I do find it refreshing, at least, that adaher is now recognizing Hillary Clinton as a separate individual from Bill Clinton. From the way he used to talk, he seemed to think that they were a single entity named “The Clintons”.
He’s wrong about Biden, UNLESS he’s right that Democratic voters don’t care about anything but ideology and identity politics. He could be right about that. But since you’ve assured me that this isn’t true, then there is actually a case for Biden over Clinton, and you and I are right and Silver is wrong.
Also Sanders was a successful executive. Kucinich was a failed one.
There might be a case for Biden over Clinton, but that doesn’t mean it will be a good one. I think the most important thing for most Democratic voters is having a candidate that will beat the Republican nominee. Maybe Biden would be better on that, but so far, it seems most Democrats think that Clinton will provide the best chance of victory.
No, it’s not just “ideology and identity politics”, though ideology is a big part. Winning is another big part. Perceived honesty (and other personality traits) are a part as well, but probably not as big as getting the best chance to win.
Agree. Speaking for myself, the identity politics mean very little to me. It would be nice to elect a woman. It would also be nice to elect a Jew.
But it does matter a lot to me that we elect a Democrat. To me, the difference between any potential Democrat and any potential Republican just dwarfs any differences between Democrats. I suspect, like iiandyiiii, that this is true for most Democratic voters.
If I thought Biden would do better than Hillary in the general, I would support him in a heartbeat. But I don’t have any solid reason to believe that. AFAICT, all signs point to Clinton being the strongest general election candidate.
Not all signs. General election polling, sure(except for the last one taken), but weaknesses in areas like honesty can be exploited easier than any weaknesses Biden has. Obama expressly made that case a couple of times in 2008. He was right. He didn’t carry nearly as much exploitable baggage as Clinton did during the campaign. Republicans will always try to find something, but with Hillary what they find is something the public is willing to believe about her. Not so with Obama, and probably not so with Biden, or O’Malley for that matter.
I mean Biden is a nice enough fellow, but he seemingly isn’t a great national campaigner. In 2008, he dropped out after finishing fifth in Iowa with 1% (behind Bill Richardson) and he wasn’t all that skilled in raising money either. I mean if he was even able to get 10% in Iowa, that would have given some hope. And the last time he ran for President in 1998, he had to drop out because he was plagiarizing his speeches from another politician (the UK’s Neil Kinnock) and misrepresenting his academic record.
Biden might be seen as more honest than Clinton, but it seems to me that he’ll raise less money, more likely to put his foot in his mouth, far more likely to be dismissed as a buffoon, and has fared very poorly in his previous runs for president.
I’m open to him, though – I like Biden and would happily support him over any Republican. But right now I think Clinton would be more likely to win.
I don’t believe that a substantial number of potential Democratic voters perceive Hillary to be dishonest. Gallup says she’s 74/18 among Democrats. Joe Biden is about the same. Sanders is 39/10, so likely to be in very similar range once he’s better-known.
I also don’t believe that even if a substantial number of potential Democratic voters perceived Hillary to be dishonest that it would affect their decision to vote for her. The media likes to talk about candidate character because it makes for interesting narrative. But when push comes to shove, it’s not what 90% of people base their vote on. And the 10% who claim to do so probably aren’t swing voters.
It’s sure brought Clinton’s performance in polls down. Multiple pollsters have found some pretty ugly swing state results, as well as some bad results in states Obama won in 2008 and 2012.
No, adaher, that’s still not how polls work.
You don’t cherry-pick the polls that suit your narrative and superimpose your own explanations for their outcomes. Instead, you aggregate many polls over time, and don’t infer causation when there’s no evidence for it.
It’s early still – I’m quite confident that the sights and sounds of the Republican nominee will shore up the eventual Democratic nominee’s support. But we’ll see.
It certainly could happen. But the large field and the 2014 performance gives me more faith that Republicans won’t destroy themselves this time. But no, I certainly wouldnt’ count it out. I’ve been disappointed too many times to discount that possibility
2014 shouldn’t tell you anything about 2016. 2010 told us nothing about 2012 – anyone who relied on 2010 to predict 2012 was wrong. I see no reason to believe that 2014 is different.
That is probably a factor but not the only one. His numbers were improving before Beau was hospitalized in May and they have continued to improve steadily though it’s been three months now since his death. He was -4 in April which is still significantly better than Hillary today. And there is no explaining away the vast difference between the two on honesty. If voters don’t consider you honest it is fundamentally difficult to run a successful campaign because they will discount whatever you say.
Did the voters ever think Bill was honest, though? I mean his nickname was Slick Willy.
I don’t know for sure, but Bill was charming and charismatic. Hillary, not so much.
Hillary has a tough problem in that while many of us think she’d be a find president, we WISH we had someone else to vote for. She’s very lucky that the GOP field is so weak.
If Biden jumps in, and gets Obama’s endorsement as well as someone like Warren, then HRC could be in serious trouble. More trouble than she has encountered so far. She seems to want to just waltz into the WH, but the night is young, and who knows what song the band will strike up next!
They weren’t talking about his integrity. cues the rimshot 
Ahem. This is going to be a drive-by nit-picking or a public service announcement, depending on how much it annoys. Construction contracts for Federally funded projects are awarded to the lowest bidder, yes. That addresses the “look out for the taxpayers” part. But the bid specifications include the requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act, which mandates that the contractors submit certified payrolls for review which must show that workers are being paid “prevailing wages”, which for some classifications of construction workers is well above minimum wage. That means that “President Sanders” isn’t going to have any effect on construction wages in federally funded projets. Looking after construction wages is locked into the bureaucracy and unlimately under congressional control.
Construction contractors also have to make a “good faith effort” to meet DBE goals (Disadvantaged Buisness Enterprises - small minority and women owned companies) for subcontractors. They have to meet Buy America regulations (all steel has to have been both produced and machined in the USA). They have to hire a certain number of apprentices, depending on the size of the job. And other things. All the bidders have to do all those things equally as part of their bid.
So hiring the low bidder will not drive construction wages down. One of the reasons that folks like federally funded construction jobs is that it makes work for well-paid blue collar workers and local businesses.
Carry on.
On what do you base your last sentence? What do you think swing voters vote on?
I think it is very dangerous to be seen too badly by the media. They’re aptly called the media, because they are in between the newsmakers and the people. They mediate the people’s understanding. The partisan media will trumpet their nominee, probably. The mainstream and unaffiliated media presumably can influence swing voters, and those outfits will look for their own reasons to pick on a candidate. Probably more if they see a character deficiency.
Honesty is overrated. Yes, if you poll 100 voters and ask them how important honesty is, 99 will probably say very important. But the reality is it depends on the situation and the specifics of the lie. But when it gets down to it, most people don’t care if a politician lies about what color underpants they are wearing or whether they think their wife’s ass is fat or whether or not they ever smoked weed in college. Context matters.