Interestingly though, when rated by InsideGov she falls pretty much between the two of them. Warren is considered slightly more conservative than either of the other two on domestic issues and bit more liberal than either of them on economic issues (they both get the same score). Clinton and Warren are both about as much more conservative than Sanders is on international issues.
Sanders did not drag her Left; he’s provided the service of making her extant liberal positions seem more moderate and pragmatic in comparison while delivering a full throated defense of liberal ideals in general.
DSeid, thanks for that post (and the quote from 538). It’s clarifying.
It would appear that you may not understand what “baked in” means in this context. It doesn’t mean that the person is immune from being hated, or guaranteed to remain beloved, or anything of that kind. What it means is that the accusations–the “negatives”–are already out there, and so won’t be fresh-and-newsworthy ‘revelations’ to anyone.
a) Trump is going to spew bullshit personal attacks on whoever his opponent is.
b) These attacks will come so fast and furious that the average voter won’t have the time or stomach to investigate whether they are true.
c) Therefore, the extent to which these attacks damage the Democrat will depend largely on the average voters’ preexisting judgment of the relative trustworthiness of Trump and the Democrat.
Most Americans don’t entirely trust Hillary; her 50+% unfavorable rating is baked in. In contrast, Bernie Sanders is a person of unimpeachable personal character, and is personally liked by most Americans, even those who don’t care for his politics.
Attacks on Sanders’ ideology and past associates would be more damaging coming from someone like Rubio. Against Trump, most voters will start out with an inclination to disbelieve him.
Against Clinton, Trump will have a mountain of bullshit that the GOP has spent 30 years heaping up from which to hurl his attacks. Against Sanders, he will have to build the mountain himself, and he doesn’t have the credibility to do it.
Many others have posted similar comments, and I think they are somewhat true but overvalued.
Yes, HRC has spent the last, well actually 25, years on the right wing’s shit list, but she hasn’t actually been in the crosshairs. Just like Bernie, she has never been on the ballot in a national general election; the only Republican opponents she has ever beaten have been of the relatively domesticated Northeastern breed. To the extent that the GOP has made her the mascot for liberal depravity, it’s because they’ve found her easier to demonize than Obama, or her husband, or whoever they were actually running against. If you think the attacks on her can’t get worse than what she’s dealt with before, I think you’re being quite naive.
And it’s true that Bernie hasn’t faced that level of scrutiny, and it’s true that Hillary’s big lead has given her the luxury of taking the high road. But I think it’s a very safe assumption that HRC’s people have done extensive opposition research on Sanders, looking for something they could have used to force him out of the race before the primaries (and if they haven’t done that due diligence, that’s evidence that she’s not smart enough to be President). So although I get that the “Soviet honeymoon” stuff is likely to be more damaging in a general election than a Democratic primary, I feel confident that there isn’t some huge bombshell out there that the GOP is going to dig up and spring on Sanders if he becomes the nominee.
And BTW, did you know that Hillary is a Commie too? (Trigger Warning: Wingnut Links).
The RW has prepared that case against Hillary. The reason they won’t use it against her in the general is that they have stuff on her that people actually care about.
She lied about firing White House employees during Travelgate, and she (and Bill) had to return $200,000 worth of White House furnishings they tried to steal when they moved out.
Well, not exactly. Ken Starr found that she had made factually false statements re: travelgate, but not that she had known they were false or expected that they would lead to the termination of the employees. And here’s Politifact on the second one, which it deems “Mostly False”:
But when the accusation is that straightforward and the explanation that it is mostly false is that convoluted, you’re going to have problems.
I don’t doubt that the word is poisonous to many Americans, but that’s where the difference between Bernie and Hillary comes in. We at least know that Clinton won’t be as susceptible to that line of attack than Sanders (though she’d be more susceptible to corportist). So if we believe that attack will be effective, then its a good bet that putting up the candidate less susceptible to it is a good strategy. Like I said, its all speculation for now, I’m just hoping it works.
I understand the concept. It is a transparent attempt to spin a negative as a positive.
Again:
Sanders is attractive to college grads under 40–also known as the future Democratic Party base–in a way Hillary is not.
Neither will get many hardcore pacifists, but he’s less hawkish. Her foreign policy to date is more Bushlike than her own husband’s. Sanders will draw “not in our name” voters better.
Sanders supports an FTT. Hillary does not. Hillary takes a lot of money from Wall Street. This is not a coincidence. This means his budgets would balance better.
I’m sorry he’s too anti-nuke for some people. I’m sorry he’s not a woman, Gloria. But overall, he is the better candidate for the Democratic Party.
And the stuff Republicans say against him is the same as they said against Obama. We are all “communists.” We are all “socialist Jews.” So what‽
Personally I find it almost ludicrous that Congress’ sole self-identified Democratic Socialist wouldn’t be creamed by the Republicans in the Fall. If there were 20 socialists in Congress, that might be different.
Jeet Heer takes a more balanced view on Twitter, ending with a poll:
[INDENT]1. I think both Sanders & Clinton can beat Trump but might be worth asking who has a better chance. I’m genuinely not sure.
Advantages Sanders has over Trump are that Sanders would pre-empt most of Trump’s appeal to white working class.
To extent Trump has a path to the White House it runs through rust belt hurt by 1990s Bill Clinton trade policies. So plus for Sanders
Doubt I have about Sanders is he’s a bit too highminded to wage the kind of dirty, negative campaign you need against Trump.
Also, with Sanders, you’d lose well-to-do Dems who would rather risk madness of Trump than pay for even modest level of social democracy
With Clinton I think her big advantage is her sheer unflappability. Trump is going to go nasty & Clinton has nerves of steel.
Also Clinton is more likely to keep already successful Obama coalition together, mobilize blacks & Latinos, and not lose well-to-do Dems
Gender is also a factor, to Clinton’s advantage. Trump can’t handle being mocked by a woman. Clinton will get under his skin.
Trump already has a gender gap even WITHIN Republican party (got 16% less female vote in Michigan). Imagine that nationally.
There are 2 things Trump can use against Clinton that he can’t against Sanders; trade & foreign policy (Iraq War).
Trump can run to the left of Clinton on trade, against distrusted trade deals.
Trump’s claims to have opposed Iraq War are BS, but they speak discontent with that war that he can turn against Clinton’s 2002 vote.
Other thing: Trump can hit Clinton on Wall Street ties, Goldman Sachs speeches etc. Obviously won’t work against Sanders.
So, Clinton & Sanders both have their strengths/weaknesses against Trump. Who is likelier to do better? You decide.
Let’s put it to a vote. Democratic candidate who has best chance against Trump is:[/INDENT]
Sanders does well in some polls because no one expects him to be the nominee. If he were, Trump can talk about his business success not being possible under communism, I mean socialism, and he’ll wipe the floor Bernie in the states Bill worked so hard to bring to the Democrats 24 years ago.
You mean, the states that have TEA Party supermajorities in their state legislatures now? Clintonism has failed. The Clinton’s version of the Democratic Party is a loser.
They seemed to think that cutting off the left side of the party would make them into the party of everyone, left and right. But instead it made them a permanent minority party, playing to a tiny, fickle “centrist” audience. It’s like having your base be nothing but swing voters.
The Clintons themselves can win elections for themselves, but their version of the party is a ruin. What future does such a party have?
The only reason they’ve gotten back in Congress even once since 1994 is opposition to Bush’s war. And they don’t even seem to realize this obvious fact.
The Clintons approach is the one that actually lead to being competitive in the House. As it is relying on the far left will simply never get you there.
I’ve gotta say, I think people who believe that Trump will have an easier time attacking Hillary than he would Bernie really aren’t all that familiar with Bernie’s past.
My mom’s family is from Vermont. Long before he became the Mayor of Burlington, he was into a lot of causes that would shock most people with modern day sensibilities.
They’ve been ignoring it for now, but if he makes the general there’s no way the media and the Republicans don’t go pouring over all the old articles he wrote for the Vermont Freeman in the 70s.
Remember how many people flipped out over Todd Aken claiming that women who got raped couldn’t get pregnant because “the female body had ways to shut that down”?
Wait until those same people find out that Bernie was writing articles claiming that too many girls listened to their mothers when it came to sex and that they should start having sex well before 18 and that if women had more sex and more orgasms that was a good way to prevent cervical cancer and breast cancer.
Beyond that, do people really think independent voters aren’t going to find the attack on Bernie as “a guy who never got a real job until he was 40 and was a welfare bum” won’t find traction? It may not be fair, but it’ll find traction.
You’re missing the key point. Trump can’t sway anybody’s opinion about Clinton; he can repeat all the accusations that have been made but people have already heard them and made up their mind about them. Anybody who’s going to hate Clinton already hates her.
Sanders is a fresh face. People haven’t made their mind up about him yet. So accusations made against him, true or false, can have a significant effect.
And you’re incredibly naive if you think Trump will have to make all the accusations himself. Candidates don’t make the accusations personally. They have organizations that spread the rumors about their opponents on their behalf.
I agree with you about his radical past, but I hadn’t considered this “welfare bum” angle. I guess I hadn’t thought about how relatively old he was once he became mayor. Do you have a cite on this?
Bernie’s not that pure in regard to ideology vs. getting re-elected via the bacon method.
Backing defense industries vs. protesters; twisting arms for research center; F-35’s for the Vermont National Guard to deal with those pesky hosers up north.
I agree that Sanders would have a better case against Trump than Hillary simply because Trump knows Hillary so well and they rub elbows with the same crowd. The Clintons live in NYC, same as Trump. Bill and Hillary were at Trump’s wedding. Trump would know how to push Hillarys buttons and where her weak points lie. So if say Hillary makes a point about Trumps money, Trump can fire back at how they are identical. I’d even bet the Clintons have stayed at a Trump property or played on a Trump golf course over the years.
Sanders though, coming at it from an outsider, can really show himself as the working class vs the billionaire. He can talk about Trumps income and be totally objective.