2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumPlease Suspend Now, Hillary, CNN Shows Only Sanders Beats Trump:
Last edited Tue May 10, 2016, 11:05 PM - Edit history (1)
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
onehandle
(51,122 posts)http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/harrys-guide-to-2016-election-polls
Additionally, Unicorns are not real.
lastone
(588 posts)If you think trying to degrade the message that Bernie Sanders has brought to the United States by saying he's really just promising everyone rainbows and unicorns you're degrading more Independents and Democrats than you could possibly imagine and just so you know Sanders supporters aren't automatically in the bag for Hillary Rodham f****** Clinton, and continuing this stupidity further pushes people who support Sanders away from Hillary Rodham f****** Clinton so put a f****** sock in it how's that.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Little do they realize it just makes them sound like infants
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)anotherproletariat
(1,446 posts)They are trying to insert themselves in the Democratic primary by going after Hillary because they want to run against Sanders. What repub isn't salivating over the possibility of running anti-socialist (which will turn into anti-communist), anti-agnostic (which will turn into immoral) anti-universal health care, anti-huge tax increases to pay for entitlements ads against Sanders?
lastone
(588 posts)Because if you did that would be very stupid my friend.
anotherproletariat
(1,446 posts)But all have been rebuffed, or are in the process of being so.
There is no way to know how Sanders would fair after a few months of right wing attacks, so all we have to go on is the probability of the reaction of the voters, knowing their demographics and the attacks that would likely be used.
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/5/10/1525010/-Bernie-s-failed-electability-argument
panader0
(25,816 posts)FBI investigations ARE real, and you know that too.
Peace Patriot
(24,010 posts)ALL polls show Sanders demolishing Trump, and have done so since January. The OP is just about 3 swing states. And even there, Sanders wins, while Clinton barely survives and even loses to Trump in Ohio.
These are close polls in swing states. One might say that they are worrisome for either Democratic candidate, with Sanders having the edge. But Sanders' appeal is much broader than Clinton's (again, ALL polls) and this ain't any kind of normal year in American politics. The key to a Democratic win are the independent voters (now 40+% of the electorate), previous non-voters who are now voting (or trying to vote), and young voters (who are now voting or trying to vote), most of whom are enthusiastic about Sanders and loathe Clinton.
Many of these voters have not had a chance to be heard YET, because of all the rules against voting, and the blatant disenfranchisement of new, young and independent voters, but they ARE showing up in polls! If we Democrats nominate Sanders, the motivation of these voters to overcome obstacles to voting will be fired up. Clearly, Clinton's DNC doesn't give a crap about GOTV except for Clinton voters (getting out her only base, which is within the Democratic Party) and pissing on Sanders voters. This is NOT a winning formula for the GE! Sanders will energize a whole new base in the Democratic Party, and that is what all these polls are showing--the matchups of Sanders vs Trump, the much poorer matchups of Clinton vs Trump, and all the trustworthy and favorability polls, which consistently show high numbers for Sanders and shockingly low numbers for Clinton.
The unicorn of Clinton's "inevitability" is what is not real. Sanders demolishes Trump. Clinton may well lose to Trump. That is what is real, and it is not based on rigged primaries but on real peoples' opinions in the real world.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)
Maru Kitteh
(28,333 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)at this point just rather heavily entertained.
msongs
(67,394 posts)virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)and as Hillary's tactical mistakes pile up....that may change quickly.
FloridaBlues
(4,007 posts)virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)She is never content though....she keeps adding more and more baggage.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)CentralCoaster
(1,163 posts)All that influence and all the different ways that the playing field favors her and she can't win.
She's a ticket to a Trump presidency.
metroins
(2,550 posts)He's 3 million votes behind Hillary.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)metroins
(2,550 posts)Because Bernie won't be in the GE.
I don't know why we even have these threads anymore.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)metroins
(2,550 posts)Again not even worth talking about.
Have a good day.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)Have a good day
oasis
(49,370 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Hillary is losing to Trump
metroins
(2,550 posts)I want her to beat Trump, but that right now is too far in the future to predict.
The delegates and popular vote and every real voting metric has Bernie completely blown out. There is no debate, no maybe, it's been over since March.
I don't care if he stays in, I feel it's fraudulent to collect donations by telling people he has a chance. He does not.
I'll fundraise for Hillary to help her defeat Trump, but I will not underestimate Trump.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Jesus this naiveté is just astounding
Here you go
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Saving-Money/2012/1111/The-election-is-over.-What-happens-to-all-that-campaign-cash
NewImproved Deal
(534 posts)The REAL Issue:
[link:
|
Mike Nelson
(9,951 posts)...in Hillary Clinton's long career that indicates she would suspend her campaign for President at this time. It's not going to happen.
firebrand80
(2,760 posts)It's the kind of behavior we'd expect from a Commander-in-Chief
oasis
(49,370 posts)
Armstead
(47,803 posts)sigh....more of the same will be the prevailing attitude among many.
The nation as a whole is not jumping up and down at the prospect of a repeat of four to eight years of Clintons vs. GOP gridlock and ginned up scandals, and continued separation of government from the population.
oasis
(49,370 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)First, i'd say he's a lot more capable of dealing with an oppositional legislature than people appreciate. I keep pointing to his ability as mayor to both compromise and negotiate and outfox the GOP and business interests, while also mobilizing people to diminish their electoral power.
But even if there is gridlock, at least Bernie will be fighting for distinct things that actually mean something, instead of arguing with Republicans over how many angels there are on the head of a pin in legislation....Or servers and Benghazi and the shenanigans of the Clintons.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)So no
amborin
(16,631 posts)
grasswire
(50,130 posts)She needs to step down.
Suspending leaves the impression that she could re-enter the campaign.
And keep all the money raised.
She needs to step down.
Quit.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Remember the McGovern Campaign in 1972 - a devastating defeat at the hands of the hated Richard Nixon. For literally DECADES after, we have been hearing that "LIBERAL CANDIDATES CAN'T WIN!" from the mealy-mouthed mewling 'centrists' that infest the Democratic Party. This is the source of the "lesser of two evils" mantra that is chanted, by rote, every election cycle to justify burying our collective heads in the sand and rubber-stamping corporate control of the Democratic Party.
The Democratic Party, both Establishment and myopic rank-and-file, appear poised to nominate Hillary. It's entirely possible that she will be destroyed in the coming General Election by Donald Trump. If this happens, maybe we will see a reverse-McGovern effect: CORPORATE QUISLINGS CANNOT WIN! Maybe there will be an awakening of the low-information Democratic voter, and the Democratic Party might become liberal again.
Juicy_Bellows
(2,427 posts)Will they once again change opinion like changing their socks or just blame the liberals?
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)that the Republicans run.
Juicy_Bellows
(2,427 posts)
Gothmog
(145,086 posts)I worked in the McGovern campaign even though I was too young to vote in that election. I remember it well and this ad is typical of that campaign http://www.vox.com/2015/9/14/9323459/mcgovern-sanders
MFM008
(19,804 posts)Quinnipiac polls trend republican.
Total crap.
H2O Man
(73,528 posts)Thank you for this!
Tarc
(10,476 posts)
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)It's a genetic poll!
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)http://www.gallup.com/poll/106981/gallup-daily-obama-49-clinton-45.aspx
beachbumbob
(9,263 posts)No soccer mom would vote for a paficist socialist incapable of keeping America safe....I am afraid Hillary wins in a landslide..
Gothmog
(145,086 posts)These match up polls are worthless but they are all that Sanders has to make the electablity argument. Here is a good thread talking about these polls See http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511819263#post3 and http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511038010
The reliance on these polls by Sanders supporters amuse me. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/harrys-guide-to-2016-election-polls/
Sanders supporters have to rely on these worthless polls because it is clear that Sanders is not viable in a general election where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate may spend an additional billion dollars.
No one should rely on hypo match up type polls in selecting a nominee at this stage of the race. Sanders would be a very weak general election candidate
Gothmog
(145,086 posts)These polls are worthless because Sanders has not been vetted by the media http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/first-read-three-weeks-go-three-margin-error-races-n493946
These match up polls are not meaningful at this stage
Gothmog
(145,086 posts)Sanders has not been vetted and is very vulnerable to attack ads. 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.
Gothmog
(145,086 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
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Vetting is not throwing turds at the wall to see what sticks. Vetting isn't attacking someones spouse, or digging up ancient nonsense to attack with.
Gothmog
(145,086 posts)What do you think that the GOP and the press would do if anyone really believed that Sanders was going to be the nominee. Sanders's past is exactly what the press and the GOP would be doing if anyone really believed that Sanders was going to the nominee. That is how the press and modern campaigns work in the real world.
The Sanders people complain that the press has paid no attention to Sanders but then want to claim that he is fully vetted. If the press really believed that Sanders was going to be the nominee, then the press would be looking at a host of issues such as (i) the issue with Jane Sanders and her former employer, (ii) the full tax returns for all years, (iii) Sanders' financial disclosures which he is trying to delay to after California, (iv) the 100s of hours of tape of his college course where he praised Fidel Castro and others, (v) the viability and true costs of his proposals including far more analysis than these proposals have been given to date, and (vi) his viability in face of truly negative ads. Sanders is benefiting from the fact that no one in the press really believes that he will be the nominee and so they have spent no time investigating his past.
According to this article, Sanders has been treated with kid gloves by the Clinton campaign to date. However the GOP will not be as kind to Sanders. This article from VOX has some good predictions as to how nasty the GOP and the Kochs will be http://www.vox.com/2016/2/3/10903404/gop-campaign-against-sanders
Sanders would be the oldest president ever to take office — older than John McCain, who faced serious questions about this in 2008.
Sanders is a socialist. "No, no," you explain, "it's democratic socialist, like in Denmark." I'm sure GOP attack ads will take that distinction into careful consideration.
Sanders explicitly wants to raise taxes, and not only on the rich.
That's just the obvious stuff. And he has barely been hit on any of it so far.
I have no real way of knowing whether Sanders and his advisers appreciate what's coming if he wins the nomination, or whether they have a serious plan to deal with it, something beyond hoping a political revolution will drown it out.
But at least based on my experience, the Bernie legions are not prepared. They seem convinced that the white working class would rally to the flag of democratic socialism. And they are in a state of perpetual umbrage that Sanders isn't receiving the respect he's due, that he's facing even mild attacks from Clinton's camp.
If they are aware that it's been patty-cakes so far, that much, much worse and more vicious attacks are inevitable, and that no one knows how Sanders might perform with a giant political machine working to define him as an unhinged leftist, they hide it well.
In the name of diverting some small percentage of the social media bile surely headed my way, let's be clear about a few things: This is not an argument against supporting Sanders. There's nothing dumber than making political decisions based on how the other side might react. (For one thing, that would have foreclosed supporting Obama, a black urbanite with a funny name, in 2008.)
But it is an argument that Sanders has gaping vulnerabilities that have not yet been exploited at all, so his followers should not yet feel sanguine about his ability to endure conservative attacks. Also they should get a thicker skin, quick.
The GOP will have a great deal of material to work with and the Kochs will be spending $887 million, and the RNC candidate may spend another billion dollars. These groups will have a great deal to work with
The concept that the Sanders supporters think that Sanders has been vetted and is not vulnerable to negative attacks is amusing to me
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Gothmog
(145,086 posts)The fact that you dislike the tactics that the press and the GOP would use on Sanders does not mean that these tactics will not be used. In the real world, Sanders would be investigated and vetted in ways that you would not like.
Sanders has been fortunate so far in that no one thinks that he will be the nominee and so no one has started the vetting process
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)Those polls are irrelevant. Sanders has not been the target of Republican attacks. Polls had Romney winning one week before the election. Hillary has 3 million more actual votes in hand. It's time for you to come to terms with the fact that your candidate lost. I could pass gas and achieve as much as you did with this thread.
MirrorAshes
(1,262 posts)Sanders' numbers would drop like a rock if anyone were to start attacking him.
AzDar
(14,023 posts)
MrWendel
(1,881 posts)she will get right on that.
kgnu_fan
(3,021 posts)
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)ahead and refuse to listen to anyone or anything and ignore all information that doesn't agree with what they think the know,
LenaBaby61
(6,974 posts)And if Hillary Clinton is the nominee (Think she will be), my vote goes to Hillary. IF Bernie Sanders had won he'd have gotten my vote, but since he more than likely won't win the Dem nomination for POTUS and since from all we've heard, the FBI Investigation isn't yielding anything negative as of yet.
So, Hillary Clinton it is.
synergie
(1,901 posts)amborin
(16,631 posts)Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)Once teh republicans find the transcripts and release them her negatives will drop even farther. By then it will be too late for the rest of us.
Norrin Radd
(4,959 posts)Maru Kitteh
(28,333 posts)For a "weak" candidate, she sure kicked his ass.
