Support NeoGAF

[Averon]

Democrats don't turn out to vote AGAINST something, they turn out to vote FOR something. This is the largest reason mid-term turnout is so low, the dems usually run to the middle and then berate younger voters for not turning out. Why turn-out if the candidate is campaigning on nothing you care about? If HRC is the nominee and her message is "I'm not as bad as Republican X" she will lose the election.

THIS.

The Democrats ran away from their accomplishments and Obama in 2010 and 2014. Both times they were blown out.

Trying to be Republican-lite, running away from your party, disowning your president that's popular with your base is a foolish election strategy. Mid-term elections is all about getting your voters excited out to the polls.

Why Democrats continue to think alienating their voters is a winning formula I'll never know.

 

[cpp_is_king]

http://people.howstuffworks.com/primary2.htm

So it's still stacked for the establishment, no matter how you slice it. no matter how shitty Rubio or Jeb does, everyone could get behind him and endorse him when they drop out, and he'd get a ton of delegates for free.

 

[Enduin]

This is true, and bodes well for any democrat nominee, but Hillary is already a known quantity. The republicans have been digging up her garbage for years, and it's just that, garbage.

Sanders has the potential to be a volatile target when the republican propaganda machine sets it's sights. We don't know how effective it could be, it's a risk. It might do nothing, and the centrist vote could be more intelligent than we give them credit for, but I have my doubts :/

While I totally agree Sanders is a relatively unknown quantity in a general election and there's definitely a chance of real negativity about his "socialist" ideas hurting him, I do take issue with the idea that Hillary is in any significantly better of a position based on her past.

She has not been elected into office for nearly a decade now. We have no real barometer for how little or great these attacks on her actually affect her among voters. Lots of Dems love her, but it takes a lot more than the base to win an election.

Just because the Republicans haven't been able to disgrace her or convict her of anything doesn't mean that the years of "scandals" from Benghazi to E-mail crap hasn't hurt her with swing voters and won't be potent material during the general election. Not to mention drudging up stuff from the further past during Bill's presidency. All they have to do is introduce doubt to make swing voters feel uneasy with her, which they kept up for years now with her. She's been able to deflect the majority of, but she's never been able to silence it or shut it down unequivocally. And that matters, the truth doesn't, just how it looks and how often you hear it.

It's by no means a sure fire weakness that will kill her chances or anything, but it is a potential liability. And one that people are too often just brushing aside. The base loves her, but once you get outside of that her likability drops a good deal and people don't care too much about how she weathered an 11 hour hearing and all that. All they care about is the fact that they keep hearing about this new thing about Benghazi came out, or there's new questions about her emails.

I still think she'll get the nomination by a good margin and win the general as well, but it's not some guaranteed thing here, while Bernie is some absolute crap shoot in comparison. He's a little riskier, but not terribly so.

 

[maabus1999]

Probably has a lot to do with the fact that NH voters believe they can vote for Bernie now, but still get Clinton in the primary and not worry about electability at all.

Similar to a lot of evangelical voters in the South throwing in with someone like Santorum as a protest vote to Mittens, knowing full well Mittens would still be the eventual nominee.

Nevada is a big question mark, but seems hard for Sanders to win, especially with SEIU backing Hillary.

Nate Silver had an interesting article today, basically unless you think NH white voters act like voters in the rest of the country, it's a giant uphill slog for Bernie.

Bernie is, rightfully so, a protest vote for a lot of people who feel the DC is broken for them. But most voters are realists and is why the exit polls show the above.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

So it's still stacked for the establishment, no matter how you slice it. no matter how shitty Rubio or Jeb does, everyone could get behind him and endorse him when they drop out, and he'd get a ton of delegates for free.

At least on the GOP end, doing that would almost certainly mean they lose the general, potentially even fracturing off a large part of their base into another party entirely.

The theme this election is anti-establishment, and if the establishment pulls a trick to get who they want over who the people want, it'll get ugly.

I think they'd rather take the loss than run the risk of splitting their party.

 

[Little Green Yoda]

Is Bush or Rubio winning once we add in Republican superdelegates?

 

[StoOgE]

THIS.

The Democrats ran away from their accomplishments and Obama in 2010 and 2014. Both times they were blown out.

Trying to be Republican-lite, running away from your party, disowning your president that's popular with your base is a foolish election strategy. Mid-term elections is all about getting your voters excited out to the polls.

Why Democrats continue to think alienating their voters is a winning formula I'll never know.

You do know that Sanders and Clinton ties for registered Democrats, and those that support continuing Obama's legacy voted for Clinton by 25%.

Clinton voters are not "turning against" the party or running as "Republican Lite". They are running as mainstream liberals.

 

[gutter_trash]

Is Bush or Rubio winning once we add in Republican superdelegates?

how do Republican Super Delegates work?

 

[jmdajr]

Is Bush or Rubio winning once we add in Republican superdelegates?

From what I read, the GOP only gets 3 super delegates per state.

 

[StoOgE]

From what I read, the GOP only gets 3 super delegates per state.

There are also non-state super delegates. Not as many as the DNC has, but enough that if Rubio gets enough votes they could probably broker a convention if a doomsday scenario actually unfolds for them.

They have 210 Super Delegates.. so, if they can keep it close with Trump and get the establishment candidates (and their delegates) to play ball, they can still stop Trump or Cruz.

 

[numble]

There's that...but then there's also this chart:




Bernie supporters in NH think he's less electable in November. That says "not as worried about him losing the general" to me
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...w-hampshire-primary/56ba40a4981b92a22d052760/

You aren't reading the chart correctly. That is about how the candidates fared amongst people that most cared about electability. Otherwise, going by your interpretation, that chart would say that Hillary supporters in NH think she's less honest than Bernie.

 

[jmdajr]

There are also non-state super delegates. Not as many as the DNC has, but enough that if Rubio gets enough votes they could probably broker a convention if a doomsday scenario actually unfolds for them.

I see.

 

[plagiarize]

At least on the GOP end, doing that would almost certainly mean they lose the general, potentially even fracturing off a large part of their base into another party entirely.

The theme this election is anti-establishment, and if the establishment pulls a trick to get who they want over who the people want, it'll get ugly.

I think they'd rather take the loss than run the risk of splitting their party.

That certainly seems to match up with comments coming out of the party off the record.

It's a bad time eitherway though, if things go all the way to convention. Standing behind a more extreme candidate is going to turn away a lot of moderates... and they've been losing their more moderate registered voters in droves. Say Cruz or Trump are ahead but far away from the votes they needed to clinch the nomination...

do you choose to alienate the far right, or do you choose to alienate the more moderate voters?

It's not a great position to be in. I really hope it happens.

 

[Chariot]

I wonder how Bernie will handle the crushing media pressure from the GOP if he gets the nomination.

Will he be able to weather 24/7 news jumping on every last thing he says, spinning his words to mean whatever they want, and painting Socialism as the worst thing in the entire world?

That's what he did for years. He was in unusual positions for decades and relentlessly fought against odds and he still stands, stronger every day. Please take a look at this interview from 1991, when he first joined Congress. He was always under fire and he never yielded or had to step down. He already fought and defeated rich men and men deep rooted in establishment while being independent and a self-declared socialist. Form what I heard - mind you, I didn't read it myself - in his book Outsider in the House, he apparently describes already every tool and strategy the Clinton campaign is using right now. He is used to fighting odds, I don't think "socialist! socialist!" startled him for decades.

 

[noshten]

Sander's just nabbed some of the biggest endorsements this election cycle just read those salty endorsement tweets. Gosh they almost sound like some people on this forum

John Feehery, a lobbyist for AT&T, Sony, Qualcomm, and Zurich Financial Services, among others, tweeted:

This speech is Castro-like in its length.

Alex Castellanos, a co-founder of lobbying and consulting firm Purple Strategies and executive with National Media, a political media agency that works with Super PACs and industry groups to develop advertising, disparaged Sanders’ victory speech as an “anti-American rant”:

.@SenSanders = naive foolishness of youth wrapped in veneer of old age and wisdom. sad his anti-american rant is applauded by americans

Tony Fratto, the co-founder of Hamilton Place Strategies, a political consulting firm that has previously represented a variety of Wall Street interests including recent work to promote the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement on behalf of large corporations, tweeted in disapproval of Sanders’ rhetoric against the excesses of Wall Street:

No one who attacks other Americans -- like @BernieSanders's attacks on our financial sector -- deserves to be President.

Rory Cooper, a managing director at Purple Strategies, was somewhat apocalyptic in his reaction:

Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. It's been a good run America.

Jason Boxt, who runs the research division for the Glover Park Group, a lobbying
and public relations firm, advised restraint:

Levelheaded people need to chill out about Trump and Sanders winning in NH. We've known they were going to win for six months.

CR Wooters, a Democratic lobbyist at the firm Mehlman Castagnetti, had sympathy for the night’s biggest losers:

I think I might start a SuperPAC to defend those people being attacked the most tonight.... lobbyist. #MakeLobbyingGreatAgain

https://theintercept.com/2016/02/10/lobbyists-consultants-fret-over-bernie-sanders-victory/

 

[Voysa Reezun]

OK, so some of the fallout of these results:

Kasich's camp says he'll stay in because there are a string of upcoming contests in the Midwestern states where he expects to do well (Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin).

JEB! is going to make a serious run at SC, where GW Bush and the Bush name is actually quite popular among GOP voters. FL is also coming up right after that. It's possible that he finishes second or even wins in both of those states if he can find a way to gather momentum going into very friendly states for him.

I think we're now at the point where Trump or Cruz is going to win the nomination OR we'll get a brokered convention, and I believe those things are most to least possible in that order. I don't believe that the establishment will be able to get this down to a three-man race quickly enough, and even then, I don't know if the establishment candidate has the advantage in such a race.

I wonder if the GOP moves in the near future to implement something like the superdelegate system that the Democratic Party uses to control the nomination a bit more directly.

On another note, I wonder if we're about to hit two realigning elections in the next three or so national elections. Before 2000, we'd had one every 36 years in the country. The coalitions that these two political parties hold are simply too big to keep together for long. The GOP is falling apart right now in terms of holding its coalition together, and I think this Sanders campaign is bringing to the surface dissension which will lead to the same thing for the Democratic Party in the next two or three election cycles.

What will happen? Will we get a third-party unifier of millennials and working class people across ethnic lines, for example, that makes enough of a splash that the other two parties move toward it and incorporate its key ideas? Will either the GOP or Democratic Party meet the fate of the old Whigs and die outright? This primary season is a harbinger for the massive change that is probably overdue in coming. GW Bush and Obama both were good at holding their respective coalitions together for as long as they could, but I think those days are over now.

Sorry for posting so often in this thread, but this is really exciting. I feel like for the second time in three elections, I'm living through something amazing and wondrous in U.S. politics.

 

[StoOgE]

That's what he did for years. He was in unusual positions for decades and relentlessly fought against odds and he still stands, stronger every day. Please take a look at this interview from 1991, when he first joined Congress. He was always under fire and he never yielded or had to step down. He already fought and defeated rich men and men deep rooted in establishment while being independent and a self-declared socialist. Form what I heard - mind you, I didn't read it myself - in his book Outsider in the House, he apparently describes already every tool and strategy the Clinton campaign is using right now. He is used to fighting odds, I don't think "socialist! socialist!" startled him for decades.

That has nothing to do with anything. Weathering that storm in Vermont is very different than weathering that storm in Florida or Ohio. The same arguments that he can bat down with a liberal base during a NH primary is not going to be the same as trying to win a swing state.

 

[Abounder]

They're throwing the kitchen sink. Anyway impressive results for Sanders and Trump.

Hillary's still the heavy favorite, but if she doesn't bring/attract the new voters then it's going to be a very close race in the general

 

[Averon]

You do know that Sanders and Clinton ties for registered Democrats, and those that support continuing Obama's legacy voted for Clinton by 25%.

Clinton voters are not "turning against" the party or running as "Republican Lite". They are running as mainstream liberals.

I may have been unclear. I'm talking about congressional candidates, not Democratic voters. They, the congressional candidates, ran away from Obama and their party's accomplishments in 2010 and 2014. When you repeat GOP talking points and pretend Obama doesn't exist, is it any wonder why Democratic voters don't show up to the polls? The Democratic party does a terrible job exciting their voters outside of presidential elections.

 

[Chariot]

That has nothing to do with anything. Weathering that storm in Vermont is very different than weathering that storm in Florida or Ohio. The same arguments that he can bat down with a liberal base during a NH primary is not going to be the same as trying to win a swing state.

We'll see how he will be doing in Nevada. So far most of the dirty politics on him misfired awfully.

 

[Deleted member 13876]

I'd like to know this too.

I asked this like 30 pages ago but no one answered.

 

[maabus1999]

That's what he did for years. He was in unusual positions for decades and relentlessly fought against odds and he still stands, stronger every day. Please take a look at this interview from 1991, when he first joined Congress. He was always under fire and he never yielded or had to step down. He already fought and defeated rich men and men deep rooted in establishment while being independent and a self-declared socialist. Form what I heard - mind you, I didn't read it myself - in his book Outsider in the House, he apparently describes already every tool and strategy the Clinton campaign is using right now. He is used to fighting odds, I don't think "socialist! socialist!" startled him for decades.

If people don't understand why Bernie is seen as high risk by a lot of people, they need to look at history the last time a Dem, Walter Mondale, ran on raising taxes (which Bernie wants to do). Granted things have change but this is why many older establishment Democrats are afraid the GOP will DEMOLISH him in the general via negative ads over and over again. His positive message will be buried under this media fire most likely.

 

[SamVimes]

Let me know when republicans run a candidate with the same widespread appeal that Reagan had as an incumbent.

 

[plagiarize]

OK, so some of the fallout of these results:

Kasich's camp says he'll stay in because there are a string of upcoming contests in the Midwestern states where he expects to do well (Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin).

JEB! is going to make a serious run at SC, where GW Bush and the Bush name is actually quite popular among GOP voters. FL is also coming up right after that. It's possible that he finishes second or even wins in both of those states if he can find a way to gather momentum going into very friendly states for him.

I think we're now at the point where Trump or Cruz is going to win the nomination OR we'll get a brokered convention, and I believe those things are most to least possible in that order. I don't believe that the establishment will be able to get this down to a three-man race quickly enough, and even then, I don't know if the establishment candidate has the advantage in such a race.

I wonder if the GOP moves in the near future to implement something like the superdelegate system that the Democratic Party uses to control the nomination a bit more directly.

On another note, I wonder if we're about to hit two realigning elections in the next three or so national elections. Before 2000, we'd had one every 36 years in the country. The coalitions that these two political parties hold are simply too big to keep together for long. The GOP is falling apart right now in terms of holding its coalition together, and I think this Sanders campaign is bringing to the surface dissension which will lead to the same thing for the Democratic Party in the next two or three election cycles.

What will happen? Will we get a third-party unifier of millennials and working class people across ethnic lines, for example, that makes enough of a splash that the other two parties move toward it and incorporate its key ideas? Will either the GOP or Democratic Party meet the fate of the old Whigs and die outright? This primary season is a harbinger for the massive change that is probably overdue in coming. GW Bush and Obama both were good at holding their respective coalitions together for as long as they could, but I think those days are over now.

Sorry for posting so often in this thread, but this is really exciting. I feel like for the second time in three elections, I'm living through something amazing and wondrous in U.S. politics.

Best case scenario, and what I think is going to happen.

The GOP splits along tea party lines, and the main GOP moves away from the more socially conservative positions, but keeps it's stances on business, taxes, small government, etc. That's a way more electable position now and for the foreseeable future.

Democrats move more to the left. GOP moves more the middle. That would be an amazing improvement over what we have now. A GOP that could shed it's evangelical voters and members would be way more palatable and way more electable, imho. It'd be a lot easier for them to avoid the current issues with Trump and Cruz in the primary season, where both are openly playing to the registered bigots and causing major issues for everyone else.

 

[StoOgE]

if she doesn't bring attract the new voters then it's going to be a very close race in the general

This is a fallacy that gets preached every single campaign. It's going to come out to base turnout in swing states. Youth vote will swing harder for Bernie than Hillary, but demographics will still push 60+% of the youth vote her way. Turnout will continue to be relatively low among young voters, and getting your base to the polls will determine the election.

Same as it ever was.

 

[cpp_is_king]

If people don't understand why Bernie is seen as high risk by a lot of people, they need to look at history the last time a Dem, Walter Mondale, ran on raising taxes (which Bernie wants to do). Granted things have change but this is why many older establishment Democrats are afraid the GOP will DEMOLISH him in the general via negative ads over and over again. His positive message will be buried under this media fire most likely.

now imagine the damage the GOP could wreak if the candidate is running on higher taxes AND socialism. No contest.

 

[Paskil]

That has nothing to do with anything. Weathering that storm in Vermont is very different than weathering that storm in Florida or Ohio. The same arguments that he can bat down with a liberal base during a NH primary is not going to be the same as trying to win a swing state.

Absolutely, if they can turn Kerry's Vietnam service against him, they will most definitely place all the troubles of the VA at Bernie's feet when he tries to trot out his veteran's bill. The amount of shit Bernie would get in the GE will be mind boggling, and that's just one issue.

 

[StoOgE]

I may have been unclear. I'm talking about congressional candidates, not Democratic voters. They, the congressional candidates, ran away from Obama and their party's accomplishments in 2010 and 2014. When you repeat GOP talking points and pretend Obama doesn't exist, is it any wonder why Democratic voters don't show up to the polls? The Democratic party does a terrible job exciting their voters outside of presidential elections.

Fun fact: Democrats banked more votes for house races than Republicans did. The problems in the House have far more to do with Gerrmandering than it does with policy or voters appeal.

 

[Ogrekiller]

If people don't understand why Bernie is seen as high risk by a lot of people, they need to look at history the last time a Dem, Walter Mondale, ran on raising taxes (which Bernie wants to do). Granted things have change but this is why many older establishment Democrats are afraid the GOP will DEMOLISH him in the general via negative ads over and over again. His positive message will be buried under this media fire most likely.

Not only that, look at McGovern to see how this all plays out. Youth vote, minority support, it was all there. Then the DNC threw him to the wolves and Nixon cruised to a second term.

 

[plagiarize]

They're throwing the kitchen sink. Anyway impressive results for Sanders and Trump.

Hillary's still the heavy favorite, but if she doesn't bring/attract the new voters then it's going to be a very close race in the general

Obama and Sanders are almost certainly going to campaign for Hillary if she gets the nomination. It's a big reason why Clinton is being so cordial towards Sanders, I believe. She'll need him come November, and that's not something head to head polls are currently thinking about.

Sanders will do everything he can to get those energized young voters to the polls. So will Obama. Clinton won't have to win alone.

And you can flip around the two candidates and see what I think will happen in that regard should Sanders win. Their strengths are with so different demographics, that the winner will look to the runner up to help them in November, and I see no reason to suspect that the runner up wouldn't do just that, whoever it ends up being.

 

[StoOgE]

Let me know when republicans run a candidate with the same widespread appeal that Reagan had as an incumbent.

Kasich, Bush or Rubio would clean house. Not 84 bad but it wouldn't be pretty.

Hell, I was an Obama delegate in 08 and already have tickets to an inaugural ball for 2017, and i would seriously consider a Kasich or Bush ballot over Bernie. Anyone to the right of them, and I stay home.

If the nominee is someone really unpalatable to the mainstream GOP, then the Bloomberg alarm gets called and we have Bernie vs. Bloomberg vs. Cruz and I honestly don't know how the hell that one would shake out. I'd probably wind up campaigning on behalf of Bloomberg in that scenario just because I like our country functioning, even if I'm not the biggest fan of my former Mayor.

 

[Psychoward]

someone from my home town (rich, upper-class, white suburb) shared this on Facebook and it has 8 likes, all from people back home


http://opportunitylives.com/dear-young-americans-dont-vote-for-bernie/

But perhaps the most under-considered rationale for keeping Sanders outside the White House gates is national security. Because were he able to implement his policies, Sanders would greatly endanger the United States. His plans would gut the military and corrode its ability to defend America’s interests abroad. The go-to liberal claim that defense cuts are possible because the U.S. defense budget is “x times larger than any other nation, etc.” is simple obfuscation. In reality, from Russia to China to ISIS, the United States faces a wide array of threats to our people, our values and to the international order. Deterring these threats and if necessary, defeating them, requires major investment. To assume that our adversaries — Vladimir Putin, for example — would not jump at the opportunity to challenge America under a President Sanders is absurd. Compared to Sanders, President Obama is positively Reaganesque — and just look how our security and prestige have suffered under his feckless and weak administration.

There is only one reason for younger Americans to vote for Bernie Sanders — if, instead of happiness, they live for the pursuit of personal and national pain.

illogical fear-mongering and the misguided need to play world police still in play for Republicans I see

 

[SamVimes]

Kasich, Bush or Rubio would clean house. Not 84 bad but it wouldn't be pretty.

Hell, I was an Obama delegate in 08 and already have tickets to an inaugural ball for 2017, and i would seriously consider a Kasich or Bush ballot over Bernie. Anyone to the right of them, and I stay home.

If the nominee is someone really unpalatable to the mainstream GOP, then the Bloomberg alarm gets called and we have Bernie vs. Bloomberg vs. Cruz and I honestly don't know how the hell that one would shake out.

Kasich, Bush and Rubio have no chance of winning the nomination AND are no where close Reagan. Rubio is a robot that advocated for 0% tax on capital gains and Bush is a blackhole of charisma. Also 2016 is not 1984 with the cold war going on.

 

[plagiarize]

Kasich, Bush or Rubio would clean house. Not 84 bad but it wouldn't be pretty.

Hell, I was an Obama delegate in 08 and already have tickets to an inaugural ball for 2017, and i would seriously consider a Kasich or Bush ballot over Bernie. Anyone to the right of them, and I stay home.

If the nominee is someone really unpalatable to the mainstream GOP, then the Bloomberg alarm gets called and we have Bernie vs. Bloomberg vs. Cruz and I honestly don't know how the hell that one would shake out.

Rubio is not looking that electable right now IMHO. Kasich isn't looking likely to get the nominee, and Bush... well... at some point either reality is going to catch up with him or other establishment candidates are going to need to drop out much sooner rather than later.

And that only works if both Cruz and Trump stay in.

Jeb is currently having his chances in November seriously hurt by the embarrassment of this campaign.

 

[jmdajr]

Not only that, look at McGovern to see how this all plays out. Youth vote, minority support, it was all there. Then the DNC threw him to the wolves and Nixon cruised to a second term.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1972

The United States presidential election of 1972 was the 47th quadrennial presidential election, held on Tuesday, November 7, 1972. The Democratic Party's nomination was eventually won by Senator George McGovern of South Dakota, who ran an anti-war campaign against incumbent Republican President Richard Nixon, but was handicapped by his outsider status, limited support from his own party, the perception of many voters that he was a left-wing extremist and the scandal that resulted from the stepping down of vice-presidential nominee Thomas Eagleton.

Hmmm.

So? Who plays Nixon?

 

[Tesseract]

it's 1972 again, again, again

 

[sphagnum]

Wasn't it critical of US politics, simply using Sanders's otherwise pretty consistent radicalism as a lens?

Yes, but it specifically focused on Sanders because Coates (as he says in the interview) expected more of him. He doesn't expect someone like Clinton to ever be in favor of reparations, but someone who is a self-proclaimed political outsider should have the courage to stand up for unpopular policies, especially when none of his other policies can be passed anyway.

A lot of Bernie supporters were dumb about it though and dragged Coates through the mud over it. It's fine to criticize the article - I liked Cedric Johnson's response in Jacobin - but some really ardent supporters are treating this like it's a zero sum game where criticism of Bernie means not supporting him, so some crow needs to be eaten.

 

[StoOgE]

Rubio is not looking that electable right now IMHO. Kasich isn't looking likely to get the nominee, and Bush... well... at some point either reality is going to catch up with him or other establishment candidates are going to need to drop out much sooner rather than later.

And that only works if both Cruz and Trump stay in.

Jeb is currently having his chances in November seriously hurt by the embarrassment of this campaign.

Oh, the three mainstream nominees still standing are not very likely to be the nominee. Though, Kasich is running a fantastic campaign. If he can survive the Southern states and get to the midwest, he may very well emerge as the party favorite... and in truth, is probably the closest to mainstream republicans in ideals. He needs to see a bounce in Florida first, but he could make a real push.. especially if Jeb and/or Christie drop out of the race in the next few weeks.

If the nominee is Cruz or Trump (who have to be the two favorites at this point), I think Bloomberg runs. Regardless of Hillary or Bernie being the nominee.

 

[Spectral Glider]

Let me know when republicans run a candidate with the same widespread appeal that Reagan had as an incumbent.

Exactly, that comparison is awful. Also, Mondale was perceived to be attacking the middle class and was also hurt by having Ferraro as his running mate. A possible Sanders vs Trump/Rubio/Cruz or whoever is nowhere close to Mondale vs. Reagan.

 

[B-Dubs]

Kasich, Bush or Rubio would clean house. Not 84 bad but it wouldn't be pretty.

Hell, I was an Obama delegate in 08 and already have tickets to an inaugural ball for 2017, and i would seriously consider a Kasich or Bush ballot over Bernie. Anyone to the right of them, and I stay home.

If the nominee is someone really unpalatable to the mainstream GOP, then the Bloomberg alarm gets called and we have Bernie vs. Bloomberg vs. Cruz and I honestly don't know how the hell that one would shake out. I'd probably wind up campaigning on behalf of Bloomberg in that scenario just because I like our country functioning, even if I'm not the biggest fan of my former Mayor.

I figure that one would go to the House,due to no one getting 270, and they'd pick Bloomberg.

 

[Psychoward]

I love how some Hillary supporters assume her attack ads aren't gonna be brutal as well. Flip-flopping is something she's done quite often and some of the most devastating political ads ever have come from that: 1 2. The only thing Bernie has been inconsistent on is gun control and that's something that the Right can't even attack as much because (sadly) he isn't as progressive on that as Hillary.


Then if the GOP nom is an anti-establishment guy, you've got all the Wall Street/Super PAC stuff.

 

[sphagnum]

Sander's just nabbed some of the biggest endorsements this election cycle just read those salty endorsement tweets. Gosh they almost sound like some people on this forum

Bernie should take a note from FDR: "They are unanimous in their hate for me--and I welcome their hatred."

 

[jmdajr]

Exactly, that comparison is awful. Also, Mondale was perceived to be attacking the middle class and was also hurt by having Ferraro as his running mate. A possible Sanders vs Trump/Rubio/Cruz or whoever is nowhere close to Mondale vs. Reagan.

Reagan was at least Governor of Kalifornia.

January 2, 1967 – January 6, 1975

edit: I guess Ron Regan is a Bernie supporter.

 

[Ether_Snake]

The GOP is much less likely to split than Democrats.

The GOP is a party which is controlled by lobbyists and corporate interests, they are there for self interest. They won't go joing a third party except maybe nutcases like Cruz, which would be a minority and would probably help the Republicans by becoming more appealing while still getting that third party's vote at the GE when voters will just want to avoid seeing Dems in the white house.

The Democrat party, like any "left" leaning party is more sensitive to fractioning since that is an inalienable characteristic of the left. The left is far more willing to accept an admirable defeaft for ideological purposes than the right, who gravitate to power and authority, not rebellion or a redefinition of the status quo.

 

[StoOgE]

I figure that one would go to the House,due to no one getting 270, and they'd pick Bloomberg.

Very possible, and yeah.. you would wind up with mainstream Republicans and moderate democrats brokering a deal for Bloomberg.

 

[Averon]

Fun fact: Democrats banked more votes for house races than Republicans did. The problems in the House have far more to do with Gerrmandering than it does with policy or voters appeal.

I'm well aware of how screwed up gerrymandering is to Democrats. It is why the 2010 blowout was so devastating since it coincided with the census. But even considering that, I still do not feel 2010 and 2014 should have gone as badly as it did for Democrats. Exciting you voters and getting them to the polls is election politics 101, yet Democrats does far worse at that than they should.

 

[ChronotriggerJM]

Can anyone give me a TLDR on Bloomberg? What's the big deal with this guy anyway?

 

[Yoda]

Not only that, look at McGovern to see how this all plays out. Youth vote, minority support, it was all there. Then the DNC threw him to the wolves and Nixon cruised to a second term.

Uh so not going to mention watergate/political sabotage at all?

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Can anyone give me a TLDR on Bloomberg? What's the big deal with this guy anyway?

Money

"Independent" that media loves to hype.

 

[Paskil]

I love how some Hillary supporters assume her attack ads aren't gonna be brutal as well. Flip-flopping is something she's done quite often and some of the most devastating political ads ever have come from that: 1 2. The only thing Bernie has been inconsistent on is gun control and that's something that the Right can't even attack as much because (sadly) he isn't as progressive on that as Hillary.


Then if the GOP nom is an anti-establishment guy, you've got all the Wall Street/Super PAC stuff.

The difference is that she is a known quantity and has been under the heat lamp for years. Bernie is untested, in terms of the level of scrutiny a candidate gets. Hillary's skeletons have been in the public eye for years. They will slap Bernie with any and everything (socialism, flip-flopping, VA, raising taxes, rating with the NRA). Not saying he can't handle it, but given his policy stances, he's going to get slammed on certain issues compared to Hillary.

Politics of fear play big with this country. They will turn everything you see as a positive into a negative, and a large portion of the population will eat it up.