And as everyone who follows knows (unless it makes their preferred candidate look good) these hypothetical matchup polls have almost no predictive value.
Indeed. It’s still a better look for Sanders than I’ve seen Clinton fans offer for her, lately.
Personally, I like both. I’m voting for Hillary, but would also vote for Sanders if he won the nomination.
I don’t think he’d win, and I don’t think he’d be a very good president (not for lack of trying), but he’s so much better than the opposition that it’s no contest.
Bernie hasn’t faced the brunt of any negative campaigning. Find a poll that factors in his tax increases on all tax brackets and the fact that he is a socialist atheist and see how he does. Hillary can’t hit him on those issues because it alienates the base she wants behind her, but whoever the Republicans nominate will be running ads on that on day one after Bernie wins the nomination.
I think Bernie would be a bad President–I think he’s a good man, I disagree with him on a lot of issues, but I think he lacks any of the necessary qualities to be commander in chief. I voted against Obama twice because I felt he was a bad leader–and still do, but Bernie based on what I know of him would be far worse. I think Obama has poor leadership ability but has turned out to be a “decent” President in tough times, but many of his Presidency’s missteps in foreign policy would not have happened with different people at the helm.
As a Republican who plans to vote for Hillary due to the lack of sane candidates (or even a sane tax plan), I can do so because I trust Hillary to lead the country. I trust Bernie to advocate his positions and policies, but I see no day to day management experience or leadership ability. I’ll likely vote for any Republican over Bernie if the Dems go that direction.
Also, Bernie has no PAC at all. If he doesn’t change his position on those he will have a much quieter megaphone to respond to those Republican attack ads. Obama is famous as setting all kinds of fundraising records from small donors, but even for him in 2012 like half his money were from PACs. Obama realized he couldn’t fight Romney with a hand tied behind his back, losing the White House wasn’t worth making a political point against Wall Street and PACs. Bernie’s whole appeal is he feels the opposite on that–that no matter what it’s absolutely worth making that political point.
I’ve always said on the margins spending isn’t going to determine an election, but we’ve never had a campaign in the modern era outspend another by 2:1 (and not win), and that is what will happen in the general if Bernie doesn’t get a PAC.
For what it is worth, as a Hillary supporter, I would wholeheartedly endorse and work for Bernie if he was the nominee. I may think that he’d be an incredibly ineffectual president and that his foreign policy experience lack could be problematic, more dangerous than her (to my mind) excessive willingness to engage interventionally, but the harms of any of this GOP crop … just on the SC alone, let alone in destroying the progress made in moving towards more universal healthcare coverage, on foreign policy (carpet bombing!?), and a host of other issues … brrr. He is orders of magnitude preferred to that. I’d do the little I could to help prove my belief that he’d be a greater risk of losing wrong.
Shayna has never been shy about expressing her hatred for all things Clinton. Obviously some of us disagree with her, but hey. Hatred is not always irrational, but when you’d prefer (even by passivity) any of this GOP crop (Kasich inclusive) to someone who actually agrees with you on most issues, that is when irrationality becomes the driving force.
I’ve been a Republican for my entire life–using some of the (relatively fluff) quizes like ISideWith.com the GOP candidates are all in the 70-80% for me and both Bernie and Hillary are down in the 50s.
What those polls do not capture is competence–I feel that aside from Jeb and Kasich (who I think would be competent) the GOP crop would all be incompetent Presidents. Some like Trump or Cruz would be dangerously incompetent, Rubio would be garden variety incompetent. My decision to support Hillary is based on a few factors like 1) believing Trump or Cruz are the likely GOP nominees and my belief both are unsuitable for the Presidency and 2) all of the GOP candidates are proposing tax plans that beggar the government for no reason, in an act of madness and stupidity.
This is a dangerous shift–I’ve long said idiots who whinge stupidly about deficit spending or the national debt are annoying and wrong, but there are levels of deficit spending and debt which can lead to grave problems, and all of the GOP tax plans essentially guarantee just that kind of deficit spending and debt accumulation (namely debt growth that grows much faster than the economy–debt as always is fine if it grows at a rate the economy as a whole can afford, it’s when it grows faster than the economy it is a true concern.) I had reservations about Romney’s plan in 2012 but when he proposed capping itemized deductions at various levels to make the plan (nearly) revenue neutral I feel it got pretty close to being reasonable.
But taking Bernie at his word about what he’d do as President, I find his proposals more damaging if implemented than the Republican proposals. Additionally I think he has no business being considered for the White House–he’ll be 75, far too old, and he shows no interest or knowledge about any issue other than Wall Street and Medicare-for-all. I’m a champion of Wall Street, I think it is one of the great bedrocks of capitalism, large banks facilitate large investments. Without the financial sector (which Wall Street is a proxy term for) the economic growth rate would be abysmal. Capital facilitates growth, attacking Wall Street is infantile, stupid, immoral, and dangerous.
I’m not a Democrat–I’m a Republican who is willing to vote for Hillary out of a desire to vote for competence, but I won’t vote for Bernie under any circumstance. It’s possible if the Republican candidate really is Trump I’d end up just leaving President blank or voting for some third party, but I will never vote for Sanders. Maybe there are other disaffected moderate conservatives like me, or maybe not, I dunno. But I doubt Sanders gets many votes from people like me.
If the GOP has lost someone like Martin, that does not bode well… OTOH, Martin is probably a lot more thoughtful than most GOP voters, so maybe not as bad as it seems for the part, but still-- not good.
The parties have moved on a lot of issues in my lifetime–but there is always going to need to be a party that recognizes the important of capitalism and free enterprise, and to serve as a check on the desire to “tax and spend” into a fantasy world of largesse that cannot be. The Republican party isn’t really that party at the moment, but it probably will be again some day–the worst elements of American politics today trend older and should eventually be removed by aging out.
If Clinton gets the nomination, not voting for her because Sanders didn’t get the nom, is petulant nonsense.
If you think President Cruz will be identical to Hillary, you need to reexamine the issues. Real humans will suffer and die if the GOP gets a lock. Real humans. Just so a few Bernie-fans can feel ideologically pure. I’ll vote for Sanders when I can. But you can bet that I’ll still vote D, because letting Cruz replace Ginsburg (82), Breyer, (77), and Kennedy (79) will fuck this nation up the peehole for decades. Say goodbye to your daughters getting to plan their families. Say goodbye to any chance at getting money out of elections. Say goodbye to anything that isn’t what a RW ideologue thinks is the bee’s knees.
Nader voters created a situation where hundreds of thousands of people needlessly died, the economy tanked, and our standing in the world cratered. Obama has spent nearly a decade pulling out of that stupid mistake. Doing that again is dipshittery of the highest order.
No, Gore’s failure to win did that. I voted for Gore, but I don’t blame people who weren’t won over for what happened. Nobody owes any candidate our support; they need to earn it. If Clinton gets the Democratic nomination and then loses the general, that’s on her.
And, I suppose one could say, on the Democratic Party generally, for failing to put forth somebody stronger.
That makes no sense. We’re responsible for the caliber of the people who represent us.
Bull fucking shit. Because some dipshits in Florida wanted to throw their vote away on a vanity candidate, Bush won. Period, paragraph, end-of-line.
Should Gore have won by more than the sliver of Nader voters? Sure. But absent Nader’s voters, a hundred thousand Iraqi human beings would be alive today. Practical considerations are things adults have to factor in.
Roughly half this nation will vote for assholes who favor delusional policies that make the world worse. The other side needs every vote it can get.
Absolutely. That is why votes should not be given lightly. If any voter feels that Hillary Clinton (or whatever candidate) does not meet the standard they find necessary in their representation, it is not only acceptable but right that they cast their vote for another (or withhold it, if there is no conscionable choice available).
If all citizens prized their role in representative democracy so, would we not be a damn sight better off.
No. These are the people to blame for Bush’s win, in order:
- People who voted for Bush.: 50,456,002 people.
- People who didn’t vote at all. 49.7% of the voting-age population (from here): thus, 101,084,620 people.
- People who voted for Nader. 2,882,955 people.
People blame group #3 because they feel these are people who might have voted for Gore. In fact, though, all three groups, equally, did not vote for Gore. Three million votes for Nader is a drop in the bucket compared to the hunded million people who stayed home. It makes much more sense to blame those who abstained than those who voted their conscience.
Nonetheless, the less rational explanation comes with a satisfying smugness.
And when president Cruz attends the third swearing in of a Supreme Court Justice he nominated, those folks can sit back and beam with pride that they’ve caused generations of misery. And their smug satisfaction at sticking it to Hill-dawg, I’m sure will be totes worth it.
As we all sat at home and wondered why we had the representatives we had.
As I said, Gore should have won by more, I agree. However, because people voted for Nader, who had zero chance of winning, Bush took it. It’s not like it was a three way race that was razor thin. Every person who cast for Nader knew he wouldn’t win.
Wait, Shayna, did you actually call Clinton a “centrist” and “Dick Cheney in a lady suit” in the same post? Do you actually think that Cheney is a centrist?