I’ve been absolutely honest in what I say. Maybe *too *honest by **Peremensoe’s **lights. But I don’t want my politicians to be honest. And neither does anyone else, really, when you really delve into it. *Bulworth *is an amusing fantasy, but it’s not realistic and not even desirable.
There’s a great breakdown of the Nevada entrance polls that underlines what I’ve been saying about how overrated the “youth vote” is. But it’s true for even the “sort of young…ish” vote as well. Among voters 18-29, as we’ve heard, Hillary got similar numbers as in Iowa and New Hampshire: an anemic 14%. Even among those aged 30-44, she still only managed 35%. But she didn’t need them! She won the state by six points, thanks to her strength among the 45+ set, which made up nearly two-thirds of the electorate. I know, I know: totally uncool. Sorry, kids: votes are votes!
Alright well, you’re entitled to your opinion on this, but Thomas Jefferson was slurred as an atheist and I think a comment like this (which Bernie said):
Is closer to atheism than anything Jefferson ever said.
I’m a Bernie supporter - not because I think his plans are realistic or feasible, but because I want him to try. And for all the spot-on criticisms of Hillary in this thread, plus the fact that I detest the idea of political dynasties in this country.
If I lived in a swing state, I might give her my vote in the general election, if only because the idea of Trump or Cruz winning is completely insane. But there’s no way in hell my state is not going to elect the republican no matter who it is. So I’ll probably leave that space blank on my ballot.
I don’t place too much stock in those “would you vote for a …” polls. There’s no data out there that’s going to convince anyone either way, but it doesn’t mesh with my understanding of human psychology. People may form first impressions based on demographic or ideological labels, but the more they get to know about an actual person, the less that stuff matters and the more they are judged on their actual character.
*Slacker, ** according to your poll, 36% of Democrats wouldn’t vote for a “socialist”. Current national polls show Sanders at around 44% support, so that would mean that nearly 70% of Democrats who even consider the idea of voting for Sanders are choosing to do. Does that sound plausible to you? And assuming he will need to get 55% of the primary vote to overcome Clinton’s superdelegate advantage, he still needs to pick up his game considerably and persuade 86% of open-minded Democrats that he is not merely a possible option, but the best *possible option. That’s assuming you are wrong in your belief that the 36% figure is actually low. And then he will lead us to a McGovernesque defeat, because although he will be a good enough politician to persuade those 86%, he will be totally unable to persuade any of the 60% of voters who last year said they wouldn’t vote for a socialist to reconsider.
The Bernie-isn’t-electable crowd tends to handwave away his 35 years of electoral success as a self-proclaimed socialist because Vermont. But although Vermont is certainly more liberal than most states, they haven’t elected any other socialists to high public office, certainly not repeatedly and by huge margins. I have to assume that the label is a handicap even there, and certainly was more of one when he began his political career. And yet he has consistently overcome it, unlike a certain other Democratic contender who has never won a general election outside of a deep blue state.
I think it’s getting way too late in the game to keep harping on “Sure, Bernie looks much more popular than Hillary in the polls NOW, but that’s because people don’t realize he’s a socialist!” I mean, it’s not like the word isn’t in pretty much every single story written about him, usually in the first paragraph. It’s his brand, and lots of people who may not have positive feelings about socialism in general still give him credit for being honest about what he believes, rather than being a creature of focus groups.
Having said that, I do worry very much that Sanders could be vulnerable to red-baiting attacks in the general election (unlike the atheist slur, which I’m honestly not at all worried about), and I think it is an entirely legitimate concern to have. What I am wearying of is the attitude of many HRC supporters on this board that Sanders fading because of red-baiting attacks isn’t merely a possibility, but an absolute inevitability so obvious that anyone who questions it must be a naive fool. This is linked to an equally groundless certainty that Hillary herself is completely invulnerable to Republican attacks and that the already large number of Americans who view her as untrustworthy and self-serving can’t possibly increase.
And one more question for the “we must nominate Hillary because America isn’t ready for a Jewish socialist” crowd: were you among those saying eight years ago that “we must nominate Hillary because America isn’t ready for a black guy with a funny name”? C’mon, fess up.
I’m baffled by this commentary. How has Sanders succeeded in something that Clinton hasn’t? How is showing socialism doesn’t sell in Vermont supposed to suggest that socialism is not a problem outside of Vermont?
Could you unpack this for me?
I’m not convinced that Sanders’s has a better elected history than Clinton, and I definitely think that the Socialist tag is going to be an albatross for him, possibly even bigger than Clinton’s email albatross–but I think the point is that Sanders’s ability to get elected despite being a socialist isn’t some weird property of Vermont, but is rather a weird property of Sanders.
I would posit that Sanders is more Christian in his beliefs than so-call Evangelical ultra-Christian, Rafael Edward Cruz.
Sanders wants to feed the poor. Cruz supported cutting the SNAP (food stamp) program.
Sanders wants to aid the sick. Cruz wants to eliminate Obamacare.
Sanders wants to avoid wars. Cruz is a chicken hawk and wants the Middle East carpet bombed.
Whose policies are closer to the Christian ideal? It’s not even close, IMO.
Aside from that, Bernie is for science and Teddy is against it.
I haven’t looked into (really don’t give a damn) Bernie’s attendance at Temple. Does he go most Saturdays or only for Passover?
PS: It would be an easy choice for me to support Hillary over Rafael Edward Cruz.
Yes, precisely. And also that Clinton has never won an election in which she wasn’t heavily favored from the start, and has lost an election in which she *was *heavily favored from the start, neither of which are true of Sanders. (I’m considering the 2008 Presidential race as a unit – she did have some upset victories in individual State primaries).
Being opposed to someone because of their race is very different from being opposed to someone based on their self-proclaimed ideology.
I have yet to find the evidence of Hillary making her unelectable.
-
A dynasty is generational, so if Chelsea Clinton were to run for President one day that would be a dynasty, it’s just not a husband and wife thing.
-
The emails are now a non-starter, and probably will get less play as time goes on, especially since Colin Powell and Condi Rice did the very same thing as Clinton as Sec of State. Powell in particular is just pissed that the FBI is interested in his emails and he wants everything out there, just as Clinton did.
Colin Powell relied on personal emails while secretary of state - POLITICO -
She has less ties to Monsanto than Bernie does, if you consider Tad Devine one of Bernie’s advisors part of Bernie’s inner circle, he did some legal work for Monsanto, but to connect the dots is kind of ludicrous. And yet this is the type of smear that Hillary has to drag around.
forwardprogressives.com -
Change her mind on issues? You betcha, but so did Obama “evolve” on issues such as gay marriage. When you go back 15-20 years on some of this stuff, I mean shit, I remember I always wore pantyhose to work, now I don’t-- To say that Bernie’s always been the same, well hell, to some that would denote him being inflexible and entrenched. As a life long independent there might be some merit to that. So I don’t understand that argument against Hillary.
-
Hills got the Unions endorsing her - 20 of them, representing 10 million workers. So again, if this is to be a revolution, you would think that the left of centre unions would be Bernie territory.
-
Bernie is a cool guy, he rails against the establishment and he scores a lot of points with the general public. In that the Democratic party is revitalized because of strong liberals like Bernie is an understatement. But to say he’s more electable that Hillary is a stretch. His mandate is to revolutionize the system, and there’s a whole half of the country that isn’t buying his brand.
She didn’t win the election but she did win the popular vote. That has to say she was at the very least competitive, to lose to a charismatic black man who made history in the general election is not really a crushing defeat, especially when she accepted the position of Secretary of State, not slink back into the hinterland as so many primary candidates do.
Okay.
But I think Vermont’s weird properties should still be on the table, personally. Obama won a higher percentage of the vote in Vermont than anyplace but DC and Hawaii in both 2008 and 2012. New York appears to have been the next highest. This definitely suggests that Vermont is more liberal than most states. But it is just a suggestion, not proof.
What do you think this reveals about Clinton as a candidate versus Sanders as a candidate?
Funny thing from that Gallup poll - more Republicans would be uncomfortable voting for an Evangelical Christian than for a Jew!
I readily admit, as a middle aged Jew I am shocked by how little of an issue his Jewish identity is.
Trump btw is also viewed as fairly irreligious (despite his claim to be a Protestant) and certainly the least religious of those on the GOP side … yet he pulls in their votes. Against Trump being a secular Jew with a less traditional god concept and strong sense of ethics and morality wouldn’t be a liability. Nor against Cruz’s Evangelical mouthings. Rubio or Kasich he’d have difficulty against.
I tend to be one who thinks that the Overton Window concept is overdone but Bernie has moved the Overton Window on “socialism.” The association of the word with the U.S.S.R. and totalitarianism is fading and he has already gotten a large number of people to instead associate it with the models of Denmark and Germany. It is quickly losing its toxicity and gaining in appeal. This cycle has already rehabilitated the word.
I really think all the people saying the word has been rehabilitated never needed it to be rehabilitated to begin with. That Gallup poll is just from last summer so I will believe it when I see another good poll with different numbers.
It’s an appealing theory. Anyone talented enough to get this big youth movement behind them and sweep to the nomination is a good enough politician to convince Heartland Americans to support him. Only problem: George McGovern himself is the counterexample! You don’t think older and more pragmatic Democrats were having just this argument with the young McGovern idealists (includng, ironically, Bill and Hillary Clinton) in spring 1972?
Straw man. No one is invulnerable. Some are more vulnerable than others. Bernie is like a parody of what would be designed in a lab to be the most vulnerable possible. So Hillary doesn’t even have to be particularly strong to beat that.
I was for Edwards because I saw both the other two as too risky. When Edwards dropped out I backed Obama.
Well I think a lot of moderates would be happier in the Clinton camp, even as Bernie is pushing the agenda left, Hillary doesn’t exactly pivot on the issue, but she offers a bit more pragmatic solutions. For example the college tuition issue. Her platform has to recognize the youth who are attracted to the free college tuition scenario, as any young person would, but she offers easier loans, and payback options including national service and a full debt forgiveness after 20 years. So, rather than running up the national debt there’s an opportunity for creative ways to relieve the load. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hnXc7rbG30
A majority of Democrats now say that socialism is a good thing.
Hey, it’s a strange cycle. The overwhelming zeitgeist is at least being open to that which is not the status quo, be it the noisy blowhard cipher of Trump or socialism.
Don’t get me wrong. I completely agree that he is yet to be Swift Boated. Hillary is has vulnerabilities but yes, they are mostly already baked in and she has surviving the worst they’ve had to throw at her for decades. “Socialism” losing its toxicity is not the same as completely having lost it.
Fair enough!
It’s fading because the GOP isn’t running against Sanders. Why should they? They are hoping that Sanders gets the nomination.
Painting Sanders as a scary socialist would, in October, work, because it is consistent with Sanders tax policy, as well as his health care plan requiring most Americans to change their insurance arrangement. Painting Hillary Clinton as scary on economics would also be tried, but won’t stick because of memories of Bill Clinton’s good economy.
Clinton vs. Trump – the safe choice is clear to swing voters.
Sanders vs. Trump – the safe choice is clear to Democrats only.