One left-ish site has numbers that show Mr. Sanders polling pretty well. At this stage in the game, that has to be the bellwether of doom for his campaign.
Or grumpy Grandpa.
Something about Bernie seems to be connecting with people. Young people.
Imagine a Sanders-Trump match-up in 2016.
. . . No, not conceivable, the very laws of physics in that universe would be too unstable for it to survive its Big Bang on a scale of nanoseconds . . .
he’s an out-of-the-mainstream socialist who would never be able to raise any money in the general. Plus, a lot of the wealthier suburbs which have voted Dem since 1992 would bolt and Sanders would bring back the Massachussetts liberal thing, except with Vermont in its place.
Well, maybe. I would have thought that whatever closet-skeleton was going to do him in would have come out by now. Maybe he really can win.
Sanders is not going to win the nomination, so this is all hypothetical. But it’s still flawed. If Sanders were the nominee he would get just as much money as Clinton and all the votes from those wealthier suburbs. That’s because there would be a Republican running against him. The overwhelming commonality of all sentient Democrats is that a Republican cannot under any circumstances be allowed to win the Presidency. Every other thought, including policy, is 93 steps below that imperative.
I tried to get to the page with the original info about the CNN poll, because I was curious exactly what was asked and how they were compared, but the link didn’t work for me. But I did find this page with info about election polling results, with this paragraph that stands out:
Sanders does have more support than people originally expected, and he’s gaining more support, but he’s still by far the underdog. I think that’s why he’s been covered so much in the news, because people love and underdog, and because the news finds it more exciting to make the primaries more of a competition, instead of just Clinton getting the nomination with little trouble.
I wouldn’t say that Sanders has zero chance. And his campaign should definitely be covered by the news. But I think some of the coverage of his momentum is overstated.
People who don’t follow presidential politics 18 months before an election (in other words, most people who don’t live in IA or NH) still don’t know anything about Sanders other than he looks like a grumpy old man and is a “socialist.” On the other hand, Hillary’s been in the news pretty much constantly for almost 25 years. The polls still represent people selecting the name they recognize as most likely to be able to beat a hypothetical republican.
I think as people begin to hear more and more from Sanders, they will realize (1) he’s not really a socialist and (2) he carries a lot less negative baggage than Clinton. He’s got plenty of time for his numbers to continue to rise and conversely, Hillary is at or near her ceiling already.
I’m not saying by any stretch that he will win the nomination, but I’m far from believing that Clinton is a shoe in and I refuse to call her the “presumptive” nominee.
The thing about Sanders is that while I like his message, policy views and like him as a candidate better than Clinton, I don’t think he would make a good president. I think his idealism would make him pursue the ideal to the determent of the good. A good president needs to be grounded a bit more in the grungy day to day muck of the politically possible.
If by the time my states primary come around Clinton is winning the nomination in a walk, I’ll probably go ahead and vote for him in order to promote the ideals he represents, but if the race is close I’ll go with Clinton. I suspect I’m not the only person who feels this way.
I think a lot of loyal Democrats are in the opposite camp: hold my nose and vote for Hillary. If Sanders really does start to look viable, she may well see her support begin to look like a view-homes-hillside in a rainstorm.
At this point I’d have to say that Sanders is just as electable as Clinton. The Democratic field and the fundamentals of the race are such that whether a Democrat is elected has a lot more to do with the Republicans than the Democrats. If the Republicans nominate someone that the public can be comfortable with, they will win. If they nominate someone scary, then Bernie Sanders could very well be the next President.
But I’m still sticking to my guns on the prediction that Sanders won’t be allowed to win the nomination. If Clinton looks like she won’t win it, Joe Biden or Liz Warren will step in. Remote chance of Al Gore. Clinton is teetering now. If you see 2 or 3 national polls showing her trailing in the polls, either against Sanders or in trial heats against Republicans, Biden’s getting off the fence and Warren’s going to start rethinking her decision not to run.
Indeed Hillary has a lot of “negative baggage” but 99% of that is bogus factoid made up by the GOP hate machine, which is now concentrating on her.
If Bernie ever got in their sights, they’d slam him every bit as hard. There’s no reason to take shots at him, however.
Sorry, but that’s just delusional. If the Clinton stuff was all made up, then any candidate could be smeared that way. Attacks on Clinton work because she actually is dishonest. Sanders is not.
You mean, John Kerry could be smeared with accusations that he didn’t earn his Purple Hearts, or Barack Obama could be smeared with accusations that he was born in Kenya and that he was Muslim?
This is interesting. The campaign for a new leader of the Labour Party in Britain has gone off-script with the apparently no-hoper left candidate turning out to be in the lead among party members. Sounds like the same sort of phenomenon as with Syriza in Greece and Podemos in Spain - there is an audience for radical opposition to what are seen as identikit corporate drones and the economic consensuses of the last 20-30 years or so, especially when the standard-bearer is perceived as an authentic “says what he really means” candidate rather than the kind of politico that’s never known anything else.
But where the electoral limits are they can realistically achieve, especially given a right-wing press ready to dust of generations of “loony left head in the clouds tax-and-spend pacifist dreamers” stories - well, that’s the question.
The GOP does attack anyone with lies. It’s what they do constantly. Notice the lies about Obama? About Kerry? About Clinton?
The GOP base hates Hillary because she’s part of Bill’s presidency. Also, the older, angrier, stupider portion of the GOP doesn’t like women who assert themselves. Take Rush’s 20 years of “Femminazi” comments, for instance.
“That’s just what we need, a woman president.” I’ve heard Republican voters say that several times back when Hillary was the front runner against Obama. I’m sure you did too.
Lying happens on both sides, but the RW machine grinds it out with amazing efficiency.
Dude. Check Snopes some day.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/clintons.asp
http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-q=hillary&x=28&y=17&sp-a=00062d45-sp00000000&sp-advanced=1&sp-p=all&sp-w-control=1&sp-w=alike&sp-date-range=-1&sp-x=any&sp-c=100&sp-m=1&sp-s=0
They even photoshopped a Confederate flag into the background of one of Hillary’s old pics:
And that’s only the tip of the iceberg.
So your take is that Clinton is an honest person, just like Bernie Sanders?
Speaking for myself, I don’t think Clinton is more or less honest than the average politician.