Wisconsin seems like exactly the kind of state Sanders overperforms in, and he's already slightly ahead in the polls. I expect him to win pretty easily there. He's also going to close the gap considerably in New York. Things are going as well for him as he possibly could have hoped post 0-for-5, and it's not going to be close to enough.
All he's doing is making Clinton look weak because she can't seem to pick up any inevitability bounce, which isn't particularly his fault. There's a good reason she lost to Obama, and she's a weaker candidate today than she was eight years ago. And of course, if she's so weak, it doesn't make him look particularly good that he can't beat her. He's not really a contender on the national stage.
All of which would be really problematic if the Republicans weren't hell-bent on nominating someone utterly unelectable or destroying themselves to try to avoid it. Clinton's national unfavorables would be poisonous against anyone decent, but there doesn't seem to be a decent opponent coming.
So I guess my question is, where are all the decent presidential candidates? Have both sides become pretty good at sniffing them out early and piling on the negatives before they have a chance to rise to national prominence?
Massive student debt loads, compromising twitter accounts, and the ridiculously horrible work environment make this a safety for competent people
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
The reason Clinton lost to Obama is because obama was a fucking amazing campaigner. Pretty much anybody else would have lost to him as well. That's not a Clinton weakness that's an Obama strength.
It's undeniable that Clinton has high negatives, that tends to happen when the Republican party hijacks the role of Congress into a taxpayer funded attack ad for 8 years. But I think that also suggests that Clinton's negatives are already as high as they're going to go - we're already at peak Clinton smear, the Republicans have hit her with everything they have and never managed to derail her campaign.
Neither the Clinton campaign nor the Republicans have really hit Sanders with negative ads at all. It shouldn't be surprising at all that he has lower negatives than anyone else running for president at this moment. Clinton hasn't really needed to, she's in the lead so she can afford taking the high road. And the Republicans are saving theirs in case Bernie makes it to primary season.
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
Wisconsin seems like exactly the kind of state Sanders overperforms in, and he's already slightly ahead in the polls. I expect him to win pretty easily there. He's also going to close the gap considerably in New York. Things are going as well for him as he possibly could have hoped post 0-for-5, and it's not going to be close to enough.
All he's doing is making Clinton look weak because she can't seem to pick up any inevitability bounce, which isn't particularly his fault. There's a good reason she lost to Obama, and she's a weaker candidate today than she was eight years ago. And of course, if she's so weak, it doesn't make him look particularly good that he can't beat her. He's not really a contender on the national stage.
All of which would be really problematic if the Republicans weren't hell-bent on nominating someone utterly unelectable or destroying themselves to try to avoid it. Clinton's national unfavorables would be poisonous against anyone decent, but there doesn't seem to be a decent opponent coming.
So I guess my question is, where are all the decent presidential candidates? Have both sides become pretty good at sniffing them out early and piling on the negatives before they have a chance to rise to national prominence?
How is Clinton weaker now than 8 years ago? She isn't making the same kind of unforced errors this time around and has Obama'said campaign staff.
She's a historically unpopular candidate running against historically unpopular opponents. Her strongest asset is the Republican Party, but that's nothing to sneeze at.
That is not a statement on where she is relative to 08, but yes, as you continually point out nobody likes Clinton.
And as I spent many pages at the start of this thread talking about, saying "nobody likes Clinton" is only true if one ignores all the nuances of the situation. It's more accurate to say "There's many people, the majority of whom who don't matter to Clinton's ability to win the nomination or the presidency, who don't like Clinton". Clinton is very popular overall with the people who would vote for Democrats in the first place.
The idea that if it weren't for the Republican field this year she'd be a weak candidate is ludicrous.
He campaigned so well that he got a Nobel prize for.
Not really. He got the Nobel prize for, at the end of the day, not being GWB. His new attitude and demeanour on the international stage and the things it had, by that point, led to was basically what they were giving him the prize for.
Wisconsin seems like exactly the kind of state Sanders overperforms in, and he's already slightly ahead in the polls. I expect him to win pretty easily there. He's also going to close the gap considerably in New York. Things are going as well for him as he possibly could have hoped post 0-for-5, and it's not going to be close to enough.
All he's doing is making Clinton look weak because she can't seem to pick up any inevitability bounce, which isn't particularly his fault. There's a good reason she lost to Obama, and she's a weaker candidate today than she was eight years ago. And of course, if she's so weak, it doesn't make him look particularly good that he can't beat her. He's not really a contender on the national stage.
All of which would be really problematic if the Republicans weren't hell-bent on nominating someone utterly unelectable or destroying themselves to try to avoid it. Clinton's national unfavorables would be poisonous against anyone decent, but there doesn't seem to be a decent opponent coming.
So I guess my question is, where are all the decent presidential candidates? Have both sides become pretty good at sniffing them out early and piling on the negatives before they have a chance to rise to national prominence?
How is Clinton weaker now than 8 years ago? She isn't making the same kind of unforced errors this time around and has Obama'said campaign staff.
She's a historically unpopular candidate running against historically unpopular opponents. Her strongest asset is the Republican Party, but that's nothing to sneeze at.
That is not a statement on where she is relative to 08, but yes, as you continually point out nobody likes Clinton.
And as I spent many pages at the start of this thread talking about, saying "nobody likes Clinton" is only true if one ignores all the nuances of the situation. It's more accurate to say "There's many people, the majority of whom who don't matter to Clinton's ability to win the nomination or the presidency, who don't like Clinton". Clinton is very popular overall with the people who would vote for Democrats in the first place.
The idea that if it weren't for the Republican field this year she'd be a weak candidate is ludicrous.
She has enthusiastic supporters, a strong floor, and no chance in hell against anyone with charisma. So, a perfect 2016 candidate.
Wisconsin seems like exactly the kind of state Sanders overperforms in, and he's already slightly ahead in the polls. I expect him to win pretty easily there. He's also going to close the gap considerably in New York. Things are going as well for him as he possibly could have hoped post 0-for-5, and it's not going to be close to enough.
All he's doing is making Clinton look weak because she can't seem to pick up any inevitability bounce, which isn't particularly his fault. There's a good reason she lost to Obama, and she's a weaker candidate today than she was eight years ago. And of course, if she's so weak, it doesn't make him look particularly good that he can't beat her. He's not really a contender on the national stage.
All of which would be really problematic if the Republicans weren't hell-bent on nominating someone utterly unelectable or destroying themselves to try to avoid it. Clinton's national unfavorables would be poisonous against anyone decent, but there doesn't seem to be a decent opponent coming.
So I guess my question is, where are all the decent presidential candidates? Have both sides become pretty good at sniffing them out early and piling on the negatives before they have a chance to rise to national prominence?
How is Clinton weaker now than 8 years ago? She isn't making the same kind of unforced errors this time around and has Obama'said campaign staff.
She's a historically unpopular candidate running against historically unpopular opponents. Her strongest asset is the Republican Party, but that's nothing to sneeze at.
That is not a statement on where she is relative to 08, but yes, as you continually point out nobody likes Clinton.
And as I spent many pages at the start of this thread talking about, saying "nobody likes Clinton" is only true if one ignores all the nuances of the situation. It's more accurate to say "There's many people, the majority of whom who don't matter to Clinton's ability to win the nomination or the presidency, who don't like Clinton". Clinton is very popular overall with the people who would vote for Democrats in the first place.
The idea that if it weren't for the Republican field this year she'd be a weak candidate is ludicrous.
She has enthusiastic supporters, a strong floor, and no chance in hell against anyone with charisma. So, a perfect 2016 candidate.
This is some massive confirmation bias going on.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Wisconsin seems like exactly the kind of state Sanders overperforms in, and he's already slightly ahead in the polls. I expect him to win pretty easily there. He's also going to close the gap considerably in New York. Things are going as well for him as he possibly could have hoped post 0-for-5, and it's not going to be close to enough.
All he's doing is making Clinton look weak because she can't seem to pick up any inevitability bounce, which isn't particularly his fault. There's a good reason she lost to Obama, and she's a weaker candidate today than she was eight years ago. And of course, if she's so weak, it doesn't make him look particularly good that he can't beat her. He's not really a contender on the national stage.
All of which would be really problematic if the Republicans weren't hell-bent on nominating someone utterly unelectable or destroying themselves to try to avoid it. Clinton's national unfavorables would be poisonous against anyone decent, but there doesn't seem to be a decent opponent coming.
So I guess my question is, where are all the decent presidential candidates? Have both sides become pretty good at sniffing them out early and piling on the negatives before they have a chance to rise to national prominence?
How is Clinton weaker now than 8 years ago? She isn't making the same kind of unforced errors this time around and has Obama'said campaign staff.
She's a historically unpopular candidate running against historically unpopular opponents. Her strongest asset is the Republican Party, but that's nothing to sneeze at.
That is not a statement on where she is relative to 08, but yes, as you continually point out nobody likes Clinton.
And as I spent many pages at the start of this thread talking about, saying "nobody likes Clinton" is only true if one ignores all the nuances of the situation. It's more accurate to say "There's many people, the majority of whom who don't matter to Clinton's ability to win the nomination or the presidency, who don't like Clinton". Clinton is very popular overall with the people who would vote for Democrats in the first place.
The idea that if it weren't for the Republican field this year she'd be a weak candidate is ludicrous.
She has enthusiastic supporters, a strong floor, and no chance in hell against anyone with charisma. So, a perfect 2016 candidate.
This is some massive confirmation bias going on.
We're all swimming deep in that pool
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Her net favorable/unfavorable would be the worst of any winning candidate in history by more than a dozen points.
It isn't fair, but misogyny is real and 30 years of slinging poo at her have added up. She isn't particularly charismatic (especially not at 68) and her standoffish relationship with the press doesn't help.
This year has a strong chance of being a walkover for her, and even in other years she is good enough at consolidating the Democratic base that she would have a strong chance due to the inherent advantages Democrats have in national elections. But she isn't close to what I would consider ideal.
Inkstain82 on
0
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
Her net favorable/unfavorable would be the worst of any winning candidate in history by more than a dozen points.
It isn't fair, but misogyny is real and 30 years of slinging poo at her have added up. She isn't particularly charismatic (especially not at 68) and her standoffish relationship with the press doesn't help.
This year has a strong chance of being a walkover for her, and even in other years she is good enough at consolidating the Democratic base that she would have a strong chance due to the inherent advantages Democrats have in national elections. But she isn't close to what I would consider ideal.
Also, she will apparently kill innocent foreign people with drones at the behest of Kissinger, if her more zany supporters are anything to go by.
Wisconsin seems like exactly the kind of state Sanders overperforms in, and he's already slightly ahead in the polls. I expect him to win pretty easily there. He's also going to close the gap considerably in New York. Things are going as well for him as he possibly could have hoped post 0-for-5, and it's not going to be close to enough.
All he's doing is making Clinton look weak because she can't seem to pick up any inevitability bounce, which isn't particularly his fault. There's a good reason she lost to Obama, and she's a weaker candidate today than she was eight years ago. And of course, if she's so weak, it doesn't make him look particularly good that he can't beat her. He's not really a contender on the national stage.
All of which would be really problematic if the Republicans weren't hell-bent on nominating someone utterly unelectable or destroying themselves to try to avoid it. Clinton's national unfavorables would be poisonous against anyone decent, but there doesn't seem to be a decent opponent coming.
So I guess my question is, where are all the decent presidential candidates? Have both sides become pretty good at sniffing them out early and piling on the negatives before they have a chance to rise to national prominence?
How is Clinton weaker now than 8 years ago? She isn't making the same kind of unforced errors this time around and has Obama'said campaign staff.
She's a historically unpopular candidate running against historically unpopular opponents. Her strongest asset is the Republican Party, but that's nothing to sneeze at.
That is not a statement on where she is relative to 08, but yes, as you continually point out nobody likes Clinton.
And as I spent many pages at the start of this thread talking about, saying "nobody likes Clinton" is only true if one ignores all the nuances of the situation. It's more accurate to say "There's many people, the majority of whom who don't matter to Clinton's ability to win the nomination or the presidency, who don't like Clinton". Clinton is very popular overall with the people who would vote for Democrats in the first place.
The idea that if it weren't for the Republican field this year she'd be a weak candidate is ludicrous.
She has enthusiastic supporters, a strong floor, and no chance in hell against anyone with charisma. So, a perfect 2016 candidate.
This is some massive confirmation bias going on.
What am I missing? Through a variety of factors she's about to chart new grounds as the most unfavorably viewed winner in modern history. I don't think the vague appeal you're making undoes any of the statistics we have access to.
One massive assumption is that those numbers aren't going to move as we go into the primary. Which seems awfully unlikely, especially considering the person she's likely to be running against.
She also has a unique record of getting attacked by the opposition party for decades, and most importantly of running during a particularly partisan era where the electorate tends to disapprove of just about everybody.
Those are all good reasons to explain her high unfavorable ratings. It does not automatically follow through from that (even if we accept your base assumption that Clinton is uncharismatic, which I don't) that if only she was facing someone with charisma she'd be losing. Indeed, charisma sure didn't do much for Marco Rubio, and Donald Trump's entire campaign is based on nothing but his personal appeal to the R base.
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
One massive assumption is that those numbers aren't going to move as we go into the primary. Which seems awfully unlikely, especially considering the person she's likely to be running against.
They were there before Sanders kinda-sorta emerged as a kinda-sorta threat, so I suspect they'll be there after. They will probably move if Trump is the nominee just because she's historically poorly liked for a candidate at this stage, but he's disliked several times harder, but if it's anyone else I wouldn't expect a lot of movement. She might be able to eke out a win despite them against a Kasich or a drafted nominee, though, especially given the weird nature of the Republican nomination process.
She also has a unique record of getting attacked by the opposition party for decades
Exactly. I agree that it's unfair. But that doesn't make it go away. The flip side is that we know it probably won't get much worse, at least. I agree she has a high floor.
and most importantly of running during a particularly partisan era where the electorate tends to disapprove of just about everybody.
All the other candidates excluding Trump are notably better liked.
Those are all good reasons to explain her high unfavorable ratings. It does not automatically follow through from that (even if we accept your base assumption that Clinton is uncharismatic, which I don't) that if only she was facing someone with charisma she'd be losing. Indeed, charisma sure didn't do much for Marco Rubio, and Donald Trump's entire campaign is based on nothing but his personal appeal to the R base.
That's all reasonable. I don't agree with the poster you are responding to that she's dead in the water against a younger, more charismatic candidate. I think she's vulnerable, but she's not terrible and the inherent Democratic demographic advantages can paper over some of it.
I'm going to regret playing Fantasy Election because there's absolutely no way to test any of these and if anyone wants to just say 'nuh-uh' that is totally fair, but I think she loses to 2000 Bush and struggles with 2008 McCain.
The reason Clinton lost to Obama is because obama was a fucking amazing campaigner. Pretty much anybody else would have lost to him as well. That's not a Clinton weakness that's an Obama strength.
She was definitely a weaker campaigner, as well as having a vastly inferior campaign staff - and she still proved to be a massive competition to peak Obama, which he almost lost. That's something Bernie hasn't got on his resume as a political candidate.
Still think that's not going to happen, since if Sanders is Kennedy to Clinton's Carter, he will basically destroy the left in modern politics for 20 more years. It's just campaign posturing. It's bad campaign posturing, but it's posturing none the less.
Still think that's not going to happen, since if Sanders is Kennedy to Clinton's Carter, he will basically destroy the left in modern politics for 20 more years. It's just campaign posturing. It's bad campaign posturing, but it's posturing none the less.
I am increasingly unconvinced of this.
I mean, i am pretty sure it is just posturing, but as time goes by, i am less confident on it.
Still think that's not going to happen, since if Sanders is Kennedy to Clinton's Carter, he will basically destroy the left in modern politics for 20 more years. It's just campaign posturing. It's bad campaign posturing, but it's posturing none the less.
I am increasingly unconvinced of this.
I mean, i am pretty sure it is just posturing, but as time goes by, i am less confident on it.
His campaign is being run exceedingly poorly. These sorts of things happen when your campaign manager is incompetent. Ask Clinton in '08.
The reason Clinton lost to Obama is because obama was a fucking amazing campaigner. Pretty much anybody else would have lost to him as well. That's not a Clinton weakness that's an Obama strength.
So we know there's a ceiling out there that Clinton couldn't compete with. It's just a matter of how far below it we think she is. It's *both* his strength and her weakness.
It's undeniable that Clinton has high negatives, that tends to happen when the Republican party hijacks the role of Congress into a taxpayer funded attack ad for 8 years. But I think that also suggests that Clinton's negatives are already as high as they're going to go - we're already at peak Clinton smear, the Republicans have hit her with everything they have and never managed to derail her campaign.
I agree with all of that. But I also think that they don't have to get them higher if they had a better candidate to put forward. They're high enough now that she'd be vulnerable in this extremely hypothetical world here the Republicans nominate someone competent.
The fact that Clinton has been dragged down by the Republicans playing dirty for so long doesn't make it less true that she's been dragged down. Just like I don't think it's fair that there's a non-zero amount of misogyny in how she's perceived, but it's still there.
Neither the Clinton campaign nor the Republicans have really hit Sanders with negative ads at all. It shouldn't be surprising at all that he has lower negatives than anyone else running for president at this moment. Clinton hasn't really needed to, she's in the lead so she can afford taking the high road. And the Republicans are saving theirs in case Bernie makes it to primary season.
I 100% agree with this. Don't think for a minute that my assessment of Clinton is meant as support for him. I rate Clinton as on the weak side of "people who should be running for President as a major party nominee." Sanders doesn't really play at that level. He's primary fodder.
Her net favorable/unfavorable would be the worst of any winning candidate in history by more than a dozen points.
It isn't fair, but misogyny is real and 30 years of slinging poo at her have added up. She isn't particularly charismatic (especially not at 68) and her standoffish relationship with the press doesn't help.
This year has a strong chance of being a walkover for her, and even in other years she is good enough at consolidating the Democratic base that she would have a strong chance due to the inherent advantages Democrats have in national elections. But she isn't close to what I would consider ideal.
Ominously for Mr. Bush, his personal ratings have also declined significantly in the past three months. In March, 42 percent said they viewed Mr. Bush favorably, and 41 percent unfavorably. The latest poll showed Mr. Bush was viewed favorably by 29 percent and unfavorably by 44 percent.
But he can take heart from Mr. Clinton's standing. The Governor of Arkansas had hoped to use this time before the Democratic Party convention next month to repair his image after a bitter primary season dominated by "character issues," including charges that he avoided the draft, which he denied. But Mr. Perot has largely dominated the limelight, and the survey showed that Mr. Clinton's favorable ratings had actually declined over the past few months.
In April, for example, Mr. Clinton was viewed favorably by 26 percent and unfavorably by 40 percent. The latest poll showed Mr. Clinton viewed favorably by 16 percent, with 40 percent holding unfavorable views.
Wisconsin seems like exactly the kind of state Sanders overperforms in, and he's already slightly ahead in the polls. I expect him to win pretty easily there. He's also going to close the gap considerably in New York. Things are going as well for him as he possibly could have hoped post 0-for-5, and it's not going to be close to enough.
All he's doing is making Clinton look weak because she can't seem to pick up any inevitability bounce, which isn't particularly his fault. There's a good reason she lost to Obama, and she's a weaker candidate today than she was eight years ago. And of course, if she's so weak, it doesn't make him look particularly good that he can't beat her. He's not really a contender on the national stage.
All of which would be really problematic if the Republicans weren't hell-bent on nominating someone utterly unelectable or destroying themselves to try to avoid it. Clinton's national unfavorables would be poisonous against anyone decent, but there doesn't seem to be a decent opponent coming.
So I guess my question is, where are all the decent presidential candidates? Have both sides become pretty good at sniffing them out early and piling on the negatives before they have a chance to rise to national prominence?
How is Clinton weaker now than 8 years ago? She isn't making the same kind of unforced errors this time around and has Obama'said campaign staff.
She's a historically unpopular candidate running against historically unpopular opponents. Her strongest asset is the Republican Party, but that's nothing to sneeze at.
That is not a statement on where she is relative to 08, but yes, as you continually point out nobody likes Clinton.
And as I spent many pages at the start of this thread talking about, saying "nobody likes Clinton" is only true if one ignores all the nuances of the situation. It's more accurate to say "There's many people, the majority of whom who don't matter to Clinton's ability to win the nomination or the presidency, who don't like Clinton". Clinton is very popular overall with the people who would vote for Democrats in the first place.
The idea that if it weren't for the Republican field this year she'd be a weak candidate is ludicrous.
She has enthusiastic supporters, a strong floor, and no chance in hell against anyone with charisma. So, a perfect 2016 candidate.
This is some massive confirmation bias going on.
What am I missing? Through a variety of factors she's about to chart new grounds as the most unfavorably viewed winner in modern history. I don't think the vague appeal you're making undoes any of the statistics we have access to.
She's unpopular with people who were never going to vote Democrat anyway. She will sweep women, minorities, basically anyone who isn't a white male. What else am I missing? Barring acts of God im pretty certain she has this sewn up. And charisma? Have you seen footage of the Bhengazi hearings? She will wipe the floor with any of the GOP candidates.
She's fantastically popular with the base, more so than Sanders. It isn't reported because it doesn't fit the narrative and it's not sexy news.
The reason Clinton lost to Obama is because obama was a fucking amazing campaigner. Pretty much anybody else would have lost to him as well. That's not a Clinton weakness that's an Obama strength.
So we know there's a ceiling out there that Clinton couldn't compete with. It's just a matter of how far below it we think she is. It's *both* his strength and her weakness.
It would be against, say, W. - but she's likely facing Trump in the general. Who, despite his charisma and ability to keep himself in the media, is a fringe candidate with beliefs that wouldn't be accepted by the general public.
I agree with all of that. But I also think that they don't have to get them higher if they had a better candidate to put forward. They're high enough now that she'd be vulnerable in this extremely hypothetical world here the Republicans nominate someone competent.
The fact that Clinton has been dragged down by the Republicans playing dirty for so long doesn't make it less true that she's been dragged down. Just like I don't think it's fair that there's a non-zero amount of misogyny in how she's perceived, but it's still there.
Which is true, but if she faces Trump this isn't as bad as could be with "moderate" candidates like Kasich. Trump's toxic misogyny is less accepted than casual sexism.
The reason Clinton lost to Obama is because obama was a fucking amazing campaigner. Pretty much anybody else would have lost to him as well. That's not a Clinton weakness that's an Obama strength.
So we know there's a ceiling out there that Clinton couldn't compete with. It's just a matter of how far below it we think she is. It's *both* his strength and her weakness.
It would be against, say, W. - but she's likely facing Trump in the general. Who, despite his charisma and ability to keep himself in the media, is a fringe candidate with beliefs that wouldn't be accepted by the general public.
I agree with all of that. But I also think that they don't have to get them higher if they had a better candidate to put forward. They're high enough now that she'd be vulnerable in this extremely hypothetical world here the Republicans nominate someone competent.
The fact that Clinton has been dragged down by the Republicans playing dirty for so long doesn't make it less true that she's been dragged down. Just like I don't think it's fair that there's a non-zero amount of misogyny in how she's perceived, but it's still there.
Which is true, but if she faces Trump this isn't as bad as could be with "moderate" candidates like Kasich. Trump's toxic misogyny is less accepted than casual sexism.
Completely agree with all of this. This is just me idly speculating imaginary matchups because we're stuck in a boring duldrum in the primary season. Against Trump or even Cruz under normal circumstances, or anyone else dealing with jilted Trump and Cruz voters, she wins in a walkover.
Wisconsin seems like exactly the kind of state Sanders overperforms in, and he's already slightly ahead in the polls. I expect him to win pretty easily there. He's also going to close the gap considerably in New York. Things are going as well for him as he possibly could have hoped post 0-for-5, and it's not going to be close to enough.
All he's doing is making Clinton look weak because she can't seem to pick up any inevitability bounce, which isn't particularly his fault. There's a good reason she lost to Obama, and she's a weaker candidate today than she was eight years ago. And of course, if she's so weak, it doesn't make him look particularly good that he can't beat her. He's not really a contender on the national stage.
All of which would be really problematic if the Republicans weren't hell-bent on nominating someone utterly unelectable or destroying themselves to try to avoid it. Clinton's national unfavorables would be poisonous against anyone decent, but there doesn't seem to be a decent opponent coming.
So I guess my question is, where are all the decent presidential candidates? Have both sides become pretty good at sniffing them out early and piling on the negatives before they have a chance to rise to national prominence?
How is Clinton weaker now than 8 years ago? She isn't making the same kind of unforced errors this time around and has Obama'said campaign staff.
She's a historically unpopular candidate running against historically unpopular opponents. Her strongest asset is the Republican Party, but that's nothing to sneeze at.
That is not a statement on where she is relative to 08, but yes, as you continually point out nobody likes Clinton.
And as I spent many pages at the start of this thread talking about, saying "nobody likes Clinton" is only true if one ignores all the nuances of the situation. It's more accurate to say "There's many people, the majority of whom who don't matter to Clinton's ability to win the nomination or the presidency, who don't like Clinton". Clinton is very popular overall with the people who would vote for Democrats in the first place.
The idea that if it weren't for the Republican field this year she'd be a weak candidate is ludicrous.
She has enthusiastic supporters, a strong floor, and no chance in hell against anyone with charisma. So, a perfect 2016 candidate.
This is some massive confirmation bias going on.
What am I missing? Through a variety of factors she's about to chart new grounds as the most unfavorably viewed winner in modern history. I don't think the vague appeal you're making undoes any of the statistics we have access to.
She's unpopular with people who were never going to vote Democrat anyway. She will sweep women, minorities, basically anyone who isn't a white male. What else am I missing? Barring acts of God im pretty certain she has this sewn up. And charisma? Have you seen footage of the Bhengazi hearings? She will wipe the floor with any of the GOP candidates.
She's fantastically popular with the base, more so than Sanders. It isn't reported because it doesn't fit the narrative and it's not sexy news.
Trump's support among white men is still only among the less-educated and poorer portion of them, as well
He does horribly with college educated whites
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
Wisconsin seems like exactly the kind of state Sanders overperforms in, and he's already slightly ahead in the polls. I expect him to win pretty easily there. He's also going to close the gap considerably in New York. Things are going as well for him as he possibly could have hoped post 0-for-5, and it's not going to be close to enough.
All he's doing is making Clinton look weak because she can't seem to pick up any inevitability bounce, which isn't particularly his fault. There's a good reason she lost to Obama, and she's a weaker candidate today than she was eight years ago. And of course, if she's so weak, it doesn't make him look particularly good that he can't beat her. He's not really a contender on the national stage.
All of which would be really problematic if the Republicans weren't hell-bent on nominating someone utterly unelectable or destroying themselves to try to avoid it. Clinton's national unfavorables would be poisonous against anyone decent, but there doesn't seem to be a decent opponent coming.
So I guess my question is, where are all the decent presidential candidates? Have both sides become pretty good at sniffing them out early and piling on the negatives before they have a chance to rise to national prominence?
How is Clinton weaker now than 8 years ago? She isn't making the same kind of unforced errors this time around and has Obama'said campaign staff.
She's a historically unpopular candidate running against historically unpopular opponents. Her strongest asset is the Republican Party, but that's nothing to sneeze at.
That is not a statement on where she is relative to 08, but yes, as you continually point out nobody likes Clinton.
And as I spent many pages at the start of this thread talking about, saying "nobody likes Clinton" is only true if one ignores all the nuances of the situation. It's more accurate to say "There's many people, the majority of whom who don't matter to Clinton's ability to win the nomination or the presidency, who don't like Clinton". Clinton is very popular overall with the people who would vote for Democrats in the first place.
The idea that if it weren't for the Republican field this year she'd be a weak candidate is ludicrous.
She has enthusiastic supporters, a strong floor, and no chance in hell against anyone with charisma. So, a perfect 2016 candidate.
This is some massive confirmation bias going on.
What am I missing? Through a variety of factors she's about to chart new grounds as the most unfavorably viewed winner in modern history. I don't think the vague appeal you're making undoes any of the statistics we have access to.
Except the statistics, as I've pointed out before, don't tell the story you keep wanting them to. They say she's very popular with the only people who would vote for any democrat candidate anyway. She's just also already really unpopular with all the people who wouldn't vote democrat no matter who was running.
On top of that, of course, your whole she has "no chance in hell against anyone with charisma" statement seems kinda odd considering, say, that Barrack "charisma isn't a dump stat, nerds" Obama beat her by less then she's beating Sanders by right now.
Whence comes this idea that she can only beat someone without charisma?
Depends on why you're a Clinton supporter, imo. If you support Clinton because you're ideologically centrist then it's bad news. If, on the other hand, you're ideologically pretty left but think Clinton is a better candidate on other grounds—more experienced, more electable, better able to work with Congress, etc.—then it seems like you should take it as good news. Because then you get the best of both worlds, namely, Bernie dragging the platform to the left while Clinton goes on to be the actual president.
Her net favorable/unfavorable would be the worst of any winning candidate in history by more than a dozen points.
It isn't fair, but misogyny is real and 30 years of slinging poo at her have added up. She isn't particularly charismatic (especially not at 68) and her standoffish relationship with the press doesn't help.
This year has a strong chance of being a walkover for her, and even in other years she is good enough at consolidating the Democratic base that she would have a strong chance due to the inherent advantages Democrats have in national elections. But she isn't close to what I would consider ideal.
Ominously for Mr. Bush, his personal ratings have also declined significantly in the past three months. In March, 42 percent said they viewed Mr. Bush favorably, and 41 percent unfavorably. The latest poll showed Mr. Bush was viewed favorably by 29 percent and unfavorably by 44 percent.
But he can take heart from Mr. Clinton's standing. The Governor of Arkansas had hoped to use this time before the Democratic Party convention next month to repair his image after a bitter primary season dominated by "character issues," including charges that he avoided the draft, which he denied. But Mr. Perot has largely dominated the limelight, and the survey showed that Mr. Clinton's favorable ratings had actually declined over the past few months.
In April, for example, Mr. Clinton was viewed favorably by 26 percent and unfavorably by 40 percent. The latest poll showed Mr. Clinton viewed favorably by 16 percent, with 40 percent holding unfavorable views.
Clinton had more people who had no opinion of him than a positive opinion. That's tons of room where he could operate.
The idea that anything has to be negotiated with Sanders after Hillary wins is laughable. The man will have zero leverage. I imagine his straggling supporters will eventually be ridiculed similar to diehard Ron Paul supporters.
Depends on why you're a Clinton supporter, imo. If you support Clinton because you're ideologically centrist then it's bad news. If, on the other hand, you're ideologically pretty left but think Clinton is a better candidate on other grounds—more experienced, more electable, better able to work with Congress, etc.—then it seems like you should take it as good news. Because then you get the best of both worlds, namely, Bernie dragging the platform to the left while Clinton goes on to be the actual president.
I disagree. Bernie doing that isn't dragging the platform to the left, that's what he's always done in the primary - that would be threatening to tear the party apart. That's the one subject missing in this equation, the party itself, Bernie can't burn that down on his way out. We need the party to be as unified as possible before the general, which will take time. The longer that's held off the weaker the Dem nominee is in the general.
With how this primary is going I'm glad the GOP establishment haven't been able to field a nominee that's a safe "moderate," otherwise the general would be a lot riskier for us with this going on.
Her net favorable/unfavorable would be the worst of any winning candidate in history by more than a dozen points.
It isn't fair, but misogyny is real and 30 years of slinging poo at her have added up. She isn't particularly charismatic (especially not at 68) and her standoffish relationship with the press doesn't help.
This year has a strong chance of being a walkover for her, and even in other years she is good enough at consolidating the Democratic base that she would have a strong chance due to the inherent advantages Democrats have in national elections. But she isn't close to what I would consider ideal.
Ominously for Mr. Bush, his personal ratings have also declined significantly in the past three months. In March, 42 percent said they viewed Mr. Bush favorably, and 41 percent unfavorably. The latest poll showed Mr. Bush was viewed favorably by 29 percent and unfavorably by 44 percent.
But he can take heart from Mr. Clinton's standing. The Governor of Arkansas had hoped to use this time before the Democratic Party convention next month to repair his image after a bitter primary season dominated by "character issues," including charges that he avoided the draft, which he denied. But Mr. Perot has largely dominated the limelight, and the survey showed that Mr. Clinton's favorable ratings had actually declined over the past few months.
In April, for example, Mr. Clinton was viewed favorably by 26 percent and unfavorably by 40 percent. The latest poll showed Mr. Clinton viewed favorably by 16 percent, with 40 percent holding unfavorable views.
Clinton had more people who had no opinion of him than a positive opinion. That's tons of room where he could operate.
It could have something to do with the fact that we've had 20 years of ultra partisan politics from the right.
I think we gets used pretty loosely, and in the manner it's most convenient. Sometimes we means 'the Obama coalition' that Sanders supporters don't belong to and should maybe quite down, or we the centrists representatives of the true Democratic philosophy, or we all Democratic voters who should support Hillary Clinton and make sure her path is clear and free of barbs. The latter loses much power and meaning after so much effort is spent pushing the former.
Elki on
+1
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Her net favorable/unfavorable would be the worst of any winning candidate in history by more than a dozen points.
It isn't fair, but misogyny is real and 30 years of slinging poo at her have added up. She isn't particularly charismatic (especially not at 68) and her standoffish relationship with the press doesn't help.
This year has a strong chance of being a walkover for her, and even in other years she is good enough at consolidating the Democratic base that she would have a strong chance due to the inherent advantages Democrats have in national elections. But she isn't close to what I would consider ideal.
Ominously for Mr. Bush, his personal ratings have also declined significantly in the past three months. In March, 42 percent said they viewed Mr. Bush favorably, and 41 percent unfavorably. The latest poll showed Mr. Bush was viewed favorably by 29 percent and unfavorably by 44 percent.
But he can take heart from Mr. Clinton's standing. The Governor of Arkansas had hoped to use this time before the Democratic Party convention next month to repair his image after a bitter primary season dominated by "character issues," including charges that he avoided the draft, which he denied. But Mr. Perot has largely dominated the limelight, and the survey showed that Mr. Clinton's favorable ratings had actually declined over the past few months.
In April, for example, Mr. Clinton was viewed favorably by 26 percent and unfavorably by 40 percent. The latest poll showed Mr. Clinton viewed favorably by 16 percent, with 40 percent holding unfavorable views.
Clinton had more people who had no opinion of him than a positive opinion. That's tons of room where he could operate.
It could have something to do with the fact that we've had 20 years of ultra partisan politics from the right.
That may very well explain why Hillary Clinton's favorability rating is underwater. It doesn't refute that it is.
The idea that anything has to be negotiated with Sanders after Hillary wins is laughable. The man will have zero leverage. I imagine his straggling supporters will eventually be ridiculed similar to diehard Ron Paul supporters.
While I haven't been participating in this discussion regularly, is there any reason why people are so hostile towards Sanders, Basically assuming his supporters are the level of geese of Ron Paul supporters?
I mean, he's put up a surprisingly good fight in the primary, with a few missteps (which will happen with a campaign with very little establishment support) against someone who was basically the presumptive nominee since before they even announced.
Is there a reason for Clinton to not try and appeal towards these voters and for them to be treated as if they're not going to play a part in the general? I mean, people who vote in the primary, even for the losing candidate, are obviously politically aware enough to participate. Is constantly playing down their concerns, yet alone openly mocking them, in any way good for the party?
Posts
Massive student debt loads, compromising twitter accounts, and the ridiculously horrible work environment make this a safety for competent people
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
It's undeniable that Clinton has high negatives, that tends to happen when the Republican party hijacks the role of Congress into a taxpayer funded attack ad for 8 years. But I think that also suggests that Clinton's negatives are already as high as they're going to go - we're already at peak Clinton smear, the Republicans have hit her with everything they have and never managed to derail her campaign.
Neither the Clinton campaign nor the Republicans have really hit Sanders with negative ads at all. It shouldn't be surprising at all that he has lower negatives than anyone else running for president at this moment. Clinton hasn't really needed to, she's in the lead so she can afford taking the high road. And the Republicans are saving theirs in case Bernie makes it to primary season.
And as I spent many pages at the start of this thread talking about, saying "nobody likes Clinton" is only true if one ignores all the nuances of the situation. It's more accurate to say "There's many people, the majority of whom who don't matter to Clinton's ability to win the nomination or the presidency, who don't like Clinton". Clinton is very popular overall with the people who would vote for Democrats in the first place.
The idea that if it weren't for the Republican field this year she'd be a weak candidate is ludicrous.
Not really. He got the Nobel prize for, at the end of the day, not being GWB. His new attitude and demeanour on the international stage and the things it had, by that point, led to was basically what they were giving him the prize for.
She has enthusiastic supporters, a strong floor, and no chance in hell against anyone with charisma. So, a perfect 2016 candidate.
This is some massive confirmation bias going on.
We're all swimming deep in that pool
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
It isn't fair, but misogyny is real and 30 years of slinging poo at her have added up. She isn't particularly charismatic (especially not at 68) and her standoffish relationship with the press doesn't help.
This year has a strong chance of being a walkover for her, and even in other years she is good enough at consolidating the Democratic base that she would have a strong chance due to the inherent advantages Democrats have in national elections. But she isn't close to what I would consider ideal.
Also, she will apparently kill innocent foreign people with drones at the behest of Kissinger, if her more zany supporters are anything to go by.
What am I missing? Through a variety of factors she's about to chart new grounds as the most unfavorably viewed winner in modern history. I don't think the vague appeal you're making undoes any of the statistics we have access to.
She also has a unique record of getting attacked by the opposition party for decades, and most importantly of running during a particularly partisan era where the electorate tends to disapprove of just about everybody.
Those are all good reasons to explain her high unfavorable ratings. It does not automatically follow through from that (even if we accept your base assumption that Clinton is uncharismatic, which I don't) that if only she was facing someone with charisma she'd be losing. Indeed, charisma sure didn't do much for Marco Rubio, and Donald Trump's entire campaign is based on nothing but his personal appeal to the R base.
Likely story.
They were there before Sanders kinda-sorta emerged as a kinda-sorta threat, so I suspect they'll be there after. They will probably move if Trump is the nominee just because she's historically poorly liked for a candidate at this stage, but he's disliked several times harder, but if it's anyone else I wouldn't expect a lot of movement. She might be able to eke out a win despite them against a Kasich or a drafted nominee, though, especially given the weird nature of the Republican nomination process.
Exactly. I agree that it's unfair. But that doesn't make it go away. The flip side is that we know it probably won't get much worse, at least. I agree she has a high floor.
All the other candidates excluding Trump are notably better liked.
That's all reasonable. I don't agree with the poster you are responding to that she's dead in the water against a younger, more charismatic candidate. I think she's vulnerable, but she's not terrible and the inherent Democratic demographic advantages can paper over some of it.
I'm going to regret playing Fantasy Election because there's absolutely no way to test any of these and if anyone wants to just say 'nuh-uh' that is totally fair, but I think she loses to 2000 Bush and struggles with 2008 McCain.
She was definitely a weaker campaigner, as well as having a vastly inferior campaign staff - and she still proved to be a massive competition to peak Obama, which he almost lost. That's something Bernie hasn't got on his resume as a political candidate.
Is that something we want?
If you're a Clinton supporter, likely not.
I mean, i am pretty sure it is just posturing, but as time goes by, i am less confident on it.
His campaign is being run exceedingly poorly. These sorts of things happen when your campaign manager is incompetent. Ask Clinton in '08.
So we know there's a ceiling out there that Clinton couldn't compete with. It's just a matter of how far below it we think she is. It's *both* his strength and her weakness.
I agree with all of that. But I also think that they don't have to get them higher if they had a better candidate to put forward. They're high enough now that she'd be vulnerable in this extremely hypothetical world here the Republicans nominate someone competent.
The fact that Clinton has been dragged down by the Republicans playing dirty for so long doesn't make it less true that she's been dragged down. Just like I don't think it's fair that there's a non-zero amount of misogyny in how she's perceived, but it's still there.
I 100% agree with this. Don't think for a minute that my assessment of Clinton is meant as support for him. I rate Clinton as on the weak side of "people who should be running for President as a major party nominee." Sanders doesn't really play at that level. He's primary fodder.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
She's unpopular with people who were never going to vote Democrat anyway. She will sweep women, minorities, basically anyone who isn't a white male. What else am I missing? Barring acts of God im pretty certain she has this sewn up. And charisma? Have you seen footage of the Bhengazi hearings? She will wipe the floor with any of the GOP candidates.
She's fantastically popular with the base, more so than Sanders. It isn't reported because it doesn't fit the narrative and it's not sexy news.
It would be against, say, W. - but she's likely facing Trump in the general. Who, despite his charisma and ability to keep himself in the media, is a fringe candidate with beliefs that wouldn't be accepted by the general public.
Which is true, but if she faces Trump this isn't as bad as could be with "moderate" candidates like Kasich. Trump's toxic misogyny is less accepted than casual sexism.
Completely agree with all of this. This is just me idly speculating imaginary matchups because we're stuck in a boring duldrum in the primary season. Against Trump or even Cruz under normal circumstances, or anyone else dealing with jilted Trump and Cruz voters, she wins in a walkover.
Trump's support among white men is still only among the less-educated and poorer portion of them, as well
He does horribly with college educated whites
Except the statistics, as I've pointed out before, don't tell the story you keep wanting them to. They say she's very popular with the only people who would vote for any democrat candidate anyway. She's just also already really unpopular with all the people who wouldn't vote democrat no matter who was running.
On top of that, of course, your whole she has "no chance in hell against anyone with charisma" statement seems kinda odd considering, say, that Barrack "charisma isn't a dump stat, nerds" Obama beat her by less then she's beating Sanders by right now.
Whence comes this idea that she can only beat someone without charisma?
And what about everyone else?
Considering how Clinton seems to feel about the Sanders campaign right now, not really. Things got pretty poisonous over the last two weeks.
Bill Clinton was -17
Saying she's the least popular evah isn't true within her own atomic family. Or this primary.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Depends on why you're a Clinton supporter, imo. If you support Clinton because you're ideologically centrist then it's bad news. If, on the other hand, you're ideologically pretty left but think Clinton is a better candidate on other grounds—more experienced, more electable, better able to work with Congress, etc.—then it seems like you should take it as good news. Because then you get the best of both worlds, namely, Bernie dragging the platform to the left while Clinton goes on to be the actual president.
Clinton had more people who had no opinion of him than a positive opinion. That's tons of room where he could operate.
I disagree. Bernie doing that isn't dragging the platform to the left, that's what he's always done in the primary - that would be threatening to tear the party apart. That's the one subject missing in this equation, the party itself, Bernie can't burn that down on his way out. We need the party to be as unified as possible before the general, which will take time. The longer that's held off the weaker the Dem nominee is in the general.
With how this primary is going I'm glad the GOP establishment haven't been able to field a nominee that's a safe "moderate," otherwise the general would be a lot riskier for us with this going on.
It could have something to do with the fact that we've had 20 years of ultra partisan politics from the right.
I think we gets used pretty loosely, and in the manner it's most convenient. Sometimes we means 'the Obama coalition' that Sanders supporters don't belong to and should maybe quite down, or we the centrists representatives of the true Democratic philosophy, or we all Democratic voters who should support Hillary Clinton and make sure her path is clear and free of barbs. The latter loses much power and meaning after so much effort is spent pushing the former.
That may very well explain why Hillary Clinton's favorability rating is underwater. It doesn't refute that it is.
While I haven't been participating in this discussion regularly, is there any reason why people are so hostile towards Sanders, Basically assuming his supporters are the level of geese of Ron Paul supporters?
I mean, he's put up a surprisingly good fight in the primary, with a few missteps (which will happen with a campaign with very little establishment support) against someone who was basically the presumptive nominee since before they even announced.
Is there a reason for Clinton to not try and appeal towards these voters and for them to be treated as if they're not going to play a part in the general? I mean, people who vote in the primary, even for the losing candidate, are obviously politically aware enough to participate. Is constantly playing down their concerns, yet alone openly mocking them, in any way good for the party?