The Clinton Victory Thread

[Willie71]

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

The inverse is also true, that Clinton supporters tend to be cable news viewers. She doesn't do well with people who engage new media, and her name recognition advantage is dwindling quickly. Sanders has made up a 50 point deficit, and only needs 7 or 8 more points to win.

[Columbus]

Clinton supporters tend to be cable news viewers.

Perhaps this is true. I wouldn't know. I don't even have a TV. I get my information on the web mostly. And also the people around me, most of whom disagree with me.

There are not a lot of prolife, gay, atheists around here in southern Indiana.
Tom

[proudfootz]

I think the proliferation of the internet as an alternative news source has kind of thrown a monkey wrench into the usual prognosticators.

Not that they've ever been particularly reliable.

[OlivierK]

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.

What a trainwreck. She's "all for" negative ads and polling, as part of normal campaign process, and she's got no problem with her own campaign doing that, because they never said they wouldn't. But if Sanders does it, that's a problem? It just comes across as the most patronising position possible: we're the political operators who can do what it takes to win, and you're tolerated as long as you don't attack the presumptive nominee and don't come out your box unless we let you. She's saying that the Clinton campaign won't fight on level terms, but only if the rules are stacked in their favour by letting them be the only ones who can take of the gloves. Fuck that.

[Columbus]

we're the political operators who can do what it takes to win, and you're tolerated as long as you don't attack the presumptive nominee and don't come out your box unless we let you.

Pretty much.

Standing between Trump and Sanders, Hillary looks quite....
normal, centrist, and electable.

Call me a cynic if you will. I am one. But Hillary could hardly have picked a more perfect "Democrat" to oppose her in the nomination race, now could she? Sanders is the perfect foil for a corporate Democrat in this election.

Tom

[OlivierK]

Standing between Sanders and Trump, Clinton looks somewhere between principled and unhinged, and somewhere between progressive and fascist.

I'm fascinated by the idea that Clinton, with her poorer head-to-head polling, and negative favorability ratings, is seen as "electable". Don't get me wrong, I think she's get the nom, and go on to be elected, but she's not the safest bet, because people don't like, or trust, her. In the general, she'll win purely out of people voting against whoever the GOP put up, not out of any positive regard for her own qualities.

[GT2211]

Standing between Sanders and Trump, Clinton looks somewhere between principled and unhinged, and somewhere between progressive and fascist.

I'm fascinated by the idea that Clinton, with her poorer head-to-head polling, and negative favorability ratings, is seen as "electable". Don't get me wrong, I think she's get the nom, and go on to be elected, but she's not the safest bet, because people don't like, or trust, her. In the general, she'll win purely out of people voting against whoever the GOP put up, not out of any positive regard for her own qualities.

People hate her so much must explain why she is cruising past the beloved Sanders...

[OlivierK]

But that's the thing, she's not cruising past Sanders. She's won a couple more states, and is doing best in the South where she'll lose to Republicans in the general.

Bernie's got his own issues with describing himself as a socialist, and his age, and his thin track record in executive positions, and his not acutally being a Democrat, and Clinton is only just ahead of him.

If you want to see how people "hate her so much" just look at her unfavorbility ratings. They're over 50%, with net favorability around -15%. I think it's fair to say any candidate with unfavorables over 50% is not exactly loved.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -1131.html
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pol ... ble-rating

[ScholasticSpastic]

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

This is what you said:

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

If only 38% of people in the US watch cable news at all, then referring me to a particular cable news channel as a means of understanding 75% of people in the US is a patently absurd idea. Especially when only 31% of people polled last year identified as socially conservative (a la Fox News) and only 39% identify as economically conservative (a la Fox News). I can't find ANYTHING to support your ex-recto statistic.

[GT2211]

But that's the thing, she's not cruising past Sanders.

She is winning 56-44% in pledged delegates and has a 9% lead nationally. Lately she has spent most of her time campaigning against Trump.

She's won a couple more states, and is doing best in the South where she'll lose to Republicans in the general.

And many of Bernie's best performances has came in safe Republican states as well. Utah, Idaho. Nebraska, Kansas, Alaska, Oklahoma. Even weirder since Bernie's big wins have came primarily in states that have caucus systems where very few people vote. ~40,000 voters total in a state of 3,000,000 in Kansas.

Plus the Dem primary disadvantages people who rack up wins in the south, because the state's total delegates are weighted giving extra weight to swing states and subtracting from deep red states. For instance GA is the 8th biggest state in the country and yet is 13th in total delegates. Washington is 13th in pop size and has far worse turnout in its primary but has more delegates because its a blue state.

Bernie's got his own issues with describing himself as a socialist, and his age, and his thin track record in executive positions, and his not acutally being a Democrat, and Clinton is only just ahead of him.

'only just' ... she is well ahead.

If you want to see how people "hate her so much" just look at her unfavorbility ratings. They're over 50%, with net favorability around -15%. I think it's fair to say any candidate with unfavorables over 50% is not exactly loved.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -1131.html
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pol ... ble-rating

Irrelevant. You can't seriously argue that she would only win against Trump because Trump is unelectable as an argument for Bernie when Bernie can't even beat her.

[OlivierK]

If you want to see how people "hate her so much" just look at her unfavorbility ratings. They're over 50%, with net favorability around -15%. I think it's fair to say any candidate with unfavorables over 50% is not exactly loved.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -1131.html
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pol ... ble-rating

Irrelevant. You can't seriously argue that she would only win against Trump because Trump is unelectable as an argument for Bernie when Bernie can't even beat her.

Why the fuck not? You know that the pool of people who vote in the general is not the same as the pool of people who vote in the primaries, right? I mean, surely you know that.

So go look at any poll that provides breakdowns of favorability or voting intention, and see how the candidates we're discussing do by party affiliation.

Here's a recent poll with breakdowns: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-even ... aseID=2324

I'm not going to hold your hand, you go read it and see how independent voters feel about the candidates, or even opposite party voters feel about the candidates, and sum up what you found, and whether it supports your statement that Clinton leading Sanders in the Democratic primaries implies that Clinton would do better than Sanders against Trump amongst a different electorate.

[Willie71]

If you want to see how people "hate her so much" just look at her unfavorbility ratings. They're over 50%, with net favorability around -15%. I think it's fair to say any candidate with unfavorables over 50% is not exactly loved.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -1131.html
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pol ... ble-rating

Irrelevant. You can't seriously argue that she would only win against Trump because Trump is unelectable as an argument for Bernie when Bernie can't even beat her.

Why the fuck not? You know that the pool of people who vote in the general is not the same as the pool of people who vote in the primaries, right? I mean, surely you know that.

So go look at any poll that provides breakdowns of favorability or voting intention, and see how the candidates we're discussing do by party affiliation.

Here's a recent poll with breakdowns: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-even ... aseID=2324

I'm not going to hold your hand, you go read it and see how independent voters feel about the candidates, or even opposite party voters feel about the candidates, and sum up what you found, and whether it supports your statement that Clinton leading Sanders in the Democratic primaries implies that Clinton would do better than Sanders against Trump amongst a different electorate.

In simplest terms, Clinton does better amongst establishment democrats, such as the superdelegates, and those who watch establishment propaganda, ER, I mean cable news. She falls apart with most other groups.

[Byron]

Yup, outside her hardcore supporters and the neoliberal elite, the less people know, the better she does. Doesn't exactly bode well for the general!

[Byron]

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.

What a trainwreck. She's "all for" negative ads and polling, as part of normal campaign process, and she's got no problem with her own campaign doing that, because they never said they wouldn't. But if Sanders does it, that's a problem? It just comes across as the most patronising position possible: we're the political operators who can do what it takes to win, and you're tolerated as long as you don't attack the presumptive nominee and don't come out your box unless we let you. She's saying that the Clinton campaign won't fight on level terms, but only if the rules are stacked in their favour by letting them be the only ones who can take of the gloves. Fuck that.

It's a trainwreck that sums up why I believe Clinton's unelectable.

NY is frickin' home turf! If she's any chance at winning the general, victory in the Empire State shouldn't even be open to question: it's her Vermont.

Clinton should be taking every chance she can get to debate Sanders and hone her game, 'cause compared to the pillory she's facing after she gets the nom, these are softballs, wrapped in cotton candy. Sanders is an old school gentleman who'll keep focused on the issues: if she can't even face a kindly septuagenarian who considers it underhand to use the email scandal against her, what on earth makes her think she can joust with Trump? She gonna have some flunkie chide the Donald for tone? May as well skip the general and just arrange the coronation atop Trump Tower.

If she gives a damn about her party, Clinton should be subjecting her campaign to the toughest tests possible: if she can't even convince her own without ducking challenges, she hasn't a prayer of convincing the nation.

[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?

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.

I'm not saying Sander's isn't the stronger canditate - other people are though when they choose Clinton which is absurd.

Whilst Trump may not have been bought he certainly has no leg to stand on and when it comes up in a debate, all Sanders needs to do is say, "Well, we have it on record in a debate a few months ago where you admitted to buying politicians. Whilst you may blame the system, I've never been bought or paid and I've been campaigning all my political career to get money out of politics - what have you been campaign for all your life, money?"

[Teague]

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.

I have no doubt that SAnders could rip Trump a new asshole or any other republican they put forward. People think that Trump supports are just angry at politics which is why they choose him and neglect to mention all the racists that love him too which seems to be a huge number - when you have someone that allows you to show off your hatred they all come out the gutters.

[Teague]

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

And he'll name and shame each one that does - Obama didn't do that. So what did Obama do to galvanize the people? I don't recall him telling them to get up and march or anything like that but I might have missed it.

I don't think you're quite getting what Sanders is proposing and how Obama was just the establishment but with better rhetoric.

[Teague]

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

Average Fox audience is 68 and they have an audience of...

Fox News

Megyn Kelly may have taken a 10 day vacation during the month of August, but her Fox News show, The Kelly File, still emerged victorious as the most-watched cable news show in the 25-54 demo with an average of 566K viewers. The O’Reilly Factor came in second place with 541K in the demo and Hannity was third with 444K.

In total viewers, Bill O’Reilly’s show remained #1 for all of cable news with 3.016M, followed by The Kelly File with 2.749M and Special Report with Bret Baier with 2.115M. Additionally, Hannity had a strong month too––his highest-rated to date–– with 1.823M.

With more than 24 million total viewers, Fox’s GOP debate was the highest rated program in Fox News history and the highest rated non-sports program of all time in basic cable.

For the second time this year, Fox News outranked every other cable network in primetime total viewers, including TNT, USA, HGTV and TBS. By comparison, MSNBC came in at #22 and CNN came in at #30 in primetime total viewers. In addition, Fox was the only network that saw year-to-year gains in the primetime demo, up an impressive 64% compared to last August.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/august-2015- ... t-in-demo/

Not sure your 75% figure is correct.

[Teague]

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.

Sanders hasn't made any "Attack" ads afaik - if telling the truth about your opponents positions is "Attacking" then Clinton is fucking pathetic and a cry baby.

What a fucking loser of a candidate! This is seriously weak as in cringe-worthy weak.

"What a dummy! What a loser!" LOL

[Teague]

I think the proliferation of the internet as an alternative news source has kind of thrown a monkey wrench into the usual prognosticators.

Not that they've ever been particularly reliable.

I think there are several important factors here when people look on the net for news.

They read different sources and viewpoints. Granted, we all tend to read viewpoints that agree with ours but at least you get an idea from other sources and more exposure to different ideas.

The net is far more social, giving points of view from around the world, not just your own country.

Social media is - social! You can talk to people from around the world so culturally you are far more diverse than ever before. We have Forums (like this one )instant messaging, VOIP and things like Skype. We are mpre connected, well, young people are and anyone else who's capable of using a computer.

We are a lot more connected and because of that, we can get to know more about the people around us and different points of view that take us away from the propaganda bullshit the establishment want people to hear.

This is because humans are a social species. It's in out nature to be, we want to be and it's becoming more and more possible with each generation.