So the thing about Barrack Obama is that while there will certainly be a lot of ongoing discussions about his legacy, one thing that cannot be disputed is that he was an absolute force of nature in terms of stumping and getting out the vote. And a lot of that has to do with the way his campaign was run, but a lot of it has to do with his own charisma and influence. And he his going to stump hard for Hillary, because his own legacy depends heavily on her preserving his changes.
And while he may still be a divisive figure on a national scale, as a campaign asset you can take him out of that national spotlight and put him into a much more targeted approach, get him into the communities that you need to win specific states. So the demographic advantage that he brought to the Democrats isn't going away any time soon; hell, he could be even more effective that way than he was when spread over a national scale. (Contrast that with GWB, who was pretty much only a political liability in swing states by the time he his term was over.)
Between Hillary, Bill, Barrack, even Joe (a bit of a punching bag in the national media, but still very much with his own following, as polls showed when he was considering a presidential bid), a Clinton campaign is going to be extremely formidable in terms of campaigning. And that's even without adding whoever her VP choice is to the mix (lots of good state-level candidates, but of course they'll wait to see who emerges on the Republican side before deciding how to counter... The luxury in having such a great number of stumping draws is that you don't need to nominate a high-profile VP: you can look for someone relatively unknown at a national level but respected at a state level (which would be a nice counter to the Washington insider perception).
Hillary is far from a perfect candidate, and the Republicans may yet step back from the brink of insanity and choose an electable nominee, but I do believe that a Clinton campaign is going to be extremely hard to beat on a ground-game level. If Clinton screws it up at a national media level, that's a different matter entirely.
The Following User Says Thank You to octothorp For This Useful Post:
Interesting read looking at who is voting for Trump, and why. As you can probably guess.....they consist of a lot of angry white people.
Quote:
Paul Weber of Appleton, Iowa, describing himself as "kind of a redneck" at an October Trump rally in Waterloo, said he was tired of the so-called "new Americans" flooding the country.
"The people that are coming in here from China, Indonesia and all of them countries, they're getting pregnant and coming here and having babies," Weber said, telling an Asian reporter that he meant no offense. "They get everything and the people that were born here can't get everything."
Quote:
At another rally in Manassas, Virginia, on December 2, Robin Reif, 54, yelled into the crowd that the President was from Kenya. He told CNN afterward that Obama was "too much of a Muslim" and an "Islamist sympathizer."
"In our Constitution, it says that the president has to be an American citizen," Reif said. "I'm still wondering where is he really from. What is this man's background?"
Quote:
Rhett Benhoff, a middle-aged white man at a December Trump campaign event in Raleigh, North Carolina, said discrimination against whites is "absolutely" real.
"I mean, it seems like we really go overboard to make sure all these other nationalities nowadays and colors have their fair shake of it, but no one's looking out for the white guy anymore," he said.
Quote:
Bickie Mason, a contractor from Lyman, South Carolina, who attended Trump's Spartanburg rally in November, said he felt he didn't have a choice but to agree with Trump's idea of tracking Muslim-Americans through a national database.
"I don't believe all Muslims are bad. But anybody can turn bad, and you've got to be able to locate them and know where they're at," said Mason, 64.
And he his going to stump hard for Hillary, because his own legacy depends heavily on her preserving his changes.
He may, but surely even Obama understands that Hillary--if she were to become president--would only look out for herself, and would seldom, if at all, concern herself with preserving anyone's legacy other than her own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by octothorp
And while he may still be a divisive figure on a national scale, as a campaign asset you can take him out of that national spotlight and put him into a much more targeted approach, get him into the communities that you need to win specific states.
A large portion of Sanders supporters are those who once supported Obama, but who believe that Obama never delivered the promised change. Those supporters aren't going to go over to Hillary anytime soon---and particularly not if Obama starts saying Hillary can deliver the change that Obama promised.
Quote:
Originally Posted by octothorp
Between Hillary, Bill, Barrack, even Joe (a bit of a punching bag in the national media, but still very much with his own following, as polls showed when he was considering a presidential bid), a Clinton campaign is going to be extremely formidable in terms of campaigning.
There isn't a lot of upside potential for Hillary. At this point, you either support her or you don't, and having Bill, Barack, Joe*, or whomever up on stage on her behalf isn't going to change the metrics in any significant manner.
Her best chance at getting more votes is for Sanders to drop out. And, personally, I think that if Sanders were to lose the nomination, at best only half of his supporters would migrate over to Hillary. Would that be enough to win the necessary states? Who knows.
* For what it is worth, I think Joe supports Sanders, but feels constrained in the amount of support that he can provide to him. I also tend to think that Obama leans more towards Sanders than Hillary on most issues, but due to the Secretary of State relationship with Hillary, likewise feels constrained in the amount of support that he can provide to Sanders.
And, personally, I think that if Sanders were to lose the nomination, at best only half of his supporters would migrate over to Hillary.
Are you saying they would vote Republican or just not vote? I think less than half is a little low. The majority of them would vote for Hillary if she faces Trump.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to KootenayFlamesFan For This Useful Post:
Bickie Mason, a contractor from Lyman, South Carolina, who attended Trump's Spartanburg rally in November, said he felt he didn't have a choice but to agree with Trump's idea of tracking Muslim-Americans through a national database.
"I don't believe all Muslims are bad. But anybody can turn bad, and you've got to be able to locate them and know where they're at," said Mason, 64.
Does that include you, Bickie? You're on the list!
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to Coach For This Useful Post:
I had a very brief conversation with my wife's American uncle about Trump...Basically he said he likes him, because he comes and and says stuff, no BS'ing. But at the same time admits Trump's a racist and a bigot, so he's not really sure. Hates Hillary, though.
This is from what I know to be a decent guy, not some out there wacko. I wish I had more time to talk to him about it. Next time, I'll corner him!
Got into an argument with my dad when I went for coffee with him this weekend. I stated that I didn't think much of any of the candidates on either side (you see we discuss politics over coffee)
He told me that he likes Trump because he says a lot of things that need to be said and he's not afraid to do it.
Now kiddies, I'm as conservative as a Canadian can get (politely right of the middle point with apologies). I fired back that that the man is a bigoted idiot that just says the populist thing with no thought to what he's saying. That his solution to everything is "I'll get some smart guys in", he has no policy beyond stupid, he appeals to the lowest denominator, he's gone bust 6 times, and his hair is ridiculous, and god forbid he wakes up hung over one night and has control of the nuclear button."
(I've been angry a lot lately btw)
Then we slowly stirred our coffee and stared at the cellphone kiosk in silence)
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
Are you saying they would vote Republican or just not vote? I think less than half is a little low. The majority of them would vote for Hillary if she faces Trump.
I don't think that they would vote at all.
I don't know the exact numbers, but lots of Sanders supporters are young, and even Sanders has admitted that he can only win Iowa (and, presumably, other states) if those college-age supporters show up to vote.
And, let's be honest, most of those young supporters are best known for slacktivism and only caring and being involved if they think that their candidate can win. Once their candidate appears to be a dead duck, they'll run away from the political process as well---unless, I guess, Hillary starts promising free college tuition and guaranteed 4.0 GPAs to all as well.
I don't know the exact numbers, but lots of Sanders supporters are young, and even Sanders has admitted that he can only win Iowa (and, presumably, other states) if those college-age supporters show up to vote.
And, let's be honest, most of those young supporters are best known for slacktivism and only caring and being involved if they think that their candidate can win. Once their candidate appears to be a dead duck, they'll run away from the political process as well---unless, I guess, Hillary starts promising free college tuition and guaranteed 4.0 GPAs to all as well.
There may be some truth to that, but I don't know that by and large, Sanders' supporters are actually that crucial to the Democrats in a general election. Other than New Hampshire and Wisconsin, they tend not to be that strong in swing states, typically polling in the 20s or worse. It may be that this is because in other states, voters have yet to really give Sanders a close look (and because the polling in those states is less frequent). But the people who are willing to vote Clinton now, but swing to Bernie once the primaries draw closer, are more likely to return to Clinton for a general election rather than give up on the process entirely.
Well it is known that Trump supporters have the least amount of education.
And when i hear/read things like "we make sure the <enter color here> guy gets a fair shake but who is making share the white guy gets a fair shake?" it makes my head hurt. Two participants in the simplest "shake"...if one guy is not getting a fair shake then the other guy is getting more than a fair shake and need not be looked out for. How any white person believes there is a problem with white people getting a fair shake is beyond me.
To go back to the Sanders/Clinton duel, my question is, how could anyone ever want a Clinton in the White House again? Sanders all the way for the nomination.
To go back to the Sanders/Clinton duel, my question is, how could anyone ever want a Clinton in the White House again? Sanders all the way for the nomination.
I think this is actually something that's very understated by the media narrative but is popular in a bipartisan way.
I think one of the things Obama had going for him against McCain and then Kerry was that he wasn't Hillary Clinton. I think if you put Hillary up against McCain she would lose.
There is a major fracture in the Democratic party. For as much money as the Clinton foundation has raised (in exchanged for diplomatic compensation, dirty pool), I think it is pretty tell-tale that Sanders is getting any kind of attention at all. Moneyed interests in the media have zero interest in this guy getting airtime but he keeps getting it.
There is an 'inevitability' to Hillary's campaign that makes it unlikeable. I don't think you want someone think your win is inevitable when they go into the voting booth.
Sanders all the way. Another Clinton in the white house would seal America's fate as a banana republic.
