|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP
(Post 11880359)
When you ask Americans about whether they like features of the ACA, then they're pretty positive about it. But when you ask those same Americans how they feel about Obamacare, they start shaking their heads.
If Sanders won the nomination, he would be targeted as a pinko commie and he and his ideas would become less popular quickly. Sanders has largely been untouched by attack ads and aggressive campaigning to date, but that honeymoon would end if he became the nominee. Clinton has been in the national spotlight and attacked for decades, so you can't compare the two directly. As for recycling the electability argument. You've still got nothing but opinion on that. An alternative view. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by WJS
(Post 11880428)
I am really surprised to see so many socialist expats and the comments made here on the forum. I would have thought those of you that support Bernie and the likes would have stayed in Europe and not moved over to the good ol US of A the land of the free. :confused: ;)
From watching the Republican debates (including last night that was great entertainment if nothing else), or the Tepublicans seem to care about is the constitution, the second amendment and strengthening the military so that they can bomb the **** out of anyone that so even looks at them the wrong way! |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by zargof
(Post 11880476)
More deflections. Just admit that Sanders' proposals are a lot more popular than you asserted.
As for recycling the electability argument. You've still got nothing but opinion on that. An alternative view. The naivete of the Sanders supporters is astounding. Nobody has beaten him up yet because there hasn't been a need, so naturally the negative sentiment against him is low because not many people know much about him. Candidates in similar positions who end up as primary winners invariably drop in their ratings when their opponents ramp up the opposition messaging against them. The GOP would love if Sanders won because they will have a large bag of tricks to use against him, whereas the efforts against Clinton have gone about as far as they're going to get. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by sir_eccles
(Post 11880441)
One doesn't always move countries because you like the politics.
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Steerpike
(Post 11880412)
To be clear, Boiler, I'm not asking a simple 'why are you against Clinton', but rather, if it came down to Trump v Clinton, how can you possibly say you'd vote for Trump in that context?
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by dakota44
(Post 11880471)
Birds of a feather....two loudmouth blowhards. Given Christies minimal support in the primaries I doubt it will help much.
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Leslie
(Post 11880461)
We need a Boiler Whisperer.
"Anybody but Hillary" = "I don't like Hillary but would vote for her against a Republican." |
Re: 2016 Election
1 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP
(Post 11880486)
Pointing out that Americans have a long history of hating socialism is not a deflection, but just a fact.
The naivete of the Sanders supporters is astounding. Nobody has beaten him up yet because there hasn't been a need, so naturally the negative sentiment against him is low because not many people know much about him. Candidates in similar positions who end up as primary winners invariably drop in their ratings when their opponents ramp up the opposition messaging against them. The GOP would love if Sanders won because they will have a large bag of tricks to use against him, whereas the efforts against Clinton have gone about as far as they're going to get. It's strange, eight years ago a lot of people we saying that Obama was unelectable. These last eight years of President McCain have been terrible, if only we'd picked Clinton back then eh. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by zargof
(Post 11880508)
Except that the more Sanders is known and the more Clinton and her surrogates have been attacking him, the more favourably he is viewed. Conversely, Clinton's favourability ratings are dropping the more exposure she gets.
It's strange, eight years ago a lot of people we saying that Obama was unelectable. These last eight years of President McCain have been terrible, if only we'd picked Clinton back then eh. When unknown candidates get into a position that they start getting attacked, their favorables usually fall because they are no longer monopolizing their own message. And as more voters start paying attention, they'll start to form opinions that they currently don't hold because many of them are disengaged from politics and don't really have much of an opinion. They'll get more opinionated as the election approaches, and they will be forming opinions with that negative messaging contributing to their positions. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by zargof
(Post 11880508)
It's strange, eight years ago a lot of people we saying that Obama was unelectable. These last eight years of President McCain have been terrible, if only we'd picked Clinton back then eh.
It never occurred to me that Obama was more (or less) unelectable than Clinton. But in '16 I certainly have those concerns about Sanders. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Giantaxe
(Post 11880514)
I certainly didn't feel that. I agonized about who to vote for in the Democratic primary before going with Obama. My concerns were firstly Obama's lack of experience and on the flip side whether voting for Clinton would lead to a re-run of the anti-Clinton nonsense of the '90's.
It never occurred to me that Obama was more (or less) unelectable than Clinton. But in '16 I certainly have those concerns about Sanders. In terms of popular vote, it was effectively a tie. But the Democratic establishment was worried about Clinton as a nominee and began to rally beyond Obama. (I believed that was a good choice at the time, and it proved to be a good bet.) Of course, Obama had a few strengths: charisma, an ability to reach minority constituencies and an ability to win over the left and the middle. Sanders has only one of those three, and his appeal is strongest among the age group that is least likely to make a difference in a general election (the youth vote, which doesn't vote.) |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP
(Post 11880511)
The Republicans haven't campaigned against Sanders. Nobody has been attacking Sanders.
When unknown candidates get into a position that they start getting attacked, their favorables usually fall because they are no longer monopolizing their own message. And as more voters start paying attention, they'll start to form opinions that they currently don't hold because many of them are disengaged from politics and don't really have much of an opinion. They'll get more opinionated as the election approaches, and they will be forming opinions with that negative messaging contributing to their positions. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP
(Post 11880518)
It was actually the opposite. The superdelegates were pushing for Obama.
In terms of popular vote, it was effectively a tie. But the Democratic establishment was worried about Clinton as a nominee and began to rally beyond Obama. (I believed that was a good choice at the time, and it proved to be a good bet.) Of course, Obama had a few strengths: charisma, an ability to reach minority constituencies and an ability to win over the left and the middle. Sanders has only one of those three, and his appeal is strongest among the age group that is least likely to make a difference in a general election (the youth vote, which doesn't vote.) |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Giantaxe
(Post 11880514)
I certainly didn't feel that. I agonized about who to vote for in the Democratic primary before going with Obama. My concerns were firstly Obama's lack of experience and on the flip side whether voting for Clinton would lead to a re-run of the anti-Clinton nonsense of the '90's.
It never occurred to me that Obama was more (or less) unelectable than Clinton. But in '16 I certainly have those concerns about Sanders. Obama unelectable, new Harris poll says - Illinois Review Top Clinton Strategist Says Obama 'Can't Win The General Election' | Crooks and Liars |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by zargof
(Post 11880526)
Maybe it will happen, maybe it won't. It wasn't true with Obama, and there is no data to support your supposition it will be true of Sanders. All there is the consensus of the punditocracy, who have so far been wrong about everything else.
We know from the same surveys that this anti-socialism sentiment is strongest among older people, i.e. those who are more likely to vote. Obama benefited from having an excellent ground game, coupled with the fact that the Republicans were in charge when the economy achieved meltdown. In any case, Sanders has low to no odds of being the nominee, so this is just an academic exercise at best. And even though Clinton is not an ideal candidate, the electoral map suggests that it would be very difficult (although not impossible) for her to lose the general election. |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 12:08 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.