Here's why Bernie is unlikely to be to nominee: A strong majority of the two largest voting blocks are behind Hillary, the voting blocks that consistently show up to vote in elections unlike young people. Bernie needs some pretty high numbers in the young categories just to be even.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
Well, I will post more thoughts on Sanders v. Clinton later but if he wins in NH, you might start seeing voters shift. Last night was so beautiful because it just again showed her up as the hollow candidate that she is.
The Following User Says Thank You to peter12 For This Useful Post:
Well, I will post more thoughts on Sanders v. Clinton later but if he wins in NH, you might start seeing voters shift. Last night was so beautiful because it just again showed her up as the hollow candidate that she is.
I don't see how Sanders has any possible chance in a general election. The promises he was highlighting in his speech were just not sound policies. $15 minimum wage, free college for everyone, paying for it all by taxing wall street speculators and Medicare for everyone won't hold up as being good ideas under any scrutiny. Medicare for everyone is really the only one that he could make a compelling argument for, but it would almost be impossible for a president to implement it.
I guess if it is between Rubio, Cruz, Trump, Sanders and Clinton, then I have to go with Clinton. The other 4 all seem like awful and dangerous choices.
Clinton winning by a coin toss is symbolic with a loss to Sanders in the eyes of the media and voting public. Honestly, if Sanders was 10 years - heck, make it 5 years - younger than he is now, the Clinton camp would already be dead on its feet. The truth is, she isn't a compelling candidate. She has a lot of baggage, experience that she has mostly made up, and she stands on the wrong side of a lot of bad issues (health-care, gay rights, Iraq).
She now has to fight an uphill battle against a revolutionary socialist in his mid-70s, with no money, riding a protest vote on a platform that would be better suited to Woodrow Wilson's rather than Barack Obama's America. This is America now.
If Sanders wins in NH, which he is polling to do, then the fight becomes that much more serious. If her lead continues to shrink in South Carolina, then you will see panic buttons being pushed.
A few observations going forward:
a) Can the Sanders campaign scale national? My gut says no.
b) Up until now, Sanders has played the good guy. Now that he is a serious contender, is he going to start going after Clinton on her dubious record?
c) The FBI and the emails is a tumor in the Clinton campaign that will either be removed or kill her campaign.
Medicare for everyone is really the only one that he could make a compelling argument for, but it would almost be impossible for a president to implement it.
I disagree.
In the US, as of 2010, the US federal and state governments collectively provided funded 50% of all US health care spending, and, as of 2012, almost 33% of those who had health care insurance received their coverage through the government. Source: http://dpeaflcio.org/programs-public...l-perspective/
I suspect that the funding numbers are even higher today, due to the health exchange marketplace, and that the percentage of insureds that receive health insurance directly from the government is either the same or slightly higher.
Accordingly, extending coverage to more people (and, presumably, due to economies of scale, at a slightly less cost-per-person than it costs now) isn't that hard to do. The basic framework for funding, medical delivery, and cost reimbursement is already there. Sure, it all needs improvements, but there is already a structure from which to work. Building on the foundation and improving it isn't an impossible task.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nfotiu
I guess if it is between Rubio, Cruz, Trump, Sanders and Clinton, then I have to go with Clinton. The other 4 all seem like awful and dangerous choices.
To the contrary, Clinton is the most dangerous choice.
With each of the other 4 candidates that you listed, you at least have a general idea of what it is that they stand for and want to accomplish. I'd also argue that at two of the listed candidates are at least (so far) consistent in their platform and policies.
But with Clinton, you have absolutely no idea what her policies are at any given moment. She's for something, and then she's against it the next day. She's an insider, and yet an outsider tomorrow. She's a progressive on Tuesday, a reformer on Thursday, and a conservative on Wednesday. She's consistently inconsistent. And I simply don't see how there could be a more dangerous candidate than her, especially when she has repeatedly shown an inability to be truthful and a belief that the law doesn't apply to her.
To the contrary, Clinton is the most dangerous choice.
I mean...no. Ted Cruz wants to bring about the apocalypse. He is very close to being the most dangerous candidate of all-time. He's slid deeply under the radar until now, but he would be significantly more destructive than Hillary or Trump or anyone else.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Senator Clay Davis For This Useful Post:
Yeah, add me to the doubters about Sanders being able to scale his campaign national. He's built a lot of excitement to his credit, the guy is the most original politician I've ever seen and he's a breath of fresh air that I would probably be excited about if I was voting.
But man, when you factor in Clinton's better numbers among women and minorities its tough to see how he can win South Carolina. And even if he wins there's not a hope in hell of him being president. His membership in the young socialist league in college would single handedly sink him, look how hard Obama had to backtrack from the pastor he went to saying some socialist stuff.
A few observations going forward:
a) Can the Sanders campaign scale national? My gut says no.
Maybe, but he doesn't have to.
There's too much Clinton fatigue and I think many voters (Democratic and Republican) aren't thrilled with the choices and want a complete revolution. Too many near 50-50 results amongst Clinton and Sanders, and Clinton will be gone.
Which leads to the main event, and all he needs is 270 electoral votes to win that. If he wins the usual Democratic-leaning states, plus Nevada, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, he's there.
Or he can lose Ohio, and pick up Iowa and Colorado, and he's there.
Or he can lose Ohio, pick up Iowa and Colorado, and lose Pennsylvania, and win Florida, and he's there. I think he can even lose Colorado and still win.
There's too much Clinton fatigue and I think many voters (Democratic and Republican) aren't thrilled with the choices and want a complete revolution. Too many near 50-50 results amongst Clinton and Sanders, and Clinton will be gone.
Which leads to the main event, and all he needs is 270 electoral votes to win that. If he wins the usual Democratic-leaning states, plus Nevada, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, he's there.
Or he can lose Ohio, and pick up Iowa and Colorado, and he's there.
Or he can lose Ohio, pick up Iowa and Colorado, and lose Pennsylvania, and win Florida, and he's there. I think he can even lose Colorado and still win.
Yeah, so this is a fantasy that too many in the Bernie camp are indulging.
I agree that there is a lot of Clinton fatigue. We all have it. The Official Lady-In-Waiting should have to wait forever. BUT she still has a sizable advantage in people over 35. Those people are apparently still happy with the Obama presidency, and want to see her as the successor. To bleed them off, you will have to not only turn them on to Bernie's weird brand of left populism, but also, sever any connection she has to the mostly scandal-free Obama presidency. They will also have to take on the VERY battle-hardened Clinton machine, which is playing the ground game all across America.
I mean...no. Ted Cruz wants to bring about the apocalypse. He is very close to being the most dangerous candidate of all-time. He's slid deeply under the radar until now, but he would be significantly more destructive than Hillary or Trump or anyone else.
I firmly believe that Cruz will not win the Republican nomination.
But, if I am incorrect in that belief, I also believe that Cruz will be found to be ineligible to become President (barring a complete flip-flop from the conservative side of the Supreme Court, which could happen).
Iowa and New Hampshire are two of the most demographically Bernie states. If he can't win those with Margin then he doesn't stand a chance. New Hampshire is almost meaningless even with a Bernie win provided Clinton is close to her polls.
Nevada is a more interesting test with 30% minority democrats. If Bernie can get close there he might have a chance but Sanders is not popular enough with Minority voters. He dominates the Very Liberal college educated but that isn't a big enough pool to get the nomination.
Outside of a scandal and a good one that actually sticks Sanders has no chance.
Iowa and New Hampshire are two of the most demographically Bernie states. If he can't win those with Margin then he doesn't stand a chance. New Hampshire is almost meaningless even with a Bernie win provided Clinton is close to her polls.
Nevada is a more interesting test with 30% minority democrats. If Bernie can get close there he might have a chance but Sanders is not popular enough with Minority voters. He dominates the Very Liberal college educated but that isn't a big enough pool to get the nomination.
Outside of a scandal and a good one that actually sticks Sanders has no chance.
This email thing is actually a lot more serious than partisan hacks give credit.
BUT she still has a sizable advantage in people over 35.
As to women over 35, yes. As to all people over 35, maybe.
In any event, based on what happened in Iowa, I think that most people are realizing just how much they really don't like Clinton. She went in to the State with a 30+ point lead. She came out of the State with a 0.3% lead. Her favorability rankings continue to trend downward.
Bernie is also battling against the democratic machine which will create obstacles for him at every step.
The machine has been trying to get Hillary elected for a long time now, and a lot of power brokers within the party have their spot due to the Clintons.
He's swimming upstream when it comes to his own party.
In the US, as of 2010, the US federal and state governments collectively provided funded 50% of all US health care spending, and, as of 2012, almost 33% of those who had health care insurance received their coverage through the government. Source: http://dpeaflcio.org/programs-public...l-perspective/
Not so much an impossibility in the sense that it literally couldn't be done in a practical sense but it's more a political impossibility. Obama after having the most emphatic presidential campaign victory since Reagan with a democratic super-majority in the Senate still had to scale back his health reforms.
No matter who wins they won't have that kind of near ideal conditions.
Clinton is going to win. She just won Iowa (yes it was close but she's walking out with the most elected delegates and probably most of the supers). Sanders will win NH (which neighbors Vermont) but after those two states the demographics of the states shifts to advantage Clinton (can't see Sanders being competitive in Nevada or SC).
Last edited by Parallex; 02-02-2016 at 10:04 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Parallex For This Useful Post:
