The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Blue vs Red: [Democratic Primary] Edition
ElJeffe
Registered User, ClubPA regular
Registered User, ClubPA regular
Hey hey hey! We are ditching the one-thread-per-candidate thing and consolidating the primary threads into two flavors!
This is the Democrat flavor - it tastes of gun control and health care and pantsuits. Talk about Hillary, or Bernie, or Hillary some more.
(Note that we will still have separate threads whenever a debate rolls around.)
Discuss!
This is the Democrat flavor - it tastes of gun control and health care and pantsuits. Talk about Hillary, or Bernie, or Hillary some more.
(Note that we will still have separate threads whenever a debate rolls around.)
Discuss!
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
ElJeffe on
+5
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
I think this pretty much sums up my thoughts on Hilary vs Bernie. Bernie probably has more policies I agree with, but Clinton is more pragmatic and will actually have a shot at winning. I'd rather have 60% of my preferred platform items enacted with a 90% chance of success than 90% of my platform actions made with only a 50% chance at success at best.
I'm interested in the possible cabinet make ups Hillary and Bernie might have. Who a President puts in his cabinet says alot about him/her as a person.
of course this is a long ways away.
The notion that the DNC is trying to "shield" Hillary, someone who has been prominently involved in high profile politics for two plus decades is just silly.
But I'm also more tuned into the race than probably 95% of voters so I don't really need them to make a decision either.
*Nevermind* I don't know how to read.
Isn't... isn't that insinuating that of all the empty shit that's been thrown her way, there's something concealed (and in fact something potentially there)?
Because we've been over that like a hundred times now.
Unless I'm missing something, it seems to be insinuating that the 'email scandal' isn't fully open yet, even while admitting the others had nothing in them either?
Seems like it'd be better if the email one was just as open as the others.
Other than that I got nothing.
Do not engage the Watermelons.
No, it's insinuating that every one of these Al Capone's glove compartment scandals has been bullshit and the surprise waiting inside this latest one is more nothing.
It'd be a bigger problem if that was '08 Hillary, and it'd still be minor. They have nothing on her, what scares them is that they have no realistic counter in their primary for the general. Even Jeb! wouldn't be as competitive as he's billed at, he makes '08 Hillary look like Einstein in campaigning.
Considering Bennett's leaning, I'd say he's implying that it's just as empty as the others.
(I like Bennett - he's got a clean, clear art style, and he's thrown in obscure gaming references in his work (he once put a 64DD cart in a cartoon he did once, for example.))
But thanks for the clarification.
Political cartoons are terrible and should never be brought up again in any context.
This is not a hivemind.
Speak for yourself.
Good idea! Less confusion that way.
I doubt it's ever stopped you before.
Do not engage the Watermelons.
:snap:
South Carolina (Winthrop University): October 24-November 1, 2015 - Clinton 71 / Sanders 15 / O'Malley 2 / Refused 2 / Undecided 9 / Wouldn't Vote 1
Florida (Bay News 9/ News13): October 28-November 1, 2015 - Clinton 66 / Sanders 24 / O'Malley 3 / Other 2 / Undecided 6 (significant bounce for Clinton since last FL poll)
Iowa (Public Policy Polling): October 30-November 1, 2015 - Clinton 57 / Sanders 25 / O'Malley 7 / Lessig 1 / Not Sure 9
New Hampshire (Monmouth University Polling Institute): October 29-November 1, 2015 - Clinton 48 / Sanders 45 / O'Malley 3 / Lessig 1
North Carolina (Elon University): October 29-November 2, 2015 - Clinton 57 / Sanders 24 / O'Malley 3 / Other 2 / Undecided/DK 13 / Refused 0.5
Iowa (Gravis Marketing/One America News Network): October 30-November 2, 2015 - Clinton 57.1 / Sanders 24.8 / O'Malley 2.9 / Not Sure 15.2
Idaho (Dan Jones & Associates): October 28-November 4, 2015- Clinton 55 / Sanders 35 / Don't know 6 (this does not add up to 100%, I don't know why, I presume the last 4% is O'Malley)
Iowa (CNN/ORC): October 29-November 4, 2015 - Clinton 55 / Sanders 37 / O'Malley 3 / No Opinion 3 / None 1
Texas (University of Texas/Texas Tribune): October 30-November 8, 2015 - Clinton 61 / Sanders 30 / O'Malley 1 / Lessig 0 / No Opinion 7
South Carolina (Monmouth University): November 5-8, 2015 - Clinton 69 / Sanders 21 / O'Malley 1 / Other 1 / No Preference 8
South Carolina (Public Policy Polling): November 7-8, 2015 - Clinton 72 / Sanders 18 / O'Malley 5 / Unsure 5
New Hampshire (Gravis Marketing): November 11, 2015 - Clinton 46 / Sanders 25 / O'Malley 3 / Unsure 26
Gonna call outliers gonna outly on that last one because it's SO far out of sync with all other polls in NH and the "unsure" at 26%. However, it being a toss-up is still WAY down from his high water mark by a decent amount.
Sanders still trending above where Obama was in the same point in the cycle in '08 in national polls, but I think the biggest difference is going to end up being the lack of a John Edwards figure - Obama winning Iowa wasn't the biggest deal so much as it was Clinton placing third (in vote, not delegates) which is what shattered the veneer of inevitability and caused African Americans to support him so strongly (which is what flipped SC, etc). There's no built-in demographic for Sanders which could flip, and there's also no third candidate pulling numbers which would result in Clinton really getting knocked about - Sanders winning one or two early states could be written off in a way which Clinton placing third wasn't really able to be.
And I agree, what major slice of her support can he peel away? Moderate liberals are going to all switch from a moderate liberal to a left-liberal? Color me skeptical. And TBH, I can't decide whether Sanders winning over women or minorities from Clinton is less likely. AFAICT, his policies on issues like abortion and immigration are...pretty much the same as Clinton's. Hiring a DREAMer activist to run his Latino outreach program might have helped, except that Clinton did the same thing months earlier. And she won Latino voters 2:1 against Obama in 2008. I...really don't think Sanders can do even that well.
The first two states are 95% white and disproportionately left-liberal. Sanders can totally win New Hampshire and has a shot at Iowa. But then it's Nevada and South Carolina (i.e. where Clinton's dominating advantage among minorities matters) followed immediately by Super Tuesday. Where he wins Vermont, maaaybe Massachusetts, but I don't see how he gets Texas or Georgia.
And there's not that much time left, with the holiday season coming up.
Well, Iowa was also kind of proof of concept for Obama being able to win elections with those kinds of demographics. Which was very much a question mark. It's more akin to if Sanders was polling high in South Carolina or Georgia.
Mr. Sanders would very handily beat Mr. Trump.
Jim fucking Webb would probably beat Mr. Trump; he's polling well among the Republican base, but his unfavorables have also steadily climbed (...now, if the Republicans end up with Mr. Rubio as their man, we could perhaps have a conversation about Democrat candidate viability).
At any rate, Mr. Sanders is pretty clearly not going to be taking the nomination at this point regardless; he's never closed within so much as 20 points of Mrs. Clinton, even post-debate (which was the great white hope, as the saying goes). Assuming that Mrs. Clinton isn't revealed to be a bodysnatcher in the next few months, the race is finished.
Hillary could, Bernie - I disagree. He's too fringe for that and lacks the infrastructure and money to face Trump on equal ground like Hillary will bring to the table.
Webb would probably fail, at most he's skim some moderates but Trump doesn't care about moderate Republicans, and the DEm base will be unenthused and he lacks the political machine and media savvy Trump's got. Trump may be a terrible general candidate but he can take Webb.
Yep.
Well, I'm not seeing how this is a compelling argument unless there is a significant bloc of Democrat voters who would see Mr. Sanders vs Mr. Trump and say, "...Well, fuck it then; if we have to choose between the poors and the racist lunatic, let's vote for the racist lunatic!"
Mr. Trump has a vocal base he caters to that would not pull a Democrat handle come Hell or high water. Said base is irrelevant for a general election.
If anything, Mrs. Clinton has a worse match-up simply by virtue of anti-establishment voters coming out to strike a blow in favor of anarchy (she will still absolutely truck him, but again, so would anybody. Huge favorability among Republicans does not translate into favorability among the general public).
She's definitely not getting Obama levels of people pumped to vote for her. I think however it will be compensated in part by people voting against the GOP candidate.
You still sound concerned.