2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThis message was self-deleted by its author
This message was self-deleted by its author (silvershadow) on Wed Apr 20, 2016, 07:57 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Stallion
(6,642 posts)nm
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)ViseGrip
(3,133 posts)
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)We don't have a party. What we have is a forced camp of those who love war and those who don't. What we have is a forced camp of republican lights and American socialists.
What we are up against is the super elites who are in the 1%
Our only chance to get a bit of the future back is for Bernie to be our leader. And it looks like the warmongers have turned away from Bernie and gone back to mongering for more war.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)triangulated into our party, and now is the time to take it back. At this point, we are Republicans, and the Republicans are whatever is further to the right. If Bernie is not our nominee, then you are correct, we won't have a party.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)But he's the shining best example of what is best of the party. And yet they reject him.
It comes down to what I said: War versus peace.
Bernie promises peace and H promises war.
Most of the People in the US are for peace and given the chance, like they did for Obama, will vote for peace. What we Bernie people are offering is peace. It is that simple.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Our problem is the system is against peace, and that is why we need the revolution.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)so many times over so many weeks it is nauseating. The time for HER to have bowed out was weeks and weeks ago now.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)The ballot box is controlled by the PTB. It would be a miracle if the revolution changed that at this time. And I pray for a miracle. It's like Bernie has said many times: Turnout is key. We have to have a huge turnout to overwhelm the PTB controlling the black boxes.
Remember, the first exit polls last night showed a 52-48 count that changed by 5 points later in the evening.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)bobthedrummer
(26,083 posts)
Gothmog
(179,956 posts)No one who understand the polling really believes that Sanders is more electable than Clinton. The GOP is clear that they would rather face Sanders compared to Clinton http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-04-18/despite-polls-republicans-see-sanders-as-an-easier-opponent
“Republicans are being nice to Bernie Sanders because we like the thought of running against a socialist. But if he were to win the nomination the knives would come out for Bernie pretty quick,” said Ryan Williams, a former spokesman for 2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney's campaign. “There's no mystery what the attack on him would be. Bernie Sanders is literally a card carrying socialist who honeymooned in the Soviet Union. There'd be hundreds of millions of dollars in Republican ads showing hammers and sickles and Soviet Union flags in front of Bernie Sanders.”
“Hillary Clinton is a much more centrist candidate in comparison,” Williams said, and she would have a better chance of winning over moderate and undecided voters, despite numerous polls showing that many Americans, even in the Democratic Party, don't view her as honest and trustworthy. “Bernie's numbers are better than hers right now because she's been in the political arena for 30 years getting beat up,” he said.
‘Out of the Mainstream’
Doug Heye, a former spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said Clinton would be a tougher opponent due to her foreign policy fluency, “her toughness as a candidate,” and the “Clinton attack machine” around her—groups like Correct the Record and Americans United for Change that are active on her behalf. He added that there's less room for the GOP to define Clinton than Sanders as “out of the mainstream.”
“Her negatives are set in. There's no American out there who doesn't have a definite opinion on Hillary Clinton,” Heye said. “That's just not the case with Bernie. The fact that some of his success has been looked on with bemusement, I think, speaks to that.”
Believing that Sanders may be too far outside the mainstream to win the Democratic primary, the Republican National Committee is doling out reams of opposition research on Clinton, and virtually none on Sanders. (By contrast, the Democratic National Committee has continued to launch attacks on Kasich, even though he has no mathematical chance of winning the GOP nomination before the convention.) Still, the RNC's actions don't reflect its chairman's rhetoric about who it would rather face.
Sanders has not been vetted and would be an easy target for the GOP
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)Gothmog
(179,956 posts)The premise of Sanders' lame claim that he should stay in is that he is a better candidate in the general election. That claim is simply false. Sanders has not been vetted which means that Sanders is very vulnerable to attack ads. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/04/19/some-republicans-see-socialist-bernie-sanders-as-the-weaker-opponent/
This current situation is in many ways unprecedented, and makes it harder than ever to gauge which candidate is more electable this fall. We have one Democratic candidate who has been a major national figure for 25 years, and has been subjected to unrelenting national attacks for just as long, and one Democratic candidate who legitimately is significantly more liberal than many in the party.
And so, it’s at least possible that two decades of attacks on Clinton are baked into her polling against the GOP candidates. Nor can the possibility be dismissed that some of Sanders’s positions (middle class tax hikes as part of a transition to single payer, which he defends on the grounds that Americans would benefit overall) could be made into liabilities, if Republicans prosecuted attacks on them effectively. There is a danger in being too risk averse, of course, but that doesn’t mean there is no chance that Republicans could successfully use these positions to paint Sanders as an ideological outlier, as those GOP strategists suggest above.
Of course, the fact that Sanders is a relative unknown nationally, at least compared to Clinton, could conceivably play in his favor — if he could successfully rebut GOP attacks on his proposals and background, he might arguably end up having less baggage in a general election than does Clinton, given her dismal personal ratings. And the rise of negative partisanship — in which voters are motivated more than ever by dislike of the other side — could also help mitigate any negatives about Sanders.
The point is that gaming out the electability argument — either way — is made harder than ever by the fact that the juxtaposition of these two particular figures has created such a strange and unique situation.
Match up polling is meaningless unless both candidates are fully vetted. Sanders is not vetted and is very vulnerable
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)Gothmog
(179,956 posts)The attack ads from this appearance on Meet the Press write themselves https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/12/why-bernie-sanders-isnt-going-to-be-president-in-5-words/
Meet the Press ✔ @meetthepress
CHUCK TODD: Are you a capitalist?@BernieSanders: No. I'm a Democratic Socialist.
8:33 AM - 11 Oct 2015
And, in those five words, Sanders showed why — no matter how much energy there is for him on the liberal left — he isn't getting elected president.
Why? Because Democrat or Republican (or independent), capitalism remains a pretty popular concept — especially when compared to socialism. A 2011 Pew Research Center survey showed that 50 percent of people had a favorable view of capitalism, while 40 percent had an unfavorable one. Of socialism, just three in 10 had a positive opinion, while 61 percent saw it in a negative light.
Wrote Pew in a memo analyzing the results:
Of these terms, socialism is the more politically polarizing — the reaction is almost universally negative among conservatives, while generally positive among liberals. While there are substantial differences in how liberals and conservatives think of capitalism, the gaps are far narrower.
...The simple political fact is that if Sanders did ever manage to win the Democratic presidential nomination — a long shot but far from a no shot at this point — Republicans would simply clip Sanders's answer to Todd above and put it in a 30-second TV ad. That would, almost certainly, be the end of Sanders's viability in a general election.
Americans might be increasingly aware of the economic inequality in the country and increasingly suspicious of so-called vulture capitalism — all of which has helped fuel Sanders's rise. But we are not electing someone who is an avowed socialist to the nation's top political job. Just ain't happening.
You can try to argue that the two terms are not the same but that will not stop the Kochs from running $200 milion to $300 million using that term in negative ads that would be very effective.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)under investigation or even indictment? How humiliating for the party.
Gothmog
(179,956 posts)The GOP really wants to run against a weaker candidate http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-karl-rove-attack
In a Tuesday evening statement, the Clinton campaign's communications director, Jennifer Palmieri, mentioned an ad from the Rove-aligned super PAC American Crossroads, which accused Clinton of being in Wall Street's pocket. Palmieri said the ad suggests that Republicans want to face Sanders in the general election.
"While Senator Sanders tries to make a case on electability based on meaningless polls, Republicans and their super PACs have made clear the candidate they’re actually afraid to face. The Sanders argument falls apart when the GOP spokesman is trying to help him and the Republicans run ads trying to stop Hillary Clinton in the primary," she said in the statement.
Karl Rove is running an attack ad against Clinton and these ads have helped Sanders. Rove is doing this for one purpose which is to weaken the strongest candidate and Sanders has been benefiting from these ads
JI7
(93,627 posts)silvershadow
(10,336 posts)Hillary will.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)You don't know what you claim, JI7. No one wins a GE without independents, and that is why H can't win this GE.
mythology
(9,527 posts)Perhaps you should have convinced more people to vote for him if you think things are that bad.
Personally I think you're wrong about the unfavorability ratings is a reflection of are new paradigm of politics.
But it's really pretty much a jerk move to call people hypnotized especially when you're trying to predict the future and declare it as a fact. Nobody knows what's going to happen with the general election yet. That is especially true for people who declare so adamantly that they do.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)
KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)If you think Democrats don't matter and Sanders could win off of Republican support you are very mistaken.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)Count is up to about 8 or so out of 10 or 15 that I have queried.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)I am sitting next to one who will vote Sanders over Trump
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Whats the winning powerball number?
apnu
(8,790 posts)They're pulling your leg. Republicans will either stay home or go to whomever, whatever, is riding an elephant after Cleveland. Before they vote for Bernie. They won't be able to get over his socialism, which they don't understand, but they'll not break for him all the same.
Hillary would do fine in the GE. She may not have much progressive support. But she's got deep party and Union support. Plus, I think, women, African Americans and Latin Americans will break for her.
I think independents, all of them, not just the progressive ones that are flocking to Bernie now, will look at Hillary and whomever the Republicans have, including Kasich and they'll come to Hillary. The Republican brand is that toxic right now and Republican choices are even more toxic right now.
Its sad to say that, whomever is the Democratic nominee is probably going to win because the Republicans are that awful. We've seen this before in the 2006 Mid-Term election. The GOP brand was so bad, W so loathed, that the Democrats had a pretty easy time of it. We like to pretend it was all Dr. Dean's 50 state strategy, and make no mistake, that was a big part of it, but we tend to ignore the nation's mood with Republicans at that time.
This time is like that but even more toxic.
I work in a place that is 90% die-hard establishment Republican that has a good number of staff. There's only a smattering of "moral majority" types here. None of the Republicans here are excited about the race, many are talking about sitting out the race in fact. They wanted Rubio, mostly, or Christie. They are amused by Trump but they don't take him seriously and they find him repulsive when pressed to seriously consider him as a choice.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)personal, real-life friends.
apnu
(8,790 posts)What's the point of replying to tell me you didn't read my post? Just skip it and move on.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)apnu
(8,790 posts)You're not interested in discussing anything.
Gothmog
(179,956 posts)The GOP wants Sanders to be the nominee because he is a very very weak general election candidate http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/why-republicans-are-eager-intervene-the-democratic-race
“Republicans are being nice to Bernie Sanders because we like the thought of running against a socialist. But if he were to win the nomination the knives would come out for Bernie pretty quick,” said Ryan Williams, a former spokesman for 2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney’s campaign. “There’s no mystery what the attack on him would be. Bernie Sanders is literally a card carrying socialist who honeymooned in the Soviet Union. There’d be hundreds of millions of dollars in Republican ads showing hammers and sickles and Soviet Union flags in front of Bernie Sanders.”
“Hillary Clinton is a much more centrist candidate in comparison,” Williams said, and she would have a better chance of winning over moderate and undecided voters, despite numerous polls showing that many Americans, even in the Democratic Party, don’t view her as honest and trustworthy. “Bernie’s numbers are better than hers right now because she’s been in the political arena for 30 years getting beat up,” he said.
Former RNC spokesperson Doug Heye added that Republicans look at some of Sanders’ success “with bemusement,” because they think it would be easy to define Sanders as “out of the mainstream.”
The Bloomberg Politics piece quoted a Sanders campaign official saying that Republicans are simply wrong – and that may very well be the case. The underlying question is inherently speculative and there’s no way to prove definitely who’s correct. It is, in fact, possible that Republicans underestimate Sanders’ appeal, just as it’s possible that Sanders could withstand the ferocity of the Republican Attack Machine, which the Vermont senator has never faced.
The fact remains that some of the more controversial aspects of Sanders’ record and platform are not widely known to the public at large – love her or hate her, Clinton is already a well established figure – and we don’t know for sure how the race to “define” the senator would unfold.
But while we can’t see the future, we can see the present, and right now, Republicans would look forward to a general election against Sanders – even if they shouldn’t.
I strongly believe that Sanders would be a horrible and very weak general election candidate
dchill
(42,660 posts)Nyah, nyah. Nyah, nyah. I won't hear you. Must protect the queen bee.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)and left progressive values in the rear view mirror
the only option left is to create a viable third party that represents true progressivism.
Hokie
(4,366 posts)We haven't been hypnotized. We know how things work.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)to justify voting against conscience, I have no argument to use to talk them down. I will reluctantly vote for her. But, I know regardless of if it's Hillary or a rpublican there will be more war.
Gothmog
(179,956 posts)Sanders has not been vetted and is very vulnerable to negative ads. I am amused that Sanders supporters and Sanders keep citing general election match polls that are worthless because Sanders has not been vetted. Dana Milbank has some good comments on general election match up polls https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-would-be-insane-to-nominate-bernie-sanders/2016/01/26/0590e624-c472-11e5-a4aa-f25866ba0dc6_story.html?hpid=hp_opinions-for-wide-side_opinion-card-a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
Watching Sanders at Monday night’s Democratic presidential forum in Des Moines, I imagined how Trump — or another Republican nominee — would disembowel the relatively unknown Vermonter.
The first questioner from the audience asked Sanders to explain why he embraces the “socialist” label and requested that Sanders define it “so that it doesn’t concern the rest of us citizens.”
Sanders, explaining that much of what he proposes is happening in Scandinavia and Germany (a concept that itself alarms Americans who don’t want to be like socialized Europe), answered vaguely: “Creating a government that works for all of us, not just a handful of people on the top — that’s my definition of democratic socialism.”
But that’s not how Republicans will define socialism — and they’ll have the dictionary on their side. They’ll portray Sanders as one who wants the government to own and control major industries and the means of production and distribution of goods. They’ll say he wants to take away private property. That wouldn’t be fair, but it would be easy. Socialists don’t win national elections in the United States .
Sanders on Monday night also admitted he would seek massive tax increases — “one of the biggest tax hikes in history,” as moderator Chris Cuomo put it — to expand Medicare to all. Sanders, this time making a comparison with Britain and France, allowed that “hypothetically, you’re going to pay $5,000 more in taxes,” and declared, “W e will raise taxes, yes we will.” He said this would be offset by lower health-insurance premiums and protested that “it’s demagogic to say, oh, you’re paying more in taxes.”
Well, yes — and Trump is a demagogue.
Sanders also made clear he would be happy to identify Democrats as the party of big government and of wealth redistribution. When Cuomo said Sanders seemed to be saying he would grow government “bigger than ever,” Sanders didn’t quarrel, saying, “P eople want to criticize me, okay,” and “F ine, if that’s the criticism, I accept it.”
Sanders accepts it, but are Democrats ready to accept ownership of socialism, massive tax increases and a dramatic expansion of government? If so, they will lose.
Match up polls are worthless because these polls do not measure what would happen to Sanders in a general election where Sanders is very vulnerable to negative ads.
doc03
(39,089 posts)and Stalin. Myself maybe because of my age and remembering the cold war would find it very hard to vote for a
Socialist. Sanders is doing nothing but damaging our chances of winning the general election. It is easy to tell us what
is wrong but you have to have solutions and a chance of passing them.
Vinca
(54,002 posts)If she's indicted, it's bad. If she's not indicted, it's almost equally bad because it will be dubbed a "cover-up." There's no good spin for either Hillary or Bernie when it comes to the general election.
doc03
(39,089 posts)so far they got absolutely nothing on them but a BJ. I can't imagine anything else they could try to pin on the Clintons.
They haven't touched Bernie because maybe they want to run against him, think about it.
Godhumor
(6,437 posts)silvershadow
(10,336 posts)Wonder what my enthusiasm level might be? Wonder too if I might even be swayed by a candidate to the left of her?
Godhumor
(6,437 posts)Response to Godhumor (Reply #44)
silvershadow This message was self-deleted by its author.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)Bottom line, when the voters are allowed to participate fully, Bernie wins. It is only through closed primaries, mysterious voter purges, and myriad polling shenanigans that Clinton wins...IN THE DEM PRIMARY. All the folks they were working so hard to prevent from voting for Bernie in the primaries will not be there for Clinton in the GE...of that I am quite sure.
a) Independents don't support her and largely will not give her their vote.
b) Anyone who has ever self identified as a conservative hates, no despises, the Clintons.
c) Her favorable rating is upside down by DOUBLE DIGITS.
Her support is confined to roughly half of registered Democrats and nothing else outside of that bubble. She may win the primary by hook or by crook, but she'll be decimated in the GE...if she isn't indicted first.