2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThe electability argument unravels: bernie beats hillary in ALL hypothetical matchups
Hillarys supporters want voters to believe that we have to nominate Mrs. Clinton or risk losing the election. This argument is built on lies, as the only available data shows that Bernie Sanders does better in hypothetical matchups against Republicans than Hillary.
http://trofire.com/2016/02/16/the-electability-argument-unravels-bernie-beats-hillary-in-all-hypothetical-matchups-the-ring-of-fire/
PatrickforO
(14,593 posts)No one is enthused about her, she has too much baggage and she is a poor leader.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Please don't believe this stuff. Believe that Bernie has a chance to win. But not because of the nonsense above. Wishful thinking does not win elections and never did.
Donations of time and/or money can make a difference, though...
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)people have for the establishment and anyone associated with them?
ignoring that reality is exactly what is going to give us president trump
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)No, some of those few make it clear here. You are not the overwhelming tidal wave of fury you imagine, though. Even a large majority of those who like Berney also like Hillary.
BTW, do you know that over the past 7 years President Obama, the Democratic president we elected, erased ALL the tax cuts enacted since Reagan eas elected for the very wealthy?
This was accomplished in spite of intense GOP opposition, intense anti-government citizen opposition, opposition financed by floods of money from our wealthiest anti-government families, intense laissez-faire business opposition, and considerable help from the Supreme Court.
Yes, there is still very much to be done, but I expect you had no idea that mainstream Democrats have already hurt the plutocrats so badly. Mainstream media are business interests, and they have given it as little and as negative coverage as they feel they can get away with.
Obama has a whole bunch of other accomplishments the very wealthy are extremely unhappy with. They are far more helpless against the power of unsympathetic government than you imagine, and thus they are desperate to defeat the Democrats in 2016, because they know this is just the beginning of the end for their sacking of our nation if they do not.
Good job, Democrats!
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Oh wait...maybe not so few.
So "few" that Obama's margin of victory in 2012 was half his 2008 margin. Not good for an incumbent in an improving economy.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Or are you suggesting the far-lefters alone lost the Democrats literally hundreds of offices in 2010?
Whatever. Right now the tea-partiers are giving the middle finger to the GOP by flocking to The Donald and Cruz, the Anointed Nut.
I'm not at all sure what point you're trying to make here either.
My point is that Obama has made very important advances in spite of the failure of many Democrats to come out and vote. And that's hardly something I'd be boasting about. Those people who stayed home made a dreadful, shameful mistake.
Only about a 5% increase in voter participation would essentially allow the left to run the board. We could already have taken complete control of our nation away from the anti-government forces hoping to continue sacking it without obstruction. Instead the battle continues...
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Yeah...makes perfect sense.
Turnout among Democratic-leaning independents was way down in 2010, 2012 and 2014. Turnout among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents was not up much.
And your point is wrong.
Democrats came out to vote. However, Democrats are only 30% of the electorate.
Democratic-leaning independents did not come out to vote. Because we offered shitty candidates and ran shitty campaigns where we attacked the left....just as you are doing here.
How, specifically, do your attacks on the left get this increase?
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)And those who want change did not come out to vote because they BELIEVED RIGHT-WING LIES.
The GOP loses every time participation is high.
Because a majority of all voters now votes for our candidates.
Therefore, they spend billions of dollars convincing people like...you, I guess, that the Democrats fail them at every turn.
That is such an outrageous lie that it is inexcusably ignorant and/or dishonest for anyone to believe, much less people on the left who want those changes. My guess is that every time people on the left spread his message Richard Mellon Scaife smiles from his grave.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Our 2010 campaign theme was "WE ARE SO SORRY WE PASSED THE ACA AND STIMULUS BILLS!!!!".
Our 2014 campaign theme was "Obama who??"
So how did Republicans get Grimes to refuse to admit she voted for Obama?
In a democracy, it is the duty of the candidates to attract voters. It is not the obligation of voters to vote for the lesser of evils.
For us to win, we have to give voters something to vote for. Even those evil leftists you despise with every fiber of your being. You have a choice: Keep hurling insults and lose, or figure out how to attract them and win.
Clearly, you've chosen the first path. I hope your anger gives you comfort when we continue to lose.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)I'd be backing Bernie and trying to sabotage the Democratic Party. Here's something else to think about. After all, it is 2016.
158 OVERWHELMINGLY CONSERVATIVE families are funding 2016.
...
In marshaling their financial resources chiefly behind Republican candidates, the donors are also serving as a kind of financial check on demographic forces that have been nudging the electorate toward support for the Democratic Party and its economic policies."
"Just 158 families have provided nearly half of the early money for efforts to capture the White House. They are overwhelmingly white, rich, older and male, in a nation that is being remade by the young, by women, and by black and brown voters."
Hundreds of millions of right-wing dollars committed to destroying the reputation of the Democratic Party every election is the main reason we lose, when we lose. We're the good guys, and we do keep winning anyway.
[link:http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/11/us/politics/2016-presidential-election-super-pac-donors.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=a-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0|
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)Again, the data shows that you are wrong. It has been a convenient excuse for the establishment to blame the left for not voting. The data shows this isn't true, yet it constantly gets trotted out there by people that just can't seem to believe that it was voters in the middle who didn't like their "pragmatic" candidates.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)No, as always, liberals (which you dismissively refer to far-lefters in a manner right wing radio who approve of) showed up and voted. They always do.
It was the mushy middle that you couldn't convince to vote for a bunch of candidates that were literally unwilling to identify themselves as Democrats. Turns out that when you run as "Hey, I'm pretty much just like those Republicans, but, you know, a little better" you don't get a lot of enthusiasm, or votes.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)its their way. and i don't necessarily assume that every pro bernie person is anti hillary. but despite some of obama's successes, he sold us all up the river with tpp, and many people, especially the young, need to feel they have something to look forward to in life.
they don't see that help coming from anyone with close ties to wall st and the mic, no matter what letter they put after their name.
they want big change, even bigger than what obama brought. its not an indictment of his presidency, its a realization that more needs to be done.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Obama brought. But if we lose this election, the GOP will have immediate control of two of our three branches of government and soon enough the third, the Supreme Court, and its lifetime appointments...
Do you realize the people operating clandestinely behind today's GOP want to end free public education? Not to worry about the bills for private schooling. They intend to end compulsory education in America altogether.
We MUST win this election. If Bernie wins the nomination I will be behind him all the way. But I pray he does not.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)and we both don't want a gop scumbag in the wh
we just disagree on which candidate best gets us there.
tomato, tomaaaaaato for now, k?
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)6chars
(3,967 posts)it might be a wash
Rocky the Leprechaun
(222 posts)madokie
(51,076 posts)that pretty much matches my own and someone who only wants to be President and believes its theirs for the taking. The choice is clear. Bernie Sanders will be our next President
boston bean
(36,223 posts)circumstance.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)and underestimated at one's own peril
and calling bernie voters stupid is DEFINITELY the way to get their support if hillary becomes the nominee....
boston bean
(36,223 posts)Let a republican in office by withholding your vote and those who are so adamant will get a quick dose of reality.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)there is only one other candidate.....
and since we are on the subject, i wonder how many hillary supporters will commit to voting dem if bloomberg tries to sandbag sanders?
WI_DEM
(33,497 posts)and Bernie and his supporters for a long time while so far Bernie hasn't had the barrage of criticism especially by the GOP and media that HRC has. So, right now he might look good but down the road he may not. They haven't even begun on him yet.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)we have beem down this road. the amount of material the repubs would like to have on bernie pales in comparison to the truckloads they are dying to unleash on hillary. and they are saving their best stuff for a ge becsuse they want her in the race.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)Street.
delrem
(9,688 posts)Hillary's negatives are entirely owing to Hillary, not to the incessant whining.
PonyUp
(1,680 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
Octafish
(55,745 posts)She said on Thursday that superdelegates "exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials dont have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists."
http://truthinmedia.com/dnc-chair-superdelegates-protect-party-leaders-from-grassroots-competition/
randome
(34,845 posts)It means any single-issue group cannot game the system. That includes Republicans registering as Democrats in order to try and restrict abortion rights.
She may not have stated it that clearly but it's obvious what she meant. The alternative is that she said publicly she wants to destroy Democrats. Which explanation is more plausible?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
Octafish
(55,745 posts)What kind of Democrats has she helped or not helped?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251911615
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)So THAT'S why Hillary keeps yelling that Bernie is a one-issue candidate when it's clearly not true.
Optics.
KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)Let's just pretend that he got the nomination and was a general election candidate. Republicans have not run a barrage of ads and unleashed a load of attacks against Sanders that would lower his numbers profusely. Candidates who have skated without attacks always perform better.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)he has been public life for 40 years, and the clinton machine has been doing its very best to tear him down. no one is better at that than them.
he will be fine in a ge.
SheenaR
(2,052 posts)Let me introduce you to David Brock
The guy who sent an email out the other day trying to connect Bernie to Hugo Chavez. And when called out on it he had no answer.. Yeah.. hasn't seen anything dirty yet
JudyM
(29,292 posts)You think she doesn't have the best and brightest hound dogs sniffing for anything they can find? She has plenty of funding and her own money, and plenty of connections, and he has a long, public history.
You really think tRump et al will be able to dig up more on him than Hillary, who has been thrown against the ropes and is fighting for her whole candidacy at this point?
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)aaaaaa5a
(4,667 posts)His numbers look good now because most of America doesn't know who he is. Once they find out, and a billion dollars comes in to take him down, his numbers will drop-DRASTICALLY!
Hillary's numbers are real. She's already been put through the ringer. Bernie's numbers are not.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)as people learn about him, his numbers go UP. as people see more of hillary, her numbers go down.
there is a trend there, and if you think repubs aren't saving their best stuff for a ge with hillary, i have some beachfront property i am trying to unload...
they are in total pavlog dog mode about the possibility of running against her...
Gothmog
(145,635 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.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)but for a variety of reasons, i will not expound on them here
and the socialist bogeyman is dead, except in the minds of radical republicans
Gothmog
(145,635 posts)Rove has determined that Sanders would be the weakest possible Democratic nominee and so has been running negative ads against Clinton in Iowa, NH and Nevada. For example, the ads in Iowa were normal Karl Rove lies http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-flattered-karl-rove-attack-ad/story?id=36343405
The web spot, titled Hillarys Bull Market, was launched by American Crossroads, which is run by the Republican strategist and former President George W. Bush adviser. After watching the ad for the first time during her interview on This Week, Clinton just smiled.
I think it shows how desperate the Republicans are to prevent me from becoming the nominee, Clinton said about the ad, which goes after her ties to Wall Street. I find that, in a perverse way, an incredibly flattering comment on their anxiety, because they know that not only will I stand up for what the country needs, I will take it to the Republicans.
In Nevada, Rove is accusing Clinton of being anti-immigrant http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/269460-rove-super-pac-links-clinton-to-trump-on-immigration-in
American Crossroads is launching a digital ad titled "Hillary's Wall" that attempts to tie some of Clinton's harsher past remarks about immigration to those of Donald Trump, the current Republican front-runner.
In one scene in the commercial, influential Univision anchor Jorge Ramos asks Clinton, "What's the difference between your idea and Donald Trump's idea on building a wall?"
Preceding that moment are clips - all subtitled in Spanish - that show Clinton making tough comments about immigration that could now alienate large sections of the Democratic base.
Sanders would be a far weaker general election candidate which is why Rove is targeting Clinton.
What more do you think that Rove has to throw at Clinton that he has not used so far in Iowa. Clinton is surviving the worse that Rove can throw at her and is still doing well in these races. Again, the claims that Rove is holding back on Clinton is amusing.
Why do you think that Rove is spending so much to attack Clinton in these primaries?
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)and i have no doubt they are saving some special stuff for a hillary ge
Gothmog
(145,635 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)i am not in any denial about what either candidate would face in a ge. i think bernie has more crossover appeal to indys and even repubs and will not be destroyed by rw lies.
rove is a has been.
and just for some fun at his expense, here ya go
https://m.
Gothmog
(145,635 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)however he wants,becsuse after pres sanders takes charge, the campaign gravy train ia shutting down
Gothmog
(145,635 posts)The GOP wants to run against Sanders for their own reasons and the GOP and Karl Rove do not have the best interests of the Democratic Party in mind
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)then they are too stupid to be helped.
they can do/think whatever they want. but i believe they are itching to run against hillary.
Gothmog
(145,635 posts)A GOP group is running a fake attack ad that is really an ad designed to help Sanders. The GOP thinks that Sanders is the weaker candidate and so the GOP is trying to help Sanders http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/anti-sanders-attack-ad-isnt-quite-what-it-seems-be
At first blush, the move may seem encouraging to Sanders supporters. After all, if Republicans have gone from defending Sanders to attacking him, maybe it means GOP insiders are getting scared of the Vermont independent?
Its a nice idea, but thats not whats going on here. In fact, far from an attack ad, this commercial, backed by a prominent Republican mega-donor, is the latest evidence of the GOP trying to help Sanders, not hurt him.
Indeed, in this case, its hardly even subtle. This commercial touts Sanders support for tuition-free college, single-payer health care, and higher taxes on the super-rich. It concludes that the senator is too liberal, which isnt much of an insult in an ad directed towards liberal voters in Iowa.
In other words, were talking about a Republican mega-donor investing in a faux attack ad to help Sanders win because he sees Sanders as easy to beat in November.
Its the mirror image of the tactic Sen. Claire McCaskill (D) used in the 2012 U.S. Senate race in Missouri, when she invested in ads intended to boost then-Rep. Todd Akin (R) in his primary race, with commercials touting his far-right positions and calling him too conservative. The point was to make Akin look better in the eyes of Missouri Republicans so hed win the primary, making it easier for the incumbent Democrat to defeat him on Election Day.
This ad is just another example of the GOP trying to help Sanders become the nominee because the GOP knows that Sanders is the weaker candidate.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)that is all i can really say.
they do not know how pissed and sick of the establishment people are because they are in their own little world...
Gothmog
(145,635 posts)Rove never does anything that is not designed to hurt Democrats or help Republicans
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)i guess we will have to agree to disagree
or we can just disagree lol
Gothmog
(145,635 posts)Karl Rove is running the standard attack ads against Clinton but other GOP types are trying to help Sanders also. Another GOP group is running an ad that is really designed to help Sanders and not hurt him. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/gops-anti-sanders-attack-ad-intended-help-not-hurt-sanders
The ad called Sanders a liberal who supports tuition-free college, single-payer health care, and higher taxes on the super-rich. The intention was to boost Sanders in the Iowa caucuses, since Republicans see the Vermont senator as an easy target in the general election.
This week, its happening again. A group called Future 45 is running ads that, at first blush, seem critical. But the spots actually tout some of Sanders ideas that are popular with Democratic primary voters: an increase in the minimum wage, higher taxes on banks and corporations, tuition-free college, and universal health care.
And whos Future 45? The Intercept reported yesterday:
Future 45 is [a super PAC] run by Brian O. Walsh, a longtime Republican operative who has in the past served as political director for the National Republican Congressional Committee. Most recently, he was president of the American Action Network, a dark money group that was the second-largest outside spender in 2010.
Over the last year, Future 45 has been funded primarily by hedge fund managers. Two billionaire Rubio-backers Paul Singer, who runs Elliott Management, and Ken Griffin, who runs Citadel have each contributed $250,000.
The overarching point is effectively the same as it was a month ago: Republicans are running anti-Sanders attack ads that are actually intended to help him, not hurt him.
As we discussed in the first go-around, this is part of a larger strategy in which Republican mega-donors try to manipulate Democratic voters because they see Sanders as a sure loser in November.
Karl Rove and the GOP mega donors know that Sanders is the weakest possible general election candidate and are running ads to help Sanders. Rove and these other GOP groups do not have the best interests of the Democratic Party in mind when they try to help Sanders become the Democratic nominee
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)might as well not have the primary, then...
SheenaR
(2,052 posts)Don't you know these polls don't mean anything....
But a 5 month old poll from New Mexico shows Hillary is up big! Those are the polls that matter!!
He hasn't been attacked yet they will say... Two words, David Brock... who tried to connect Sanders to Hugo Chavez the other day.
Rec'd
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)he has gotten it worse from the clinton masters than any repub will do...
oh and welcome to du!
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)Her numbers start at a peak and go down.
She would be a disaster as a nominee.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)Gothmog
(145,635 posts)Here is a good thread talking about these polls 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.
Gothmog
(145,635 posts)While I still think that these polls are worthless, I am amused to see that Sanders was found to be misrepresenting these polls and that in fact his claim is not true http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/26/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-he-polls-better-against-gop-ca/
"Almost all of the polls that -- and polls are polls, they go up, they go down -- but almost all of the polls that have come out suggest that I am a much stronger candidate against the Republicans than is Hillary Clinton," he told voters during a Jan. 19 town hall meeting in Underwood, Iowa.
We took a look at the various national surveys, as compiled by RealClearPolitics and PollingReport.com to see how that assertion stacks up against the data.....
Our ruling
Sanders said, "Almost all of the polls that have come out suggest that I am a much stronger candidate against the Republicans than is Hillary Clinton."
The NBC News/Wall Street Journal national poll released before Sanders' statement supports his claim for Trump, but it has no data against Cruz or Rubio. Earlier polls say he doesn't outperform Clinton at all against Cruz, Rubio or Bush, and the narrow races combined with the margins of error make his contention even more dubious.
Beating Clinton in only two of eight hypothetical matchups is far from "almost all."
The statement is not accurate, so we rate it False.
Gothmog
(145,635 posts)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 nights 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 doesnt 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 dont 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 thats my definition of democratic socialism.
But thats not how Republicans will define socialism and theyll have the dictionary on their side. Theyll portray Sanders as one who wants the government to own and control major industries and the means of production and distribution of goods. Theyll say he wants to take away private property. That wouldnt be fair, but it would be easy. Socialists dont 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, youre 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 its demagogic to say, oh, youre 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 didnt quarrel, saying, P eople want to criticize me, okay, and F ine, if thats 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
(145,635 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
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)I think he is going to be tough to beat but hopefully both our front runners will be up to the challenge.
Chichiri
(4,667 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)if they showed hillary blowing past the gop candidates....