Aaronology
Member
I think you're revealing your age with the "30 years ago" bit, Melkr. That's not a huge amount of time, and plenty of people still remember it. Especially older Americans.
Guess who votes?
NBC/WSJ - GOP&Dem Polls : Trump/Cruz tied Iowa, Sanders/Clinton closing NH/Iowa
- Thread starter Black Republican
- Start date
- Status
I think you're revealing your age with the "30 years ago" bit, Melkr. That's not a huge amount of time, and plenty of people still remember it. Especially older Americans.
Guess who votes?
Team Alucard
Banned
Exactly. The only people who dont hate Hillary are card-carrying democrats. Moderates and independants absolutely cannot stand her, and thats not going to change.
She would still win against Trump or Cruz, but anyone else and its by no means a guarantee.
Okay, let's assume nobody knows who Bernie is.
Everybody in this country knows Trump and Hillary and we have multiple polls of her struggling to beat him in swing states.
This isn't like Cruz, Rubio or Carson where you can feign the public not knowing the opponent.
She would beat Trump in the general, I have no doubt of that, but her numbers are pathetic.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
Very true. The only worry is that the main thing that happened to Clinton in the last 10 months was this:
That's not a candidate who looks like they're going to improve over time... There was a slight amelioration after the Benghazi hearing, but she can't break the overall trend of being less and less popular as time goes on.
I mean, given Clinton is still far more likely than not to be the Democratic nominee, this is seriously worrying for the Dems.
That was pretty much expected.
Especially when she has done very little campaigning (considering she has to basically do nothing to win the nomination) and she has the largest target on her back out of any candidate.
RustyNails
Member
The coveted "Independent vote" doesn't quite mean anything. They are a bunch of embarrassed Republicans mostly and few disaffected democrats. It's been trending that way since the 90's. Obama lost independent vote in every swing state in 2012 and still decisively beat Romney in 2012. The elections don't play out like you are saying. A billion dollar ad campaign will be rolled out by RNC and SuperPACs from April to November targeting every swing state down to a swing district down to a precinct down to a village. I'm not trying to fear-monger. But that's how they play the game. His comments about tax rates and grotesque fear-mongering about ISIS and terrorism will hobble him.
To be honest, I don't like to see him being dragged through the mud because I admire Bernie. I have been listening to Brunch with Bernie for the past 10 years (actually since 2004) and knew about him prior to any Bernie supporter on this board, I bet. I learned so much about the politics through those hours. He is overall ill-equipped to handle the blood and fire of a GE campaign.
thank you.
Bernie will get eaten alive in the general election. He actively campaigns as a socialist, and wears it as a badge. Despite the meaning, the word is inherently toxic to a large majority of the voting population.
there is also a very strong chance the effects of hilary losing to bernie will disenfranchise a lot of voters into not showing up.
I'm pretty sure you're grossly overestimating the intelligence of the average American.
In the end, what favorability/unfavorabilty numbers boil down to is still "likability", isn't it? But how substantial is "likability" to the selection of a candidate, after George Bush Jr.? Is "likability" a quantifiable measure that was the deciding factor for Kerry, McCain, Romney, etc.? Was it the deciding factor between Obama and Hillary?
You have your own preconceived notion ("Hillary is too unlikable to win the general") and a pretty strong belief in general election polls that, through many elections, have proven to be relatively unreliable. So I don't think you have a leg to stand on here.
Obama won the independent vote in Florida, Iowa and NH in 2012. And the Florida Independents giving him a slim victory were probably key in him clinging to a win in the state.
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
I'd be thrilled to see Sanders take the presidency. I think he's faring well in GE match ups for reasons beyond not having been attacked yet. This election season is about anti-establishment and populism, to which Hillary is the polar opposite. If Hillary wins the nomination I'll support her, but I think 2008 was her best chance. The desires of the electorate have moved past her brand of politics, as far as I can see.
All the people in here railing against socialism seem to love to ignore that Hillary has her fair share of skeletons. But I'm sure you'll wave those all off as bullshit and assume the American people are smart enough to see past them.
It's more that they've all been done to death by this point. The GOP has been railing against the Clintons for decades now, there's nothing new they can hit her with and if it hasn't worked until now it's not magically going to start working in 6 months.
Why can't you apply the same logic to the socialism attack angle?
illusionspark
Member
One might say the attacks on Hilary have "worked". So far, she's lost the presidency once.
Epsilon-delta
Banned
Because he's obviously biased.
Everyone should just wait till Super Tuesday because crow will be served either way.
EatinOlives
Member
Very true. The only worry is that the main thing that happened to Clinton in the last 10 months was this:
That's not a candidate who looks like they're going to improve over time... There was a slight amelioration after the Benghazi hearing, but she can't break the overall trend of being less and less popular as time goes on.
I mean, given Clinton is still far more likely than not to be the Democratic nominee, this is seriously worrying for the Dems.
Hillary hasn't really done anything aside from token "How do you do, fellow kids?" efforts. The hearing was just about the only time since the Trump circus took over the media where she was in the spotlight, and she came out looking good despite 11 hours of Republicans trying to smack her down.
She really hasn't started campaigning. Looks like she wants the GOP to eat itself first before entering.
RustyNails
Member
I stand corrected. However he did lose it in every remaining swing state. Even the margins from FL, IA and NH were lower than compared to 2008. This independent unicorn vote which Romney campaign laboriously obsessed over proved out to be useless for him.
RPGCrazied
Member
No way in this lifetime or next will Trump be President. He might win the nominee for his party, but that is just saying all the other candidates running are terrible or worse.
The day Trump finally loses, I will have a big party. The salt will be big, and I can't wait. He hates to lose, so.
The day Trump finally loses, I will have a big party. The salt will be big, and I can't wait. He hates to lose, so.
I don't think anyone would characterize Hillary losing the nomination in 08 as her falling and not Obama rising.
Because he doesn't deny it. With the Clintons it's all accusations and no proof, Bernie freely admits to being a socialist. If he denied it then it wouldn't work much better than it did against Obama, but he admits it which means it'll have actual teeth. They can literally run ads where he calls himself a socialist.
Also, the GOP hasn't been trying to bring Bernie down for over 20 years now. They've been ignoring him, so he's gotten by without being attacked or tested.
If he didn't freely admit that the attack is true then I'd agree, but he does. When your opponent hits you on something unpopular and you admit that attack is true it's going to stick.
that has nothing to do with it. the word alone is toxic to a majority of voters regardless of meaning or campaign.
hilary has been under attack for years because republicans are scared shitless of the clintons. bernie is an afterthought in their campaign and debate responses. that should tell you everything.
illusionspark
Member
Who can win though? Is Hilary the only politician running who is considered electable?
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
"Hillary killed Vince Foster!" vs. Bernie admitting he's a Socialist and then moving to talk about the 1% after a statement on ISIS, I wonder which will be more effective of an attack ad.
No need to claim she's the only one, but she is the one that will win the nom this time around. And once she does that, all evidence points to her having a better shot than the republican candidate at winning the general.
I wonder how much actual proof matters with today's Republican constituency. Either way, I don't expect Bernie (and his faction) to win this election cycle. I think the most intriguing part of this election is the growing anti-establishment sentiment from both sides (with Trump having a good chance at getting the nomination) and whether or not that will grow for the next presidential election.
Earthstrike
Member
Hilary has been trying to stay out of the spotlight though. Or at least that's what it feels like. As if the gameplan is to make sure all cameratime is focused on the disastrous republican party. Pretty sure the second we have Obama, Bill, and Hilary on the trail we're gonna see those numbers up.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
No Democrats are seriously running against Hillary since she's been guaranteed to win the nomination for years now. There are plenty of electable Democrats who decided not to run because they knew they wouldn't beat Hillary.
Forget Vince foster. Trump is already attacking her tenure as SoS (please tell me how great she was in that role). Emails, benghazi. C'mon. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth here. Americans are stupid enough to be scared of socialism, but they're going to trust Hillary against ISIS when she has been directly involved in an important government position during their rise. The situation has degenerated "under her watch."
She's not a strong candidate outside of establishment Democrats. Nobody outside of establishment Democrats thinks she's the foreign policy savior you guys seem to think she is.
Aaronology
Member
No one here is "railing against socialism." Burn those strawmen, please. I'm taking issue with the idea that Bernie's socialist views won't matter to America in a GE. I see nothing but posts proclaiming "Everyone already knows he's a socialist!" or "No one cares about socialism anymore!" or "But the GOP calls everyone a socialist!" People want me to believe in their candidate but can't even honestly address the very legitimate issues he faces.
No thanks.
illusionspark
Member
I have a feeling that if Hilary becomes president, the anti-establishment sentiments will definitely intensify. God help us next election cycle. Who knows what kind of next-level crazy will capitalize on the growing frustration.
My thinking as well too. They already thought Obama was a socialist and every right-leaning voter in the country is primed to believe the same of Hillary - and the people on the left either don't care enough for it to matter or are actively hoping he lives up to the label.
I don't think that's true at all. This whole tea party thing has been going on for awhile now, and it's torn the republican party apart but still hasn't overcome the demographic advantage the democrats have in presidential elections. A Hillary presidency means more policies like Obama's, which means the vocal minority of crazies still cry on Facebook but the executive branch continues to march more in step with an increasingly left-leaning population.
Not sure which candidate you're talking about here. Hillary isn't inevitable. Hillary isn't well liked beyond the core democratic establishment. Nobody wants to address those issues. Apparently she's going to moon walk into the white house while Bernie would struggle to earn 1/3 of the vote in the general because of the big, mean socialist monkey on his back.
You're advocating the dismissal of a political ideology based on fear. The word "socialist" is mildly more toxic than the word "liberal."
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Super Tuesday decides it, but Iowa and New Hampshire influences Super Tuesday.
The early states change the dynamics of the race by triggering drop outs, change strategy by informing voters who has a chance of winning, and change perception by making candidates look like winners or losers.
VendettaRed07
Member
I think against a moderate establishment candidate like Kasich or Rubio, etc.. Yeah Sanders would likely lose.
But in a world where they nominate Donald Trump Sanders can absolutely win a general. All bets of normal political logic and electability go out the window with that guy at the head of the Republican Party
But in a world where they nominate Donald Trump Sanders can absolutely win a general. All bets of normal political logic and electability go out the window with that guy at the head of the Republican Party
It is surprising to see Trump hold on for so long.
As for Sanders vs Clinton, while I admit it is surprising and encouraging to see Sanders performing well, these areas don't reflect the country as a whole. Around 90% of both New Hampshire and Iowa are non-Hispanic White. While social-democratic leaders like Sanders appeal highly to many left leaning whites, he doesn't to minorities. At least when being compared to a household name like Clinton. It takes time to build up a base. Sanders and his "socialist" companions need to gradually build a base that includes minorities. To be fair he clearly is doing this as we can see from various minority elected officials and, as silly as it seems it is relevant, Killer Mike.
Unfortunately, by the time the social-democrats even have a chance to build a stable base that includes minorities 2016 will long pass. Some successor to Bernie will likely benefit down the line.
As for Sanders vs Clinton, while I admit it is surprising and encouraging to see Sanders performing well, these areas don't reflect the country as a whole. Around 90% of both New Hampshire and Iowa are non-Hispanic White. While social-democratic leaders like Sanders appeal highly to many left leaning whites, he doesn't to minorities. At least when being compared to a household name like Clinton. It takes time to build up a base. Sanders and his "socialist" companions need to gradually build a base that includes minorities. To be fair he clearly is doing this as we can see from various minority elected officials and, as silly as it seems it is relevant, Killer Mike.
Unfortunately, by the time the social-democrats even have a chance to build a stable base that includes minorities 2016 will long pass. Some successor to Bernie will likely benefit down the line.
zero shift
Banned
Are we seriously having this argument again? If Bernie and his team had the tact and wisdom to take down Hillary, him and his team would certainly have the skill set to beat any Republican candidate. However, Bernie and his team don't have the tact and wisdom to take down Hillary so the argument is pointless.
teruterubozu
Member
I think he's been doing pretty well considering his opponent is Clinton. Honestly I'm surprised this Bernie vs. Hillary thing has stretched this long.
John Dunbar
correct about everything
rather cute to say that "tact and wisdom" is all it would take for bernie to beat hillary.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
There seems to be a lot of Sanders fans that have Trump as their second pick. In that sense, Sanders is probably uniquely suited as the best counter to Trump because he can build a coalition of both anti-establishment and moderate types.
Calamari41
41 > 38
I personally know a bunch of Sanders supporters who, after a couple of drinks, are willing to say that they'll vote for Trump before Hillary.
i can't speak for IA and NH (since i don't live there) but i'm pretty sure she has field offices everywhere, ads are everywhere, she'll be stumping everywhere a few weeks leading up to the caucus, ect... i don't think she's campaigning less than anybody
illusionspark
Member
I hope you're right about that. For all our sakes.
Maybe, but it's all been far more low key. There's been no big rallies, no attempts to win the news cycle, nothing overt. Compared to what she could be doing, it's all very subdued. The most she's done is take a few shots at Trump to help prop him up over the Christmas break.
Super Tuesday is less super now with proportional allocation of delegates.
You Are Viewtiful
Member
I think you're revealing your age with the "30 years ago" bit, Melkr. That's not a huge amount of time, and plenty of people still remember it. Especially older Americans.
Guess who votes?
Basically. Median age is 42 or thereabouts. If we consider 12 year olds to be the age where you become at least a bit politically aware, then over 50% of the population remembers a Cold War world. That's even before we exclude people under 18 because they can't even vote. Easily far above 50% of the American voting population remembers a Cold War world.
edit: looks like the median age in the US is 38. My point still stands.
Aaronology
Member
Bernie is a he, and Hillary is a she. She is also not a socialist. It should have been clear who I was referring to and I am not sure why you are confused.
I'm going to reiterate myself again, because you seem overly keen on making up things to reply to instead of what it is I am actually saying. I am not dismissing, attacking or "railing against" socialism. Is this clear, Justen? I take issue with people like yourself who repeatedly downplay the negative effects Bernie's association with socialism will have in a GE. Even now you're attempting to claim "socialist" is comparable to "liberal". You're either willfully ignorant or dishonest, and you're choosing to ignore how taboo that word still is in America.
ErasureAcer
Banned
Hillary is Hydra. Conservative, moderate, progressive. She has many faces that she not only changes day to day but even minute to minute. Bernie is Hercules. Slayer of the beast.
- Status