![]() |
Quote:
|
Well, it looks like the chances of Bernie getting the nomination are pretty slim and only a major scandal will keep Clinton from getting the nomination. I could talk a lot about my feelings on this turn of events, but whatever. I think Bernie needs to stick around through the general election to continue to be a voice for all the people who supported him. There are a lot of Bernie supporters who aren't going to trust Clinton to do anything to win them over since she's essentially said she won't really change her message or campaign if/when she becomes the nominee. I just hope that the media won't shut Bernie out.
|
Quote:
I mean, the question is: how big is the "Never Trump" team? And how many people will vote for Cruz to deny Trump a win he's successfully arguing he deserves by now? |
Bonus: in case someone is wondering why Cruz isn't really the "republican saviour" and why the "NeverTrump" campaign is going nowhere, I think John Boehner explains it very nicely here: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/john-beohner-ted-cruz-lucifer-222570
I'd quote his exact words about the Texan senator but this is a PG-13 forum. |
Quote:
Sanders supporters are critical of Clinton's moves to the left because she does so waveringly, and they fear that they will co-opt the progressive positions just to undercut them in the general. If you want Sanders supporters - progressives in general, and supporters of reduced income inequality and policies favouring the working class - then you want to be more credible on those positions, speak more strongly about them instead of just providing empty rhetoric. @Ivysaur but what about the whole "giving him a clear path to victory in Indiana" thing? |
Quote:
As for not adopting Medicare For All, that's the fault of her own rhetoric. She should never had said that she's opposed to Medicare For All, that it'd "never ever come to pass". She went too far in preying on the fears of losing the ACA. What she should have done is recognize that Medicare For All would be too ambitious to be accomplished in a Republican controlled Congress and, looking back at how much effort Obama had to spend in negotiating and ultimately whittling down the ACA, how much of that time and effort could have been spent advocating for other important issues (insert Clinton talking about breaking barriers). She should have stuck to the argument of pragmatism, talk about facts (which she apparently is good at doing), and give the case like the lawyer she is that by supporting such an ambitious program that she has a lot of respect for will take away from other forms of progress. She should reaffirm that she agrees with the goal of ultimately moving to a single payer system, but tell the American people that as much as she and other progressive Democrats are in support the Republicans who control Congress would be able to shut it down by mere numbers because of how extreme they are (points for bashing Republicans). She shouldn't have said that she was personally opposed to single payer that it would never come to pass, she should've completely placed the blame on the Republicans which would be completely understandable. But she chose to play to people's fears instead. Quote:
|
Quote:
To be quite honest though, I'm much more optimistic about Clinton's ability to incorporate Sanders ideas - which although that might be flip flopping to an extent - without alienating her present base. The way Sanders supporters see it they have a choice - support a candidate who shares there ideas and ideals or go back to the shadows of political disaffection. Clinton supporters don't really have a choice - they are supporters of the Democratic Party per se, reliably so, and they're much more concerned about defeating Republicans than Clinton's ideological consistency. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
And if someone thinks that Clinton is equally bad, or sufficiently bad, for the country as Trump then, no, they don't have to get behind her. No one has to get behind her. She has to earn people's support. Personally, the thing that might get me voting for her at this point is my concern over the future of the Supreme Court, but otherwise I trust her less and less each day to be a president that honestly tries to represent me and people like me. I think it's entirely likely that she'll ask for Sanders' supporters to support her without ever doing anything for them in return. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
You're right in that the Republicans have mostly left Bernie alone, but I can't think of what they could criticize him on except 1) the things that Clinton has already done, such as him being too "pie in the sky" with his plans, or 2) differences in polices and social issues. If the way the people react to the attacks on Trump by the establishment are any indication, Bernie's status as an outsider would help generate sympathy for him. Regarding 1) Bernie might be hind Clinton in delegates, but his support has only grown over time even in the face of these criticisms. And 2) attacks based on policy and issues are actually good because then it gets the public to make their choices based on policies and issues. Quote:
I don't think the election system in America is designed to favor "patriotic" individuals, if by "patriotic" we mean "believes in the democratic process". Most of the time our votes don't matter because in a presidential election only a few states decide who wins. In local elections a lot of states are either solidly Democratic or Republican and even those that are a mix of the two are still just a mix of two and there's rarely room for a third voice. |
One of the most important points to make here is that Sanders is appealing to "left-leaning people who are Democrats but do not identify as Democrats because being an open partisan is frowned upon" independents. I'd bet a leg that a most of those would be voting for the D candidate anyway the same way most of the open Democrats who are voting Clinton would vote for Sanders or Lincoln Chafee if they were their candidates.
Look, the US political system is amazingly broken and barely functions when it comes to representing people's views. But you do have a chance to have your voice heard in the primaries. Hell, I donated $10 to Sanders, the same way I did to Obama last time. The truth is, he has lost and if your candidate loses, you have to settle for the best you can get- tilting the party platform to the left. Demanding that the candidate who won the popular vote moves away because she's "less exciting" is not fair. And refusing to vote is, in my opinion, downright irresponsible. Because if your idea is "if I can't have a socialist as a candidate, then I'm okay with getting a right-wing fascist president instead because the alternative is a mere centrist one", then I'm absolutely disgusted. The US gives you a chance to aim for the best: primaries. That's when you try and get the candidate -house, senate, president- you really want. Republicans learnt that and made sure to primary-out all "moderate" officials they could find and replace them with radicals. But, once that's done, General elections are the moment when you settle for the least-bad candidate in the ballot. Which might be the good you you supported in the primaries or the bad guy you didn't like as much but who will be a million times better than the other one, whose ideology is in the opposite side of the spectrum. If you refuse to vote because Clinton is "too moderate", you may end up with a Republican House, a Republican Senate and Trump/Cruz as President. And I assure you that "socialism" is the last thing you'll get in those four years. And undoing their legacy may take decades, not just one new election. Quote:
And I guess that's the difference. Incrementalism against radical change. Here in Europe we learnt that the former does work; I guess it's a matter of different views. But "incremental" improvements like the ACA are nonetheless better than "incremental" steps back like all anti-abortion laws in red states. Again, lesser of two evils. |
On the other hand, the idea that it isn't necessary for Clinton to accommodate Sanders supporters because that's the best they can get bankrupts the idea that parties ought to represent public support. I'm equally disgusted with the idea that "I no longer need to acknowledge your voice because you need me even if I don't". Winning the primary is no excuse to marginalize those voters who didn't or couldn't vote in the primary but who would be voting for you come November.
Clinton doesn't have to absorb all of Sanders' positions, but in order for her to get those votes she'll have to make her case to the voters she stands to lose. She'll have to come out stronger on those positions she's said she's moved on and has to project commitment. Like flight said, it's a two-way street. With that being said, I'm beginning to have doubts that Trump will be the fascist everybody says he will be. Quote:
Quote:
In the very article you linked, it says: Quote:
Quote:
|
Sanders is not damaging Clinton. The damage is already there for anyone to see. If anything he is helping her. Any dirty laundry that he is pointing out is going to come out in a general election anyway and it's better for her to have a chance to address it and come up with a response now so that she's ready for Trump or whoever. Sanders is not starting rumors and getting people to believe things that never happens. It's all there in the record already. He's not adding anything to it.
Clinton urged her supporters to support Obama because he became the de facto party leader by getting the nomination and Clinton is a staunch party supporter. Bernie is an outsider. His political fortunes don't rest on being tied to the Democratic party like Clinton's did and do. Quote:
|
420postsblazeit
To summarize the past several posts, I think what people are underestimating on Clinton's side is that Sanders and his supporters are very different and definitely not your average Democrats, which means that you can't rely on preconceptions and past strategies to rally them to your side. |
Quote:
In a system that's designed to only ever allow incremental change, saying "revolution or nothing" means you'll get nothing 99% of the times. Good luck. Here, we have two main left-wing parties. You have the moderates and the radicals. You can pick either in the elections. In the US, they are also running- in the primaries. That's when you make the difference. Also, @Kanzler: it's not the matter of being "a fascist" per se. He's clearly a megalomaniac and his positions, even if they won't be necessarily fascist, can and will cause the international image of the US -with their neighbours, with their allies- to drop even worse than under Bush II. And a functioning US is still needed to keep world order. Then, of course, he goes and does things like adopting a slogan used by literal nazi supporters in the 40's to describe his foreign policy views and you wonder whether he's just him being a dimwit or whetehr there is something more to it. |
Quote:
@Ivysaur. We'll see the extent to which he'll backpedal in the general. |
Quote:
On the other hand, his list of actual policies so far can be summarised in a post-it so he can make anything up along the way. |
Politico is hardly an official source of what's to come or a reputable source of news/information. It's especially hilarious when Politico quotes people in such a vague way.
"One Republican says Trump has no chance!" Gee, what a viable piece of election coverage. That article is pointless except to stroke the egos of Clinton fans. There are thousands of articles that do the same for Cruz supporters and Sanders supporters - Sanders at least still has a chance and his supporters need the motivation to continue. I could pull up plenty of links from all over the web and act like they're gospel for a candidate - there's a dozen or so fresh articles about Trump beating Clinton "like a baby seal". I'd wager you'd dismiss that one though just as I dismiss them all at this point. It's completely useless until we're about a month out from voting - especially when we've seen Clinton go from the sure-fire candidate to barely beating back Bernie without her 500 extra superdelegates. We've seen Jeb Bush going from the sure-fire candidate to barely being able to sell his guac bowls for donations. It's especially pointless when Trump and Clinton haven't even debated once or truly faced off in any meaningful way. Acting like a Politico article months from meaningful general election campaigning means something is like getting an A on your first homework assignment and feeling assured you'll ace the class. There is way more to come in this election. |
There's a difference between trusting facts and trusting analysis. Facts are at least more or less objective but analysis depends very much on assumptions and biases. Unless you are aware of and agree with those assumptions, you should dig a little deeper.
I don't know if millennials will play a big part in this election if Sanders isn't a big part in it. 18-30 turnout almost hit 50% during 2008, but fell back to about 40% (that's a fall of 25%!) in 2012, probably due to Obama. Hillary Clinton is no Barack Obama. The young people who do show up will overwhelmingly vote for Clinton. But if Trump manages to mobilize working class whites, it'll be a challenge for Clinton to match that with an equal mobilization of young voters. |
Quote:
|
It's entirely acceptable to dismiss these trends this early. It's a joke to consider anything right now as accurate or even close to what's next (and you'll see I post some polling numbers below. They mean nothing today, except to prove Trump doesn't poll that far behind her generally speaking). Especially when polling "experts" like Nate Silver consistently get Trump winning wrong and underestimate Bernie.
Hillary will not be able to reach blacks like Obama reached them. There's not even a point in speculating that. She also has far less excitement surrounding her than Obama did. Millennials will not flock to her and she doesn't exactly inspire excitement like Sanders or Trump and millennials overwhelmingly support Sanders, yet we find they either aren't showing up to vote or aren't even participating in the process besides being keyboard-supporters that only preach for him, but don't go and do the work to get him nominated. Repeatedly screaming that Trump is a racist isn't working for anyone's narrative by the way and it's a very poor argument for why he will not win given he's disavowed any KKK endorsements and is pretty adamant that he's against illegal immigration, not legal immigration. Dismissing him as a clown is exactly why he's made it this far and why he's toppled the Bush dynasty and ruined Marco Rubio's "promised one" image (along with Chris Christie). Trump's basically winning in every state left and has not stopped winning since the start. I suspect there's way more to come in this election and it will continue to be one that surprises pundits and "experts" alike. But framing this debate like Trump has no chance is completely foolish and WILL contribute to him winning. People will dismiss him as having no chance, and then not show up to vote assuming he'll get blown out. You're free to continue dismissing him, but he polls relatively close to her. And once again, dismissing him because of that 7% average lead she has is the exact opposite of what Sanders supporters currently do. They see a 7% differential and recognize that it's close and easy to change and takes effort. After 3~ debates and several months of potential mistakes, surprises, and endorsements, you'll be shocked how close this one will be. Republicans, despite disliking him now, will fall in line later on as Trump reins in his outlandish comments and begins acting like a leader more and more. Dismissing any candidate (except Cruz and Kasich who have no mathematical chance of winning the nom) is naive and foolish for any supporter or even any candidate. Bernie could arguably win the nomination still. Clinton could be indicted. She could screw up and say something stupid. So could he. Trump could too. There's absolutely no point in predicting this early and even less of a point of dismissing someone as having no chance (unless they literally have no chance. See: Ted Cruz and John Kasich). |
Quote:
Second, polling expert Silver (why the quotes?) had been saying your argument: that early polling means nothing. Of course, he used that argument to (subjectively) claim that Trump had no chance, even when he acknowledged that polls were, in fact, in his favour. Other than that, his actual, number-based polling predictions have been fairly accurate: they only failed to predict Sanders winning Wisconsin, mostly because nobody in the world did (and it's hard to guess it when all you have are polls and all of them are off by 20+ points). As a bonus, his predictions about how Trump-should-be-doing-by-now-if-he-were-to-win made at the start of the race are frighteningly accurate: he's six delegates over the mark Silver predicted at this point (counting the Pennsilvanian unbound delegates that are declared Trump supporters). Quote:
Quote:
Also, the chart you showed proves that Trump's support in a Trump vs Clinton race has been falling at a constant pace as Clinton's has increased, which isn't exactly a good sign. In shot: can things change? Yes. Are both candidates well-known enough that you can't really expect the numbers to switch that much with campaigns and debates? Yes. Were people wrong to expect Trump to do well? Yes. But, as a person who predicted that Trump could actually do well last August just by looking at the polls, I look at the same polls and see... that he's doing poorly in a general. Pundits insisted that he'd collapse some day despite the polls, you are saying that that race is going to be close despite the polls. Well, your call. Quote:
I'll be happy if the race ends up being as "shockingly close" as 2012, which was won by Obama with months to go. |
The odds of Trump not securing the delegates are extremely low given he's poised to win in basically every contest heading into the nomination. It's also unlikely the Republican Party will take it from Trump given he's only 230~ away, despite Ted Cruz believing differently. They know Trump will go third-party and will very likely take many of his 10 million voters with him - though arguably they'd be okay with that because they'd also rather have Clinton, someone they know is not going to rock the boat.
Clinton-and-Sanders is still a contest at least. And Clinton imploding/getting indicted is far more likely than Trump given (as you say yourself), he's a walking outlandish comment. But he's also anti-establishment so the fact that Republicans in positions like Mike Pence, an anti-LGBT rights supporter of Bible-thumpin' Ted, means little to someone like Trump, who claims to be looking for support from the people and not the politicians. I'm not sure how you're seeing that he's falling at a constant pace or she's increasing though. That list is fairly consistent around 7%-12%, with a handful of outliers putting her at ~20% and him ahead by ~5% or so. That's hardly indicative of much other than it's close in polling. Factor in debates during the general, possible implosions, and a mix of other factors, and there's not really much saying this is going to be a landslide yet. "My call" is that it's too early to predict anything in an unbelievably unpredictable cycle. I do recall you making such statements about Trump early on, so good on you. I'd never have guessed he'd have made it this far or done this well for the nomination. But I don't claim to be an expert. :) Just one vote. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:52 AM. |
![]()
© 2002 - 2018 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2016 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.
Acknowledgements
Use of PokéCommunity Assets
vB Optimise by DragonByte Technologies Ltd © 2023.