2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumIn case you've been buying that BS that Sanders would be the storngest candidate in the GE
It is obvious that the Republicans put no stock in early head to head polls showing that Bernie would do well against Republican opponents. They know their Swift Boat machine would make mince meat of Sanders if he became the Democratic nominee using the ammo he has already furnished them. That why they they are have tried to help him win the Democratic nomination.
Strange Bedfellows - Republican Operatives Try to Help Bernie Sanders
Picking your opponent is an age-old political manipulation tactic. Republican operatives are having a strange crush on Bernie Sanders.
During Sunday nights Democratic debate, the Republican National Committee made the unusual move of sending no fewer than four real-time e-mails to reporters defending the self-described democratic socialist from attacks by Hillary Clinton or echoing his message against her. Based on their content, one could be forgiven for thinking the RNC communiques came from the Sanders campaign.
(snip)
"Sean Spicer, the chief strategist and spokesman for the RNC, spent much of the evening tweeting Sanders-friendly commentary on the debate, often with the pro-Sanders hashtag #FeelTheBern. At one point, Spicer gently chided Sanders for what he deemed a poor response to a question and added, come on we are trying to help u.
(snip)
Meanwhile, American Crossroads, a group co-founded by Karl Rove, is airing an ad in Iowa bolstering a core tenet of Sanderss case against Clinton: that she has received large sums of campaign contributions from Wall Street, and therefore can't be trusted to crack down on big banks. Hillary rewarded Wall Street with a $700 billion bailout, then Wall Street made her a multi-millionaire, a narrator in the ad says. Does Iowa really want Wall Street in the White House?
These Republican operatives are attempting to pick their Democratic opponent in the general election, and theyre making clear theyd rather face Sanders than Clinton. It is age-old political manipulation tactic, typically used with some subtlety.
(snip)
The efforts indicate that Republicans aren't buying recent polls that show Sanders out-performing Clinton in hypothetical head-to-head match-ups against GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump. One reason may be that, unlike Sanders, Clinton has been through the wringer of Republican attacks.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)TheBlackAdder
(28,211 posts).
And it's not for the reasons that the OP writer intended!
.
dchill
(38,532 posts)Especially in 2016.
CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)dchill
(38,532 posts)Unfortunately, ostriches can't see with their heads in the sand, and when they pull their heads up, they instantly turn into parrots.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Didn't you try this before when you cited rabidly anti-Semitic articles to let us know just how unelectable he is, wasn't one of them from a holocaust denier's website?
How'd that work out?
Get many converts?
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Everybody knows that you always use that tactic when you haven't got a good counter argument. Thanks for verifying that you agree with my post - that's mighty kind of you.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)scscholar
(2,902 posts)Posts shouldn't allow changing the title to something misleading.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Usually you can see right through it.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)and it was disgusting.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)But there were no surprises.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Same could be said of HRC (a stronger case even, since she is winning)
bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)Hillary Clinton has never been through a wringer. She won a Senate seat in blue state New York against a pathetic Republican opponent. She lost the nomination in 2008 to Obama, who ran an honorable campaign.
It isn't about how the Republicans will attack.....it is how Bernie will attack them.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)I'll say no more because even your fellow Bernie supporters who read your post will know that you're apparently clueless.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(108,192 posts)On Sat Mar 26, 2016, 08:47 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Sorry, you have evidently been living under a rock
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1583722
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Calling someone "clueless" is rude and unnecessarily insulting. When people respond civilly to an op they shouldn't have their intelligence insulted.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Mar 26, 2016, 08:50 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: In this case, the poster IS clueless. Or, has been asleep since the early 1990s. Give me a break!
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Oh please. I've seen worse than this stand up.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)The Republicans have never been competent.
Obama is competent.....as you have noticed....even though they hate his guts, they haven't been able to lay a glove on him.....8 years without a scandal.
Hillary? All kinds of investigations.....she is never transparent and she tells one thing to one group and something different to another and that is her downfall.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)d_b
(7,463 posts)jfern
(5,204 posts)He spent $85 a vote for lots of negative ads, and lost over 2-1. Bring it on.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)They just never learn, people don't admire scumbags like Tarrant, David Brock and Karl Rove.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Excuse me If I don't get excited about the "most expensive campaign in Vermont History' when Vermont is the second smallest state in terms of population in the country, its largest city, Burlington boost just 42,211 people, and the Birmingham, AL Metro area has almost twice as many people as the entire State of Vermont.
jfern
(5,204 posts)That would be a few billion if nationwide.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Just like he hasn't twice as much money on TV ads as Clinton since the beginning of the primaries and he is still losing badly.
jfern
(5,204 posts)And yet he won over 2-1. I guess you can look through his opponents attacks to see lots of failed attacks.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
jeff47
(26,549 posts)are such masters that they can accurately predict who is the easiest Democrat to beat.
Yeah...makes perfect sense.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, and John Kerry - all of which were better candidates than Bernie Sanders would be.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)For example, "No one will believe these swiftboat attacks! We can ignore them!"
Again, your claim is that these people are political geniuses. If that's the case, why can't they stop Trump?
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)... not because the Republican establishment is not smart. They can't stop Trump because their redneck base is super dumb. It's amazing that unholy alliance has lasted this long.
There is only one thing that could possibly bring the warring factions of the Republican party together right now - run as Socialist against their candidate and they will all see RED, forget their spats and unite. They don't even hate Hillary as much as the thought of having a Socialist in the White House.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)That's at least a decent first step. Now you should probably go reconsider your OP based on the new claim that these Republicans are incompetent morons.
They believe every single Democrat is a socialist. Including Clinton.
It's like you stopped paying attention in either 1972 or 1984. Cold war's over, dude. Time to catch up with everyone else.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Their strategist are quite smart - their base is as dumb as tree stumps.
And no, they know Hillary is not a Socialist. They call here a Socialist and get away with it because their dumb as stumps base wouldn't know a Socialist if one bit them in the butt.
But they know Bernie is a Socialist and they prove it. However they will call him a Communist for the benefit of their dumb as stumps base.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Kittycat
(10,493 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)Mary Mac
(323 posts)Carry on.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Close though.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)You are thinking like a Republican.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)ThePhilosopher04
(1,732 posts)CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)ThePhilosopher04
(1,732 posts)from your keyboard. For somebody with all the answers, and so sure Hillary has the nomination locked up, you sure do spend a lot of time trying to discredit the only honest candidate running for President. It's pretty obvious why.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)--that is, in states with open primaries.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)..... because they have been more interesting and they know that Bernie will lose.
eridani
(51,907 posts)CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)There fewer registered Republicans in the country than registered Democrats - 31% to 29% yet the Republican primaries and caucuses have been consistently out drawing the Democratic contest by large numbers. The difference has to be independents.
RichVRichV
(885 posts)The fact that they have higher turnout could simply mean they have higher turnout of their base.
Also we have had substanially more strong Republican states vote than strong Democratic states vote so far.
Also they have had more primaries while we have had more caucuses. Primaries draw more voters than caucuses.
But of course it has to be independents are going for them. There can't be any other explanation.
eridani
(51,907 posts)In states with open primaries, 70% of independents went for Sanders in Dem primaries. Either put up the equivalent numbers for Republicans, or shut up.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)It's simple math...there fewer registered Republicans in the country than registered Democrats - 31% to 29% yet the Republican primaries and caucuses have been consistently out drawing the Democratic contest by large numbers. The difference has to be independents.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)More to the point, the application of mathematics to a question and I get along very, very well; it's kinda what I do for a living. The problem with your assertion lies in turnout. While I don't doubt that independents are playing a part in the difference, the disparity in turn out could actually occur even if no independents voted in the open (I'll get to that in a sec) primaries. In no state has the Republican or Democrat vote tally come even close to the actual number of registered voters in each party.
In other words, if the turnout in a state was, say, 1,000,000 Democrats and 2,000,000 Republicans, but there were 31,000,000 Democrats and 29,000,000 Republicans, the difference could be accounted for using only registered Republicans.
In open primary states, that's not going to be how it actually happened...but there are also similar turnout disparities in many closed primary states. Independents are irrelevant to those, save for a small minority who switched parties to vote.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)... why isn't the enthusiasm for Bernie bringing more Democrats to the polls than the GOP race is bringing out Republicans.
You can't have both ways.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)I attribute that in large part to the media blasting us with Trump, Trump, Trump 24/7.
But I'd certainly like to see even more Democrats (or Dems and independent liberals in open primaries) voting.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)prognosticator in here.
I eagerly await news of when the apocalypse is going to happen.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)RazBerryBeret
(3,075 posts)and it didn't work then.....
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)I don't vote because of what Republicans think. It's in the polls. Every one of them for MONTHS and MONTHS.
Nice try though.
You guys just keep trying to muddle the truth with these silly posts. Good luck with that.
Do you want a Democrat to win the GE or not? If you really do, then you better listen to what AMERICANS are saying.
7wo7rees
(5,128 posts)last June.......
Just saying........
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Please explain how that works.
NanceGreggs
(27,818 posts)The Republicans are terrified of running against Bernie, so that's why they're attacking HRC and not going after Bernie, which weakens her chances of being the nominee, and strengthens his chances - oh, except it would be the other way around. If they were really terrified of Bernie, they would be attacking HIM, not her.
Seems to me, if the GOP thought Bernie was the more terrifying opponent, they'd be attacking HIM endlessly to ensure he never got the nomination.
No one's ever explained how that works.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)They're operating on a series of assumptions about as bad as the ones the Clinton campaign operates on.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Skwmom
(12,685 posts)waiting until the general election and they have PLENTY of new stuff to use (though with the new stuff it puts the old stuff in a whole new light).
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)They are so obviously bad at it. I can't think of a single time they have actually been right on an issue. No doubt they are wrong on this one as well.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)We are not at the convention, yet.
Logical
(22,457 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Words have meaning, and they carry consequences.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)That's why polls have shown that more American voters would have trouble voting for Socialists than atheists, Muslims, gays or lesbians, Jews, Hispanics, Blacks, Women and Catholics. Less than 50% would consider voting for a socialist.
However, the Republican hit machine wouldn't stop there - they would use the hundreds of millions of dollars of Koch and friends' money to paint him as a communist sympathizer at the height of the cold war. Of course it wouldn't be true, but they would use his past actions plus a few lies to paint that picture. It would be brutal beyond words.
The second link merely states why, while I like Bernie Sanders and many of his ideas, but I don't think he is the right person to be our nominee. (Only one thing has changed since I wrote that post, I no longer like Sanders.)
This is primary season - if you are too thin skinned to handle posts which criticize you favorite candidate, then perhaps DU is not the best place for you.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)You defended the Caraville/Matlins having a Ted Cruz fundraiser in their home. This isn't a matter of opinion.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)if Carville's wife, a Republican operative, has a fund raiser in their home. I'm sure that he has Democratic fund raisers at theire home as well. Big fricking deal! That's a matter between a husband and a wife and they have apparently made peace that they are on different sides of the political divide a long time ago. Mary Matalin and James have been married for almost 23 years.
If you want to have a say in matters between a husband and a wife, by all means press on, but I would bet they would both tell you to mind your own business if they didn't tell you to go to hell instead.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)sendero
(28,552 posts)... but it will be the absolute definition of a phyrric victory.
Vinca
(50,303 posts)The GOP has said nary a peep about Hillary. They realize she's the odds on favorite to be the Democratic nominee. I imagine many of the commercials are already in the can. They will go at her with a vengeance not seen since John Kerry and the Swiftboaters. And, in her case, there are 2 people to go after. Bill is a gold mine.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Vinca
(50,303 posts)Trump has said something a couple of times, but for the most part they're waiting until she's got the nomination.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)And both Trump and Cruz are horrible candidates. This is not going to be a hotly contested general election, and either of them will win.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)What the heck is "storn"? And how do you display it?
Orsino
(37,428 posts)...but it's about all we have to measure something as nebulous as "strength."
I've had my doubts, too, but it would be silly to leap from doubt to a charge of "BS."
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)Opinions don't matter, votes do, and voters are saying this, consistently:
Friday, March 25
Race/Topic (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
Michigan: Trump vs. Clinton SurveyUSA Clinton 49, Trump 38 Clinton +11
Michigan: Cruz vs. Clinton SurveyUSA Clinton 49, Cruz 39 Clinton +10
Michigan: Kasich vs. Clinton SurveyUSA Kasich 46, Clinton 41 Kasich +5
Michigan: Trump vs. Sanders SurveyUSA Sanders 55, Trump 36 Sanders +19
Michigan: Cruz vs. Sanders SurveyUSA Sanders 56, Cruz 35 Sanders +21
Michigan: Kasich vs. Sanders SurveyUSA Sanders 47, Kasich 42 Sanders +5
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/pres_general/
In had-to-head matchups against any GOP nominee, Bernie is better than Hillary by 10 points. Because if they want a Republican, they'll vote for a Republican, while Bernie gets all the center and center-left votes.