NBC/WallSt Poll: Hillary now only leading Bern by 2 points in Cali!

[cubby1223]

Trump is a sleazebag for sure, but he's a sleazebag with a message that resonates with Voters.

The strength of Sanders is that his message also resonates with Voters. He also has near impeccable integrity.

But the weakness of Sanders is his messages are vague and unclear on how to actually achieve his goals. Sanders wants workers to have more money and people to have better health care. Great, wonderful, fantastic! How does it actually work? Can't say we're going to demonize corporations, demonize banks, demonize "the rich", they'll pay all sorts of new and higher taxes, and that makes the rest of the world return to harmony! Doesn't work quite like that.

He has "near impeccable integrity" because he doesn't do anything of substance.

 

[Jhhnn]

Thank you for the link but I've read that article several times. It relies on traditional demographics and trends of Democrat voters and then extrapolates for caucus and closed primary scenarios. It is impossible to account for the independent and first time voters energized by Sanders but who were unable to participate due to archaic laws that favor establishment candidates like Hillary.

So you're talking about people on the margins being marginally disadvantaged, obviously. At least in the aggregate. I don't think you'll find 3M primary voters in there.

The Democrats are lucky that the Republicans were unable to field a credible candidate. By any metric, Hillary is very vulnerable.

It's not luck. It's the fact that Repub ideology is bankrupt & has been since the 2008 election. Given the power, they'll go right back to the disastrous policies of the GWB years.

 

[sandorski]

But the weakness of Sanders is his messages are vague and unclear on how to actually achieve his goals. Sanders wants workers to have more money and people to have better health care. Great, wonderful, fantastic! How does it actually work? Can't say we're going to demonize corporations, demonize banks, demonize "the rich", they'll pay all sorts of new and higher taxes, and that makes the rest of the world return to harmony! Doesn't work quite like that.

He has "near impeccable integrity" because he doesn't do anything of substance.

His Policies are far more substantiated than Trumps.

 

[Jhhnn]

I don't subscribe to the lesser of two evils justification for supporting a candidate. Right now I am comparing her to Sanders, and I find him a more inspirational option.

Right now, Bernie supporters need to quit pissing into the wind. It's getting all over everybody, mostly their friends.

I also object to the negativity inherent in the "lesser of two evils" bullshit. It's the product of decades of right wing propaganda designed to discredit & disable the govt of the people.

 

[marincounty]

I'll be surprised if Sanders beats Clinton in Ca. Jerry "moonbatshit" Brown has endorsed her. Yeah, I live in Ca., but we have a large constituency of liberals here, who don't give a shit if they vote for a criminal.

Apparently the country has a lot of people that don't give a shit if they vote for a criminal, after all they voted twice to elect the first convicted criminal president- George W. Bush.

 

[Jhhnn]

His Policies are far more substantiated than Trumps.

Trump's policy is to bullshit his way through everything & anything. Even The Wall! The Sacred Wall! is bullshit for people seeking an emotional security blanket.

 

[cubby1223]

Thank you for the link but I've read that article several times. It relies on traditional demographics and trends of Democrat voters and then extrapolates for caucus and closed primary scenarios. It is impossible to account for the independent and first time voters energized by Sanders but who were unable to participate due to archaic laws that favor establishment candidates like Hillary.

The Democrats are lucky that the Republicans were unable to field a credible candidate. By any metric, Hillary is very vulnerable.

Just because you believe a candidate is the most popular, and may be the most popular among your social group... doesn't mean that holds true nation-wide.

 

[cubby1223]

His Policies are far more substantiated than Trumps.

But not against the typical Democratic politician. Not even close. In other words, just because you believe he is better than the Republican candidate, doesn't mean he is the best Democratic candidate with the best policies.

Some of his plans, for instance against the financial industry, don't have any roots in reality and will achieve nothing. If you want to admire that, that is your own failing. All I request of you is don't make it the country's failing too

 

[Mxylplyx]

Neither is it Clinton supporters. Bernie was long favored over Trump, and independents were in his pocket. Dems are going with Hillary, who Trump can beat. If he wins it's not because the public adores him, but the worst choice was picked by the dems. You don't have to agree or like it, but the unfavorable ratings for either candidate would normally mean a whipping on election day of monumental proportions. Instead both sides went to the bottom of the barrel, with Trump supporters trying to get Hillary in office and Clinton loyalists doing the same for Trump. It's like watching baby seals clubbing each other.

I think many would agree that the Dems arent fielding the best candidate by any stretch, though given the demographic advantages democrats enjoy nationally, they dont really have to, which is unfortunate in many ways. However, this widely believed notion that today's general election polls that show Sanders beating Trump by more than Clinton should be given any consideration at all in choosing the nominee is utter bullshit.

Sanders has simply not faced a sustained negative campaign against him, and his numbers reflect that. You could poll 100 RNC officials over who they would rather face in the general election, and I guarantee you pretty much ALL of them would much prefer Sanders, as the opposition research they could pile on him, much aided by the label of "democratic socialist" he so proudly wears, would crush his favorability numbers. I seriously question the sincerity of Sanders when he proclaims himself the champion of democratic principles while at the same time angling to override the will of a plurality of democratic primary voters in favor of opinion polls that are useless at this stage in the contest. I have generally liked Sanders for much of this campaign, and think he has for the most part had a positive influence on the democratic party, but he is quickly burning up that good will. There is only one thing standing between Donald Trump and the oval office, and he'd better get behind her quickly.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Just because you believe a candidate is the most popular, and may be the most popular among your social group... doesn't mean that holds true nation-wide.

That's fair. I don't question that Clinton is popular with traditional Democrat demographics. What surprised me is that the party which supposedly champions progressive causes chose the establishment status quo candidate over the democratic socialist.

Having served in the Army during both the Clinton and W administrations, and serving as the tip of their respective foreign policy spears, I have little use or respect for the status quo candidates of either party.

I find Sanders inspiring.

 

[fskimospy]

Thank you for the link but I've read that article several times. It relies on traditional demographics and trends of Democrat voters and then extrapolates for caucus and closed primary scenarios. It is impossible to account for the independent and first time voters energized by Sanders but who were unable to participate due to archaic laws that favor establishment candidates like Hillary.

But overall it looks like the 'archaic laws' that were in place helped Sanders, they didn't hurt him. While you can never quantify the entire effect of the system currently in place I'm not aware of any evidence that shows Sanders being hurt on the whole by it. If anything he seems to have been helped, hence why his delegate total is considerably higher than his share of the vote.

I mean if you're saying my link isn't useful because it doesn't account for enough then what is the basis for your contention? Do you think we should eliminate caucuses because they are undemocratic?

The Democrats are lucky that the Republicans were unable to field a credible candidate. By any metric, Hillary is very vulnerable.

I would agree that Hillary is not a particularly good candidate, although I would also say that Sanders would likely turn out to be a very weak general election candidate as well. The Democratic field was weak this year. The Republican field was somewhat stronger but their primary voters went crazy and picked a buffoon.

 

[hal2kilo]

I think many would agree that the Dems arent fielding the best candidate by any stretch, though given the demographic advantages democrats enjoy nationally, they dont really have to, which is unfortunate in many ways. However, this widely believed notion that today's general election polls that show Sanders beating Trump by more than Clinton should be given any consideration at all in choosing the nominee is utter bullshit.

Sanders has simply not faced a sustained negative campaign against him, and his numbers reflect that. You could poll 100 RNC officials over who they would rather face in the general election, and I guarantee you pretty much ALL of them would much prefer Sanders, as the opposition research they could pile on him, much aided by the label of "democratic socialist" he so proudly wears, would crush his favorability numbers. I seriously question the sincerity of Sanders when he proclaims himself the champion of democratic principles while at the same time angling to override the will of a plurality of democratic primary voters in favor of opinion polls that are useless at this stage in the contest. I have generally liked Sanders for much of this campaign, and think he has for the most part had a positive influence on the democratic party, but he is quickly burning up that good will. There is only one thing standing between Donald Trump and the oval office, and he'd better get behind her quickly.

Very good write up. :thumbsup:

 

[Starbuck1975]

I would agree that Hillary is not a particularly good candidate, although I would also say that Sanders would likely turn out to be a very weak general election candidate as well. The Democratic field was weak this year. The Republican field was somewhat stronger but their primary voters went crazy and picked a buffoon.

Republicans nominated Simon Cowell. I am investing in jiffy pop futures because the general election debates are going to be epic spectacles

 

[Jhhnn]

I would agree that Hillary is not a particularly good candidate, although I would also say that Sanders would likely turn out to be a very weak general election candidate as well. The Democratic field was weak this year. The Republican field was somewhat stronger but their primary voters went crazy and picked a buffoon.

Sweet fucking Jesus. If you want to call the Repub field of astounding lameness & lackadaisy stronger than what Dems put up you're delusional.

 

[Jhhnn]

That's fair. I don't question that Clinton is popular with traditional Democrat demographics. What surprised me is that the party which supposedly champions progressive causes chose the establishment status quo candidate over the democratic socialist.

Having served in the Army during both the Clinton and W administrations, and serving as the tip of their respective foreign policy spears, I have little use or respect for the status quo candidates of either party.

I find Sanders inspiring.

Please. What is the status quo if not honest progress to overcome the disastrous policies of the GWB years despite the most obstructionist congresses in history & a legacy tax system that favors growing inequality? To overcome the efforts of a SCOTUS that Repubs have stacked for decades? To back away from policy that inspired Iran's nuclear program? To make real progress for the rights of the LGBT community & more? To provide healthcare to millions of low income families?

The status quo isn't something immobile- it has direction & the direction we've taken since 2008 is pretty much the best we could do under the circumstances. Or, you know, we can tear all that down by putting Repubs back in power. They're just dying to unleash the power of capitalism right up America's ass, again. There's no better way to accomplish that than to put up a pie in the sky candidate who couldn't even win over the Democrats, is there?

 

[Mxylplyx]

Sweet fucking Jesus. If you want to call the Repub field of astounding lameness & lackadaisy stronger than what Dems put up you're delusional.

The initial Republican field was strong and diverse when viewed through the prism of traditional politics. Between Bush, Rubio, and Walker, that would normally be a solid slate of experienced candidates in previous election cycles. Of course we all know that Republicans poisoned their own well of voters with years of pandering to the darker side of their base's impulses. Those chickens have now come home to roost, and thus we have Trump. How they turn back from this is going to be fascinating to watch. It's not like the Republican base is going to wake up after getting throttled yet again in November and decide not to be racist, or xenophobic, or ignorant.

 

[hal2kilo]

The initial Republican field was strong and diverse when viewed through the prism of traditional politics. Between Bush, Rubio, and Walker, that would normally be a solid slate of experienced candidates in previous election cycles. Of course we all know that Republicans poisoned their own well of voters with years of pandering to the darker side of their base's impulses. Those chickens have now come home to roost, and thus we have Trump. How they turn back from this is going to be fascinating to watch. It's not like the Republican base is going to wake up after getting throttled yet again in November and decide not to be racist, or xenophobic, or ignorant.

It will be,we f'd up. Trump wasn't as conservative as we thought. Same musty old tune.

 

[feralkid]

It will be,we f'd up. Trump wasn't as conservative as we thought. Same musty old tune.

I have no doubt about that.

 

[Jhhnn]

The initial Republican field was strong and diverse when viewed through the prism of traditional politics. Between Bush, Rubio, and Walker, that would normally be a solid slate of experienced candidates in previous election cycles. Of course we all know that Republicans poisoned their own well of voters with years of pandering to the darker side of their base's impulses. Those chickens have now come home to roost, and thus we have Trump. How they turn back from this is going to be fascinating to watch. It's not like the Republican base is going to wake up after getting throttled yet again in November and decide not to be racist, or xenophobic, or ignorant.

Repubs poisoned their own leadership in doing so, as well. They believe their own bullshit.

 

[glenn1]

The initial Republican field was strong and diverse when viewed through the prism of traditional politics. Between Bush, Rubio, and Walker, that would normally be a solid slate of experienced candidates in previous election cycles. Of course we all know that Republicans poisoned their own well of voters with years of pandering to the darker side of their base's impulses. Those chickens have now come home to roost, and thus we have Trump. How they turn back from this is going to be fascinating to watch. It's not like the Republican base is going to wake up after getting throttled yet again in November and decide not to be racist, or xenophobic, or ignorant.

The arguably least conservative candidate in the field has won the nomination the last 3 times. Those beloved by the social conservative base (Huckabee, Santorum, and now Cruz) have enough votes to win a few states and hang around until May or so but never had a credible path to victory.

Does make you wonder who will be the GOP 2020 nominee presuming Trump doesn't win. The past 3 election cycles seems to lean the way of someone like a Susana Martinez or other "centrist" candidate. If Jim Webb decided to change parties he'd probably make a formidable candidate in both GOP primaries and the general.

 

[cubby1223]

Sweet fucking Jesus. If you want to call the Repub field of astounding lameness & lackadaisy stronger than what Dems put up you're delusional.

The field was stronger and more rounded than the Democratic field. Just happened that the voters rejected the stronger Republican candidates and went for the buffoons.

The Democrats orchestrated a one-person race in Clinton, a weak candidate to begin with, and were blindsided by Sanders. That's not a strong field.

 

[UberNeuman]

The field was stronger and more rounded than the Democratic field. Just happened that the voters rejected the stronger Republican candidates and went for the buffoons.

Lol. Now that's funny!

50 shades of asshole is not a strong line up.

 

[Brian Stirling]

Are you playing the overused "Sanders' voters will support Trump over Clinton" argument?

No, more likely they will either sit this one out or they will select a write in.

Look, Hillary is still the favorite to win in November, but also face the fact that not many people actually like her. Many will vote for her because she's a D and not an R, others will vote for her because they don't want the next president to be Donald Duck, but many will chose to sit it out and how that effects the election is by no means a certainty.

The electorate is telling us something this cycle and we're seeing large elements of both parties that have had enough of the elites running the show and rigging things to favor them at the expense of the rest. Neither party is getting this and appear lost as to the way to handle the disaffected.

This stories not over!


Brian

 

[Hugo Drax]

The field was stronger and more rounded than the Democratic field. Just happened that the voters rejected the stronger Republican candidates and went for the buffoons.

The Democrats orchestrated a one-person race in Clinton, a weak candidate to begin with, and were blindsided by Sanders. That's not a strong field.

It was obvious the entire process was set from the beginning to hand Clinton the nomination. She had her cronies running the show.

At least trump won fair and square against a bunch of candidates.

The DNC process from day one was a scam.

 

[ivwshane]

It was obvious the entire process was set from the beginning to hand Clinton the nomination. She had her cronies running the show.

At least trump won fair and square against a bunch of candidates.

The DNC process from day one was a scam.

Lol! Yep and the three million more votes she got was because those voters were all on the payroll!

/S

There is an epidemic in this country, stupidity has reached a new height!