Polls

[berni_mccoy]

Oct 20th 2007

?1

[whatchamacallit]

1. First thing you'll hear is "Sanders is no Obama"

But I got news for ya, neither is Hillary.

[berni_mccoy]

2. And Hillary 2016 isn't Hillary 2008 either LOL

Compare and contrast her positions now with her positions then... completely different candidate. But still running the same kind of campaign...

[whatchamacallit]

3. Yep

[SidDithers]

4. Obama had 90% of the black vote...

How's Sanders doin' with that demographic?

Sid

[berni_mccoy]

5. Why do you think Clinton lost the black vote in 2008?... let me give you a hint...

it wasn't because Obama was black. It was because Clinton ran an extremely racist campaign (which I documented carefully). And if you think she's getting those voters back when she couldn't speak out on BLM when Sanders was meeting with them, I think you are sadly mistaken as to what is going to happen this election. Sanders is reaching out. Clinton is assuming her support in that demographic, just like she did in 2008. Time will tell...

[JI7]

11. no the dog whistles were a result of losing the black vote

And trying to make it up with whites.

Her personal approvals among blacks were still high.

[berni_mccoy]

12. Dog whistles = racist

And that is going to turn off voters of the race in questioning

[JI7]

13. she had already lost the black vote to Obama by then

She is leading with them right now . Biden could take some of this vote from her if he runs.

[firebrand80]

6. Obama was a better campaigner than Clinton

also, Obama's views were in lockstep with the Democratic rank-and-file, Clinton was slightly to the right (mostly thinking of Iraq here). This time around, Clinton is the better politician, and she's in the center of where the Party is; Bernie is slightly to the left.

However, it is still very early, and hindsight on Obama-Cllnton is 20/20. Anything can happen, and I obviously don't have a crystal ball.

[berni_mccoy]

7. That's all I'm saying

All the people smashing this board with polls doesn't mean anything right now.

And I disagree with you slightly... Clinton's campaign was horrible in 2008. Given her current track-record for 2016, I don't see much different this time. In fact, you've got someone with much less experience running the show for her. They've outspent Sanders by 3-to-1 and they are headed into debt territory fast. She's relying on big donors who have limits... Sanders will be able to tap the masses more on demand and when needed.

[firebrand80]

9. The difference with Clinton this time is what she's spending on

This time she's actually building an infrastructure on the ground in primary states. Last time around, she wasn't expecting a fight, and her campaign got caught with their pants down having to cobble together a ground game in a couple of weeks in States that Obama had offices in for months.

True, the money race is playing out very similar to how it played out vs. Obama, but I don't think money is why she ultimately lost, it was strategy. She had more than enough money last time around, and I expect that she won't run out of money this time either.

[berni_mccoy]

10. I see no evidence of that...

Maybe you could provide some...

[JI7]

14. she ignored iowa and had mark Penn who didn't understand

The primary process on her team.