2016 USA Presidential election thread I: The warm-up

[pohibaba]

I'm not as sold as some of you seem to be on Hilldog's inevitability. Her negatives are as high as Trump's and they haven't been coming down.

I don't think Sanders has any shot, but he could weaken her enough to convince a real candidate (Warren, Biden, Kerry) to jump in.

[NinjaLotter]

Looking like Rick Perry is going to drop out of the race early:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/10/politi...aff/index.html

Too bad. My #1 issue is getting that old drone back.

[Xno Kappa]

Wasn't Hillary regarded as a lock too back in 2007? I remember shitty SNL skits poking fun at the facts that her party nomination was a foregone conclusion.

[Serra]

I have yet to see her poll less than 50% in any national poll. As it stands now, I imagine the majority of the party base sees her as the strongest possible candidate which has likely ensured her the majority of the super delegates. Honestly, I imagine they are Sanders' biggest obstacle -- they represent the party's interests and will see him as far too liberal to be a viable candidate.

[Blubbartron]

Has anyone considered the possibility that Sanders and Trump will both run as independents after losing their respective primaries? I think that could make things really, really interesting. The whole "soandso running as independent guarantees a win for the other side" thing goes right out the window.

[Tyrath]

I don't think Sanders will. He is running democrat because he knows an independent has no chance. Only reason Trump would do it because hes here for the attention and showboating.

[Cantih]

I doubt Sanders will keep running if he fairly loses at the DNC. If they pull some shenanigans though, and he has near even support by early 2016, the odds are better.
But I believe he wouldn't want to risk splitting the vote, which is the reason he's going for the DNC in the first place, not the Indep lack of support. A fight in the primaries does not risk the general.

[Marootsoobutsu]

Wasn't Hillary regarded as a lock too back in 2007? I remember shitty SNL skits poking fun at the facts that her party nomination was a foregone conclusion.

The difference is that Obama was a GREAT campaigner-- one of the better campaigners we've seen in decades. Hillary is a VERY GOOD campaigner, but Obama just brought that bit extra. Sanders doesn't have that. Hillary isn't trying yet, and she's still beating him. I'm not saying he's bad, but he's no where near Obama tier. Hillary right now basically has to decide just where she needs to cater to win the Dems, while not setting her up to lose the moderate vote.

I think the real question of Sanders campaign is whether he can show himself to be a strong enough draw-- and not a large enough deterrent-- for VP or a probable Cabinet post.

There's a ton of volatility in the Republican primary, but I just have a really, really hard time seeing this be anything but Hillary's turn. When she starts focusing on this, she's going to slam the breaks on Bernie's campaign.

[Not Kuno]

Has Hillary even done serious campaigning?

Literally any word out of Hillarys mouth only hurts her, which is why she isn't attempting any public events. Once the debates start expect her to give out scripted, focus group tested, non answers and watch her favorability plummet.

[Buffy]

The most interesting election would be a four person event. Hilldog, Sanders, Trump, and whoever.

[notorious bum]

Hilary is hardly doing "nothing" in her campaign against Sanders. Spending millions on polling and advertisements and yet losing NH so fast is hilarious to me. Bernie has also exceeded Obama's highest campaign crowd #'s, according to what I've read, of 28k to Obama's 27k back in Sept. 2007.

Upcoming rally in SC will be huge if Bernie pulls the type of numbers we've been seeing at his "small" conventions, so far.

[Serra]

Has anyone considered the possibility that Sanders and Trump will both run as independents after losing their respective primaries? I think that could make things really, really interesting. The whole "soandso running as independent guarantees a win for the other side" thing goes right out the window.

The most interesting election would be a four person event. Hilldog, Sanders, Trump, and whoever.

It would be exciting, but if either Sanders or Trump did it, they'd be willingly stabbing their side/preferred policies in the back. The only way this works is if two alternate candidates declare around the same time and stay in the race. If one were to drop out (a week or a few days) before the election, they would hand their side the win -- and there is no way for either to know the other will stay in. The best outcome for a candidate is to win; the second best would be for their side to win and therefore promoting policies closer to their ideal point; the worst would be losing and their side losing, leading to non-preferred policies. With the amount of polling and forecasts, we'll have a pretty good idea well into advance which candidate would be competing for first and second and which would not. The candidate in last (and then the candidate in third) would have to be pushing for the worst outcome to remain in the race.

Trump actually has two big advantages which Sanders doesn't have -- he's actually in first, and the RNC doesn't have as many super delegates as the DNC (if I recall, I think the DNC has over 1,000 while the RNC only has like 100). The Republican establishment might not want Trump, but if he can keep his momentum going for the next year (which is admittedly hard to imagine, but let's consider it), he could feasibly force a nomination.

With Sanders though, he is too liberal to be viable on a national stage. That Gallup poll which said 50% of voters would not vote for a candidate who said he/she is a socialist (interestingly, talking about the sides of the media, look at how that article is played up based on the source -- liberal articles talk about the other side, that 47% say they would be okay voting for a socialist) is a powerful strike against him. And the political spectrum is not a circle, it's a line -- the Democrats don't have to worry about his supporters voting Republican. Sanders can draw big numbers because he's appealing to the far left liberals. People talk about how you only see the crazy conservatives in the media campaigning and picketing and making a scene, but that also applies to liberals. Hillary isn't campaigning for those voters, when it comes time for the general election, she already has them won. She has to campaign for the middle ground.

Literally any word out of Hillarys mouth only hurts her, which is why she isn't attempting any public events. Once the debates start expect her to give out scripted, focus group tested, non answers and watch her favorability plummet.

This goes into the idea that people want the candidate they can sit down and have a beer with. Hilldog is definitely one of the most qualified candidates in the race, and yet people are talking about if people like her or if she's trustworthy, etc. Same reason her first two adds try to humanize her and feature her mother so prominently.

[notorious bum]

Best. Story. Correction. Ever.



From an LA Times article.

[kuronosan]

Let's be honest. Hillary is only polling well because she's a female candidate. Not because she's a good candidate.

Sure, she's miles ahead of Palin. I really am not convinced she'd make a good president.

[Not Kuno]

Let's be honest. Hillary is only polling well because she's a female candidate. Not because she's a good candidate.

Sure, she's miles ahead of Palin. I really am not convinced she'd make a good president.

In this era of crazy super pacs and super shady "charities", I can't understand why anyone would think she's make a good candidate. Just look at her top contributors (the public ones at least), how much money they spent, and then tell me she means well for the american people. Also she's super hawkish, and is basically a republican in disguise.

[Tyrath]

It's because you look at all of the other candidates (aside from Bernie) and you don't really have much of a choice. This is why I am all in for Bernie. I just don't think he will survive version the Clinton machine.

[Not Kuno]

It's because you look at all of the other candidates (aside from Bernie) and you don't really have much of a choice. This is why I am all in for Bernie. I just don't think he will survive version the Clinton machine.

She's not going to openly say anything bad about Bernie. Republicans have Hillary on open season and regularly give her a lot of shit. She is taking the high road by not doing that back to them. Where does Bernie fit in this? He has never run an attack ad in his life, and refuses to attack Hillary. Despite many, many, various interviewers trying to bait him into saying something negative about her, he refuses. Running a negative campaign against him would make her look really shitty and just open the floodgates from the right (even more).

[Tyrath]

When did I say anything about attack ads? I was simply responding to why people think Hillary is a good candidate, its due to the lack of good choices.

[Not Kuno]

When did I say anything about attack ads? I was simply responding to why people think Hillary is a good candidate, its due to the lack of good choices.

Oh I guess I misunderstood what you meant by surviving the clinton machine.

[Tyrath]

Nah I just meant that he won't be able to beat her in the primaries.