Hillary fans seem to have this fixed idea that “She’s battle-tested! She’s bulletproof! She’s taken all the shit the GOP can fling for the last 25 years and come out unscathed!”. But really, where do you get that? The Republicans haven’t “succeeded” by their own ludicrous, delusional standards, in that they haven’t convinced average Americans that she is some diabolical, treasonous criminal. They haven’t been able to ship her to Guantanamo on some trumped-up charge. They weren’t able to stop her from winning a couple elections in a deep blue state.
But clearly, those attacks (not all of which were completely without merit) have had an effect. Most Americans, right now, dislike her. But we shouldn’t nominate Sanders because we’re afraid that once the mud-slinging starts, Republicans might possibly convince most Americans to dislike him? What in the world kind of logic is that?
Hereis a mind-numbingly comprehensive list of recent poll results on all things HRC.
I am not a Hillary fan, I just made the factual statement that she has been long subjected to a national level campaign against her. Yes she isn’t super well liked, which can at least be partially attributed to that campaign. I would agree that she isn’t “battle tested” - until this election is over.
There is no doubt that Hillary’s voters are older. I saw it starkly at the caucus I attended. Her section was mostly greyhaired. If the campaigns were TV shows, Bernie would dominate the Nielsen ratings because 18 - 49 is all that matters there.
But in elections, the over 50 vote is just the opposite: they are the dominant bloc. All the people who like to tout Bernie’s young demographic seem not to understand that it cuts both ways and it cuts deeper against them. If 73 year old Bernie Sanders can’t get older Democrats to vote for him, what chance does he have with older voters in a general election?
Really? Going completely off fossil fuels? Guaranteed basic income? I think many people would consider those radical changes but YMMV.
Sorry, the bit of yours I quoted inspired my rant, but I didn’t mean to imply that you personally held the view I was paraphrasing.
Sure, she has been attacked a lot over the years, but she has never actually been a Presidential candidate herself. She has been attacked based on her association with husband, and then with Obama. There has never before been a time when the entire right-wing machine has made her their prime target for a period of months at the time when the public is most attentive to politics. There’s a difference between the Chinese water torture and having a fire hose turned on you.
The Benghazi-emails investigation has been going on for what, 3 years? You don’t think that’s a firehose specifically turned on because they thought she was going to run for President?
Almost certainly, yeah. But it’s been a side project for the last 3 years; their primary goal has been to stymie Obama. Moreover, most people don’t pay nearly as much attention to these things any other time as they do during election years.
Counterargument: although Americans dislike HRC by a narrow majority, they agree that the Republicans have treated her unfairly by an overwhelming majority. It’s possible that, were she nominated, they wouldn’t be able to help themselves and would go completely bonkers with irrational hatred, making her look relatively sympathetic.
Happier news: EVERY SINGLE Republican candidate currently has a net unfavorable rating, though only Trump and Jeb! have managed to earn the disdain of an actual majority. Looks like their best bet is Rubio at 37-41, then Cruz and, God help us, Carson both at 38-44.
Point the first: You must have slept through Benghazi and email-gate.
Point the second: You must have also slept through the savagery of the Bill Clinton years.
Point the third: What has Bernie been through that is even remotely close to this?
Look at how the Republicans whipped up their base into a lather by painting Obama as a socialist. Now imagine a guy who actually describes himself as a socialist. They will absolutely decimate him.
This whole thing comes down to whether you believe in revolution or compromise will be a more effective approach. Given what we saw in the Obama years, you could certainly argue that compromise wasn’t that effective. I’d argue that given the climate, Obama got quite a bit more done with that approach than if he’d attempted more radical change.
I can’t find any recent cites for Bernie’s name recognition, but who cares anyway? GOP base voters aren’t going to vote for him.
These kind of ratings tend to be pretty inelastic; people move from “undecided” to one camp or the other, then rarely switch. So assuming that a large number of Sanders’ 49% are going to change their minds is unrealistic based on past history. And, to take another completely unrealistic scenario, if EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN who currently is undecided about Sanders eventually decided that they disliked him…he’d still be more popular than Hillary.
Dominated both houses of Congress for the last 6 years during which they blocked all progressive legislation and took the US economy to the brink of catastrophe multiple times. Add that to the list of the things you apparently slept through.
Democrats win when voter turnout is high. So we’re going to take back Congress by nominating a candidate that people don’t like and are unenthusiastic about?
Look, if your hunch is that Clinton will be a more effective candidate in the general election, fine. Just don’t try to pretend that there is currently any data supporting that proposition.
And can you please knock off the snide comments about what I may or may not have “slept through?”. Personal insult is the last refuge of the guy with no facts on his side.
I would propose we take back Congress by electing suitable Congressional candidates. Electing a President perceived as radical didn’t seem to work so hot on that score.
Strangely enough I never mentioned data. Strawman much?
Would you prefer “failed to notice”? “Were in middle school”? “Seem to be completely ignorant of the historical fact of?” I’ll happily oblige your word choice, but I won’t stop pointing out facts to which Bernie fans seem blissfully oblivious. Sorry, is that mean? Wait until the general election.
OK, read this post which you sneered at again. Maybe you will need someone to read the bigger words to you. Try to identify any factually incorrect statements. I’ll wait here.
