- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 194379
This article makes the case that he can (and will).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/bernie-sanders-will-become-president_b_8780730.html
Most pundits and those of us with extensive experience watching these races would say otherwise. In fact most pundits, to whom this writer is responding, would say she has it in the bag.
I would say to the notion of a Bernie win - it's possible, but not likely. Not because Bernie is an self-defined socialist - one triumph of his campaign is to put to death the cold war angst about that term. But I would say he can't win for the same reason Clinton ultimately couldn't defeat Obama in 08 - the black vote.
The black vote is the most solid Democratic Party voting bloc, having switched from the Republican Party in 1932 with the collapse of under regulated capitalism and the ascent of the New Deal. The black vote is a very pragmatic vote. African Americans aren't necessarily liberal - liberal being a cultural association as well as political - most do not self-identify as "liberal." And yet they vote more consistently liberal than self-defined white liberals. Since 1932 they have voted overwhelmingly for Democrats in Presidential elections, usually at around 85 to 90 percent, with the lowest recipient being JFK in 1960 who received just under 70 percent because of weak Civil Rights stands (JFK feared what would become the "southern strategy" used by Nixon to move Dixiecrats into the Republican party in 1968 - when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Bill in 1964 he said, "We've lost the southern vote for a hundred years). The other side of the sword is that the GOP has similarly lost the black vote, far fewer electoral college votes though.
The black vote is a pragmatic vote. They will vote for a white liberal over a black conservative (Baltimore, Oakland, and numerous other examples). And while they may like what Bernie has to say - they may even prefer it to what Clinton has to say - they have to be convinced that he can, a. Defeat the Republican in November, and B. be effective to deliver thereafter.
Whatever you want to say about the Clinton machine, it gets things done. Despite the demographics disadvantage, it gave Obama a hard run for its money in 2008 and she didn't give up until June. It's blown the Benghazi Committee Republicans out of the water - they didn't even know what hit them. And she's shone in the first couple of debates, using sexual politics, 911, and rhetorical brilliance to fend off attacks on the emails (though she got great help from Bernie there - his refusal to attack on anything other than substance issues has done him well for 40 years, but he did pass up an opportunity), her SuperPAC money, her sellouts to Wall Street, and even her Iraq War vote. The writer of the article suggests that when the media covers her weaknesses on racial politics it will change black voter minds. It may take away some luster, but they will vote the way they feel they have to to preserve urban economic assistance, keep their kids out of ground wars, and address other issues of importance to them.
It's conceivable that despite the polls Bernie will win the Iowa caucuses. Next to Trump he has the most dedicated and enthused following which brings people out to participate in long caucus processes. It's not just voting, and pollsters have been confounded by the Iowa caucuses in the past.
And then he wins New Hampshire and let's say Nevada. He will probably hit the firewall in South Carolina. Black voters. The same wall that Clinton hit in 08.
But maybe if he does pull off the Iowa and NH wins he will make the sale that he is effective. He doesn't have to win the majority of black votes, but he has to pull away 40 percent - 30 percent minimum. He has to be filmed in black churches, with photo ops with black community leaders to generate confidence in his depth.
It can be done. He's raised an incredible amount of money on small donations so he has resources to work with. But Clinton's machine has been at this for a long time.
In fact, I'm fairly certain she will be your next President. She's not my first choice. Nor my second. But she will probably be there come the January after next.
Originally posted by KunsooIt's possible I suppose. I like Bernie, and would be happier with him in the oval office rather than one of the tea bots.
This article makes the case that he can (and will).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/bernie-sanders-will-become-president_b_8780730.html
Most pundits and those of us with extensive experience watching these races would say otherwise. In fact most pundits, to whom this writer is responding, would say she has it in the bag.
I would say to the ...[text shortened]... ot my first choice. Nor my second. But she will probably be there come the January after next.
Originally posted by KunsooWith a war (WW3) starting will Hillary Clinton really be the one we want?
This article makes the case that he can (and will).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/bernie-sanders-will-become-president_b_8780730.html
Most pundits and those of us with extensive experience watching these races would say otherwise. In fact most pundits, to whom this writer is responding, would say she has it in the bag.
I would say to the ...[text shortened]... ot my first choice. Nor my second. But she will probably be there come the January after next.
Originally posted by KunsooIf Bernie wins in Iowa and New Hampshire, his name recognition will soar and all Democrats, including blacks, are going to be looking at him in a new light. So yeas I think it can happen and think Bernie would be a stronger candidate than Hilary because he does not have the personal negatives that Clinton rightly or wrongly possesses among a lot of Independents.
This article makes the case that he can (and will).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/bernie-sanders-will-become-president_b_8780730.html
Most pundits and those of us with extensive experience watching these races would say otherwise. In fact most pundits, to whom this writer is responding, would say she has it in the bag.
I would say to the ...[text shortened]... ot my first choice. Nor my second. But she will probably be there come the January after next.
This article confirms that Bernie has gotten very little media coverage: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/12/11/abc-world-news-tonight-has-devoted-less-than-on/207428
Whether that is ideologically based or not, it will surely be the case that victories by Sanders in Iowa and New Hampshire would compel greater coverage.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 194379
Originally posted by no1marauderYes, he has more supporters than Trump, but receives 1/23 of the coverage.
This article confirms that Bernie has gotten very little media coverage: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/12/11/abc-world-news-tonight-has-devoted-less-than-on/207428
Whether that is ideologically based or not, it will surely be the case that victories by Sanders in Iowa and New Hampshire would compel greater coverage.
Originally posted by no1marauderThe last poll in Iowa (Monmouth) had Hillary up by 22 points. I think it's virtually impossible for Sanders to win Iowa. A narrow loss in Iowa followed by a win in NH may be the best he can hope for, which may be enough to get him back in the game.
If Bernie wins in Iowa and New Hampshire, his name recognition will soar and all Democrats, including blacks, are going to be looking at him in a new light. So yeas I think it can happen and think Bernie would be a stronger candidate than Hilary because he does not have the personal negatives that Clinton rightly or wrongly possesses among a lot of Independents.
Hillary also has a huge lead in endorsements. True, she also had a big endorsements lead in 2008, but Obama was the perfect insurgent candidate. Sanders is not really on the same level.
Originally posted by Kunsooyou don't get ratings showing the sensible politician. you get even less ratings when that candidate refuses to do the decent thing and attack his opponent on unrelated issues.
Yes, he has more supporters than Trump, but receives 1/23 of the coverage.
you get ratings showing insane clowns like trump. everyone will watch him, from people just as insane as him to people who don't have anything better to watch on tv to people with opposing views wanting to watch someone insane make a complete fool of himself on tv then feel better about themselves.
crazy sells.
hopefully people will get bored and won't want to renew this show for 4 more years.
Originally posted by sh76We shall see. The caucuses are still almost two months away and can be volatile; they favor candidates with strong grass roots organizations and enthusiastic supporters. Turnout is a huge factor and Bernie is superior in both.
The last poll in Iowa (Monmouth) had Hillary up by 22 points. I think it's virtually impossible for Sanders to win Iowa. A narrow loss in Iowa followed by a win in NH may be the best he can hope for, which may be enough to get him back in the game.
Hillary also has a huge lead in endorsements. True, she also had a big endorsements lead in 2008, but Obama was the perfect insurgent candidate. Sanders is not really on the same level.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 194379
Originally posted by sh76Again, pollsters are notoriously inaccurate when it comes to Iowa because they rely on their standard formulas for most likely voters. But it doesn't apply when you have a candidate with an enthusiastic base.
The last poll in Iowa (Monmouth) had Hillary up by 22 points. I think it's virtually impossible for Sanders to win Iowa. A narrow loss in Iowa followed by a win in NH may be the best he can hope for, which may be enough to get him back in the game.
Hillary also has a huge lead in endorsements. True, she also had a big endorsements lead in 2008, but Obama was the perfect insurgent candidate. Sanders is not really on the same level.