I know they’re currently in disarray. But I think it’s premature to predict the Republican party will have ceased to exist by next year.
Compromise is generally a good thing. But it has to be something both sides are willing to do. Unilateral compromising is basically surrendering.
Yes I consider this conversation a hypothetical one at this point but sure I’ll bite …
I dispute the contention that the only way to deal with a bully is “righteous indignation” or even that such works all that well. In this context behaving, well Presidential, calmly and factually, not with indignation, is more effective. Clinton has much experience at being attacked and in a very personal ways. Sanders? Has been in a political environment that views personal attacks and personal backstories as off limits and has zero experience at being Swiftboated.
Yes, Trump’s personal attack style appeals to a sizable enough of a minority voting in the GOP primary process that he may win the nomination in this split field process with weak opposition. But within the GOP it turns off more than it appeals to and among Democrats it turns off much more so, obviously. For the college educated White swingables? I think it drives them away too.
Will there be a few who will stay home when they don’t get their way and Clinton is the candidate? Yes, a few. And if somehow at this point Sanders there may be a few of the demographics that have completely rejected him who feel sufficiently disenfranchised to opt out as well. But likely very few in either case. Most do not hate either of them, just strongly prefer one over the other, and even those who hate one or the other are usually cognizant of the serious harms a Trump presidency could bring.
Turnout may be big this (hypothetical) Clinton-Trump election with strong showings from those who are motivated by voting for and those who are motivated by voting against each of these two. Yes a few angry White Blue collar workers, whose jobs are not back or are now replaced with lower paying service industry work, may flip from D to R. And a fair number of moderates who often vote R will flip to D. Not sure if the flipping angry White blue collars would alternatively prefer the angry self-avowed socialist who also is anti-establishment to the blowhard billionaire and strongly suspect that the socialist moniker would turn off some sizable percent of the GOP moderates.
I agree with this. Clinton has been in the limelight for years. If some story comes out about another skeleton in Clinton’s closet, some will believe the story, but many will just automatically think it’s another baseless attack on her, and that’s regardless of how much basis the attack has. There are undecided voters who may or may not vote for Clinton, but few of them would be dissuaded by another “scandal” emerging, since she’s had so many, and a good number of them have been blown crazily out of proportion.
However, Sanders is less well known. Some story could come out about how he’s good friends with and influenced by a crazy extremist professor who said dangerous crazy things, or that Sanders gave a speech one time where he said regressive and offensive things, or that he had really shady business dealings with a known criminal, and most people wouldn’t know at first glance how legit or fake the story is. For all I know he might be the most honest man who ever lived, who has absolutely no skeletons in his closet, but anything that is remotely skeleton shaped could be used against him, and I don’t know how well he’d be able to combat those stories. Whatever story would circulate, and Sanders would just keep talking about economic inequality, and he might sound above it all, or might sound like he’s hiding from the truth. He doesn’t have much experience being attacked on the national stage like Clinton has. In the primaries with Clinton, it’s been fairly civil between the two of them, since their positions are fairly similar in many ways, and either one would support the other when going forward, so it’s not like the primary season has prepared him for the viciousness of the general.
It’s not impossible for Sanders to beat Trump, just it seems like Clinton would do better.
Not forgetting the disabled. http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/11/26/donald-trump-mocks-reporter-with-disability-berman-sot-ac.cnn
Yes. Bernie Sanders has never, so far as I can find out, been the target of Trump-style nasty attacks. How well will he cope with Trump calling him a doddering old man*, with Trump calling his wife fat, with Trump talking endlessly about Sanders’ illegitimate son?
Trump will not confine himself to remarks about Sanders’ political positions. He will get very, very personal. Will Sanders be able to shrug that off? We have no way of knowing (whereas we know that Hillary can stand up under that sort of thing.)
*There are fewer than five years between their ages (74 and 69), but that won’t stop Trump from trying to characterize Sanders as old and frail.
“We”? Who’s this “we” you’re referring to? How many people do claim to represent? There’s Bridget, Burke, and Bridget Burke. That’s one.
No, I think “Sanders fucks dead children while shooting up?” is the equivalent of “Clinton is a lesbian Satanist who killed Vince Foster.” Sure it’s over the top. But if you throw out enough smoke, people start believing there must be a fire out there somewhere.
If you accuse somebody of being a serial killer who eats his victims and cheats on his taxes, a lot of people are going to think “Well, calling him a killer and a cannibal is just crazy talk.” So guess what? You now have some people thinking it’s plausible he cheats on his taxes. There’s no more evidence of that accusation than the others but if you throw enough mud, some of it will stick.
Look at “Clinton is a liar and an opportunist”. Why do you feel it’s plausible? What specific evidence do you have that Clinton is a liar or an opportunist? Or do you just think it’s true because you’ve heard it so many times that it’s sunk in?
Sanders hasn’t been put through that wringer yet. But if he gets nominated, I guarantee you he will be. And it will harm his reputation just like it has all the previous candidates who went through it. In fact, given the idealism his supporters feel for him, Sanders is probably more vulnerable than most candidates to this kind of attack.
This.
FWIW, his early days and committment to his role as father, would likely play well, even though he prefers to keep that his private business.
I do not believe that he is the better candidate or that he would be the better president but his bona fides as a mensch are pretty indisputable.
Calling attention to Sander’s adult origins and ethics as a partner and as parent is if anything an inspirational storyline that Donald would be foolish to create a compare and contrast to.
They’d not Swiftboat him there. Elsewhere no question, but not there.
BB’s analysis seemed pretty reasonable to me (for one more).
Agreed that Sanders’ record there is going to be to his credit with thoughtful people–but that won’t stop Trump from trumpeting contempt along the lines of ‘he pretends to be so moral and upright, but does a moral and upright person have illegitimate kids?!?!?!?’
Unfair it will be, without a doubt. But when did that ever bother Trump?
Meh. In that regard, I measure her against Bill: He was a good POTUS, and I don’t believe she has any less integrity than he.
Eh… I doubt that would faze him too much.
Weak-sauce, (imho.)
I agree it wouldn’t be much of an attack, but the point is how it affects potential swing voters, not Sanders.
I’m speaking as someone who usually supports Democratic candidates. And who wants the next president to be a Democrat.
And who has read many **doorhinge **posts inimical to these goals.
Visits like the one Sanders made were a small step in getting the Soviet Union to stop doing those things. Are you seriously arguing that stopping someone from murdering children is immoral?
I’m not sure what this is in reference to, but I note that you use the term “accused rapist”. As in, it hasn’t been proven yet. And when someone is accused of a crime but not yet proven, yes, absolutely you defend them, because that’s how you find out if they actually did it or not.
I gladly would admit to Bill lacking it as well.
I’m following this election as much as time permits, but as I mention up above, I’m not that smart a guy. I can’t say FOR SURE that Bernie would make a better president, and get more accomplished than Hilary.
Like I said, I would vote for Hilary.
I also don’t think Bernie will get everything he wants. I do agree with his plight though. I stand for what he stands for and I think we need a shake-up.
Bill’s years were great for my parents. To say Hilary would make a better president is a matter of opinion. I don’t think it’s right to assume either way.
Old joke. How do you know when a politician is lying? His (her) lips are moving.
Bottom line: in the presidential election, Hillary has the wave of history on her side. There will be a first woman president, and it will be Hillary. A “batshit” crazy opponent pretty much guarantees it, because while there will always be a lunatic fringe who believe that quite literally anyone is better than Hillary, they will never be among the majority.
I'm sure people will try to convince me that this isn't a case in which she's being "unethical". Unless I'm REALY missing something, I'm confident about how I feel about this.
Weird, I consider that a highly ethical, moral behavior. Everyone is entitled to a legal defense, and Hillary provided one for someone she detested because she believed he was likely guilty of raping a child. To be frank I find that pretty admirable.
Well, I start from a “prove something” perspective. I guess I don’t actually know of any ethical complaints against Hillary that haven’t been suggested as highly likely to be false (i.e. most of them Republicans bring up) or are extremely minor (like doing the same thing Colin Powell did–using a private email address as SecState, I agree it’s a minor ethical lapse as she was doing it to avoid FOIA requests of her emails but to me it’s not a major ethical lapse akin to say, Nixonian behavior, Iran-Contra behavior, or Bill Clinton perjuring himself.)
Politifact has analyzed it.
Basically Hillary was working at a legal aid clinic, an indigent man was accused of raping a 12 year old girl. Hillary was assigned the case by a judge, she later indicated she didn’t want to work the case or feel comfortable doing so, but she either didn’t ask the judge to be removed because she didn’t think he’d remove her, or she asked and wasn’t removed.
Either way, if only the innocent deserve attorneys then very few people would have legal representation in criminal trials. I strongly agree with her words on this,
“If we don’t like a defendant, we still have a duty to represent them and advocate on their behalf,” she added."
The victim has years later been part of some attacks on Hillary, saying Hillary worked to discredit her. But as terrible as that must have been for the victim–that is the unfortunate job and ethical responsibility of a defense attorney in a criminal trial, to attempt to pick apart the prosecution’s case and its witnesses. I frankly would like a lucid argument as to why that is an unethical action.