Red Mosquito

McParadigm wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:a United GOP?'

Ha. As you know, a totally incongruent phrase ...

I hope you're right. I have a lot of right leaning family/in-laws of various persuasions...fiscal conservatives, religious right conservatives, ex military who think everyone around them is an idiot on foreign policy. The only thing they all share is a bizarre and unwavering hatred of the name Clinton.

It really is amazing.

Mine wrote:This is why i asked. From what i can tell Clinton has a better shot at winning against the united GOP than Sanders does. I can't picture a self professed socialist having a real shot in the US.

anyone really swayed by that isnt voting for a democrat named clinton. when half your electorate doesnt vote turning out new voters is a huge plus, and sanders is more likeky to do better there, and with undecided voters who are lining up for anti-estsblishment candidates.

to that crowd, sanders isnt the socialist, he is that guy who hates wall street

4/5 wrote:

stip wrote:he is the strongest GA candidate they have.

on the other hand, sanders is the stronger GA candidate, according to polling

Head to head general election polls are completely meaningless.

Yup.

But I do think Clinton vs. Rubio is the worst scenario for the Dems.

stip wrote:

Mine wrote:This is why i asked. From what i can tell Clinton has a better shot at winning against the united GOP than Sanders does. I can't picture a self professed socialist having a real shot in the US.

anyone really swayed by that isnt voting for a democrat named clinton. when half your electorate doesnt vote turning out new voters is a huge plus, and sanders is more likeky to do better there, and with undecided voters who are lining up for anti-estsblishment candidates.

to that crowd, sanders isnt the socialist, he is that guy who hates wall street

I can see this.

So the not voting electorate is a bigger issue for the left wing? That's interesting because is common this side of the Atlantic too. Not at all surprising though.

I think i've read somewhere that Trump's supporters are also people who don't tend to vote (and obliviously anti-establishment). I suppose Sanders wouldn't be able to get their votes if Trump doesn't get the nomination.

Both Sanders and Clinton are risky for entirely different reasons but i think Clinton as the party's candidate going against the GOP would be an entirely different beast than when competing in the primary. I think she'd also attract a significant amount of female votes which i wouldn't underestimate.
I presume if Sanders gets the nomination he'd very likely inherit Clinton's supporters.

There are unsurprising correlations between your economic status and your voting record. In general higher turnout elections tend to favor democrats, as younger and minority voters (who are democratic constituencies, generally) are more likely to show up to vote. But you also have these wide stretches of white voters struggling economically, and both parties have a narrative that can reach them. These are angry or dispirited voters who feel society has (largely correctly) passed them by. It's a question of whose fault it is. Is the system rigged against the little guy cuz of the banks, wall street, financial elites, etc. Or is the problem that the government is closing off their opportunity and spending their money on blacks, hispanics, immigrants, freeloaders, etc. You have a serious candidate in each party trying to tell that story and engage these voters. If you don't nominate Trump and Sanders those guys largely drop off the radar. If it's both each side has a legit shot at winning these voters over based on the strength of the narrative and the candidate delivering it. There are huge possibilities to make inroads with new voters (and permanently bring them into the political process) if you're facing an open field (Trump without Sanders or vice versa) though there's no guarantee you can get them to show up and you may bring other baggage that suppresses turnout among your more reliable areas of support.

stip wrote:There are unsurprising correlations between your economic status and your voting record. In general higher turnout elections tend to favor democrats, as younger and minority voters (who are democratic constituencies, generally) are more likely to show up to vote.

Exactly the same here.

stip wrote: But you also have these wide stretches of white voters struggling economically, and both parties have a narrative that can reach them. These are angry or dispirited voters who feel society has (largely correctly) passed them by. It's a question of whose fault it is. Is the system rigged against the little guy cuz of the banks, wall street, financial elites, etc. Or is the problem that the government is closing off their opportunity and spending their money on blacks, hispanics, immigrants, freeloaders, etc.

There's apparently a correlation between the rise in the number of people who are struggling economically and the rise of the latter option you describe gaining political support at least in Europe.

stip wrote:You have a serious candidate in each party trying to tell that story and engage these voters. If you don't nominate Trump and Sanders those guys largely drop off the radar. If it's both each side has a legit shot at winning these voters over based on the strength of the narrative and the candidate delivering it. There are huge possibilities to make inroads with new voters (and permanently bring them into the political process) if you're facing an open field (Trump without Sanders or vice versa) though there's no guarantee you can get them to show up and you may bring other baggage that suppresses turnout among your more reliable areas of support.

The risk with this kind of candidates is that they can turn out to be a fairytale with no happy ending. It's probably wiser to pick the least divisive candidate for the presidential race, whomever it may be. It's becoming more and more about PR and less about actual policy as the race goes on.
I remember McCain lost in 2008 mostly because he was relatively old end people didn't like the odds of Palin taking over in case he died while still in office.
I think for the dems to win they have to avoid (public) wars within the party because it may end up costing the winning candidate the votes of the other. If Clinton loses - and it's her absolutely last shot at the presidency - i think there's no way she'd endorse anybody because at this point she has nothing to gain from it.

the party infighting will likely go away as soon as we get passed the convention

in 2008 a lot of democrats were scared that the die hard hillary supporters would stay home instead of vote for obama but that didn't happen

cutuphalfdead wrote:the party infighting will likely go away as soon as we get passed the convention

in 2008 a lot of democrats were scared that the die hard hillary supporters would stay home instead of vote for obama but that didn't happen

I think the fear was more the other way, right? At least this year it is. Are young people really going to turn out for Hillary? I doubt it.

cutuphalfdead wrote:the party infighting will likely go away as soon as we get passed the convention

in 2008 a lot of democrats were scared that the die hard hillary supporters would stay home instead of vote for obama but that didn't happen

She openly endorsed him though - and got herself the secretary of state position.
This year i can see her go "fuck it, let's just go back to retirement".

tommymtcom wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:the party infighting will likely go away as soon as we get passed the convention

in 2008 a lot of democrats were scared that the die hard hillary supporters would stay home instead of vote for obama but that didn't happen

I think the fear was more the other way, right? At least this year it is. Are young people really going to turn out for Hillary? I doubt it.

That's what i was thinking, especially in the light of what stip said.

Mine wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:the party infighting will likely go away as soon as we get passed the convention

in 2008 a lot of democrats were scared that the die hard hillary supporters would stay home instead of vote for obama but that didn't happen

She openly endorsed him though - and got herself the secretary of state position.
This year i can see her go "fuck it, let's just go back to retirement".

nah. She'll toe the line like everyone else. they always do.

*past

*tow

I do think a woman will eventually be president.

But after Hillary losing to Obama in 2008, who came out of nowhere; and Hillary starting off like this in 2016 to Sanders, who came out of nowhere; I think it may be becoming clear that she won't be the first woman president.

She has had every structural advantage possible going for her: significant political connections, significant business connections, a network of experienced election industry personnel at her disposal, tons of money.

But she has no charisma.

It's a skill so fundamentally necessary to succeed in the sport of election.

She has been airlifted into the playoffs by structural advantages. She can't make it into The Finals.

Other folks who played this sport their whole life and were subject to the evolutionary development and selection process of electoral candidacy have the skills to win. She never developed those skills. She is unlikable.

In 2008, she lost; not a fair fight; but a fight totally lopsided at its onset in her favor. In retrospect, people seem to write it off as "well, obama was special; can't beat obama".

It's happening again.

Is Bernie "obama-special"? No.

Bernie is great. But Bernie is no Obama.

Bernie just tied Hillary in Iowa. Out of nowhere.

Hillary, even with a 40-point lead before tip-off; can't make a jump shot for the life of her.

She doesn't have the skills. The longer the game clock runs, the more her default lead erodes. Her opponent scores. They have, at least some, game skills. They fought their way to get to that game their whole lives by playing that game. They score points as the game goes on. Hillary doesn't.

Hillary is detestable. The more time she is exposed to voters and the press the more she has to lose. Her presence pierces the illusion of the 'idea of Clinton', a fond reminiscence of Bill and the 1990s; instead introducing the 'reality of Hillary', a shrill misfortune and uncomfortable present-day.

Time is not on her side.

96583UP wrote: It's happening again.

It really isn't. You are dramatically overstating the significance of a very liberal candidate almost beating the moderate establishment favorite in Iowa.

96583UP wrote: Bernie just tied Hillary in Iowa. Out of nowhere.

I do agree with your ideas about charisma--she's got none of it, and for better or worse, that could be a big issue when it comes to turnout among younger voters. I was teaching college freshmen in 2008 and they almost all voted--and voted for Obama--and it seemed like the fervor around his character was as big a part of going to the polls as his positions were (I know that's anecdotal, but it was impactful enough to make an impression on me at the time). I haven't heard word one from my students on this election cycle (except for my students of color bristling at Trump, which I've written about in this thread before), and I dunno what's going to excite them and make them feel like it matters.

But to say Sanders came out of nowhere isn't really looking at the big picture. He slowly caught up to her in the polls for months and didn't overtake her in the end. To build off of 4/5's post: if Sanders had won by 8-10 percentage points, it might be worth talking about (Obama beat Clinton 37-29 in 2008...with John Edwards also getting 29%), but since Iowa isn't really representative of the country as a whole, I don't think a close election does much for Sanders' profile in more diverse states.

"Bring spoils of war to the priests". Wft?

well that's fucked up

Cruz is a nightmare person