Gr00vus
Footballguy
So we pay attention to that poll, but not all the ones showing Sanders has a bigger edge over every Republican candidate than HRC does?
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (12 Viewers)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
- Status
Henry Ford
Footballguy
A year ago. Before Bernie explained to the nation the difference between Democratic Socialism and Socialism. Because you know he's not a socialist, right?
I agree, the polling data supports Sanders being far more electable. Tim and Squisy are heavily influenced by talking heads in the media who are peddling this idea of Hillary having this great electability advantage. Bernie is far more likeable and is more trustworthy, which when it comes down to it, will be far more important to the majority of undecided independent voters than some label.
squistion
Footballguy
Doesn't matter what I know. I am not the average voter who doesn't start paying attention to the election until after Labor Day and by that point, the time period is too short to reeducate the American public that the term Socialist is not the same as Democratic Socialist.
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford
Footballguy
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html
Read the polling numbers. Just read them. Sanders is doing better against every single Republican candidate.
Read the polling numbers. Just read them. Sanders is doing better against every single Republican candidate.
squistion
Footballguy
As mentioned dozens of times in this thread, polls this early before the actual candidates for the general election have been nominated have poor predictive value.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Yeah, I don't get squiston's argument here at all. There are some general election factors that favor Sanders and some that favor Clinton, and you can make a decent argument in favor of either of them as the better candidate in November. But given the polling data and Sanders' impressive performance in the key midwest/rust belt states I don't see any basis for concluding that it's a slam dunk for Clinton or that the socialist thing would be a big problem for Sanders. In a normal year, maybe, but if large numbers of Americans are willing to tolerate Hucksterism I don't see how Democratic Socialism is gonna be a big concern.
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford
Footballguy
The problem with that argument is that it gets weaker the closer we get to the general election. The original argument was that polls "a year out from the general election" aren't great predictors. It's also potentially a terrible argument because regardless of the eventual spread, as I recall - and I may be misremembering - every single one of those polls was correct as to who would win.
But we're eight months out, now. Things are tightening up. And Sanders is still crushing her against everyone.
Gr00vus
Footballguy
O.k. so why are you backing your claims with a poll from June 2015 then? Can we ignore that one too because it was done even further out from the nomination than the ones we're talking about?
Henry Ford
Footballguy
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Ridiculous. I've already been told that Hillary Clinton has a great chance in the general election.
squistion
Footballguy
It is an annual poll that Gallup has done for over 20 years and voter attitudes toward Socialist candidates was not considered an outlier for the most recent poll.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
One of the (great many) weird things about this election cycle is that, even though Bernie is decidedly to the left of Hillary, Hillary seems to do better with lifelong Democrats while Bernie seems to do better with independents and potential cross-over Republicans.
That would seem to bode well for Bernie in the general, although the betting markets don't see it that way. (They currently give Hillary a 71% chance in the general if she's the nominee, and give Bernie a 63% chance in the general if he's the nominee.)
Henry Ford
Footballguy
It probably has something to do with the fact that until declaring for the presidency he was an independent.
Good point.
squistion
Footballguy
Doesn't matter when that is what he will be called by the GOP non-stop, 24/7, and the response is "Well, he is really is a Democratic Socialist and that is not the same thing and you need to have the differences explained to you so that then you understand it." A majority of the American public approved of Trump's proposed ban on Muslims from entering the country - which is clearly unconstitutional, yet when Trump's critics explained that it didn't move the needle any. There is simply not enough time to reeducate people before November that Bernie is not what they believe a Socialist to be.
G
Guest
Guest
PR campaign to mitigate the upcoming public perception when she refuses to prosecute,
Henry Ford
Footballguy
But that's not the response. The Republicans can say "You're a socialist" and his response is "I'm a candidate who believes that everyone has the right to health care and the big banks have had long enough to control this country." "I'm the candidate who believes that once we bring our troops home, we have to take care of them. Support them. Thank them for their unbelievable sacrifice to our country." "I'm the candidate that believes that when our older citizens have spent their lives putting money into Social Security, we don't get to take that away from them to give away more corporate welfare and let them die in the street."
You're not dealing with Clinton, here, you're dealing with an incredibly savvy "natural" politician as Clinton likes to call him. Every single attack that comes at him is an opportunity to express his message. That's how he keeps climbing. And he does keep climbing.
The Republicans have also used up their "socialist" wolf-cry. They just have. Every single time they've shouted at what a socialist Obama is, they've built an inroad for Bernie to win this election. And it's bearing out in the polling numbers. There is no legitimate reason to believe that Bernie Sanders is less electable than Clinton, particularly while Clinton is in the middle of being investigated by the FBI. How do you suggest she respond to that particular inquiry?
"Isn't it true, Mr. Sanders, that you're a socialist?"
vs.
"Isn't it true, Mrs. Clinton, that there are currently 100 FBI agents assigned to investigate your potential criminal acts?"
Who do you think is going to handle those questions better?
Gr00vus
Footballguy
I've got more faith that Bernie can turn that one issue around than HRC can turn around the myriad vulnerabilities she already has. Besides that, do you really think, now that she's coopting so much of Bernie's platform, they won't also try to pin the socialist label on HRC as well? That's standard operating procedure for the RNC in these things.
I've said it before, but if Bernie gets the nomination, and the Republicans want to make this about socialism, Bernie will get to plenty of opportunities redefine the word in a way that's going to remove the stigma around it. It's a loser for the Rs. Bring it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Willie Neslon
Footballguy
squistion
Footballguy
Very nice and given the attention span of most voters they will doze off before he finishes with his explanation.
Either you are giving too much credit to the intelligence of the average voter or I am giving too little. The only way to prove it would be to have Bernie win the nomination and then see how people react to and understand the nuanced explanation that Democratic Socialism is not what they think of as Socialism - and by that time it may be too little too late. Until then this is speculation and an academic exercise more than anything else and we will have to agree to disagree.
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Each sentence is a full response. And each time the Republicans call him a socialist, he gets to repeat some basic tenet of his platform. Given the current situation with respect to delegates, I hope I'm wrong. But I think I'm dead right on this. Hope we don't have Trump as a result.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
I've noticed that a lot of your analysis as to who will make the better general election candidate is based on hypothetical debate discussions. That makes for interesting conversation but isn't really how it works. The debates are hyped by the media but are generally not that consequential. The fact is that Sanders won't have an opportunity to respond to 99% of the instances in which he's referred to as a socialist or a Marxist or a Communist or whatever other nonsense the opposition throws out there. And the difference between Sanders and Clinton (presumably reflected in the gap between the polling data and the betting markets that MT mentioned) is that her numbers already incorporate negative stuff about her that everyone has already heard a hundred times before.
Like I said a few minutes ago I don't think it's a big problem, but pretending he can turn it into a strength instead of a liability is a little unrealistic IMO. The fact that they used it against Obama probably actually works against Sanders. I think their efforts succeeded in portraying the label as a negative (as more recent polling data shows) they just couldn't get it to stick to him. They don't even have to try to get it to stick with Sanders.
Bottom line, I think you're
ing this analysis a bit.
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford
Footballguy
I never used the word debate in that post. It's the conversation in the media, in interviews, in debates, in ads back and forth, in social media postings - it's the same message throughout all of it.I've noticed that a lot of your analysis as to who will make the better general election candidate is based on hypothetical debate discussions. That makes for interesting conversation but isn't really how it works. The debates are hyped by the media but are generally not that consequential. The fact is that Sanders won't have an opportunity to respond to 99% of the instances in which he's referred to as a socialist or a Marxist or a Communist or whatever other nonsense the opposition throws out there. And the difference between Sanders and Clinton (presumably reflected in the gap between the polling data and the betting markets that MT mentioned) is that her numbers are based on stuff about her that everyone has already heard a hundred times before.
Like I said a few minutes ago I don't think it's a big problem, but pretending he can turn it into a strength instead of a liability is a little unrealistic IMO. The fact that they used it against Obama probably actually works against Sanders. I think their efforts succeeded in portraying the label as a negative (as more recent polling data shows) they just couldn't get it to stick to him. They don't even have to try to get it to stick with Sanders.
Bottom line, I think you're
Yeah, Reince Preibus definitely has his finger on the pulse of the electorate. He and his cronies are doing a bang up job against a completely psychotic candidate.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Oh, and here's a good one from before the last election cycle:
July 9, 2010:
55% of likely voters think Obama is a Socialist. From Carville's polling firm.
July 9, 2010:
55% of likely voters think Obama is a Socialist. From Carville's polling firm.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Fair enough. I still think it's a little unrealistic. Attacks on candidate vulnerabilities don't have to be fair to be effective, as we all know. And the socialism label is a vulnerability. A response based on understanding the nuances of political ideologies, even if it's a good one, is probably not gonna turn it into a positive IMO. At best maybe it blunts most of the negative impact.
squistion
Footballguy
Mister CIA
Footballguy
pantagrapher
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Gr00vus
Footballguy
The hypothetical responses HF gave weren't exactly nuanced. They were concise, effective sound bites that would have an impact. It'll be very interesting to see if Bernie's performance at this last debate, particularly the closing statement, has an effect on the upcoming primaries. I don't know how you prove that, but I'd imagine a better than expected showing would have something to do with how people are responding to his message.
Yeah, we're Bernie fans, partially because he's been so effective at delivering the message and controlling the language of the campaign so far. They want to play semantic games with him, I'll bet on him to make a fool of the competition on the public stage and win over more supporters in the bargain.
squistion
Footballguy
Even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut. If they are right about playing the Socialist card, it doesn't matter if they are wrong about almost everything else.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Bernie doesn't have to convince everyone that it's OK to vote for a "Democratic Socialist." He's not looking to win the election unanimously.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Bernie Sanders has run perhaps the best campaign we've ever seen in this election cycle. And he's got momentum right now. And he's not under investigation by the FBI and DOJ.
But yes, let's throw that away for someone who's never won a truly contested election, and whose personal polling numbers - not polling numbers on the word "socialist" or on attitudes toward her policies, her own name has previously been at "50% of people would never vote for her for POTUS." I realize it's been several years, but you guys know that's a thing, right? Fifty percent of the American electorate polled as "I would never vote for Hillary Clinton for President" in 2007. Presumably some of them are still alive.
But yes, let's throw that away for someone who's never won a truly contested election, and whose personal polling numbers - not polling numbers on the word "socialist" or on attitudes toward her policies, her own name has previously been at "50% of people would never vote for her for POTUS." I realize it's been several years, but you guys know that's a thing, right? Fifty percent of the American electorate polled as "I would never vote for Hillary Clinton for President" in 2007. Presumably some of them are still alive.
Parrothead
Footballguy
I would never vote for Hillary under any circumstances- pulling that lever would leave a stink on my finger that would never go away..
and even though I don't agree with a lot of his platform I WOULD vote for Bernie over any R (other than maybe Kasich).. because I actually trust the guy to do what's best for us, not him..
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Nobody wants to throw it away. We're just pointing out that your analysis is a little one-sided. As I said there are arguments for and against each of them as the better general election candidate. It's totally reasonable to think that the socialism label could be a net negative. If it wasn't he wouldn't have taken so much time to address it and we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place. Those polls are real, and there's a reason the GOP went through so much effort to tag Obama with the label. They wouldn't have spent so much time and energy on it if they weren't sure it was a net negative, they would have chosen some other Swift Boat-y type nonsense instead.
Last edited by a moderator:
pantagrapher
Footballguy
I think "socialist" will be one of the nicer things Bernie (or Hillary, for that matter) would be called in a general election.
G
Guest
Guest
Captain Cranks
Footballguy
I always thought it was a mistake for Sanders to define himself as a democratic socialist, not because of what that stands for, but because most people hear "socialist" and automatically think he's Marx reincarnate.
squistion
Footballguy
I would like to see who conducted that poll, sample size, methodology, etc. Beyond that, I remember a lot of Hillary supporters saying after Obama won the nomination that they would not vote for him either, but they came around on election day. And polls showed Trump in single digits before he entered the race. I am certain if the Democratic party establishment believed the 50% would never vote for Hillary figure was accurate, she wouldn't have gotten its support.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
It's a subtle intellectual classification which I'm sure made sense running in Burlington and Vermont a long time ago before he ever thought of running for president. The finer points of Eugene Debs and Swedish political sects are a pretty rarefied conversation.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
We could try to educate all the Hillary haters about how awesome she is, I just don't know if there's enough time.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
What comes after socialist?
Let me guess: "I don't know but oh they'll think of something."
Ok now try this out with Hillary.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
The counter to this is that whatever they come up with for Hillary will almost certainly be something someone's tried before and is already reflected in her numbers. Whatever they come up with for Sanders will be new.SaintsInDome2006 said:
- Status
Similar threads
