Democratic nomination 2016

[bush_cheney2004]

Good for Hillary....Wall Street Matters.

[On Guard for Thee]

I want Trump to win. He's what America deserves.

[kimmy]

Things are heating up in the Democratic race, where Bernie Sanders is poised to win the New Hampshire caucus and is in a statistical tie in Iowa polling as well.

Those are two very "white" states... and as things head to states with more black voters things would shift dramatically, as Clinton seems to have a large edge over Sanders among non-white voters. In South Carolina Clinton leads by 22 points, for example.

Still, losing the first two states in the race should be a warning for Clinton... at one point this race looked more like a coronation, with nobody thinking Sanders or anyone else had a remote chance against Clinton. Sanders' unexpected rise should clue her in to what people don't like about her:

There is a big gap between the two on who better understands what voters are feeling, and to whom each would listen as president. In Iowa, 91 percent of Democratic voters believe Sanders would pick regular people over big donors. But a majority -- 57 percent -- of Democrats feel that Hillary Clinton would do what big donors want instead of what regular people want, if forced to choose.

This op-ed points out another problem with Clinton's campaign:

For some time, I have strongly advised people close to the Clintons to not go negative against Sanders. Clinton needs to inspire voters about why she should be president, not become a negative candidate who reminds voters of the kind of politics they want to end.

Remember — and this is a key point — that when Clinton attacks Sanders for the vision and programs he believes in, she is attacking the large numbers of Democrats and independents who believe in what Sanders believes and favor the same changes and reforms that he promotes.

The Clinton attack against Sanders is the worst possible move for her and for Democrats. Because Clinton has low ratings for trustworthiness, whereas Sanders's ratings are high, a Clinton attack against Sanders will backfire.

Even worse for Clinton, the problem is that she has never articulated an uplifting and exciting reason for voters to back her, and her negative attack against Sanders will drown out any positive message she may have, if she has one.

Whether they agree or disagree with him, everybody knows where Sanders stands. Can people say that about Hilary?

-k

[Argus]

Whether they agree or disagree with him, everybody knows where Sanders stands. Can people say that about Hilary?

Hillary stands for whatever is good for Hillary. That's always been the case. She's a typical corrupt, venal politician. The only thing she has going for her is she's not Trump or Cruz or any of those other wack jobs from the Hallelujah choir.

Edited January 24, 2016 by Argus

[Shady]

I think Sanders will pick up momentum. He could actually win the Iowa caucus.

My predictions are so-so, so I had to brag a little with this one.

[Shady]

Hillary stands for whatever is good for Hillary. That's always been the case. She's a typical corrupt, venal politicians. The only thing she has going for her is she's not Trump or Cruz or any of those other wack jobs from the Hallelujah choir.

I tend to agree, but I think if she wins the nomination, running against a usual politician would be better for her than Trump.

[Moonlight Graham]

I want Trump to win. He's what America deserves.

LOL

[Moonlight Graham]

Hillary stands for whatever is good for Hillary. That's always been the case. She's a typical corrupt, venal politician. The only thing she has going for her is she's not Trump or Cruz or any of those other wack jobs from the Hallelujah choir.

I agree totally. The only thing she has in this race is her name recognition and association with Bill. Sanders doesn't have the name, and voters are generally uninformed that many have never heard of him or know little about him and what he stands for.

You have a recognizable brand in politics like a Bush or Trump or a Trudeau or a Clinton and it's a huge advantage, even if that brand isn't very good in the first place. That's how dumb people are.

[Moonlight Graham]

Things are heating up in the Democratic race, where Bernie Sanders is poised to win the New Hampshire caucus and is in a statistical tie in Iowa polling as well.

Those are two very "white" states... and as things head to states with more black voters things would shift dramatically, as Clinton seems to have a large edge over Sanders among non-white voters. In South Carolina Clinton leads by 22 points, for example.

Maybe the more non-white states are have the poorer populations, and these people don't have cable to watch the debates and generally are less educated and informed? Sanders seems like the more pro-minority, pro-poor, populist candidate. He's also to the left of Clinton, so in the South that would be a disadvantage.

[Moonlight Graham]

People voted for Bush Jr over Ralph Nader...twice! Americans know there's a huge problem, they just don't seem to understand the nature of it and therefore the solution to it.

The root of most US political/social/economic problems is how corporations and the rich finance candidates and therefore have huge sway in the government. Exactly the main platforms Sanders and Nader ran on.

Congress is even worse than the POTUS, but i think you'd need a strong POTUS to lead Congress to fix itself with campaign finance laws etc.

Edited January 27, 2016 by Moonlight Graham

[August1991]

....

Those are two very "white" states... and as things head to states with more black voters things would shift dramatically, as Clinton seems to have a large edge over Sanders among non-white voters. In South Carolina Clinton leads by 22 points, for example.

Still, losing the first two states in the race should be a warning for Clinton... at one point this race looked more like a coronation, with nobody thinking Sanders or anyone else had a remote chance against Clinton. Sanders' unexpected rise should clue her in to what people don't like about her:

....

-k

Like Sanders will likely do, Edwards did well in 2008 in Iowa. Unlike Edwards in 2008, Sanders will probably do well in NH in 2016.

But in 2016, there is no "dark horse" Obama on the horizon. Once the vote turns to South Carolina, I reckon that 2016 is Rodham's for the taking - unless something strange is in play.

If Bernie is alive after Super Tuesday, then I would say that there's been a paradigm shift in American politics and if so, this shift will have a greater significance on the other side of the aisle, as the Americans say. But what do I know.

Edited January 27, 2016 by August1991

[August1991]

Second/Further Thoughts:

So the Democrats' choice in 2016 amounts to Sanders vs Rodham-Clinton.

That's like George McGovern (Sanders) vs Richard Nixon (Hillary) - except only Democrats can vote. Weird. This is 1972 all over again -but in a parallel universe where numbers don't add the same way.

======

Make no mistake: Hillary Rodham-Clinton is similar to Richard Nixon. If she makes President, then she's comparable. If she wins re-election, then she's possibly "a Nixon".

What's "a Nixon"? [No, it's not Nixon going to China...]

To me, "a Nixon" is someone who achieves far above expected but then seriously screws up....

Edited February 11, 2016 by August1991

[kimmy]

Second/Further Thoughts:

So the Democrats' choice in 2016 amounts to Sanders vs Rodham-Clinton.

That's like George McGovern (Sanders) vs Richard Nixon (Hillary) - except only Democrats can vote. Weird. This is 1972 all over again -but in a parallel universe where numbers don't add the same way.

I read somebody else comparing Sanders to McGovern recently... their point being that McGovern was a disaster in that election and concluding that Sanders would be too.

As things stand, it's a moot point. Today was a good day for Sanders... but even on a good day he falls further behind, as Clinton's big win in Louisiana more than cancelled out the smaller states Sanders won.

The good news for Sanders is that there aren't many more Deep South states left (where Clinton has won by landslides), and they are heading north where Sanders has been more competitive.

Sanders and Clinton will be holding a town hall in Michigan on Monday ahead of the primary there. The town hall will be on Fox, which is pretty funny. I imagine the Fox types have mixed feelings about Sanders... they hate his democratic socialist views, but they're probably enjoying the headaches he has caused for Hillary.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

Fox News operates like any other media outlet....having Sanders do well generates interest and content for their analysts and talking heads. Primary season is about horse races and it is always more interesting with competition that goes down to the wire.

A Sanders nomination would certainly deliver the presidency to the GOP nominee, same as in 1972 (McGovern).

[WestCoastRunner]

I have had interesting conversations with my daughters regarding Sanders and Hillary. They of course support Sanders (even though they can't vote), however I told them to google and investigate Hillary on her past accomplishments. This election has opened their minds to the political process whether it's here in Canada or the U.S. It's exciting to chat with them about it.

[BC_chick]

So now Bernie Sanders is a male chauvinist for telling Hillary Clinton to let him finish and not interrupt him during the debate.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/07/what-bernie-sanders-still-doesnt-get-about-interrupting-hillary-clinton/?tid=pm_politics_pop_b

I find it ironic that her campaign has done everything in its power to define Hillary Clinton's femaleness (I'm With Her), yet any criticism whatsoever about her is considered misogyny.

They really want best of both worlds.

[kimmy]

Another Deep South landslide win for Hillary tonight, as she clobbered Sanders in Mississippi.

Sanders won Michigan by a couple of percentage points, which is quite remarkable because polls had him trailing by over 20 points. Polls guru Nate Silver calls it "among the greatest errors in primaries polling history."

The bad news for Bernie is that Hillary's huge win in Mississippi and near-tie in Michigan only increases her delegate lead. The good news for Bernie is that there are only a couple more Deep South states to go. Outside the Deep South, he has more than held his own, and his supporters believe that as western and northern states have their primaries, they will close the gap. They feel that the huge upset in Michigan shows there's a momentum shift happening.

-k

[cybercoma]

The big story in Michigan is that they split the black vote too. Like I've said before, the thing driving the Southern black vote is that blacks in the South are evangelical and for all intents and purposes conservative, but will not vote for the GOP given their history of racist policies and dog whistle politics.

[Moonlight Graham]

So now Bernie Sanders is a male chauvinist for telling Hillary Clinton to let him finish and not interrupt him during the debate.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/07/what-bernie-sanders-still-doesnt-get-about-interrupting-hillary-clinton/?tid=pm_politics_pop_b

I find it ironic that her campaign has done everything in its power to define Hillary Clinton's femaleness (I'm With Her), yet any criticism whatsoever about her is considered misogyny.

They really want best of both worlds.

wow, the Hilary supporters are really scraping the bottom of the barrel with that one. Ridiculous.

[Moonlight Graham]

Bernie, I love the man and agree with most of his policies, but I don't think he's electable as POTUS. He'd get killed in the South and have a good chance to lose moderate swing states in the general election, I mean he can't even win in the South among Democratic voters because of his left-leaning policies.

The US voters aren't ready for Bernie. In 50 years they'll look back on history and kick themselves for not. Maybe they'll catch up to the rest of the developed world socially by then.

[TimG]

The US voters aren't ready for Bernie.

Huh? Bernie is peddling the same know-nothing BS that Trump peddles. He is just more polite when he does it.

[bush_cheney2004]

The US voters aren't ready for Bernie. In 50 years they'll look back on history and kick themselves for not. Maybe they'll catch up to the rest of the developed world socially by then.

Not likely, as US voters imposed term limits after FDR's "New Deal". Catch up to that.

Frankly, I am amazed that Canada and the rest of the "developed world" pays so much attention to garden variety U.S. primary/caucus elections. The "vast majority" of Americans do not stay up late to watch CBC political pundits or to see what happens in Canadian federal elections for the best advice on socialism.

[BC_chick]

wow, the Hilary supporters are really scraping the bottom of the barrel with that one. Ridiculous.

Hillary was promised a coronation.

[Moonlight Graham]

Huh? Bernie is peddling the same know-nothing BS that Trump peddles. He is just more polite when he does it.

How could you ever compare the two? Besides being "outside the parties", What exactly are you talking about?

I'm saying, many US voters, including democrats, aren't ready for his leftwing social policies, like single-payer healthcare or "free" public post-secondary.

Edited March 11, 2016 by Moonlight Graham

[WestCoastRunner]

Hillary is on her way to the Democratic nomination. No denying this after tonight's results.