Elections Democrat 2016 Primary Thread: V2 It's Still Hillary Edition

[EGarrett]

Bernie Sanders secures decisive win over Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire

 

[ucunc156]

That's exactly the right's long-term strategy. Make up a bunch of bullshit attacks and even if they all get refuted, it creates a narrative that sticks. What makes people think that Clinton is really electable is that they've already done it, the narrative has stuck with some people, and she's still the frontrunner. Sanders has not yet been run through the smear machine. No telling how effective it would be (especially with less time), but you have to think it would have *some* negative effect, meaning that his current polling probably overstates how he'd do in a general.

The right wing machine didn't make up her stance on the TPP, pipeline or same sex marriage. Nor did they make up her speaking fees from GS, nor are they forbidding her from releasing the contents of those speeches. The above things I mentioned are enough that she will lose some democrat voters, and the smear campaign that has long since existed from the right won't allow conservative leaning swing voters to go her way either. At best, they don't vote for any candidate. Its too many people poking holes at her from too many sides (whether legitimate or not). It takes one hell of an apologist to justify/reason out all of those things.

As for sanders, the smear campaign is that he's a socialist. Literally, that's it. It may be enough, especially for voters above 40, but that's it.

According to pretty much every poll, about 70% of Bernie supporters would support Clinton if Bernie drops out.

I get that people on these boards do not like Clinton, but they really underestimate how much the average Democrat still likes her.

70% of say 40% of the party is a huge loss. Not enough to win swing states (assuming republicans eventually unite, which is a whole different story). Hillary or sanders will carry the blue states, because basically anyone with a D tag will. But as far as strategy for winning purple states, Sanders has a better shot at that because the smear campaign against him is simply just a one toned machine (which doesn't even really affect people under 40). Look at the independent split for sanders over hillary in NH.

 

[Sycho Sid]

The right wing machine didn't make up her stance on the TPP, pipeline or same sex marriage. Nor did they make up her speaking fees from GS, nor are they forbidding her from releasing the contents of those speeches. The above things I mentioned are enough that she will lose some democrat voters, and the smear campaign that has long since existed from the right won't allow conservative leaning swing voters to go her way either. At best, they don't vote for any candidate. Its too many people poking holes at her from too many sides (whether legitimate or not). It takes one hell of an apologist to justify/reason out all of those things.

As for sanders, the smear campaign is that he's a socialist. Literally, that's it. It may be enough, especially for voters above 40, but that's it.

70% of say 40% of the party is a huge loss. Not enough to win swing states (assuming republicans eventually unite, which is a whole different story). Hillary or sanders will carry the blue states, because basically anyone with a D tag will. But as far as strategy for winning purple states, Sanders has a better shot at that because the smear campaign against him is simply just a one toned machine (which doesn't even really affect people under 40). Look at the independent split for sanders over hillary in NH.

70% is huge, just fyi. Most Republican candidates cannot even hit 50%, less for Trump. What I am saying is, Hillary is incredibly popular on the Dem side. Bernie is also proving popular. And if you really think that Sanders will not throw 100% support behind Hillary if she wins the nomination, then I do not know what to tell you.

 

[UpaLoompa]

The difference between the wider perception of Clinton and her favourability and what is presented on this forum does seem significant, and the argument that she would make a strong candidate as she has such favourability still, despite YEARS of concerted effort (by generally the same people she would be facing attacks from as a Presidential candidate) to try and lower that, makes sense to me.

I've heard from one person that is supporting Sanders but wouldn't support Clinton. It's also a person that voted Green in 2012.

If you support Sanders, you should--mostly--support Clinton based on their positions.

 

[UpaLoompa]

70% of say 40% of the party is a huge loss. Not enough to win swing states (assuming republicans eventually unite, which is a whole different story). Hillary or sanders will carry the blue states, because basically anyone with a D tag will. But as far as strategy for winning purple states, Sanders has a better shot at that because the smear campaign against him is simply just a one toned machine (which doesn't even really affect people under 40). Look at the independent split for sanders over hillary in NH.

I seriously see very few people in swing states that would vote for Sanders not rolling out to defeat a Cruz or Trump.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The right wing machine didn't make up her stance on the TPP, pipeline or same sex marriage.

Those positions are not issues, though. Probably most Democrats oppose the TPP, though it's not really an ideological issue. Lots of liberals support it, too. Keystone was a victory for the left and not an issue. SSM, ditto.

Nor did they make up her speaking fees from GS, nor are they forbidding her from releasing the contents of those speeches. The above things I mentioned are enough that she will lose some democrat voters, and the smear campaign that has long since existed from the right won't allow conservative leaning swing voters to go her way either. At best, they don't vote for any candidate. Its too many people poking holes at her from too many sides (whether legitimate or not). It takes one hell of an apologist to justify/reason out all of those things.

The point I made is that the right has long targeted Clinton with false charges (or tried to make an issue out ordinary stuff) and some real weaknesses, and the result is that a narrative is created, even when the individual charges don't hold up (and, yes, the right-wing media and political campaigns do regularly attack from the left).

As for sanders, the smear campaign is that he's a socialist. Literally, that's it. It may be enough, especially for voters above 40, but that's it.

That's it *so far*. Right now, Republicans are hoping Sanders wins, rooting for him, providing attack lines, etc. If he wins, suddenly we'll see a big switch, and we'll see a lot of really nasty personal stuff come out. Again, like the stuff they hit Clinton with, they might be mostly false, but people will think, "well, maybe he didn't kill those orphans, but people don't get accused of stuff like that with no basis," and we'll see an erosion of support. Don't be naive about it. The thing with Clinton is that that kind of smear campaign is already priced in.

 

[UpaLoompa]

The thing with Clinton is that that kind of smear campaign is already priced in.

I think that's quite correct, though her own behavior doesn't do her favor there.

 

[UpaLoompa]

This woman is 49 years old, wearing makeup, and knew she was about to appear before national news networks... and she looks like that?

She must smoke three packs a day since she was twelve.

Who fucking cares what she looks like. Are you wanting to date the DNC head?

 

[ucunc156]

70% is huge, just fyi. Most Republican candidates cannot even hit 50%, less for Trump. What I am saying is, Hillary is incredibly popular on the Dem side. Bernie is also proving popular. And if you really think that Sanders will not throw 100% support behind Hillary if she wins the nomination, then I do not know what to tell you.

Trump can't get 50% because its split among so many candidates. If Hillary only gets 70% of Sanders supporters, you could say that she loses out on about 25% of all democratic voters. I don't think this happens, but lets not tout that getting 70% of sanders support is enough to win a nomination (assuming the right wing isn't fractured).

I seriously see very few people in swing states that would vote for Sanders not rolling out to defeat a Cruz or Trump.

I'm having some reading comprehension issues here, sorry. Are you saying that in a choice between trump/cruz and sanders in a GE, the swing states people would side more with trump/cruz over sanders?

Those positions are not issues, though. Probably most Democrats oppose the TPP, though it's not really an ideological issue. Lots of liberals support it, too. Keystone was a victory for the left and not an issue. SSM, ditto.



The point I made is that the right has long targeted Clinton with false charges (or tried to make an issue out ordinary stuff) and some real weaknesses, and the result is that a narrative is created, even when the individual charges don't hold up (and, yes, the right-wing media and political campaigns do regularly attack from the left).



That's it *so far*. Right now, Republicans are hoping Sanders wins, rooting for him, providing attack lines, etc. If he wins, suddenly we'll see a big switch, and we'll see a lot of really nasty personal stuff come out. Again, like the stuff they hit Clinton with, they might be mostly false, but people will think, "well, maybe he didn't kill those orphans, but people don't get accused of stuff like that with no basis," and we'll see an erosion of support. Don't be naive about it. The thing with Clinton is that that kind of smear campaign is already priced in.

to the first paragraph: my point is that independents who vote in dem primary and later in the GE will fall on an establishment republican side due to one of the many issues i listed above. I'm not talking about dem voters going republican, I'm talking independent and swing voters going republican (they dont trust her with the WS stuff, the benghazi/email stuff, or the flip flopping she did on TTP, SSM, or Keystone- regardless of how they align on the issue).

no argument the right has long since targeted Clinton. The majority of people are dumb enough to buy in to all of it or at least some of it. Again, I'm only talking about independent voters here, not people who support the party regardless. Independent swing state voters decide basically every election.

As for your last paragraph, I'd be willing to bet that if Clinton can't dig up much else, the republican's wont either. Republicans don't make up stuff blindly, but they skew half (or less) truths.

 

[UpaLoompa]

I'm having some reading comprehension issues here, sorry. Are you saying that in a choice between trump/cruz and sanders in a GE, the swing states people would side more with trump/cruz over sanders?

Sorry if it was poorly phrased. In a GE contest between Clinton and Cruz/Trump, Sanders supporters would back Clinton.

 

[ucunc156]

Sorry if it was poorly phrased. In a GE contest between Clinton and Cruz/Trump, Sanders supporters would back Clinton.

Agreed on that absolutely. Well at least with Cruz. Supposedly there is some overlap with Trump and general distaste for clinton could push some towards trump. And again, it seems independents are going with either sanders or trump. Whether they are the same kind of independents, I have no idea (i imagine not).

But I could see many swing independent voters ruling out clinton and instead going with an establishment republican.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Sorry if it was poorly phrased. In a GE contest between Clinton and Cruz/Trump, Sanders supporters would back Clinton.

Agreed.

I think a lot of Sanders supporters are saying they'd go 3rd party or not vote at all if Bernie doesn't win the nomination right now, but when push comes to shove and they're faced with the absolute catastrophe that would be Cruz or Trump, they'd do the sensible thing and vote Clinton.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Agreed on that absolutely. Well at least with Cruz. Supposedly there is some overlap with Trump and general distaste for clinton could push some towards trump. And again, it seems independents are going with either sanders or trump. Whether they are the same kind of independents, I have no idea (i imagine not).

Not really, though Trump's right-wing populism has economic components that circle around to Sanders' left-wing populist economic components. If Trump were to get the nomination and come out with a whole-hearted support of single-payer, trade protectionism, etc. he could pick up support but would lose a lot of republicans too.

But I could see many swing independent voters ruling out clinton and instead going with an establishment republican.

Kasich is about the only one that could possibly manage it, and he's not going to make it anywhere near the GE.

 

[ucunc156]

I think Trump will back off his stances on ridiculous things come the GE. It might cost him some reps, but I'm sure not enough to lose him any red states, and the moderate approach would probably win him some swing states in addition.

Agreed on Kasich. I could see Rubio too if he backs off the neocon rhetoric and goes back towards the center like how he was originally. Plus the dude is charming when we isn't spitting about how bad clinton and obama are.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

Who fucking cares what she looks like. Are you wanting to date the DNC head?

For anyone to be dating the DNC head, she must give amazing head.

 

[UpaLoompa]

I could see Rubio too if he backs off the neocon rhetoric and goes back towards the center like how he was originally.

He's never been a moderate on anything except immigration.

 

[Jack V Savage]

to the first paragraph: my point is that independents who vote in dem primary and later in the GE will fall on an establishment republican side due to one of the many issues i listed above. I'm not talking about dem voters going republican, I'm talking independent and swing voters going republican (they dont trust her with the WS stuff, the benghazi/email stuff, or the flip flopping she did on TTP, SSM, or Keystone- regardless of how they align on the issue).

How does that make sense? You don't believe that Clinton is truly committed to expanding financial regulation ... so you vote for a candidate that promises to repeal it and actually has the votes to deliver on that promise? You don't think she'll fight hard enough on the environment ... so you vote for a candidate that promises to roll back progress and can deliver (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/02/supreme-court-halts-obama-power-plan.html)? No, that will not be happening. The Benghazi/email silliness is what I'm talking about, and it's already priced in.

no argument the right has long since targeted Clinton. The majority of people are dumb enough to buy in to all of it or at least some of it. Again, I'm only talking about independent voters here, not people who support the party regardless. Independent swing state voters decide basically every election.

Self-identified independents are as reliably partisan as self-identified party members. Swings are really determined by turnout than by anyone changing their minds.

As for your last paragraph, I'd be willing to bet that if Clinton can't dig up much else, the republican's wont either. Republicans don't make up stuff blindly, but they skew half (or less) truths.

I would take that bet--and go big with it. Look at how they smeared Obama basically for having met people that they found to be objectionable.

 

[Lead]

Congressional Black Caucus PAC to endorse Clinton

The Congressional Black Caucus PAC will formally endorse Hillary Clinton on Thursday.

It's a coup for the Democratic presidential contender, as many of the black lawmakers can help leverage support for Clinton in African-American communities that will be critical during her primary battle against Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-Ohio), a former CBC chair said the former Secretary of State is a better candidate for African-Americans on national security and economic security.

 

[Fawlty]

He's never been a moderate on anything except immigration.

This so thisly. His two major points of pride are the most conservative voting record and his belief in the New American Century.

 

[theBLADE1]

Congressional Black Caucus PAC to endorse Clinton

That's infuriating