Kasich would do well against Hillary, but he won’t be the nominee. You don’t earn that right when you run a serious campaign and win only one state (your home state) against the likes of Ted Cruz and Donald Trump.
Paul Ryan, OTOH, would be a serious threat. I disagree with his ideas and think he’d be a bad president, but he’d be a formidable candidate.
Hillary has announced she’s going negative against Bernie. Never underestimate her ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
I think he could have been a formidable candidate this year. But I feel he won’t win if he jumps in now. People who’ve backed other candidates will resent Ryan stepping in to take over.
I basically agree. I think the only way Ryan gets involved is if Cruz and Trump bloody each other so badly that there’s no consensus among the party elites about who the clear front runner is. The GOP won’t elect Trump, but they may toss Cruz under the bus if he can’t make a credible run in this last 2-month stretch. Then, yeah, Ryan becomes a factor.
That would be a serious error on her part if she follows through. She needs to run a confident campaign and one that inspires. She needs to remind people of when she was the outsider and she needs to remind them of her progressive votes and that she served in the first African American White House and so forth. She has negatives but her record’s long, and it’s not all negative. But going into the gutter and trying to drag Bernie down with her…terrible idea if that’s her strategy.
How about, “Sanders wants to increase taxes on the middle class by up to 20% so he can fund his big government takeover of healthcare. For someone earning 45,000 their taxes will go up by $4500.” *
And that’s the starting point. And note that this obvious line of attack has been kept under wraps.
For those wanting to move the needle I ask myself, a) How many swing seats will the strategy in question flip to the Dems? b) How many purple dems in Blue districts will it shift? c) How will it improve Dem turnout performance during midterms?
For example, Sanders’ rural background could potentially make some inroads in a few Republican districts. The Democrats have solid majorities in the US, but their members are packed in urban districts. Flipping rural ones should be doable, but it will take effort.
An effort Bernie hasn’t shown thus far, monetarily or otherwise.
It isn’t phase II yet.
Note though that Bernie has done well in states with low shares of minorities. It’s possible that he could move the needle in some swingy districts, ironically given his far left positioning.
More generally though, the Dems are a broad coalition. That means that the business and labor wings have to make peace with one another. Or at least get along. I say there’s a lot of scope for cooperation, since policy backed by science, technology and a non-hysteric attitude can advance broadly-based gains. Infrastructure spending and macroeconomic stabilization are but 2 examples. Healthcare reform and climate stabilization are others.
I meant historically.
I thought this board was about fighting ignorance.
Indeed not, per NPR:
Cite?
How do you figure this is only ten percent? I have the current tax forms at hand, and it didn’t take long to determine that a single person with a vanilla tax situation and $45,000 income pays $4770 in federal taxes. So if their taxes will go up by $4500, that’s about a 94% increase in their taxes. If I were making this commercial, though, I’d leave out percentages and say “Someone earning $45,000 a year will see their taxes virtually double under Sanders’s plan”. (Or maybe I’d leave off the “virtually” and let the Sanders camp jump into the thicket of objecting that this is incorrect, because it would be “only” a 94% increase.)
MSNBC. Of course no cite is needed, she’s been running negative all along.
I first posted about this on the Drumpf thread, and then in the Pit. But no thread dedicated to “the illusions of Sanders-supporters”, on a board dedicated to fighting ignorance, would be complete without this howlingly funny moment:
Brian Stelter from CNN’s Reliable Sources as well. Can’t cite anything better than a Reliable Source.
It should be no surprise to anyone that Hillary is running a negative campaign, she has nothing positive to run on.
You don’t have any notions of how to get your plans done aside from platitudes isn’t necessarily negative campaigning (mostly because it’s not what Clinton is actually campaigning on - or its an incredibly minor part of what Clinton is campaigning on). It’s asking how are you going to accomplish anything you say you will, and as the New York Daily News interview shows, he’s got absolutely no idea.
Your criticism is fair. Hillary has no idea how to get anything done either, but she’s free to throw this at him. Bernie is running as an outsider, Hillary is running as an insider, she’s free to make her case on this basis, and it’s up to Bernie to show he has the better case.
Clinton actually has quite in depth plans, and yes, she may not get them through a GOP Congress, but at least she’s thought it through quite significantly. She isn’t considered a wonk for nothing.
For example, here is Clinton’s factsheet on “Wall Street” reforms (it’s got quite a bit of information):
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/10/08/wall-street-work-for-main-street/
A fact sheet is not an interview. Do you think she stayed up all night writing that fact sheet herself off the cuff? Do you have any press interviews where HRC gives specifics?
Any debate would have shown you that Clinton has a far greater command of the facts and political process than Sanders displayed there.
Anyways, Sanders’ website is also devoid of what he would exactly do (no wonder he didn’t have an answer):
She’s free to sell herself that way. I see quantity there, not quality. She’s claimed to have know-how before but has nothing to show for it so far.
However, if her approach is to sell herself this way then it’s not negative campaigning. If she does actually go negative she’ll lose support. She has to walk this tightrope carefully, and I think she’s a negative person, she won’t be able to resist showing her true colors, and Bernie will take advantage of that. If she gets good advice and demonstrates discipline this won’t be a problem for her.
I’ll remain pessimistic about Bernie’s chances, it’s worked so far, I don’t think he’s really had a chance and he keeps winning states. She has to really screw up to lose New York. However, I’ll say that if Bernie wins New York, even by a single vote, she’s toast. I wouldn’t bet a single vacuum cleaner penny on that happening though.