I’m a Sanders supporter, but not a millennial, which might make a difference. (F’r instance, I find it weird and disrespectful to call a presidential candidate by his or her first name.) I support Sanders because of his policies, not his persona, and have said that I won’t vote for Clinton, though that’s safe in the knowledge that lacking one Californian vote for president won’t sell the country down the river.
I disagree. Every candidate has seen his public image drop as the opposition focuses on him.
I’ve also said that Hillary Clinton may be the exception. She’s been a target of conservative opposition for over two decades. So her opponents have already used all their good attacks against her. So while Clinton is starting out with a lower reputation, she’s the only candidate who probably won’t face any significant decline.
Sanders, on the other hand, is a first-timer in presidential campaigning. The Republicans have surely already mapped out a strategy for destroying his image. But right now, they’re holding it because there’s no point in taking Sanders down now. It’s better for Republicans if they trash him after he gets nominated.
The right wing still fixates on the Clinton scandals of the 90s, but to most of the country, that stuff is ancient history; they’ve investigated Banghazi ad nauseum to no effect; and does anyone really think an email server is going to topple her candidacy? I think Clinton will hold up to GOP attacks in the general better than people think. Bernie, I fear, would represent a fresh, fat target, as glee pointed out.
Right. In the same way, the Dems are not spending a lot of time attacking Trump. Plenty of time for that, though the non-Trump GOP crowd seems to spend their time attacking each other while running for second place.
I’m a Sanders supporter, and I think the notion is absurd. Clinton should drop out if an only if Sanders gets over 50% of the delegates. I would really like Sanders to get that, and I’ll urge my party-mates to vote accordingly, but we live in a democracy, and if the majority of the primary voters support Clinton over Sanders, then too bad, I don’t get what I want.
I think, if this is what he thinks will happen, he is seriously underestimating Clinton. She’s always projected (to me, anyway) this image of being a ball-buster. I think that’s part of the reason that she was so reviled by Republicans during Bill’s time in office. She seemed to get more attention, derision, and hate sent her way than any other First Lady in my memory (you could make an argument for Michelle Obama, but a lot of the criticism at her comes from sites like Chimpout and Stormfront).
I don’t see her wilting under Trump, because she’s not afraid of him. I think, in a fair fight (which I know will not happen…this IS politics, after all), Hillary wipes the floor with him.
Trump and Bernie are both “anti-establishment” characters (albeit in different ways). Hillary is very establishment, in addition to (or even… despite?) being a woman. So I can see at least some Bernie supporters either abstaining or outright switching sides if it ends up being Hillary vs. Trump. But regardless, if it is Hillary vs. Trump, I think Hillary has very little chance of winning the general.
I can’t think of a single reason a Sanders supporter (or at least, the ones I know anything at all about) would vote for Trump. Abstain, sure. Vote third party, absolutely. But vote for Trump? Absolutely not. As someone said in another thread, he doesn’t represent the establishment to them — he represents the people who created and pay for the establishment.
I agree, although I think she has to handle him with a kind of withering contempt, always making it clear she is not accepting the legitimacy of his clown act.
This is so silly, and unlike a lot of the other claims being made, it is likely to be tested. If I were not so lazy and were more organized, I’d save this for November, to have a chuckle about when Hillary wins by double digits.
Eh, we’ll see, but Hillary wasn’t electable in '08 and she won’t be in '16 either. Personally I’d like to see Bernie win but I concede that’s probably even less likely.
I have a better reason; that 2/15 - 2/17 Fox News polls that has Sanders up by 15%.
Any idea what the margin of error is in those polls?
It became common with Hilary, and then with Jeb, and I think it’s carried over to Bernie because only two candidates are getting any press, and use one’s first name and the other’s last name would sound off.
I was torn over whether to post this. It’s a data point for Hillary’s electability against Trump (he doesn’t say, but I have trouble picturing Kagan voting for Bernie under any circumstances), but it could also spur Bernheads to shout “see? she’s a right winger!”. Oh well:
Well I did save the thread for November. I am as grief-stricken by the news about our new President Trump as everyone, but since you mocked me I still have to bring it up and point out that yeah, I called it in February before the nominations were even set. Not having a chuckle now, are we, SlackerInc? But I suppose we could have a drink together.
RIP America.
Eh, I don’t know that I would call the results a validation of “Hillary has very little chance of winning the general”. But for a thin margin in a few states, she would be the winner and she “won” the popular vote, though that’s meaningless. If the election had been held two weeks ago, the result could easily have been different.
So she lost a close one, but there was definitely a good chance she would win.
Well I did say outright that Trump would win in other threads (after he got the nom). 
Mainly I wanted SlackerInc to acknowledge his folly.
It wasn’t that close though.
The votes are still being counted, but Trump leads by ~70k in Pennsylvania, ~12k in Michigan, and ~27k in Wisconsin. And consider that Hillary will probably win the popular vote by 500k+ votes when all the counting is done. Out of an election with 120 million votes cast, if just 60,000 votes had gone the other way in those states, she would be president-elect now. I’d call that close.
One-twentieth of one percent? Yeah, you could say that. :eek: