Of course a gambit to move Clinton to the left deserves a lot of news coverage.
Sanders is closing in on Clinton in NH:
He’s up to 32% to Clinton’s 44%.
This pleases me. But I wonder how much of that is geography.
New Hampshire ain’t too liberal, is it? That’s how you can tell it from Vermont.
The New Hampshire GOP is currently at war with Fox News, and by extension the GOP itself over the first debate. Possibly affecting poll results? I dunno.
Dunno but at least they know who he is.
Southern NH is not conservative anymore, since it became just suburban Boston. That’s been enough to carry the state lately.
I’m calling it now: Sanders wins NH, race thrown into turmoil, a big name candidate jumps in to “save the party”. Probably Liz Warren. The clamor for a viable Clinton alternative will be overwhelming at that point. Sanders can’t pull it off, but if he can win an early state against Clinton it shows that Clinton can’t either.
Someone save this!
LOL. As if anyone will let me forget. Unless I get it right.
Besides, I suspect that’s an outcome that would appeal to more liberal Dopers than not. They just don’t dare to dream like I do.
But seriously, if Clinton was to lose NH, and I’m willing to firmly call that one right now, 100%, because there’s just no way Sanders’ name recognition is anywhere near Clinton’s and he’s trailing her by only 12% or so. He will continue to gain and she will continue to lose in NH. That will damage her because the expectation is that this is a coronation. And the only reason strong candidates are staying out is because they don’t think they can compete with her. After an early primary loss, that changes the calculation drastically. ESPECIALLY since she beat Obama in NH. There is just no way in a million years she should be losing that state given that she beat a much stronger candidate there in 2008.
I like your confidence, but I don’t share it at all. But we’ll see. I’m glad Bernie is doing well, and I may even vote for him. But so far I’m pleased with Hillary’s rhetoric as well.
If you weren’t, then she’d have no chance at all. Anyone can say stuff. You do know that she will support TPP once elected, right?
Very possibly. I haven’t made up my mind on TPP either.
Doesn’t really matter. Sanders is serious about not supporting it, but not mainstream candidate for President is going to go protectionist. If they tell you they are, they are lying. Which was my point about taking rhetoric seriously. Campaign rhetoric is not governing priorities. Never has been, never will be. Especially not for a Clinton.
I agree with this. She’s punting at the moment because Bernie’s getting lots of approving noises from the progressives for opposing it, and Hilary doesn’t want to piss off the progressives and boost Bernie’s surge by supporting it. Eventually, though, she will.
But if adaher’s theory is correct, she could just announce that she opposes it and get all the progressive cred and then do something else in office. Right?
She’s trying to be believable. She’s urging the President to get the best deal he can, one that protects workers and the environment and she hasn’t read it so she can’t give a definitive answer yet.
I’ll give her team credit, that’s not terrible politics. But those of us who actually follow this stuff know she supports TPP, and she’ll take a deal that’s less than what she’s calling for if she has to. And she might have a real point. I think she’s probably a much better negotiator than Obama is, so she might be frustrated with his negotiating and unwilling to support him unconditionally precisely because she thinks she can do better.
That’s correct, but she would prefer to hem and haw and not take a firm position at all (last I heard that’s what she’s doing right now), rather than making some kind of vow she’ll break later.