General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHere’s How You Know 2016 Is Already Decided
In a prior Politico article, I laid out the primary factors that have shaped the outcome of presidential election in eight of the last nine presidential elections: the state of the economy, the incumbent presidents job approval and how and when the nomination fight is settled. Right now, none of these factors is working in the Republicans favor.
Economic trends continue to be largely positive, with 3.3 million jobs created in the past 12 months. In the past two years, weve seen the most job growth in the country since 1999. Unemployment has dropped to less than 5 percenta rate that most economists would say indicates full employment. The demand for more labor has finally begun to increase incomes for American workers. While its not exactly Morning in America, its undeniable progress and helps make the case for keeping a Democrat in the White House.
Obamas support is also strong. According to the most recent Gallup poll, Obama now has a 50 percent job approval ratinghis highest in two years. The average approval rating for presidents at this point in their final year in office is 47 percent. Obamas relative popularity is also good news for Democrats.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/doug-sosnik-memo-2016-is-over-213753
lamp_shade
(14,831 posts)BuelahWitch
(9,083 posts)He'll be rude and crude, tell her to shut up when she filibusters her answers. No, she won't have an easy time with him or Ted Cruz.
Nitram
(22,794 posts)She's a tough cookie under fire. She'll be w3ell-prepared for whatever foolishness Trump decides to toss her way. Clinton will make us all proud.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)hearing? You may not realize, but that pack of hostile congressmen out to kill that day were all attorneys, many of them former prosecutors. They planned for her to be nothing more than a bloody patch on the rug when they got done with her.
She humiliated them. And, as you say, she wiped the floor with them. All in a properly dignified manner befitting one who wanted to become president, of course.
Btw, you may not have noticed, but Trump is not really all that sharp, and he is at great disadvantage going against someone who is. He also has no sense of humor and shows very poorly against people who do, including Hillary. All this is why he skips debates if he can.
Martin Eden
(12,864 posts)But she is strong, smart, and won't be bullied by Donald Trump or any rethug she faces.
The plain fact of the matter is their policy positions don't hold up to scrutiny, and that will give Hillary the upper hand.
And yes, I'll hold my nose and vote for her in the general election if she's the Dem nominee.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)to everyone but the elite few they are actually intended to serve. That would give either of our candidates a tremendous advantage.
I do believe, though, that Hillary will be able to make the most of it because of her broad range of knowledge, and real depth of knowledge on so many topics.
Martin, if necessary when the day comes, perhaps a little Vicks under your nose would allow you to use both hands for voting.
Martin Eden
(12,864 posts)Hillary impressed me in her debates with Sanders, with the level of knowledge she exhibits when expounding on an issue. She also impressed me in a very negative way with some of her dishonest spins, but her misrepresentations are not readily apparent to most viewers and will stand her in good stead against the likes of Trump who lies whenever he opens his mouth.
Nix on the Vicks under the nose; I'll probably get a snootful at the watering hole first.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)As for lies, Hillary's factchecking scores are better than Bernie's, and of course than any on the right. But she's scrutinized in a category all by herself. Bernie can lie more because it can work for him. They each have to work with their own realities.
I must say that, given that the right wing and media never let her get away with anything, I do wonder why she tries to give even any of the usually beneficial distortions or half truths. She's always called on them by the major media.
I also wish Bill would give up as attack dog. His criticisms never seem to show well. He should just try to come across as wise, preter-knowledgeable, and ex-presidential.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Your wishful thinking aside, any Republican candidate choosing to take that approach will probably lose by some of the largest margins ever recorded in our election history.
BuelahWitch
(9,083 posts)It's a different era, and manners seem to have gone the way of the dinosaur in this election.
Democat
(11,617 posts)But Gore should have beat Bush, so nothing is certain.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)SylviaD
(721 posts)He appeals to a maximum of 30% of the electorate, and that's being generous.
Frankly, I don't even regard him as a threat. Yes, he will fire up sexists and racists. Yes, he will behave in a boorish manner at the debates and draw a big tv audience for his brand of "entertaining" hucksterism.
But I refuse to believe he is any sort of threat to be elected president. He has no capacity to grow his base, he is a self-contained tempest in a teapot.
Landslide victory for HRC is my prediction.
smiley
(1,432 posts)chwaliszewski
(1,514 posts)Fasten your seat belts. It ain't over, yet.
highoverheadspace
(307 posts)Its easy to see who the establishment wants though. The more they pump out articles like this, the more telling it is who they want in power to serve the elite. They underestimate the ability of the American people to see through their BS.
Nitram
(22,794 posts)Ford_Prefect
(7,895 posts)In a more conventional economy, with less information known and said about the political past of the candidates he might be correct. I believe he, the DNC, and the GOP leadership underestimate the degree of antipathy for the political status quo among American citizens. I also believe he looks too much at circumstances, too little at the quality of the candidates, and leaves out entirely aspects of the process which have up to now not been subjected to the effects of enormous sums of money on a scale never seen before in presidential election years. I think he also has not considered the effect of vote engineering since he does not mention it in any form nor the need for turnout overall regardless of candidate or party.
The election of primary candidates can be engineered and arranged up to a point. It certainly does depend on general perceptions and desires among voters and the alignment of voting blocks within the party and the electorate as a whole. Winning the primary does not guarantee that the American voter will agree to ride the party train in November. That will take a different set of herding skills and perception management.
Certain qualities only the candidates possess have a significant effect on how the energies of the electorate are focused. It remains to be seen just what that effect will be.
greymouse
(872 posts)Camp Weathervane (I borrowed that but have unfortunately forgotten from whom) must really be fearing the upcoming Bernie states.
chwaliszewski
(1,514 posts)Hoping Bernie crushes Hillary tonight in AZ, ID, and UT. We'll see. Check out this prediction site https://tylerpedigo.com/
stopbush
(24,396 posts)AZ is a closed primary. Voters had to register a month ago to participate. People looking to switch party affiliation to vote in the D primary needed to do that a year ago.
That means the young Independent voter is shut out from voting in the AZ D Primary.
dembotoz
(16,802 posts)is
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Before heading down this DNC manipulation (sour grapes) C/T rabbit-hole, perhaps, you should check the 2010 and 2012 Democratic primary schedule.
There is nothing "unique" about the schedule "of traditional {sic} dem states" ... What we are seeing this year is, Democrats have one candidate that, strongly, resonates in the south (i.e., the Black electorate) and another that, clearly, has not.
greymouse
(872 posts)when most of those states go red in the general.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Why was/has this never been an issue or a talking point before this primary season?
Oh, that's right ... this year is, Democrats have one candidate that, strongly, resonates in the south (i.e., the Black electorate) and another that, clearly, has not.
greymouse
(872 posts)Really, I give Camp Weathervane points for trying to turn a comment on electoral realities into racism. There is no depth to which they will not stoop.
Nitram
(22,794 posts)...has stooped to any depths at all so far. It has been "negative lite" at most. Pointing out that Clinton resonates more strongly with black voters is not a charge of racism - please stop stooping to that tired old canard.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)in primaries, the candidate that appeals to the most voters, as represented by primary results, gets that Party's nomination. The fact that the primaries are front-loaded for the south is of not consideration ... just as it has not been a consideration in the past.
And please stop with the name-calling stuff ... it just makes your weak, sour grapes argument, all the more pitiful.
navarth
(5,927 posts)Best to correct that.
William769
(55,146 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
rtracey
(2,062 posts)Well, then I guess we deserve him....
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)"Bernie or bust" and "I will never again vote for the lesser of the two evils" ... Both, read: "My candidate is losing/lost!"
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Undiscovered country for Hillary, of course...
rtracey
(2,062 posts)Yes they stand for principle, yet is their principles the followings of trump? "Clinton will not win" is a battle cry, yet it appears she is winning, as primaries go. I like Bernie Sanders, I will support him if he gets the nomination, and I will support Clinton if she gets the nomination. My principles are not allowing the right winged zealots to destroy our country. Many talk of Clinton's being in bed with wall street, her paid speeches, etc, yet as we see the aftermath of another terrorist attack, this one in Belgium, my principles say wall street is just a small part of the whole picture. Clinton, if she would win will be under the largest magnifying glass this world has ever seen. I don't think she will get in, then look to the democrats and say "fuck you...I am a republican now and screw all of your gay marriage, medicare, medicaid, social security, seniors, immigration, bullshit", because I just don't think she will do that. We as a party, and country make sacrifices, sometimes we need to do it for the good of all, not just the few.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and that doesn't make the hell any less hot ... especially when doing so leads to clear, real life, horrors.
Nitram
(22,794 posts)IMO, Clinton will kick Trump's ass.
jalan48
(13,863 posts)Liberal or progressive policies typically don't do well in crisis situations involving "terror" as American's want to "get tough".
Nitram
(22,794 posts)Same thing is happening in Europe since the Paris attacks. And what you call 'get tough' is what you'd call 'tightening security' if you were close to an actual terrorist attack.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Not afforded the luxury of safely mocking the very real horror that is out there.
jalan48
(13,863 posts)Or maybe an invasion of Libya? That seemed to help immensely. Time for some tough love.
Nitram
(22,794 posts)You don't have to be a war-mongering right wing idiot to protect the nation from terror. Invading Iraq wasn't "tightening up". It was an exercise in stupidity.
KelleyKramer
(8,958 posts)That's some real crack reporting there from Politico
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)I wrote that it would be Hillary vs Trump, and Trump is unelectable.
But about this politico article, it misses one very important point: there are LOTS of articles in the general or economic titles which say that we're still in the 2008 recession (activity level in the US stays low, unemployment in half of Europe is high), and that it's far form over, with the distinct possibility of things worsening.