• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Subscribe
  • RSS

Growing Acrimony In The Race For The Democratic Nomination

Clinton Sanders Debate

While much of the media attention is focused on the race for the Republican nomination and the civil war that seems likely to break out in the GOP depending on how the nomination fight plays out, there’s suddenly a lot of acrimony on the Democratic side of the aisle. The most recent example of that came last night when Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders said in a speech at a rally in Philadelphia that Clinton is not qualified to be President:

In the city of Brotherly Love, the home of Rocky Balboa, the place where disgruntled Eagles fans once booed Santa Claus, the increasingly personal and bitter fight for the Democratic nomination took a sharp pugilistic turn Wednesday night. The issue: whether either candidate is even fit for the White House.

Hillary Clinton is not qualified to be president, Bernie Sanders told a crowd of supporters packed into Temple University’s arena, delivering his fiercest jab yet to the struggling Democratic front-runner.

“Now the other day, I think, Secretary Clinton appeared to be getting a little bit nervous,” he began. “We have won, we have won seven out of eight of the recent primaries and caucuses. And she has been saying lately that she thinks that I am, quote unquote, not qualified to be president.

“Well let me, let me just say in response to Secretary Clinton: I don’t believe that she is qualified if she is, if she is, through her super PAC, taking tens of millions of dollars in special interest funds,” he said. “I don’t think you are qualified if you get $15 million from Wall Street through your super PAC.”

Sanders then pivoted to her record on foreign policy, saying, “I don’t think you are qualified if you have voted for the disastrous war in Iraq. I don’t think you are qualified if you’ve supported virtually every disastrous trade agreement, which has cost us millions of decent paying jobs. I don’t think you are qualified if you supported the Panama free trade agreement, something I very strongly opposed and which, as all of you know, has allowed corporations and wealthy people all over the world to avoid paying their taxes to their countries.”

Clinton’s camp fired back almost immediately — with great umbrage taken — as the Sanders operation shot out new fundraising appeals keying off the senator’s comments.

Her campaign spokesman, Brian Fallon, first denied that she had said the Vermont senator wasn’t qualified to be president.

“Hillary Clinton did not say Bernie Sanders was ‘not qualified.’ But he has now — absurdly — said it about her. This is a new low,” he tweeted

Ostensibly, Sanders’ comments came in response to Clinton’s appearance on Morning Joe earlier in this day during which she pointed to a recent Sanders interview with the Editorial Board of the New York Daily News to suggest that Sanders wasn’t fully aware of how to implement many of the ideas that were the centerpiece of his own campaign. To be fair to Clinton, though, she did not directly say that Sanders was unqualified to be President although she did question just how honest he was being with himself and his supporters when he talks about the methods and legal issues behind many of the proposals he’s been talking about for the past year that he’s been campaigning for President. Obviously, that rubbed Sanders the wrong way, but it also seems as though Sanders has become more combative the more apparent it has become that he clearly isn’t going to be the Democratic nominee. On some level, I suppose it has to be frustrating to a politician when they are winning primaries and still seemingly falling behind in the delegate count, or at least not keeping up a pace that would bring them anywhere near victory. At the same time, though, one has to believe that Sanders is at least politically aware enough to realize that his campaign was a long shot to begin with and that it’s unlikely that he’s going to win this race for the Democratic nomination. Given that, burning bridges in the manner that Sanders is right now doesn’t really seem to make any sense.

 

Chris Cillizza offers one theory:

Sanders still trails Clinton by more than 200 pledged delegates. The math is close to determinative — and not in his favor. Barring a major cataclysm in the race, Clinton will be the nominee.

That means, if you are Sanders, you need a major cataclysm. (That’s called “analysis,” folks!) And the only potential cataclysm on the calendar anytime soon is the New York primary on April 19. (Worth noting: This need for a major disruption in the race has always been at the heart of Sanders’s chances. Remember how much we focused on what it would mean if Sanders won Iowa and New Hampshire within eight days of each other? That was entirely based on the race disruption principle.)

Sanders and his team understand that if he beats Clinton in New York — a state she represented for eight years in the Senate and now calls home — it would force a reexamination of the race from the party establishment, the media and the donor class. Although it wouldn’t alter the delegate math (it’s hard to see anything doing that), it would raise fundamental questions about whether Clinton can excite enough Democrats to win the White House in the fall. If Sanders won New York, the Clinton fretting industry, which has been dormant of late even amid her series of losses, would roar back with worries about what her inability to rally the party means.

New York then looks like Sanders’s best, last chance to fundamentally shift the Clinton campaign car out of cruise control. And when you are down to your last chance, you do what needs to be done to win. For Sanders, that means going after Clinton’s vulnerabilities in a more direct and confrontational way than he has done in the race to date.

I suppose this makes some sense, but, in the end, the odds that Sanders is going to beat Clinton in New York seem exceedingly low, but I suppose if you’ve got nothing to lose you go for broke. Incidentally, as Cillizza goes on to note, the one issue we have yet to see Sanders hit on in his attacks on Clinton is her private email server. Indeed, he hasn’t said much about that issue ever since the first Democratic debate when he said he didn’t want to talk about that issue. As Cillizza notes, if he starts bringing that issue up we’ll know he really is going for broke in New York.

All of this comes at the same time that a new poll shows that as much as one-quarter of Sanders backers say they would not support Clinton in the fall:

One out of every four Bernie Sanders supporters said they will not support Hillary Clinton in the general election if she is the Democratic Party’s standard bearer, according to the results of a McClatchy-Marist poll out Wednesday.

While 25 percent of Sanders backers said they would not support Clinton in November, 69 percent said they would vote for the former secretary of state.

Among Clinton supporters, just 14 percent said they would steer clear of voting for Sanders should he become the party’s nominee, with 79 percent saying they would get behind the Vermont senator.

On some level, this reminds one of the acrimony that existed at the end of the 2008 campaign between Clinton and Obama supporters, most of which ended up disappearing after the party convention. At the same time, though, when it’s viewed in conjunction with similar polling that shows large numbers of Republicans who say they would never support Donald Trump even if he did win the nomination, it could be an indication that we’re in for an interesting General Election campaign to say the least.

Related Posts:

  • None Found

About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May, 2010 and also writes at Below The Beltway. Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. al-Ameda says:

    Time and again Hillary shows us, she is not good on the campaign trail.

    While 25 percent of Sanders backers said they would not support Clinton in November, 69 percent said they would vote for the former secretary of state.

    Among Clinton supporters, just 14 percent said they would steer clear of voting for Sanders should he become the party’s nominee, with 79 percent saying they would get behind the Vermont senator.

    Lasting damage? I doubt it. It’s inevitable that there will be hard feelings, that fences will have to be mended

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. Facebones says:

    On some level, this reminds one of the acrimony that existed at the end of the 2008 campaign between Clinton and Obama supporters, most of which ended up disappearing after the party convention.

    Yep. Remember the PUMAs? (Party Unity My Ass?) Those dead enders amounted to nothing. Someone pointed out that their website hillaryis44.org is still active.

    I don’t doubt there are some starry-eyed idealists who will only vote for the purity pony. (Come on down Susan Sarandon!) Everyone else will realize that Hillary is a center left Democrat who will be worlds better than either Trump or Cruz. To quote a tweet that’s going around, “I support Bernie, but I’ll vote for Hillary because I’m a single issue voter, and that issue is not opening the seventh seal and ushering in the apocalypse.”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. An Interested Party says:

    Anyone who is tempted to stay home, vote third-party, or vote for the GOP candidate if his/her favored candidate doesn’t win the Democratic nomination really needs to stop and think about how he/she would feel about a Scalia replacement and a Ginsburg replacement both being a Scalia-type…hopefully that will be enough to get past anyone’s hurt feelings or worriment of being pure enough…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. Kylopod says:

    The first vote I ever cast in a presidential primary was for Bill Bradley in 2000. The choice was clear to me at the time: I agreed more with Bradley’s liberal views than with Gore’s relatively centrist ones, while still personally liking and admiring Gore and believing he would have made a good president.

    My vote may have been a mistake.

    One of the things Bradley did, which even at the time I considered disgusting, was accuse Al Gore of lying about his past views on abortion. The charge was groundless: Gore had definitely moved leftward on the abortion issue since his time in Congress, but there was no evidence to support Bradley’s claim that Gore was lying when he claimed that he had always supported Roe v. Wade. (As a Congressman, Gore had tended to oppose federal funding of abortion. If you believe that position constitutes opposition to Roe, then you disagree with the 1977 Supreme Court decision Beal v. Doe.)

    Bradley’s attack helped cement a narrative that was taking hold in the media that Gore was dishonest. Most of the examples to support this narrative, from “invented the Internet” on downward, were just as baseless as the abortion flap. And they were used to support a consistently negative coverage of Gore that almost certainly contributed to his defeat at the hands of 500 individual votes in Florida.

    So yes, Bradley alone, with his stupid and self-serving attack, may have cost Gore the election, and he therefore can and should be held partly responsible for the Bush years.

    I have, up to now, generally considered myself a Sanders supporter. I knew he was far from perfect, I knew he was light on details, I knew he was making unrealistic promises, I knew that Hillary was clearly better qualified at least on foreign policy. But Hillary is still too cautious, too centrist, too hawkish for my liking, and I wanted her to feel some pressure from her left, for her not to take the progressives for granted. In some ways, it has worked: I don’t think she would be backing a public option, for example, if Sanders hadn’t been there talking about single-payer. Even a public option isn’t likely to happen when and if she wins the presidency. I doubt she’d even fight strongly for it. But I’m glad these ideas are at least being put on the table. I believe it will have an effect, even if it’s years down the road.

    In previous decades, the right has been tremendously successful moving the Overton Window in their direction. I just want the left to do the same, and I think Sanders, as a self-described socialist (which he isn’t, but never mind) has great potential to accomplish that feat. That’s why I had planned on voting for him.

    But I was also, from the start, intent on not repeating my mistake from 2000. I was watching Sanders closely to see that he didn’t try to get into a war with Clinton that would weaken her in the general election. Originally, all the signs indicated he understood that. He stuck to talking about issues, he repeatedly resisted the temptation to bring up the emails or any of the other Breitbart-Fox nonsense about her. Even when he attacked her as too beholden to Wall Street, at least it had something to do with issues and (while exaggerated) it wasn’t totally unfair.

    Now, however, it’s clear that, like Nader, his ego has taken over and he’s completed his transformation from progressive activist to left-wing purity troll. And that’s sad.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. PJ says:

    @An Interested Party:

    Anyone who is tempted to stay home, vote third-party, or vote for the GOP candidate if his/her favored candidate doesn’t win the Democratic nomination really needs to stop and think about how he/she would feel about a Scalia replacement and a Ginsburg replacement both being a Scalia-type…hopefully that will be enough to get past anyone’s hurt feelings or worriment of being pure enough…

    Looking at the Wisconsin exit poll for the Supreme Court election, it seems that a lot of Sanders supporters either don’t think it’s important (i.e. didn’t vote in that election) or would be happy with that outcome (i.e. voted for Bradley instead of Kloppenburg).

    Are a huge share of Sanders supporters not liberals? Uninformed? Or both?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. jukeboxgrad says:

    Everyone else will realize that Hillary is a center left Democrat who will be worlds better than either Trump or Cruz.

    This analysis wrongly assumes that people who support Sanders must be liberals. This is not the case. There are plenty of people supporting Sanders because he is anti-establishment and populist.

    Plenty of people have correctly observed that Trump and Sanders have a similar message. That’s why you see statements like this:

    I talk to many people whose first choice is Trump and second choice is Sanders

    And this:

    The strangest thing: I’ve met a number of Trump rally attendees who say their top two are Trump and Sanders. Seriously. Or in reverse.

    And this:

    “Bernie is my No. 1 choice, and Trump is No. 2. They’re not that different.”

    And this:

    “I’m a Trump guy, but I do like Bernie … There are a lot of parallels between these two guys. There’s a populist appeal that comes with both of them.”

    And that’s why virtually all recent polling for general election matchups shows Sanders doing better against Trump than Clinton does. It’s a bad misunderstanding to think that Sanders is mostly drawing support from “starry-eyed idealists.” He’s drawing support from working-class whites who are getting screwed, and who hear a message they like from only two candidates: Trump and Sanders. It is a mistake to assume that in the end these people will decide that “Hillary is a center left Democrat who will be worlds better than either Trump or Cruz.” I believe that and you believe that but there are plenty of people who don’t.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  7. jukeboxgrad says:

    Are a huge share of Sanders supporters not liberals?

    It’s pretty magical that you posted this question at precisely the moment I was posting a comment answering it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  8. PJ says:

    @wurlitzer:
    And I would prefer if those who aren’t Democrats don’t get to pick the nominee. I would also like to have a Democratic nominee who actually care about downballot Democrats. At least I’m getting the latter.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  9. PJ says:

    @wurlitzer:
    and thanks for providing support for the hypothesis that Sanders voters are uninformed.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  10. Pch101 says:

    @PJ:

    I find it amusing that some folks can’t understand why committed Democrats would not want someone who isn’t a Democrat to lead the Democratic party. It’s quite a combination of hubris and ignorance that would explain that mindset.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  11. jukeboxgrad says:

    I would prefer if those who aren’t Democrats don’t get to pick the nominee.

    The state party is free to decide if they want the primary to be closed or open, and we are seeing the consequences of that choice.

    A problem with your philosophy is that you don’t win in November without the support of “those who aren’t Democrats.” You are more likely to get their support in November if they participate in choosing the candidate.

    and thanks for providing support for the hypothesis that Sanders voters are uninformed

    You also don’t win in November by insulting “those who aren’t Democrats.” And you should explain where you found that “support” in anything I said.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  12. jukeboxgrad says:

    I find it amusing that some folks can’t understand why committed Democrats would not want someone who isn’t a Democrat to lead the Democratic party

    I find it amusing that some folks can’t understand that Clinton isn’t much of a Democrat. If you define ‘Democrat’ in terms of policies and beliefs, Sanders is more of a Democrat than she is. Sanders reminds people of a time when “Democrat” meant something than “Republican Lite.”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  13. Pch101 says:

    You may as well call her a DINO (Democrat In Name Only) while you’re at it. The purity populists on both sides of the aisle can’t help themselves in their relentless pursuit of stupid.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  14. PJ says:

    @wurlitzer:
    You’re right, we are seeing the consequences of having open primaries and caucuses.
    There will always be those want purity and who can’t see the big picture. Sure there’s number who won’t vote in the general election because they weren’t allowed to in the primary, I doubt that number differ a lot from the purity voters, etc though. Or are you saying that the share of votes for Clinton will be severely depressed in states like NY, PA, OR, NM, and FL in the general election due to them all having closed primaries?

    Are you being insulted? How sad.

    That would be Sanders voters thinking that there’s no real difference between Sanders and Trump, or Sanders voters ranking Trump as their second choice.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  15. PJ says:

    @wurlitzer:
    Do you still believe that a third of Drudge Report readers would pick Sanders as their first choice? (Based on an Druge Report online “poll” that was easily tampered with.)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  16. gVOR08 says:

    @Facebones:

    …I’m a single issue voter, and that issue is not opening the seventh seal and ushering in the apocalypse.

    I expect you know that Ted Cruz may not see that as metaphorical, and may well be on the other side.

    Why would we even consider letting Ted Cruz have nuclear launch codes?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  17. jukeboxgrad says:

    That would be Sanders voters thinking that there’s no real difference between Sanders and Trump, or Sanders voters ranking Trump as their second choice.

    Condemning those people is less helpful than figuring out why they believe what they believe. Hopefully Clinton understands this even if you don’t.

    Do you still believe that a third of Drudge Report readers would pick Sanders as their first choice?

    Link:

    Among GOP primary voters, there is a substantial proportion with relatively liberal positions; 51 percent of Republican primary voters strongly or somewhat favor increasing taxes on individuals who make more than $200,000 a year, and 38 percent have a favorable or very favorable opinion of labor unions, for instance. It appears, then, that Trump supporters form a powerful populist coalition uniting concerns about immigrants and other groups with support for economically progressive policies.

    Emphasis added. Also, “47 percent … favor a higher minimum wage [and] … 32 percent … favor ‘government paying necessary medical costs for every American citizen.’ ”

    If you knew this, the Drudge result would not shock you so much.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  18. jukeboxgrad says:

    You may as well call her a DINO

    That would be a good way to put it. If you want to explain otherwise, feel free.

    The purity populists on both sides of the aisle

    That phrase you invented is a nice example of nonsense. The populists supporting Trump and Sanders are disproportionately independents, which tends to indicate that ideological “purity” is not what they care about.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  19. PJ says:

    @wurlitzer:
    Understanding why is quite easy, they are uninformed. Which explains why so many Sanders voters didn’t vote or why some of them voted for the conservative Republican in the Wisconsin Supreme Court election.

    And thanks for confirming that you still believe that a third of Drudge Report readers would pick a socialist as their pick.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  20. gVOR08 says:

    @jukeboxgrad: The tragedy here, is that IMHO the Trump supporters are indeed much like the Sanders supporters and are a natural Dem constituency. They’re the Reagan Democrats. Many of their grievances are entirely valid. They’re getting screwed by the .01% just like OWS. They just seem prone to misdirecting their anger. I think it falls under “resentiment”. It’s apparently easy to deflect their anger from the powerful and direct it against the weak, people who should be their allies.

    Just about the worst thing the Dems have done; worst ethically, economically, and politically; is to allow unions to wither. And this is driven by Dem funders. A situation where it’s valid to say they’re too close to Wall Street, too DLC. Card Check should have been a major priority. If more people belonged to unions, Scott Walker would find it hard to direct their enmity against teachers, who would be their union brothers and sisters.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  21. jukeboxgrad says:

    Understanding why is quite easy, they are uninformed.

    A key difference between my explanation and your explanation is that I supported mine with evidence.

    thanks for confirming

    Thanks for confirming that you’re still going to claim that the poll suffered from tampering even though this is another claim that you do not attempt to support with evidence.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  22. gVOR08 says:

    I’m told I’m spam filtered. Please rescue my comment. Thank you.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  23. Kylopod says:

    jbg:

    The populists supporting Trump and Sanders are disproportionately independents, which tends to indicate that ideological “purity” is not what they care about.

    That actually doesn’t follow, and it contradicts research about independent voters:

    A recent paper…found that “the majority of Independent voters have political opinions that align with one of the two major parties at least as well as party members.” In fact, they write, “independents who “leaned” toward one party or the other actually had stronger alignment than those who identified as “not very strong” in the same party. Additionally, their results were far more similar with those who identified themselves as being “strong” in their party.

    In other words, those who call themselves “independent” may actually be closer to the views of the core GOP or core Democratic policy positions than even those who identify themselves as a party member.

    http://cookpolitical.com/story/6608

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  24. jukeboxgrad says:

    I’m told I’m spam filtered.

    If you are replying to me, do it again, except this time don’t use the Reply feature.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  25. jukeboxgrad says:

    That actually doesn’t follow

    Consider these two things:

    A) independents
    B) independents who “leaned” toward one party or the other

    They are not the same. I made a statement about A. You cited a study making a statement about B.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  26. Pch101 says:

    Although independents claim no outright allegiance to either major party, it is well-known that they are not necessarily neutral when it comes to politics. When pressed, most independents will say they lean to one of the two major parties.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/180440/new-record-political-independents.aspx

    Most political “independents” really aren’t.

    I do have to correct Gallup about one point: This stuff isn’t well-known to one particular poster who believes himself to be knowledgeable of such things. And so it goes.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  27. gVOR08 says:

    Juke at 12:44.

    Darn, just wasted ten minutes composing and typing and forgot I was replying to you. Oh well, this time around it’s mostly just typing.

    IMHO this is a tragedy. Trump’s blue collar supporters are a natural Dem constituency. They used to be the Reagan Democrats. Many of their grievances are legitimate. They’re being screwed by the .01% as much as anyone in OWS. But they seem to misdirect their anger. I guess it falls under “resentiment”. Apparently it’s easy to deflect their anger from the powerful and redirect it against other weak people who should be their allies.

    One of the biggest thing the Dems have done wrong; wrong morally, economically, and politically; is to allow unions to decline. Why wasn’t Card Check a major priority? If more people belonged to unions, it would be harder for a Scott Walker to direct their anger against teachers if the teachers were union brothers and sisters. They’ve done this because of their funders. In this area they really are too connected to big business and the .01%. They really are Republican light on this issue.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  28. jukeboxgrad says:

    Most political “independents” really aren’t.

    And I’m talking about the ones who are. According to the study that was cited, they are 25% of the total, which means a large enough group to matter. And my guess is that the voters who rank Trump and Sanders as their top choices are likely to be in that group.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  29. jukeboxgrad says:

    They really are Republican light on this issue.

    And on too many other issues, as well, which is why Reagan Democrats are rejecting Clinton and trying to choose between Sanders and Trump.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  30. Ben Wolf says:

    @jukeboxgrad: Sanders is now winning half of self-identified Democrats. In Wisconsin he won more that Clinton.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  31. jukeboxgrad says:

    And in Wisconsin he also won more women than Clinton.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  32. Kylopod says:

    Consider these two things:

    A) independents
    B) independents who “leaned” toward one party or the other

    They are not the same. I made a statement about A. You cited a study making a statement about B.

    But you used Sanders’ support from independents as evidence that his supporters are not purity-types. I was simply pointing out that you don’t know that. The independents who voted for Bernie might be “true independents” (i.e. not leaning toward either party) or they might be Democratic-leaners. I suspect they are mostly the latter, because (a) Sanders himself has been running as the candidate of liberal purity (b) Exit polls show he gets the most support from voters who identify as very or somewhat liberal, while Clinton gets the most support from self-described moderates.

    (With Trump, by the way, the opposite is true: he gets more support from self-described moderates, while Cruz tends to do better among self-described conservatives. Trump actually beat Cruz among self-described moderates by double digits in Wisconsin.)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  33. Ben Wolf says:

    @Kylopod: “Purity” in the American political context has no meaning, no definition. Its purpose is to stop thought which will be difficult given Sanders won a majority of moderates on Tuesday. By your argument they don’t count as pure.

    You want Clinton to win; that’s understandable. She won’t if her own people choose to embrace false narratives for the comfort of self-deception.

    I strongly recommend you adopt the opposite of whatever Doug is thinking about the primary as he’s been consistently wrong for a year now.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  34. SKI says:

    As Facebones noted, this isn’t different from the PUMAs in 2008.

    In SEPTEMBER 2008!!!!, polling found that 28% of Clinton voters were saying they would vote for McCain. This is after Palin was the VP selection (but shortly before Tina Fey skewered her on SNL).

    The poll shows that while Obama has gained ground among Clinton’s supporters – 69 percent view him favourably now, up 9 percentage points from June – this has yet to translate into more of their support.

    In part, this is because their positive views of Republican presidential nominee John McCain have also improved during this period.

    Those supporting McCain have also edged up from 21 percent to 28 percent, with the number of undecided staying constant, the survey showed.

    It was illusory then and it is illusory now.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  35. jukeboxgrad says:

    But you used Sanders’ support from independents as evidence that his supporters are not purity-types. I was simply pointing out that you don’t know that

    I’m not making a claim about all his supporters, or his supporters in general. I’m making a claim about a certain chunk of his supporters: the working-class white men whose top choices are Trump and Sanders. I suspect that this group is disproportionately independents, and true independent (that is, non-leaning) independents.

    This group is important. If Clinton has a problem, it will be in the Rust Belt, and it will be because of this group. In my opinion, this group is the reason Sanders polls better against Trump than Clinton does.

    Exit polls show he gets the most support from voters who identify as very or somewhat liberal

    This effect varies, and it’s not necessarily extreme. For example, in NH Sanders got 67% of the ‘very liberal’ group but also 59% of the moderate group. In Wisconsin, the numbers are similar: 62% and 51%.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  36. Facebones says:

    Off topic, how is it that if I reply or quote jukeboxgrad, I get spam filtered, but jukeboxgrad can apparently post anything?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  37. jukeboxgrad says:

    how is it that if I reply or quote jukeboxgrad, I get spam filtered

    Because there is a bug here. It’s been this way for years. The problem has a simple solution: don’t use the Reply feature.

    but jukeboxgrad can apparently post anything?

    Well, not exactly anything. I’m sure I would get into lots of trouble if I posted the nuclear codes.

    Anyway, I bet I would run into the bug if I ever tried to Reply to myself. You might notice that people do that sometimes. So in that sense the bug applies to me in the same way it applies to you. No one, not even me, can use the Reply feature to reply to me. (Actually, that’s not quite true. It seems that some people are able to Reply to me. I think it has something to do with what browser you’re using.)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  38. Davebo says:

    Growing acrimony?

    For primary season this has been more like a tea party (no, not that Tea Party).

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  39. jukeboxgrad says:

    Yes, this is nothing compared to the other side. And someone has made a helpful comparison to 2008:

    … some perspective on the “qualified” fight is in order. Remember the 2008 Democratic primary? Remember “You’re likable enough, Hillary”? Remember the 3 a.m. phone call? Remember Clinton defending her decision to stay in the race into June by citing Robert Kennedy’s assassination? And those are just the public comments. The acrimony inside the the Clinton camp was much worse. One reason this brouhaha is getting so much attention is that the Democratic campaign has been a much friendlier affair in 2016.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  40. Pch101 says:

    @Ben Wolf:

    Er, your guy is behind the frontrunner by 15 points. Of the primary votes cast for either Clinton or Sanders, Sanders has won 42.6% of them.

    We have a name for this sort of spread: Landslide. And no, that isn’t a landslide in favor of the guy who is in second place.

    I realize that 40 is the new 30, but being in second place isn’t the new first place. It’s one thing to prefer Sanders, it’s another thing to be completely delusional about it or to claim some sort of mandate that he clearly does not have.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  41. PJ says:

    Clinton refuses to say that Sanders is unqualifed to be President.
    Sanders says that Clinton is unqualified to be President.
    Clinton responds by saying “I don’t know why he’s saying that but I will take Bernie Sanders over Ted Cruz or Donald Trump any time.”

    One is being presidential, the other, not so much.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  42. Moosebreath says:

    @PJ:

    Also, Sanders is saying the Media misled him into saying Clinton is not qualified, but once he realized that, he is still not taking it back.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  43. jukeboxgrad says:

    Sanders is saying the Media misled him into saying Clinton is not qualified

    No, that’s not what he said. He pointed out, correctly, that WP ran this headline:

    Clinton questions whether Sanders is qualified to be president

    And they ran that headline because it’s a fair summary of various things she said. She just refuses to say it plainly, and that’s in character for her:

    It’s classic Clinton: She’s cautious, careful, and stays on message. And the “qualified” broadside is classic Sanders too. He’s angry, and he’s not afraid to show that. This directness—and its contrast with the impression that Clinton is calculating—is one of the forces that has powered Sanders’s campaign.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  44. charon says:

    @SKI:

    As Facebones noted, this isn’t different from the PUMAs in 2008.

    I think this assertion is bogus. Clinton patched things up with Obama and was very supportive of the Obama campaign post-convention/nomination.

    I doubt Sanders has the temperament to do that, and he would need to eat crow and walk back a lot of HRC bashing. Plus, Sanders’ minimal allegiance to the Democratic party is relevant as well.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  45. charon says:

    @jukeboxgrad:

    No, that’s not what he said. He pointed out, correctly, that WP ran this headline:

    Clinton questions whether Sanders is qualified to be president

    And they ran that headline because it’s a fair summary of various things she said

    No, that is just your opinion/spin

    BTW, I can reply, am using Firefox..

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  46. jukeboxgrad says:

    I can reply, am using Firefox.

    Thank you for pointing that out, that might be the reason why some people report no problem. In the future I will mention this when the subject comes up.

    that is just your opinion

    She was asked if she thinks he is qualified, and she responded by saying things like this:

    I think the interview raised a lot of really serious questions. … That does raise a lot of questions.

    Imagine if someone asks me if I think you’re a child abuser, and I respond as follows: ‘I have seen things that raise a lot of really serious questions.’ You wouldn’t see that as an evasive way of accusing you of child abuse? Of course you would.

    The correct answer would have been ‘yes, he is qualified, but I am more qualified.’ Or ‘much more qualified.’ Instead, she gave an answer that is quite different.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  47. charon says:

    @jukeboxgrad:

    Interpretations differ. Pointing out readily visible issues/weaknesses does not rise to the level of calling him unqualified, unless you choose to view it thusly.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  48. jukeboxgrad says:

    Pointing out readily visible issues/weaknesses does not rise to the level of calling him unqualified

    Context matters, and you are ignoring the context. If she had said, out of the blue, that “the interview raised questions,” without specifying the nature of those “questions,” then you would be correct. She could be thinking of all sorts of different “questions” that indeed do not “rise to the level of calling him unqualified.” Trouble is, she didn’t say it out of the blue. She said it in response to that exact question.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  49. charon says:

    @jukeboxgrad:

    I should have mentioned that when I use Firefox, it is with NoScript and Adblock addons active, which could be relevant to the problems some have with the reply function.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  50. PJ says:

    Wurlitzer, one can be used in a general election attack ad by the GOP, the other can’t.

    But then Sanders isn’t really worried about the general election, is he? Unless he’s completely delusional.

    Maybe he should stop listening to his senior campaign staff that only seem interested in filling their coffers.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  51. jukeboxgrad says:

    when I use Firefox, it is with NoScript and Adblock addons active

    Thank you for pointing this out. I agree this might be relevant. In the future when this subject comes up, I will post a link to your comment.

    One more thing about this:

    Pointing out readily visible issues/weaknesses does not rise to the level of calling him unqualified

    If her intention was just to raise certain issues that did “not rise to the level of calling him unqualified,” she would have simply said something like this: ‘I do think he’s qualified, but nevertheless I think the interview raised a lot of really serious questions.’ She was free to say that, but she didn’t, which creates the impression that what she intended to communicate is not what you are now claiming she intended to communicate. WP said “Clinton questions whether Sanders is qualified to be president” because they paid careful attention to what she said and did not say, just like I am.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  52. Tyrell says:

    Sanders is cranking it up, turning up the heat, going on the offensive, fishing instead of wishing, and throwing combinations.
    “Grant Takes Command” (Catton)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  53. jukeboxgrad says:

    one can be used in a general election attack ad by the GOP, the other can’t

    What she said can certainly be used in a general election attack ad by the GOP. All that’s needed is to include the question she was asked. Did you watch the interview? And the attack ad would also use the WP headline (“Clinton questions whether Sanders is qualified to be president”), which was a highly natural and predictable consequence of how she handled the question.

    Wurlitzer

    OK if I call you Penis Jerk instead of PJ? Just curious.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  54. jukeboxgrad says:

    when I use Firefox, it is with NoScript and Adblock addons active

    Thank you for pointing this out. I agree this might be relevant. In the future when this subject comes up, I will post a link to your comment.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  55. jukeboxgrad says:

    when I use Firefox…

    Thank you for pointing this out. I agree this might be relevant. In the future when this subject comes up, I will post a link to your comment.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  56. jukeboxgrad says:

    One more thing about this:

    Pointing out readily visible issues/weaknesses does not rise to the level of calling him unqualified

    If her intention was just to raise certain issues that did “not rise to the level of calling him unqualified,” she would have simply said something like this: ‘I do think he’s qualified, but nevertheless I think the interview raised a lot of really serious questions.’ She was free to say that, but she didn’t, which creates the impression that what she intended to communicate is not what you are now claiming she intended to communicate. WP said “Clinton questions whether Sanders is qualified to be president” because they paid careful attention to what she said and did not say, just like I am.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  57. EddieInCA says:

    @juxeboxgrad

    Wow. You’re spinning something fierce. I don’t think I’m the only lukewarm Bernie Sanders supporter who today switched to Hillary Clinton decisively. So much so that I opened the wallet and started a weekly donation in addition to signing up to be a volunteer. I’m awaiting my Maestro email which shill schedule my first volunteer call.

    He crossed a line. She has not crossed that line. She has not said anything about Bernie that can be used against him by the GOP. He, yesterday, crossed the line by saying what he said. I am not only now supporting Clinton, but actively so – with money, and time.

    Also, math.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  58. jukeboxgrad says:

    She has not said anything about Bernie that can be used against him by the GOP.

    I have already pointed out that this assertion is incorrect.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  59. David M says:

    To jukeboxgrad:

    You’re acting like she should have endorsed Sanders. It’s ridiculous. She did the right thing, he crossed a line. Deal with the facts as they are, not as you wish they were.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  60. PJ says:

    Wurlitzer, well, everyone can respond without issue using PJ, so, there’s really no need. But it would be fitting for a Sanders supporter to refer to others using that kind of language. The candidate who once promised to run a clean campaign focused on issues without any personal attacks. How things changed when Sanders felt he was so close to victory, yet so far away. Such a sad ending to such an ethical campaign…

    And you really can’t see the difference in using a sound byte and a WaPo headline? Really?
    There is a big difference between the GOP running ads calling Obama a socialist and an alternative universe (thankfully not in this one) where they are running ads with sound bytes of Sanders calling himself a socialist.
    One works a lot better than the other.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  61. jukeboxgrad says:

    Wurlitzer, well, everyone can respond without issue using PJ

    You apparently don’t understand that there is no problem typing the word “jukeboxgrad” in a comment. There is only a problem if the Reply feature is used.

    And you really can’t see the difference in using a sound byte and a WaPo headline?

    I have already explained that the Clinton sound bite is perfectly usable as long as the interviewer’s question is also used. It appears that you have still not watched the interview.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  62. Pch101 says:

    Until Clinton can win at least 126% of a state’s delegates, it is obvious that she should concede to Bernie Sanders, who is leading the race because he is in second place. Or something like that.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  63. Tillman says:

    @jukebox:

    Imagine if someone asks me if I think you’re a child abuser, and I respond as follows: ‘I have seen things that raise a lot of really serious questions.’ You wouldn’t see that as an evasive way of accusing you of child abuse?

    Well if I had my heart set on voting for you for president, I wouldn’t. It’s the kind of implication-mongering that passes for acceptable communication in our politics. The complaints I’m reading add up to saying, “How dare Sanders be direct.”

    What I have a hard time understanding is the pearl-clutching over how this can be used by the GOP in attack ads. Everyone here has spent the last half-year saying the GOP could utterly destroy a socialist, but somehow they would also use that socialist’s word for it in an attack ad on Clinton’s liberal bona fides? They’d cite a dude saying she’s unqualified over a vote for war and taking money from big business?! Someone please sketch out the GOP strategy on how to use these words effectively. It’s like if Communists had disagreed with LBJ on qualifications.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  64. Pch101 says:

    @Tillman:

    Sanders refers to himself as a socialist. If pushed, he will reiterate that he is a socialist (even though he really isn’t, because that’s just how he rolls.) He would be his own worst enemy in a general election, and his fortunes would fall as older Americans (i.e. the people who bother to vote) become aware of his alleged pinko Commie ways.

    The GOP has been trying to destroy Hillary Clinton for over 20 years. They fail time and again. They aren’t going to improve their game against her between now and November. She’s a known quantity in this game, unlike Sanders who has a long ways to fall.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  65. Tillman says:

    @David M: Dude, he crossed the same line she crossed in 2008. Though if your line only consists of using the specific word “unqualified,” then no she didn’t, though I have to imagine elevating the other party’s nominee above your primary opponent adds to the insult.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  66. EddieInCA says:

    @Tillman:

    How’d that work out for her?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  67. Tillman says:

    @Pch101: And that rehash of basic canards against Sanders has to do with the GOP using Sanders’s words against Clinton…how? You didn’t answer my question. How is the GOP going to use Sanders claiming Clinton is unqualified in an attack ad?

    If they use it without any context, it will be the same as any deep-throated voiceover ad that we’ve seen a thousand times, and adding context makes the idea of using Sanders’s words to attack Clinton’s liberal bona fides absurd. What advantage would Barry Goldwater have gotten from Communists saying LBJ was unqualified to be president?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  68. MarkedMan says:

    FWIW I came home today and my wife, who has had a soft spot for Bernie and just couldn’t get excited about Hillary, told me she had donated to Clinton for the first time over Sanders comments.

    Seperately, I find the Sander’s campaign comments about what Clinton was “implying” to be self serving. For months he’s been all but accusing her of being a paid Wall Street shill but stopping a hair’s thickness from saying it outright. She’s handled it in a mature and self controlled manner. The whining coming from Bernie’s campaign is a real turnoff. And I actually like Bernie…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  69. Pch101 says:

    @Tillman:

    You’re strawmaning. Of course there will be attack ads, which belong with elections in the way that peanut butter belongs with jelly.

    The point is that Sander’s own brand will be used against him, with a soundtrack that he will sing himself. He’s going to run around telling everyone that he’s a socialist because that’s what he does — he is going to spread the GOP’s message for them, and he will become the poster boy for a Democratic party gone mad and Commie. Not a big deal when he was running for the senate in a retail politics state populated by white liberals, but far from ideal for a national campaign.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  70. EddieInCA says:

    @MarkedMan:

    That’s exactly what my wife and I did.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  71. PJ says:

    @Tillman:

    What I have a hard time understanding is the pearl-clutching over how this can be used by the GOP in attack ads. Everyone here has spent the last half-year saying the GOP could utterly destroy a socialist, but somehow they would also use that socialist’s word for it in an attack ad on Clinton’s liberal bona fides? They’d cite a dude saying she’s unqualified over a vote for war and taking money from big business?! Someone please sketch out the GOP strategy on how to use these words effectively. It’s like if Communists had disagreed with LBJ on qualifications.

    The ads will not be done to get voters to vote for the Republican, they will be done to make those who supported Sanders in the primaries less likely to vote in the general election.

    Remember GOP friendly SuperPACS running ads against Clinton by supporting Sanders in Iowa?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  72. Kylopod says:

    jbg:

    I’m not making a claim about all his supporters, or his supporters in general. I’m making a claim about a certain chunk of his supporters: the working-class white men whose top choices are Trump and Sanders. I suspect that this group is disproportionately independents, and true independent (that is, non-leaning) independents.

    But you don’t have any hard data for this, and the data that has been collected suggests the voters you speak of are a smaller group than you’re assuming:

    I find no evidence that pro-Sanders independents are more likely to also express support for Trump. Among independents who like Sanders, 16 percent also like Trump. Among independent who express support for another democratic candidate than Sanders, 28 percent also like Trump. If Trump attracts independent voters, it is unlikely they will be Sanders sympathisers.

    None of this contradicts the evidence you’ve presented. That evidence has really told us nothing more than that Trump/Sanders fans exist (which I never really doubted). They don’t come anywhere close to proving such voters constitute a substantial portion of the electorate.

    Another study throws cold water on the idea that Trump has strong potential to pick up Rust Belt states:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/03/21/donald-trump-will-almost-certainly-never-be-elected-president-heres-why/

    Additionally, any gains he makes among the white working class are almost certainly going to be offset by the mobilization of black, Latino, and woman voters who are likely to flood the polls to vote against him. He is also, I suspect, likely to depress turnout from that core of rational Republicans (yes, they do exist) who find Trump to be barking mad. Speaking personally, most of the standard, partisan Republicans I know are absolutely floored by Trump; I’ve had people who deeply hate Hillary tell me they’re going to vote for her. Will their partisan instincts kick in if he’s nominated? Maybe. But this is not a strong nominee.

    I predict there will be some high-profile defections from some Republican elites if he’s nominated, who will either endorse Hillary, endorse a third-party candidate, or proclaim they’re not going to vote at all.

    Look, I’m not trying to give my fellow Dems a false sense of complacency. I’m already guilty of having underestimated Trump’s chances in the primaries, and I could be making the same mistake with the general election. So let me be clear: he could win. He could become the next president. That’s pretty astonishing and scary. And by no means should Hillary, who already has a history of playing the hare to another candidate’s tortoise, act like she has the election in the bag. She and the rest of the Dems are still going to have work to beat him, and it’s not going to be all fun and games; it’s going to be nasty.

    But I seriously doubt he’ll win unless there’s a real collapse on the Democratic side–maybe the chimerical indictment will come, maybe there’ll be a recession (though there’s no sign of one on the horizon, and it’s already April). Absent those sorts of developments, if the country continues on its course of solid economic growth and Obama’s popularity continues to be pretty good, she will beat him quite easily.

    Remember, the reason I and so many others thought Trump couldn’t win the nomination wasn’t because he was polling poorly; on the contrary, he absolutely dominated the GOP polls from the moment he entered the race last summer. We just thought his polling lead wouldn’t last, and it ended up proving a lot more resilient than we expected. But he’s still a startlingly weak candidate. To this date he hasn’t broken 50% in a single state, which is utterly unprecedented in the modern era. All the previous nominees–Romney, McCain, Obama, all the way down to the beginning of the primary/caucus era in 1972, won over 50% of the vote in some states. Hell, even Ted Cruz has broken 50% several times. Trump’s rise has absolutely depended on a fracturing of the Republican field; he isn’t all that popular even in his own party–let alone the rest of the country. A core of Americans absolutely love him, and the rest can’t stand him, and all the signs suggest that for every new voter he draws in, three, four, maybe ten more get majorly turned off.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  73. An Interested Party says:

    Interesting how anecdotal evidence seems to be saying that a lot of women are seeing what Sanders has done as an attack and are supporting Hillary as a result…this all reminds me somewhat of her first run for the Senate…when her opponent appeared to be attacking her in their debate, it helped her win more support…something to think about when Trump or Cruz start to attack her in the general election…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  74. MarkedMan says:

    @An Interested Party: I was living in NY for the (2nd?) senatorial campaign and yes, her opponent was clumsy in his attacks, but unfortunately I wouldn’t expect a repeat. He was kind of a moron, very rich and his attack basically consisted of “But she’s Hillary Clinton!!!!”. Because he and his cronies were basically tools that lived in he right wing bubble they couldn’t understand why that wasn’t enough. So they just doubled down on the stupid every few weeks until they lost. It was very beneficial to her. As the nation is now aware, she’s basically an uber serious wonk, a type that has much more trouble winning than governing. But because the Republican hysterics were portraying her as the anti-Christ the public reaction was “what the heck are they talking about?” He did her the huge favor of making her boringness an asset in the only way that would have been possible. Neither Trump nor Cruz are that stupid.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  75. Pch101 says:

    @MarkedMan:

    I can’t imagine that any Republican candidate (with the possible exception of Trump) is going to have a creative campaign against Clinton. They’ve been trying it for years, they have failed every time and they seem unable to learn from those failed attempts, so it will just be a rehash of familiar talking points that many voters will just tune out. They’ll get the usual results preaching to the converted, but they won’t win any additional support because of it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  76. Andre Kenji says:

    Bernie Sanders in some sense is the generic Democrat. That´s why he has good polls numbers. That reflects bad on Hillary Clinton(On the same sense that the fact that when a “Generic Republican” polled better than the Real Republicans in 2012 that reflected bad on the GOP).

    I would not vote for Hillary Clinton, I would NEVER forgive her for her vote for the 2002 Iraq War Resolution(Paulo Coelho, that says that he does not correct the spelling of his books because that brings bad luck, is on the record opposing that war).

    But I can´t see the appeal in Bernie. He reminds me the Trotskytes that I see running in the first round of voting in France or Brazil, but with a more limited rhetoric.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  77. An Interested Party says:

    I was living in NY for the (2nd?) senatorial campaign and yes, her opponent was clumsy in his attacks, but unfortunately I wouldn’t expect a repeat. He was kind of a moron, very rich and his attack basically consisted of “But she’s Hillary Clinton!!!!”.

    Actually, I was referring to Rick Lazio, and I could see that easily happening again…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  78. An Interested Party says:

    Bernie should take this lesson on how to handle such things…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  79. Ratufa says:

    @Tillman:

    Everyone here has spent the last half-year saying the GOP could utterly destroy a socialist, but somehow they would also use that socialist’s word for it in an attack ad on Clinton’s liberal bona fides?

    I’d run it as part of an ad trying to raise doubts about Hillary’s fitness to be president, both in terms of trustworthiness and competence. Start with some out-of context quotes (maybe from her, maybe from so-called “experts”) about her e-mail server, Benghazi, whatever else might be available. End it with, “Even her fellow liberals (or maybe “fellow Democrats”) don’t think she’s qualified, and toss in Bernie’s contribution. This isn’t rocket surgery. Of course, this ad isn’t targeted at hard-core Republicans — they’ve already been conditioned to hate her. It’s to spread more FUD among those whose support for Hillary is squishy or nascent.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  80. Andre Kenji says:

    Hillary is a known quantity. Her greatest asset as Secretary of State was the fact that everyone in Pakistan or Brazil knew her. I remember that when she visited Brazil a very trashy comedy show sent a “reporter” to try to ask her about Monica Lewinsky during a press conference.

    Negative advertisement is not going to change people´s opinion about her. You may hate her, you may think that she is “Meeh” or you may like her. But you definitely have a opinion about her.

    On the other hand, Bernie has much lower name recognition, it would be easy to increase his negatives.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  81. Andre Kenji says:

    Hillary is a known quantity. Her greatest asset as Secretary of State was the fact that everyone in Pakistan or Brazil knew her. I remember that when she visited Brazil a very trashy comedy show sent a “reporter” to try to ask her about Monica Lewinsky during a press conference.

    Negative advertisement is not going to change people´s opinion about her. You may hate her, you may think that she is “Meeh” or you may like her. But you definitely have a opinion about her.

    On the other hand, Bernie has much lower name recognition, it would be easy to increase his negatives.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  82. jukeboxgrad says:

    Tillman:

    Everyone here has spent the last half-year saying the GOP could utterly destroy a socialist, but somehow they would also use that socialist’s word for it in an attack ad on Clinton’s liberal bona fides?

    This is an excellent point. To a right-wing audience, Sanders condemning Clinton is effectively what I call a reverse endorsement: ‘if that commie hates her, then maybe she’s not so bad after all … Sanders argues effectively that she isn’t really very liberal, contrary to what the guys at the water cooler have always been telling me, so maybe I should give her a second look.’

    I think a similar dynamic is going on currently with Obama and Trump. I think Obama is speaking out against Trump because Obama wants Trump to get nominated.

    PJ:

    The ads will not be done to get voters to vote for the Republican, they will be done to make those who supported Sanders in the primaries less likely to vote in the general election.

    It’s true that such an ad could work in the way you described. The problem is that TV doesn’t work that way; you can’t send your ad only to the group you mentioned. The ad will also reach the group I mentioned, and have the effect I described.

    Remember GOP friendly SuperPACS running ads against Clinton by supporting Sanders in Iowa?

    Not really a direct comparison, but still an interesting thing to recall.

    They did that at a time when no one thought Sanders had any chance at all (to get nominated). They weren’t hoping to get Sanders nominated, because no one thought that was possible. They just wanted to bloody and weaken Clinton as much as possible, and this was a rational way to do that.

    Do you notice that they’re not doing this anymore? If they really wanted to run against Sanders, they would still be doing this. But now they see he does have a shot at it, and they fear him more than they fear her, and that’s why they are no longer doing what they did in Iowa in January.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  83. jukeboxgrad says:

    Kylopod:

    you don’t have any hard data for this, and the data that has been collected suggests the voters you speak of are a smaller group than you’re assuming

    From the article you cited:

    There is little evidence that Trump will succeed in poaching voters from the Democratic camp.

    Your article is all about making some highly questionable comparisons between the US and Europe, while ignoring important things that are happening here. Link:

    … there has been some unusual category switching among voters since Jan. 1, 2016, Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin said … As of Feb. 16, communities statewide had reported that nearly 16,000 registered Massachusetts Democrats changed their status to unenrolled, while more than 3,300 Democrats switched to the Republican party … He called that a “pretty significant” and unusual shift for such a short period of time and said one factor may help explain the uncommon activity. The “one phenomenon that has been out there this time is Trump,” he said. Mr. Galvin, a Democrat, believes, however, that “most of those people are not switching to vote against Trump, they are switching to vote for Trump.” He doesn’t believe most voters change affiliations to stop candidates, but rather to promote a candidate. In addition, Mr. Trump has focused his campaigning in Massachusetts in conservative Democratic blue-collar areas of the state, Mr. Galvin said. “My guess is that it’s more pro-Trump than anti-Trump,” he said of the activity.

    And link:

    ‘Ditch and switch’: Trump may be behind mass Democratic party exodus in Pa., experts say … Nearly 46,000 Pennsylvania Democrats have gone Republican since the start of 2016, twice as many as have shifted the other way … much of this movement is being attributed to the rise of Donald Trump and the so-called “Ditch and Switch” movement, which leans on lifelong Democrats to abandon the party … In Pennsylvania, at the Cumberland County Elections Office, director Penny D. Brown said although voters from both political parties have been changing allegiances this year, “there are more Democrats changing to Republican.” … Pennsylvania Department of State records show that the party changes seen in the first two months of this year are twice those seen in all of 2013, and on pace to eclipse those seen in 2014 and 2015 as well. … And while party switching is certainly par-for-the-course in presidential elections, experts say there is something unique this time around, not only because of the scale of that switching, but also where it’s taking place.

    Your article looks at France and England with a microscope, while completely ignoring MA and PA.

    he’s still a startlingly weak candidate

    I agree with this, and I think in the end he will lose. But there are nevertheless certain red flags that are not getting sufficient attention, and I wish we were not in the process of nominating a candidate who is only a little less “startlingly weak” than he is.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  84. Todd says:

    @Andre Kenji:

    On the other hand, Bernie has much lower name recognition, it would be easy to increase his negatives.

    This is why Democrats suck at politics. So many Democratic politicians spend so much time trying to avoid “giving the Republicans ammunition” that they also avoid saying anything that will motivate their core voters to get excited and come to the polls.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  85. Pch101 says:

    @Todd:

    And yet Sanders is behind Clinton by 15 points.

    One should consider the possibility that the guy who is in second place probably isn’t the party’s most popular candidate.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  86. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Todd:

    that they also avoid saying anything that will motivate their core voters to get excited and come to the polls.

    The problem there, and it is a rather large one, is that (much like the far right), the far left thinks that it is the core of the Democratic Party. It isn’t, no more than fundamentalist Christians are the core of the Republican Party.

    Hence the “Tea Party, left wing edition” moniker that has started up. They’re mirror images of each other, separated only by the substance of their extremist ideology but forever linked by their certainty that theirs, and only theirs, is the correct one.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  87. Andre Kenji says:

    @Todd: Hillary is a terrible candidate, but Sanders only motivates a small portion of the Democratic Base. His interactions with the BLM protesters were pretty horrible, he went to Lou Dobbs after voting against Immigration Reform, his calls for Free College say pretty nothing to most people.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  88. HarvardLaw92 says:

    “If they really wanted to run against Sanders, they would still be doing this.”

    Not really. They succeeded in getting what they were after – Sanders doing well enough at the expense of Clinton to motivate him to switch from being someone who didn’t expect to get elected and just wanted the opportunity to use the party megaphone to draw attention to his agenda to someone who apparently thinks he has a shot at being nominated (and has therefore begun to attack Clinton). They don’t need to help him at this point – he’s become a self-supporting surrogate for their purpose. Sanders is attacking Clinton, the resultant ill will is creating fractures and infighting in the Democratic electorate, and from their perspective all they have to to do benefit from it is sit back and watch. Maybe they spend a few bucks in NY to keep that going, maybe not, but it’ll be marginal at best.

    At this point, they’re saving their real ammunition for the possibility that he actually gets nominated. As I told you in a different thread – the Republican ads attacking Sanders – portfolios of them, all ugly in all the ways that you’d expect and then some – have already been prepared. They’re ready to go. It’s just not time to use them yet, and the Republicans (all their other failings aside) are masters of the attack game who understand that simple premise.

    We essentially have two candidates – one they have spent years attacking, and in the process exhausting most of their really useful attacks to the point where most people tune them out, and another one who is a wide open field day of unexplored attack territory for them to loose the pit bulls on. Two guesses as to which one of those candidates they prefer to run against …

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  89. Pch101 says:

    @HarvardLaw92:

    I think that the problem is two-fold:

    -Populists have narcissistic views of their own importance (they have perhaps 10-20% of the country on their side, yet believe themselves to be representative of the majority)

    -They know little or nothing about political realities

    They don’t seem to grasp the bicameral nature of American government or how intra-party coalitions impact the results. Sanders has never carried the water for the Democrats, so he would not have much loyalty from the Democrats in Congress even if he was elected, particularly if he thinks that he can turn his back on the party and start positioning himself as an independent in the White House (which is probably one reason why the superdelegates are mostly against him.) He could get stuff through that is consistent with the party agenda, but he won’t be able to rally enough Democrats to implement the “reforms” that he desires, let alone the Republicans — they owe him neither favors nor loyalty.

    If you want to influence the Democrats, then join the Democrats. If you oppose the Democrats, then join another party and oppose the Democrats. But borrowing the Democratic brand temporarily in an attempt to win an office that you’d otherwise have zero chance of winning sounds awfully cynical, doesn’t it?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  90. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Pch101:

    -Populists have narcissistic views of their own importance (they have perhaps 10-20% of the country on their side, yet believe themselves to be representative of the majority)

    This is, and always has been, the pitfall of primary elections. They represent a relatively small slice of their respective electorates – the most fervent, ideological and motivated slices to boot – but they lead these same people to believe that success in these marginal outings represents a mandate.

    Case in point – Hawaii. 33,655 people participated in the Hawaii Democratic Caucus this year. Of that number, 23,530 preferred Sanders.

    Obama received 306,658 votes in Hawaii in 2012.

    The short version of that is this: roughly 89% of the Democratic voters in Hawaii didn’t participate in selecting Sanders as the winner, and Sanders actually received the votes of 7.7% of that electorate, but for his supporters somehow, magically, his win there represents a mandate of overwhelming support for Sanders among the Hawaii electorate.

    Try explaining this to a Sanders supporter and they invariable either 1) shut down and just refuse to listen or 2) attempt to explain why 7.7% of the electorate in a state represents a mandate.

    It’s eerily like trying to explain to a Tea Party adherent why Rick Santorum had no hope of being elected.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  91. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Pch101:

    But borrowing the Democratic brand temporarily in an attempt to win an office that you’d otherwise have zero chance of winning sounds awfully cynical, doesn’t it?

    I’d characterize it as being the mark of a win at all costs ideologue opportunist.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  92. jukeboxgrad says:

    Pch101:

    And yet Sanders is behind Clinton by 15 points. One should consider the possibility that the guy who is in second place probably isn’t the party’s most popular candidate.

    You got that number by looking at the primary vote so far. Yes, Clinton is ahead by 14.8% when you tally the votes of the 16 million people who have voted so far in the D primaries. Trouble is, that group does not represent the entire party. The party, more broadly, is everyone who generally votes D. In 2012, Obama got 66 million votes. When pollsters attempt to measure the sentiment of that larger group, they find that Clinton’s advantage is less than 5%, and falling rapidly. About a month ago it was over 10%.

    Results in primaries are not necessarily going to give you a correct measure of who is “the party’s most popular candidate.” Why? I recently noticed some remarks which answer this question:

    This is, and always has been, the pitfall of primary elections. They represent a relatively small slice of their respective electorates – the most fervent, ideological and motivated slices to boot – but they lead these same people to believe that success in these marginal outings represents a mandate.

    So maybe it’s not a great idea for you to treat “success in these marginal outings” as proof of who is “the party’s most popular candidate.”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  93. Pch101 says:

    The dryer section of the laundromat doesn’t produce as much spin as that last comment.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  94. EddieInCA says:

    From 538 –

    @jukeboxgrad

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bernie-sanders-is-even-further-behind-in-votes-than-he-is-in-delegates/

    Spin that. Please. Try.

    Math doesn’t lie.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  95. Pch101 says:

    @EddieInCA:

    Math lies if it doesn’t say what we want it to say.

    “If you start with two apples and add two more apples, then you’ll have four apples.”

    “But that can’t be true, because I don’t like apples!!!”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  96. EddieInCA says:

    @Pch101:

    Regardless, Clinton has a crapload more apples than Bernie does.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  97. Just 'nutha ig'rant cracker says:

    @HarvardLaw92: Bingo!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  98. Kylopod says:

    jbg:

    Your article is all about making some highly questionable comparisons between the US and Europe

    Half of the article deals with Europe comparisons. I ignored that half, as it is not a subject I am strongly knowledgeable about, and it was tangential to the point I was making. The second half of the article presents an abundance of data about US voters, and it makes the point that white working-class support for the Democratic Party has been in steady decline for decades. That is relevant to our discussion, but I didn’t mention it either. All I mentioned was one data point from the article: a poll showing that among pro-Sanders independents, only a tiny percentage like Trump. The percentage is actually higher among pro-Clinton independents!

    As I explained, this doesn’t contradict any of the data you brought earlier. It does, however, contradict the conclusion you’ve been drawing from the data. All your data shows is that there are voters out there who like both Trump and Sanders. The above-mentioned poll acknowledges that right off the bat. But the poll also suggests that this group doesn’t constitute a very large portion of the electorate. If anything, it suggests that voters who like both Clinton and Trump may constitute a slightly larger slice of the electorate–which may seem counterintuitive, but then that just goes to show how important it is to check the assumptions we make which color our perceptions of the data.

    Another thing to keep in mind is that people who say they like both Sanders and Trump–even those who list one of them as a “second choice”–may not in reality be likely to vote for that candidate. Take Tyrell here, for example. He’s clearly a right-winger, and he’s constantly saying positive things about Trump and Sanders. But do you really think he’d ever actually vote for Sanders? Maybe if it was Sanders vs. Rubio, but even there I have my doubts.

    The fact is that voters often practice a form of concern trolling about the other side where they admire certain qualities or positions of a candidate at the opposite side of the spectrum, without any real intention of ever voting for them. It’s like when Ann Coulter had nice things to say about Howard Dean in 2004 (at least he was clear and direct about his views on Iraq, unlike that squish John Kerry). Trumpsters like Bernie’s anti-establishment tone, his attacks on elites, and, well, that he’s not Clinton. But that doesn’t mean they’re really ready to pull the lever for him.

    The same applies in the other direction. Take the recent flap with Susan Sarandon, who seemed to make vaguely pro-Trump remarks before later clarifying (after the ensuing uproar) that she would never support Trump over Clinton. In fact, it’s hard to think of any high-profile Sanders backer who, at the end of the day, would seriously break for The Donald. Virtually any that spring to mind (Cornel West, Bill Maher, Robert Reich, Ed Schultz….) are the sorts of people who find Trump utterly repellent.

    The “one phenomenon that has been out there this time is Trump,” he said. Mr. Galvin, a Democrat, believes, however, that “most of those people are not switching to vote against Trump, they are switching to vote for Trump.”

    Keep in mind, however, that many people registered as Democrats haven’t actually voted Democrat in ages. This explains why, for example, even a deep-red state like Kentucky can have more registered Democrats than Republicans. So even if Mr. Galvin’s (entirely unproven) speculation is correct, it doesn’t demonstrate that Trump would be gaining any new voters in the general election.

    I agree with this, and I think in the end he will lose. But there are nevertheless certain red flags that are not getting sufficient attention.

    I think that even if he does somehow win, it wouldn’t be because of any of the “red flags” you are citing. I have no doubt that his support will increase once he’s nominated cleanly. (If it’s a contested convention, all bets are off.) There will be a rallying effect as most (though not necessarily all) Republicans accept him as the nominee to go against Clinton. (Clinton will also experience a rallying effect among Dems and see her poll numbers rise.) It’s not going to be a Goldwater-level blowout. I am sure that a majority of the Romney states will vote for him. Stuff like that recent poll in Utah showing Clinton and Sanders beating Trump are probably not predictive. Even those Republicans who hate him now will learn to love him, or at least to hold their noses for him.

    But here’s the thing: if there was some hidden swath of voters from outside the traditional GOP coalition capable of putting him over the top, we’d already be seeing the effects in the polls. What we do see is that he’s extraordinarily unpopular with the public as a whole, and while he may energize white working-class voters, he seems to be equally energizing other groups against him to a perhaps unprecedented degree. (See here, for example.) So however he’s expanding the party is already being more than canceled out by other demographic effects, and there’s no reason to believe this basic dynamic will change between now and November.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  99. Pch101 says:

    @Kylopod:

    I think that the problem with comparisons to European politics is that their parties generally lie in specific places of the left-right political spectrum, while the Democrats have been a coalition party that has included a variety of conservatives.

    Regardless, I don’t see Trump making much headway in the Rust Belt. There aren’t enough of those disgruntled white blue-collar workers to matter (although Ohio might present an opportunity, since it is a swing state.) The one thing to learn from the European example is that xenophobia there is largely a right-wing phenomena, and the same thing can be said of the United States.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  100. KM says:

    @jukeboxgrad :

    Results in primaries are not necessarily going to give you a correct measure of who is “the party’s most popular candidate.”

    No, they give you the correct measure of who the party has voted for the most in the primary. Which is what matters right now since that’s what we’re picking – not prom queen.

    Honestly, this is getting really weird. You are essentially trying to say that someone who has more delegates (even disregarding superdelegates), more votes, and won more more states is not more popular then their competitor? If you are arguing the primaries don’t accurately represent the will of the party, then you can’t say Sanders is more popular using anything primary-related, including the polls of the primary voters (not the whole party!).

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  101. Pch101 says:

    Those of you who weren’t inclined to believe that the Tea Party comparisons were appropriate really need to rethink your positions.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  102. T says:

    @Todd:

    anything that will motivate their core voters to get excited and come to the polls.

    Why would they want to convince the core voters when they already have those people? Shouldn’t they be trying to pick up people on the fringes?

    I’ve never voted in my life and I’m not registered to any party and I live in a deep red state. Me voting is literally pissing in an ocean of piss. Hillary could possibly get me to come out and vote for her if she would come out in favor of marijuana legalization, but in the end i’d just get upset at myself for even participating in such a useless endeavor.

    Otherwise i’ll keep using that democratic tool that’s way more important than voting. My wallet.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  103. jukeboxgrad says:

    Kylopod:

    The second half of the article presents an abundance of data about US voters

    The article says nothing whatsoever about recent events in MA and PA that are highly relevant to the claims made in the article. In particular, this one:

    There is little evidence that Trump will succeed in poaching voters from the Democratic camp.

    They made that claim while saying nothing to explain why the relevant events in MA and PA should be considered “little.” This makes me inclined to take everything they say with a big grain of salt.

    But the poll also suggests that this group doesn’t constitute a very large portion of the electorate.

    In modern elections, sometimes an exceptionally small part of the electorate can have a major influence. Look at the FL margin in 2000. Look at the OH margin in 2004. The group we’re discussing doesn’t have to be very large in order to have very large consequences.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  104. jukeboxgrad says:

    EddieInCA:

    Math doesn’t lie.

    True, but humans do like to change the subject. Consider these two things:

    A) Who is more popular?
    B) Who is going to get nominated?

    A and B are not the same. What was being discussed was A. You posted evidence regarding B.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  105. jukeboxgrad says:

    KM:

    If you are arguing the primaries don’t accurately represent the will of the party, then you can’t say Sanders is more popular using anything primary-related

    Good thing I didn’t do that. I cited national polls that are indeed not primary-related. And that is exactly why they are not a great way to predict who’s going to win. But they are indeed a better way of measuring overall popularity in the overall party, and that’s the claim that was made.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  106. Pch101 says:

    Americans are known worldwide for their longstanding adoration of all things socialist and communist. What could possibly go wrong?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  107. jukeboxgrad says:

    Not just Americans. Republicans, specifically.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  108. Pch101 says:

    No evidence whatsoever was provided that Americans heart socialism (particularly the older ones who actually vote.) But thanks for playing.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  109. jukeboxgrad says:

    No evidence whatsoever was provided

    Yet another indication that your favorite position is this.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  110. Grewgills says:

    @jukeboxgrad:
    You did use a poll showing Clinton being more popular among Democrats to try and claim that Sanders is or will be more popular among Democrats. Do you get dizzy with all of your spinning?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  111. jukeboxgrad says:

    and claim that Sanders is or will be more popular among Democrats

    Reading is fundamental. You cannot show where I ever said anything about Sanders being “more popular” than Clinton, now or in the future, because I never said that. What I said is that the popularity gap is currently 5%, not 15%. I was responding to that claim that was made, because the claim is incorrect. I also said the popularity gap is much smaller now than it was a month ago. These are all just facts. They are also not a prediction about who’s going to win; that’s another way that my words were misinterpreted.

    Do you get dizzy with all of your spinning?

    Reading carefully and sticking to the facts is more helpful than making unsupported accusations. Just a suggestion.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  112. An Interested Party says:

    Americans are known worldwide for their longstanding adoration of all things socialist and communist.

    Well, it’s just like the ACA, isn’t it? When polled, most Americans love the individual parts of ACA but they hate ACA as a whole because Republicans have trashed it 24/7…just as Americans seem to love individual parts of socialism (Social Security, VA, Medicare) but hate that label of socialism as they have been conditioned to think that it is just so horrible…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  113. jukeboxgrad says:

    When polled, most Americans love the individual parts of ACA but they hate ACA as a whole because Republicans have trashed it 24/7

    Exactly. The alleged power of the ‘socialist’ attack against Sanders is greatly overrated. Any such attack is a chance for him to remind everyone that ‘socialist’ means things like Social Security and Medicare, and that his ‘socialism’ means he supports things that Americans want, that Republicans are trying to destroy.

    Trump in particular is in a weak position to attack Sanders as a ‘socialist,’ since Trump is pretty ‘socialist’ himself:

    Trump has actually run to the left of Senator Bernie Sanders on several issues. He admires Canada’s health care system, which involves a lot more government control than Obamacare. He supports the Buffett Plan, which won’t make secretaries pay more in taxes than their CEO bosses. He doesn’t even think the rich should get Social Security.

    And this is all working pretty well for him, which should be a clue about how Americans (including Republicans) actually feel about these things.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  114. Pch101 says:

    @An Interested Party:

    Americans are going to just love it when the Republicans inform them that Bernie Sanders is a socialist who wants to raise their taxes. Because everyone knows that Americans love tax increases even more than they love socialism.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  115. Pch101 says:

    Reading carefully and sticking to the facts is more helpful than making unsupported accusations.

    And who said that Americans don’t do irony?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  116. Andre Kenji says:

    Americans like Socialism for White People. It´s simple as that.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  117. Monala says:

    I don’t think that “socialism” will be the most damning attack against Sanders if he wins the nomination. At least not socialism as it refers to policies that Sanders supports. But I’m sure they’ll attack him with the socialism label by making it refer to “flaky radicalism.” Sanders is a guy who didn’t hold a consistent job until he was 40, had a child out of wedlock, verbally supported various Marxist leaders, honeymooned in the USSR — you really don’t think the Republicans won’t dredge that up?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  118. An Interested Party says:

    Americans are going to just love it when the Republicans inform them that Bernie Sanders…wants to raise their taxes.

    Of course they would crucify him on that point, as he even wants to raise taxes on the middle class and those with lower incomes

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  119. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Monala:

    I noted in another thread that one of the ads they’ve worked up which I’ve seen is built around photos of Sanders during his time in the USSR. All of them somehow magically have Lenin in them. The messaging is blatantly clear and utterly predictable – “See?!?! He’s a GD Communist!”

    The difference between a communist and a socialist and a democratic socialist won’t matter in the least, and it won’t register with the voters that ad resonates with. A picture is worth a thousand words, and that ad has five of them. He has no response – if he tries to explain the valid (but esoteric) difference, the logical endpoint of that explanation is him saying “I’m a democratic socialist, not a communist”. For that audience, it might as well be “I beat my wife but I’m not a murderer”. Worse, the product of that explanation would be this sound bite – “I’m a democratic socialist”.

    And that’s just one ad. They have portfolios of them cut and ready to run.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  120. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @An Interested Party:

    Just as Americans seem to love individual parts of socialism (Social Security, VA, Medicare) but hate that

    There’s the rub – middle class white America doesn’t see those as socialist. They seem them as something they earned through work. Socialism in their definition is when you give welfare to inner city blacks.

    Trying to explain why those programs are no different in concept from welfare will 1) piss them off and 2) motivate them to vote for the other guy.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  121. jukeboxgrad says:

    And who said that Americans don’t do irony?

    There is indeed great irony in noticing that your claim that I made an unsupported accusation is itself an unsupported accusation.

    Americans are going to just love it when the Republicans inform them that Bernie Sanders is a socialist who wants to raise their taxes.

    And they will use that same attack against Clinton. They have plenty of basis to do so, because she is closely associated with 2 D presidents who both raised taxes.

    The difference between a communist and a socialist and a democratic socialist won’t matter in the least

    You can also add ‘Democrat’ to that list, because the difference between ‘socialist’ and ‘Democrat’ is something else that won’t matter in the least. For years they have been describing Obama as a ‘socialist,’ so it’s naive to think they won’t treat Clinton exactly the same way. And if she responds by saying she’s not a socialist, most people won’t believe her, because most people don’t believe her.

    Socialism in their definition is when you give welfare to inner city blacks.

    Exactly. Which means that Clinton’s close ties to a black president and to the black community will make it even easier to paint her as a socialist who wants to “give welfare to inner city blacks.”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  122. An Interested Party says:

    There’s the rub – middle class white America doesn’t see those as socialist. They seem them as something they earned through work. Socialism in their definition is when you give welfare to inner city blacks.

    Yet another example of how the seemingly eternal stain of racism severely hurts our country…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  123. Tillman says:

    @Pch101: Dude, can you read?! I wasn’t discussing at all Sanders in the general election. What I said:

    What I have a hard time understanding is the pearl-clutching over how this can be used by the GOP in attack ads. Everyone here has spent the last half-year saying the GOP could utterly destroy a socialist, but somehow they would also use that socialist’s word for it in an attack ad on Clinton’s liberal bona fides? They’d cite a dude saying she’s unqualified over a vote for war and taking money from big business?!

    Both PJ and EddieInCA brought up this point. It has been a point brought up multiple times by you and HL92 in different threads as a negative to Sanders’s campaign that he’s providing the GOP ammunition. I am questioning this basic assertion, and you’re going off on an irrelevant rant about Sanders being a socialist in the general. And you accuse me of strawmanning?

    For someone who loves calling out others for poor reading comprehension, you really don’t display much yourself.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  124. Tillman says:

    @Ratufa: As I’ve already said, they’d be quoting out-of-context someone so far left they wouldn’t consider credible anyway. I don’t see the meaningful difference between using Sanders’s “unqualified” remark and the basic voiceover that would say the same thing. It’s not rocket science because it’s the same basic hatchet job they’d always do which implies it wouldn’t be more effective than normal, and that renders complaints about Sanders providing GOP talking points against Clinton moot to me.

    @PJ: I can see them being effective in this instance, but the scenario I imagine requires certain things to have happened. I doubt the primary will get acrimonious enough. After all, Clinton around this time eight years ago had said McCain was more qualified for office than Obama; things are nicer now even if they don’t seem it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  125. charon says:

    @Tillman:

    It has been a point brought up multiple times by you and HL92 in different threads as a negative to Sanders’s campaign that he’s providing the GOP ammunition

    Regardless of what the GOP does or doesn’t do, Bernie is reinforcing (or establishing) negative perceptions of HRC right now, the damage he is doing will persist and provide ongoing aid to the GOP. (Just look at HRC rising unfavorables as evidence.)

    Whatever he may do at some indefinite future to “reunite” the party, it may not be all that much given his attitude and temperament. He is clearly not as pragmatic as HRC was in 2008, nor does he have much reason to care about the Democratic party nor (at his age) his career prospects.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  126. Pch101 says:

    @Tillman:

    Er, Sanders’ comments about Clinton are objectionable to Democrats because they prove that he is not a member of their party. He appears to be petulant and disloyal, which makes him untrustworthy to Democrats.

    Your strawman is your belief that the only problem with Sanders’ comments is their value in GOP attack ads, when the problem with his comments is that they confirm Democratic fears that he isn’t a team player and on their side. If you want to know why superdelegates have largely favored Clinton instead of the guy who isn’t a Democrat, then there you have it.

    And somehow, you’ve decided that all of this negates the argument that Sanders’ socialism is a political liability. Well, I’m sorry, but the socialism problem remains a problem. And it’s a uniquely bad problem because Sanders will not only fail to deny it, but he will admit to it and try to convince everyone of how wonderful it is. Imagine a criminal who was accused of a crime who not only confessed but tried to sell a majority of the public on the virtues of being a criminal; politicians do not normally nod their heads when their opponents accuse them of something negative.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  127. charon says:

    @Pch101:

    He appears to be petulant and disloyal,

    Also thin-skinned, easily angered and given to shooting from the hip.

    Being easily angered and given to acting without bothering to check what are the actual facts appears to me not the best qualities in someone with Presidential responsibilities.

    Lazy and irresponsible also, clearly.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  128. Moosebreath says:

    @charon:

    “Being easily angered and given to acting without bothering to check what are the actual facts appears to me not the best qualities in someone with Presidential responsibilities.”

    Not for Democrats, anyway. Republicans seem to have little problem with nominating someone like that, having done so in 2008 and being odds-on to do so again this year.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  129. HarvardLaw92 says:

    For years they have been describing Obama as a ‘socialist,’ so it’s naive to think they won’t treat Clinton exactly the same way. And if she responds by saying she’s not a socialist, most people won’t believe her, because most people don’t believe her.

    The difference there is that Clinton has never, at any point in her political career, said “I am a socialist”. She’ll also actively deny it, and it’ll fall into the same “meh?” bin that Republican attacks against her fall into these days. They’ve worn that field out. The grass is dead – nothing more to see here. Voters other than those who were never going to vote for her under any circumstances will tune it out.

    In contrast, there are reams of material available – both spoken and written – in which Sanders happily calls himself a socialist. Even worse, Sanders – for reasons passing understanding – either can’t or won’t grasp that the label is politically radioactive. He just doesn’t get it, because he’s spent his entire political career in a retail politics state which is whiter than Wonder Bread. As PCH noted, he not only won’t deny it, because he’s an ideologue he won’t be able to avoid taking the bait. He’ll trip over himself trying to explain to people how socialism is good for them, and that will set up a whole new line of attacks using that explanation against him.

    They’ll go something like “See, even Sanders confirms that he’s a communist (insert another photo of Sanders with Lenin in the background).

    He’s a Republican strategist’s dream come true.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  130. jukeboxgrad says:

    The difference there is that Clinton has never, at any point in her political career, said “I am a socialist”.

    And that won’t matter one bit, because they will still attack her as a socialist. Link:

    Clinton struggles to explain difference between socialist, Democrat

    Link:

    Hillary Clinton, Socialist Still

    That second one is from 2007. They’ve been doing it for years, and they ain’t gonna stop now. And I already pointed out that her denials will be worthless, because no one trusts her. In contrast, when Sanders points out that democratic socialism has nothing to do with authoritarian communism, and that Denmark is not the USSR, people are going to believe him, because he is seen as honest.

    Yes, Clinton never said the words “I am a socialist,” but she did say these words:

    I like the idea of giving every baby born in America a $5,000 account

    Who did she say those words to? The Congressional Black Caucus. Earlier you said this:

    Socialism in their definition is when you give welfare to inner city blacks.

    Having trouble connecting the dots?

    The grass is dead – nothing more to see here.

    Except there is something more to see here. For the time ever, she is running against a socialist. In the general election, she is going to be challenged to explain how she is different from the socialist she defeated, and that question is going to be a problem for her, especially because she is already seen as calculating and dishonest.

    insert another photo of Sanders with Lenin in the background

    Who? Lenin died in 1924. If you say the name, most Americans will think you’re talking about the Beatle. If you use a photo, viewers will think Sanders was endorsed by DiCaprio. It’s not 1950 anymore. The Red Scare ended before most voters were born.

    And assuming they do manage to raise his unfavorables, his number is current 12 points better than hers, so they have a ways to go before he looks as bad as she does. Especially considering that her number is probably going to keep getting worse.

    He’s a Republican strategist’s dream come true.

    Yes, just like it was a “dream come true” when they found out they’d be running against a guy named Barack Hussein Obama. Bill Ayers! Jeremiah Wright! Saul Alinsky! Vladimir Lenin! Yawn.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  131. HarvardLaw92 says:

    Let’s just agree to disagree.He isn’t going to be nominated, so this discussion is basically pointless speculation about something that will never happen to begin with, and I’m already stupidly violating my own rule about feeding you. Have a nice day.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  132. EddieInCA says:

    I can already see where this is going…

    Once Clinton passes 2384, which isn’t that far away now, Sanders supporters will turn into Bagdad Bob, saying things like “Well, she really doesn’t have 2384. The math is wrong, and we still will be the nominee. Ignore the official vote totals because our guy is more popular than the person with more wins, votes, and delegates.”

    Hell, it’s what they’re saying now…. Wait until she actually gets to 2384. It’s going to be hilarious. And sad.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  133. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @EddieInCA:

    It’s nothing we haven’t seen before. I remember Ron Paul supporters being fervently convinced that he could win right up until the second that he exited the race. People who are emotionally invested in believing something won’t be swayed by rational arguments, because their faith in their belief is an irrational thing to begin with. They are a special variety of annoying, I agree, but it’s pointless to waste time & energy debating with them (a lesson I need to make more of an effort to remember …)

    You might as well be trying to convince a fundamentalist that their god doesn’t exist.

    So just sit back, have a scotch, and wait for the moment that Sanders officially isn’t the nominee. You’ll enjoy both the sudden silence from the BernieBro quarter and the opportunity to say “Ha!, Told you so”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  134. charon says:
  135. charon says:

    Perhaps a bit OT, but Bernie doesn’t appear to understand foreign policy all that well …

    https://storify.com/Cajsa/sanders-and-the-vatican-story

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  136. jukeboxgrad says:

    He isn’t going to be nominated

    Did you notice that I never claimed otherwise?

    this discussion is basically pointless speculation

    This discussion is far from pointless, because it includes information that’s relevant to the voting choices that people make in upcoming primaries.

    I’m already stupidly violating my own rule

    And you’ll stupidly make this same stupid remark about your stupid rule next time, too, right? I see a pattern.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  137. jukeboxgrad says:

    because our guy is more popular

    In the popular vote, Clinton is ahead by 15%. That number reflects voting that took place over the last 68 days. In the current RCP national average, Clinton is ahead by 4.4%. That number reflects polling that took place over the last 23 days. If you look at only the 3 polls done in the last 12 days, the number is roughly zero. A month ago, that number was 11%. In December, that number was 25%.

    Compared with a month ago, Clinton appears to be less popular, both relative to Sanders, and in general (her unfavorables are also up). The gap between her popular vote number (15%) and her current polling (4.4%) probably indicates that some number of people who voted for her over the last 68 days now have buyer’s remorse and feel differently (although that’s not the only logical explanation for the gap).

    Clinton’s popularity now doesn’t matter that much. What matters more is her popularity in November. Her trend is going in the wrong direction, and she could have a problem in November if a bunch of people who supported her in the primary feel sorry they did that.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  138. MikeSJ says:

    Forget the socialism charge.

    I gather Bernie was involved with the Socialist Workers party back in the day. This is the party that supported solidarity with the Iranian revolution – at least it was in their party plank – and this was during the hostage crisis with Iran.

    Instead of Socialist I suspect the Republicans would have lots of fun calling Bernie a “Mullah Lover” and of course “Traitor”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  139. jukeboxgrad says:

    Electoral history shows that people don’t care that much about what you did 36 years ago. Days before the election in 2000, it was revealed that Bush pleaded guilty to DUI 24 years earlier. Didn’t seem to hurt him.

    I’m pretty sure Trump would prefer not to talk about various things he did in 1980, and he will say stuff that old doesn’t matter, and he will be in a weak position to dredge up ancient history about Sanders.

    If the worst thing you can say about someone is something they did 36 years ago, that probably means that they’re in a better position than every other candidate.

    By the way, he also says he was never a member of that party. Good luck finding proof that he was.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  140. HarvardLaw92 says:

    if you concede that he isn’t going to be nominated, which you just did, then the discussion of information relevant to people’s voting choices is indeed pointless. If it can’t change the outcome, then it is nothing more than philosophical arguments in support of what you wish might have been – but won’t be. Those just serve as an attempt to validate your worldview and stroke your ego. No thanks.

    Glad we could agree that Sanders will not be nominated though. At least you’re not completely delusional.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  141. Pch101 says:

    This thread illustrated that Juke isn’t handy with data or research, in spite of his beliefs to the contrary. Then again, we already knew that, so it wasn’t particularly productive.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  142. An Interested Party says:

    …she could have a problem in November if a bunch of people who supported her in the primary feel sorry they did that.

    Or if a bunch of people who supported her primary opponent don’t support her in November…of course, that would become a problem for all of us…

    Meanwhile, Donald Trump, of all people, trying to argue that Hillary Clinton isn’t qualified to be president? That’s incredibly rich…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  143. jukeboxgrad says:

    Earlier today, someone using the name HarvardLaw92 said this:

    I’m already stupidly violating my own rule about feeding you. Have a nice day.

    So I assume you must be an entirely different HarvardLaw92, since I can’t imagine that any actual person (let alone a Harvard man) could be so serially stupid.

    if you concede that he isn’t going to be nominated, which you just did, then the discussion of information relevant to people’s voting choices is indeed pointless. If it can’t change the outcome, then it is nothing more than philosophical arguments in support of what you wish might have been – but won’t be.

    If you think that winning is the only thing that ever matters, then you might be Donald Trump. Your assertion is incorrect, because the nomination is not the only thing that’s at stake. Sanders’ ability to influence Clinton’s campaign and platform is directly proportional to his overall strength as a candidate, even if he’s not nominated. He has already influenced her campaign, and that process will continue as his strength continues.

    Aside from that, you’re essentially saying that any vote that “can’t change the outcome” is a waste of time. Really? You might actually feel that way, but it’s pretty clear that many or most voters don’t feel that way. People vote even when they think their vote “can’t change the outcome.”

    In presidential elections, most states are not swing states, and most votes are cast in states that are not swing states. That is, most voters vote even though they have good reason to understand that their vote “can’t change the outcome.” This behavior is rational, even if you don’t understand why.

    Glad we could agree that Sanders will not be nominated though. At least you’re not completely delusional.

    The gratuitous personal attack is par for the course for you, but I guess I should see it as an improvement when have enough self-control to avoid saying things like this this:

    Go pound sand, you effete bleeding heart asshole.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  144. jukeboxgrad says:

    This thread illustrated that Juke isn’t handy with data or research

    I’m familiar with your unlimited capacity for producing naked assertions backed by nothing but pure wind. When you’re ready to start supporting your accusations with evidence, let me know.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  145. jukeboxgrad says:

    Or if a bunch of people who supported her primary opponent don’t support her in November

    It’s completely natural and predictable that a chunk of Sanders’ supporters will not support Clinton in November, because it seems pretty clear that a chunk of his supporters are not liberals and were never going to support Clinton, in any case. I think this is probably why pretty much every November matchup shows him as stronger than her.

    You can be mad about the idea of a Sanders voter not supporting Clinton in November, but that reaction is misplaced and inappropriate, if that person is a non-liberal who was never going to support Clinton anyway.

    The traditional conservative-liberal dichotomy is too oversimplified to explain the Trump phenomenon, and likewise for Sanders.

    of course, that would become a problem for all of us…

    Yes, which is why Clinton supporters who think she is more electable should question that assumption.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  146. Pch101 says:

    To borrow from Churchill, never were so many words used by one poster to say so little.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  147. jukeboxgrad says:

    Yet another comment that is 100% criticism, 0% evidence. Keep up the good work. The consistency is remarkable.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  148. Monala says:

    The other big issue that they’ll hit Sanders on? Taxes. If the Vox Presidential Tax Calculator is accurate, my family will pay about $7,000 more in taxes each year if Sanders’ policies are enacted, even after subtracting what we pay in health insurance premiums. We are not rich. Our household income is about 20k above the US household median. We can’t afford a $7,000 a year additional tax hike. We have a kid to send to college in about a decade, so maybe it will pay off by then, but in the meantime…

    What about other medical costs, apart from premiums? Will that make a difference? As I understand it, Sanders’ vision is that his single payer plan will eliminate deductibles and copayments, but I’m not sure how that is possible, without resorting to health care rationing.

    And what about seniors currently on Medicare and fixed incomes? I played with the calculator, imagining that my husband and I were seniors with half the income we have now, and no kids. That works out to a $4,000 tax hike under Sanders’ plans.

    I would love to be for Sanders, I really would. I just don’t see how it’s possible. And count me in as someone who believes that Sanders’ current popularity is because a lot of people who like his message don’t yet know his history, or the upheaval his proposals will create if enacted.

    Btw, I’m not an anti-tax person, it just needs to be reasonable. I’m not begging for a tax cut (which Trump would give me). Under Clinton’s plans, I’d pay $90 more a year. That, I can deal with.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  149. Monala says:

    Btw, I’m not an anti-tax person. I’m not begging for a tax cut (which Trump would give me). I believe taxes are the price of civil society. Tax increases just need to be reasonable. The tax calculator tells me that my family would pay $90 more a year under Clinton’s plans.

    (Whoops, I thought my edit to my prior comment didn’t save, which is why I posted it again).

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  150. jukeboxgrad says:

    If the Vox Presidential Tax Calculator is accurate, my family will pay about $7,000 more in taxes each year if Sanders’ policies are enacted, even after subtracting what we pay in health insurance premiums.

    I’m curious about how you came up with that number. Household median income is $51939. You said you’re about 10k above that, so $61939. When I put that number in the calculator, for married and one kid (purely a guess), the number I get back is $7980. Surely your current annual health insurance premiums are much greater than $980. Link:

    Annual premiums for employer-sponsored family health coverage reached $16,351 this year, up 4 percent from last year, with workers on average paying $4,565 toward the cost of their coverage

    So maybe you could explain.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  151. Monala says:

    Jukebox, I made a mistake first of all, which I corrected – our household income is about $20k above the median.

    But second, if you count what we pay out of pocket for our premiums, and not what our employers kick in, then the difference between our tax increase under Sanders and what we’re currently paying is about $7,000. Now, if our employers are going to give us what they are currently kicking in for employee insurance (and getting tax deductions for), as raises in a Sanders world, then great! We’ll probably come out ahead. But how likely is it?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  152. Monala says:

    @Monala: And as further explanation, my employer pays 100% of the cost of health insurance for the employee only, but do not cover family members. My husband picks up his daughter through his work policy. A policy for employee + child is far cheaper usually than a policy for an employee + spouse, since kids are cheaper to ensure than adults. So our total out of pocket premium costs are a lot less than the $4565 you quote.

    Or to put it another way, even if we were paying the $4565 that is typical of families covered by employer plans, we’d still pay almost $4600 more in taxes under Sanders’ plans.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  153. jukeboxgrad says:

    So our total out of pocket premium costs are a lot less than the $4595 you quote.

    Thanks for explaining. That statement is probably the key point.

    Now, if our employers are going to give us what they are currently kicking in for employee insurance (and getting tax deductions for), as raises in a Sanders world, then great! We’ll probably come out ahead. But how likely is it?

    You know the old saying, you don’t get something for nothing. The true cost of insuring your family is probably roughly $15,000 or more, but most of that cost is hidden from you, because the two employers are writing the checks, rather than you and your husband. But one way or another the employers have to find that money somewhere, and ultimately they are getting it from you, even if you don’t see it.

    One way they find that money is by charging higher prices for goods and services they sell. One result of this is that American companies can’t compete with companies elsewhere. How is an American car company that has to buy health insurance for its employees supposed to compete with companies in Japan and Germany which do not have to worry about that expense?

    Another way the employers find the money is by keeping wages down. No one can guarantee that your particular employer will give the money back to you as a wage increase, but ultimately there should be an effect like that in the economy overall. When companies are no longer competing for labor by offering employees health insurance, they will have to compete for labor by offering other things, like better pay.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  154. Monala says:

    I hear what you’re saying, jukebox, but how long will it take for the economy to right-size itself so that the higher taxes pay for themselves for the average family (assuming a Sanders win, and success in enacting his agenda, which I admit is an unlikely assumption)? In the meantime, how much pain will it cause for lower and middle income families who are paying a lot more in taxes? As I noted, my family might be paying less than the norm out of pocket for our employer insurance, but even if we were paying the norm, we’d still in the short term pay thousands more in taxes.

    But my main point in bringing this up is, the Republicans can run non-stop ads about how Sanders will raise your taxes by huge amounts, and they’d be right – and most of the public will not learn about or grasp the nuance you describe.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  155. An Interested Party says:

    You can be mad about the idea of a Sanders voter not supporting Clinton in November, but that reaction is misplaced and inappropriate, if that person is a non-liberal who was never going to support Clinton anyway.

    Whoa, so non-liberals are going to vote for Sanders simply because he is promising a revolution? If we want to play hypotheticals, we could say that if Trump does become the Republican nominee, moderate Republicans and Republican leaning independents may vote for Clinton but not for Sanders as they might see him as too liberal…by the way, the people to be mad at would be those liberals and young people who won’t vote for Clinton in November, thereby allowing whatever toxic waste that comes out of the GOP to win the presidency…they would be severely hurting themselves and the country simply because Clinton isn’t pure enough for them…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  156. Todd says:

    @HarvardLaw92: In

    contract, there are reams of material available – both spoken and written – in which Sanders happily calls himself a socialist. Even worse, Sanders – for reasons passing understanding – doesn’t understand that the label is politically radioactive.

    This only matters if we assume that there are a significant number of otherwise Democrat leaning voters who disapprove so strongly of the word socialism that they would vote for a Republican instead. I don’t tend to think this is true. However, if just for argument’s sake we stipulate that it is possible, then to me it really highlights a problem with the Democratic party. Basically what we’re saying is that a big enough chunk of Democrats don’t want the United States to look more like Europe when it comes to safety net issues that they would throw away an election as important (SCOTUS picks) as this one over it.

    If on the other hand we’re just saying that because Sanders “admits” he’s a socialist, otherwise Republican leaning voters will be more motivated to vote against him, that really is a “meh?” statement. It’s almost inconceivable to imagine that Republican voters are not already going to be extremely motivated with Clinton as the Democrat’s nominee.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  157. Todd says:

    @

    It’s almost inconceivable to imagine that Republican voters are not already going to be extremely motivated with Clinton as the Democrat’s nominee.

    On a different but related note, I think this is also still a reason to worry about Democratic complacency when it comes to the possible Trump nomination on the Republican side. As much as mainstream Republicans now say (especially publicly) that they will never vote for Trump, when faced with the prospect of a President Clinton (or President Sanders), I expect most of them will cast an “anti-Democrat” vote; regardless of who their nominee is.

    We’re at the point now where it’s not really worth continuing to argue about; I concede that Hillary Clinton will most likely be the Democratic nominee. But I still think Sanders would fair better in a knock-down-dragged-out head to head match up with any Republican, especially Trump. Here’s the difference: The main (policy based) attacks against Sanders will be about things that he believes and will affirmatively defend. In contrast, most of the (character based) attacks against Hillary Clinton will be about things that she will deny, and act defensively about. We can cry all we want about how “unfair” this will be, and how “untrue” many of the allegations are, but that won’t change the fact that a candidate Clinton is all but guaranteed to spend the entirety of the fall playing a fair amount of defense … and since a sizeable chunk of the electorate (on both sides) is already predisposed to believing that she has “character issues”, it won’t be an easy tide to turn.

    She’ll probably still win anyway. But I wouldn’t start taunting our Republican friends how much it sucks to lose again just yet. I think this game still has a bit (possibly quite a bit) more playing out to do first.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  158. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Todd:

    Basically what we’re saying is that a big enough chunk of Democrats don’t want the United States to look more like Europe when it comes to safety net issues

    Oh, I have no doubt that there are many Democrats who would like the idea of a European style safety net – right up until they see the tax bill they’ll get in order to have one. The paradox of US voters – and Sanders supporters in particular (at least the ones I’ve spoken with anyway) – is that they seem to think they can have Europe with somebody else paying for it. They’ll rave about Denmark, for example, but never mention that Danes can easily pay 57% of their income in taxes on top of paying 25% in VAT. Try selling that to US voters and see how quickly they decide Europe isn’t so great after all :-)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  159. HarvardLaw92 says:

    Sanders’ ability to influence Clinton’s campaign [rhetoric] and platform [rhetoric] is directly proportional to his overall strength as a candidate, even if he’s not nominated. He has already influenced her campaign [rhetoric], and that process will continue [right up until the moment she gets elected].

    FIFY

    You still seem unable to grasp the difference between rhetoric (which is how you get people to vote for you) and governance (which is what you do once you’re elected) or that this leftward swing won’t survive past November 9th. So much for “revolution” LOL.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  160. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @An Interested Party:

    He’s trying to hint that Republican voters are crossing over in open contests to vote for Sanders in order to torpedo Clinton, but have no intention of voting Dem in November.

    This is probably accurate, but it blows a rather large hole in his theory about Sanders popularity. Add cognitive dissonance to the list of traits shared by the left wing and right wing versions of the Tea Party.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  161. HarvardLaw92 says:

    How is an American car company that has to buy health insurance for its employees supposed to compete with companies in Japan and Germany which do not have to worry about that expense?

    Have we entered some alternative universe where Japanese and German auto companies aren’t operating manufacturing plants in the US, and therefore have the same health insurance expenses for their US employees that Ford or GM do, or where US auto manufacturers don’t have plants in Europe (Ford? Vauxhall? Opel?) which enjoy the same health environment that their European competitors do?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  162. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Monala:

    $63,680 more under Clinton vs $800,420 more under Sanders.

    That’s a tough one to figure out. I’ll have to think on it a bit … :roll:

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  163. HarvardLaw92 says:

    Just for kicks, I ran it for a single person with no kids earning minimum wage. $1,630 more in taxes under Sanders. Wonder how that’ll be received by the BernieBros?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  164. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Todd:

    The main (policy based) attacks against Sanders will be about things that he believes and will affirmatively defend

    The main attack against Sanders would be “he wants to raise your taxes”. Worse, they’d be accurate in saying so. Sanders response might be “look at all the wonderful stuff you’ll get”, but he’ll have to admit that getting it involves paying a lot more in taxes for it.

    Any guesses how that’ll play out with the US electorate?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  165. Pch101 says:

    Sanders has enormous liabilities as a general election candidate that his most rabid fans can’t or won’t see. But that’s the nature of populism, which is invariably just another form of naive narcissism.

    It’s one thing to like the guy, it’s quite another to go to some of the absurd lengths to distort, ignore and grossly misinterpret reality such as what has been displayed here. Clinton isn’t an ideal choice, but barring a new depression or a nuclear attack, it’s going to be difficult for her to lose the November election. The electoral college map is shifting in favor of the Dems, and the GOP would need to field an exceptionally attractive candidate in order to defy that trend.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  166. gVOR08 says:

    @jukeboxgrad:

    Lenin died in 1924. If you say the name, most Americans will think you’re talking about the Beatle.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  167. gVOR08 says:

    Jukeboxgrad – 4/9 at 12:37

    If you say the name, most Americans will think you’re talking about the Beatle

    .

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  168. gVOR08 says:

    Jukeboxgrad 4/9 @12:37

    Lenin died in 1924. If you say the name, most Americans will think you’re talking about the Beatle.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  169. jukeboxgrad says:

    Monala:

    the Republicans can run non-stop ads about how Sanders will raise your taxes by huge amounts

    And they are going to do the same thing to Clinton. Clinton, not Sanders, is the one who told a black audience that she likes “the idea of giving every baby born in America a $5,000 account.”

    The conventional wisdom on taxes is ready for an update. Link:

    … according to Vanessa Williamson, a fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution, Americans actually love taxes when they understand the benefits received from paying them. “People are much more positive about paying taxes than the Washington conventional wisdom would have you believe,” she says, particularly when it comes to payroll taxes, which are some of the highest taxes that middle-class and low-income workers face. But they’re popular because they’re easy to understand and go toward specific programs that people like and support. According to Williamson’s research, while the vision of the rabidly anti-tax American was more true back in the 1980s, it no longer is; politicians just haven’t come along for the ride. “The Democratic Party has been on its back foot on taxes for 35 years, and the question is whether politicians are going to continue to believe what was conventional wisdom back then or realize that times have changed,” says Williamson.

    People don’t mind paying taxes when they think the money will help people they like. What upsets them is paying taxes to help people they don’t like. As I already pointed out, Clinton is closely associated with 2 D presidents who both raised taxes. Clinton’s own words can be used to paint her as someone who wants to raise your taxes so she can pay black people $5,000 every time they have another baby.

    And her denials about this won’t matter, because most people don’t trust her. In contrast, when Sanders explain how he intends to use your tax money, he will be believed, because people trust him.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  170. jukeboxgrad says:

    An Interested Party:

    Whoa, so non-liberals are going to vote for Sanders simply because he is promising a revolution?

    I’m stunned. Are you really not clear that there are many “non-liberals” who are itching for some kind of revolution? Two words: Donald Trump. And there is indeed a lot of overlap between the revolution promised by Trump and the revolution promised by Sanders. It’s no accident that they are both drawing strong support from working-class whites.

    If we want to play hypotheticals, we could say that if Trump does become the Republican nominee, moderate Republicans and Republican leaning independents may vote for Clinton but not for Sanders as they might see him as too liberal

    I’m not playing hypotheticals. I’m paying attention to polling data, which shows that Sanders is stronger against Trump than Clinton is. This tends to indicate that the phenomenon you’re talking about is smaller than the phenomenon I’m talking about.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  171. jukeboxgrad says:

    HL92:

    I have no doubt that there are many Democrats who would like the idea of a European style safety net – right up until they see the tax bill they’ll get in order to have one.

    I just explained why the tax bill they expect from Clinton is the one that’s going to upset them more.

    He’s trying to hint that Republican voters are crossing over in open contests to vote for Sanders in order to torpedo Clinton, but have no intention of voting Dem in November.

    I’m not hinting anything like that, because there’s no evidence that anything like that is happening.

    Have we entered some alternative universe where Japanese and German auto companies aren’t operating manufacturing plants in the US

    The ownership of the company is a red herring, and has nothing to do with the point I made. Cars built in the US embody the cost of health care for the employees who built the car. This makes those cars uncompetitive in the export market. This is true regardless of who owns the factory.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  172. jukeboxgrad says:

    Pch101:

    it’s quite another to go to some of the absurd lengths to distort, ignore and grossly misinterpret reality such as what has been displayed here.

    And in your usual style you are able to present this stunning number of examples: zero.

    “Grossly misinterpret reality” is what you did, and you never addressed what I said.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  173. An Interested Party says:

    Are you really not clear that there are many “non-liberals” who are itching for some kind of revolution?

    Of course I am clear with that…but Trump is their savior, not Sanders…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  174. jukeboxgrad says:

    I already cited evidence contrary to this.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  175. Pch101 says:

    Posting a link that doesn’t say what you think it says or that contributes to an irrelevant argument or that provides ‘data” that isn’t credible only tells the other readers that you’re a poorly educated hack who suffers from a spamming addiction. That doesn’t make you appear to be smarter, but only proves that you’re not.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  176. jukeboxgrad says:

    you’re a poorly educated hack

    I recall when your pal said this:

    He’ll always make it personal

    Who was he talking about?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  177. Pch101 says:

    Your continual reference to the Drudge “poll” which didn’t have any of the methodology that is needed for a proper poll, which makes it unreliable and not worth citing, is just one example that illustrates your ignorance and inability to learn.

    Someone with a basic understanding of statistical methods would know better than to claim any relevance for what is nothing more than clickbait, but you obviously don’t know better. Trying to show you the obvious flaws of said “poll” is simply futile because you aren’t smart enough to grasp what’s wrong with it. Apparently, if something dumb happens to have a URL attached to it, you think of it as a “source.”

    Hence, the only reason to engage you is to mock you, as you deserve nothing more than that.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  178. jukeboxgrad says:

    Trying to show you the obvious flaws

    You should show me where you did ever did that, since you never did that. You also never addressed what I said here.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  179. HarvardLaw92 says:

    Cars built in the US embody the cost of health care for the employees who built the car. This makes those cars uncompetitive in the export market.

    Don’t tell BMW that. They’ll be confused as to how they’re making a profit building their X series in Greenville, SC and selling it in Europe :-)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  180. jukeboxgrad says:

    Finding an exception to a generalization does not prove that the generalization is incorrect. Something else they forgot to teach you at Harvard.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  181. HarvardLaw92 says:

    While you’re furiously Googling for some tidbit you think disproves that assertion, Mercedes-Benz does as well.

    Guess you’re just full of shit, as usual … :-)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  182. HarvardLaw92 says:

    LOL, sorry, how did you put it?

    I’m sorry you’re so confused. Finding evidence to support claims made by you is your responsibility, not mine. You should ask [whatever second rate school you attended, if you even did …] for a refund, because this is something basic they forgot to teach you.

    LMAO

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  183. jukeboxgrad says:

    Mercedes-Benz does as well

    Because of current conditions that are extraordinary. Link:

    The upswing comes in part from from after-effects from the Great Recession, according to The Wall Street Journal. With a weak dollar and lower production costs after the financial crisis, building vehicles in the US was relatively cheaper and more competitive in the world.

    When those conditions return to normal, we’ll be back to the way it used to be. Link:

    The inequities give Japan’s automakers a cost advantage of $1,481 per car over their American rivals, the report said. The key to Japan’s competitive advantages stem from the Japanese government’s support of major cost items, such as health care, the report said. In the United States, automobile manufacturers bear most of the burden in paying for health care.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  184. jukeboxgrad says:

    Sanders is behind Clinton by 15 points

    When I responded to this earlier, Clinton’s advantage in the RCP national average was 4.4%. That number is now 1%.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  185. HarvardLaw92 says:

    You should check your sources more carefully. The Wall Street Journal piece your blog links to doesn’t contain that verbiage. In fact, here is the entire text of the article you thought you cited:

    U.S. auto exports hit a record for the third year in a row in 2014 as strong demand for U.S. made cars and sport-utility vehicles, especially in the Middle East and Asia, offset concerns about a strengthening dollar.

    The trend also was fueled by foreign-owned U.S. auto plants built in the U.S. Midwest and South that are now exporting more vehicles to other markets. Car makers including Toyota Motor Corp. and Honda Motor Co. that opened factories here to be closer to U.S. customers are now exporting too.

    Last year, about 2.1 million new cars and trucks were built in the U.S. and shipped to other countries, the first time auto exports topped 2 million. The total is an 8% increase over 2013 and a 73% rise from 2004, according to figures released on Thursday by the U.S. International Trade Administration.

    About half of U.S. car exports go to Canada or Mexico, and both countries are big exporters to the U.S. In Mexico, auto makers produced about 3.2 million vehicles last year, a 10% increase over 2013, and exported about 82% of them, mostly to the U.S., according to the Mexican Automotive Industry Association.

    U.S. export growth defied a strengthening dollar last year, which makes the practice less profitable. A big part of the increase stems from America-built Fords, Jeeps, BMWs and even Nissans and Toyotas shipped overseas. A growing number of U.S.-made cars are now going to countries including China, Saudi Arabia and South Korea.

    “The U.S. has become one of the low-cost places to build cars,” said Ron Harbour, a senior partner with the Oliver Wyman Inc. management consulting firm.

    More competitive labor rates and leaner manufacturing—the result of the auto industry’s restructuring during the recession—are helping U.S. auto plants better compete on the global stage. While the dollar is currently strong, the U.S. currency had been weak over the past few years and that played a big role in fueling recent momentum.

    The U.S. dollar’s strength against the Japanese yen and euro is too recent to affect sourcing plans.

    “Of course, we closely watch currency exchange, but we don’t make changes in production or allocation based on temporary fluctuations in the exchange rate,” Joe Hinrichs, Ford Motor Co. ’s. North American chief, said this week.

    Foreign-based car makers like BMW AG and Daimler AG are helping to drive the rise in U.S. auto exports. Both established plants in the U.S., mostly to build SUVs, and both export the majority of their U.S. production.

    The 2.1 million cars exported represent about 18% of all U.S. new-vehicle production last year, according to data provider WardsAuto.com. U.S. light-vehicle production was 11.4 million in 2014. And the U.S. is still a big importer of foreign-made cars and SUVs. The U.S. auto trade deficit was about $109.4 billion last year.

    Demand for U.S. vehicles is growing. Ford exports a number of SUVs, including the Ford Explorer and Lincoln MKC, to Asia and the Middle East. This year, it began exporting Mustang sports cars globally from a factory in Michigan—a first for the Dearborn auto maker.

    Jeep also has turned into a routine exporter under U.S.-Italian parent Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV. Last year, it sent 316,000 Jeeps abroad, including the Wrangler and Cherokee, up from 210,000 exported in 2012.

    Daimler’s Mercedes-Benz and BMW both are planning expansions of their SUV plants in the U.S. South, a move that could further give a boost to exports of those vehicles. The Germany luxury car makers currently export more than half of the total output from those plants.

    BMW will spend about $1 billion to boost production of X3 and other SUVs at its plant in South Carolina by 50% to 450,000 vehicles in the next two years. A spokesman said “there is no doubt the number of vehicles exported will increase.”

    “What’s happening is car makers are exporting out of the U.S. into a broader range of markets,” Mike Jackson, director of North American vehicle-production forecasting at researcher IHS Automotive, said. They’re also expanding the range of vehicles they export, Mr. Jackson added.

    Poor Wurlitzer – too stupid to know when he’s beaten and too stubborn to accept it even if he did …

    Flame on, Flame Warrior

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  186. Pch101 says:

    Last I checked, the Japanese were building and expanding auto plants in the United States.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  187. HarvardLaw92 says:

    When I responded to this earlier, Clinton’s advantage in the RCP national average was 4.4%. That number is now 1%.

    Poor Wurlitzer – always missing the forest for the trees. Since you seem to consider RCP to be a reputable source, here are their averages for:

    New York – Clinton +14
    Pennsylvania – Clinton +16
    Connecticut – Clinton +15.5
    New Jersey – Clinton + 31
    Maryland – Clinton +24

    712 delegates between them that your boy can’t survive without. He has to break at least 58% in all five – on average – just to be able to tie. He has to beat that in all five to have any hope of catching up. Best of luck, you’ll need it.

    (Oh, and work on your math skills :-) )

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  188. Pch101 says:

    If having a commanding lead in a primary was important, then John Kerry and Barry Goldwater would have been president, while Bill Clinton and Barack Obama would not.

    The only reason to keep pretending that the margin of victory matters is to make it clear that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  189. charon says:

    @jukeboxgrad:

    When I responded to this earlier, Clinton’s advantage in the RCP national average was 4.4%. That number is now 1%.

    At this time national numbers are totally irrelevant. The only polls that matter are in NY, PA, MD, CA, and NJ. But do keep on feeling the Bern.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  190. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Pch101:

    I think he’s referring to the national numbers, which are meaningless. The only thing that has any meaning in the context of primaries is the margin of victory a candidate accumulates in each contest, as that directly affects the number of delegates he/she walks away from the primary with, and by association the total number of delegates he/she accumulates.

    He’s still busily pontificating about an election (Trump vs. Sanders or Cruz vs. Sanders) which is never going to take place to begin with. I think focusing on his fantasy November helps him avoid acknowledging the reality of what’s happening in April.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  191. Pch101 says:

    It would be great if our self-styled pundits could figure out that:

    -There are 51 presidential elections in the United States, 49 of which are winner-take-all and most of which have already been decided

    -Bernie Sanders has yet to be vilified for the tax-hiking “socialist” in a country that is fond of neither socialism nor tax hikes

    -There is no correlation between primary margins and general election margins

    Ergo, most of the supposed “evidence” provided above is simply useless spam that tells us a whole lot of nothing about nothing.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  192. HarvardLaw92 says:

    In the United States, automobile manufacturers bear most of the burden in paying for health care

    Aside from the obvious stupidity of citing something from 24 years ago to begin with, US automakers no longer bear the majority of those health-care costs.

    Their unions agreed to take on retiree health care

    and they’re trying to take on health care for the current employees as well

    Poor Wurlitzer … Always a day late and a thousand dollars short …

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  193. HarvardLaw92 says:

    He seems to have fled for the moment. No doubt he’ll be returning at some arcane hour to drop a few comments in at end in order to try to get the last word.

    That’s another tactic he’s well known for …

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  194. Monala says:

    jukebox, I’m very skeptical. (btw, your link works, but the link to the research in the linked article doesn’t, so I can’t see anything other than the researcher’s opinion). Here are my reasons for skepticism:

    1) I live in a a blue city in a blue state that has no state income taxes. There are regularly ballot issues that are for very limited sales or property tax increases for very specific issues (e.g., 1/2 of 1 cent sales tax increase for 1 year to replace broken down fire trucks, or repair school buildings or whatever). Almost never do these taxes pass, even though they’re usually small increases, for limited periods of time, for which the benefit to the public is made very clear.

    2) Payroll taxes might be a little different, because people see a very direct personal benefit to themselves in terms of future Social Security and Medicare payments (as opposed to benefiting them as a member of the public). However, that still didn’t stop a lot of people from complaining with Obama’s stimulus payroll tax holiday ended in 2013.

    3) You still have never addressed the issue I raised above, how long will it take after these significant tax increases take place, before it pays off for people? People can go through a lot of economic pain before it pays off for them, both in reality and in perception. See #4 and #5 for examples.

    4) Paying off in reality: I already shared above that it could take almost a decade, and about $70,000 in additional taxes, before Sanders’ plans would pay off for my family. In the meantime, we’d probably have trouble paying our bills, and forget about saving for retirement.

    5) Paying off in perception: people don’t always recognize the benefits they get from the taxes they pay. People complain about potholes, but then don’t want to pay taxes for city services, for example. The relationship between taxes and benefits really isn’t clear to a lot of people, and even when it is, that doesn’t mean that higher taxes don’t hurt. I’ve been doing taxes for people this season, and some have received the ACA tax credit to buy insurance. In some cases, it was calculated wrong, and they have to pay some of it back when they file. We’re talking about a few hundred bucks usually, but it really upsets people to have to pay it, even though they know they’re getting a direct personal benefit in terms of now having health insurance. And under Sanders’ plans, we’re talking about significantly more than a few hundred bucks, even for people at very low income levels, as HL92 noted above.

    6) Regarding people trusting Sanders more than Clinton: I still think that’s because a lot of people still don’t know much about him, and he hasn’t been attacked yet by the Republicans. Numerous people above have noted the ways that they can tear into him. Here’s one more: he had a very good degree from a very good college, the University of Chicago, yet spent his young adulthood drifting from job to job and was often in poverty. He says that helps him relate to people who are struggling, but a lot of Americans will see that as someone who, despite his education and talents, chose to be a layabout.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  195. Todd says:

    Okay,, so I’m reading this line of the thinking about taxes, and there probably is some merit to it. I do have a question though …

    In the unlikely circumstance (which I know many of you think borders on the impossible) that Bernie Sanders somehow ends up as the Democratic nominee, are there any of you who will personally not vote for him because you are worried about your taxes going up?

    …. or is this another case of concern about what you worry that “others” will do?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  196. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Todd:

    Sure I would vote for him anyway. His tax and healthcare proposals have about as much chance of being enacted in a Republican House of Representatives as I do of being named King of England. They’re cited above as illustration of just how far off the reservation of reality he actually is.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  197. Andre Kenji says:

    I don´t think that Liberal OTB readers are worried about their taxes going up. They are worried that other people are not going to vote for someone that wants to increase their taxes.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  198. PJ says:

    @Todd:
    If Sanders actually was nominated (luckily he won’t be), he would need EVERY vote he can get after all the GOP attack ads. And while you, and a lot of other Sanders supporters, either can’t see or don’t care about how important it is to elect a Democrat this election, Clinton supporters do, and because of that, they would have voted for Sanders in the general election.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  199. Monala says:

    @Todd: Yes, I’d vote for him. There’s no way I’m voting for any of the Republicans, and I would do everything I could with my one vote to stop them..

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  200. PJ says:

    @Todd:
    Also, you may have noticed that on OTB and mostly everwhere its the Sanders supporters who are refusing to vote for Clinton or demanding things in exchange for voting for her, not the other way around.

    The Democratic primary is over, and Clinton would be happy to move on to the general election phase. If both the Clinton and the Sanders campaigns focused what they want to do and on the GOP candidates, no one would object to Sanders running his campaign all the way to the DC primary. But instead Sanders has gone negative against Clinton attacking her character, which won’t get him ahead in the delegates and it won’t get any superdelegates to switch to him, it will only end up hurting the Democrats in November.

    One can only hope that whoever Sanders meets while he’s in the Vatican would talk some sense into him about negative campaigning.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  201. T says:

    @HarvardLaw92: If you do ever buy a BMW, do the performance center delivery in Spartanburg, very cool experience.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  202. Todd says:

    @PJ:

    Sanders supporters who are refusing to vote for Clinton or demanding things in exchange for voting for her, not the other way around.

    The Democratic primary is over, and Clinton would be happy to move on to the general election phase. If both the Clinton and the Sanders campaigns focused what they want to do and on the GOP candidates, no one would object to Sanders running his campaign all the way to the DC primary. But instead Sanders has gone negative against Clinton attacking her character,

    lol, those first couple of sentences in your second paragraph remind me of this recent Andy Borowitz piece: http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/clinton-campaign-accuses-sanders-of-trying-to-win-nomination

    On a more serious note, has it possibly occurred to you that Clinton’s character is being attacked, because it’s attack worthy? Or that Sanders’ voters might be refusing to vote for Clinton because they honestly don’t think she’d be a good President; not because “their guy lost”?

    To me, watching Democrats react to “negative” words about Clinton coming from Sanders, it seems that they’re most upset because it’s coming from someone on the left. You can’t simply blow it off as “baseless Republican attacks” … which has been the Clinton answer to any and all criticism for decades now.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  203. Pch101 says:

    Pragmatic people understand that no matter how you may feel about the candidates, there will be a president elected on the first Tuesday of November, and the failure to vote for the person who you dislike the least will aid the contender who you dislike the most.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  204. Todd says:

    @Pch101:

    Pragmatic people understand …

    I am normally a very pragmatic person, and I’ve even made this exact same (lesser of two evils) argument in the not too distant past. But I have to say, the more that Clinton supporters harangue me, insisting that I *have to support her* in the general election, the more I just want to say screw it, I don’t care. And as I said, I’m predisposed to pragmatism. I’d imagine this effect is even more pronounced in younger and/or more passionate voters.

    In short, your righteous indignation is as short-sighted and unpragmatic as the perceived future “sin” you are so vocally criticizing.

    Honestly, if Clinton supporters could have just waited until after the convention to start pushing this “support her so we don’t elect a Republican” message it might not have been so bad. But the reality is many Clinton supporters have been chiding Sanders supporters to “get in line behind the eventual nominee” since before the voting even started.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  205. Pch101 says:

    There is no “righteous indignation” in pointing out that 2+2=4.

    My comment above is simply factual. If you want to get upset about it, then that’s your problem.

    I already noted that it certainly matters less in your case because you aren’t in a swing state. But otherwise, your ongoing denial of reality here is just silly.

    If you go to a restaurant and you despise everything that’s on the menu, then you are free to leave and avoid making a choice that you dislike. But there is going to be a presidential election this November no matter how you may feel about it, and you are going to end up with a result from that election whether or not you want it. Hopefully you can see the difference.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  206. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @T:

    Already drive a 760. Sadly though, I picked it up in Greenwich, not Greenville

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  207. Grewgills says:

    @Todd:
    The ‘sin’ most are criticizing isn’t him eventually taking his supporters and going home, as that idea has only gained currency relatively recently. It is that he has been him parroting right wing talking points about Clinton, weakening her for the general. Now that his attacks have escalated with him thinking he might actually have a chance to win (he doesn’t) it’s getting harder and harder to see him as a positive. I planned to vote for him in our preference poll here (HI) to give more voice to his economic message, but by the time for the vote he and his supporters had annoyed me out of even that symbolic vote.
    At this point I keep reminding myself that the contest in 2008 got more acrimonious than this one has and that in all likelihood Democrats and their allies will end up voting for the eventual nominee and hopefully contributing to down ballot races.
    If you can’t bring yourself to vocally support Clinton at the end of this at least work to help bring the Senate back to sanity and to bring the House to a more evenly divided state.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  208. Todd says:

    @Grewgills:

    It is that he has been him parroting right wing talking points about Clinton, weakening her for the general.

    Give me a break. Not every criticism of Clinton is a “right wing talking point”.

    And the “sin” I was talking about had nothing to do with anything Sanders is doing. It’s when Democrats keep chastising me (and people like me) that if I don’t support Clinton in the general election I will be “helping to elect Trump”.

    I will quite likely do my part when it comes to the Senate (although John McCain is unlikely to be defeated) and House (AZ-2 should be competitive again) races. Although to be perfectly blunt, I’m fairly disgusted with the Democratic party as a whole at the moment.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  209. Mikey says:

    @Todd:

    Give me a break. Not every criticism of Clinton is a “right wing talking point”.

    Nobody has said they are.

    Still, when you go over to Reddit, which is as close to monolithic support of Sanders as it’s possible for a web-based collection of fora to be, and see so many people posting links to the fever-swampest right-wing sites to criticize Clinton…you start to wonder what effect that could actually have on the general election.

    Eh, maybe none. But still.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  210. Todd says:

    @Mikey:

    …you start to wonder what effect that could actually have on the general election.

    Again, if such a thing does have an effect on the general election outcome, it will NOT be the fault of left-leaning voters (and/or Senator Sanders) who have the “gall” to criticize Hillary Clinton. It will be the fault of Democratic voters who discount the effects that these largely legitimate criticisms of Clinton (that she has problems with character and judgement) may pose in a general election … even against what is sure to be a “scary” Republican candidate.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  211. jukeboxgrad says:

    and see so many people posting links to the fever-swampest right-wing sites to criticize Clinton

    As I have already suggested on multiple threads, this is not necessarily an indication of self-destructive treachery by petulant liberals. It could be a reflection of the fact that Sanders is getting a lot of support from independents and possibly even conservatives. So the people reading and promoting those sites would be doing so even if Sanders did not exist.

    Sanders has crossover appeal, and this is a feature, not a bug. What you’re seeing is probably a reflection of that appeal.

    you start to wonder what effect that could actually have on the general election.

    You should wonder the same thing when you see in these threads condescension and personal attacks directed against people who support Sanders. Many such people are not Democrats, and never were, and they might feel like they are being reminded why they made that choice. This applies not just to people participating in these threads but also to people passing by and reading them.

    Also, I see various Clinton supporters presenting her as virtually invincible in November. From that perspective, your concern is moot, because supposedly she will win even without support from the Sanders crowd.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  212. Pch101 says:

    It’s as if the internet Sanders fans reside in some sort of alternate reality, a place in which the guy who is in second place is supposed to be the Democratic nominee simply because they prefer him.

    Most Democratic primary voters have chosen someone else. Apparently, that isn’t supposed to matter.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  213. jukeboxgrad says:

    the guy who is in second place is supposed to be the Democratic nominee

    It’s always fun to watch a straw man being demolished.

    Apparently, that isn’t supposed to matter.

    There goes another one.

    I realize that responding to things I never said is much easier than responding to what I have actually said.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  214. Todd says:

    @Pch101: I can’t speak for all, or probably even most “Sanders’ fans”, but for me this primary debate is much more about Hillary Clinton. The alternate reality that I had hoped against hope for was that Democrats might be sensible enough to nominate somebody else … anybody else.

    But who was I kidding?

    The Democratic party is the Clinton’s party, through and through. And this reaction that we’re seeing by so many here to Sanders’ supporters not just obediently “falling in line” epitomizes the problems with the Democratic party. Democrats have gotten their asses handed to them in the last two mid-term elections. You would think that they might want to examine their message and/or the type of candidates they are running. But no, the Democratic party doesn’t do that. They simply blame the unreliable voters who didn’t show up. They feel no obligation to provide voters with a good reason to show up … because hey, no matter what the Republicans are much worse.

    The only problem with that logic is that reality has revealed that “at least we’re not as bad as the other guys” just isn’t a very compelling campaign message.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  215. Pch101 says:

    @Todd:

    The Dems don’t have a very deep bench. And Sanders isn’t even on that bench, as he isn’t a Democrat. If he wanted to have a bona fide shot at the nomination, then he should have become a Democrat and earned some favors from the party instead of trying to kick the door down and break in. So not only can you blame him 110% for failing to be realistic about his ability to impose himself on a club to which he does not belong, but you can also use that lack of realism as a barometer for how a Sanders presidency would be deadlocked due to a lack of support from either party.

    In any case, we’re voting for a president, not a best friend. Presidents ultimately don’t have much authority, anyway, so it makes more sense to focus on the things that are most relevant to their jobs, such as choosing federal judges and setting agency priorities.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  216. Grewgills says:

    @Todd:

    Give me a break. Not every criticism of Clinton is a “right wing talking point”.

    No, but some of them are and Sander’s campaign, not just some of his more avid supporters have retweeted several attacks that came from right wing groups. Early on he avoided doing this, lately he piles on anything he thinks might give advantage regardless of potential future downside in the general.

    And the “sin” I was talking about had nothing to do with anything Sanders is doing. It’s when Democrats keep chastising me (and people like me) that if I don’t support Clinton in the general election I will be “helping to elect Trump”.

    In a two person race withholding support for one is tacit support of the other. You aren’t in a swing state so it likely doesn’t matter and at this point I’m beginning to think it might be Cruz you’d be helping in to the WH.

    Again, if such a thing does have an effect on the general election outcome, it will NOT be the fault of left-leaning voters (and/or Senator Sanders) who have the “gall” to criticize Hillary Clinton.

    If the election is close and it could be, then every crack in the dam will bear some responsibility for the break. Was it Nader’s fault that GWB was the president? Not entirely, but if not for him we wouldn’t have had president GWB. So where does that put Nader supporters?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  217. Grewgills says:

    @jbg:

    As I have already suggested on multiple threads, this is not necessarily an indication of self-destructive treachery by petulant liberals. It could be a reflection of the fact that Sanders is getting a lot of support from independents and possibly even conservatives.

    As ‘evidence’ for this you have given a laughable online ‘poll’ from Drudge and a handful of anecdotes. My FB feed is (or was until I unfollowed several friends) clogged with every bit of anti-Clinton propaganda from the left and from the right and all of it put there by my VERY left leaning friends. The attacks of right wing hacks are being parroted by left wing hacks in the vain hope that Sanders will ride in on a wave of revolution and magically transform Washington.
    We are left with only a few options:
    1) You are right and a substantial number of right wing working class whites really prefer a Jewish New England Socialist.
    2) I am right and it is almost entirely left wing (mostly far left) Sanders supporters who are grabbing for any ammunition; they can find regardless of source or validity.
    One of those is more correct than the other. The Drudge nonsense doesn’t move the needle and the rest is a anecdotal. We are left with looking to history and making logical inferences.
    I know you’ll defend that ridiculous poll as actual evidence to your dying breath, so this is probably a waste of time and pixels, but there it is anyway.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  218. charon says:

    @jukeboxgrad:

    Also, I see various Clinton supporters presenting her as virtually invincible in November. From that perspective, your concern is moot, because supposedly she will win even without support from the Sanders crowd.

    And the Senate? House? State and local? Damaging HRC, even if not fatally, hurts other Democrats.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  219. PJ says:

    @charon:

    And the Senate? House? State and local? Damaging HRC, even if not fatally, hurts other Democrats.

    Considering that Sanders and his followers think that they are all corrupt since they all take money from PACs/SuperPACs/etc, it’s probably excellent news to them. The only non-corrupt Democrats to them are those who support Sanders, so those are very few.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  220. jukeboxgrad says:

    As ‘evidence’ for this you have given a laughable online ‘poll’ from Drudge and a handful of anecdotes. My FB feed is (or was until I unfollowed several friends) clogged with every bit of anti-Clinton propaganda from the left and from the right and all of it put there by my VERY left leaning friends.

    Your first sentence accusing me of relying on anecdotes is immediately followed by you relying on anecdotes. Really?

    And are you really not clear that Sanders is drawing support disproportionately from independents? Evidence to support that claim is easy to find. Let me know if you need help finding it. And as far as his support from conservatives:

    Sanders is receiving significant support from the small but (in some states) significant share of Democratic primary voters who do not identify as liberal or as moderate, but as conservative

    Also of interest (The Federalist):

    Bernie Sanders: The Principled Conservative For 2016

    Also:

    The Lifelong Republicans Who Love Bernie Sanders … Some conservatives are defying expectation and backing the Vermont senator.

    These articles might help you understand why “a substantial number of right wing working class whites really prefer a Jewish New England Socialist.”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  221. Grewgills says:

    @jukeboxgrad:

    Your first sentence accusing me of relying on anecdotes is immediately followed by you relying on anecdotes. Really?

    Sigh, I pointed out that you are relying on anecdotes then pointed out that anecdotes are easily found counter to yours. See how that works? We could get into an anecdote war as you seem ready to do with your link to the Federalist and Atlantic articles, or we could dispense with anecdotes altogether, either way I am busy and don’t have time to get into another 50 comment exchange, so I’ll leave you to it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  222. Kylopod says:

    jbg: Kilgore’s one example was Oklahoma, where “conservatives” in the Dem primary broke 54/22 for Sanders. What he neglects to mention is that other Democratic primaries with significant numbers of self-identifying conservatives have produced the opposite result: in South Carolina, Clinton captured 72% of the “conservative” vote, Georgia 73%, Florida 70% and North Carolina 52%.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  223. jukeboxgrad says:

    I pointed out that you are relying on anecdotes then pointed out that anecdotes are easily found counter to yours.

    Early in this thread I cited an article containing this:

    Neil Levesque, executive director of the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College, said: “I talk to many people whose first choice is Trump and second choice is Sanders, even though they’re diametrically opposed. …”

    Do you really think your personal experience on Facebook is equal in weight to this statement from someone who does this for a living? And I cited other statements like that, not just him.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  224. jukeboxgrad says:

    Democratic primaries with significant numbers of self-identifying conservatives have produced the opposite result

    I think you are seeing the effect of “self-identifying conservatives” who happen to be black. I mentioned OK, where the D primary electorate was 14% black. You mentioned states where that number is 61, 51, 27 and 38%, respectively. I never claimed that Sanders does well with black conservatives. I am claiming he does disproportionately well (that is, better than Clinton) among white conservatives. I don’t mean the kind of people who call themselves ‘very conservative.’ I mean white working class voters who lean R. Link:

    Bernie Sanders Is Making Surprising Gains With Less Affluent Whites … In a compilation of New York Times/CBS News surveys since November, Mr. Sanders leads Mrs. Clinton, 47 percent to 39 percent, among white voters who make less than $50,000. If anything, these figures may understate Mr. Sanders’s strength; he has gained in state, national and New York Times/CBS News surveys over the period.

    It should be obvious enough by now that “white voters who make less than $50,000” are Trump’s base. What I’m talking about is that Sanders is reaching that group and Clinton is not. And this is probably the main reason why general election matchups show Sanders doing better against Trump (or Cruz, for that matter) than Clinton does.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  225. Andre Kenji says:
  226. Andre Kenji says:

    Sanders polls relatively well with working class whites because he is the Generic Democrat. I also imagine that if Jim Webb had really campaigned for the Democratic Nomination we would not be talking about Sanders vote in Oklahoma.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  227. PJ says:

    Paul Song introducing Bernie Sanders at a rally:

    “Now Secretary Clinton has said that Medicare for all will never happen. Well, I agree with Secretary Clinton that Medicare for all will never happen if we have a president who never aspires for something greater than the status quo. Medicare for all will never happen if we continue to elect corporate Democratic whores who are beholden to big pharma and the private insurance industry instead of us.”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  228. Pat says:

    Glad that Sanders is revealing his inner self of how he fights, what he thinks, and how he uses language; as his first real challenge to election in all of his 30 odd years of reelection to Congress, it’s important for America to know what it is getting for its money from a new face on the national scene. The same can be said of the other candidates, all of whom are forced to innovate to get and stay ahead. Smart alec remarks appear to be out of context for such an important election, and credibility is in the eye of the beholder. So far, lots of elderly blow hard, which normally does not a campaign make, traditionally….but he’s a novice in national elections, and makes the mistakes of a novice. It’s hard to get excitement and wisdom in the same person, but he’s relatively good at getting excitement! And inciting with it!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0