2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThe Crazier the GOP Candidates Get, the Better a Safe, Sure Bet Like Clinton Looks
Not just in comparison. The GOP candidates are so bat-shit crazy that they are scary. Scary, because we learned in 2000 and again in 2004 that the popular loser can steal an election if the vote is close enough and the GOP is dirty enough--and the RNC is a filthy as ever. Filthier, probably, since they can now roll around nude in vast sums of money acquired from who knows where---Seldom Adelson's casinos are a perfect money funnel for illegal and foreign donations.
So, anyway, once upon a time, a candidate like Ted Cruz or Donald Trump would not have a snowball's chance in you know what. The nomination of a flaming idiot would assure the rival party (i.e. us, the Dems) an easy victory, a la LBJ in 1964 against Goldwater. And then the impossible happened. Thanks to a not so secret vote for hostages deal, an actor became president. Ronald Reagan changed the rules. Suddenly, the last person you would ever expect to "win" a presidential election could get sworn in and run the country into the ground.
Once burned, twice shy. Twice burned, extremely apprehensive. Three times burned, no way in hell does any sane Democrat want to "take a chance". Not with our country's future. We have to live here.
And so, the more we see of the GOP candidates in their debates, the more we listen to their insane rants, the more we will (unconsciously) look for a safe port in the storm. A tested port, one who is so well defined in the public mind that all the dirty tricks and yellow journalism in the world can not change people's perception of her---or him. Al Gore would do. Joe Biden would do. Hillary Clinton will do.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)However, that strategy can only be employed by someone who is not taking unlimited money.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Today's Republicans are essentially the batshit crazy John Birch Society from that same period.
Assuming Sanders doesn't mess things up and interfere with The Inevitable, Wall Street will be perfectly content with a Democratic president. It's served them well since the Reagan Era.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)As for Wall Street being perfectly happy with us, remember that, although politicians may get their payoff from Big Money, all power comes from the people. People on both right and left are angry and want change. It may not come immediately as much as we want but to assume the past always predicts the future without change would not be sensible when change is right in everyone's faces.
I'd say the one thing that is certain is that some of the power the American people gave Big Money during the Reagan Era is shifting back. With only about 30 THOUSAND of them and 330 MILLION of us, it's hardly surprising that it would when we started paying attention again.
Midnight Writer
(21,795 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Clinton generates no excitement, and motivates conservatives to turn out in droves to vote against her. She's not polling well against the GOP crazies. Nominating Clinton will get us President Trump. She'd be a disaster.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251631509
bernmobile2016
(45 posts)They speak what voters in polls wont say as into who they vote for. Here in Alabama a new poll showed Bernie Sanders has a +2% negativity rating.. that btw is the only presidential candidate in positive territory. Hillary is -41% and Trump is -19%. I mean look at the one that nationally had Hillary at -14% and Trump -33%, and Bernie was +11%. That shows you that people who don't want to say they will vote for him don't have a negative view on him.. and that means his actual polling numbers will only go up as more candidates fall.
highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)Bernie presents the most cogent, reasonable, thoughtful, and sane policies out there, in direct contradiction to the trash we've been fed since the days of Ronald Raygun.
Finally, the American people have someone to, in a straightforward way, talk about what they've been feeling is so wrong for so long.
That's where I'm putting my bet. That's what I think is the safest choice.
Sincerely.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)PatrickforO
(14,587 posts)Nicely, in fact.
jfern
(5,204 posts)sgtbenobo
(327 posts)With friends like these we'll need our enemies?
War Hawks are usually just political sheep with very nice shoes.
Hmm... what would Hillary do? Exactly sqaut.
Hillary is just like a big bank too big to fail.
But she will.
The times are changing.
MattSh
(3,714 posts)"A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are built for". John Shedd
artislife
(9,497 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)Broward
(1,976 posts)Her against any Republican they can't lose.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)There's absolutely NO reason that Bernie can't do better against whoever the Republicans nominate as well, especially Trump.
For that 20% that voted for Perot based on their distaste for free trade NAFTA deal at that time, who would they rather vote for:
1) Trump vs. Hillary -
Trump has come out against TPP and H-1B visas, etc. Hillary has supported both of these that take away American jobs... Trump will also "trump" that he's funded by Trump money and not special interest money, which Hillary will lose on this issue.
2) Trump vs. Bernie -
Both of them are against TPP and H-1B visa expansion, and therefore Trump would need to win on other issues. Bernie also won't be beholden to special interest money too, and therefore Trump's self-funded campaign as part of the 1% will work more against him than for him as a representative of people's interests. On other issues Trump will be looked at as a lot more crazy than the majority of Americans are prepared to vote for.
Bernie would do better than Hillary against Trump and that should be clear if you compare their stances on issues and their campaigns. And Bernie would also do well as a populist (that not just Democrats want this election) against any other Republican that might win the nomination too.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)Reagan had been active in politics for more than 30 years before becoming POTUS. And he was in the military. And, as wrong as he was, he was a skilled orator, whereas Trump can't articulate a substantive policy position. Relative to Trump, Dubya is a skilled orator.
I maintain that Trump won't be the nominee. But, if he does become the nominee, pointing to Reagan as precedent would be absurd.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)even with early Alzheimer's.
Ever wonder how a president who most liked those who sucked up to him best and took petty offenses to everyone who failed to do it well enough would function? Who was incapable of interest in issues except as they involved and reflected him himself ("Mr. President, if you sign this bill the people will insist your face be on Mt. Rushmore. Pretty please with TRUMP! on top?" .
Who would end up running the country? How would such a man choose his cabinet? Speaking truth to power would be disastrous, no matter how well intended.
Vinca
(50,303 posts)Biden is a real threat to her. He splits the moderate voters which leaves Bernie in a good position to win the primary. Don't count your chickens . . .
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)she is loaded with baggage, the gop will come out in droves just to vote gainst her, her favorability rating sucks, and she can,t even decide on a position until bernie does and when it polls well she tries to coopt it for her own.
if hillary is the nom, get used to the phrase "president trump"
twii
(88 posts)You are wrong.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)is going in the wrong direction
trump v hillary, trump wins
Todays_Illusion
(1,209 posts)same fate as Romney.
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)The crazier the right can become, the more "left" old school republican policies and desires seem.
At least, in comparison.
When one starts compromising with crazy, one shouldn't expect much sanity.
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)The candidates who doing well are pandering to this base and are also crazy. We need to make sure that the Democrats have the strongest possible candidate who is viable in the general election. Even if the GOP nominate a nutcase like Carnival Cruz or Trump, they will still have a funding advantage over most Democratic candidates.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)For We the People?
Not so much.
No thanks, I'll be supporting We the People's candidate, Bernie Sanders.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)The more unelectable and crazy the GOP clown car looks the better the odds of ANY democrat winning the election?
So why the hell would we not put forth the most progressive and populist candidate we can?
Clinton, Biden, Gore?????
Why?
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)I'm supporting Bernie Sanders.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)She does crazy things like claiming to have run from snipers. We need someone who could never go off the rails like that.
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)the less leverage there is in the idea that there's no difference between the 2 parties or that there's no point in voting. Regardless of who the D's nominate and despite some of their faults, I guarantee it'll be like night-and-day compared to whoever the GOP ends up with.