If Rubio finishes a respectable 3rd in Iowa and a strong 2nd in NH, there will be pressure on the rest of the candidates to drop out so the establishment can rally around him.
2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Jamie (@Vault Dweller) are here to talk about United's dreadful home defeat at the hands of Big Ange's Tottenham Hotspur. Should this have been the end of Ten Hag? How long does he actually have left? And does Nik finally want ETH out?!
- Status
Rubio remains the nightmare scenario in head-to-head polling for both Hillary and Bernie.
He beats Hillary both nationally and in Iowa and NH (where you would expecty more people to have formed opinions), his favourables are sky-high (unlike Trump) while hers are negative.
The only person Hillary has consistently beaten in H2H polls of all kinds (statewise and national) is Trump, though the gap has narrowed drastically there too. It would be such an anticlimax for any progressive to see Hillary get the nomination and then lose; first it's a compromise to allow a centre-right war-hawk to be the nominee, and then there's the disappointment of seeing the Republicans choose their real hero (not the "electables" ones) and still win.
He beats Hillary both nationally and in Iowa and NH (where you would expecty more people to have formed opinions), his favourables are sky-high (unlike Trump) while hers are negative.
The only person Hillary has consistently beaten in H2H polls of all kinds (statewise and national) is Trump, though the gap has narrowed drastically there too. It would be such an anticlimax for any progressive to see Hillary get the nomination and then lose; first it's a compromise to allow a centre-right war-hawk to be the nominee, and then there's the disappointment of seeing the Republicans choose their real hero (not the "electables" ones) and still win.
Hillary will not be the nominee...so no worries.
538 have actually looked at Hillary (and past candidates) quantitatively, and she comes out as more of a liberal than Obama (and way more than Bill).
And those head-to-heads are junk at the moment.
I dont like Hillary's close ties to the banking industry. She is against reinstating a 1935 law that protects consumers. And she voted for the Iraq war. She is a very political animal.
But she is running scared. Even with the DMC trying to crown her, the base does not want her.
But she is running scared. Even with the DMC trying to crown her, the base does not want her.
Her personal views are irrelevant:
(she has been attacking him for supporting universal healthcare over the last week)
Also, she is undoubtedly more interventionist than Obama.
The polls need not reflect absolute numbers but are consistent (for months), which should worry Democrats voting out of pragmatism. As should her unfavourables: http://i.imgur.com/xSZWn7h.jpg
They're consistent for months because most of the US has been for months consistently not caring about the general election. And are all the figures on that table from the January preceding the election?
The gurus at 538 have themselves said that January is the month when people start paying attention. In the only H2H polls released this month, the performance gap between Bernie and her is massive (he was winning by more than 5, she was losing). Also in this month, her Iowa lead has evaporated while he is holding on/consolidating in NH.
Obviously the favourability numbers on that picture would have been taken at election time, not Jan. But again, this graph* doesn't give much hope, and remember, this is against a candidate who has steadfastly refused to attack unless she directly attacks. Against smear-masters from the right...good luck justifying flip-flops on healthcare, gays, Iraq...
*just like Jeb Bush, the more visible she is, the worse her reputation!
EDIT: I'm still convinced it will be Hillary vs Trump, and, depending on the economy, she'll squeak through for 4 gridlocked years.
Hillary is losing because she is seem as an establishment candidate that will keep things as they are with some cosmetic changes. The lives of ordinary people will not change much.
This was the state H2H I was talking about. Keep in mind that NH is blue and Iowa is faintly red but winnable:
Iowa: Trump vs. Clinton NBC/WSJ/Marist Clinton 48, Trump 40 Clinton +8
Iowa: Trump vs. Sanders NBC/WSJ/Marist Sanders 51, Trump 38 Sanders +13
Iowa: Cruz vs. Clinton NBC/WSJ/Marist Cruz 47, Clinton 43 Cruz +4
Iowa: Cruz vs. Sanders NBC/WSJ/Marist Sanders 47, Cruz 42 Sanders +5
Iowa: Rubio vs. Clinton NBC/WSJ/Marist Rubio 47, Clinton 42 Rubio +5
Iowa: Rubio vs. Sanders NBC/WSJ/Marist Rubio 44, Sanders 44 Tie
New Hampshire: Trump vs. Clinton NBC/WSJ/Marist Clinton 45, Trump 44 Clinton +1
New Hampshire: Trump vs. Sanders NBC/WSJ/Marist Sanders 56, Trump 37 Sanders +19
New Hampshire: Cruz vs. Clinton NBC/WSJ/Marist Clinton 44, Cruz 48 Cruz +4
New Hampshire: Cruz vs. Sanders NBC/WSJ/Marist Sanders 55, Cruz 37 Sanders +18
New Hampshire: Rubio vs. Clinton NBC/WSJ/Marist Rubio 52, Clinton 40 Rubio +12
New Hampshire: Rubio vs. Sanders NBC/WSJ/Marist Sanders 50, Rubio 41 Sanders +9
Of course, this is only 1 poll (albeit the latest one), and it is the most drastic of the H2H results, but can you honestly say it doesn't worry you at all?
Iowa: Trump vs. Clinton NBC/WSJ/Marist Clinton 48, Trump 40 Clinton +8
Iowa: Trump vs. Sanders NBC/WSJ/Marist Sanders 51, Trump 38 Sanders +13
Iowa: Cruz vs. Clinton NBC/WSJ/Marist Cruz 47, Clinton 43 Cruz +4
Iowa: Cruz vs. Sanders NBC/WSJ/Marist Sanders 47, Cruz 42 Sanders +5
Iowa: Rubio vs. Clinton NBC/WSJ/Marist Rubio 47, Clinton 42 Rubio +5
Iowa: Rubio vs. Sanders NBC/WSJ/Marist Rubio 44, Sanders 44 Tie
New Hampshire: Trump vs. Clinton NBC/WSJ/Marist Clinton 45, Trump 44 Clinton +1
New Hampshire: Trump vs. Sanders NBC/WSJ/Marist Sanders 56, Trump 37 Sanders +19
New Hampshire: Cruz vs. Clinton NBC/WSJ/Marist Clinton 44, Cruz 48 Cruz +4
New Hampshire: Cruz vs. Sanders NBC/WSJ/Marist Sanders 55, Cruz 37 Sanders +18
New Hampshire: Rubio vs. Clinton NBC/WSJ/Marist Rubio 52, Clinton 40 Rubio +12
New Hampshire: Rubio vs. Sanders NBC/WSJ/Marist Sanders 50, Rubio 41 Sanders +9
Of course, this is only 1 poll (albeit the latest one), and it is the most drastic of the H2H results, but can you honestly say it doesn't worry you at all?
Right, start. For the nomination is this, or the GE? If it's still like this in six months, there's cause to be worried (and Sanders wouldn't be the answer then either). I worry about Sanders under scrutiny from the GOP far, far more than I worry about Hillary.
It worries me in the sense that a GOP election win is a distinct possibility, potentially even with the most odious of candidates. Not that Clinton is an inferior candidate to Sanders. I don't see a mechanism in which people that would vote for Sanders switch over to the GOP because Hillary's the candidate.
I don't think Glass-Steagall 2.0 would do that much to shore up the financial system as a whole. Deposits in commercial banks would be safer, but investment banks would still be major cogs in the system, so a 2008 repeat would still look catastrophic.
With the 1st paragraph I agree - while it is impossible to call Sanders a flip-flop guy, it is easy to paint him as extreme. But the fact is every single poll* shows that he has much higher independent (and sometimes even Republican) support than she does. Her only lead is among Democrats, especially women; he leads by miles among independents and youth voters. She will need a better ground game than Obama if she wants to win (based on these numbers)
*will post a link if I can find it
About the bolded, many are planning to stay out/go green/ etc. It won't help the GOP but it will harm the Democrats.
Couldn't she snag a chunk of centrists that have gone Republican in the past if she's up against one of the more extreme candidates (which I guess is everyone bar Rubio and Bush)?
And the ones who idealistically now say "I'll vote Green rather than her!" will go right back when the threat of a Cruz or Trump presidency entrenches in their mind. It's not the liberal vote that decides elections.
what decides elections is simple math. There are simply more registered Democrats than Republicans and the Electrol College map favours the Dems.
The Democratic party has given up on the Blue Color Democrats who are now just Republicans. Many are simply angry and are Trump supporters now.
One would hope so but her unfavourables among Republicans are worse than Obama, and he is the muslim communist nazi devil himself. There is a genuine anti-Hillary vote out there made up of mysoginists, anti-Clintons (hate the whole family), anti-establishments, and, least of all, leftists who turned away because of the way she is running her campaign vs Sanders.
Which is why she is only doing well vs Trump. Rubio would mop the floor with her.
I think it would parallel what would happen if Labour removes Corbyn through some backroom process, they would lose enough support that any gain made by appealing to right-wingers would not be enough.
About the independents thing, this is the best I could find so far: http://imgur.com/a/PHiPU
She is the candidate of the base.
Anyway, I don't think we can convince each other, I'll just say this: more than the candidate, the economy will decide the winner. If it holds, I feel either candidate should have a good chance. If it doesn't both will surely go down. Another thing: I've forgotten completely about the electoral college and swing states, etc. I have no idea how they match up in those states (unless you count Iowa as one).
Maybe they don't go vote? I didn't vote in New Jersey last elections because I don't like Christie
The reason Hillary and Bush are not popular with their base is because they come acrosss as what they are...politicians.
Sanders and Trump come across a people who represent the needs/thoughts of their respective supporters.
For me Sanders comes across a genuine guy who actually wants to help ordinary people.
I remember in 08 when Obama and Hillary were fighting for the nomination, both were seeking Bill Richardson's endoresement. Bill Clinton went to see him to persude him to back Hillary. Apparantly Hillary had said to Richardson "Bill. He cannot win". When Richardson came out for Obama, I was so excisted. I told my wife. Obama is going to be our next President. When he was eventually nominated, I felt in my guts, Hillary would never be our President.
I may be wrong of course. But this is suddenly proving a lot more interesting than I expected.
Sanders and Trump come across a people who represent the needs/thoughts of their respective supporters.
For me Sanders comes across a genuine guy who actually wants to help ordinary people.
I remember in 08 when Obama and Hillary were fighting for the nomination, both were seeking Bill Richardson's endoresement. Bill Clinton went to see him to persude him to back Hillary. Apparantly Hillary had said to Richardson "Bill. He cannot win". When Richardson came out for Obama, I was so excisted. I told my wife. Obama is going to be our next President. When he was eventually nominated, I felt in my guts, Hillary would never be our President.
I may be wrong of course. But this is suddenly proving a lot more interesting than I expected.
I don't think there are close to being enough of those that it would decide an election.
On the Hillary/Obama comparison, I was randomly going out with an american in 08, and she was insistent on voting for Hillary over Obama because she was the more liberal on healthcare reform. I said that was dumb and it had to be Obama, he was clearly a transformative candidate and would sweep it in the election. There is no Obama this time around, not even halfway. Sanders wouldn't lose as badly as Corbyn will over here in the UK, but in Presidential terms a loss is a loss.
2008: Obama attacked Hillary as too liberal on healthcare. She responded by saying that Dems fighting over healthcare is insane.
2016: Hillary attacked Sanders as too liberal on healthcare. And then added that he wants to destroy Obamacare. She's an asshole, and I thought Sanders' response was quite cute (the tweet I linked to)
Given what happened after Obama was elected, who do you think was correct in that dispute? Maybe wasting the time, effort and political capital on healthcare isn't as appealing after seeing what happened with the ACA, and her own attempts as First Lady.
This is what the Democratic left/progressive wing just doesn't get, I think. The party was in a terrific shape when Obama was elected and now they are in a historic low (29% of Americans now identified as Dems, down from 37% in 08). ACA was a futile effort that exhausted their political capital and opened the door for the GOP at states level. Bernie may appeal to a lot of people with his rhetorics but the reality of the situation is if a centrist like Obama is considered a Marxist communist in the current political climate, how far can Bernie go in the general election? It's still rosy now in the polls for him because the GOP is ignoring him, wait until the 'communist', 'not America loving' ads start flying out if he does become the nominee. The country as a whole is still too skewed to the right for a candidate like Bernie. Not to mention that, all of his proposed initiatives like significantly raising taxes on the rich, or single payer won't have a chance in hell of getting passed in a GOP-controlled Congress.
Hillary is a flawed candidate, but Sanders is just a no-go in general election.
Have you seen the rest of his platform?
Pushing healthcare will be the least of the problems.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ericans-back-his-agenda-and-hes-mostly-right/
What those numbers suggest is there is space for actual progressive politics in the US. Is it reflected among voters? No. Because the poor often vote against their economic self-interest. Suppose a larger section of voters started demanding this, would there be policy changes? No, politicians need donors for re-election. Will electing Sanders make the change happen? No, Congress will oppose him as hard as they oppose Obama.
But that space exists. The Republicans in the 60s had faced 4 FDR terms, 2 Truman terms, and Eisenhower, who did not stop those economic policies. Then came JFK and LBJ. But somewhere along the way they found the space that existed. They ran an undisguised racist campaign, which opened the south to them for the 1st time since Lincoln. They lost horribly, but the strategy culminated in Nixon. Ever since then, and even more since Reagan, the language of economics in the US has shifted as much as it did after FDR. Obama would be to the right of Eisenhower economically, and Sanders somewhere near LBJ.
Sanders, if he wins the nomination but gets wiped out in the general, could be like the birth of the southern strategy. Starting a change in the political language. If he wins the general, he's Nixon. Can't get too much done himself but the platform is set.
Also, it would be helpful if you looked at the polling.
Iowa: Trump vs. ClintonNBC/WSJ/MaristClinton 48, Trump 40 Clinton +8
Iowa: Trump vs. SandersNBC/WSJ/MaristSanders 51, Trump 38 Sanders +13
Iowa: Cruz vs. ClintonNBC/WSJ/MaristCruz 47, Clinton 43 Cruz +4
Iowa: Cruz vs. SandersNBC/WSJ/MaristSanders 47, Cruz 42 Sanders +5
Iowa: Rubio vs. ClintonNBC/WSJ/MaristRubio 47, Clinton 42 Rubio +5
Iowa: Rubio vs. SandersNBC/WSJ/MaristRubio 44, Sanders 44 Tie
New Hampshire: Trump vs. ClintonNBC/WSJ/MaristClinton 45, Trump 44 Clinton **
New Hampshire: Trump vs. SandersNBC/WSJ/MaristSanders 56, Trump 37 Sanders +19
New Hampshire: Cruz vs. ClintonNBC/WSJ/MaristClinton 44, Cruz 48 Cruz +4
New Hampshire: Cruz vs. SandersNBC/WSJ/MaristSanders 55, Cruz 37 Sanders +18
New Hampshire: Rubio vs. ClintonNBC/WSJ/MaristRubio 52, Clinton 40 Rubio +12
New Hampshire: Rubio vs. SandersNBC/WSJ/MaristSanders 50, Rubio 41 Sanders +9
Iowa: Trump vs. SandersNBC/WSJ/MaristSanders 51, Trump 38 Sanders +13
Iowa: Cruz vs. ClintonNBC/WSJ/MaristCruz 47, Clinton 43 Cruz +4
Iowa: Cruz vs. SandersNBC/WSJ/MaristSanders 47, Cruz 42 Sanders +5
Iowa: Rubio vs. ClintonNBC/WSJ/MaristRubio 47, Clinton 42 Rubio +5
Iowa: Rubio vs. SandersNBC/WSJ/MaristRubio 44, Sanders 44 Tie
New Hampshire: Trump vs. ClintonNBC/WSJ/MaristClinton 45, Trump 44 Clinton **
New Hampshire: Trump vs. SandersNBC/WSJ/MaristSanders 56, Trump 37 Sanders +19
New Hampshire: Cruz vs. ClintonNBC/WSJ/MaristClinton 44, Cruz 48 Cruz +4
New Hampshire: Cruz vs. SandersNBC/WSJ/MaristSanders 55, Cruz 37 Sanders +18
New Hampshire: Rubio vs. ClintonNBC/WSJ/MaristRubio 52, Clinton 40 Rubio +12
New Hampshire: Rubio vs. SandersNBC/WSJ/MaristSanders 50, Rubio 41 Sanders +9
He gets relatively more votes from independents than Democrats. When he was attacked as a socialist, he claimed the label. I'm not sure it's a winning strategy, but it's different, and something Obama could never do. One of his strongest achievements as a senator is veterans healthcare and he uses it as an effective diversion when he's asked those loaded "patriotic" questions about the military.
Finally, Hillary is more flawed than you maybe realise. If the FBI indicts her in the middle of the campaign (the investigation drones on without stopping) we might see the biggest electoral bloodbath. The stuff with the Clinton Foundation is seriously sleazy, and Sanders hasn't touched it. Flip-flopping on gays, healthcare and immigration, the Iraq vote, her list of donors - all can and have been attacked by Trump.
I'm not addressing the first part of your post aside from saying that progressive politics, while viable, is stigmatised in America. Hoping for some sort of 'political revolution' is far fetched when God and guns are the go to word for politicians.
As for the second part, the moment I realised Sanders couldn't hack it in the general was the first Democratic debate. Hillary got her biggest applause of the night when she pushed back against Sanders' comparison to the Scandinavian states, saying 'this is America'. Something that unsubstantiative, from a Democratic audience. That is something the GOP will latch on to in the general, they won't openly say that he's not patriotic but the smear game of 'he wants to make America into something it's not' will drive away the centrists from Sanders. In a country where liberal is a derogatory term, it's hard to see a self proclaimed socialist getting elected into the highest office in the land.
And Hillary is not getting indicted, no chance. There are bets you can take on that. As for flip flopping, no GOPer can avoid looking like a hypocrite going there. I said months ago in this thread that it would be a Clinton win after an especially ugly campaign from both sides and still think that's the most likely scenario.
This needs to happenA Sanders/Warren ticket
Is there a Republican debate tonight?
If so it will as always be interesting to see what Trump comes up with...
For the first time in the whole campaign the (UK) bookmakers now have Trump as the favourite to win the Republican nomination
If so it will as always be interesting to see what Trump comes up with...
For the first time in the whole campaign the (UK) bookmakers now have Trump as the favourite to win the Republican nomination
Party
Sanders Clinton
Democrats 34% 49%
Independents 62% 21%
Trend holds in the newest Iowa poll...
Sanders Clinton
Democrats 34% 49%
Independents 62% 21%
Trend holds in the newest Iowa poll...
Hillary is going to look extremely shaky if Sanders fares better than expected in Iowa, which wont bode well for her going into NH where he is actually stronger.
What's the point of a progressive wing if they aren't able to vote for actual progressive candidates?
Advancing the progressive agenda incrementally to the point where you can realistically elect progressive candidates? How does it help them at all if the GOP gets to roll back any policy gains they fought for years?
Sorry, may I have a source for this please mate? I'm not questioning you, it's just that the 538 poll of polls shows the complete opposite - a sharp, shocking swing back towards Hillary in Iowa (note that that's poll-only, not polls-plus). Since I last posted a few days ago, all the Sanders momentum has not just disappeared but essentially reversed itself. We're back to Hillary 66%, Sanders 34% (chance of winning, not vote share) in Iowa.
The RCP poll of polls shows the same thing, albeit less dramatically.
Do any Americans have any idea why the sudden bump for Hillary? Don't remember seeing any big news that could be responsible for this (or the original Sanders surge for that matter)
Last edited:
How does Hillary Clinton advance the progressive agenda?
She caters to some of their wants out of political expediency. Gun control, gay rights, climate change, even some tax reforms. It's not much, but better than nothing, no? What's 'hope and change' achieved?
I'm sure I don't need to list examples to prove how Obama's presidency has been far better for progressives than Hillary's would be / would have been.
I phrased that very poorly. What I meant to say is that the actual changes under Obama didn't match the campaign rhetorics. He's leaving behind a shaky legacy that can be rolled back within 1 term of a Republicsn presidency. Progressives should be mindful of realistic gains over ideals.
Also, what he accomplished came with a great cost. The Dems have lost a lot of grounds at every level of government aside from the presidency. I can't help but think that if the last 8 years was a Hillary's presidency, the Dems would be in a much better shape going into 2016 in every ballots.
No president has ever matched their campaign rhetoric. I'm not sure why you would use that as a standard. Why do you think the Democrats would be in better shape if Hillary had won?
It's all projections, but for a start, a Clinton presidency wouldn't have woken a very ugly sleeper segment of the American population, the birther/Tea Party type. A Clinton presidency would be more involved and help fundraise/elect Dems at states level, and the electorate as a whole will be more receptive to any achievement trumpeting going out of the White House.
The Dems had 31 governorships, super majority in the Senate and majority in the House in 08. It doesn't take a genius to see that without a figure like Obama, it's much harder for the GOP to play up the 'outsider, un-American' schtick they used so effectively to gain their seats in swing states. Better the devil you know and all.
- Status