Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
33 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Clinton is not electable in the GE (Original Post) gyroscope Jan 2016 OP
Sanders is not electable in the Primary. Lil Missy Jan 2016 #1
How so? gyroscope Jan 2016 #9
Hillary wouldn't beat Trump SCantiGOP Jan 2016 #10
Not after Trump gets the populist vote when they get asked about H-1B stances in GE debate... cascadiance Jan 2016 #17
Also the Gold Standard TPP that the Chamber of Commerce jfern Jan 2016 #29
We were already told falsely that "NAFTA would be renegotiated"... cascadiance Jan 2016 #30
NAFTA was renegotiated. To be even better for the mulitnationals, it's now called TPP. jfern Jan 2016 #31
But those details were left out and not explained to us when he was "selling" doing that to us!! cascadiance Jan 2016 #32
I think that she would Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin to most of the Republican candidates. Rybak187 Jan 2016 #27
Those polls mean nothing. They will change dramatically once randys1 Jan 2016 #2
This is what I have been saying since she said she was running! emsimon33 Jan 2016 #3
Exactly my thoughts. libdem4life Jan 2016 #13
This has to be repeated over and over again! sadoldgirl Jan 2016 #4
Right Cary Jan 2016 #5
Not unelectable.... daleanime Jan 2016 #6
Spread that discord and discontent Cary Jan 2016 #11
see the washington post poll that just came out. MariaThinks Jan 2016 #7
No kidding! Nedsdag Jan 2016 #8
TOO FLAWED to run as a Democrat grasswire Jan 2016 #12
We must have perfection. REAL Democrats redstateblues Jan 2016 #26
ok. n/t zappaman Jan 2016 #14
I don't think Trump or Cruz can beat the Dem nominee Martin Eden Jan 2016 #15
Yes she is uponit7771 Jan 2016 #16
Any Democrat who wants to see a Democrat in the White House MUST vote for Bernie. Binkie The Clown Jan 2016 #18
You are wrong in that you are relying on worthless and silly match up polls Gothmog Jan 2016 #25
Observsation: The poll disagrees with me. Conclusion: The poll is worthless. Q.E.D. Binkie The Clown Jan 2016 #28
No, general election match up polls at this stage of race are worthless Gothmog Jan 2016 #33
I disagree AJH032 Jan 2016 #19
It's bad when Clinton and Trump madville Jan 2016 #20
Thats the plan gyroscope Jan 2016 #21
According to Nate Silver's 538 website, these polls mean nothing right now Gothmog Jan 2016 #22
Here are some warnings from Nate Silver's 538 website about match polls Gothmog Jan 2016 #23
Democrats would be insane to nominate Bernie Sanders Gothmog Jan 2016 #24

Lil Missy

(17,865 posts)
1. Sanders is not electable in the Primary.
Thu Jan 28, 2016, 06:31 PM
Jan 2016

So there's that.

And Hillary can indeed beat Trump in the GE. But it might not be Trump anyway.

 

cascadiance

(19,537 posts)
17. Not after Trump gets the populist vote when they get asked about H-1B stances in GE debate...
Thu Jan 28, 2016, 07:30 PM
Jan 2016

... if Hillary has had her campaign controlled enough in the primaries not to take a stance on it. There's no way she could appear as a populist to those worried about their jobs being taken away when Trump has been campaigning against that program throughout this campaign (pressuring even Cruz to switch gears on this issue), and she hasn't said a word about this program since 2008 when she stood with the corporatists in supporting its expansion. She won't be able to win independent voters if she's put to that test then. I think that's what corporate media has planned for the debates later to help a Republican like Trump get elected.

That's why you have Bloomberg who's vocally pro removing limits on this program threatening to enter the race now if Bernie gets nominated. He announced he was in favor of H-1B visa expansion just this same week.

NO WAY that Hillary wins 40 states with that happening. You be dreamin'!!!

jfern

(5,204 posts)
29. Also the Gold Standard TPP that the Chamber of Commerce
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 02:35 AM
Jan 2016

said that Hillary will support again once the primary is over. Everyone knows her "opposition" in the primary is just to fool some worthless peons.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/chamber-of-commerce-lobby_b_9104096.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&ir=Politics

 

cascadiance

(19,537 posts)
30. We were already told falsely that "NAFTA would be renegotiated"...
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 02:42 AM
Jan 2016

I think this time around we need a LOT more firmer and detailed statement of opposition. One that Hillary is not giving us and is showing us the same path to more free trade crap that Obama gave us with his similar nebulousness!

 

cascadiance

(19,537 posts)
32. But those details were left out and not explained to us when he was "selling" doing that to us!!
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 02:52 AM
Jan 2016

I think we had quite different expectations from what happened.

emsimon33

(3,128 posts)
3. This is what I have been saying since she said she was running!
Thu Jan 28, 2016, 06:32 PM
Jan 2016

She is Satan to Republicans and will bring out their vote, and other than a small group she is either "meh" (ho hum) or Satan to the other Democrats. If she is the candidate, 2016 will be a bloodbath for Democrats.

Sometimes I wonder if DWS is in the pay of the Republican Party: 2014 and now, potentially, 2016--great loses for the Democratic Party.

sadoldgirl

(3,431 posts)
4. This has to be repeated over and over again!
Thu Jan 28, 2016, 06:33 PM
Jan 2016

Those polls may not be valid come October, but

the fact that millennials and indies will stay
home to a great degree, if she is the nominee,
has to sink in sometime or another.

daleanime

(17,796 posts)
6. Not unelectable....
Thu Jan 28, 2016, 06:42 PM
Jan 2016

but she would have negative coattails, definitely be a drag on all the down ticket races.

Plus the only things she would be able to get through congress would be the items we don't want.

Nedsdag

(2,437 posts)
8. No kidding!
Thu Jan 28, 2016, 06:50 PM
Jan 2016

Even if she did win, her coattails will be short. No one wants to vote to send DINOs to Congress.

Martin Eden

(12,864 posts)
15. I don't think Trump or Cruz can beat the Dem nominee
Thu Jan 28, 2016, 07:06 PM
Jan 2016

... but Rubio concerns me because he knows how to sound like a moderate and the media will craft a narrative with Rubio as the sane alternative to Trump and Cruz.

Whoever the GOP nominates, Bernie Sanders generates the kind of enthusiasm that will bring voters to the polls -- especially young people -- while voting for HRC is more a matter of keeping out the greater evil. Bernie may turn off some moderates who can't get past the "socialist" label, but GOTV is the key.

Binkie The Clown

(7,911 posts)
18. Any Democrat who wants to see a Democrat in the White House MUST vote for Bernie.
Thu Jan 28, 2016, 08:28 PM
Jan 2016

A vote for Hillary is a vote for Trump. If she can't beat Trump in the general, then nominating her goes against what is best for the party and for the nation.

Gothmog

(145,168 posts)
25. You are wrong in that you are relying on worthless and silly match up polls
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 01:09 AM
Jan 2016

These polls are worthless

Binkie The Clown

(7,911 posts)
28. Observsation: The poll disagrees with me. Conclusion: The poll is worthless. Q.E.D.
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 02:33 AM
Jan 2016

I looked real hard, but didn't find that particular method of deduction in my old logic textbook.

Gothmog

(145,168 posts)
33. No, general election match up polls at this stage of race are worthless
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 09:45 AM
Jan 2016

These polls are worthless because Sanders has not been vetted by the media http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/first-read-three-weeks-go-three-margin-error-races-n493946

Not surprisingly, Sanders' campaign is touting those general-election numbers. "There was fresh evidence on Sunday that confirms Bernie Sanders would be the most electable Democratic Party nominee for president because he performs much better than Hillary Clinton," the campaign blasted out to reporters yesterday. But here is a legitimate question to ask: Outside of maybe New Hampshire (where Sanders enjoys a geographic advantage), are Sanders' general-election numbers fool's gold? When is the last time you've seen national Republicans issue even a press release on Sanders? Given the back-and-forth over Bill Clinton's past -- and given Sanders calling Bill Clinton's behavior "disgraceful" -- when is the last time anyone has brought up the candidate's 1972 essay about a woman fantasizing about "being raped by three men simultaneously"? Bottom line: It's always instructive to take general-election polling with a grain of salt, especially 300 days before the general election. And that's particularly true for a candidate who hasn't actually gone through the same wringer the other candidates have.

These match up polls are not meaningful at this stage

AJH032

(1,124 posts)
19. I disagree
Thu Jan 28, 2016, 08:40 PM
Jan 2016

Both Clinton and Sanders should easily crush Trump or Cruz. I don't care what the GE polls say at this point.

Anyway, if Hillary "barely" beats Trump by 2.7, then wouldn't it also be accurate to say she "barely" loses to Cruz by 1.3, since 1.3 is less than half of 2.7? Sounds like spin to me.

Either way, unless there is some economic catastrophe between now and November, I can't imagine the GOP front runners winning this election, regardless of who we nominate.

madville

(7,410 posts)
20. It's bad when Clinton and Trump
Thu Jan 28, 2016, 08:59 PM
Jan 2016

Both consistently hover around 60% in the poll question about being dishonest and untrustworthy. Both parties are going to nominate their most unelectable candidates, crazy.

Gothmog

(145,168 posts)
22. According to Nate Silver's 538 website, these polls mean nothing right now
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 01:03 AM
Jan 2016

Here is a thread that discusses why these polls are worthless http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511038010

The reliance on these polls by Sanders supporters amuse me. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/harrys-guide-to-2016-election-polls/

Ignore hypothetical matchups in primary season – they also measure nothing. General election polls before and during the primary season have a very wide margin of error. That’s especially the case for candidates who aren’t even in the race and therefore haven’t been treated to the onslaught of skeptical media coverage usually associated with being the candidate.

Sanders supporters have to rely on these worthless polls because it is clear that Sanders is not viable in a general election where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate may spend an additional billion dollars.

No one should rely on hypo match up type polls in selecting a nominee at this stage of the race.

Gothmog

(145,168 posts)
23. Here are some warnings from Nate Silver's 538 website about match polls
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 01:05 AM
Jan 2016

Please pay attention to warning number 3



These polls are worthless and no one should rely on these polls

Gothmog

(145,168 posts)
24. Democrats would be insane to nominate Bernie Sanders
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 01:08 AM
Jan 2016

One of the reasons that Nate Silver and his site gives as to why these match up polls are worthless is that both candidate have not been equally vetted. Until tonight, the press has paid little attention to Sanders and Sanders has not begun to receive the type of vetting that Hillary Clinton has received over the years. Dana Milbank has some good comments on general election match up polls https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-would-be-insane-to-nominate-bernie-sanders/2016/01/26/0590e624-c472-11e5-a4aa-f25866ba0dc6_story.html?hpid=hp_opinions-for-wide-side_opinion-card-a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Sanders and his supporters boast of polls showing him, on average, matching up slightly better against Trump than Clinton does. But those matchups are misleading: Opponents have been attacking and defining Clinton for a quarter- century, but nobody has really gone to work yet on demonizing Sanders.

Watching Sanders at Monday night’s Democratic presidential forum in Des Moines, I imagined how Trump — or another Republican nominee — would disembowel the relatively unknown Vermonter.


The first questioner from the audience asked Sanders to explain why he embraces the “socialist” label and requested that Sanders define it “so that it doesn’t concern the rest of us citizens.”

Sanders, explaining that much of what he proposes is happening in Scandinavia and Germany (a concept that itself alarms Americans who don’t want to be like socialized Europe), answered vaguely: “Creating a government that works for all of us, not just a handful of people on the top — that’s my definition of democratic socialism.”

But that’s not how Republicans will define socialism — and they’ll have the dictionary on their side. They’ll portray Sanders as one who wants the government to own and control major industries and the means of production and distribution of goods. They’ll say he wants to take away private property. That wouldn’t be fair, but it would be easy. Socialists don’t win national elections in the United States .

Sanders on Monday night also admitted he would seek massive tax increases — “one of the biggest tax hikes in history,” as moderator Chris Cuomo put it — to expand Medicare to all. Sanders, this time making a comparison with Britain and France, allowed that “hypothetically, you’re going to pay $5,000 more in taxes,” and declared, “W e will raise taxes, yes we will.” He said this would be offset by lower health-insurance premiums and protested that “it’s demagogic to say, oh, you’re paying more in taxes.

Well, yes — and Trump is a demagogue.

Sanders also made clear he would be happy to identify Democrats as the party of big government and of wealth redistribution. When Cuomo said Sanders seemed to be saying he would grow government “bigger than ever,” Sanders didn’t quarrel, saying, “P eople want to criticize me, okay,” and “F ine, if that’s the criticism, I accept it.”

Sanders accepts it, but are Democrats ready to accept ownership of socialism, massive tax increases and a dramatic expansion of government? If so, they will lose.

Match up polls are worthless because these polls do not measure what would happen to Sanders in a general election where Sanders is very vulnerable to negative ads.
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Clinton is not electable ...