2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumClinton is not electable in the GE
She barely beats Trump by 2.7 and loses to Cruz by 1.3.
OTOH Sanders beats Trump by 5.3 and beats Cruz by 3.3.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)So there's that.
And Hillary can indeed beat Trump in the GE. But it might not be Trump anyway.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)the Quinnipac poll says otherwise.
Sanders beats Clinton by 4 in Iowa
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/01/27/poll-shows-sanders-leading-clinton-4-points-iowa/79402316/
In NH of course Sanders beats her by a landslide.
SCantiGOP
(13,869 posts)She would win 40 states; think that is called a whipping.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... 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)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)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!
jfern
(5,204 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)I think we had quite different expectations from what happened.
Rybak187
(105 posts)randys1
(16,286 posts)candidates are chosen.
emsimon33
(3,128 posts)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.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)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.
Republicans cannot win without 47% of the Hispanic vote. Case closed.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)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.
Cary
(11,746 posts)So much good will come from it
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)Nedsdag
(2,437 posts)Even if she did win, her coattails will be short. No one wants to vote to send DINOs to Congress.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)She dishonors the traditional values of the Democratic Party.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)Martin Eden
(12,864 posts)... 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.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)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)These polls are worthless
Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)I looked real hard, but didn't find that particular method of deduction in my old logic textbook.
Gothmog
(145,168 posts)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
These match up polls are not meaningful at this stage
AJH032
(1,124 posts)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)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.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)low voter turnout means the status quo wins.
Gothmog
(145,168 posts)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/
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)Please pay attention to warning number 3
These polls are worthless and no one should rely on these polls
Gothmog
(145,168 posts)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
Watching Sanders at Monday nights 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 doesnt 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 dont 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 thats my definition of democratic socialism.
But thats not how Republicans will define socialism and theyll have the dictionary on their side. Theyll portray Sanders as one who wants the government to own and control major industries and the means of production and distribution of goods. Theyll say he wants to take away private property. That wouldnt be fair, but it would be easy. Socialists dont 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, youre 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 its demagogic to say, oh, youre 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 didnt quarrel, saying, P eople want to criticize me, okay, and F ine, if thats 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.