HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Politics & Government » Hillary Clinton (Group) » Interesting analysis. » Reply #5
In the discussion thread: Interesting analysis. [View all]

Response to Jitter65 (Original post)

Wed May 4, 2016, 06:57 AM

5. I prefer to avoid ad hominem fallacies, but Seth Abramson does have a strong Sanders bias.

There are many questionable statements in this Huffington Post article. It was written by Seth Abramson, who has a strong Sanders bias. See this Washington Post article alluding to Seth Abramson's strange claim that Sanders is winning the primary:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/23/sorry-bernie-supporters-your-candidate-is-not-currently-winning-the-democratic-primary-race/

Many of Abramson's arguments are based on the same faulty premises that the Sanders campaign has asserted of late. Citing the Rasmussen poll's giving Trump an edge over Clinton is questionable and should raise a red flag. Stating that Sanders could win 22 or 23 of the final primaries is also greatly exaggerated. Moreover, the article also assumes, as the Sanders campaign has wrongly claimed, that superdelegates will be concerned enough about national polling to worry about Clinton's chances. This is based on Sanders' latest creation of wishful thinking.

There are many implausible presuppositions in this quote:

Clinton will have to start spending a great deal of money to fight a two-front war against Donald Trump, who’ll begin his ultra-negative primary campaign against Clinton immediately, and Bernie Sanders, who will avoid attacking Clinton directly but has nevertheless vowed to take the Democratic primary to the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.


Clinton will not have to spend more money. She will cut back on spending for the primary and pretty much ignore Sanders. She has done well in key states without spending half as much as Sanders. She may lose some primaries by cutting back, but I also believe that Sanders is running out of money, and the FEC will be knocking on his door for repayment of illicit contributions. Abramson also states that Sanders "will avoid attacking Clinton directly." If Abramson believes that, I have a bridge or two to sell him.

The author writes:

Sanders now has a greatly increased chance of winning all of the remaining Democratic primaries and caucuses.


I do not think so. Indiana was likely to go to Sanders, due to demographics; but most of the remaining primaries are closed primaries or primaries where "crossing over" to vote Democratic will be difficult and inconvenient. Finally, it is a stretch to believe that Republicans will change parties in great numbers just to vote for Sanders. It is just as or more likely that Republicans will not turn out to vote at all in the coming primaries, now that Cruz is out. Abramson's statement is simply not reality-based.

The author writes:

If that happens, it’s tough to say how super-delegates will view a Clinton candidacy, especially now that the latest national polling (Rasmussen) already has her down by two points to Trump.


If you notice, the author skips more recent and more reliable pollsters who give a big edge to Clinton over Trump in the general election. Rasmussen is a bad polling source (read "Republican-biased". Trump is his own biggest enemy, and that won't change. African-Americans, Hispanics, and Women are constituencies that Trump cannot win over. Again, Abramson is seeing things through the bloodshot eyes of Sanders. Superdelegates will not base their vote on the latest hypothetical polling of the general election. They will base their vote on Clinton's success in the primaries and upon their long-held strong working relationship and friendship with Clinton. Superdelegates endorsed Clinton because they liked her. They won't stop liking her because of a Rasmussen or Fox poll. They know she has been and will continue to be the best candidate for the Democratic party. They have become even more certain of this in the light of Sanders' hostility to the party, temperamental problems, questionable biography, and failure to fund down-ticket candidates. They see Sanders as a very bad bet.

But this is the real fairy tale in the article:

The Democrats will have a contested convention, and the Republicans won’t.


This is Sanders' "fantastical" talking point, simply accepted as plausible by the Huffington Post. See Rachel's and others' take down of this bit of mythical thinking. There will NOT be a contested convention, whatever Sanders or Abramson believes that means.

There are many more problems with the article.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 13 replies Author Time Post
Jitter65 May 2016 OP
LuvLoogie May 2016 #1
SaschaHM May 2016 #2
LannyDeVaney May 2016 #3
misterhighwasted May 2016 #4
BlueCaliDem May 2016 #11
LineNew Reply I prefer to avoid ad hominem fallacies, but Seth Abramson does have a strong Sanders bias.
Koinos May 2016 #5
spooky3 May 2016 #6
DemonGoddess May 2016 #8
Her Sister May 2016 #10
BootinUp May 2016 #7
Koinos May 2016 #9
CajunBlazer May 2016 #12
Stand and Fight May 2016 #13
Please login to view edit histories.