U.S. Election - Because we know better than you do

[Martell Spy]

Senator Clinton, you're not in the White House yet.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

3 hours ago, Shryke said:

Well, and Sanders himself.

But the voter totals for the Democratic Primaries so far indicate business as usual. Looks like a return to normal after a big upward tick for Obama in 2008 from what I've seen.

I don't know if the demographics have shifted or if we are just seeing the usual demos with certain groups (young, white, liberal, etc) breaking hard for Sanders.

I actually don't think that Sanders believes there's really going to be a wide scale political revolution that fundamentally upsets the balance of American politics. That's what he has to say to get himself elected and give his campaign pledges the patina of possibility, but I think he is far too smart to believe this himself, especially when he joined the race without any belief that he was going to be  nearly as popular as he was. 

[lokisnow]

OMG!

And we would still have governors like Scott Walker and others trying to rip out the heart of the middle class by making it impossible to organize and stand up for better wages and working conditions.

it really warms the cockles of my heart to hear Clinton describe Walker like this. Maybe my favorite thing she's ever said. Love this, more ripping out hearts rhetoric, please!

Also, wow, her reiterated final bit about sanders being a single issue candidate stuck on ru-peat really landed.

here's the point I want to make tonight. I am not a single issue candidate, and I do not believe we live in a single issue country.

[SeanF]

I think the Sanders/Clinton electability argument is seriously overblown. Whoever wins, the Democratic coalition will coalesce around the nominee - the electorate is so incredibly polarised these days that there will be minuscule cross-over.

Recall that we were having exactly the same argument back in 2008 about Obama/Clinton, and in hindsight either would have won the general election comfortably.

Whoever gets chosen on the Democratic or Republican side has a floor of 45% or so, and a ceiling of 53% or so, such is the polarisation.

[mormont]

10 hours ago, S John said:

I think Clinton's popularity is generally overestimated by her fans.

I think that's probably true, but then it's probably true of Sanders too. It's probably true of almost all the candidates on both sides, in fact. It's that kind of election.

 

[Fez]

11 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

Are you at all afraid of Clinton losing working class white votes to Trump?

Not particularly. Trump is unpopular even among working class white Republicans. He's got a core base that loves him, but the ones voting for the other candidates mostly can't stand him (for instance, polls showing that only 50% of Republicans are comfortable with Trump being their nominee). Those Republicans would still mostly end up voting for him in the general because parties rally around their candidates. But if he's having that much trouble with working class white Republicans, I can't imagine him pulling that many votes from working class white independents or working class white Democrats.

By contrast, Sanders has the special weakness of the socialism label, and I think a lot of those working class whites repulsed by Trump also wouldn't want to vote for Sanders. Maybe they still do, maybe they go back to Trump anyway, maybe they stay home, maybe they vote 3rd party; but it's a yuuge, dangerous question. By contrast, for all the demonization of Clinton by Republicans, I think for a lot of people, particularly those working class whites who don't heavily follow politics, she's basically just a generic Democrat with a side of "hey, she's a woman." In other words, a safe option to vote for to avoid Trump.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

13 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Her unfavorability is what oar and others talk about when they say she's unelectable, but the actual polls indicate she'd win handily over whoever repub emerges.

But that doesn't matter a whole lot right now.

What are you talking about Kal?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_rubio_vs_clinton-3767.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_cruz_vs_clinton-4034.html

She's not polling that well. I think Clinton supporters need to wake up and realize it's not 2014 anymore, and Clinton is no longer the slam dunk she once was.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

I actually thought Clinton did very well in the debate last night. Despite her loss in New Hampshire, she did not come across like she was scrambling to make up ground and still gave the impression that she's really the frontrunner, which she still is. That itself was a pretty big accomplishment. It also helped that she had a pretty favorable crowd. 

I also think she did the best job so far of highlighting her knowledge and experience in a positive way, and finally getting some traction against Sanders on the aspirational but impractical nature of some of his campaign pledges. 

Both candidates have clearly entered the "oh shit I really need to lock down these minorities" phase of the primaries, and the sharp turn in their emphasis and rhetoric on minority issues was so pointed and obvious it bordered on pandering and was kind of nauseating to listen to. But even there, Hillary displayed a much better command of the scope of the issues than Sanders did. And I thought that her response to Sanders' 100% pro-choice rating was also effective. She might have found the key theme of her attacks against Sanders with the "one note" candidate bit.  

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

15 hours ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

Well, I agree, if the Republicans nominate Trump or Cruz it will be a rout. I just reject the idea that Clinton is somehow the more electable choice for Democrats, she has some very serious liabilities.

While Sanders has better polling numbers right now, I suspect they will come crashing down in the general.

That said, both Clinton and Sanders have very serious liabilities. It's a mistake to cast one down and raise the other up.

[Maithanet]

My wife and I are both we watched most of last night's debate, and we're closer to Sanders on policy than Clinton.  Both of us were pretty unimpressed with Sanders, and thought he came off as lecturing.  His finger wagging when Clinton is talking is just rude, and my wife found it infuriating.  Both candidates were fine on domestic policy but I thought Clinton was much stronger on foreign policy.  I don't know why all of Sanders examples are from 1975 or earlier - I remember him talking about Henry Kissinger, the 1953 Iran coup, WInston Churchill and FDR.  It's not that any of these examples were bad per se, but it added up to a guy who seems like he doesn't have a strong grasp of where the world is now, and is more comfortable talking about the past.  That isn't a good look for a 73 year old to adopt. 

[Altherion]

49 minutes ago, Fez said:

Not particularly. Trump is unpopular even among working class white Republicans. He's got a core base that loves him, but the ones voting for the other candidates mostly can't stand him (for instance, polls showing that only 50% of Republicans are comfortable with Trump being their nominee). Those Republicans would still mostly end up voting for him in the general because parties rally around their candidates. But if he's having that much trouble with working class white Republicans, I can't imagine him pulling that many votes from working class white independents or working class white Democrats.

I'm not sure that this is true. Take a look at the results of the two primaries we've had so far (Iowa and New Hampshire). Trump actually beat Cruz among the Iowa independents and he got the same percentage of votes from New Hampshire independents as he did from the Republicans. Furthermore, he is strongest among the working class regardless of whether you define it by education or by income. I guess your argument is mainly that within those groups, the people who are not voting for him really don't like him, but I think that this is very difficult to prove, especially with somebody like Trump.

[Fez]

30 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

What are you talking about Kal?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_rubio_vs_clinton-3767.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_cruz_vs_clinton-4034.html

She's not polling that well. I think Clinton supporters need to wake up and realize it's not 2014 anymore, and Clinton is no longer the slam dunk she once was.

None of those polls matter. They didn't matter when they showed Clinton up big and they don't matter now. Polls this far out from an election have no predictive value, which is something Nate Silver and others have been saying for years. Essentially the only thing polls this far out show is which candidates have people being hearing more about more favorably in the news recently.

The only things we have of predictive value right now are the fundamentals, and those favor Clinton over Sanders.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

8 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

My wife and I are both we watched most of last night's debate, and we're closer to Sanders on policy than Clinton.  Both of us were pretty unimpressed with Sanders, and thought he came off as lecturing.  His finger wagging when Clinton is talking is just rude, and my wife found it infuriating.  Both candidates were fine on domestic policy but I thought Clinton was much stronger on foreign policy.  I don't know why all of Sanders examples are from 1975 or earlier - I remember him talking about Henry Kissinger, the 1953 Iran coup, WInston Churchill and FDR.  It's not that any of these examples were bad per se, but it added up to a guy who seems like he doesn't have a strong grasp of where the world is now, and is more comfortable talking about the past.  That isn't a good look for a 73 year old to adopt. 

No doubt that Sanders' formative political years were during Vietnam. It must be spectacularly galling for him to hear Hillary touting an endorsement from Henry Kissinger of all people. But you're right, he has displayed exactly zero interest on engaging in current foreign policy issues, and it was somewhat surprising to hear him to finally get all riled up about foreign policy from 40+ years ago.

I also thought his attempted snark "you're not president yet" went over like a complete lead balloon and was pretty cringeworthy on its own. 

[OnionAhaiReborn]

4 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

My wife and I are both we watched most of last night's debate, and we're closer to Sanders on policy than Clinton.  Both of us were pretty unimpressed with Sanders, and thought he came off as lecturing.  His finger wagging when Clinton is talking is just rude, and my wife found it infuriating.  Both candidates were fine on domestic policy but I thought Clinton was much stronger on foreign policy.  I don't know why all of Sanders examples are from 1975 or earlier - I remember him talking about Henry Kissinger, the 1953 Iran coup, WInston Churchill and FDR.  It's not that any of these examples were bad per se, but it added up to a guy who seems like he doesn't have a strong grasp of where the world is now, and is more comfortable talking about the past.  That isn't a good look for a 73 year old to adopt. 

He offered an historical perspective on unintended consequences of interventionism, which he explicitly connected to contemporary issues- the overthrowing of Gaddafi in Libya, Hussein in Iraq, and our hypothetical ability/Clinton's desire to overthrow Assad in Syria. He finally articulated something of an anti-interventionist vision of foreign policy on the debate stage, which I've been waiting for him to do forever. It's something I wish he would spend a lot more time on, because Hillary Clinton's foreign policy positions are, in my view, dangerously hawkish, as well as out of step with the Democratic Party base.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

8 minutes ago, Fez said:

None of those polls matter. They didn't matter when they showed Clinton up big and they don't matter now. Polls this far out from an election have no predictive value, which is something Nate Silver and others have been saying for years. Essentially the only thing polls this far out show is which candidates have people being hearing more about more favorably in the news recently.

The only things we have of predictive value right now are the fundamentals, and those favor Clinton over Sanders.

You don't have to tell me polls this far out don't matter that much. They really only start to matter after the conventions. That said, they do provide some information. The fact that HRC has been polling underwater for 6 months now is important. Her numbers have been going down for two years. And when that happens to a politician, they don't tend to reverse course.

[Inigima]

I watched/listened to a good chunk of the debate last night, between radio and TV. I actually thought Hillary acquitted herself much better than Bernie. She kind of pulled a Christie on him, repeatedly pressing for specifics on paying for his healthcare plan; he never did give them.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Yesterday, Dan Savage wrote the only thing that needs to be said about the Log Cabin Republicans this election cycle: 

 

Quote

 

Every four years we're subjected to the same insipid news stories about the efforts of the Log Cabin Republicans. Credulous reporters, some too young to realize what they're being asked to re-regurgitate, tell us gay Republicans are hopeful! This could be the year! This could be the the year their nominee doesn't return their checks! This could be the year their nominee doesn't refuse to meet with them! This could be the year their nominee doesn't deny the existence of their families! Gay Republicans are praised for trying to "change their party from within" and then...

Nothing changes. Their party never changes. All the GOP candidates for president take the same old bigoted positions. It never gets any better. But no one who writes up the efforts of Log Cabin Republicans to change their party ever thinks to examine the results. There's never an accountability moment for the cocksucking wing of the "party of personal responsibility."

The Log Cabin Republicans were founded in 1977. They were gonna "build a stronger, more inclusive Republican Party [and] transform the GOP from the inside." They've been at this transform-from-the-inside shit for nearlyforty fucking years and what do they have nothing to show it? Nothing. Fuck all. Squat. For years they're been waiting on—and promising us—a breakthrough that never, ever comes. The GOP is as bad on LGBT issues now as it has ever been and their 2016 candidates run the gamut from completely awful asshole to completely asshole awful.

It's time to pack it in, boys. It's over. You failed. Fuck off and shut up.

 

If ever there was conclusive proof about the abject failure of the Log Cabin Republicans to change their party's stance on GLBT issues... this slate of potential Republican nominees should be it.

Just in case you haven't had your daily dose of bile rising to the back of your throat, here's the official Log Cabin Republican Statement about the New Hampshire Primary results:

 

Quote

Tonight the people of New Hampshire made two bold choices: Democrats made the decision to support a candidate with a genuine record of supporting the LGBT community when it mattered; Republicans in the Granite State chose a candidate opposed to discrimination based on sexual orientation. Log Cabin Republicans does not endorse in primaries and we still have a long way to go before either Party has a nominee, but tonight the people of New Hampshire should be commended for setting the tone of subsequent primaries by standing on the side of equality while the eyes of the nation were focused on them.

Ah yes, a false equivalence between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, based entirely on one media interview where Trump grudgingly concedes that he thinks it might possibly be okay to follow those Courts that have found workplace discrimination against gays and lesbians to be illegal. Trump has also stated that he opposes gay marriage, opposes even civil unions, and has pledged to appoint Justices to the Supreme Court that would overturn Obergefell.  

You know - basically the same as Hillary... 

 

 

 

 

 

[Maithanet]

8 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

He offered an historical perspective on unintended consequences of interventionism, which he explicitly connected to contemporary issues- the overthrowing of Gaddafi in Libya, Hussein in Iraq, and our hypothetical ability/Clinton's desire to overthrow Assad in Syria.

I feel like you need to do more than just point out that the removal of Gaddafi and Hussein had unintended consequences.  Bernie was generally very short on specifics of what his foreign policy actually is, rather than just what it isn't (hawkish).  He stated in last week's debate that he wants to bring Iran and Saudi Arabia to the negotiating table.  What exactly are those two going to agree to negotiate?  Why would Iran use the US as a broker, when the US has been backing SA vs Iran for decades?  Even if they did agree to some sort of official talks, the chance of it actually succeeding is very low, and the chance of it blowing up in our face is really high.  So, given that, why would that be a good policy?  What is Sanders hoping to achieve other than a general "wouldn't it be nice?"  This entire plan sounds half baked.

[Kalbear]

Her numbers are virtually identical with Sanders in those polls listed, and rubios numbers were before NH and before the debate.

[Kalbear]

He offered an historical perspective on unintended consequences of interventionism, which he explicitly connected to contemporary issues- the overthrowing of Gaddafi in Libya, Hussein in Iraq, and our hypothetical ability/Clinton's desire to overthrow Assad in Syria. He finally articulated something of an anti-interventionist vision of foreign policy on the debate stage, which I've been waiting for him to do forever. It's something I wish he would spend a lot more time on, because Hillary Clinton's foreign policy positions are, in my view, dangerously hawkish, as well as out of step with the Democratic Party base.

That might be true that it's not in step with dems, but Sanders voted in favor of the Libya action, voted to fund Iraq and voted in favor of drone strikes. He also voted for kosovo and Afghanistan. The notion that he won't be interventionist is not supported by his record.