AuthorTopic: Election Errata  (Read 93605 times)

Offline Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 14132
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Election Errata
« on: February 26, 2016, 03:43:28 AM »
Figured that we're probably gonna need a bigger thread.

New Poll: One in Five Trump Supporters Opposed to Emancipation Proclamation

New Poll: One in Five Trump Supporters Opposed to Emancipation Proclamation

A new poll sponsored by The Economist and conducted by YouGov has found that nearly one in five supporters of Donald Trump don’t approve of the freeing of slaves in the Confederacy. The January poll asked respondents if they approved or disapproved of “the executive order that freed all slaves in the states that were in rebellion against the federal government.” That executive order, of course, was made by Abraham Lincoln and is generally known as “The Emancipation Proclamation.” Thirteen percent of respondents—and nearly 20 percent of Trump supporters compared with 5 percent of Marco Rubio’s—said they disapprove of it.

An additional 17 percent of respondents said they weren’t sure.

Before asking about slavery, YouGov first asked two broader poll questions about executive orders: Do you approve of them, and do you think they’re constitutional? Then pollsters asked about specific presidential actions, including freeing the slaves, desegregating the military, interning Japanese Americans during World War II and deferring deportation for some unauthorized immigrants.

The questions were asked of 2,000 people drawn at random from the general population. The margin of error was 2.9%.

In a related development, exit poll data from the South Carolina primary revealed that nearly half the Republicans who turned out on Saturday wanted undocumented immigrants to be deported immediately. Donald Trump won 47 percent of those voters.

Voters were asked if they favored temporarily barring Muslims who are not citizens from entering the United States, something Mr. Trump advocates, and 74 percent said they did. He won 41 percent of that group.

This article is based in part on a report by Lynn Vavreck, a professor of political science at UCLA, published in the New York Times.

.

trump_flicker_face_yess

(Mike Licht / Flickr)

« Last Edit: January 11, 2018, 02:22:37 AM by RE »
"It is difficult to write a paradiso when all the superficial indications are that you ought to write an apocalypse." -Ezra Pound

Offline Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 14132
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: Election 2016
« Reply #1 on: February 26, 2016, 04:48:24 AM »
Why Hillary Clinton Cannot Beat Donald Trump

Why Hillary Clinton Cannot Beat Donald Trump

 
Tyler Durden's picture

This morning, I read a fantastic article by Nathan J. Robinson in Current Affairs titled: Unless the Democrats Run Sanders, a Trump Nomination Means a Trump Presidency. Several months ago, I would have disagreed with this statement, but today I think it’s entirely accurate.

One thing Clinton supporters remain in complete denial about (other than the fact most Americans who don’t identify as Democrats find her to be somewhere in between untrustworthy and criminal), is that a significant number of Sanders supporters will never vote for Hillary. Forget the fact that I know a few personally, I’ve noticed several interviews with voters who proclaim Sanders to be their first choice but Trump their second. Are they just saying this or do they mean it? I think a lot them mean it.

Mr. Robinson’s article is a brilliant deep dive into what a real life Trump vs. Clinton matchup would look like, not what clueless beltway wonks want it to look it. What emerges is a convincing case that the only person who could stand up to Trump and defeat him in November is Bernie Sanders. I agree.

So without further ado, here are a few excerpts:

 
 

Instinctively, Hillary Clinton has long seemed by far the more electable of the two Democratic candidates. She is, after all, an experienced, pragmatic moderate, whereas Sanders is a raving, arm-flapping elderly Jewish socialist from Vermont. Clinton is simply closer to the American mainstream, thus she is more attractive to a broader swath of voters. Sanders campaigners have grown used to hearing the heavy-hearted lament “I like Bernie, I just don’t think he can win.” And in typical previous American elections, this would be perfectly accurate.

 

But this is far from a typical previous American election. And recently, everything about the electability calculus has changed, due to one simple fact: Donald Trump is likely to be the Republican nominee for President. Given this reality, every Democratic strategic question must operate not on the basis of abstract electability against a hypothetical candidate, but specific electability against the actual Republican nominee, Donald Trump.

 

Here, a Clinton match-up is highly likely to be an unmitigated electoral disaster, whereas a Sanders candidacy stands a far better chance. Every one of Clinton’s (considerable) weaknesses plays to every one of Trump’s strengths, whereas every one of Trump’s (few) weaknesses plays to every one of Sanders’s strengths. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, running Clinton against Trump is a disastrous, suicidal proposition.

 

Her supporters insist that she has already been “tried and tested” against all the attacks that can be thrown at her. But this is not the case; she has never been subjected to the full brunt of attacks that come in a general presidential election. Bernie Sanders has ignored most tabloid dirt, treating it as a sensationalist distraction from real issues (“Enough with the damned emails!”) But for Donald Trump, sensationalist distractions are the whole game. He will attempt to crucify her. And it is very, very likely that he will succeed.

 

This campaigning style makes Hillary Clinton Donald Trump’s dream opponent. She gives him an endless amount to work with. The emails, Benghazi, Whitewater, Iraq, the Lewinsky scandal, ChinagateTravelgate, the missing law firm recordsJeffrey EpsteinKissingerMarc RichHaitiClinton Foundation tax errorsClinton Foundation conflicts of interest“We were broke when we left the White House,” Goldman Sachs… There is enough material in Hillary Clinton’s background for Donald Trump to run with six times over.

 

Even a skilled campaigner would have a very difficult time parrying such endless attacks by Trump. Even the best campaigner would find it impossible to draw attention back to actual substantive policy issues, and would spend their every moment on the defensive. But Hillary Clinton is neither the best campaigner nor even a skilled one. In fact, she is a dreadful campaigner. She may be a skilled policymaker, but on the campaign trail she makes constant missteps and never realizes things have gone wrong until it’s too late.

 

Everyone knows this. Even among Democratic party operatives, she’s acknowledged as “awkward and uninspiring on the stump,” carrying “Bill’s baggage with none of Bill’s warmth.” New York magazine described her “failing to demonstrate the most elementary political skills, much less those learned at Toastmasters or Dale Carnegie.” Last year the White House was panicking at her levels of electoral incompetence, her questionable decisionmaking, and her inclination for taking sleazy shortcuts. More recently, noting Sanders’s catch-up in the polls, The Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin said that she was a “rotten candidate” whose attacks on Sanders made no sense, and that “at some point, you cannot blame the national mood or a poor staff or a brilliant opponent for Hillary Clinton’s campaign woes.” Yet in a race against Trump, Hillary will be handicapped not only by her feeble campaigning skills, but the fact that she will have a sour national mood, a poor staff, and a brilliant opponent.

 

Every Democrat should take some time to fairly, dispassionately examine Clinton’s track record as a campaigner. Study how the ‘08 campaign was handled, and how this one has gone. Assess her strengths and weaknesses with as little bias or prejudice as possible. Then picture the race against Trump, and think about how it will unfold.

 

It’s easy to see that Trump has every single advantage. Because the Republican primary will be over, he can come at her from both right and left as he pleases. As the candidate who thundered against the Iraq War at the Republican debate, he can taunt Clinton over her support for it. He will paint her as a member of the corrupt political establishment, and will even offer proof: “Well, I know you can buy politicians, because I bought Senator Clinton. I gave her money, she came to my wedding.” He can make it appear that Hillary Clinton can be bought, that he can’t, and that he is in charge. It’s also hard to defend against, because it appears to be partly true. Any denial looks like a lie, thus making Hillary’s situation look even worse. And then, when she stumbles, he will mock her as incompetent.

 

Charges of misogyny against Trump won’t work. He is going to fill the press with the rape and harassment allegations against Bill Clinton and Hillary’s role in discrediting the victims (something that made even Lena Dunham deeply queasy.) He can always remind people that Hillary Clinton referred to Monica Lewinsky as a “narcissistic loony toon.” Furthermore, since Trump is not an anti-Planned Parenthood zealot (being the only one willing to stick up for women’s health in a room full of Republicans), it will be hard for Clinton to paint him as the usual anti-feminist right-winger.

 

Trump will capitalize on his reputation as a truth-teller, and be vicious about both Clinton’s sudden changes of position (e.g. the switch on gay marriage, plus the affected economic populism of her run against Sanders) and her perceived dishonesty. One can already imagine the monologue:

 

“She lies so much. Everything she says is a lie. I’ve never seen someone who lies so much in my life. Let me tell you three lies she’s told. She made up a story about how she was ducking sniper fire! There was no sniper fire. She made it up! How do you forget a thing like that? She said she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary, the guy who climbed Mount Everest. He hadn’t even climbed it when she was born! Total lie! She lied about the emails, of course, as we all know, and is probably going to be indicted. You know she said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq! It was a lie! Thousands of American soldiers are dead because of her. Not only does she lie, her lies kill people. That’s four lies, I said I’d give you three. You can’t even count them. You want to go on PolitiFact, see how many lies she has? It takes you an hour to read them all! In fact, they ask her, she doesn’t even say she hasn’t lied. They asked her straight up, she says she usually tries to tell the truth! Ooooh, she tries! Come on! This is a person, every single word out of her mouth is a lie. Nobody trusts her. Check the polls, nobody trusts her. Yuge liar.”

 

Trump will bob, weave, jab, and hook. He won’t let up. And because Clinton actually has lied, and actually did vote for the Iraq War, and actually is hyper-cosy with Wall Street, and actually does change her positions based on expediency, all she can do is issue further implausible denials, which will further embolden Trump. Nor does she have a single offensive weapon at her disposal, since every legitimate criticism of Trump’s background (inconsistent political positions, shady financial dealings, pattern of deception) is equally applicable to Clinton, and he knows how to make such things slide off him, whereas she does not.

Here’s another example. If Hillary tries to hit Trump on his Mexican/Muslims comments, Trump can accurately point out she called inner city blacks “super predators.”

 
 

Nor are the demographics going to be as favorable to Clinton as she thinks. Trump’s populism will have huge resonance among the white working class in both red and blue states; he might even peel away her black support. And Trump has already proven false the prediction that he would alienate Evangelicals through his vulgarity and his self-deification. Democrats are insistently repeating their belief that a Trump nomination will mobilize liberals to head to the polls like never before, but with nobody particularly enthusiastic for Clinton’s candidacy, it’s not implausible that a large number of people will find both options so unappealing that they stay home.

Yep, many Sanders supporters will never vote for Hillary. In fact, more than a few will vote for Trump.

 
 

Trump’s various unique methods of attack would instantly be made far less useful in a run against Sanders. All of the most personal charges (untrustworthiness, corruption, rank hypocrisy) are much more difficult to make stick. The rich history of dubious business dealings is nonexistent. None of the sleaze in which Trump traffics can be found clinging to Bernie. Trump’s standup routine just has much less obvious personal material to work with. Sanders is a fairly transparent guy; he likes the social safety net, he doesn’t like oligarchy, he’s a workaholic who sometimes takes a break to play basketball, and that’s pretty much all there is to it. Contrast that with the above-noted list of juicy Clinton tidbits.

 

Trump can’t clown around nearly as much at a debate with Sanders, for the simple reason that Sanders is dead set on keeping every conversation about the plight of America’s poor under the present economic system. If Trump tells jokes and goofs off here, he looks as if he’s belittling poor people, not a magnificent idea for an Ivy League trust fund billionaire running against a working class public servant and veteran of the Civil Rights movement. Instead, Trump will be forced to do what Hillary Clinton has been forced to do during the primary, namely to make himself sound as much like Bernie Sanders as possible. For Trump, having to get serious and take the Trump Show off the air will be devastating to his unique charismatic appeal.

 

Trump is an attention-craving parasite, and such creatures are powerful only when indulged and paid attention to. Clinton will be forced to pay attention to Trump because of his constant evocation of her scandals. She will attempt to go after him. She will, in other words, feed the troll. Sanders, by contrast, will almost certainly behave as if Trump isn’t even there. He is unlikely to rise to Trump’s bait, because Sanders doesn’t even care to listen to anything that’s not about saving social security or the disappearing middle class. He will almost certainly seem as if he barely knows who Trump is. Sanders’s commercials will be similar to those he has run in the primary, featuring uplifting images of America, aspirational sentiments about what we can be together, and moving testimonies from ordinary Americans. Putting such genuine dignity and good feeling against Trump’s race-baiting clownishness will be like finally pouring water on the Wicked Witch. Hillary Clinton cannot do this; with her, the campaign will inevitably descend into the gutter, and the unstoppable bloated Trump menace will continue to grow ever larger.

 

Of course, the American people are still jittery about socialism. But they’re less jittery than they used to be, and Bernie does a good job portraying socialism as being about little more than paid family leave and sick days (a debatable proposition, but one beside the point.) His policies are popular and appeal to the prevailing national sentiment. It’s a risk, certainly. But the Soviet Union bogeyman is long gone, and everyone gets called a socialist these days no matter what their politics. It’s possible that swing voters dislike socialism more than they dislike Hillary Clinton, but in a time of economic discontent one probably shouldn’t bet on it.

 

But even if it was correct to say that Sanders was “starting to” lose (instead of progressively losing less and less), this should only motivate all Democrats to work harder to make sure he is nominated. One’s support for Sanders should increase in direct proportion to one’s fear of Trump.

 

And if Trump is the nominee, Hillary Clinton should drop out of the race and throw her every ounce of energy into supporting Sanders. If this does not occur, the resulting consequences for Muslims and Mexican immigrants of a Trump presidency will be fully the responsibility of Clinton and the Democratic Party. To run a candidate who can’t win, or who is a very high-risk proposition, is to recklessly play with the lives of millions of people. So much depends on stopping Trump; a principled defeat will mean nothing to the deported, or to those being roughed up by Trump’s goon squads or executed with pigs’ blood-dipped bullets.

Trump vs. Clinton will appear to most Americans as a choice between something new and risky, and something old and corrupt. In 2016, who do you think the public will choose?

If Democrats foolishly nominate Hillary Clinton, they will be the only ones to blame for a Trump Presidency.

 

"It is difficult to write a paradiso when all the superficial indications are that you ought to write an apocalypse." -Ezra Pound

Offline Eddie

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 15832
    • View Profile
Re: Election 2016
« Reply #2 on: February 26, 2016, 05:19:57 AM »
Why Hillary Clinton Cannot Beat Donald Trump

Why Hillary Clinton Cannot Beat Donald Trump

Tyler Durden's picture

This morning, I read a fantastic article by Nathan J. Robinson in Current Affairs titled: Unless the Democrats Run Sanders, a Trump Nomination Means a Trump Presidency. Several months ago, I would have disagreed with this statement, but today I think it’s entirely accurate.

One thing Clinton supporters remain in complete denial about (other than the fact most Americans who don’t identify as Democrats find her to be somewhere in between untrustworthy and criminal), is that a significant number of Sanders supporters will never vote for Hillary. Forget the fact that I know a few personally, I’ve noticed several interviews with voters who proclaim Sanders to be their first choice but Trump their second. Are they just saying this or do they mean it? I think a lot them mean it.

Mr. Robinson’s article is a brilliant deep dive into what a real life Trump vs. Clinton matchup would look like, not what clueless beltway wonks want it to look it. What emerges is a convincing case that the only person who could stand up to Trump and defeat him in November is Bernie Sanders. I agree.

So without further ado, here are a few excerpts:

Instinctively, Hillary Clinton has long seemed by far the more electable of the two Democratic candidates. She is, after all, an experienced, pragmatic moderate, whereas Sanders is a raving, arm-flapping elderly Jewish socialist from Vermont. Clinton is simply closer to the American mainstream, thus she is more attractive to a broader swath of voters. Sanders campaigners have grown used to hearing the heavy-hearted lament “I like Bernie, I just don’t think he can win.” And in typical previous American elections, this would be perfectly accurate.

But this is far from a typical previous American election. And recently, everything about the electability calculus has changed, due to one simple fact: Donald Trump is likely to be the Republican nominee for President. Given this reality, every Democratic strategic question must operate not on the basis of abstract electability against a hypothetical candidate, but specific electability against the actual Republican nominee, Donald Trump.

Here, a Clinton match-up is highly likely to be an unmitigated electoral disaster, whereas a Sanders candidacy stands a far better chance. Every one of Clinton’s (considerable) weaknesses plays to every one of Trump’s strengths, whereas every one of Trump’s (few) weaknesses plays to every one of Sanders’s strengths. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, running Clinton against Trump is a disastrous, suicidal proposition.

Her supporters insist that she has already been “tried and tested” against all the attacks that can be thrown at her. But this is not the case; she has never been subjected to the full brunt of attacks that come in a general presidential election. Bernie Sanders has ignored most tabloid dirt, treating it as a sensationalist distraction from real issues (“Enough with the damned emails!”) But for Donald Trump, sensationalist distractions are the whole game. He will attempt to crucify her. And it is very, very likely that he will succeed.

This campaigning style makes Hillary Clinton Donald Trump’s dream opponent. She gives him an endless amount to work with. The emails, Benghazi, Whitewater, Iraq, the Lewinsky scandal, Chinagate, Travelgate, the missing law firm records, Jeffrey Epstein, Kissinger, Marc Rich, Haiti, Clinton Foundation tax errors, Clinton Foundation conflicts of interest, “We were broke when we left the White House,” Goldman Sachs… There is enough material in Hillary Clinton’s background for Donald Trump to run with six times over.

Even a skilled campaigner would have a very difficult time parrying such endless attacks by Trump. Even the best campaigner would find it impossible to draw attention back to actual substantive policy issues, and would spend their every moment on the defensive. But Hillary Clinton is neither the best campaigner nor even a skilled one. In fact, she is a dreadful campaigner. She may be a skilled policymaker, but on the campaign trail she makes constant missteps and never realizes things have gone wrong until it’s too late.

Everyone knows this. Even among Democratic party operatives, she’s acknowledged as “awkward and uninspiring on the stump,” carrying “Bill’s baggage with none of Bill’s warmth.” New York magazine described her “failing to demonstrate the most elementary political skills, much less those learned at Toastmasters or Dale Carnegie.” Last year the White House was panicking at her levels of electoral incompetence, her questionable decisionmaking, and her inclination for taking sleazy shortcuts. More recently, noting Sanders’s catch-up in the polls, The Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin said that she was a “rotten candidate” whose attacks on Sanders made no sense, and that “at some point, you cannot blame the national mood or a poor staff or a brilliant opponent for Hillary Clinton’s campaign woes.” Yet in a race against Trump, Hillary will be handicapped not only by her feeble campaigning skills, but the fact that she will have a sour national mood, a poor staff, and a brilliant opponent.

Every Democrat should take some time to fairly, dispassionately examine Clinton’s track record as a campaigner. Study how the ‘08 campaign was handled, and how this one has gone. Assess her strengths and weaknesses with as little bias or prejudice as possible. Then picture the race against Trump, and think about how it will unfold.

It’s easy to see that Trump has every single advantage. Because the Republican primary will be over, he can come at her from both right and left as he pleases. As the candidate who thundered against the Iraq War at the Republican debate, he can taunt Clinton over her support for it. He will paint her as a member of the corrupt political establishment, and will even offer proof: “Well, I know you can buy politicians, because I bought Senator Clinton. I gave her money, she came to my wedding.” He can make it appear that Hillary Clinton can be bought, that he can’t, and that he is in charge. It’s also hard to defend against, because it appears to be partly true. Any denial looks like a lie, thus making Hillary’s situation look even worse. And then, when she stumbles, he will mock her as incompetent.

Charges of misogyny against Trump won’t work. He is going to fill the press with the rape and harassment allegations against Bill Clinton and Hillary’s role in discrediting the victims (something that made even Lena Dunham deeply queasy.) He can always remind people that Hillary Clinton referred to Monica Lewinsky as a “narcissistic loony toon.” Furthermore, since Trump is not an anti-Planned Parenthood zealot (being the only one willing to stick up for women’s health in a room full of Republicans), it will be hard for Clinton to paint him as the usual anti-feminist right-winger.

Trump will capitalize on his reputation as a truth-teller, and be vicious about both Clinton’s sudden changes of position (e.g. the switch on gay marriage, plus the affected economic populism of her run against Sanders) and her perceived dishonesty. One can already imagine the monologue:

“She lies so much. Everything she says is a lie. I’ve never seen someone who lies so much in my life. Let me tell you three lies she’s told. She made up a story about how she was ducking sniper fire! There was no sniper fire. She made it up! How do you forget a thing like that? She said she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary, the guy who climbed Mount Everest. He hadn’t even climbed it when she was born! Total lie! She lied about the emails, of course, as we all know, and is probably going to be indicted. You know she said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq! It was a lie! Thousands of American soldiers are dead because of her. Not only does she lie, her lies kill people. That’s four lies, I said I’d give you three. You can’t even count them. You want to go on PolitiFact, see how many lies she has? It takes you an hour to read them all! In fact, they ask her, she doesn’t even say she hasn’t lied. They asked her straight up, she says she usually tries to tell the truth! Ooooh, she tries! Come on! This is a person, every single word out of her mouth is a lie. Nobody trusts her. Check the polls, nobody trusts her. Yuge liar.”

Trump will bob, weave, jab, and hook. He won’t let up. And because Clinton actually has lied, and actually did vote for the Iraq War, and actually is hyper-cosy with Wall Street, and actually does change her positions based on expediency, all she can do is issue further implausible denials, which will further embolden Trump. Nor does she have a single offensive weapon at her disposal, since every legitimate criticism of Trump’s background (inconsistent political positions, shady financial dealings, pattern of deception) is equally applicable to Clinton, and he knows how to make such things slide off him, whereas she does not.

Here’s another example. If Hillary tries to hit Trump on his Mexican/Muslims comments, Trump can accurately point out she called inner city blacks “super predators.”

Nor are the demographics going to be as favorable to Clinton as she thinks. Trump’s populism will have huge resonance among the white working class in both red and blue states; he might even peel away her black support. And Trump has already proven false the prediction that he would alienate Evangelicals through his vulgarity and his self-deification. Democrats are insistently repeating their belief that a Trump nomination will mobilize liberals to head to the polls like never before, but with nobody particularly enthusiastic for Clinton’s candidacy, it’s not implausible that a large number of people will find both options so unappealing that they stay home.

Yep, many Sanders supporters will never vote for Hillary. In fact, more than a few will vote for Trump.

Trump’s various unique methods of attack would instantly be made far less useful in a run against Sanders. All of the most personal charges (untrustworthiness, corruption, rank hypocrisy) are much more difficult to make stick. The rich history of dubious business dealings is nonexistent. None of the sleaze in which Trump traffics can be found clinging to Bernie. Trump’s standup routine just has much less obvious personal material to work with. Sanders is a fairly transparent guy; he likes the social safety net, he doesn’t like oligarchy, he’s a workaholic who sometimes takes a break to play basketball, and that’s pretty much all there is to it. Contrast that with the above-noted list of juicy Clinton tidbits.

Trump can’t clown around nearly as much at a debate with Sanders, for the simple reason that Sanders is dead set on keeping every conversation about the plight of America’s poor under the present economic system. If Trump tells jokes and goofs off here, he looks as if he’s belittling poor people, not a magnificent idea for an Ivy League trust fund billionaire running against a working class public servant and veteran of the Civil Rights movement. Instead, Trump will be forced to do what Hillary Clinton has been forced to do during the primary, namely to make himself sound as much like Bernie Sanders as possible. For Trump, having to get serious and take the Trump Show off the air will be devastating to his unique charismatic appeal.

Trump is an attention-craving parasite, and such creatures are powerful only when indulged and paid attention to. Clinton will be forced to pay attention to Trump because of his constant evocation of her scandals. She will attempt to go after him. She will, in other words, feed the troll. Sanders, by contrast, will almost certainly behave as if Trump isn’t even there. He is unlikely to rise to Trump’s bait, because Sanders doesn’t even care to listen to anything that’s not about saving social security or the disappearing middle class. He will almost certainly seem as if he barely knows who Trump is. Sanders’s commercials will be similar to those he has run in the primary, featuring uplifting images of America, aspirational sentiments about what we can be together, and moving testimonies from ordinary Americans. Putting such genuine dignity and good feeling against Trump’s race-baiting clownishness will be like finally pouring water on the Wicked Witch. Hillary Clinton cannot do this; with her, the campaign will inevitably descend into the gutter, and the unstoppable bloated Trump menace will continue to grow ever larger.

Of course, the American people are still jittery about socialism. But they’re less jittery than they used to be, and Bernie does a good job portraying socialism as being about little more than paid family leave and sick days (a debatable proposition, but one beside the point.) His policies are popular and appeal to the prevailing national sentiment. It’s a risk, certainly. But the Soviet Union bogeyman is long gone, and everyone gets called a socialist these days no matter what their politics. It’s possible that swing voters dislike socialism more than they dislike Hillary Clinton, but in a time of economic discontent one probably shouldn’t bet on it.

But even if it was correct to say that Sanders was “starting to” lose (instead of progressively losing less and less), this should only motivate all Democrats to work harder to make sure he is nominated. One’s support for Sanders should increase in direct proportion to one’s fear of Trump.

And if Trump is the nominee, Hillary Clinton should drop out of the race and throw her every ounce of energy into supporting Sanders. If this does not occur, the resulting consequences for Muslims and Mexican immigrants of a Trump presidency will be fully the responsibility of Clinton and the Democratic Party. To run a candidate who can’t win, or who is a very high-risk proposition, is to recklessly play with the lives of millions of people. So much depends on stopping Trump; a principled defeat will mean nothing to the deported, or to those being roughed up by Trump’s goon squads or executed with pigs’ blood-dipped bullets.

Trump vs. Clinton will appear to most Americans as a choice between something new and risky, and something old and corrupt. In 2016, who do you think the public will choose?

If Democrats foolishly nominate Hillary Clinton, they will be the only ones to blame for a Trump Presidency.



This is a very savvy article, and one my wife every Democrat should read.
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Online RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 33744
    • View Profile
Re: Election 2016
« Reply #3 on: February 26, 2016, 05:32:01 AM »
Why Hillary Clinton Cannot Beat Donald Trump
Quote from: Eddie
This is a very savvy article, and one my wife every Democrat should read.

I don't necessarily agree with this article, I think Shillary probably would beat The Donald in a one on one contest.

A more interesting question in my mind is a one on one contest between Burnie & The Donald.  Who wins that one?

RE
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Offline Eddie

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 15832
    • View Profile
Re: Election 2016
« Reply #4 on: February 26, 2016, 05:53:16 AM »
I don't necessarily agree with this article, I think Shillary probably would beat The Donald in a one on one contest.

I still think this is the most likely match-up, so maybe we'll get to see if you're right.

What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Online RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 33744
    • View Profile
Re: Election 2016
« Reply #5 on: February 26, 2016, 05:58:59 AM »
I don't necessarily agree with this article, I think Shillary probably would beat The Donald in a one on one contest.

I still think this is the most likely match-up, so maybe we'll get to see if you're right.

It's a big crapshoot, and not one I think matters much anyhow, but it is interesting to speculate on.

A big problem here is the Bloombug Wildcard.  If Shillary does NOT get the nomination, then the chances Bloombug drops in the race as a 3rd Party candidate increase.  That probably pulls more voters off Burnie than of The Donald.  So a Burnie nomination might actually make The Donald MORE likely to be elected POTUS.

RE
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Offline Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 14132
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: Election 2016
« Reply #6 on: February 26, 2016, 06:11:45 AM »
I don't necessarily agree with this article, I think Shillary probably would beat The Donald in a one on one contest.

I still think this is the most likely match-up, so maybe we'll get to see if you're right.

It's a big crapshoot, and not one I think matters much anyhow, but it is interesting to speculate on.

A big problem here is the Bloombug Wildcard.  If Shillary does NOT get the nomination, then the chances Bloombug drops in the race as a 3rd Party candidate increase.  That probably pulls more voters off Burnie than of The Donald.  So a Burnie nomination might actually make The Donald MORE likely to be elected POTUS.

RE

I am looking for a brokered GOP convention, in which The Donald is denied the nomination in the first ballot or two, and then pledges go out the window and votes are for sale, as God originally intended. The GOP "smart money" (which is very dumb money) lines up behind Rubio and anoints him, whereupon The Donald goes full third party.

Two schools of thought as to The Donald's electability. One says that he is drawing a regular 35 per cent of a split electorate on the R side. Say that's 17 per cent of the electorate for the general. Even goose him up to 25 per cent and that is still not enough neofascists. The other says that a lot of the disaffected will be drawn to Trump for no other reason than to extend a middle finger to political BAU.

As for Hillary, she is a piss poor campaigner with all of Bill's baggage and none of his charm. Think what you will of Kunstler, but when he calls her, "Ms. It's-My-Turn," he is pitch perfect.
"It is difficult to write a paradiso when all the superficial indications are that you ought to write an apocalypse." -Ezra Pound

Offline Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 14132
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: Election 2016
« Reply #7 on: February 26, 2016, 06:17:05 AM »
Why Hillary Clinton Cannot Beat Donald Trump
Quote from: Eddie
This is a very savvy article, and one my wife every Democrat should read.

I don't necessarily agree with this article, I think Shillary probably would beat The Donald in a one on one contest.

A more interesting question in my mind is a one on one contest between Burnie & The Donald.  Who wins that one?

RE

The article lists the reasons why Bernie wins. In fact, he is the ONLY D who can beat Trump one on one.

Quote from: Krieger, on Hillary v. Trump
Trump has every single advantage. Because the Republican primary will be over, he can come at her from both right and left as he pleases. As the candidate who thundered against the Iraq War at the Republican debate, he can taunt Clinton over her support for it. He will paint her as a member of the corrupt political establishment, and will even offer proof: “Well, I know you can buy politicians, because I bought Senator Clinton. I gave her money, she came to my wedding.” He can make it appear that Hillary Clinton can be bought, that he can’t, and that he is in charge. It’s also hard to defend against, because it appears to be partly true. Any denial looks like a lie, thus making Hillary’s situation look even worse. And then, when she stumbles, he will mock her as incompetent.

I can easily see that happening.
"It is difficult to write a paradiso when all the superficial indications are that you ought to write an apocalypse." -Ezra Pound

Offline Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 14132
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
David Duke: Voting against Trump is 'treason to your heritage'
« Reply #8 on: February 26, 2016, 07:17:58 AM »
"Gimme that ol' time religion, that ol' time religion..."

David Duke: Voting against Trump is 'treason to your heritage'


Donald Trump has “made it OK to talk about these incredible concerns of European Americans today," former KKK grand wizard David Duke said. | AP Photo

The white nationalist and former KKK grand wizard encouraged his listeners to volunteer for Trump.
By ELIZA COLLINS 02/25/16 11:59 AM EST


David Duke, a white nationalist and former Klu Klux Klan grand wizard, told his audience Wednesday that voting for anyone besides Donald Trump “is really treason to your heritage.”

“Voting for these people, voting against Donald Trump at this point, is really treason to your heritage,” Duke said on the David Duke Radio Program. BuzzFeed News first reported the comments.
Story Continued Below

"I’m not saying I endorse everything about Trump. In fact, I haven’t formally endorsed him. But I do support his candidacy, and I support voting for him as a strategic action. I hope he does everything we hope he will do.”

The former Louisiana representative told listeners to start volunteering for Trump.

“And I am telling you that it is your job now to get active. Get off your duff. Get off your rear end that’s getting fatter and fatter for many of you everyday on your chairs. When this show’s over, go out, call the Republican Party, but call Donald Trump’s headquarters, volunteer,” he said. “They’re screaming for volunteers. Go in there, you’re gonna meet people who are going to have the same kind of mind-set that you have.”

In December, Duke told POLITICO that Trump’s candidacy allows Americans to be more open about their racial animus.
“He’s made it OK to talk about these incredible concerns of European Americans today, because I think European Americans know they are the only group that can’t defend their own essential interests and their point of view,” Duke said. “He’s meant a lot for the human rights of European Americans.”
"It is difficult to write a paradiso when all the superficial indications are that you ought to write an apocalypse." -Ezra Pound

Offline Eddie

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 15832
    • View Profile
Re: Election 2016
« Reply #9 on: February 26, 2016, 07:23:04 AM »
Where's MKing?

Dammit, MK, I thought you took him out forever with that Edwards bumper sticker. Funny how race haters come out from under their rocks when a Fascist  sun starts rising.
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Offline Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 14132
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: Election 2016
« Reply #10 on: February 26, 2016, 07:27:56 AM »
And here's another view- if not convinced by Krieger, give Greenwald a go. And pay particular attention to the polling graphs.

With Donald Trump Looming, Should Dems Take a Huge Electability Gamble by Nominating Hillary Clinton?

Glenn Greenwald

Many Democrats will tell you that there has rarely, if ever, been a more menacing or evil presidential candidate than Donald Trump. “Trump is the most dangerous major candidate for president in memory,” pronouncedVox’s Ezra Klein two weeks ago. With a consensus now emerging that the real estate mogul is the likely GOP nominee, it would stand to reason that the most important factor for many Democrats in choosing their own nominee is electability: meaning, who has the best chance of defeating the GOP Satan in the general election? In light of that, can Democrats really afford to take such a risky gamble by nominating Hillary Clinton?

In virtually every poll, her rival, Bernie Sanders, does better, often much better, in head-to-head match-ups against every possible GOP candidate. Here, for instance, is a compilation of how Clinton does against Ted Cruz in recent polls: She trails the Texas senator in all but one poll, and in the one poll she leads, it is by a paltry 2 points:

By stark contrast, Sanders leads Cruz in every poll, including by substantial margins in some:

A similar story is seen in their match-ups against Trump. Although they both end up ahead in most polls, Sanders’ margin over Trump is generally very comfortable, while Clinton’s is smaller. Clinton’s average lead over Trump is just 2.8 percent, while Sanders’ lead is a full 6 points:

Then there’s the data about how each candidate is perceived. Put simply, Hillary Clinton is an extremely unpopular political figure. By contrast, even after enduring months of attacks from the Clinton camp and its large number of media surrogates, Sanders remains a popular figure.

A Gallup poll released this week reported that “29 percent of Americans offer a positive observation about Clinton while 51 percent express something negative.” As Gallup rather starkly put it: “Unfortunately for Clinton, the negative associations currently outnumber the positive ones by a sizable margin, and even among Democrats, the negatives are fairly high.” Sanders is, of course, a more unknown quantity, but “the public’s comments about Sanders can be summarized as 26 percent positive and 20 percent negative, with the rest categorized as neutral, other or no opinion.”

In fact, the more the public gets to see of both candidates, the more popular Sanders becomes, and the more unpopular Clinton becomes. Here’s Quinnipiac explaining that dynamic in one graph just a few days ago:

 

This Huffington Post chart, compiling recent polls, shows not only that Clinton is deeply unpopular among the electorate, but becomes increasingly unpopular the more the public is exposed to her during this campaign:

Or look at the same metric for critical states. In Ohio, for example, Sanders’ favorability rating is +3 (44-41 percent), while Clinton’s isnegative 20 (37-57 percent).

Then there’s the particular climate of the electorate. While it’s undoubtedly true that racism and ethno-nationalism are significant factors in Trump’s appeal, also quite significant is a pervasive, long-standing contempt for the political establishment, combined with enduring rage at Wall Street and corporate America, which — along with the bipartisan agenda of globalization and free trade — have spawned intense economic suffering and deprivation among a huge number of Americans. This articleby the conservative writer Michael Brendan Dougherty is the best I’ve read explaining the sustained success of Trump’s candidacy, and it very convincingly documents those factors: “There are a number of Americans who are losers from a process of economic globalization that enriches a transnational global elite.”

In this type of climate, why would anyone assume that a candidate who is the very embodiment of Globalist Establishment Power (see her new, shiny endorsement from Tony Blair), who is virtually drowning both personally and politically in Wall Street cash, has “electability” in her favor? Maybe one can find reasons to support a candidate like that. But in this environment, “electability” is most certainly not one of them. Has anyone made a convincing case why someone with those attributes would be a strong candidate in 2016?

Despite this mountain of data, the pundit consensus — which has been wrong about essentially everything — is that Hillary Clinton is electable and Bernie Sanders is not. There’s virtually no data to support this assertion. All of the relevant data compels the opposite conclusion. Rather than data, the assertion relies on highly speculative, evidence-free claims: Sanders will also become unpopular once he’s the target of GOP attacks; nobody who self-identifies as a “socialist” can win a national election; he’s too old or too ethnic to win, etc. The very same supporters of Hillary Clinton were saying very similar things just eight years ago about an unknown African-American first-term senator with the name Barack Hussein Obama.

Perhaps those claims are true this time. But given the stakes we’re being told are at play if Trump is nominated, wouldn’t one want to base one’s assessment in empirical evidence rather than pundit assertions, no matter how authoritative the tone used to express them?

It’s possible to argue that electability should not be the primary factor. That’s certainly reasonable: Elections often are and should be about aspirations, ideology, and opinion-changing leaders. But given the lurking possibility of a Trump presidency, is now really the time to gamble on such a risky general election candidate as Hillary Clinton?

« Last Edit: February 27, 2016, 07:40:16 AM by Surly1 »
"It is difficult to write a paradiso when all the superficial indications are that you ought to write an apocalypse." -Ezra Pound

Offline MKing

  • Contrarian
  • Sous Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 3354
    • View Profile
Re: Election 2016
« Reply #11 on: February 26, 2016, 07:33:07 AM »
Where's MKing?

Dammit, MK, I thought you took him out forever with that Edwards bumper sticker. Funny how race haters come out from under their rocks when a Fascist  sun starts rising.

While those bumper stickers worked in Louisiana, apparently they didn't keep him under whatever rock he crawled out from under.

Watched the entire debate last night, the only interesting point of note was that Rubio seems to have finally found his stride against the Donald, but about 5 debates too late. The wife is coming around on Rubio, but not figuring she'll get him in the general election if Trump keeps marching on the way he has been.

Sometimes one creates a dynamic impression by saying something, and sometimes one creates as significant an impression by remaining silent.
-Dalai Lama

Offline Eddie

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 15832
    • View Profile
Re: Election 2016
« Reply #12 on: February 26, 2016, 08:05:09 AM »
Where's MKing?

Dammit, MK, I thought you took him out forever with that Edwards bumper sticker. Funny how race haters come out from under their rocks when a Fascist  sun starts rising.

While those bumper stickers worked in Louisiana, apparently they didn't keep him under whatever rock he crawled out from under.

Watched the entire debate last night, the only interesting point of note was that Rubio seems to have finally found his stride against the Donald, but about 5 debates too late. The wife is coming around on Rubio, but not figuring she'll get him in the general election if Trump keeps marching on the way he has been.

Cruz is about to hand Rubio his ass in Texas. I doubt Rubio can even win Florida, debate improvement or not.

Hillary and Cruz will take Texas, I almost guarantee it. I can't decide if I want to participate in the primary as a Republican (against Cruz) or Democrat(against Hillary). Choices, choices.
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Offline Eddie

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 15832
    • View Profile
Re: Election 2016
« Reply #13 on: February 26, 2016, 08:11:10 AM »
And here's another view- if not convinced by Krieger, give Greenwald a go. And pay particular attention to the polling graphs.

With Donald Trump Looming, Should Dems Take a Huge Electability Gamble by Nominating Hillary Clinton?

A vote for Clinton is a very, very dumb vote. So, I fully expect her to be nominated, given the overwhelming lack of intelligence of the average voter.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2016, 12:33:39 PM by Surly1 »
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Offline Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 14132
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: Election 2016
« Reply #14 on: February 26, 2016, 12:34:45 PM »
And the Rude Pundit weighs in on last night's pig-wrestling in vomit:

Random Observations on Last Night's GOP Fisting Fest

At last night's Republican debate/hate-fisting fest, you could say, if you were so inclined, that Sen. Marco Rubio "won," if by "won," you mean, "Still had his pants on and his ass was relatively unspanked." Sure, why not? You could talk about the good jabs he got in on sentient stainless steel dildo Donald Trump, especially the upcoming civil case about "Trump University," the farcical con job perpetrated by Trump on his most desperate fans. You could nod in agreement when Rubio challenged Trump to explain a health care plan alternative to the Affordable Care Act. You could laugh along as Rubio accused Trump of his own mortal sin: repetition without awareness.

You could have a jolly time pretending that any of it mattered in the least. Because, see, in the world we are damned to exist in now, Rubio didn't lay a glove on Trump. Putting aside that it's truly hilarious that any Republican would criticize any other Republican for not having a credible health coverage proposal, and putting aside that Rubio gave a smug, dickish self-satisfied smile whenever he thought he got in a good line, like a home-schooled spelling bee champ who got the word right, Rubio accomplished virtually nothing beyond avoiding another week of headlines about how much Marco Rubio sucks at debating.

The content of the debate is meaningless since none of the candidates said anything that approached a workable, genuine "plan" on anything. Trump went on about his imaginary wall and immigrants, Ted Cruz batted at the phantoms of liberal hottentots storming the gates of his nice country, Rubio did his usual best to sound vaguely rational while talking about completely bugnuts shit, John Kasich responded to everything like he just got out of electroshock therapy (and had the haircut to prove it), and there is a rumor that Ben Carson was there. Let's not waste any time talking about how full of shit they all were other than to say, "Yeah, they were all full of shit."

Instead, look at this exchange:
"Trump: If people -- my plan is very simple. I will not -- we're going to have private -- we are going to have health care, but I will not allow people to die on the sidewalks and the streets of our country if I'm president. You may let it and you may be fine with it...

"Cruz: So does the government pay for everyone's health care?

"Trump: ... I'm not fine with it. We are going to take those people...

"Cruz: Yes or no. Just answer the question.

"Trump: Excuse me. We are going to take those people and those people are going to be serviced by doctors and hospitals. We're going to make great deals on it, but we're not going to let them die in the streets.

"Cruz: Who pays for it?"

It's not a stretch to say that Cruz is implying that he's fine with people dying "on the sidewalks and streets" as long as the nation doesn't have to pay for their health care. What passed for compassion at the Republican debate was stating that Americans should be able to stay alive. Greatest country in the history forever. That's the level of unrepentant fuckery at which we're playing here.

Trump really won because none of the candidates have even the slightest understanding about where Trump's support comes from. Rubio thought he could undermine Trump by showing how the supposed mogul's business dealings are shady at best and illegal at worst. Cruz tried to paint Trump as a Democrat in elephant drag, a fake conservative who would destroy conservative principles (which, apparently, involve immediately deporting children and letting poor people die while bombing other nations).

Both of their campaigns have fundamentally failed to grasp that Trump is in the lead simply because he's Trump. That's got little to do with Trump's experience or his politics beyond "He hates who I hate." It's just fuckin' cult of personality. People want to be with the dude who thinks he's a winner no matter how much of a loser he might be. You know how in high school there was a loudmouth dickhead football player who was verbally abusive and a buffoon but somehow had tons of friends and got all the tail? Yeah, that guy. That's Trump. Meanwhile, Rubio acts like an altar boy who's upset that he's the only one not molested by the priest. Cruz is the prick who wanted so badly to be the class clown but is just a cruel prankster whose asshole dad thinks he's funny.

So let's stop with the pretense that last night's debate did a goddamn thing. Republicans better accept their Trumpish overlord or get the fuck out.

The real story from last night is how fucking worthless Wolf Blitzer was as a moderator. He got steamrolled time and again, had no control over the candidates, pathetically attempted to keep things on track, barely asked follow-ups, and was a quivering, useless lump of flesh with white stubble by the end. On top of that, frightening Hugh Hewitt, who looks like a poorly-healed burn victim, attempted to get the candidates to agree to a "litmus test" of Supreme Court candidates on "religious liberty," which means something like "Don't make Christians follow the Constitution." How is that even a question at a supposedly "mainstream" debate?

Another disgraceful evening in the Republican primary season is over. Let's all have fruit salad and hang out with Polish workers and try to forget that the future of the nation might end up in the slime-encrusted hands of one of these ethical lepers.
- See more at: http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2016/02/random-observations-on-last-nights-gop.html#sthash.YIfCTpTA.o8JVgCwG.dpuf
« Last Edit: February 26, 2016, 02:13:10 PM by monsta666 »
"It is difficult to write a paradiso when all the superficial indications are that you ought to write an apocalypse." -Ezra Pound

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
Errata

Started by Guest The Kitchen Sink

0 Replies
280 Views
Last post October 13, 2016, 02:05:21 AM
by Guest
3 Replies
978 Views
Last post November 08, 2016, 02:26:52 PM
by monsta666
24 Replies
3146 Views
Last post February 28, 2017, 06:54:54 AM
by RE