Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bauglir]

You're not wrong that the lack of a Trump would make Sanders much more appealing

I'm not sure that it would. One of the major argument for Clinton has been inevitability from Day 1, and part of that has been the understanding that she's the moderate, reliable, electable choice that Sanders is too radical to be. The polls may say otherwise, but campaign narratives don't give a fig for facts - and people believe them anyway. With a non-Trump opponent, I'd expect that angle played up a lot more heavily in ads and such, and you'd get a lot of strategic voters who really would prefer Sanders voting Clinton because they expect she's the only one who wins the general.

[martinuzz]

My Dutch newspaper has developed a tool which can help you Americans decide on your vote.
http://www.volkskrant.nl/kijkverder/2016/trump/

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

no, Copenhagen is not in the Netherlands. That's something Trump said mistakenly and has been added to the joke

[mainiac]

But the same polls shows that Sanders > Rubio > Clinton. So the lack of a viable candidate on one side allows them to foist an unwanted (by majority opinion) choice on the other side.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/188396/sanders-image-among-dems-clinton-maintains-edge.aspx  Clinton is more popular on the left.  Sanders gets his broad appeal because he hasn't yet lost popularity among centrist and right wing voters.

Sanders is not the optimal choice.  Sanders is currently running in a race for democratic nominee.  The playing field for party nominee is different.  And even among left wing voters, democrats and democratic leaning independents, Sanders is not particularly liked.  When you point to those Sanders polls, you are pointing at a Sanders who has never faced attacks on his weak spot.  He isn't going to be attacked for being left wing in the democratic nomination.  He is going to be attacked for being left wing in the general election.

Polls only tell us what they tell us.  They are reflections of what is going on at the time of the poll among the people polled.  If we have strong reason to think that something is going to change between a poll and election day then we shouldn't be saying that the poll reflects election day strength.  If you are saying that Sanders is going to be a stronger election day nominee then you are saying that you think right wing voters will continue to like Sanders after the republican media machine goes to town on him.  Cuz right now Sanders is not the stronger nominee among left wing or centrist voters.  He is the stronger nominee among independents but those are left wing independents.

If you want to argue that I'm wrong on this, go ahead.  But if you aren't going to present a counter argument, can we retire this claim already?

[smjjames]

My Dutch newspaper has developed a tool which can help you Americans decide on your vote.
http://www.volkskrant.nl/kijkverder/2016/trump/

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

no, Copenhagen is not in the Netherlands. That's something Trump said mistakenly and has been added to the joke

Oh come on for question 7, that's going to lead to trump no matter what. lol.

Also, Apparently Tom Perez, the labor seceretary, is being floated as a VP pick for Clinton

Kind of seems like a really pandering pick, but then again, theres usually some element of pandering in a VP pick due to strengths, then again, it seems REALLY pandering. Also almost as a 'gotta pick somebody' pick.

[Reelya]

@mainiac: IDK, because literally all of that has already been thrown at Obama: the left-wing marxist stuff. And he managed to win two terms. So it's a matter of over-saturation: if you keep saying one side are marxists over and over but they keep winning then you need to wonder whether the "he's a marxist!" stuff is actually that effective any more.

Basically there's nothing they can throw at Sanders that they haven't been saying for the last 8 years about Obama, in fact there's less since they don't have the racial or "muslim" BS to throw at him. So I hardly think that saying "don't vote for a socialist! This time we really mean it" is going to go great for them. Because Obama was supposed to be literally anti-christ hitler stalin. How do they paint Sanders more negatively than that?

[Sheb]

Also, I'd just like to point out that for an "an unwanted (by majority opinion) choice", Clinton is winning a lot of primaries.

[Reelya]

I was talking about the majority of the general population, as per national polls, not primaries.

[smjjames]

I was talking about the majority of the general population, as per national polls, not primaries.

Sanders has yet to top Clinton in the national polls, which isn't a majority. Besides, I'd take the national polls with a grain of salt simply because those samples are TINY in comparison to the national whole.

[mainiac]

Basically there's nothing they can throw at Sanders that they haven't been saying for the last 9 years about Obama

The man literally claims to be a socialist.  He favors tax increases on the poor and middle class.  He wants to take away your family doctor.  And that's just the stuff he brags about the loudest.

This is like politics 101.  Extreme political positions are not an electoral asset in a general election.  If they were, they wouldn't be extreme.

[wierd]

I dont know. I dont think this election will be "normal" in any traditional sense of the word.

Extreme (and dangerous) politics are likely to be seen favorably, simply because they are unconventional, and thus not seen as "more of the same."

I expect there to be very strongly polarized politics on both sides, with all conception of being moderate thrown down.

I forsee a very scary election year.

[smjjames]

Basically there's nothing they can throw at Sanders that they haven't been saying for the last 9 years about Obama

The man literally claims to be a socialist.  He favors tax increases on the poor and middle class.  He wants to take away your family doctor.  And that's just the stuff he brags about the loudest.

This is like politics 101.  Extreme political positions are not an electoral asset in a general election.  If they were, they wouldn't be extreme.

I haven't heard anything on the 'take away your doctor' thing, but yes I've heard about his increasing taxes all over, but it would somehow be easier on the middle class and poor. I don't know how his tax plan is supposed to work like that.

As reelya pointed out, the problem here is that the republicans have repeatedly called Obama and others in the opposition 'socialists' for years now, which has completely blurred the meaning and likely desensitized people to it. If they call Sanders socialist, Democrats will just be like 'here they go again'.

[mainiac]

I haven't heard anything on the 'take away your doctor' thing,

Because "take away your family doctor" is republican language and the republicans haven't started talking about Sanders healthcare plan.

Democrats will just be like 'here they go again'.

Yeah but it's not a message for democrats.  It's a message for swing voters.

If Bernie Sanders doesn't already have all the left wing voters in his pocket come election day then the only way he wins is if he is running against Trump and it's a farce of a campaign.

[penguinofhonor]

You've got to remember that most people didn't respond to the Obama = Socialist thing with "Who cares if he is? Socialism is great." Plenty of people were reassured in the fact that it was just rhetoric and that Obama is actually a capitalist (even then, if I recall correctly, Obama had to respond by praising capitalism and talking about how much he believed in the opportunities it afforded). If the republicans started playing clips of Bernie Sanders calling himself a socialist, I do not think it would get the same reaction.

[mainiac]

And given enough time you can spin the message.  A candidate can always rebrand themself and eventually make a complaint look like a partisan issue.  But that's time that isn't spent talking about healthcare reform or minimum wages or unions.

[smjjames]

While I agree that Trump will most likely lose to either one, both campaigns (well, whoever becomes nominee) should be careful not to underesitmate Trump. Plus, as we saw in 2008 I think, or earlier, we should be careful about fully trusting the accuracy of general election polling, outside of Election Day itself.