General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHillary will never survive the Trump onslaught: It’s not fair, but it makes her a weak nominee
There are many nauseating aspects of the new reality TV series, America Picks a Prez, which airs around the clock on every single channel on earth: the cynical, open-air conspiracy between our Fourth Estate and Donald Ratings Viagra Trump. Ted Cruz uttering the word prayerfully while not exploding into a cloud of synthetic piety. Caucasian patriots heroically exercising their right to punch people of color.
Among these, let me nominate one more: listening to Hillary partisans explain to those of us who support Bernie Sanders just how naive we are. Only Hillary, we are told, has a real shot at winning in November. Shes the only one with a realistic grasp of how Washington works, whose moderate (and modest) policy aims might, realistically, be enacted. It often sounds as if Clintons central pitch to voters isnt that she has a moral vision for the country, but that she owns the franchise on realism.
Bernie, meanwhile, is just a sweet-shouting rube whose quarter-century as a congressman and senator has somehow failed to instill in him an appreciation for the twin plagues of grift and gridlock.
For us benighted hippies, the standard counter-argument at this point is that our man understands all too well the magnitude of Washingtons dysfunction, which is why hes calling for a political revolution: to obliterate the most heinous aspects of the status quo, starting with corporate-sponsored elections.
http://www.salon.com/2016/03/14/hillary_will_never_survive_the_trump_onslaught_its_not_fair_but_it_makes_her_a_weak_nominee/
sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)than any other candidate in history with the possible exception of Barack Obama.
She's tough as hell and she has an oppo research group as good or better than any other candidate.
Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)I meant it when I said "with the possible exception of Barack Obama" too. He proved himself to be one hell of a lot tougher and smarter than any Republican, and some Democrats ever dreamed.
I've never seen anyone weather a shitstorm of hate like him.
Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)I didn't read your full post.
sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)The only person that does it better than Obama is Bill Clinton.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)yourpaljoey
(2,166 posts)stopbush
(24,396 posts)cwydro
(51,308 posts)Hillary can beat Trump with no worries.
Svafa
(594 posts)Her favorability is in the toilet, the only people who support her a percentage of the dem base. Independents, moderates, and many democrats are not fond of her. Even setting aside the "Bernie or Bust" crowd, voter turnout will be very low for her (probably for Trump too, though). If the best thing a candidate can say in an attempt to bring lefties, indies, and moderates into the fold is, "At least I'm not as bad as the other guy!" you have a terrible candidate.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Maybe then they would get some of that sweet, sweet 'Not Hillary' Party cash and not be so totally broke.
underahedgerow
(1,232 posts)Trump blows up and blusters and sputters at the drop of a hat. He loses his temper and can't construct more than 2 words at a time.
Clinton is the epitome of cool, extreme intelligence and even temper.
Trump has played out his game for too long and he's teetering on the edge. Bernie is also losing patience and wearing thin. It's a shame, he's a good guy.
Thing is, I don't think Bernie could hold his own against Trump. Trump is good at being a bully.
And I still can't figure out WHAT Bernie was thinking in the Vatican thing. A Hail Mary play, figuratively and literally... That one stumps me.
No one can bully Mrs. Clinton.
It will all be just fine.
Arkansas Granny
(31,518 posts)At some point, Trump is going to be expected to explain in detail how he plans to make America great again. His fans might love his bombastic bullshit answers, but that won't go over so well in the debates.
procon
(15,805 posts)"None of this is to suggest that Hillary wont beat Trump, if they wind up as the nominees. Nor that she wont be a great president."
Thanks for wasting my time reading about how Hillary is going to be a weak nominee, but still beat Trump and be a great president.
Protalker
(418 posts)He has been in congress for 25 years. His colleagues who will be carrying and pushing change have overwhelmingly chosen Clinton I would assume seeing them both on the job. Believe in her.ability to DO the job.Things should be different.
Marr
(20,317 posts)Her campaign's reflexive cries of sexism will boomerang back on her in seconds, too.
It's an unfortunate situation. We've got a stupendously bad candidate, a person with decades of baggage and shockingly low approval ratings, who is under investigation by the FBI, who has zero appeal to Independents and millennials (and may actually send many of the latter away from the party for good, in fact).
Then there's the fact that she energizes the hell out of the far right, and will make the ideal punching bag for Trump.
FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)Trump has no chance of being elected. None. Nada. Zilch.
You wonder why the Republican leadership is fighting tooth and nail to get someone, anyone, besides Trump as the nominee? It's because they see the demographics and know Trump would be slaughtered by anyone the Democrats nominate.
This is a another stupid "concern" piece.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)Did you say that about George AWOL Bush in 2000? 2004? I did.
Gothmog
(145,312 posts)Sanders has not been vetted and is very vulnerable to negative ads. I am amused that Sanders supporters and Sanders keep citing general election match polls that are worthless because Sanders has not been vetted. Dana Milbank has some good comments on general election match up polls https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-would-be-insane-to-nominate-bernie-sanders/2016/01/26/0590e624-c472-11e5-a4aa-f25866ba0dc6_story.html?hpid=hp_opinions-for-wide-side_opinion-card-a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
Watching Sanders at Monday nights Democratic presidential forum in Des Moines, I imagined how Trump or another Republican nominee would disembowel the relatively unknown Vermonter.
The first questioner from the audience asked Sanders to explain why he embraces the socialist label and requested that Sanders define it so that it doesnt concern the rest of us citizens.
Sanders, explaining that much of what he proposes is happening in Scandinavia and Germany (a concept that itself alarms Americans who dont want to be like socialized Europe), answered vaguely: Creating a government that works for all of us, not just a handful of people on the top thats my definition of democratic socialism.
But thats not how Republicans will define socialism and theyll have the dictionary on their side. Theyll portray Sanders as one who wants the government to own and control major industries and the means of production and distribution of goods. Theyll say he wants to take away private property. That wouldnt be fair, but it would be easy. Socialists dont win national elections in the United States .
Sanders on Monday night also admitted he would seek massive tax increases one of the biggest tax hikes in history, as moderator Chris Cuomo put it to expand Medicare to all. Sanders, this time making a comparison with Britain and France, allowed that hypothetically, youre going to pay $5,000 more in taxes, and declared, W e will raise taxes, yes we will. He said this would be offset by lower health-insurance premiums and protested that its demagogic to say, oh, youre paying more in taxes.
Well, yes and Trump is a demagogue.
Sanders also made clear he would be happy to identify Democrats as the party of big government and of wealth redistribution. When Cuomo said Sanders seemed to be saying he would grow government bigger than ever, Sanders didnt quarrel, saying, P eople want to criticize me, okay, and F ine, if thats the criticism, I accept it.
Sanders accepts it, but are Democrats ready to accept ownership of socialism, massive tax increases and a dramatic expansion of government? If so, they will lose.
Match up polls are worthless because these polls do not measure what would happen to Sanders in a general election where Sanders is very vulnerable to negative ads.