate as possible.

Marco Rubio's positions on things like abortion are absolutely extreme. I agree with you there. But Rubio is a young, energetic and good-looking candidate. Bernie Sanders is elderly, unkempt and grating. In a general election it would be much easier for Republicans to paint Sanders as an extremist than it will be for Democrats to do the same to Rubio.

 

[Arkeband]

So about that crime bill Bernie voted yay on despite his vocal opposition to mass incarceration, what a liar

The one that it's been explained that:

1) Was going to pass anyway (not an excuse by itself), but...
2) Included the Violence Against Women Act.
3) Included the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.

If he had voted against this, it would have been spun that he voted against women's civil rights. "Bernie sanders doesn't care about women!!!"
Joe Biden's comments towards Republicans who have fought this bill every step of the way was that they were being "this sort of Neanderthal crowd". BERNIE SANDERS IS A NEANDERTHAL!

And gun-loving Bernie Sanders, not tough enough on guns, claims he voted for it in part because of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which thanks to Republicans and the NRA, expired in 2013. You know if he voted against this, it would be spun into "Bernie Sanders opposed assault weapons bans."

By the way, this bill was written by Joe Biden and passed into law by Bill Clinton, just to make sure it's clear that Bernie Sanders didn't write and pass the thing by himself, so try not to make him the face of it too vehemently.

Also when this thread is about how Bernie isn't pragmatic, bringing up one of the few points in long political career where he had to compromise on his ideals seems like an odd choice.

 

[dramatis]

.

I'm aware of the reasons for why he voted for the bill. I think it was a reasonable choice at the time. I don't actually hold it against Bernie. But since Bernie supporters loved bringing up Bernie's opposition to mass incarceration as a pro, I like bringing up his vote for mass incarceration too.

What I'm critiquing is the double standard Inuhanyou applies to Hillary for changing her mind despite having excused Bernie as pragmatic about his vote.

 

[rjinaz]

A little off topic but man I am so ready for the debate tomorrow. Looks like we have the official podium order:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/11/politics/cnn-democratic-debate-podium-order/

 

[Zaptruder]

Bernie Sanders needs to be given as much support as is possible, by anyone that even modestly aligns with his positions.

It's unlikely he'll win (but if he does beat Hilary, does that mean it's sunk for the democrats? Unlikely given the republican field), but it will signal the importance of a rising group in the democrats willing to take the party back to the ideals of liberalism, rather than allowing a continued 'pragmatic slide' into the right wing neoliberalist hell we find the world inching towards everyday.

 

[Veritigo_X]

A little off topic but man I am so ready for the debate tomorrow. Looks like we have the official podium order:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/11/politics/cnn-democratic-debate-podium-order/

Who the hell are the two guys on the end? I know democrats don't have as many candidates as the republicans, but they shouldn't just let anyone wander on the main stage. I think a JV debate would've been acceptable here.

 

[rjinaz]

Probably the Fathers of a couple of the CNN heads. Have to at least make it look like there is more than two people running for president on the democrat side.

 

[Zyae]

And Sanders will likely be knee-deep in shit once GOP operatives have actually started digging into his past. If you Sanders supporters somehow think that Bernie Sanders doesn't have a few skeletons in his closet, you're in for a rude awakening.



Marco Rubio's positions on things like abortion are absolutely extreme. I agree with you there. But Rubio is a young, energetic and good-looking candidate. Bernie Sanders is elderly, unkempt and grating. In a general election it would be much easier for Republicans to paint Sanders as an extremist than it will be for Democrats to do the same to Rubio.

I like how you make statements and act as if they are fact because you posted them.

 

[B-Dubs]

A little off topic but man I am so ready for the debate tomorrow. Looks like we have the official podium order:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/11/politics/cnn-democratic-debate-podium-order/

If they needed more candidates I am available.

Wait, is that my uncle Craig? Uncle Craig, what are you doing up there you old drunk!

 

[dramatis]

If they needed more candidates I am available.

Wait, is that my uncle Craig? Uncle Craig, what are you doing up there you old drunk!

B-Dubs are you making the debate thread?

 

[QuiteWhittle]

Who the hell are the two guys on the end? I know democrats don't have as many candidates as the republicans, but they shouldn't just let anyone wander on the main stage. I think a JV debate would've been acceptable here.

Thomas Carcetti and a blacksmith.

 

[Ziltoidia 9]

No they didn't say the same about Obama *at all*. Half the establishment, including many key figures like Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer and easy weight donars, we relishing for Oabam to get into the race and behind him all the way.

People *really* seem to have forgotten what actually happened in 2008. The notion that Sanders is repeating what Obama did is factually wrong - it also ignore the fact that the establishment figures who were supporting Obama against Clinton are now solidly lined up behind Clinton,

It wasn't until Iowa that anyone thought Obama could possibly win the nomination (actually it wasn't until like may of the election year). Although, one thing Obama had going for him were a tons of debate's that were held the year prior to Iowa. So tomorrow night will be a key factor in how the country sees Sanders, because face it, most voters don't even know who he is yet.

Obama eventually won, I think, because of his stance on foreign policy and war. If sanders goes on to win nomination some how, its because of his stance on economy and inequality of wealth distribution.

Sanders could possibly use corporations like Obama used "hawkish" war thinking, or in Hillary's case with Iraq, following bad information. Sanders has always been for the growth of the middle class, its possible with the cynicism that people have for Hillary that he can plant doubts in their minds about her being really committed to helping out the bottom 80% of the country.

 

[BertramCooper]

I like how you make statements and act as if they are fact because you posted them.

It's called "being familiar enough with politics to know how this sort of thing would play out."

It doesn't take a genius to realize the very obvious reality that a Rubio/Sanders matchup would be a nightmare for Democrats.

 

[nomster]

Thomas Carcetti and a blacksmith.

Carcetti isnt on the end

 

[Condom]

Maybe the liberals here should look beyond American politics and look at what kind of 'succes' pragmatism brought the left in Europe; fucking nothing

Perhaps your goal is being mocked at by the rightwing for being weak, then keep on being dysfunctional with Hilary until 2020.

 

[B-Dubs]

B-Dubs are you making the debate thread?

Unfortunately, I don't have the free time for this one but I am doing the next one. If I get home early enough, and if I'm not too drunk after the Met game, I might put something together.

EDIT: Actually, thinking about it I might just do it. I have a fairly good idea I may be able to pull off while I'm at work today.

Thomas Carcetti and a blacksmith.

So it is my Uncle Craig!

 

[QuiteWhittle]

Carcetti isnt on the end

Oops, a Confederate apologist then.

 

[Coolio McAwesome]

Even if Bernie doesn't win, he can still pull his party (and the country) more to the center. He can energize the populace to start paying attention to things like income inequality, unfair healthcare costs, or the TPP. Win or lose, Bernie can shape the conversation and get more people engaged in politics. Hilary is an intelligent and savvy politician. If a wave of energy is coming at her, she'll be smart enough to ride it. Creating that wave of energy is important, even if some else ends up using it.

 

[Veritigo_X]

Unfortunately, I don't have the free time for this one but I am doing the next one. If I get home early enough, and if I'm not too drunk after the Met game, I might put something together.

I think it would be fair to find a republican on here to make the debate thread anyway. Let them have their fun. If no republicans are available I'd be willing to pretend for a night.

Edit: Fuck my original post. DO IT.

 

[rjinaz]

Unfortunately, I don't have the free time for this one but I am doing the next one. If I get home early enough, and if I'm not too drunk after the Met game, I might put something together.

EDIT: Actually, thinking about it I might just do it. I have a fairly good idea I may be able to pull off while I'm at work today.



So it is my Uncle Craig!

whoohoo, I love your debate threads. This debate will be much different for me, not because of the other party, but because I don't have to be drunk to make it through it.

I think it would be fair to find a republican on here to make the debate thread anyway. Let them have their fun. If no republicans are available I'd be willing to pretend for a night.

That would be fine but what's more likely to happen is a thread isn't made at all.

 

[B-Dubs]

I think it would be fair to find a republican on here to make the debate thread anyway. Let them have their fun. If no republicans are available I'd be willing to pretend for a night.

Edit: Fuck my original post. DO IT.

I gave them the option of doing the last GOP debate but no one stepped up, so I figure it's now my job.

I'm picking out the gifs now and planning my photoshops as we speak. The song has already been chosen. I hope you guys like Blue Oyster Cult.

EDIT: Oh my god, this is going to write itself. :lol

 

[Dictator93]

So often have I been talking with someone how broken and unequal the socio-economic situation in the US is... and they are american... and they concede at the end that any other way of life is "wishful thinking" and unrealistic.

Surely the system of oppression would never instill an ideology in people that other forms of life and economy are impossible.

Never.

 

[Veritigo_X]

I gave them the option of doing the last GOP debate but no one stepped up, so I figure it's now my job.

I'm picking out the gifs now and planning my photoshops as we speak. The song has already been chosen. I hope you guys like Blue Oyster Cult.

EDIT: Oh my god, this is going to write itself. :lol

Bernin' for You?

 

[B-Dubs]

Bernin' for You?

You'll never see it coming until you open the thread, but I do promise that it is inspired.

 

[QuiteWhittle]

Maybe the liberals here should look beyond American politics and look at what kind of 'succes' pragmatism brought the left in Europe; fucking nothing

Perhaps your goal is being mocked at by the rightwing for being weak, then keep on being dysfunctional with Hilary until 2020.

Do posts like this come from an alternate realty? Where third way pragmatism didn't bring the Democrats their first successes after nearly 24 years of Republican dominance at the presidential level? Or where congressional Republicans aren't tearing themselves apart from the inside while minority leaders Pelosi and Reid run a pretty tight ship?

 

[Maledict]

It wasn't until Iowa that anyone thought Obama could possibly win the nomination (actually it wasn't until like may of the election year). Although, one thing Obama had going for him were a tons of debate's that were held the year prior to Iowa. So tomorrow night will be a key factor in how the country sees Sanders, because face it, most voters don't even know who he is yet.

Obama eventually won, I think, because of his stance on foreign policy and war. If sanders goes on to win nomination some how, its because of his stance on economy and inequality of wealth distribution.

Sanders could possibly use corporations like Obama used "hawkish" war thinking, or in Hillary's case with Iraq, following bad information. Sanders has always been for the growth of the middle class, its possible with the cynicism that people have for Hillary that he can plant doubts in their minds about her being really committed to helping out the bottom 80% of the country.

Um, this is factually not true. Obama was the great hope of the democratic establishment and donar base who wanted to stop Clinton - they didn't do it as a joke. Multimillion dollar donars don't give interviews to the New York Times slamming the Clintons if they weren't hoping he would win in the end. And in terms of winning, we knew after Super Tuesday that Obama was going to win, the mathematics was simply too hard for Hilary to overcome once her firewall failed. The only question was how long it would take - One of the main reasons Hilary stayed in the race was the feeling at he would somehow self explode (remember all the furore over the whitey tape?).

And the debates *hurt* Obama - he performed poorly in them, Clinton did really well. The debates actually reinforced the perception he was a light weight who wasn't ready for the job. What carried Obama was his message, campaigning and support, and the underlying massive issue over the Iraq war.

 

[vainglorious]

Do posts like this come from an alternate realty? Where third way pragmatism didn't bring the Democrats their first successes after nearly 24 years of Republican dominance at the presidential level? Or where congressional Republicans aren't tearing themselves apart from the inside while minority leaders Pelosi and Reid run a pretty tight ship?

Building on what you said.

The ideologically pure strategy presented by the Tea Party has completely backfired on the Republican Party.

The idea of working with and engaging President Obama has become so toxic that Republicans have effectively removed themselves from the policy making process. So instead of working with the White House and Democrats in Congress and receiving conservative policy concessions the Republicans have instead forced the President into unilateral decision making with Executive Orders.

How has that advanced conservative policy agendas for the Republicans? It hasn't. It's had the exact opposite effect instead.

And now the Republicans can't even elect a fucking Speaker.

Why are we lauding the Republican caucus and its voters for being ideologically pure when it's literally destroying their party?

 

[zero shift]

Bernie Sanders needs to be given as much support as is possible, by anyone that even modestly aligns with his positions.

It's unlikely he'll win (but if he does beat Hilary, does that mean it's sunk for the democrats? Unlikely given the republican field), but it will signal the importance of a rising group in the democrats willing to take the party back to the ideals of liberalism, rather than allowing a continued 'pragmatic slide' into the right wing neoliberalist hell we find the world inching towards everyday.

Pretty much. The fact that many people on the left are scared that some of the left will show him some support because it could lead to a one in a million chance of him beating Hillary which would then lead to another off chance that Bernie could possibly lose the presidential election is really telling how the left ended up where it is currently.

Building on what you said.

The ideologically pure strategy presented by the Tea Party has completely backfired on the Republican Party.

The idea of working with and engaging President Obama has become so toxic that Republicans have effectively removed themselves from the policy making process. So instead of working with the White House and Democrats in Congress and receiving conservative policy concessions the Republicans have instead forced the President into unilateral decision making with Executive Orders.

How has that advanced conservative policy agendas for the Republicans? It hasn't. It's had the exact opposite effect instead.

And now the Republicans can't even elect a fucking Speaker.

Why are we lauding the Republican caucus and its voters for being ideologically pure when it's literally destroying their party?

How is merely pushing Democrats to support leftist policies similar to stating the party should be an uncompromising far left wing party? The current Democratic party is so far away from that it is ridiculous to even bring up. People don't bring up the Tea Party era of Republicans as an example, but everything that occurred prior.

 

[Dictator93]

Building on what you said.

The ideologically pure strategy presented by the Tea Party has completely backfired on the Republican Party.

The idea of working with and engaging President Obama has become so toxic that Republicans have effectively removed themselves from the policy making process. So instead of working with the White House and Democrats in Congress and receiving conservative policy concessions the Republicans have instead forced the President into unilateral decision making with Executive Orders.

How has that advanced conservative policy agendas for the Republicans? It hasn't. It's had the exact opposite effect instead.

And now the Republicans can't even elect a fucking Speaker.

Why are we lauding the Republican caucus and its voters for being ideologically pure when it's literally destroying their party?

Isn't it a good thing if monolitich parties break into smaller ones? Sure the US system does not support smaller parties well with FPTP, but having people able to elect and vote for people that more ideologically represent them sounds good to me.

Just need proportional voting and a parliamentary system !

 

[vainglorious]

How is merely pushing Democrats to support leftist policies similar to stating the party should be an uncompromising far left wing party? The current Democratic party is so far away from that it is ridiculous to even bring up. People don't bring up the Tea Party era of Republicans as an example, but everything that occurred prior.

When a candidate is a self described socialist, which is a label that the Democratic Party has been running away from since the 80s, no - it's not a ridiculous issue to bring up.

 

[AnotherDayAnotherDollar]

The "my candidate or I'm voting for the other party/staying home" folks are the ones being chastised here. My way or the highway rarely works in politics, and certainly isn't reasonable for elections.

As someone who may vote for the first time next year and registered independent because I don't want to be associated with any party, what's wrong with that thinking? If I like candidate A, but that candidate is not running and the candidates who are running don't really jive well with me, why would I go and vote "for the party"? For example, I lean right on tax reforms, though, to be fair, I don't think any of the DNC candidates have come out with what their tax plan will be. IMO, for my vote, it is "my way or the highway" because I'm not getting my ass out of the house if I don't agree with, trust, or like the candidates that are in the running at that point in time.

 

[phanphare]

::blushes::

I've always wanted to think wishfully

 

[rjinaz]

When a candidate is a self described socialist, which is a label that the Democratic Party has been running away from since the 80s, no - it's not a ridiculous issue to bring up.

A lot has changed. Many 1st world countries are quickly turning socialist. If anything America should be embarrassed it is behind. I think Bernie will be a catalyst, pushing the country in the right direction despite the fact that he won't be president and I'd like to think that is his plan. You're not wrong though, it will be brought up because it is what it is.

::blushes::

I've always wanted to think wishfully

Same here and I'll continue to be. That said, I'll be a realist when I need to be.

 

[Arkeband]

When a candidate is a self described socialist, which is a label that the Democratic Party has been running away from since the 80s, no - it's not a ridiculous issue to bring up.

I think it's important to add context to this "running away" line - did the Democrats demonize socialism? Did Americans demonize it on their own? Did they run away from it because they didn't want Republicans to benefit if they tried to do the right thing and educate the largely un-educatable on what socialism actually is?

If you listened to Bobby Jindal's rhetoric during the most recent kid's table debate, and I know he's a nutjob, but the seething disdain for socialism is apparent on that side. "Their best candidate is a socialist! You can't make this stuff up!" It's pants-on-head crazy to them. They live in an alternate universe where they drive to work on unsocialized road systems and are protected every day by a non-socialized military before retiring to collect their social security checks.

 

[noshten]

When a candidate is a self described socialist, which is a label that the Democratic Party has been running away from since the 80s, no - it's not a ridiculous issue to bring up.

They've already fired all the Socialist bullets at Obama

 

[AnotherDayAnotherDollar]

A question for some of you guys, do you think Clinton is unbeatable? Because the impression I get is that some people seem to think the primaries AND general is a gimme for her.

Who the hell are the two guys on the end? I know democrats don't have as many candidates as the republicans, but they shouldn't just let anyone wander on the main stage. I think a JV debate would've been acceptable here.

Chaffe is the "let's get America to use the metric system guy". As much as I would like to see that happen, that's not a high priority right now.

Nope.

Could you please provide a source for that? And how Hillary does against the GOP candidates? I have also seen some of those hypothetical polls and Sanders does just as well, if not better than Clinton, so it would be good to see where that is coming from.

 

[noshten]

Could you please provide a source for that? And how Hillary does against the GOP candidates? I have also seen some of those hypothetical polls and Sanders does just as well, if not better than Clinton, so it would be good to see where that is coming from.

Clinton does a lot better in States where Sanders doesn't have organizational infrastructure.
There haven't been many National Wide polls on the possible match ups.
In Iowa and NH where most of the focus has been for Sanders thus far, he does better than Clinton in the potential match-ups.

Iowa: Trump vs. Clinton NBC/WSJ/Marist Trump 48, Clinton 41 Trump +7
Iowa: Bush vs. Clinton NBC/WSJ/Marist Bush 50, Clinton 40 Bush +10
Iowa: Fiorina vs. Clinton NBC/WSJ/Marist Fiorina 52, Clinton 38 Fiorina +14
Iowa: Trump vs. Sanders NBC/WSJ/Marist Sanders 48, Trump 43 Sanders +5
Iowa: Bush vs. Sanders NBC/WSJ/Marist Bush 46, Sanders 44 Bush +2
Iowa: Fiorina vs. Sanders NBC/WSJ/Marist Fiorina 45, Sanders 42 Fiorina +3

New Hampshire: Trump vs. Clinton NBC/WSJ/Marist Clinton 48, Trump 45 Clinton +3
New Hampshire: Bush vs. Clinton NBC/WSJ/Marist Bush 49, Clinton 42 Bush +7
New Hampshire: Fiorina vs. Clinton NBC/WSJ/Marist Fiorina 50, Clinton 42 Fiorina +8
New Hampshire: Trump vs. Sanders NBC/WSJ/Marist Sanders 52, Trump 42 Sanders +10
New Hampshire: Bush vs. Sanders NBC/WSJ/Marist Sanders 46, Bush 46 Tie
New Hampshire: Fiorina vs. Sanders NBC/WSJ/Marist Sanders 47, Fiorina 45 Sanders +2

 

[giga]

A question for some of you guys, do you think Clinton is unbeatable? Because the impression I get is that some people seem to think the primaries AND general is a gimme for her.



Chaffe is the "let's get America to use the metric system guy". As much as I would like to see that happen, that's not a high priority right now.



Could you please provide a source for that? And how Hillary does against the GOP candidates? I have also seen some of those hypothetical polls and Sanders does just as well, if not better than Clinton, so it would be good to see where that is coming from.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_NationalGOP_100615.pdf

 

[Ziltoidia 9]

Um, this is factually not true. Obama was the great hope of the democratic establishment and donar base who wanted to stop Clinton - they didn't do it as a joke. Multimillion dollar donars don't give interviews to the New York Times slamming the Clintons if they weren't hoping he would win in the end. And in terms of winning, we knew after Super Tuesday that Obama was going to win, the mathematics was simply too hard for Hilary to overcome once her firewall failed. The only question was how long it would take - One of the main reasons Hilary stayed in the race was the feeling at he would somehow self explode (remember all the furore over the whitey tape?).

And the debates *hurt* Obama - he performed poorly in them, Clinton did really well. The debates actually reinforced the perception he was a light weight who wasn't ready for the job. What carried Obama was his message, campaigning and support, and the underlying massive issue over the Iraq war.

I paid really close attention from the start of the debates in may of 2007, and if I'm getting specifics wrong, I don't mean do. I'm really not trying to equate Obama and Sanders as being the same, but there are similarities. The main difference this time around is, yes, the party establishment is very pro Clinton, but I think that is the case because they have to be. This is her last chance at the white house basically.

Anyway, 2007 feels like so long ago. I really don't see Sanders winning anyway. I just don't think there is enough flexibility in the powers at be now.

 

[vainglorious]

As someone who may vote for the first time next year and registered independent because I don't want to be associated with any party, what's wrong with that thinking? If I like candidate A, but that candidate is not running and the candidates who are running don't really jive well with me, why would I go and vote "for the party"? For example, I lean right on tax reforms, though, to be fair, I don't think any of the DNC candidates have come out with what their tax plan will be. IMO, for my vote, it is "my way or the highway" because I'm not getting my ass out of the house if I don't agree with, trust, or like the candidates that are in the running at that point in time.

Politics is not a zero-sum game. Quick example - if you care one iota about the make up of the Supreme Court, 3 of its justices will be in their 80s by next year. The influence that these justices wield in a life time post at the Supreme Court extends beyond the serving terms of the Presidents who nominate them.

So yes, you should get out and support a candidate whom you are able to find common ground with during the general election. But if you'd rather feel good about yourself and treat your vote as a form of self-validation then that's your prerogative.

 

[dramatis]

A question for some of you guys, do you think Clinton is unbeatable? Because the impression I get is that some people seem to think the primaries AND general is a gimme for her.

Hillary is not unbeatable, but it is unlikely the efforts of other candidates that would be able to, in a hypothetical situation, take her down.

Short of game-changing external events (economic crash, major terrorist attack, etc.) or lack of effort/misguided effort from her campaign, Hillary probably won't be beat.

Chaffe is the "let's get America to use the metric system guy". As much as I would like to see that happen, that's not a high priority right now.

His name is actually Chafee lol

But that's basically his level of recognition, that people can't spell his name

Could you please provide a source for that? And how Hillary does against the GOP candidates? I have also seen some of those hypothetical polls and Sanders does just as well, if not better than Clinton, so it would be good to see where that is coming from.

So for most polls the easy places to find and view individual polls and also aggregate numbers are

RealClearPolitics (site that FINALLY updated their web design, hooray (they're right-leaning, but they do pretty well just tabulating poll data))
or
Pollster (collab with HuffPost, but they're just inclined to dump everything in the graph and just leave it)

The data referenced by giga comes specifically from here where you'll have to scroll down to October 6 to find the General Election polling data by PPP. "General Election" would be nationwide polling, as opposed to individual state polling. PPP's a pretty good pollster.