• Clinton not ruling out running in 2020: report
    55 replies, posted
Utterly misleading. Clinton's electoral failure came down her to her not carrying the Obama coalition, she got all of its negatives and none of its positives. She failed to motivate the black vote and she alienated many working and lower-middle class whites by coming off as a wealthy dynasty candidate content with talking about the glass ceiling more than jobs for areas who saw no a meager recovery, forcing her husband (once popular with the blue collar) to do last minute campaigning in the neglected rust belt. Bernie would have been destroyed in the presidential election overall, and there's no reason to believe he'd win Wisconsin. His base is largely young white independents and he does not appeal to the traditional democratic vote, especially its minorities and women. There's also little reason to believe he'd appeal to the blue collar that the Democratic party has hemorrhaged over the decades, they are more conservative and historically rebuked the 1960s leftism he engenders, culminating in the Nixon vote, Reagan Democrats, and the Obama-Trump vote which was disproportionately seen in Rust Belt states. The GOP would then seize on this to talk about his Soviet honeymoon, how he will raise taxes on the middle class, used to have concerns about immigration, and wider progressive links to Russian interests to depict an anti-American politician, which would then weaken the Democrats' Russia angle. This is because ultimately Russia hates the moderate liberal center-left the most, if the Democrats had abandoned that position and moved left they would have greatly hampered their ability to portray themselves as the defender of our institutions.
Bernie has appealed to rural white people his entire life getting elected in Vermont. He has unique appeal to working class whites and the only reason he's not doing well with minorities is name recognition. Guess what, after the 2016 primary he has name recognition and is polling better among blacks and hispanics.
Hot take: https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/657/82087a70-d754-4868-b82e-a3485a734d34/image.png
Do you have evidence that you could point me towards for the claim that Sanders underperforms with women and minorities? I agree that the conservative media machine would be an issue for Sanders, though the same conclusion could be reached for any candidate given their unabashed willingness to lie and distort the truth.
No, wait, people are rating this dumb and disagree, but hear me out. Who do Trump supporters hate almost as much as they hate Obama (for reasons)? That's right. Hillary. Now imagine Hillary actually endorses Trump. Now Trump's base is confused. Why is the most vile person on the planet endorsing their golden child? Is this some sort of trick? Is she shilling for brownie points? Suddenly Trump's narcissism kicks in and he claims Hillary's the best person in the world, a friend he's known since the 90s, and even invited her to his wedding! Now you have a massive division in the Trump camp: Those who claim their Golden Emperor can do no wrong, thus Hillary must suddenly be good, and those who claim he's been soiled and compromised by the Clinton Murder Machine. Chaos ensues. Bernie Sanders wins 2020. BDP, unsure of how to continue in this crazy, divisive world, goes into hiding, living innawoods away from the chaos, trying to scratch out a life for himself trying to ferment pigeon droppings into something useful.
https://twitter.com/corysnearowski/status/1089321800981467136?s=19
Someone's been going to the Anti-Bernie reddit I see.
Sure, although just to note the claim was separate from favorability ratings outside the electoral season and into the Trump presidency. Authenticity by refusing to pull punches became the key to ratings. Thus AOC. Before then, there were some clear racial, gendered, age-based, and independent vs party loyalty divide between the Bernie and Clinton vote. It informed a lot of the antagonism, progressives being seen as being able to afford not voting blue no matter what in the face of Trump. Here's some sources to illustrate this. https://pos.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/top-sub-group-tables.png As noted in an earlier blog post, Sanders’ poor performance among Democrats has long predicted his problems in winning the nomination. Among the 27 states in which there were exit polls, he averaged losing Democrats 36 to Clinton’s 64. Sanders did so poorly with Democrats that, despite winning  20 of the 44 primaries and caucuses so far, the only states where he won a majority of Democrats were his home state of Vermont (82) and neighboring New Hampshire (52). His other 18 wins came thanks to Independents. https://pos.org/democratic-primary-voter-demographic-shifts-and-candidate-coalitions/ Although Bernie Sanders scored wins in both Michigan and Indiana, where approximately one in five voters were black, most of his victories occurred in states where blacks made up a much smaller percentage of the electorate. Hillary Clinton's largest victories occurred in states where blacks made up a majority of those voting. Although blacks made up the bulk of non-white voters in the Democratic primaries, Clinton also won the support of a majority of Hispanic and Asian voters, who together made up about 10 percent of Democratic primary voters. Overall, Hillary Clinton won the support of self-identified Democrats who voted in Democratic primaries and caucuses where exit polls were conducted by a margin of nearly 30 percentage points, while self-identified independents voted for Bernie Sanders by a similar margin. Democrats made up 75 percent of voters, while independents made up just 22 percent. High turnout among independents was an important factor in states that Bernie Sanders won. Sanders didn't win any primaries where independents made up less than 22 percent of the electorate. More than half of Democratic primary voters throughout the primary states said they wanted the next president to continue President Obama's policies. This was especially true in states with high percentages of African American voters. In South Carolina, 74 percent of voters expressed a desire for Mr. Obama's policies to continue. Vermont and New Hampshire, states Sanders won, were the only two places where voters said they wanted more liberal policies rather than a continuation of the president's. On the flip side, 41 percent of West Virginia Democratic primary voters wanted the next president's policies to be less liberal - the highest in any state. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/democratic-primary-electorate-key-findings-from-the-exit-polls/ Sanders coming from seemingly nowhere to seriously challenge Clinton while drawing historically large and enthusiastic crowds has soaked up much of the attention in the Democratic race, making it feel as though he’s hit a chord that resonates throughout the party. But his brand of idealism has been rejected by the majority of minority voters—Clinton won every contest with at least a 10 percent black population, except Michigan, and each state where Latinos make up at least 10 percent of eligible voters, except Colorado, according to Harry Enten of FiveThirtyEight.com. Jonathan Chait came closest to recognizing the looming problem in a piece that was published in early April, detailing why black voters are pragmatists: “That refusal to accept the necessity of compromise in a winner-take-all two-party system (and an electorate in which conservatives still outnumber liberals) is characteristic of a certain idealistic style of left-wing politics. Its conception of voting as an act of performative virtue has largely confined itself to white left-wing politics, because it is at odds with the political tradition of a community that has always viewed political compromise as a practical necessity. The expectation that a politician should agree with you on everything is the ultimate expression of privilege.” Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.com has shown that Clinton’s victories look much more like the Democratic Party—which, with a projected 54 percent white vote this year, will be majority-minority long before the country is—than do Sanders’ wins. Even in Sanders’ upset in Michigan, pundits were claiming he had made a breakthrough with black voters because he lost them only by 35 percent points. And exit polling data in Nevada that showed him edging Clinton among Hispanics is widely suspected to be wrong, given where Clinton racked up votes in that state. Think about this. According to Reuters/Ipsos polling in February, the Vermont senator received his strongest support among black voters from those aged 18-29—but only a third of that group backed him. That’s right. For all the talk about Sanders’ unqualified young voter support, Clinton had a double-digit lead among the youngest black voters nationwide. How Bernie Sanders Exposed the Democrats’ Racial Rift Chait's point about black pragmatism is substantiated by the hidden tribes study (page 143), which showed blacks and hispanics far more likely to be centrist liberals. tl;dr the progressive base is largely young white college-educated independents who, unlike other demographics, think the next president should be more liberal and that the top issue is economic inequality. These claims are both wrong though. The reasons each are wrong go go back to the 60s, the era Bernie's (middle class, white) New Left ideology comes from, when 1) the Democrats began to see their share of the (white) blue collar vote decline given the collapse of the new deal coalition and the cultural battles of that time 2) women, minorities, etc. became more conscious and channeled their desire for civic gains through the center-left. The result is a small margin of relevance for the radical left, probably because class wasn't center to anything. When it comes to class politics resurfacing, data repeatedly shows that for the people that do have it define their issues are overwhelmingly white, college educated, and independent from either party. This is consistent with history, both the Old and New Left were overwhelmingly white. Fast forward to today, according to the hidden tribes study the hard left is only beaten by the hard right in being really white (80% and 88% respectively) and holds the largest share (25%) of those with >100k household incomes. As a result, there's really no evidence that a socialist appeal would have split the traditionally GOP-dominated demographic or appealed to minorities.The likely reason is something counter-intuitive but still makes sense. For the lower classes, class isn't everything. It's because these people own nothing that they hold onto intangible things, like culture, community, etc, and vote based on more immediate considerations for policies that will alleviate their immediate vulnerability (whether that's lower taxes or healthcare). Or they don't vote. Their economic lot in life has not made them class conscious and ideological in any sense, instead it's made them predisposed to a popular consciousness which is very different. Ultimately, the reason why the hard left fails is because class isn't everything except for people who aren't even remotely working class. George Orwell was noting this about socialists as far back as the 1930s. Is socialist radicalism not an expression of oppression, but privilege? It's an interesting question.
I find it hard to take any advice that the right have for folks on the left because it always seems to be in bad faith. It always has to be the democrats who need to be moderate. Where are the republicans in this elaborate equation you've crafted? are they free to be screaming, lying babies who get to throw tantrums when they don't get what they want?
The Republicans have an incumbent.
How much does a presidential campaign cost? Why should people keep investing resources on her? What's her pitch?
What does that have to do with anything I said? Can you elaborate?
Vermont is not the same as Wisconsin or Michigan. Vermont is a very liberal place
Yes they're liberal because they didn't like the Southern Strategy. However he did win both Wisconsin and Michigan in the primaries.
You could also add BDA too based on two threads in last days.
The Democrats are the new "big tent" party, coming to represent a hugely diverse range of interests as the GOP becomes ever more exclusive to straight, white, middle aged men in rural and suburban areas. Democrats running more "moderate" candidates opens an invitation to the stranger and alienated GOP voters. Note that when I say a moderate candidate, I'm not arguing that potential candidates shouldn't embrace good progressive policy, though. Americans can absolutely get behind that shit. We just need a candidate who can actually operate within, and unify the support of, an increasingly broad party as a whole in order to accomplish actual legislative agendas. Anti-establishment populists chase idealism, and inspire the idealistic, but leave pragmatism in the dust, and ultimately cause more harm than good in so doing.
Good thing he won both Wisconsin and Michigan then?
Winning a primary is not the same thing as winning a general. the primary is a measure of the attitudes of your party, not your state
Democrats are so "big tent" they're representing worker and corporate interests. I wonder how that's gonna work out.
I hope Clinton keeps making these statements/the press keeps emphasising her previous ones- And then she just doesn't run. The right will continue to push anti-Clinton propaganda right up until the last moment and then have to scramble to find a new set of smears for whoever ends up nominated, with less time to establish their new democratic antichrist.
This is precisely why Obama won so much
Right, but clearly Bernie excited more democrats in these states, and the margin of error for loss in those states was very small. Ergo, it doesn't seem unreasonable to conclude Bernie had a good chance of winning those states in the primary.
Or he excited more left leaning democrats. That doesn't mean that they're going to outnumber the republicans. There's no guarantee based on the evidence at hand that Bernie would've carried either state in the general
More voters turned out for Bernie than for Clinton in the primary. It's not unreasonable to think that more voters would've turned out for Bernie than for Clinton in the general in the same state.
That still doesn't mean he would've carried the state. Maybe he'd be less appealing to centrists. I'm just saying that the primaries don't indicate anything in the general, and that the people of Vermont are different than the people of Wisconsin or Michigan. People outside of New England tend to refer to anyone from that area as "coastal elite" and "ivory tower elitists"
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.