Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 08:54 AM Feb 2016

The electability argument unravels: bernie beats hillary in ALL hypothetical matchups



Hillary’s supporters want voters to believe that we have to nominate Mrs. Clinton or risk losing the election. This argument is built on lies, as the only available data shows that Bernie Sanders does better in hypothetical matchups against Republicans than Hillary.






http://trofire.com/2016/02/16/the-electability-argument-unravels-bernie-beats-hillary-in-all-hypothetical-matchups-the-ring-of-fire/

69 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The electability argument unravels: bernie beats hillary in ALL hypothetical matchups (Original Post) restorefreedom Feb 2016 OP
Bernie will in fact do better in the general election than Clinton. PatrickforO Feb 2016 #1
The OP is wrong to the point of profound silliness. Hortensis Feb 2016 #3
do you doubt the level of demoralization and contempt restorefreedom Feb 2016 #5
The levels a relative FEW have on the left? Hortensis Feb 2016 #13
So few that we won 2010 and 2014, right? jeff47 Feb 2016 #14
You're wrapping the tea-partiers fury into "we"? Hortensis Feb 2016 #15
You're claiming tea partiers voted for Obama in 2008? jeff47 Feb 2016 #16
No, Jeff, they worked AGAINST Obama. Get it? Hortensis Feb 2016 #18
Our CANDIDATES worked against Obama. jeff47 Feb 2016 #21
Irritation, Jeff. I'm not an angry-type person or Hortensis Feb 2016 #22
"And those who want change did not come out to vote because they BELIEVED RIGHT-WING LIES." LondonReign2 Feb 2016 #46
"are you suggesting the far-lefters alone lost the Democrats literally hundreds of offices in 2010?" LondonReign2 Feb 2016 #45
i don't hate obama, and i realize the m$m says NOTHING positive about dems restorefreedom Feb 2016 #25
I also want big change, even bigger than what Hortensis Feb 2016 #38
so we want the same thing basically restorefreedom Feb 2016 #41
K! :) Hortensis Feb 2016 #43
excellent..rock on! nt restorefreedom Feb 2016 #44
would Bernie also enthuse Republicans? 6chars Feb 2016 #30
Yup. 2,000 Republicans in NH went for Bernie. Rocky the Leprechaun Feb 2016 #60
The choice between voting for someone with a vision madokie Feb 2016 #2
That's because Clinton supporters are not stupid enough to say they wouldn't vote for him under any boston bean Feb 2016 #4
the level of frustration people feel towards status quo is ignored restorefreedom Feb 2016 #6
What I said was Hillary Clinton supporters weren't stupid. boston bean Feb 2016 #7
so if its not the hillary supporters who are stupid, who is left to be stupid? restorefreedom Feb 2016 #10
The problem with this is that Hillary has been under attack from Republicans, the media WI_DEM Feb 2016 #8
hammers and sickles, and that is from other dems restorefreedom Feb 2016 #11
Hillary is a shill for Wall Street, believe it or not people are tied of being screwed by Wall JRLeft Feb 2016 #12
Cry me a river. Sanders has been in politics as long as Hillary. delrem Feb 2016 #17
Hillary has something Bernie doesn't. PonyUp Feb 2016 #9
Then why is Sanders playing the same game? randome Feb 2016 #19
That's not what Debbie Wasserman Schultz said. Octafish Feb 2016 #24
And I'm sure you've already seen the explanation for 'grassroots activists'. randome Feb 2016 #28
Then judge her by her entire body of work. Octafish Feb 2016 #32
"It means any single-issue group cannot game the system." Fawke Em Feb 2016 #42
He hasn't been attacked yet KingFlorez Feb 2016 #20
they don't need to. the other dems are doing that for them. restorefreedom Feb 2016 #26
He hasn't been attacked yet SheenaR Feb 2016 #34
You really think that if Hillary *could* find more to attack him with, she wouldn't have?! JudyM Feb 2016 #37
These polls don't mean a single thing right now. Wait until the R attack machine gets ahold of him. RBInMaine Feb 2016 #23
addressed above. nt restorefreedom Feb 2016 #27
Bernie would get crushed in a general election aaaaaa5a Feb 2016 #29
debunked multiple times restorefreedom Feb 2016 #31
But the attack ads on Sanders write themselves Gothmog Feb 2016 #51
as do the attacks on hillary restorefreedom Feb 2016 #53
You do realize that Rove is already throwing everything he has against Clinton in the primaries Gothmog Feb 2016 #54
rove is not the genius he thinks he is restorefreedom Feb 2016 #56
Denial is not just a river in Africa Gothmog Feb 2016 #58
lol. but no worries here restorefreedom Feb 2016 #59
And yet he is still able to spend millions of dollars to try to nominate the weakest GE nominee Gothmog Feb 2016 #61
as he sees it. again, NOT a genius. he can waste his money restorefreedom Feb 2016 #62
That is fine but do not pretend that the GOP is scared of Sanders Gothmog Feb 2016 #63
if they are not scared of him restorefreedom Feb 2016 #65
Anti-Sanders attack ad isn’t quite what it seems to be Gothmog Feb 2016 #66
well their stupidity and shortsightedness will be their downfall restorefreedom Feb 2016 #67
Denial is not just a river in Africa Gothmog Feb 2016 #68
lol. but i will stick to my original thesis of rove's tunnelvision created stupidity. restorefreedom Feb 2016 #69
GOP’s anti-Sanders attack ad intended to help, not hurt, Sanders Gothmog Feb 2016 #64
oh..ok... Blue_Tires Feb 2016 #33
Restorefreedom SheenaR Feb 2016 #35
thanks, and yes, they have gone soooooo easy on him restorefreedom Feb 2016 #39
And Hillary's numbers never go up. Just ask Lawrence O'Donnell Motown_Johnny Feb 2016 #36
yup. that was an eye opener....nt restorefreedom Feb 2016 #40
Hypothetical match up polls are worthless and should not be relied for anything Gothmog Feb 2016 #47
Bernie Sanders says he polls better against GOP candidates than Hillary Clinton Gothmog Feb 2016 #48
Democrats would be insane to nominate Sanders Gothmog Feb 2016 #49
Are Sanders general election polls fools gold? Gothmog Feb 2016 #50
looks like trump is going to be the gop nominee MariaThinks Feb 2016 #52
Matchup polls have zero predictive value at this stage in the cycle. nt Chichiri Feb 2016 #55
wondering if the would have more value restorefreedom Feb 2016 #57

PatrickforO

(14,592 posts)
1. Bernie will in fact do better in the general election than Clinton.
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 08:57 AM
Feb 2016

No one is enthused about her, she has too much baggage and she is a poor leader.

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
3. The OP is wrong to the point of profound silliness.
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 09:05 AM
Feb 2016

Please don't believe this stuff. Believe that Bernie has a chance to win. But not because of the nonsense above. Wishful thinking does not win elections and never did.

Donations of time and/or money can make a difference, though...

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
5. do you doubt the level of demoralization and contempt
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 10:51 AM
Feb 2016

people have for the establishment and anyone associated with them?

ignoring that reality is exactly what is going to give us president trump

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
13. The levels a relative FEW have on the left?
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 11:04 AM
Feb 2016

No, some of those few make it clear here. You are not the overwhelming tidal wave of fury you imagine, though. Even a large majority of those who like Berney also like Hillary.

BTW, do you know that over the past 7 years President Obama, the Democratic president we elected, erased ALL the tax cuts enacted since Reagan eas elected for the very wealthy?

This was accomplished in spite of intense GOP opposition, intense anti-government citizen opposition, opposition financed by floods of money from our wealthiest anti-government families, intense laissez-faire business opposition, and considerable help from the Supreme Court.

Yes, there is still very much to be done, but I expect you had no idea that mainstream Democrats have already hurt the plutocrats so badly. Mainstream media are business interests, and they have given it as little and as negative coverage as they feel they can get away with.

Obama has a whole bunch of other accomplishments the very wealthy are extremely unhappy with. They are far more helpless against the power of unsympathetic government than you imagine, and thus they are desperate to defeat the Democrats in 2016, because they know this is just the beginning of the end for their sacking of our nation if they do not.

Good job, Democrats!


jeff47

(26,549 posts)
14. So few that we won 2010 and 2014, right?
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 11:28 AM
Feb 2016

Oh wait...maybe not so few.

So "few" that Obama's margin of victory in 2012 was half his 2008 margin. Not good for an incumbent in an improving economy.

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
15. You're wrapping the tea-partiers fury into "we"?
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 11:36 AM
Feb 2016

Or are you suggesting the far-lefters alone lost the Democrats literally hundreds of offices in 2010?

Whatever. Right now the tea-partiers are giving the middle finger to the GOP by flocking to The Donald and Cruz, the Anointed Nut.

I'm not at all sure what point you're trying to make here either.

So "few" that Obama's margin of victory in 2012 was half his 2008 margin. Not good for an incumbent in an improving economy.


My point is that Obama has made very important advances in spite of the failure of many Democrats to come out and vote. And that's hardly something I'd be boasting about. Those people who stayed home made a dreadful, shameful mistake.

Only about a 5% increase in voter participation would essentially allow the left to run the board. We could already have taken complete control of our nation away from the anti-government forces hoping to continue sacking it without obstruction. Instead the battle continues...

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
16. You're claiming tea partiers voted for Obama in 2008?
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 11:42 AM
Feb 2016

Yeah...makes perfect sense.

Or are you suggesting the far-lefters alone lost the Democrats literally hundreds of offices in 2010?

Turnout among Democratic-leaning independents was way down in 2010, 2012 and 2014. Turnout among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents was not up much.

My point is that Obama has made very important advances in spite of the failure of many Democrats to come out and vote

And your point is wrong.

Democrats came out to vote. However, Democrats are only 30% of the electorate.

Democratic-leaning independents did not come out to vote. Because we offered shitty candidates and ran shitty campaigns where we attacked the left....just as you are doing here.

Only about a 5% increase in voter participation would essentially allow the left to run the board.

How, specifically, do your attacks on the left get this increase?

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
18. No, Jeff, they worked AGAINST Obama. Get it?
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 11:48 AM
Feb 2016

And those who want change did not come out to vote because they BELIEVED RIGHT-WING LIES.

The GOP loses every time participation is high.
Because a majority of all voters now votes for our candidates.

Therefore, they spend billions of dollars convincing people like...you, I guess, that the Democrats fail them at every turn.

That is such an outrageous lie that it is inexcusably ignorant and/or dishonest for anyone to believe, much less people on the left who want those changes. My guess is that every time people on the left spread his message Richard Mellon Scaife smiles from his grave.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
21. Our CANDIDATES worked against Obama.
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 11:56 AM
Feb 2016

Our 2010 campaign theme was "WE ARE SO SORRY WE PASSED THE ACA AND STIMULUS BILLS!!!!".

Our 2014 campaign theme was "Obama who??"

Therefore, they spend billions of dollars convincing people like...you, I guess, that the Democrats fail them at every turn.

So how did Republicans get Grimes to refuse to admit she voted for Obama?

In a democracy, it is the duty of the candidates to attract voters. It is not the obligation of voters to vote for the lesser of evils.

For us to win, we have to give voters something to vote for. Even those evil leftists you despise with every fiber of your being. You have a choice: Keep hurling insults and lose, or figure out how to attract them and win.

Clearly, you've chosen the first path. I hope your anger gives you comfort when we continue to lose.

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
22. Irritation, Jeff. I'm not an angry-type person or
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 12:25 PM
Feb 2016

I'd be backing Bernie and trying to sabotage the Democratic Party. Here's something else to think about. After all, it is 2016.

158 OVERWHELMINGLY CONSERVATIVE families are funding 2016.



"But regardless of industry, the families investing the most in presidential politics overwhelmingly lean right, contributing tens of millions of dollars to support Republican candidates who have pledged to pare regulations; cut taxes on income, capital gains and inheritances; and shrink entitlement programs.
...
In marshaling their financial resources chiefly behind Republican candidates, the donors are also serving as a kind of financial check on demographic forces that have been nudging the electorate toward support for the Democratic Party and its economic policies."

"Just 158 families have provided nearly half of the early money for efforts to capture the White House. They are overwhelmingly white, rich, older and male, in a nation that is being remade by the young, by women, and by black and brown voters."


Hundreds of millions of right-wing dollars committed to destroying the reputation of the Democratic Party every election is the main reason we lose, when we lose. We're the good guys, and we do keep winning anyway.

[link:http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/11/us/politics/2016-presidential-election-super-pac-donors.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=a-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0|

LondonReign2

(5,213 posts)
46. "And those who want change did not come out to vote because they BELIEVED RIGHT-WING LIES."
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 02:34 PM
Feb 2016

Again, the data shows that you are wrong. It has been a convenient excuse for the establishment to blame the left for not voting. The data shows this isn't true, yet it constantly gets trotted out there by people that just can't seem to believe that it was voters in the middle who didn't like their "pragmatic" candidates.

LondonReign2

(5,213 posts)
45. "are you suggesting the far-lefters alone lost the Democrats literally hundreds of offices in 2010?"
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 02:30 PM
Feb 2016

No, as always, liberals (which you dismissively refer to far-lefters in a manner right wing radio who approve of) showed up and voted. They always do.

It was the mushy middle that you couldn't convince to vote for a bunch of candidates that were literally unwilling to identify themselves as Democrats. Turns out that when you run as "Hey, I'm pretty much just like those Republicans, but, you know, a little better" you don't get a lot of enthusiasm, or votes.

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
25. i don't hate obama, and i realize the m$m says NOTHING positive about dems
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 12:47 PM
Feb 2016

its their way. and i don't necessarily assume that every pro bernie person is anti hillary. but despite some of obama's successes, he sold us all up the river with tpp, and many people, especially the young, need to feel they have something to look forward to in life.

they don't see that help coming from anyone with close ties to wall st and the mic, no matter what letter they put after their name.

they want big change, even bigger than what obama brought. its not an indictment of his presidency, its a realization that more needs to be done.

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
38. I also want big change, even bigger than what
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 02:10 PM
Feb 2016

Obama brought. But if we lose this election, the GOP will have immediate control of two of our three branches of government and soon enough the third, the Supreme Court, and its lifetime appointments...

Do you realize the people operating clandestinely behind today's GOP want to end free public education? Not to worry about the bills for private schooling. They intend to end compulsory education in America altogether.

"The Kochs, after all, do not fund much media. Rather, they fund the politicians, "experts" and (frequently phony) citizen leaders who create the context for the content of media debate. And perhaps their greatest success has been their ability to turn the establishment media into the credulous carrier of the constant stream of propaganda their grantees have become so adept at producing."
The Nation Magazine

We MUST win this election. If Bernie wins the nomination I will be behind him all the way. But I pray he does not.

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
41. so we want the same thing basically
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 02:13 PM
Feb 2016

and we both don't want a gop scumbag in the wh

we just disagree on which candidate best gets us there.

tomato, tomaaaaaato for now, k?



madokie

(51,076 posts)
2. The choice between voting for someone with a vision
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 08:58 AM
Feb 2016

that pretty much matches my own and someone who only wants to be President and believes its theirs for the taking. The choice is clear. Bernie Sanders will be our next President

boston bean

(36,223 posts)
4. That's because Clinton supporters are not stupid enough to say they wouldn't vote for him under any
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 09:07 AM
Feb 2016

circumstance.

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
6. the level of frustration people feel towards status quo is ignored
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 10:52 AM
Feb 2016

and underestimated at one's own peril

and calling bernie voters stupid is DEFINITELY the way to get their support if hillary becomes the nominee....

boston bean

(36,223 posts)
7. What I said was Hillary Clinton supporters weren't stupid.
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 10:54 AM
Feb 2016

Let a republican in office by withholding your vote and those who are so adamant will get a quick dose of reality.

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
10. so if its not the hillary supporters who are stupid, who is left to be stupid?
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 11:00 AM
Feb 2016

there is only one other candidate.....

and since we are on the subject, i wonder how many hillary supporters will commit to voting dem if bloomberg tries to sandbag sanders?

WI_DEM

(33,497 posts)
8. The problem with this is that Hillary has been under attack from Republicans, the media
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 10:57 AM
Feb 2016

and Bernie and his supporters for a long time while so far Bernie hasn't had the barrage of criticism especially by the GOP and media that HRC has. So, right now he might look good but down the road he may not. They haven't even begun on him yet.

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
11. hammers and sickles, and that is from other dems
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 11:03 AM
Feb 2016

we have beem down this road. the amount of material the repubs would like to have on bernie pales in comparison to the truckloads they are dying to unleash on hillary. and they are saving their best stuff for a ge becsuse they want her in the race.

 

JRLeft

(7,010 posts)
12. Hillary is a shill for Wall Street, believe it or not people are tied of being screwed by Wall
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 11:03 AM
Feb 2016

Street.

delrem

(9,688 posts)
17. Cry me a river. Sanders has been in politics as long as Hillary.
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 11:45 AM
Feb 2016

Hillary's negatives are entirely owing to Hillary, not to the incessant whining.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
19. Then why is Sanders playing the same game?
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 11:48 AM
Feb 2016

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
24. That's not what Debbie Wasserman Schultz said.
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 12:30 PM
Feb 2016

She said on Thursday that superdelegates "exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists."



http://truthinmedia.com/dnc-chair-superdelegates-protect-party-leaders-from-grassroots-competition/
 

randome

(34,845 posts)
28. And I'm sure you've already seen the explanation for 'grassroots activists'.
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 12:53 PM
Feb 2016

It means any single-issue group cannot game the system. That includes Republicans registering as Democrats in order to try and restrict abortion rights.

She may not have stated it that clearly but it's obvious what she meant. The alternative is that she said publicly she wants to destroy Democrats. Which explanation is more plausible?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

Fawke Em

(11,366 posts)
42. "It means any single-issue group cannot game the system."
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 02:20 PM
Feb 2016

So THAT'S why Hillary keeps yelling that Bernie is a one-issue candidate when it's clearly not true.

Optics.

KingFlorez

(12,689 posts)
20. He hasn't been attacked yet
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 11:55 AM
Feb 2016

Let's just pretend that he got the nomination and was a general election candidate. Republicans have not run a barrage of ads and unleashed a load of attacks against Sanders that would lower his numbers profusely. Candidates who have skated without attacks always perform better.

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
26. they don't need to. the other dems are doing that for them.
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 12:49 PM
Feb 2016

he has been public life for 40 years, and the clinton machine has been doing its very best to tear him down. no one is better at that than them.

he will be fine in a ge.

SheenaR

(2,052 posts)
34. He hasn't been attacked yet
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 01:12 PM
Feb 2016

Let me introduce you to David Brock

The guy who sent an email out the other day trying to connect Bernie to Hugo Chavez. And when called out on it he had no answer.. Yeah.. hasn't seen anything dirty yet

JudyM

(29,279 posts)
37. You really think that if Hillary *could* find more to attack him with, she wouldn't have?!
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 01:54 PM
Feb 2016

You think she doesn't have the best and brightest hound dogs sniffing for anything they can find? She has plenty of funding and her own money, and plenty of connections, and he has a long, public history.

You really think tRump et al will be able to dig up more on him than Hillary, who has been thrown against the ropes and is fighting for her whole candidacy at this point?

aaaaaa5a

(4,667 posts)
29. Bernie would get crushed in a general election
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 01:01 PM
Feb 2016

His numbers look good now because most of America doesn't know who he is. Once they find out, and a billion dollars comes in to take him down, his numbers will drop-DRASTICALLY!

Hillary's numbers are real. She's already been put through the ringer. Bernie's numbers are not.

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
31. debunked multiple times
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 01:04 PM
Feb 2016

as people learn about him, his numbers go UP. as people see more of hillary, her numbers go down.

there is a trend there, and if you think repubs aren't saving their best stuff for a ge with hillary, i have some beachfront property i am trying to unload...

they are in total pavlog dog mode about the possibility of running against her...

Gothmog

(145,567 posts)
51. But the attack ads on Sanders write themselves
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 03:06 PM
Feb 2016

The attack ads from this appearance on Meet the Press write themselves https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/12/why-bernie-sanders-isnt-going-to-be-president-in-5-words/

Meet the Press ✔ @meetthepress
CHUCK TODD: Are you a capitalist?@BernieSanders: No. I'm a Democratic Socialist.
8:33 AM - 11 Oct 2015

And, in those five words, Sanders showed why — no matter how much energy there is for him on the liberal left — he isn't getting elected president.

Why? Because Democrat or Republican (or independent), capitalism remains a pretty popular concept — especially when compared to socialism. A 2011 Pew Research Center survey showed that 50 percent of people had a favorable view of capitalism, while 40 percent had an unfavorable one. Of socialism, just three in 10 had a positive opinion, while 61 percent saw it in a negative light.

Wrote Pew in a memo analyzing the results:

Of these terms, socialism is the more politically polarizing — the reaction is almost universally negative among conservatives, while generally positive among liberals. While there are substantial differences in how liberals and conservatives think of capitalism, the gaps are far narrower.

...The simple political fact is that if Sanders did ever manage to win the Democratic presidential nomination — a long shot but far from a no shot at this point — Republicans would simply clip Sanders's answer to Todd above and put it in a 30-second TV ad. That would, almost certainly, be the end of Sanders's viability in a general election.

Americans might be increasingly aware of the economic inequality in the country and increasingly suspicious of so-called vulture capitalism — all of which has helped fuel Sanders's rise. But we are not electing someone who is an avowed socialist to the nation's top political job. Just ain't happening.

You can try to argue that the two terms are not the same but that will not stop the Kochs from running $200 milion to $300 million using that term in negative ads that would be very effective.

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
53. as do the attacks on hillary
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 03:08 PM
Feb 2016

but for a variety of reasons, i will not expound on them here

and the socialist bogeyman is dead, except in the minds of radical republicans

Gothmog

(145,567 posts)
54. You do realize that Rove is already throwing everything he has against Clinton in the primaries
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 06:10 PM
Feb 2016

Rove has determined that Sanders would be the weakest possible Democratic nominee and so has been running negative ads against Clinton in Iowa, NH and Nevada. For example, the ads in Iowa were normal Karl Rove lies http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-flattered-karl-rove-attack-ad/story?id=36343405

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton laughed off a new attack ad from a Republican super PAC run by Karl Rove during an interview Sunday on “This Week” with George Stephanopoulos.

The web spot, titled “Hillary’s Bull Market,” was launched by American Crossroads, which is run by the Republican strategist and former President George W. Bush adviser. After watching the ad for the first time during her interview on “This Week,” Clinton just smiled.

“I think it shows how desperate the Republicans are to prevent me from becoming the nominee,” Clinton said about the ad, which goes after her ties to Wall Street. “I find that, in a perverse way, an incredibly flattering comment on their anxiety, because they know that not only will I stand up for what the country needs, I will take it to the Republicans.”

In Nevada, Rove is accusing Clinton of being anti-immigrant http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/269460-rove-super-pac-links-clinton-to-trump-on-immigration-in

The super-PAC founded by Republican operative Karl Rove is running a provocative new attack ad in Nevada designed to paint Hillary Clinton as anti-immigrant.

American Crossroads is launching a digital ad titled "Hillary's Wall" that attempts to tie some of Clinton's harsher past remarks about immigration to those of Donald Trump, the current Republican front-runner.
In one scene in the commercial, influential Univision anchor Jorge Ramos asks Clinton, "What's the difference between your idea and Donald Trump's idea on building a wall?"

Preceding that moment are clips - all subtitled in Spanish - that show Clinton making tough comments about immigration that could now alienate large sections of the Democratic base.

Sanders would be a far weaker general election candidate which is why Rove is targeting Clinton.

What more do you think that Rove has to throw at Clinton that he has not used so far in Iowa. Clinton is surviving the worse that Rove can throw at her and is still doing well in these races. Again, the claims that Rove is holding back on Clinton is amusing.

Why do you think that Rove is spending so much to attack Clinton in these primaries?

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
56. rove is not the genius he thinks he is
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 07:42 PM
Feb 2016

and i have no doubt they are saving some special stuff for a hillary ge

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
59. lol. but no worries here
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 08:54 PM
Feb 2016

i am not in any denial about what either candidate would face in a ge. i think bernie has more crossover appeal to indys and even repubs and will not be destroyed by rw lies.

rove is a has been.
and just for some fun at his expense, here ya go

https://m.




restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
62. as he sees it. again, NOT a genius. he can waste his money
Thu Feb 18, 2016, 02:35 PM
Feb 2016

however he wants,becsuse after pres sanders takes charge, the campaign gravy train ia shutting down

Gothmog

(145,567 posts)
63. That is fine but do not pretend that the GOP is scared of Sanders
Thu Feb 18, 2016, 03:37 PM
Feb 2016

The GOP wants to run against Sanders for their own reasons and the GOP and Karl Rove do not have the best interests of the Democratic Party in mind

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
65. if they are not scared of him
Thu Feb 18, 2016, 04:16 PM
Feb 2016

then they are too stupid to be helped.

they can do/think whatever they want. but i believe they are itching to run against hillary.

Gothmog

(145,567 posts)
66. Anti-Sanders attack ad isn’t quite what it seems to be
Thu Feb 18, 2016, 04:25 PM
Feb 2016

A GOP group is running a fake attack ad that is really an ad designed to help Sanders. The GOP thinks that Sanders is the weaker candidate and so the GOP is trying to help Sanders http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/anti-sanders-attack-ad-isnt-quite-what-it-seems-be

Republicans have made no secret of the fact that they’d prefer to run against Bernie Sanders in the general election. Whether or not their assumptions are correct is a separate question, but GOP officials, convinced that the senator would be easy to defeat, have gone out of their way to help Sanders in the Democratic race.....

At first blush, the move may seem encouraging to Sanders supporters. After all, if Republicans have gone from defending Sanders to attacking him, maybe it means GOP insiders are getting scared of the Vermont independent?

It’s a nice idea, but that’s not what’s going on here. In fact, far from an attack ad, this commercial, backed by a prominent Republican mega-donor, is the latest evidence of the GOP trying to help Sanders, not hurt him.

Indeed, in this case, it’s hardly even subtle. This commercial touts Sanders’ support for tuition-free college, single-payer health care, and higher taxes on the “super-rich.” It concludes that the senator is “too liberal,” which isn’t much of an insult in an ad directed towards liberal voters in Iowa.

In other words, we’re talking about a Republican mega-donor investing in a faux attack ad to help Sanders win because he sees Sanders as easy to beat in November.

It’s the mirror image of the tactic Sen. Claire McCaskill (D) used in the 2012 U.S. Senate race in Missouri, when she invested in ads intended to boost then-Rep. Todd Akin (R) in his primary race, with commercials touting his far-right positions and calling him “too conservative.” The point was to make Akin look better in the eyes of Missouri Republicans so he’d win the primary, making it easier for the incumbent Democrat to defeat him on Election Day.

This ad is just another example of the GOP trying to help Sanders become the nominee because the GOP knows that Sanders is the weaker candidate.

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
67. well their stupidity and shortsightedness will be their downfall
Thu Feb 18, 2016, 04:33 PM
Feb 2016

that is all i can really say.

they do not know how pissed and sick of the establishment people are because they are in their own little world...

Gothmog

(145,567 posts)
68. Denial is not just a river in Africa
Thu Feb 18, 2016, 04:58 PM
Feb 2016

Rove never does anything that is not designed to hurt Democrats or help Republicans

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
69. lol. but i will stick to my original thesis of rove's tunnelvision created stupidity.
Thu Feb 18, 2016, 05:26 PM
Feb 2016

i guess we will have to agree to disagree

or we can just disagree lol

Gothmog

(145,567 posts)
64. GOP’s anti-Sanders attack ad intended to help, not hurt, Sanders
Thu Feb 18, 2016, 03:41 PM
Feb 2016

Karl Rove is running the standard attack ads against Clinton but other GOP types are trying to help Sanders also. Another GOP group is running an ad that is really designed to help Sanders and not hurt him. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/gops-anti-sanders-attack-ad-intended-help-not-hurt-sanders

About a month ago, a Republican super PAC launched a $600,000 ad buy that, on the surface, might have looked like an attack ad targeting Bernie Sanders. A closer look, however, made clear it was the opposite – the commercial, backed by a prominent Republican mega-donor, was actually trying to boost Sanders, not hurt him.

The ad called Sanders a “liberal” who supports tuition-free college, single-payer health care, and higher taxes on the “super-rich.” The intention was to boost Sanders in the Iowa caucuses, since Republicans see the Vermont senator as an easy target in the general election.

This week, it’s happening again. A group called Future 45 is running ads that, at first blush, seem critical. But the spots actually tout some of Sanders’ ideas that are popular with Democratic primary voters: an increase in the minimum wage, higher taxes on banks and corporations, tuition-free college, and universal health care.

And who’s Future 45? The Intercept reported yesterday:

Future 45 is [a super PAC] run by Brian O. Walsh, a longtime Republican operative who has in the past served as political director for the National Republican Congressional Committee. Most recently, he was president of the American Action Network, a dark money group that was the second-largest outside spender in 2010.

Over the last year, Future 45 has been funded primarily by hedge fund managers. Two billionaire Rubio-backers – Paul Singer, who runs Elliott Management, and Ken Griffin, who runs Citadel – have each contributed $250,000.

The overarching point is effectively the same as it was a month ago: Republicans are running anti-Sanders “attack” ads that are actually intended to help him, not hurt him.

As we discussed in the first go-around, this is part of a larger strategy in which Republican mega-donors try to manipulate Democratic voters because they see Sanders as a sure loser in November.

Karl Rove and the GOP mega donors know that Sanders is the weakest possible general election candidate and are running ads to help Sanders. Rove and these other GOP groups do not have the best interests of the Democratic Party in mind when they try to help Sanders become the Democratic nominee

SheenaR

(2,052 posts)
35. Restorefreedom
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 01:14 PM
Feb 2016

Don't you know these polls don't mean anything....

But a 5 month old poll from New Mexico shows Hillary is up big! Those are the polls that matter!!


He hasn't been attacked yet they will say... Two words, David Brock... who tried to connect Sanders to Hugo Chavez the other day.

Rec'd

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
39. thanks, and yes, they have gone soooooo easy on him
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 02:11 PM
Feb 2016


he has gotten it worse from the clinton masters than any repub will do...

oh and welcome to du!
 

Motown_Johnny

(22,308 posts)
36. And Hillary's numbers never go up. Just ask Lawrence O'Donnell
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 01:37 PM
Feb 2016

Her numbers start at a peak and go down.

She would be a disaster as a nominee.


Gothmog

(145,567 posts)
47. Hypothetical match up polls are worthless and should not be relied for anything
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 03:03 PM
Feb 2016

Here is a good thread talking about these polls http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511038010

The reliance on these polls by Sanders supporters amuse me. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/harrys-guide-to-2016-election-polls/

Ignore hypothetical matchups in primary season – they also measure nothing. General election polls before and during the primary season have a very wide margin of error. That’s especially the case for candidates who aren’t even in the race and therefore haven’t been treated to the onslaught of skeptical media coverage usually associated with being the candidate.

Sanders supporters have to rely on these worthless polls because it is clear that Sanders is not viable in a general election where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate may spend an additional billion dollars.

No one should rely on hypo match up type polls in selecting a nominee at this stage of the race.

Gothmog

(145,567 posts)
48. Bernie Sanders says he polls better against GOP candidates than Hillary Clinton
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 03:03 PM
Feb 2016

While I still think that these polls are worthless, I am amused to see that Sanders was found to be misrepresenting these polls and that in fact his claim is not true http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/26/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-he-polls-better-against-gop-ca/

In the runup to the Iowa caucus, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has repeatedly said he has a better chance of beating the eventual Republican nominee in the Nov. 8 general election than fellow Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.

"Almost all of the polls that -- and polls are polls, they go up, they go down -- but almost all of the polls that have come out suggest that I am a much stronger candidate against the Republicans than is Hillary Clinton," he told voters during a Jan. 19 town hall meeting in Underwood, Iowa.

We took a look at the various national surveys, as compiled by RealClearPolitics and PollingReport.com to see how that assertion stacks up against the data.....

Our ruling

Sanders said, "Almost all of the polls that have come out suggest that I am a much stronger candidate against the Republicans than is Hillary Clinton."

The NBC News/Wall Street Journal national poll released before Sanders' statement supports his claim for Trump, but it has no data against Cruz or Rubio. Earlier polls say he doesn't outperform Clinton at all against Cruz, Rubio or Bush, and the narrow races combined with the margins of error make his contention even more dubious.

Beating Clinton in only two of eight hypothetical matchups is far from "almost all."

The statement is not accurate, so we rate it False.

Gothmog

(145,567 posts)
49. Democrats would be insane to nominate Sanders
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 03:04 PM
Feb 2016

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

Sanders and his supporters boast of polls showing him, on average, matching up slightly better against Trump than Clinton does. But those matchups are misleading: Opponents have been attacking and defining Clinton for a quarter- century, but nobody has really gone to work yet on demonizing Sanders.

Watching Sanders at Monday night’s 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 doesn’t 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 don’t 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 — that’s my definition of democratic socialism.”

But that’s not how Republicans will define socialism — and they’ll have the dictionary on their side. They’ll portray Sanders as one who wants the government to own and control major industries and the means of production and distribution of goods. They’ll say he wants to take away private property. That wouldn’t be fair, but it would be easy. Socialists don’t 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, you’re 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 “it’s demagogic to say, oh, you’re 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 didn’t quarrel, saying, “P eople want to criticize me, okay,” and “F ine, if that’s 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.

Gothmog

(145,567 posts)
50. Are Sanders general election polls fools gold?
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 03:04 PM
Feb 2016

These polls are worthless because Sanders has not been vetted by the media http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/first-read-three-weeks-go-three-margin-error-races-n493946

Not surprisingly, Sanders' campaign is touting those general-election numbers. "There was fresh evidence on Sunday that confirms Bernie Sanders would be the most electable Democratic Party nominee for president because he performs much better than Hillary Clinton," the campaign blasted out to reporters yesterday. But here is a legitimate question to ask: Outside of maybe New Hampshire (where Sanders enjoys a geographic advantage), are Sanders' general-election numbers fool's gold? When is the last time you've seen national Republicans issue even a press release on Sanders? Given the back-and-forth over Bill Clinton's past -- and given Sanders calling Bill Clinton's behavior "disgraceful" -- when is the last time anyone has brought up the candidate's 1972 essay about a woman fantasizing about "being raped by three men simultaneously"? Bottom line: It's always instructive to take general-election polling with a grain of salt, especially 300 days before the general election. And that's particularly true for a candidate who hasn't actually gone through the same wringer the other candidates have.

These match up polls are not meaningful at this stage

MariaThinks

(2,495 posts)
52. looks like trump is going to be the gop nominee
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 03:07 PM
Feb 2016

I think he is going to be tough to beat but hopefully both our front runners will be up to the challenge.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»The electability argument...