The Clinton Victory Thread

[Teague]

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.

I don't thin kshe's progressive at all.

The single biggest issue in the US right now is the oligarchy and the loss of democracy. If you're not against this then you're not a progressive.

America always boasted about how democratic it was but that's simply BS. However, they should be and Americans really need to take their heads out their assholes and wake up to the lack of democracy right now and demand it get fixed. If this isn't the biggest issue on your list then why not - it's ridiculous to think you'll get anything else done until you get the money out of politics. This is the issue.

www.wolf-pac.com are making headway but it's slow.

[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.

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.

Yep and once it's down to Trump and her (if it is) his campaign tone will change won't it? I mean, you campaign one way in the primaries and another in the general right? People forget quick and if he plays it right, he could use all the shit she has against her and there's a ton of it.

[Byron]

Yep and once it's down to Trump and her (if it is) his campaign tone will change won't it? I mean, you campaign one way in the primaries and another in the general right? People forget quick and if he plays it right, he could use all the shit she has against her and there's a ton of it.

Totally.

Also crucial is getting Sanders' supporters to rally behind Team Clinton. This isn't a given, at all: many have already said that, denied Sanders, they'll stay home, or write him in; some, maybe a substantial minority, will even vote Trump. If they can't have one anti-establishment, anti-neoliberal candidate, they'll have the other, however much of an asshole he is.

Debating Sanders every chance she gets would help build respect for Clinton among his people: as would releasing her speeches. They'll come out anyway once she's gotten the nom (anyone doesn't believe the Donald has copies?): releasing them now would blunt the impact, and get her some respect for at least facing up to her critics.

That Clinton thinks she can keep them hidden is just one indication among many that she's a godawful politician, who's coasted on Slick Willy's success. She's devoid of political instinct, and is gonna crash and burn when blasted with a broadside of Trumpery.

[Columbus]

This isn't a given, at all: many have already said that, denied Sanders, they'll stay home, or write him in; some, maybe a substantial minority, will even vote Trump.

Trump supporters are saying similar things.

If both groups make good on such threats the establishment of both parties will be the winners.
Tom

[Macdoc]

If he wins the west then it is going to come down to the Party power brokers ( special delegates ).
AFAIK that's exactly what the category is meant to do ....put into the race the person most likely to win against the opposition.

Nearly half of all voters have yet to cast a ballot. Sanders continues to introduce himself to more and more of them. He’s already won 15 primaries and caucuses, and lost four more by the barest whisker. And he keeps rising.

For the first time, the most recent Bloomberg poll shows him edging ahead of Clinton among registered Democratic voters. Other national polls consistently show her once forbidding lead continuing to narrow. Sanders draws large and mostly enthusiastic crowds and continues to rouse young people across the country.

His supporters are eager to fuel his campaign. He outraised Clinton dramatically in February — $43 million to $30 million, as his 2 million small donors contributed more than her deep-pocket investors. In fact, more than 70 percent of Clinton’s donations have come from large donors, who are maxing out in increasing numbers.

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2 ... s-winning/

That effort has already reaped benefits. He’s proved that presidential candidates do not have to be dependent on big donors. In every race from here on, there will be an insurgent slot waiting to be filled. He’s driven the debate in the campaign, forcing Clinton to adjust her positions and recycle some of his rhetoric. On trade, on Wall Street, on corporate tax dodges and CEO pay, on criminal justice, on the minimum wage and unions, money and politics — his campaign (plus movements like Black Lives Matter and Fight for $15) is opening new ground.

The longer Sanders stays in the race, the harder it will be for Clinton to abandon her new populist pledges.

[Willie71]

In what appears to be an act of desperation, a Clinton supporter files FEC complaint against Sanders for accepting too much money from individuals. If they think this makes Sanders look bad, they are delusional. It's an arrogant, out of touch with the anti-establishment flow of this election move that tries to paint taking huge donations from corporate interests as more ethical than accepting money from real people.

While the Clinton campaign complains that Bernie Sanders has begun fighting too dirty, Clinton ally David Brock has filed three complaints against the Senator’s campaign, alleging that Sanders has broken multiple FEC rues concerning funding and campaign spending.

On Monday, a Clinton staffer said that Bernie Sanders’ campaign had taken on a negative tone that he said he would never take part in. As a result, the Clinton campaign would not agree to meet him for a debate in New York. The possibility of the debate being held was tentatively extended, but staffers ominously said that they would only be considering it if Bernie changed his tone.

Brock’s group, the American Democracy Legal Fund, alleges that Sanders’ campaign accepted more than the amount legal under federal law from individual donors. The group also accuses the campaign of not disclosing a Facebook ad as well as claiming that an unaffiliated pro-Sanders SuperPAC has been using Sanders’ name illegally.

It is an interestingly timed complaint that Brock is making, and if true, would do major damage to Sanders’ reputation as honest and by the people.

Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver denied the claims:

“Just one day after the Clinton campaign said we needed to change our tone, the leaders of their coordinated super PAC, which is funded by millions from Wall Street, filed baseless and frivolous complaints with the FEC. Tells you all you need to know.”

Whether the FEC takes action on Brock’s complaints or not is yet to be seen.

This is a massive optics mistake, even if they are in the right. How can they think this is a good idea?

http://trofire.com/2016/03/30/days-clin ... s-sanders/

[laklak]

Hillary thinks Willie's Teflon rubbed off on her. It didn't. If she comes up against Trump he'll savage her.

[Columbus]

Not sure your 75% figure is correct.

Teague
 

The 75% I'm talking about are the voters who are not supporting Sanders. Not necessarily Republican voters or anything else.
One of the things about modern media is that it is easy to get a lot of news without much leaving your comfort zone.
Tom

[purplerat]

Hillary thinks Willie's Teflon rubbed off on her. It didn't. If she comes up against Trump he'll savage her.

And he'll lose in one of the greatest landslides of all time. He's running an overtly misogynistic campaign and "savaging her" will just feed into that. As somebody put it the other day "By November Ivanka will be voting for Hillary". Ann Coulter will be about the only woman left to support him.

[Columbus]

Ann Coulter will be about the only woman left to support him.

Don't forget Palin!
Tom

[Willie71]

Hillary thinks Willie's Teflon rubbed off on her. It didn't. If she comes up against Trump he'll savage her.

And he'll lose in one of the greatest landslides of all time. He's running an overtly misogynistic campaign and "savaging her" will just feed into that. As somebody put it the other day "By November Ivanka will be voting for Hillary". Ann Coulter will be about the only woman left to support him.

Trump and Clinton seem to be competing on how to eliminate as many potential voters as possible. The race to the bottom. Who will win, who will win.....

[purplerat]

Ann Coulter will be about the only woman left to support him.

Don't forget Palin!
Tom

IDK, Palin can be very protective of her kids. I'm pretty sure if Trump got around to calling Bristol a slut even she'd drop him. And I don't think that's all that unrealistic. I mean he's made fun of Christie right to his face so I could see him taking shots at her daughters even while she's standing right behind him.

[Willie71]

Not sure your 75% figure is correct.

Teague
 

The 75% I'm talking about are the voters who are not supporting Sanders. Not necessarily Republican voters or anything else.
One of the things about modern media is that it is easy to get a lot of news without much leaving your comfort zone.
Tom

I think you are getting innacurate information. Sanders beats Clinton with independents about 80/20. More republicans like Sanders than Clinton too. Haven't looked at the numbers recently though. New voters go sanders over Clinton by large margins, in many states it has been over 80 points. Like is probably the wrong word. Republicans like the outsider position, and hate Clinton after years of priming from conservative media. Outside of the democratic establishment, Clinton doesn't have much support. The only group she does well with are those who are enamoured by the idea of a female president, and who are unaware of policy.

[Columbus]

Hillary thinks Willie's Teflon rubbed off on her. It didn't. If she comes up against Trump he'll savage her.

And he'll lose in one of the greatest landslides of all time. He's running an overtly misogynistic campaign and "savaging her" will just feed into that. As somebody put it the other day "By November Ivanka will be voting for Hillary". Ann Coulter will be about the only woman left to support him.

Trump and Clinton seem to be competing on how to eliminate as many potential voters as possible. The race to the bottom. Who will win, who will win.....

I don't understand why people say things like this when Hillary is way leading the field. We started out with 20+ candidates back in July, and now she's top ofthe heap.
Tom

[Columbus]

The only group she does well with are those who are enamoured by the idea of a female president, and who are unaware of policy.

Either you are kidding yourself or you get all your news from the Sanders website.

Personally, I support Sanders agenda. I also think it more likely to be implemented if Hillary wins the White House.
Tom

[Mike_L]

Not sure how representative they are of the general population, but I find it encouraging that some very erudite women are vociferously opposed to a Clinton presidency...

Diana Johnstone here...

Yes, women should get together for causes that affect women in general: equal pay for equal work, equal recognition of abilities, reproductive rights, maternity leave and child care, that sort of thing. But Hillary Clinton is an individual, she is not women in general. Women together might fight for women’s right to be elected President, but that right exists. It cannot be reduced to one particular woman’s right to be President.

The President of the United States is not a purely symbolic position. It involves crucial decision-making powers. Hillary Clinton has demonstrated dangerously poor judgment in fateful questions of war and peace. That should disqualify her.

Medea Benjamin here

Hillary Clinton has run to the right of the Obama administration on every major foreign policy issue — and she’s left a trail of devastation in her wake.

[Teague]

Hillary thinks Willie's Teflon rubbed off on her. It didn't. If she comes up against Trump he'll savage her.

And he'll lose in one of the greatest landslides of all time. He's running an overtly misogynistic campaign and "savaging her" will just feed into that. As somebody put it the other day "By November Ivanka will be voting for Hillary". Ann Coulter will be about the only woman left to support him.

Will it?

Are republicans coming out to vote in greater numbers now because of the buffoonery of Trump? This could be a problem if Clinton gets the nomination and squashes the hopes and dreams of real progressives who may just not bother turning up to vote - especially if they have to wait 5 hours. Arizona could be lost just for the fact they fucked up the voting so badly. Add that they lose Sanders as a choice that's 2 negatives to think about that will keep some people away.

Meanwhile, people who like Trump are loving him and probably can't wait to get out and vote for him.

If anything, this election has been far from normal or predictive so really anything can happen.

[Thommo]

Hillary thinks Willie's Teflon rubbed off on her. It didn't. If she comes up against Trump he'll savage her.

And he'll lose in one of the greatest landslides of all time. He's running an overtly misogynistic campaign and "savaging her" will just feed into that. As somebody put it the other day "By November Ivanka will be voting for Hillary". Ann Coulter will be about the only woman left to support him.

Will it?

Are republicans coming out to vote in greater numbers now because of the buffoonery of Trump? This could be a problem if Clinton gets the nomination and squashes the hopes and dreams of real progressives who may just not bother turning up to vote - especially if they have to wait 5 hours. Arizona could be lost just for the fact they fucked up the voting so badly. Add that they lose Sanders as a choice that's 2 negatives to think about that will keep some people away.

Meanwhile, people who like Trump are loving him and probably can't wait to get out and vote for him.

If anything, this election has been far from normal or predictive so really anything can happen.

Trump's poll numbers in a general election are starting to dip toward McGovern levels:

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/31/11336884/d ... ls-winning

I would say that I am fairly unconvinced that this election has been "far from predictive". Haven't the polls been pretty accurate so far*?

*That is when you look at trends, averages, larger sample sizes and aggregate performances rather than cherry picking small samples from small states that had the maximum percentage deviation, but little actual effect on the numbers of delegates.

[purplerat]

Hillary thinks Willie's Teflon rubbed off on her. It didn't. If she comes up against Trump he'll savage her.

And he'll lose in one of the greatest landslides of all time. He's running an overtly misogynistic campaign and "savaging her" will just feed into that. As somebody put it the other day "By November Ivanka will be voting for Hillary". Ann Coulter will be about the only woman left to support him.

Will it?

Are republicans coming out to vote in greater numbers now because of the buffoonery of Trump? This could be a problem if Clinton gets the nomination and squashes the hopes and dreams of real progressives who may just not bother turning up to vote - especially if they have to wait 5 hours. Arizona could be lost just for the fact they fucked up the voting so badly. Add that they lose Sanders as a choice that's 2 negatives to think about that will keep some people away.

Meanwhile, people who like Trump are loving him and probably can't wait to get out and vote for him.

If anything, this election has been far from normal or predictive so really anything can happen.

Trump is only getting a small percentage of the overall electorate. Even amongst Republicans there are as many voting against him as for him and that's only going to get worse in a general election.

Honestly I don't think he really even wants to win (the general election). I still think this is largely a publicity stunt to see how far he can get and thus he's not going to do what it takes to win. In fact he's doing the opposite of what it would take to win. If he ends up the nominee I think he'll get even more outrageous so that he can push the envelope further while ensuring he'll never actually have to be president.

I'm willing to bet that if it comes down to him and Clinton that at some point he'll call her a cunt in an interview or even a live debate. That's the level of "campaigning" I would expect from a Trump general election effort. And it will get him some votes, but it will drive away far more.

To be very clear when I say it will be a landslide for the ages I'm not saying Clinton is some fantastic candidate. But she'll more or less get the votes Obama got which was more than enough for comfortable victories while Trump could get the lowest percentage of the total vote of a major party candidate in a two way race in history if he keeps going as I expect he will.

[Columbus]

But she'll more or less get the votes Obama got which was more than enough for comfortable victories while Trump could get the lowest percentage of the total vote of a major party candidate in a two way race in history if he keeps going as I expect he will.

This is spot on. I believe that the reason the GOP are desperate to get Trump out of the race is exactly this.

If things continue as they are (and the prognosis for the GOP is mainly deterioration) Clinton could win so big in November that the balance on Capitol Hill is greatly altered. I expect to start seeing pundits and polls about how many new Democrats will be in Congress and Senate after the election.

I sincerely hope that Sanders supporters do come to see how much that could improve the likelihood of his agenda getting traction in Washington DC.

Tom