Is It Really This Bad?

[dc.]

There's a weird phenomenon out there that I think Sanders might just get a hold of...

 

When people go hard right, no one is surprised and they get a lot of attention and a lot of "juice" of sorts. And as much as it is spectacle to some, to others it is because far to the right is that "populist" vibe and many are willing to grab onto it - even if the message isn't actually what they believe in. But on the left, many on the left are scared to go hard left. They see the excitement for hard right categories as evidence that the best they can hope for is to "sit in the middle" and not look too crazy. And largely, it's worked on the Presidential level of course...

 

However, I am pretty sure that going hard left - as Bernie is - could result in the same positives that the right sees. The populism, the anti-establishment, the 'take it to the man,' the 'give us what we deserve' vibe... that's still going to get a lot of attention. And I wouldn't doubt that many who claim to be "far right" wind up supporting "far left" ....

 

But then again, I could be full of shit.

[dc.]

A lesson the Trumpster always reminds me of... he's the worst, but so many imitate it:

 

Donald mocks women's looks, like Carly Fiorina. People mock Donald's looks and hair. He says it's all fair game, he's just giving it like he's getting it, right? Not quite. People make fun of Donald's hair... just to make fun of his hair. But no one ever said, "Donald has bad hair... therefore he'd be an awful President" nor "Donald has bad hair... therefore I win the argument! Because he's ugly!" But the Donald says just those things about other people... Rosie is a loser, so I win. Meghan Kelly is a bimbo, so I win. Carly Fiorina's "face" haha - she can't be President.

 

It reminds me of this one... liberals called George Bush a mass murderer and war criminal and stupid. Therefore, we all get to say whatever we want about Obama. It's all fair.

 

Except, vile as those attacks against Bush might have been, at least they were based on his actions and his policies. The attacks against Obama... certainly some are fair, many are about his policies. But from before his election, many attacks started and ended with his race, his religion, his family's history... That doesn't win an argument. It proves you're a bigot.

 

Now I'm just venting, lol - but it does bother me. The attacks are the worst of politics. But if you're going to attack someone, at least do so on merit not on identity.

[thundercleetz]

Force - certainly don't disagree with a lot of your general idea; in fact, an argument could be made that such a swing started decades ago and of course that even Obama is a result of that kind of political movement/system.

 

BUT, demographically, the numbers are clear - the truly scary, sad and hateful ideas that come from the likes of Trump and his ilk are overwhelmingly supported by older, whiter men. And simply put, that demographic is fading fast. It's why the GOP will have trouble winning the presidency again under the current system and given their current brand of politics.

Your reasons above are exactly why the DNC will do whatever it takes to give Hillary the nomination over Sanders. Hillary gives them a big advantage from a demographics standpoint, lots of unknowns with Bernie, at the moment.

 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/bernie-sanders-could-win-iowa-and-new-hampshire-then-lose-everywhere-else/

 

I respect Sanders for not accepting lobbyist or Super PAC money, and for wanting to abolish private prisons, but that's about all I agree with him on.

 

Also, while I agree with your comment on the GOP in general in regards to demographics (I'm assuming you're referencing this study: http://www.latinodecisions.com/blog/2015/07/17/the-latino-threshold-in-2016-to-win/), specifically with candidates like Cruz or Walker, Trump seems to be demonstrating a range of demographic and ideological support, despite the stupid comments he made:

 

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/08/23/us/politics/why-donald-trump-wont-fold-polls-and-people-speak.html?referrer=

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/23/donald-trumps-immigration-comments-dont-seem-to-be-hurting-republicans-yet/

 

On the GOP Establishment side, much like the DNC will try and push Hilary, the RNC is going to do whatever it takes to make Jeb Bush as the candidate. Jeb speaks Spanish fluently, has a Mexican-American family, and remember, GW Bush polled with Hispanics over 40% and was fairly liberal with immigration.

 

Interesting take on Trump and the Hispanic vote:

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/07/26/donald-trump-hispanics-mexico-latinos-republican-voters/30697991/

 

Still very early in the election season so anything can happen. Fun stuff to follow though.

[dc.]

Re: Trump demographics... Aren't those studies all based on his GOP supporters only? I haven't seen anything that says he'll hold that same level of support among a broader demographic, including independents and liberals.

 

Re: Bernie. I honestly haven't looked super deep, but I agree with finance reform, higher taxes on high earners (Trump said it too) and broader affordability of healthcare and college.

 

Re: Hillary and Jeb. I agree with the establishment push happening. And ugh.

[thundercleetz]

The NYT article is among GOP voters, I believe, but it shows Trump might not have problems with Republican voter turnout like Romney had. The Washington Post article cites trends toward Trump in national polls among non-white voters, numbers are still overwhelming in favor of Hillary however. The USA Today article is an opinion piece I found interesting.

[dc.]

Several articles today show Hillary really falling against all... But as you said, is so early. Hypotheticals are so hard to poll. I'm going to hold firm that the GOP will struggle to win a national election ... Hillary might change that though with all her negatives

[GrubberRaven]

Were there any answers given last night? Seriously...is the Republican party just trolling us now?

[Spen]

Were there any answers given last night? Seriously...is the Republican party just trolling us now?

I saw someone joke on Twitter that Trump's closing statement should be: "Live from New York, it's Saturday Night!"

[dc.]

I was actually surprised at the number of answers we did hear... Just didn't like a lot of them. I still think it's scary that the most sane people on that stage are named Bush and Paul.

 

I'm still lost in the praising Reagan (deficit, Iran Contra, etc) while blasting the new Iran deal and any stimulus funds...

[thundercleetz]

Anyone catch the debate the other night? I like Jim Webb a lot. Military experience but not hawkish, great education, voluntarily stepped away from Senate, seems like a moderate who's willing to approach the job from a common sense perspective. It is a shame the most moderate candidates (Webb, Chafee, Kasich) are buried in the polls and will not get a legitimate look.

 

From a strategic perspective, I think Hillary did what she needed to do in the first debate to reaffirm her status as the Democratic front runner. Bernie didn't disappoint to his followers, but I will be interested to see if he gets any significant bump in the polls outside of less populated, demographically homogeneous states with white, progressive strongholds like Iowa, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, etc. I think Bernie is going to have a hard time connecting with the non-white voter bases, something Hillary connects with very well.

[dc.]

I didn't really care for Webb. Chafee - while I like his written positions - is just a buffoon on stage. He actually said, that he voted to repeal Glass-Steagal because "he had just gotten to the Senate and it was 90-5"

 

I agree on Hillary. I still don't care for her. I don't want another Bush or Clinton. I don't like her opportunism or elitism. I would still worry as the DNC if she can hold up in a general election without sounding harsh and condescending.

 

I am interested - O'Malley didn't do great but definitely didn't flop. I have heard rumors the media will eventually pick him up a bit because they want more of a 'race' against Hillary.

[GrubberRaven]

Bernie seems like he's creating a race.

[dc.]

I don't disagree but I think the media doesn't love covering him. The reality is in money, donors and crowds, Bernie is killing everyone... Even Trump. But you don't hear it.

 

I also think his struggles with minorities, which may be overrated, could also be a major struggle for him and the media seems to be betting on that...

[Spen]

I like Bernie but I don't think he can win. And if he did he couldn't get the changes he wants through Congress.

[GrubberRaven]

Hillary's smugness, and the her whole "I'll be the first woman president" angle is nauseating...

[papasmurfbell]

I like Bernie but I don't think he can win. And if he did he couldn't get the changes he wants through Congress.

When he got in I was sure he would lose big but now the way the polls are going I think he has a real shot.

 

If he wins he does get to stock depts like the SEC with his people. He might not get the laws he wants but can make sure the ones that are on te books are used with fire and brimstone.

[GrubberRaven]

He lives!

[papasmurfbell]

For today.

[thundercleetz]

I am interested - O'Malley didn't do great but definitely didn't flop. I have heard rumors the media will eventually pick him up a bit because they want more of a 'race' against Hillary.

I can see that with all the baggage Hillay has. Probably waiting for a firm answer on Biden before deciding to push O'Malley. Me personally, I don't care for O'Malley. And it has little to do with how he did as governor of MD (which I don't actually have a problem with).

 

I don't disagree but I think the media doesn't love covering him. The reality is in money, donors and crowds, Bernie is killing everyone... Even Trump. But you don't hear it.

 

I also think his struggles with minorities, which may be overrated, could also be a major struggle for him and the media seems to be betting on that...

I think the thing with minority voter bases and Bernie is not whether they approve of him (probably still preferable to a Republican to many), but whether they approve of him enough to go out and vote. Minority voter bases historically have lower voter turnout rates, but turnout got much better with Obama's two campaigns. Hillary seems like a safe bet for the party in regards to building on Obama's success in voter turnout with minorities, and of course, women.

 

Sanders is a risk in the sense of not only minority turnout, but for the moderate white voter in swing states. Not saying the moderate voter would automatically vote Republican, but might not turnout at all.

[papasmurfbell]

This yr seems to be the anti politician yr. Political speak and playing insider games is not working. That is why Carson and Trump are polling so well. While Sanders has been in DC fro a long time he doesn't play the game. His "Wall St regulates congress" line rankles the establishment. Also looking at how all the polls from the media groups say Sanders won the debate hands down but the media says Hillary won might blow up in her and their faces.

[thundercleetz]

This yr seems to be the anti politician yr. Political speak and playing insider games is not working. That is why Carson and Trump are polling so well. While Sanders has been in DC fro a long time he doesn't play the game. His "Wall St regulates congress" line rankles the establishment. Also looking at how all the polls from the media groups say Sanders won the debate hands down but the media says Hillary won might blow up in her and their faces.

Another view on the debate:

 

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/14/sorry_haters_hillary_clinton_won_the_democratic_debate/

[papasmurfbell]

The problem is it is an insider wanting to push thir horse forward. She lost the CNN, Fox, Huffpost, and all the rest. Remember how in 2012 Fox was sure Mitt would win even though all the polls said he would't.

[thundercleetz]

The problem is it is an insider wanting to push thir horse forward. She lost the CNN, Fox, Huffpost, and all the rest. Remember how in 2012 Fox was sure Mitt would win even though all the polls said he would't.

Ultimately the convention decides who the candidate is. For the Democrats, white states like Iowa, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, and Vermont are worthless. The presidential election is a predictable enough game: the election comes down to Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and throw North Carolina in there as well (and if the Republicans lose Florida it's over regardless).

 

Until Sanders gains traction in the diverse, heavily populated states, Hillary is the candidate. While Sanders might have "won" the debate, Hillary did not bomb the debate by any means. The question is: did Sanders do enough to convert a Hillary voter? I don't think so. Even if Sanders won, it wasn't by much.

 

Still early though, a lot could happen.

[papasmurfbell]

It has been decades since a convention actually decided the nom. If Debbie Wasserman Shultz steals this for Hillary after Sanders skull dragging Clinton she will loose the base.

 

Remember Leiberman was #1 for a period of time in in 2004 and came in 5th place. If Sanders wins Iowa and NH then he will gain traction and people will decide to move on from Hillary.

 

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/did-the-media-get-the-democratic-debate-wrong

 

 

 

Let’s look, briefly, at the case for the prosecution. At AlterNet, the alternative-news site, Adam Johnson pointed out, “Sanders won the CNN focus group, the Fusion focus group, and the Fox News focus group; in the latter, he even converted several Hillary supporters. He won the Slate online poll, CNN/Time online poll, 9News Colorado, The Street online poll, Fox5 poll, the conservative Drudge online poll and the liberal Daily Kos online poll. There wasn’t, to this writer’s knowledge, a poll he didn’t win by at least an 18-point margin.”

[thundercleetz]

It has been decades since a convention actually decided the nom. If Debbie Wasserman Shultz steals this for Hillary after Sanders skull dragging Clinton she will loose the base.

 

Remember Leiberman was #1 for a period of time in in 2004 and came in 5th place. If Sanders wins Iowa and NH then he will gain traction and people will decide to move on from Hillary.

 

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/did-the-media-get-the-democratic-debate-wrong

 

I read the article and I'm still unsure what converting several supporters amounts to. I'm weary of taking voter pulse on Twitter and Facebook. Lead to some wrong predictions in 2014.

 

The convention came close to having to decide the DNC candidate in '08. You could be right about momentum in the early stages, but I disagree for the time being. I think you're underestimating Hillary's support base. Going back to social media, I'm not sure the loud and passionate progressive voice we hear is necessarily representative of the Democratic voter base. I think Hillary captures a large moderate voter base, that wouldn't necessarily throw their support behind Bernie.

 

I am very interested. Even though I do not support Sanders, I want to see Sanders and his grass roots campaign make some serious noise.