2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumDo You WANT TO SEE One Of The Republicans Win In 2016? If So, Backing Hillary Is The Way To Go
Greg Sargent raised the warning signals, based on a new poll released yesterday by Stan Greenberg, that core Democratic voters-- particularly millennials (but also unmarried women and minorities-- are not as energized by the 2016 elections yet as core Republican voters. Perhaps that's because anti-establishment Democrats have come to the conclusion that their party's horribly flawed establishment candidate is inevitable, while Republicans have all but vanquished her equivalent (Jeb) and will probably pick an altogether anti-establishment candidate, if not "outsiders" Trump or Carson, then Texas neo-fascist Ted Cruz.
The Democratic establishment strategy is always "but we have the lesser-of-two-evils." And that's true. Bernie summed up the conundrum on ABC's This Week Sunday when he told viewers, when asked about the party's establishment-backed candidate, that "on her worst day, Hillary Clinton will be an infinitely better candidate and president than the Republican candidate on his best day. But having said that, we have very significant differences, and the key difference is I see a nation in which we have a grotesque level of income and wealth inequality." Bernie is the Democrats' anti-establishment candidate, even to the point of leaving big money from wealthy progressives on the table."
Sanders' refusal to engage in big money politics provides a striking contrast to Clinton. Northern California trails only Washington and New York, and arguably Southern California, as a campaign cash target for her campaign. And its huge financial role was underscored last week by a 900-person, hour-and-a-half gathering headlined by Clinton at a manor deep in Silicon Valley on Wednesday afternoon and a 290-person event at a Napa winery on Thursday evening.
Meanwhile, the Vermonter's lack of interest in the region's cash is a phenomenon that jibes with his campaign's singular focus on Iowa and New Hampshire this fall. But by not sending emissaries-- and not even stopping by the San Francisco area for one of his signature megarallies-- the insurgent Vermont senator is missing out on potentially millions of dollars.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/bernie-sanders-silicon-valley-fundraising-215619
~snip~
Can anti-monopoly sentiment be revived? When New Yorks Working Families Party first recruited Zephyr Teachout to run for governor, she said she would only do it if she could talk about monopolies. They polled it, and they were correct that nobody knew what I was talking about, Teachout says. But when she eventually ran an insurgent campaign against incumbent Andrew Cuomo, she was determined to talk about it anyway. The minute you got past the sound-bite level, people responded to the concentration of power, Teachout says. They did campaign events at places where people paid their cable bills, using the pending ComcastTime Warner merger, eventually abandoned, as the hook. She engaged farmers in upstate New York about monopsony power, and discussed Amazon and big banks on the stump. And it resonated. After only one month of campaigning, Teachout won 35 percent of the vote, with particular strength in upstate counties where farming issues were prominent. The Tea Party talks to people and says, Youre out of power because government is taking it away from you, Teachout says. Far too often, Democrats say, Youre wrong, youre not out of power. Thats dissonant with our lived experience. Youre out of power because your priorities dont matter and JPMorgans do.
http://prospect.org/article/bring-back-antitrust-0
But here's where the source of Clinton's backers and her corporate-oriented campaign contributions come into play-- and why the Politico story about Bernie not wanting to chase Silicon Valley money is so important. This chart from the Greenberg poll was all over the internet yesterday. Understanding the "whys" behind it... less so. If you feel we need to bring back antitrust, please consider a contribution to the candidates who see eye-to-eye with you on that.
cont'
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)is how widely disliked she is. I've read that 60% of Democrats, Democrats! don't think she's trustworthy.
How would that translate in a general election? Lots of non-Hillary Democrats stay home. Meanwhile, vast numbers of anti-Hillary non Democrats go to the polls, some for the first time in years, to vote against her. It's a genuinely scary scenario.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)the Republicans aren't worried about Bernie.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)SheilaT
(23,156 posts)I don't own a TV, and don't watch debates. I consider them a total waste of time.
LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)When Hillary Supporters take the opinions of what Republicans POTUS candidates, at their debate, think about a Democratic Candidate for POTUS, and repeat it on this site. Just amazing.....
Hepburn
(21,054 posts)You have got to be kidding. Because they have the ammo to gun Hillary -- that's a reason to nominate her????
Holy smokes!
BlueStateLib
(937 posts)thesquanderer
(11,992 posts)From the article itself:
"It's certainly within the margin of error, mind you, meaning that it's probably safer to say that the two are viewed as about equally trustworthy."
Gee, a one point difference in a poll with a 3.5 point MOE... ya' think?
merrily
(45,251 posts)Hepburn
(21,054 posts)jmowreader
(50,562 posts)...is how big a problem that "socialist" label is really going to be.
Yes, I know he's a good man. Yes, I know he fights for all of us. I ALSO know the GOP has been winning elections all across America by labeling Democrats as socialists.
How it translates in a general election: Lots of non-Sanders Democrats stay home. Meanwhile, vast numbers of anti-Sanders non-Democrats go to the polls, some for the first time ever, to vote against the guy who will take away their guns, evict them from their houses so an illegal immigrant family can live there, and turn America into the Soviet Union.
Sorry guys, but if Bernie Sanders hadn't been calling himself a socialist (don't bring up his home state - it's got the second-smallest population in the whole country and they all know him) for the last 25 years, I would think of him as the greatest thing since sliced bread. But since he has...OMG the far right is going to have a field day with him.
artislife
(9,497 posts)They will vote for whomever is on the ballot, because they are selfless that way.
jmowreader
(50,562 posts)Theoretically every Democrat should vote for whoever is on the ballot, but according to the post I replied to, that only goes if that person's preferred candidate is on the ballot.
Hillary Clinton is a known quantity to the vast majority of the country. Love, like, tolerate, hate or despise her, everyone knows who she is - she was First Lady and Secretary of State. Bernie Sanders is a senator from a small, liberal state; outside of serious political junkies how many people can name more than a handful of senators who aren't serving their own states? (For that matter, how many can name their OWN senators?)
The GOP can't invent a Hillary Clinton, because the real one is far too prominent. They CAN invent a Bernie Sanders, and you know the one they will create will look like Kim Jong Un with better hair. I THOROUGHLY expect Soviet May Day parade footage in anti-Sanders commercials.
artislife
(9,497 posts)LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)For the Democratic Candidate for POTUS a voter desired (Bernie Sanders) and not who the establishment demand they vote for.
Amazing how that secretly of the voting booth thing, works both ways.
artislife
(9,497 posts)does it reference roads in England?
LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)Michiganders call this town by it's proper name, but frequency in writing references it as A2. Hint: Where the Wolverines GO BLUE!
artislife
(9,497 posts)Ann Arbor!
I was reading A2 and M One...not I ...those are roads in England...like interstates...long, big ones.
I have had 3 boy friends form Michigan---Deerborn, some Township outside of Detroit area and Alpina...All big Wolverine fans.
Went to Cheboygan MI one Easter and to Macinaw and never dated another Michigander again. Oh ...I live in Seattle area so that is kind of weird that I knew 3 let alone dated 3...
LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)That would be Up North, as us Southeastern Michiganders would say. Dearborn, great town with an awesome Muslim & Chaldean Christian Arabic population with the best Humus, ever!
Never been to Seattle yet, but its on my list of places to visit, soon .
artislife
(9,497 posts)which everyone told me about.
Really nice people and I like the land.
merrily
(45,251 posts)will be.
With both the right and the left.
Oh, and it's not 1950.
jmowreader
(50,562 posts)As far as "baggage" goes: Can you, seriously, name a president who shouldn't have had "Samsonite" tattooed on his forehead?
Yes, I know it's not 1950, but Our Republican Overlords have been trying to paste the mantle of socialism on every Democrat who's been in office since...oh, Andrew Jackson. This guy Sanders wears the label like a badge of honor. It is going to be DAMN hard to overcome.
merrily
(45,251 posts)The point relevant to your original post, however, is that more people on both the left and the right have a problem with Hillary, her personality, her policies, her lack of trustworthiness, etc. and the Clinton baggage than have a problem in 2015 with the word "socialist," especially as Sanders explains Democratic Socialism (which, as you know, is not the same as socialism at all).
Hepburn
(21,054 posts)Next question?
earthside
(6,960 posts)... is how big a problem that "Hillary Clinton" name is going to be.
Democrats are not enough to win the 2016 presidential election -- and Repuglicans and unaffiliated voters don't like her.
How it translates in a general election: Lots of non-Clinton Democrats stay home. Scandal, scandal, scandal becomes the mantra of the election as revelations about the Clinton Foundation arise; the Bill Clinton scandals are rehashed; and the Repuglican nominee reminds Americans that they need to vote against the gal who will take away their guns, evict them from their houses so an illegal immigrant family can live there, and will turn the country over to the New York Wall Street pals of the Clintons.
Sorry, but the "first woman president" meme is not going to seal the deal for Hill. Yet, as we witness on DU every day, that seems to be the shame line that the Clinton campaign ultimately falls back on: you're a sexist if you don't support Hillary ... OMG the far right is going to have a field day with her.
PatrickforO
(14,591 posts)Because most Americans are for social democratic positions. Besides, 'socialist' isn't a bad word for Millennials and they are waking up right now, having realized they are the generation no one cared enough about to try and help them make their lives better than the preceding generations - they know now that they must become more activist. The times are changing, I think.
It will be a hard battle, though, especially among white non-college educated people who used to be the backbone of the American Socialist party and union movements. It may be Bernie can turn them around.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)that history, especially YOUNG people.
Eg 7 out of 10 Young people WANT a Democratic Socialist Government and overall, 47% of the population would vote for a Socialist.
This has happened because people are far more informed today and the old 'commie' label doesn't resonate with voters anymore. Nor should it.
I have had no problem explaining Bernie's Democratic Socialism to would be voters at all. They LIKE it. They sure don't like what we have today though since most of the people out here in the real world, aren't doing too great under our current 'rigged' system.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)especially to voters under about 50 or so. The Cold War ended when the Berlin Wall fell, more than a quarter century ago.
And I still say the dislike of Hillary is so visceral, so much stronger than feelings against Bernie, that if she's nominated, do not count on her becoming President.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)not have anyone else to vote for. She is as usual thinking she is back in the 90s. Back then many people did vote the party. But Bill and her changed all that - they invented the DLC - another party inside the party - like the teabaggers in the R party.
People are very angry with the corporate takeover and they see both the New Democrats and the Rs as offering the same old route to more riches for the rich.
We are not in the 90s anymore and it remains to be seen what is going to happen in this election. But it is certain that the voters in 2016 are not looking for business as usual. This time they want real change. We do not want GHW Bush's new world order. We do not want corporate rule.
Whoever is our nominee had better realize right now that the 90s goals are no longer our goals. If they don't they could very easily end up losing.
Darb
(2,807 posts)Keep up the bad work.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)them to search your posts. I did and this is about as substantive as you get. Why are you here? Don't bother to answer, it was rhetorical and I am putting you on ignore. I hate to tell you but you don't scare anyone.
waldo.c
(43 posts)the same illogical reasoning and the same condescending tone of dismissal.
Let's not forget that Repuglycan welfare wingnuts and trolls frequent DU to sow discord and sneer rubbish at good people.
Bernie will win if we support him.
LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)Interesting hypothesis....
Response to LovingA2andMI (Reply #28)
JTFrog This message was self-deleted by its author.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)And I will go on record saying it is not cool. I saw the post where you referred to Bravenak as "repuglycan wingnut welfare troll" I strongly suggest you apologize and cease and desist.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)MIRT can sort it out
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)It's okay, I still love you anyway.
Please excuse my fond bit of teasing.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)What do we call someone here that posts only disparaging posts and never anything else? Don't say it, we are being watched.
I don't mind your poking fun.
By the way, to those here that are stalking me, I find it flattering.
merrily
(45,251 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)On Wed Nov 11, 2015, 03:14 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Someone recently accused you of never posting anything of substance and you challanged
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=793237
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
COMMENTS
Essentially a divisive callout of two members of the DU community
the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Alerter, which two? Posting to zappaman about zappaman's posting history does not equal a call out of zappaman, let alone of anyone else. As for zappaman's posting history, search it for yourself.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This is a tough one. We need to be free to criticize each other. And I tend to agree with the poster. But this did get into speculation that wasn't appropriate.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I will allow this. I don't think it hurt zappaman to find out that he is being put on ignore. rhett o rick was not rude, insensitive or, ott. It is not inappropriate to give one's opinion on a message board. Leave it alone. The call out of two members is post #28 in this thread. Perhaps Alerter made a mistake.
Juror 5's comments are incredibly sincere, too. Incredibly. I've been seeing a lot of juror comments of that nature lately.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)put people on ignore so I don't get hides.
I didn't understand #5 about speculation. The alerters comments are hilarious. Really had to stretch the definition of call out.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Lately, I've been noticing in juror comments smarmy attempts to seem to be bending over backwards to be fair, but dadgummit! the juror just had to vote to hide a relatively innocuous comment (or leave an inappropriate one) no matter how much they struggled with the issue. Another transparent ploy in the morass.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)I will vote for Hillary and let the chips fall the way they will. I don't think any of these clowns can beat us regardless if it is Hillary or Bernie. I like them both but prefer Hillary.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)vets that will be sent off to die for American Exceptionalism. No help for our seniors living on SS and Medicare. Do you not care?
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Clinton's know how to create jobs. 25 million jobs. Black unemployment at lowest level. Longest stretch of peace time.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)And is a pacifist.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)African American and Hispanic voters.
In my lifetime, I've already seen two progressive Democrats lose 49 states in the electoral college. I don't want to see this happen for the 3rd time.
Nonhlanhla
(2,074 posts)The real reason why Democrats are in a good position to take the White House even after 2 terms of a Dem president (an almost unheard of possibility, since the pendulum usually swings back and forth) is because of changing demographics. As long as the GOP remains the party of white supremacists, people of color (even more conservative ones) will tend to lean Dem. And since the demographics of the country are shifting, this places the Democratic Party in a pretty good position for the White house. Indeed, since 2000, the GOP won the popular vote only once (2004), and one of the reasons why Bush was able to squeak by was because he was able to win over a bit more of the Latino vote (if memory serves). That could happen again if the GOP nominates someone like Rubio, although I think most Latinos will continue to distrust the GOP (I'm not speaking for Latino people, of course - I just think that most will not vote for a candidate that does not truly represent them, much like women did not suddenly vote GOP just because of Sarah Palin).
Anyway, the white Dem vote cannot carry our candidate. Our strength lies in the changing demographics of the country, which is increasingly threatening to the GOP. And unless our nominee can appeal to people of color* I don't see how he or she can win.
-----------
*Disclaimer: I actually dislike the term "people of color." It groups people of various ethnicities together under a bland name, and operates with the idea of a binary distinction between "white" people and "everyone else." I use it here simply as a way of indicating the fact that the demographics of the country is shifting away from white majority as the percentage of people from other ethnicities increases.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)So it isn't simply a matter of name recognition, as many people here want to claim. (As if black people are less informed than white people on politics.)
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Otherwise we're doomed.
Maybe the emails are gawd's hands at work?
gordyfl
(598 posts)2016 UFC women's champion Ronda Rousey endorsement was the subject of attention over the summer. Republican Donald Trump claimed to have her support, but the professional fighter dismissed the claim.
Rousey said shes in Bernie Sanderss corner in the 2016 presidential race because of his stance on campaign finance reform.
Im voting for Bernie Sanders, because he doesnt take any corporate money, she said.
Rousey, 28, said she would not vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election if the former secretary of State beats out Sanders in the Democratic primary.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/259682-ufc-womens-champion-ronda-rousey-backs-bernie-sanders
jmowreader
(50,562 posts)You're like, "who?" (I had to look them up myself.) Donny Schatz is the current World of Outlaws sprint car champion, and Aaron Martens is the Bass Angler of the Year.
The whole point of this post is, very few people care who an athlete in an EXTREMELY minor sport like UFC is gonna vote for, and I'd say that even if your title was "Ronda Rousey Will NOT vote for Bernie".
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Which is what the OP was talking about, young people and married women.
Who just aren't interested in the political scene yet.
So, maybe Rousey's endorsement will sway some of them towards voting for Bernie.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)Metric System
(6,048 posts)SunSeeker
(51,709 posts)General Election: Trump vs. Clinton McClatchy/Marist Clinton 56, Trump 41 Clinton +15
General Election: Carson vs. Clinton McClatchy/Marist Carson 48, Clinton 50 Clinton +2
General Election: Rubio vs. Clinton McClatchy/Marist Clinton 50, Rubio 45 Clinton +5
General Election: Bush vs. Clinton McClatchy/Marist Clinton 52, Bush 44 Clinton +8
General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton McClatchy/Marist Clinton 53, Cruz 43 Clinton +10
General Election: Fiorina vs. Clinton McClatchy/Marist Clinton 53, Fiorina 43 Clinton +10
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/11/9/1447820/-McClatchy-Marist-Poll-Hillary-Clinton-Leads-All-Republicans-Nationally
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Never mind Clinton's lead over Republicans, Sanders's lead surpasses hers in pretty much every poll average calculation.
SunSeeker
(51,709 posts)The GOP is holding back on Bernie. They want him to be the nominee. Hillary has not been running negative ads against him either. What do you think will happen if Bernie wins the nomination and the GOP lets loose with a barrage of nationwide negative ads with their Citizen United billions, portraying Bernie as an unhinged socialist? Is he going to fight back with the 2 million he got from his supporters?
Hillary has already endured such an onslaught. They have tried all of their talking points against her. Plus, she has the resources and the toughness to fight any new ones they may come up with.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)vote Clinton because the GOP is pining for Sanders?
That would be their worst nightmare: Arizona would come into play with Sanders on top of the Democratic ticket.
SunSeeker
(51,709 posts)Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)The first is an opinion op-ed: the author says Republicans SHOULD help Sanders weaken Hillary - which implies that none of them actually do so as yet.
The second makes no sense at all, because Sanders refuses big donations. It's one of his best known characteristics. He even refuses financial help from well known liberal billionairs from the Silicon Valley. Probably so no-one will ever believe the National Report's fantasy reporting?
SunSeeker
(51,709 posts)Or more accurately, not do.
Why do you suppose the GOP is attacking Hillary every chance they get but not Bernie?
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)SunSeeker
(51,709 posts)Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)If he has gone unscathed, it's because nothing sticks to him.
Clinton needed 9 hours of Benghazi hearing to bolster her numbers. Her teams efforts to discredit Sanders went nowhere.
SunSeeker
(51,709 posts)BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders_presidential_campaign,_2016#Fundraising
SunSeeker
(51,709 posts)I was being sarcastic about the $2 million. But the real numbers are not that far off. I just checked and he has raised a total of $41 million since he started, but spent $14 million, leaving $27 million. That's peanuts for a presidential campaign. His super pacs, which he has disavowed anyway, have only raised around $25k. https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate.php?id=N00000528 Pitiful. He has chosen to unilaterally disarm by refusing to let super pacs help him, while the GOP has super pacs all over the place, and are expected to raise billions for ads favoring the GOP nominee. How the fuck does Bernie expect to counter the media onslaught that kind of money will buy?
Unilateral disarmament is why a progressive hero like Russ Feingold lost in Wisconsin:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/14/1412133/-Russ-Feingold-decides-to-run-a-modern-campaign-Ron-Johnson-cranks-up-his-whine-o-matic
Feingold learned his lesson and has chosen to run "a modern campaign" for 2016. Hillary may have raised only a few million more in small donations compared to Sanders, but super pacs supporting her have raised many times more than that, well over $100 million, a number which is expected to jump after she secures the nomination and heads into the GE. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/election-2016-campaign-money-race.html?_r=0
The 2016 presidential election could cost as much as $5 billion, according to top fundraisers and bundlers who are already predicting it will more than double the 2012 campaigns price tag. http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/230318-the-5-billion-campaign How does Bernie expect to compete in that world with Act Blue internet donations?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Sander votes in general = Sanders supporters + Clinton supporters* + some moderate Republicans
Clinton votes in general = some Sanders supporters + Clinton supporters
The simple math shows Sanders getting more votes than Clinton.
SunSeeker
(51,709 posts)And your premise that Bernie will get moderate Republicans, but Hillary won't, is wrong.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Sen Sanders while zero Republicans will support HRC.
Watch closely.
Both Sanders and Clinton will get the support in the general of all of Clinton supporters so that is a wash.
But Clinton will not get the support of all Sanders supporters so therefore, Sanders will get more. Sanders is ahead.
Some Republicans can relate to the message of Sen Sanders but no Republicans will trust Clinton. Again Sanders wins.
SunSeeker
(51,709 posts)You are just making shit up.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)SunSeeker
(51,709 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)She represents everything they hate about our government that is controlled by big money. Do you support the domination of big money in government? Maybe you do just this once when it helps your candidate.
SunSeeker
(51,709 posts)I can't imagine a registered Democrat who was a Bernie supporter sitting home and letting the GOP take the White House. Some folks on this site notwithstanding, I do not believe my fellow Dems are that petulant.
Of course I don't like big money in politics. But until we have publicly financed elections, this is reality. I think we are really lucky that we have a progressive candidate like Hillary who knows how to fundraise enough to compete with GOP money, like Obama did. $5 Billion is expected to be spent on the 2016 Presidential Election. Bernie is just incapable of competing in that arena.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)In 2010 and 2014, we lost senate seats and the House because especially the youth vote dropped dramatically. Reason: too many Third Way policies = disappointment among sometimes and new voters.
Sanders appeal is staggeringly high among millennials. IF Clinton ends up a the nominee, how will you prevent a repeat of the 2010/ 2014 low voter enthousiasm among the millennials?
SunSeeker
(51,709 posts)Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)in an essential constituency. eom
SunSeeker
(51,709 posts)Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)You are whitling across the graveyard if you believe the enthousiasm of her current supporters can change that.
SunSeeker
(51,709 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)I think you miss the point of not wanting big money to dominate the government. The excuse that you will use is because it's legal sounds like a conservative stand. The dark money will influence Clinton's judgement, that's why they spend it on her. If they didn't think they'd get dividends they wouldn't waste their money.
People stay home every election because they think the elections are rigged. You admit that they are rigged via big money but expect people to vote anywayz. Millions have come out to support an effort to fix the problem and your answer is to sell our souls to Goldman-Sachs. No thanks.
Sanders can defeat the Republicons in spite of big money. If big money buys Clinton the nomination, her loss in the general is on you, not on Sanders supporters that warned you that they wouldn't play the corrupt game of the Oligarchy that some are so eager to play.
SunSeeker
(51,709 posts)Here's Warren's rating:
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Elizabeth_Warren.htm
Here's Hillary's:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm
Both are rated "hard-core liberal."
Clinton was one of the most liberal members during her time in the Senate. According to an analysis of roll call votes by Voteview, Clintons record was more liberal than 70 percent of Democrats in her final term in the Senate. She was more liberal than 85 percent of all members. Her 2008 rival in the Democratic presidential primary, Barack Obama, was nearby with a record more liberal than 82 percent of all members he was not more liberal than Clinton.
Clinton also has a history of very liberal public statements. Clinton rates as a hard core liberal per the OnTheIssues.org scale. She is as liberal as Elizabeth Warren and barely more moderate than Bernie Sanders. And while Obama is also a hard core liberal, Clinton again was rated as more liberal than Obama.
Nate Silver, 538 blog
http://breakingtothink.com/2015/08/03/mirror-mirror-on-the-wall-whos-the-most-liberal-of-them-all/
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Iraq and the Patriot Act. Those votes weren't votes of a liberal.
Let's look at current issues and see who is the most progressive. Fracking, student loans, Arctic drilling, Wall Street regulations, the Patriot Act, domestic spying, persecution of whistle-blowers, nuclear power, for profit prisons, militarizing the local police, reduction of defense spending, etc. Explain how she is to the left of Sanders or Warren. And medical marijuana.
Why would billionaires donate so much money to a liberal? Answer, "she ain't liberal".
SunSeeker
(51,709 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)the super-wealthy. Do you think they will support fixing poverty? They made poverty.
Two sides to the class war and Goldman-Sachs is not on the People's side.
SunSeeker
(51,709 posts)This is expected to be a $5 Billion Presidential Election.
It can't be won on Act Blue internet donations.
And yes, liberals favor Hillary:
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/11/11/hillary-clintons-favorable-rating-soars-bernie-sanders-is-stagnan
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)the 1%.
SunSeeker
(51,709 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)they know themselves. If one grovels before Gen Clapper and is willing to give up their Constitutional right THEY AIN'T LIBERAL.
If one thinks that the Patriot Act is wonderful Theey ain't liberal.
Clinton can say all she wants but when the chips were down, her true colors were revealed. She betrayed the Democrats and chose to side with Bush and the killer Republicons. They tortured people too but I am guessing you are ignoring that also.
If one dances with the 1% they ain't liberal. If one is going to cut SS and Medicare, support private prisons, militarize local police, they ain't liberal.
Don't forget fracking and the TPP.
Clinton may support some progressive social issues but her stances on war, domestic spying, the Patriot Act, not taxing her 1% friends and not regulating Wall Street, she isn't liberal.
She is a tough authoritarian leader that some blindly follow, regardless of her stands on issues.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)SunSeeker
(51,709 posts)Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)SunSeeker
(51,709 posts)Sanders, though, has a lot of work to do.
While many Democrats were impressed with his debate performance, he apparently didn't do enough to change opinions of him. Since just before the debate, his net favorable rating has dropped 1 percentage point to 38....
Gallup polling showed Clinton is even more well-liked among liberals than Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist, with Clinton holding an 11-point lead in favorability among the sector.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/11/11/hillary-clintons-favorable-rating-soars-bernie-sanders-is-stagnan
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)We are talking about appeal ACROSS party lines, are we not? That's where it is the other way around.
SunSeeker
(51,709 posts)And gaining slightly among Republicans as well. But the Independents are much more crucial to winning in 2016, and Hillary is doing much better with them while Bernie is losing Independents:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/13/hillary-clintons-declining-image-numbers-inch-upward/
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)The votes that will really matter are the votes of sometime voters energised to vote for change. Obama managed that in 2008. He didn't go for the independents, but for the millennials and the non-voters on the left. That is how you win elections in the 21st century.
Independents mattered 25 years ago, and were the reason the Third Way gained traction with the Democratic Party. Now the independents have had their day - most of them vote GOP these days, and Obama could still win by engaging the left more.
I suggest we don't try another 20th century campaign.
SunSeeker
(51,709 posts)He sure as hell didn't win because of "non-voters."
http://www.pewresearch.org/2008/11/05/inside-obamas-sweeping-victory/
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)then Independents do NOT explain why Obama won big. He won big because he engaged voters who ordinarily don't go to the polls.
SunSeeker
(51,709 posts)Which Hillary has too.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)I mean, it's not like 2/3 of the under 35 crowd voted for him, did they?
And that you purposefully ignore that fact because Clinton is tanking in that age group?
SunSeeker
(51,709 posts)Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)That's good to know. We'll flock to a candidate who does need us, and cares to speak for us. Obviously, that candidate is not Clinton, as represented by her ardent supporters who are still in a 20th century mindset.
SunSeeker
(51,709 posts)Of course Dems want and need every vote. But people vote based on which candidate will meet their needs, not the other way around.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)SunSeeker
(51,709 posts)Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)The lesser of two evils is still evil.
Hepburn
(21,054 posts)...she was waaaaaaaaaaaaaay ahead and the coronation was about to start...wait...guess that did not turn out the way it looked in November 2007 for the nomination in 2008.
Imagine that!
SunSeeker
(51,709 posts)Imagine that!
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)ecstatic
(32,731 posts)Ok, so 25 hedge fund managers made billions. So I guess we all should be angry about that because teachers made less money. OK. Now what? What solution is Bernie proposing? To have the government seize part of the hedge guy's income?
If Americans begrudged rich people, people like Kim Kardashian, etc. wouldn't be on the cover of every magazine.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)noticed - the rich own the media. You say "To have the government seize part of the hedge guy's income?"
Do you have something against the rich paying their taxes?
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)I don't think many of the people of the minorities spoken of here care too awful much yet about which Democrat to back next year.
Beacool
(30,253 posts)Some of you seem to live in the same bubble as the Freepers, but at opposite ends of the political spectrum.
Wow........
Metric System
(6,048 posts)Hepburn
(21,054 posts)Historic NY
(37,453 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)And the Democratic Party will never be an effective voice against the extremist Republican Party as long as they hold sway.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)the republicans would sing a song about his socialist position. This would be bad for the DNC to have Sanders as nominee.
Rilgin
(787 posts)It is not fact that Bernie would not win the GE. It is your opinion. You really should learn the difference.
Backing your opinion is speculation on the gop tactics and how the electorate will react. Neither are fact.
This whole thread is about honesty. I am a bernie supporter and do believe as an opinion he will face attacks as a socialistic. It does worry me and i think mosr Bernie supporters know that both the primary and general will be tough battles.
I am sure some Bernie supporters do not acknowledg this electability issue. I think as my ipinion it is not fatal for the reasons set out in this thread. It is an anti establisment election and Bernie polls well amonst independants and against the gop candidates.
However i have seen no Hillary supporters acknowledge that Hillary has her own electability problems. I have not even seen an acknowledgement that she divides the party. Her unfavorable ratings are not new. This itself is one of my gripes with her. I do not think she should have rrun. We would have had a more robust slate of candidates without as much baggage.
I
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)opening song, I did not give the title socialists, the responsible people needs to take over. We should be more interested in educating our K-12, this is the first step before college tuition.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Even the Benghazi committee is taking a lavish European trip to "investigate" more, yes we are aware, very aware. None of this takes away her experience and capably to be the best presidential candidate running.
Rilgin
(787 posts)Yes she has been attacked for years. Alot are made up scandals like Bengazi which charges up the Republican base.
However the division in the democratic party and unfavorables on left leaning indies ia not the made up scandals. The primary division is her war vote. This was why Obama win and the resistance of democrats to Hillary was totally predictable and not based on a made up scandal.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Americans die from gun violence than Americans died it in Iraq. It may not matter to indies but it matters to Democrats. Sanders has voted more times than Clinton has for military action, guess more doesn't matter.
Rilgin
(787 posts)You are right. On balance, on this one issue I, and probably many democrats, favor Hillary's past positions on guns slightly more than Bernie's. He also did vote against the Brady Bill (the five times is kind of irrelevant). I think that was a wrong vote, Like most things there are a few howevers. Further, it is not fatal, the battle for gun control is ongoing and at some point we might get some. Here are the howevers.
First, like most positions, Hillary has not been totally consistent in past years. Right now she has staked her campaign against Bernie on taking strong statements about gun violence being bad. Her policies are sensible but also kind of mainstream. She is for control not banning. Against Obama, she positioned herself slightly to the right of Obama on gun issues. She offered stories of shooting guns when she was young to go after those votes. I have seen at least one position from her stating her support of local community regulation of guns. In fact, her statements and positions in debates in those years are virtually indistinguishable from Bernie's past positions. However, even though she drives me crazy on her positioning herself politically rather than by principles, I believe she is not a gun lover.
Second, although you do not say it, you imply that Bernie is a gun nut and is not himself concerned over the issue. Bernie is not against background checks and other gun controls. He is not a gun nut in any way. He is a democrat and not a republican NRA member. You will not see him like Kerry sporting a skeet rifle or like Hillary telling stories of shooting when she was a kid.
Your support of Hillary on this issue is fine. Your attack on Bernie is very exaggerated. You imply that he is basically hugging Charlton Heston which is far from the truth. I am actually further anti-gun than either Hillary or Bernie. I support and would be in favor of eliminating all guns from society but that's based on my upbringing in NYC where I grew up without guns, hunting, or sport shooting. I do not think Hillary would go that far. Her main focus seems to be on control measures. Again, I think Hillary would be fine on this one issue (see how easy it is to acknowledge). I do not think Bernie however would be bad. Although I disagree with one of his past votes, he is not a gun nut and is in favor of gun control. However, he is not an NRA gun nut and his policies on guns, although not as far as I like are on the correct side of the issue.
Bernie's other gun vote that has been hammered on is the liability bill which is a back hand tactic to ban guns by making it expensive to manufacture through indirect liabilities. I am actually a lawyer and somewhat agree with Bernie's position on this liability even though I am further against guns than he is. Gun manufacturers have the same liabilities as other manufacturers. if one blows up in a shooters face they can still be liable just like other products. They are just not liable for the actual use of a gun where it does not malfunction. The people wanting indirect liability just want a tactic. I do not exactly like this principle as a legal concept. One off bad laws are not a good idea even if we favor their one possible result. If we do not want guns, we should just ban them. This I would be totally in favor of.
It is hard to believe that with all the shootings we do not get even small measures but it can change as the NRA loses its power. Frankly, using Hillary language, Bernie's gun policies can "evolve". They were not bad to start, just not as good as we would like. if he needs to evolve, it is not very far. He is for gun control, he is not for gun violence. He just acknowledges that rural voters are gun people and its contentious. The same thing that Hillary has mentioned in the past. War votes are somewhat different since you can not take them back. On the War Issue. Hillary's problems are not just the one vote. That one Vote for some of us should have ended her political forward progress. War is the single most momentous vote a politician can make. I was in the streets at the time. Most interested political junkies on the left, knew that Bush was bringing us to war and it was not going to turn out well.
Hillary, I believe, knew this too but made a political calculation. The other possibility is not worth considering since it means was fooled by an idiot (Bush). She has admitted it was an error so the only question is redemption. The consequence of her mistake on this Vote should really be her ambition. If you are willing to give a politician a second chance, that politician has to show that he or she has learned from that. Her further policies show that she has continued to support war and military interventions in the Middle East. For me, I think that the Democratic Party should stop putting up candidates that voted for the war. If a politician wants to redeem himself or herself, do good works and become a statesman, do not continue an ambition for personal progress that splits your political party.
Last, I am not surprised that you emphasize this one issue. It is the one issue where Hillary seems both truthful in her support of gun control and seems to have better past votes than Bernie. However, he is not bad on this issue. That is pure exaggeration to score political points. And this is pretty much the only issue where Hillary seems stronger than Bernie.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Much on control. I am a gun owner, if it means obtaining a license, etc, I am willing in order to get the violence under control. I get concerned about the street resellers, the straw buyers, this should be stopped immediately. I get concerned the NRA grades people and the control they exert over some people. My family hunts, has been for generations, they don't need a large magazine weapon, they pride themselves with one shot kills, they don't need the AR15 military style weapon, lots of things could happen but not when there is a congress full of members who are afraid of the NRA.
A few years back Grover Norquist was able to get congressional members to sign a tax oath, he received a nice salary to keep me members "in line" and finally there was enough who broke with him and he faded into the sunset, the same could happen with the NRA, our nation would be safer with those incapable of possessing a weapon from obtaining them, get the straw purchases stopped, the gun shows should not have a background check loopholes. It can be done.
Rilgin
(787 posts)I do not have a problem with Hillary on guns. However, as I said, there is not much difference between them and their past positions. Sanders voted against the Brady Bill but also voted for closing the gun show loophole, against large capacity ammunition, and for other gun control laws. He is not anti-gun but is not a gun nut. I think his positions have increased concern over guns, like Hillary in recent years as the gun problem has increased.
However, this is the same as Hillary in the past. For your perusal, I am posting the following Hillary quotes from 2008 when she ran to the right of Obama on guns. This is not really playing gotcha but more to show that the recent strong position of Hillary is exaggerated to provide a campaign issue now against Bernie. She has been in the past, like Sanders, for some form of a balance approach because of rural states vs urban. The same as those statements of Bernie you allude to. It seems like both may favor higher controls now. Certainly Clinton is currently running on guns because she sees a little weakness in Bernie on this issue. Here are the Clinton quotes from http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/04/1427635/-Hillary-Clinton-s-2008-position-on-gun-control-wasn-t-what-it-is-now
We have one set of rules in NYC and a totally different set of rules in the rest of the state. What might work in NYC is certainly not going to work in Montana. So, for the federal government to be having any kind of blanket rules that theyre going to try to impose, I think doesnt make sense.
"I respect the 2nd Amendment. I respect the rights of lawful gun owners to own guns, to use their guns. But I also believe that most lawful gun owners whom I have spoken with for many years across our country also want to be sure that we keep those guns out of the wrong hands. And as president, I will work to try to bridge this divide, which I think has been polarizing and, frankly, doesnt reflect the common sense of the American people.
Both of these could have come out of Bernie's mouth in the past and focus on the difference between urban and rural areas as much as control.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)She has changed her stand on some issues but again this is a changing world and we have to respond according. We have some tough times ahead, going to need leadership with both feet on the ground. I have every confidence we will get that leader in Clinton.
artislife
(9,497 posts)There is nothing factual about your post.
2008, there will never be a Black Muslim man named Obama who will be elected.
Again, skewed opinion and smear mixed together.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Just the least offensive one.
brooklynite
(94,729 posts)....let us know how it works for you.
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)Darb
(2,807 posts)I need a shower.
For the one millionth time, support your guy and let that be enough.
randys1
(16,286 posts)But I agree, yes.
Support Mickey Mouse if you want, for now, but when the shit counts, vote Dem solely because not to is insane.
Beausoir
(7,540 posts)Todays_Illusion
(1,209 posts)I say electing Hillary is electing the only sane Republican, if conservatism is what you seek.
The libertarians who support Hillary are seeking what they have been preaching, one party, they intend to prove it by having some kind of election crises and link both parties as a solution. Both parties are the same they preach as they have successfully elected Democratic who are really libertarian and only look liberal on a few non economic or political issues.
That environmental group that just endorsed Hillary is made up libertarian tech billionaires.
That environmental group is one of the new organizations fromed to pose as tax exempt group to hide their donors and engage in political acts.
They might differ from the Republican libertarians publicly on climate, but they are all bff behind the closed doors. Diminish the power of our government and hand control to only the wealthiest where all in government have one job, protect the wealth and power of the already wealthy and powerful.