Re: 2016 Election
 

I'd take her as the lesser of two evils, if she was up against a full on god botherer like Cruz or Rubio (or a nutjob like Trump), but between her and Sanders, well that's no contest for me.

Re: 2016 Election
 

The problem American politics has is that the majority of voters have already made their minds up.

Registered R, you're going to vote for the candidate with an R after their name and would probably sooner stay at home than vote for the guy with a D after. Likewise, if you're registered D, you're going to vote for the candidate with an D after their name and would probably sooner stay at home than vote for the guy with a R after.

Independents are now the largest bloc of voters on AZ (and a number of other states), yet I suspect the same applies. Many have already made up their minds.

Re: 2016 Election
 

The whole socialist thing is meaningless, all the attacks against Obama being a socialist have blunted that attack. Of course there's absolutely nothing in Clinton's past that the GOP could bring up as an attack.

Winning the middle is fine, but seen as how the GOP has gone so far to the right, the supposed middle has moved, so I don't think the McGovern comparison holds.

If Clinton has learned and is a better candidate, then she isn't showing it so far. Will you still be saying Clinton is more electable if she loses the nomination?

Re: 2016 Election
 

Yes.

Re: 2016 Election
 

The thing is you probably would, and it would be without a trace of irony.

Re: 2016 Election
 

I think RoadWarrior has explained it pretty well. The primaries are a very different beast to a general election.

Re: 2016 Election
 

You keep confusing the process of competing for the nomination, the tenor of which is dominated by a small segment of partisan diehards, with the general election that chooses the president that includes a lot of swing voters who aren't even paying attention to what's going on here.

You're also not noticing that Iowa and New Hampshire are retail politics states dominated by white people -- this is the very demographic among which Sanders can be expected to excel, given that he comes from a liberal state that is dominated by whites and that has a low population. In other words, Iowa and New Hampshire do not represent the broader electorate, and those states end up doing more to force low performers to drop out than choosing winners.

Elections usually come down to choosing candidates who are tolerable enough and not frightening. Rock star candidates are rare -- they shine when times are really bad (Obama in 2008, Reagan in 1980, FDR in 1932) -- but things at the moment are generally good enough for that not to be necessary. The most charismatic candidate during this cycle is Trump, who would be better suited to being a TV host or Grand Dragon than a president.

And don't kid yourself -- a "socialist" candidate will scare the crap out of a lot of ordinary voters once that label has been pounded into their skulls.

Re: 2016 Election
 

I'm not confusing the process, merely making the point that Clinton struggling in the primary (again) doesn't bode well for the general. She's not stupid and most certainly knows how the process works: swing to the left for the primary and back to the centre for the general. If she can't get the first bit right, why do you assume she'd be any better at the second?

I don't think Sanders is a great candidate either. His message and policies are more in line with what I believe, but he's a poor conduit. Is there a risk in nominating him for the general? Absolutely. But the reward could be far greater. Plus the more I see of Clinton the more I feel that she is also a risk.

Oh and don't think I don't know the state of the game, I'm well aware of demographics. Read some of my earlier posts where I laid out how I think Clinton still has the better chance and what it would take to change that. But a few months ago, all I read from you and Axeman was how this was going to be a cakewalk for Clinton, and that Sanders didn't have a chance. But things are a lot closer than you expected, even if you won't admit it.

Re: 2016 Election
 

The primary has little to do with the general. Primaries with populist undercurrents end up producing contenders such as Trump who are adored by a minority but feared or disliked by everyone else.

And I would expect her margins above Sanders to improve as the primary shifts to states whose Democratic constituents aren't completely dominated by white retail voters.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Hmm, so will the snow be Trump's next excuse for the damn New Hampshire voters not voting for him?

Wow Guys, Did You Hear It Is Snowing in New Hampshire?

Re: 2016 Election
 

I thought Trump would love snow. It is white after all.

Re: 2016 Election
 

The current discussion between Zargof, Axeman and the Roadrunner was one of the best and most thoughtful I've seen on this thread in ages. I agree that once the primaries shift to the south, where Hillary can count on support from the black constituency, Sanders will fade like the Cheshire Cat.

The only thing I see possibly stopping Hillary is if Obama decides she can't beat Rubio - or Bush - or whichever viable candidate the Rs come up with. Then it will be Biden, Cuomo or Warren to fill the gap. You know how Obama would do it.

Re: 2016 Election
 

By indicting Colin Powell?

Re: 2016 Election
 

Sad but true, I think our salvation lies with Barry doing the right thing.

Re: 2016 Election
 

I didn't know he was running for President. Have you heard something about that?