The Clinton Victory Thread

[dander]

There's definitely been a constant drum beat of scandals touted about Clinton - from Cookiegate to Trailer Trashing, from Whitewater to Commoditiesgate, from Travelgate to to Vince Foster, from Benghazi to Super Predatorgate.

It doesn't matter none of these amount to anything - the general public is inclined to think 'where there's smoke, there's fire'.

I read an article earlier today which wasn't exactly about this but alluded to it and how it could be viewed as a benefit to Clinton over Sanders in terms of electability in the general.

The thought goes something like this; Bernie's strength is his ideological purity and high favorabilities. But he's never faced out right attacks against him as he inevitably would against a GOP rival (especially somebody like Trump) in a general election. His only direction to go is down and the only question is how far such attacks will knock him down.

Clinton on the other hand is basically at the bottom in those areas, yet still is as strong if not stronger than Bernie in general election matchups. The attacks on her are worn out and really can't do any more damage. Especially against Trump with his persistent woman bashing this will actually help her more than hurt her.

With Clinton it's almost like what Trump said about his being able to shoot somebody on 5th Avenue and not lose any supporters. In that case it's because his supporters are so in love with him they wouldn't care. With Hillary she could do basically the same and it wouldn't change anything because that's basically expected of her by both her supporters and detractors.

Sanders on the other hand could be devastated in terms of support and likability if the the right line of attack hits home against him.

td;dr - The threshold for negative press hurting Clinton is much higher Bernie because it's expected of her but not him.

I just never understood this line of reasoning. Despite popular (or maybe pundit) opinion the Republican attacks on Clinton have worked. Even though it's all bullshit and lies they have successfully killed her favorability ratings, her trustworthiness ratings, and have fomented frothing at the mouth hatred of her. Why do we think that the negatives caused by these attacks have bottomed out?

There's nothing that compares to the stage of a presidential election. All sorts of ridiculous garbage that has never really been consumed by most of the public outside of the far right bubble is suddenly going to be broadcast at a time when more people are paying attention. It doesn't help that she's such an unappealing personage either. If she was as dynamic and likable as an Obama she could certainly mitigate the effect.

Additionally, the argument can just as easily go the other way: people have been so conditioned to believe the worst of Clinton that they're more likely to be receptive to further allegations. And Sanders is so widely seen as ethical and honest that they attacks are less likely to hit home. I guess we'll never know for sure since only one of them can win the nomination.

Also, it's not binary; just because the Republicans are vile and lying through their teeth doesn't mean that there aren't also legitimate issues with Clinton. It is perfectly possible for the far right to be scum and for Clinton to be icky too. And that can, and looks like it has been, really hurting her with independents.

[dander]

He's not even winning, let alone being phenomenally successful, he's not even likely to be as successful as Mitt Romney, who at least got a nomination. I'm glad you aren't interested in seeing anyone squirming, but I really don't see what that has to do with anything. The only person I'm assuming that's true of is the person who said it, I don't think it's beneficial for other people to come in and somehow pretend the comment was directed at anyone else.

Just because he isn't winning doesn't mean that Sanders hasn't been phenomenally successful. No one has ever done what Sanders is doing now.

Sanders was the very definition of a long shot protest candidate against the most overwhelming favorite for a presidential nomination in a non-incumbent election in the history of the country (538 has a pretty good piece on the numbers behind that). No one expected or predicted even the smallest amount of success for him. Anything you hear these days, whether from the media or the Clinton campaign, about knowing all along that the race would tighten is pure bullshit revisionism. Everyone, probably even Sanders himself, expected Clinton to crush him. She should be crushing him.

This says loads about both the strength of Sander's message and the terrible weakness of Clinton as a candidate. You couldn't possibly have more advantages than Clinton had. She has universal name recognition, the support of the entire establishment, decades of building a political organization and especially courting democratic voters and people of color. The financial industry, fossil fuels, agrobusiness, insurance, pharma, you name it, all have pumped huge amounts of money into her campaign. Her husband was a former president who, whatever else you may say about him, is sublimely brilliant at political maneuvering. And she is very intelligent and does have a great deal of knowledge and yet can't effectively use that to her advantage.

This is why some of us are terrified of Clinton as a general election candidate. She has trouble putting away the longest of long shot protest candidates who barely says negative things about her. The ways he does go after her are so tame, so weak, that it's laughable. It's not that I hate her or won't vote for her; it's that I think she's an extremely weak candidate barely able to cash in on stupendously huge organizational and financial advantages to put away a nominal, extremely ethical and polite, challenger and my vote for her won't be enough to stem the tide of slime, lies, and incoherent rage that will be thrown at her by the Republican candidate and party. And it's really important that she win.

Also, comparing Sanders to Romney is laughable. Aside from the obvious differences in platform and character, Romney had the entire Republican establishment behind him (even if many of them despised him). The entire Democratic establishment is against Sanders. Romney had name recognition; Sanders had virtually none. Romney got plenty of press coverage; Sanders has gotten scant coverage. And so on.

[Thommo]

He's not even winning, let alone being phenomenally successful, he's not even likely to be as successful as Mitt Romney, who at least got a nomination. I'm glad you aren't interested in seeing anyone squirming, but I really don't see what that has to do with anything. The only person I'm assuming that's true of is the person who said it, I don't think it's beneficial for other people to come in and somehow pretend the comment was directed at anyone else.

Just because he isn't winning doesn't mean that Sanders hasn't been phenomenally successful. No one has ever done what Sanders is doing now.

I think you're missing the point. What is the criteria for being "phenomenally" successful? To me it requires, at the very least being successful. Picking out arbitrary things like how you perceive his platform on which to judge whether something has ever been done before seems extremely likely to introduce bias. US presidential elections have a long history of throwing up outsiders with poor name recognition at the start of a campaign. Lots of candidates in the past have proposed equal (or larger) shifts in culture and gone on to enact them, whether that be de-segregation, ending slavery or travel to the moon.

I'm not criticising Sanders or what he's doing, I'm objecting to what is a fairly over the top amount of spin that's going on around him on these boards. Sanders is highly likely to lose at this point, and we are highly likely within our lifetimes to see multiple other principled candidates with good ideas who don't go on to become president.

Sanders was the very definition of a long shot protest candidate against the most overwhelming favorite for a presidential nomination in a non-incumbent election in the history of the country (538 has a pretty good piece on the numbers behind that). No one expected or predicted even the smallest amount of success for him. Anything you hear these days, whether from the media or the Clinton campaign, about knowing all along that the race would tighten is pure bullshit revisionism. Everyone, probably even Sanders himself, expected Clinton to crush him. She should be crushing him.

That article sounds interesting, a link would be much appreciated. I honestly haven't seen much regarding people claiming they knew all along the race would tighten, especially from people who were on record as having said something else. It sounds like equally hyperbolic language from a different group of people though, so probably best ignored.

This says loads about both the strength of Sander's message and the terrible weakness of Clinton as a candidate. You couldn't possibly have more advantages than Clinton had. She has universal name recognition, the support of the entire establishment, decades of building a political organization and especially courting democratic voters and people of color. The financial industry, fossil fuels, agrobusiness, insurance, pharma, you name it, all have pumped huge amounts of money into her campaign. Her husband was a former president who, whatever else you may say about him, is sublimely brilliant at political maneuvering. And she is very intelligent and does have a great deal of knowledge and yet can't effectively use that to her advantage.

This is why some of us are terrified of Clinton as a general election candidate. She has trouble putting away the longest of long shot protest candidates who barely says negative things about her. The ways he does go after her are so tame, so weak, that it's laughable. It's not that I hate her or won't vote for her; it's that I think she's an extremely weak candidate barely able to cash in on stupendously huge organizational and financial advantages to put away a nominal, extremely ethical and polite, challenger and my vote for her won't be enough to stem the tide of slime, lies, and incoherent rage that will be thrown at her by the Republican candidate and party. And it's really important that she win.

Fair enough. If I lived in America I'd want the democrats to win too. And I'd vote for Sanders. Not sure that has any bearing on what I was saying, but thanks for explaining your view.

Also, comparing Sanders to Romney is laughable. Aside from the obvious differences in platform and character, Romney had the entire Republican establishment behind him (even if many of them despised him). The entire Democratic establishment is against Sanders. Romney had name recognition; Sanders had virtually none. Romney got plenty of press coverage; Sanders has gotten scant coverage. And so on.

I'm not quite sure what makes comparing the success of one primary candidate to another just 4 years apart "laughable". That success (and I only compared that success) seems about the closest match there could be.

I'm interested in your claims here though, I don't recall Romney having great name recognition before the start of his first primary campaign. Do you have a source and like for like comparison to Sanders?*

Is there an objective way we can monitor press coverage? Where can we see the figures? I wouldn't worry too much about this one though, because this is pretty tangential.

*Here's an interesting article with a dissenting view from yours regarding the importance of name recognition in presidential contests in the first place by the way. https://newrepublic.com/article/79288/n ... itt-romney . His wikipedia page describes him as "little-known nationally, though" before his presidential campaign first began.

[OlivierK]

If Sanders has an analog amongst 2012 Republican candidates, it's Ron Paul, another old dude from outside the party establishment with a long and consistent record of holding his views even when they were seen as somewhat contrarian. Certainly not Romney, who ran second the previous time out, making him a good analog for Clinton, not Sanders.

Sanders has done what Paul only dreamed of, and enormously exceeded expectations. As dander said, Clinton was annointed as the presumptive nominee with the full backing of the party long ago. Political history suggests that this should be cakewalk - a candidate who has lived in the White house for 8 years, served as Secretary of State, who came close to the nomination 8 years ago, who offers to continue the policies of a currently popular incumbent, and who would continue the legacy of the party that provided the first black President by becoming the first woman to hold the office, against a guy who wasn't even a member of the party at the start of last year, and is little known outside his tiny home state by anyone but the minority who follow politics closely.

And here we are going into April discussing how likely his path to the nomination is. He ought to have been roadkill in February, but he's not, he's postponing the coronation, dragging the establishment candidate to the left, and getting the powers-that-be flustered to the point they're refusing debates in key states leading into what appears a close contest. Even if he doesn't make it, we most definitely don't see this every four years, although there are parallels with how Clinton got rumbled by Obama. Can you think of another time the candidate preferred by their party's establishment was defeated or run close?

Edit: this is what a primary contested by someone who's lived in the White House for 8 years against a "nutty" outsider is expected to look like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republica ... ries,_1992 . But 2016 ain't that.

[Teague]

If sanders is able to bring a lot of new blood and independent voters into the Democratic fold, that might be a step towards arresting the sickening slide into reactionary politics that's been happening in the US for a while now.

I agree completely. But I am old and cynical about it. I clearly recall Obama doing exactly the same things. As you may have noticed, it didn't work out well.

That's why I think the best solution to the sickening slide is for Clinton and Sanders to team up. They could get the power back from the GOP obstructionists.
With the solid backing of the Democratic party and the disarray of the Republican party, it is even possible that Sanders could reach the Trump supporters in sufficient numbers to radically alter Washington DC. Sanders policies are much better for Joe blue collar, struggling to survive in the global economic world. But he will have to reach them first.

I don't think that can possibly happen if Sanders is fighting the Democratic establishment. Nor do I think he will accomplish much if he squeaks out the presidency and Capitol Hill remains the same or gets worse.

Tom

Obama called for a political revolution and said he was going to call out the politicians that went against the American people and had been saying the same revolutionary things for the last 3-4 decades?

[OlivierK]

I'm not quite sure what makes comparing the success of one primary candidate to another just 4 years apart "laughable". That success (and I only compared that success) seems about the closest match there could be.

...

*Here's an interesting article with a dissenting view from yours regarding the importance of name recognition in presidential contests in the first place by the way. https://newrepublic.com/article/79288/n ... itt-romney . His wikipedia page describes him as "little-known nationally, though" before his presidential campaign first began.

Your first para quoted above (and previous post where you say Romney at least got the nom) refer to his 2012 primary campaign.

Your footnote quoted above cites his lack of national name recognition prior to his candidacy in 2008. Having won 11 states in 2008, and being his own party's preferred candidate in 2012, Romney suffered little in the way of name recognition on his second run.

[Teague]

There's definitely been a constant drum beat of scandals touted about Clinton - from Cookiegate to Trailer Trashing, from Whitewater to Commoditiesgate, from Travelgate to to Vince Foster, from Benghazi to Super Predatorgate.

It doesn't matter none of these amount to anything - the general public is inclined to think 'where there's smoke, there's fire'.

I read an article earlier today which wasn't exactly about this but alluded to it and how it could be viewed as a benefit to Clinton over Sanders in terms of electability in the general.

The thought goes something like this; Bernie's strength is his ideological purity and high favorabilities. But he's never faced out right attacks against him as he inevitably would against a GOP rival (especially somebody like Trump) in a general election. His only direction to go is down and the only question is how far such attacks will knock him down.

Clinton on the other hand is basically at the bottom in those areas, yet still is as strong if not stronger than Bernie in general election matchups. The attacks on her are worn out and really can't do any more damage. Especially against Trump with his persistent woman bashing this will actually help her more than hurt her.

With Clinton it's almost like what Trump said about his being able to shoot somebody on 5th Avenue and not lose any supporters. In that case it's because his supporters are so in love with him they wouldn't care. With Hillary she could do basically the same and it wouldn't change anything because that's basically expected of her by both her supporters and detractors.

Sanders on the other hand could be devastated in terms of support and likability if the the right line of attack hits home against him.

td;dr - The threshold for negative press hurting Clinton is much higher Bernie because it's expected of her but not him.

I don't think Trump has a chance of winning he's hated across the country with a 30% favourability rating or something near that. Sanders already crushes him by 20 points on practically every poll and that's with all the press coverage Trump has already had (estimates I heard were close to $1 Billion free media). Given Sander's black out, once he was the candidate the media would change and I think Sander's can weather off attacks from republicans. Why does he need to sling shit like they do -you think people are interested in that?

[Teague]

There's definitely been a constant drum beat of scandals touted about Clinton - from Cookiegate to Trailer Trashing, from Whitewater to Commoditiesgate, from Travelgate to to Vince Foster, from Benghazi to Super Predatorgate.

It doesn't matter none of these amount to anything - the general public is inclined to think 'where there's smoke, there's fire'.

I read an article earlier today which wasn't exactly about this but alluded to it and how it could be viewed as a benefit to Clinton over Sanders in terms of electability in the general.

The thought goes something like this; Bernie's strength is his ideological purity and high favorabilities. But he's never faced out right attacks against him as he inevitably would against a GOP rival (especially somebody like Trump) in a general election. His only direction to go is down and the only question is how far such attacks will knock him down.

Clinton on the other hand is basically at the bottom in those areas, yet still is as strong if not stronger than Bernie in general election matchups. The attacks on her are worn out and really can't do any more damage. Especially against Trump with his persistent woman bashing this will actually help her more than hurt her.

With Clinton it's almost like what Trump said about his being able to shoot somebody on 5th Avenue and not lose any supporters. In that case it's because his supporters are so in love with him they wouldn't care. With Hillary she could do basically the same and it wouldn't change anything because that's basically expected of her by both her supporters and detractors.

Sanders on the other hand could be devastated in terms of support and likability if the the right line of attack hits home against him.

td;dr - The threshold for negative press hurting Clinton is much higher Bernie because it's expected of her but not him.

True, it's hard to imagine there's anything Clinton hasn't already faced. It's entirely possible Sanders might not be able to laugh off the noise machine from the right as easily as he hasn't had the practice.

He's been in politics for decades you don't think he knows how to win elections - you know he's already won a bunch right? How many times as Clinton been a mayor, a senator and a congresswoman?

[Teague]

.That's what's needed whoever wins.

A President without grassroots support will have a hard time doing any good.

The problem is grass roots USA support is unreliable.
Obama took office on grass roots support, with Capitol Hill at his back. But the young people, the black people, the leftist people and most of his grass roots support evaporated afterwards. By the mid terms, it was the Tea Party that could turn out the vote. Not the Democratic party. So we wound up with an obstructionist Congress and Obama accomplished little, maybe lost ground.

I see the same thing happening now with Sanders.

Grass roots supporters are worse than useless if they don't support the cause in between popular events. If they all go back to watching the Kardassians and playing video games after the election Sanders will be a worse disaster than Obama. Because he will be an even weaker President than Obama is now.
Which means that the rich and powerful will continue to get richer and more powerful.
Tom

Evaporated because he forgot about them, didn't he. Not at all what Sanders is saying but why bother finding that out when you can make stuff up about him.

[Willie71]

There's definitely been a constant drum beat of scandals touted about Clinton - from Cookiegate to Trailer Trashing, from Whitewater to Commoditiesgate, from Travelgate to to Vince Foster, from Benghazi to Super Predatorgate.

It doesn't matter none of these amount to anything - the general public is inclined to think 'where there's smoke, there's fire'.

I read an article earlier today which wasn't exactly about this but alluded to it and how it could be viewed as a benefit to Clinton over Sanders in terms of electability in the general.

The thought goes something like this; Bernie's strength is his ideological purity and high favorabilities. But he's never faced out right attacks against him as he inevitably would against a GOP rival (especially somebody like Trump) in a general election. His only direction to go is down and the only question is how far such attacks will knock him down.

Clinton on the other hand is basically at the bottom in those areas, yet still is as strong if not stronger than Bernie in general election matchups. The attacks on her are worn out and really can't do any more damage. Especially against Trump with his persistent woman bashing this will actually help her more than hurt her.

With Clinton it's almost like what Trump said about his being able to shoot somebody on 5th Avenue and not lose any supporters. In that case it's because his supporters are so in love with him they wouldn't care. With Hillary she could do basically the same and it wouldn't change anything because that's basically expected of her by both her supporters and detractors.

Sanders on the other hand could be devastated in terms of support and likability if the the right line of attack hits home against him.

td;dr - The threshold for negative press hurting Clinton is much higher Bernie because it's expected of her but not him.

I don't think Trump has a chance of winning he's hated across the country with a 30% favourability rating or something near that. Sanders already crushes him by 20 points on practically every poll and that's with all the press coverage Trump has already had (estimates I heard were close to $1 Billion free media). Given Sander's black out, once he was the candidate the media would change and I think Sander's can weather off attacks from republicans. Why does he need to sling shit like they do -you think people are interested in that?

Regardless of whether Trump is thought to be electable or not, putting the weaker candidate forward isn't the winning strategy. Sanders does better with youth and independents, both critical for a general election. Trump can campaign both to the left (SPHC) and the right (anti terrorism) in the general. Trump even says its BS to be able to buy politicians, agreeing with Sanders biggest issue. Clinton, on the other hand, says we won't screw you too much. Not the best strategy.

[purplerat]

There's definitely been a constant drum beat of scandals touted about Clinton - from Cookiegate to Trailer Trashing, from Whitewater to Commoditiesgate, from Travelgate to to Vince Foster, from Benghazi to Super Predatorgate.

It doesn't matter none of these amount to anything - the general public is inclined to think 'where there's smoke, there's fire'.

I read an article earlier today which wasn't exactly about this but alluded to it and how it could be viewed as a benefit to Clinton over Sanders in terms of electability in the general.

The thought goes something like this; Bernie's strength is his ideological purity and high favorabilities. But he's never faced out right attacks against him as he inevitably would against a GOP rival (especially somebody like Trump) in a general election. His only direction to go is down and the only question is how far such attacks will knock him down.

Clinton on the other hand is basically at the bottom in those areas, yet still is as strong if not stronger than Bernie in general election matchups. The attacks on her are worn out and really can't do any more damage. Especially against Trump with his persistent woman bashing this will actually help her more than hurt her.

With Clinton it's almost like what Trump said about his being able to shoot somebody on 5th Avenue and not lose any supporters. In that case it's because his supporters are so in love with him they wouldn't care. With Hillary she could do basically the same and it wouldn't change anything because that's basically expected of her by both her supporters and detractors.

Sanders on the other hand could be devastated in terms of support and likability if the the right line of attack hits home against him.

td;dr - The threshold for negative press hurting Clinton is much higher Bernie because it's expected of her but not him.

True, it's hard to imagine there's anything Clinton hasn't already faced. It's entirely possible Sanders might not be able to laugh off the noise machine from the right as easily as he hasn't had the practice.

He's been in politics for decades you don't think he knows how to win elections - you know he's already won a bunch right? How many times as Clinton been a mayor, a senator and a congresswoman?

I don't doubt that Bernie is a competent politician but at the same time you can't ignore that he's only ever run in elections with very low and very homogeneous populations. That's a far cry from national politics. I mean the state he represents is smaller than the average congressional district. And you don't have to dig very deep through congress to find long term representatives who are not particularly politically savvy but manage to keep their office basically by default.

Sanders has yet to be attacked in this race and I'm not sure if he's ever faced any negative campaigning against him in his whole career. So it's a valid question how he'd hold up given it's an absolute lock he will be up against it if he's the nominee.

[Columbus]

Evaporated because he forgot about them, didn't he. Not at all what Sanders is saying but why bother finding that out when you can make stuff up about him

No Obama did not forget about them. He came up against the Cold Equations of politics. He was unable to keep his promises because he has not got a magic wand. Neither does Sanders, so he won't be keeping his promises either.

Here's another important point. Obama was elected with the support of the DNC. He had some support in Washington DC. He still couldn't get much done. Sanders will get elected with nearly no support. Even the Democrats in Congress will obstruct him. Because he is not really a Democrat. He can flail and tweet all he wants. But the same Congress that threatened to shut down the government if they couldn't defund Romneycare will still be in charge of Sanders' agenda, whether anyone likes it or not.
Tom

[Columbus]

He's been in politics for decades you don't think he knows how to win elections - you know he's already won a bunch right?

Has Sanders ever entered an election that his family couldn't vote in? Except for this primary, that he is losing?

Perhaps I'm wrong and Sanders has won an election outside of Vermont. Please do tell.
Tom

[ScholasticSpastic]

But the same Congress that threatened to shut down the government if they couldn't defund Romneycare will still be in charge of Sanders' agenda, whether anyone likes it or not.
Tom

I don't think this is necessarily the case. The Democrats only need to gain five seats in the Senate to take back majority control and all 435 seats of the House are up for grabs as well. I think it's really quite premature to do any prognosticating regarding the ultimate political alignment of Congress under the new administration- whoever they may be.

[GT2211]

There's definitely been a constant drum beat of scandals touted about Clinton - from Cookiegate to Trailer Trashing, from Whitewater to Commoditiesgate, from Travelgate to to Vince Foster, from Benghazi to Super Predatorgate.

It doesn't matter none of these amount to anything - the general public is inclined to think 'where there's smoke, there's fire'.

I read an article earlier today which wasn't exactly about this but alluded to it and how it could be viewed as a benefit to Clinton over Sanders in terms of electability in the general.

The thought goes something like this; Bernie's strength is his ideological purity and high favorabilities. But he's never faced out right attacks against him as he inevitably would against a GOP rival (especially somebody like Trump) in a general election. His only direction to go is down and the only question is how far such attacks will knock him down.

Clinton on the other hand is basically at the bottom in those areas, yet still is as strong if not stronger than Bernie in general election matchups. The attacks on her are worn out and really can't do any more damage. Especially against Trump with his persistent woman bashing this will actually help her more than hurt her.

With Clinton it's almost like what Trump said about his being able to shoot somebody on 5th Avenue and not lose any supporters. In that case it's because his supporters are so in love with him they wouldn't care. With Hillary she could do basically the same and it wouldn't change anything because that's basically expected of her by both her supporters and detractors.

Sanders on the other hand could be devastated in terms of support and likability if the the right line of attack hits home against him.

td;dr - The threshold for negative press hurting Clinton is much higher Bernie because it's expected of her but not him.

I don't think Trump has a chance of winning he's hated across the country with a 30% favourability rating or something near that. Sanders already crushes him by 20 points on practically every poll and that's with all the press coverage Trump has already had (estimates I heard were close to $1 Billion free media). Given Sander's black out, once he was the candidate the media would change and I think Sander's can weather off attacks from republicans. Why does he need to sling shit like they do -you think people are interested in that?

There has been no Bernie blackout. If anyone has been blacked out its been Ted Cruz.

[Columbus]

But the same Congress that threatened to shut down the government if they couldn't defund Romneycare will still be in charge of Sanders' agenda, whether anyone likes it or not.
Tom

I don't think this is necessarily the case. The Democrats only need to gain five seats in the Senate to take back majority control and all 435 seats of the House are up for grabs as well. I think it's really quite premature to do any prognosticating regarding the ultimate political alignment of Congress under the new administration- whoever they may be.

But Sanders is not a Democrat. He is a leftist social democrat, who identified as Independent until his presidential bid.
And he will probably drag a bunch of GOP congresscritters in with him, who's mandate from the electorate will be "Stop the Communist from selling the children into slavery!".

Sanders and his supporters will get nothing in Washington DC anytime soon. Except possibly, bitter disappointments. Because most of the USA doesn't live in their bubble of news and chat.

If you want to know how the other 75% of the USA think, try watching FOX news regularly.
Tom

[ScholasticSpastic]

If you want to know how the other 75% of the USA think, try watching FOX news regularly.

I can't find more recent figures, but according to the Pew Research Center only 38% of Americans got their television news from cable news channels in 2013. That's already only half of your 75% figure and doesn't even take into account the fact that Fox News Channel is only one of several cable news channels.

Can you back up your assertion that I can understand how 3/4 of the USA thinks by watching Fox News? Because if we were that conservative, climate change would be buried as an issue and Obama would never, ever have been elected.

According to Gallup.com, 31% of Americans self-identified as socially conservative and an equal number self-identified as socially liberal in 2015. This doesn't appear to agree with your claims.

[purplerat]

If you want to know how the other 75% of the USA think, try watching FOX news regularly.

I can't find more recent figures, but according to the Pew Research Center only 38% of Americans got their television news from cable news channels in 2013. That's already only half of your 75% figure and doesn't even take into account the fact that Fox News Channel is only one of several cable news channels.

Can you back up your assertion that I can understand how 3/4 of the USA thinks by watching Fox News? Because if we were that conservative, climate change would be buried as an issue and Obama would never, ever have been elected.

According to Gallup.com, 31% of Americans self-identified as socially conservative and an equal number self-identified as socially liberal in 2015. This doesn't appear to agree with your claims.

You're correct. And even that 31% is overselling how much they really watch cable news. The ratings speak for themselves. Outside of events like these presidential debates they average something like single digit percentage of viewers per channel.

[Columbus]

I can't find more recent figures, but according to the Pew Research Center only 38% of Americans got their television news from cable news channels in 2013.

Which is why I didn't say that any particular percentage of USonian people get all their news from a cable channel.

What I said was that you could learn about the electorate by going outside the Sanders bubble, FOX is just one place.
Tom

[Willie71]

It seems that the attempt to dismiss sanders on "tone" has backfired. Huge miscalculation. This doesn't make Sanders look like a mysogynist, but Clinton look scared, afraid to debate. If she's concerned with the "attack ads" from Sanders, she'll look positively pathetic in terms of going up against the republicans. They couldn't be trying to claim Sanders has no integrity, could they? Again a pathetically weak claim. Sanders' ads stick to the record, and who is paying for the campaigns. Calling Clinton out on a list record and being bought isn't an unfair attack at all. On the other hand, Clinton has lied about Sanders' positions several times, showing she can't compete on record. She can't handle those simple issues ffs? If she loses New York, sanders becomes the favorite. Clinton isn't looking confident here at all.