Social Question

Cruiser's avatar

Is Hillary's campaign a sinking ship?

Asked by Cruiser (40421points) January 29th, 2016

It sure looks that way especially when her campaign manager predicts Trump would take the Presidency if he won the Republican nomination.

“If Donald Trump takes the Republican nomination, our party will lose more than the presidency,” Robby Mook writes to supporters.

He earlier this month lamented just how much of a threat Sanders is to their campaign…

“News just broke that Bernie Sanders is outspending us on TV in Iowa and New Hampshire by hundreds of thousands of dollars.”

“I’m worried, because last-minute ads could cost us this election. And I’m annoyed — because once again, they’re counting on this team staying on the sidelines.”

“They’ve got more donors than we do, more contributions than we have, and if they keep up this pace on TV, they’ll be able to get their message out to more people than we can.”

Is Hillary still a slam dunk for the Democratic nomination or is Sanders a serious threat to her coronation?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

49 Answers

zenvelo's avatar

Not necessarily. But the waters are not a smooth cruise to November, and there are some mines ahead of her own making.

And, Bernie provides an alternative that, while the policy issues are not as mainstream, the integrity issue is not at all in question. He compares favorably on integrity to everyone on either side of the aisle.

janbb's avatar

I’m not making any predictions at this point about anything in this election.

tinyfaery's avatar

Hopefully.

Love_my_doggie's avatar

Not necessarily, but the tide does seem to be turning. Eight years ago, she was a sure thing for the party nomination, until a charming, eloquent Senator from Illinois gained momentum.

Hillary’s much too polarizing; people have visceral reactions to her. Sure, she has her avid supporters, but there are many voters in both parties who dislike her.

jaytkay's avatar

It sure looks that way

Sure, if you listen to lots of AM radio.

A little digging shows the quote is from a donation appeal email. Every campaign sends out messages like that – “WE ARE DOOMED UNLESS YOU SEND MONEY NOW!!!”

I’ve subscribed to Rand Paul and NRA email lists for laughs because they send panicky messages like that 365 days per year.

stanleybmanly's avatar

It’s a scare tactic to dig more money and effort out of Clinton supporters. @jaytkay sees the “desperate cry” for what it is. The real trump card to be played later by the Clinton strategists (and the one most likely to be effective) is going to be thrown at Sanders fans. It will be something along the lines of “REMEMBER RALPH NADER”.

Pachy's avatar

I’m with @janbb. If the so-called experts haven’t been able to make accurate predictions I’m sure as heck not going to try.

kritiper's avatar

Hell, no! She’s just getting her second wind. (As if she needed it!)

ucme's avatar

In common with her face & cleavage, yeah, I think it probably is #thefatdumbmenace

ibstubro's avatar

You’ve been watching to many talking heads chasing the ratings on the TV.

The only media I’m exposed to is NPR and they liked to drove me to distraction today talking about the Iowa caucuses.
I honestly don’t know how you TV watchers can stand it.

jerv's avatar

This picture sums it up nicely.

Short answer – It’s hard to say, but it looks very bad for Hillary, and I don’t see her pulling it off without some very underhanded tactics; something far beyond the normal political mudslinging.

Long answer – The real question then is whether the DNC goes with the will of those most likely to vote Democrat or whether they continue with their agenda of pushing Hillary and winding up disenfranchising the only people that can keep the GOP out of the White House.

One factor that has both the DNC and RNC worried is that the candidates who are polling the best (Trump and Sanders) are not party puppets. Sanders has decades of political experience that he could be considered “part of The Establishment”, but those decades are as an ideologically consistent Independent who merely aligned with Democrats far more often than with Republicans. In other words, he’s not a rank-and-file, cookie-cutter Democrat. On the other side of the aisle, Trump isn’t even a real politician.

So both parties have their “annointed ones” getting creamed in the polls by an outsider and a non-conformist. Despite their vastly different positions, both Sanders and Trump are members of the “Voters are sick of the bullshit in DC!” party, and that party has been gaining enough strength in recent years that the RNC and DNC should be worried. The key difference between them is that Trump has a considerable margin of support over any other GOP contender while Sanders-vs-Clinton support is currently close enough to be well within the margin of error of most polls.

It stands to reason that the DNC would say that Trump would win the general election if nominated simply because they would rather throw the election than support Sanders but they know that Hillary doesn’t have the numbers to compete with Trump. The way they see it, if things don’t go their way (Hillary gets the nomination) then there is no possible way to avoid a total worst-case scenario because Hillary is the only way to prevent President Trump. That blog may turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy unless either Wasserman-Shultz stops trying to trip Sanders up or Bernie manages to take the election despite lacking DNC support.

I agree with @Love_my_doggie about the visceral reaction. Many bristle at the name “Clinton” without even waiting to see if one is speaking of Bill, Hillary, Chelsea or the musician George Clinton. Anyone who can do that will be hard-pressed to get enough support to become POTUS unless the only alternatives are Trump or Cruz. Even then, there are many who would rather concede the Oval Office and abstain from voting rather than vote for Hillary.

Combine that visceral response, her flip-flopping to Sanders saying the same stuff now that he has since Hillary was still a schoolgirl (okay, there’s only a six year difference, but you get the point), and some recent events like the developing email story and all sorts of alleged cronyism. The end result that Hillary’s campaign is going to have a hard time competing with Sanders and Trump merely due to a perceived lack of integrity. As @zenvelo points out, Sanders beats all comers in the integrity department, and there is no denying that Trump is very plain-spoken, unfettered by things such as tact.

In the end, Hillary’s campaign is definitely on the ropes, but right now I see Hillary getting the Democratic nomination as something that will cause all sorts of problems. If Sanders gets the DNC nomination, the general election will be a contest. If not, Democrats may be lucky to win any election again for quite a while, and the DNC might be lucky to escape with all of their limbs still firmly attached. With the internal divide amongst Republicans (Conservatives vs Batshit-crazy) and now a similar rift starting to grow within the Democrats, I’d say that no matter what happens, it’s going to be interesting. We may actually be seeing the beginnings of something historians will look back on and say, ”...and this is where things changed…”.

jaytkay's avatar

This picture sums it up nicely.

“This picture’ equates Hillary Clinton ( 53.1% support among Democrats)...

with Jeb Bush (5.4% support among Republicans)

Funny stuff! Got any more jokes?

somewomenarenicemaybe's avatar

I hope not because I like Hillary. I could support Bernie if he wins because he seems genuine, but his policies are a little ambitious considering what a pain the congress can be. For me Hillary is so strong, smart and experienced it would be a mistake if America didn’t give her a chance to be President.

Banjo_Pickin_Appalachian_Wizar's avatar

@jerv why is Teddy Roosevelt following closely behind Trump?

jerv's avatar

@jaytkay Thank you for proving that you forgot 2008 and haven’t been paying attention to societal trends for decades. That gave me a laugh!

Seriously though, I think you missed the point, but if you don’t get it then I am fairly certain that you wouldn’t even if I tried to explain it to you. Even the most intelligent people have their blind spots, and I think that the meaning of that picture falls into one of yours.

Also, I’m not saying that Sanders will win, simply that Clinton getting the nomination is not the foregone conclusion many have been saying ever since her husband made himself ineligible for reelection by winning a second term.

Cruiser's avatar

“I honestly don’t know how you TV watchers can stand it.”

@ibstubro IMO it truly helps to observe what others including the talking heads are saying even though it may cause you indigestion. I would much rather be fully informed and make my OWN mind up than to be sufficiently influenced by a singular biased source of information and go through life with blinders on.

Heads up…if you continue to only watch NPR you are sure to miss the fireworks when the truth and facts that reveal the extent about Hillary’s disgraceful abuse of her classified email on her personal server comes out in the next few days!

ibstubro's avatar

I don’t know why everyone can’t just admit that they have an agenda, and that there are plenty of polls and pundits to support whatever position you care to take.

That is precisely the reason there are still so many candidates.
There are no definitive polls or pundits. NPR is honest enough to admit that they have no clue who will prevail in the Iowa caucuses, or if the results mean anything to the national outcome.

That scares me, @Cruiser.
At what point are you “Fully informed”?
The day after the election, if you’re still listening to the talking heads.
At this point you can type in a candidate’s name and “negative” or “positive” and the list, either way, will be as superficially persuasive. Point for point, they are the same arguments you’ll hear from the talking heads, ad nauseum.

I don’t need talking heads.
Donald Trump taking his ball and going home because some “bimbo” on the playground called him names is definitive.
I have other strikes against other candidates. I wish we could narrow the field to 5–6 candidates and begin the political process before it’s too late.

Fuck Trump and the Ass of Many Colors he rode in on.

Cruiser's avatar

@ibstubro and precisely why I watch as many sources of information as I can. NPR may not want to take a position this early in the race for obvious reasons…other new sources present salacious stories knowing it will get them nothing more than ratings. I have my reliable news sources that I first turn to and then turn the page of the others and the true agenda of each candidate is ultimately revealed that FOX. CNN and MSNBC have worked overtime to hide from the voters that might derail their agenda. Yes you should be afraid but be afraid of the collective that is out to twist your perspective and above all….make up YOUR mind on the info you trust the most. If it is NPR…then NPR directed your decsion. I am most content knowing “I” made my mind up based on my investment in the time I took to review all perspectives…sadly in the end it is probably wasted time base on the net results of past elections. May as well put on a blindfold and throw darts when making my choices on election day.

jerv's avatar

@Cruiser The fact that many people’s idea of “due diligence” is looking up as much stuff as they can to support their opinions rather than anything else, I suspect that what you consider “media having an agenda” is little more than pandering to this or that section of the audience except in those cases where it’s someone who has the resources to make their op-ed piece seem like journalism. NPR can’t do that nearly as effectively as the big boys like Fox and CNN. People like you and I who use something closer to the scientific method of going in neutral and forming opinions based on the weight of objective facts are a minority, and that actually plays right into the hands of the Far Right; they are far better at getting the sort of strong visceral reactions that motivate people to action than more moderate, logical people like those who go more for Democrats or old-school Republicans.

As for the candidates themselves having an agenda, I think Hillary has a bit of a problem because of all the candidates, her agenda is probably the least clear, and Jeb’s isn’t much better defined. Conversely, Sanders and many of the GOP hopefuls are cards-on-the-table; we know what they want. Sanders wants us to be more like Denmark. Cruz wants us to be a Christianized anarcho-Capitalism. Trump is a megalomaniac who, for the moment, is seeking political power even if it means taking a pay cut. (Lex Luthor is similar, except that he was smart enough to realize he had more power behind the curtains than any mere POTUS could ever dream of. Sure, he’s fictional, but he’s still worth mentioning whenever talking about wealthy egomaniacs.) We don’t have to figure out what they are angling for since they already told us.

The thing I don’t get about this election is how Hillary has actually gotten as far as she has. While not incompetent or stupid, the only way I can see her in her current position is being good at the sort of string-pulling and dirty tricks that I feel are why so many people distrust politicians in the first place. In other words, she’s good at being a stereotypical career politician. Since many this election cycle seem to be looking for something other than that, Hillary’s success thus far is a little counter-intuitive.

Of course, it might make a little more sense if Hillary wasn’t constantly in/near the middle of some scandal or another. And unlike the typical mudslinging that makes many “scandals” merely smear campaigns, this e-mail situation seems to actually have enough merit to cause her problems far beyond public opinion.

@ibstubro “There are no definitive polls or pundits. NPR is honest enough to admit that they have no clue who will prevail in the Iowa caucuses, or if the results mean anything to the national outcome.”

I’ve seen a lot of other sources say pretty much the same thing NPR is saying; Iowa and NH are close enough to go either way, and it’s uncertain how those early states will affect the general election. If I were a betting man, I’d put my money on the bar, order a drink, and wait for a few more hands to play before I placed any stakes in the game.

Cruiser's avatar

@jerv Well presented answer…just to get this part out of the way… “An analysis of NPR’s connections on Twitter shows it has the sort of network you’d expect to see from a left-of-center person or institution. That conclusion comes from researchers at Duke University”

To me, a media outlet is biased and IMO it is near impossible not to be. They have to make money to survive whether through donations or ad money. They say follow the money and viola you have your bias and inevitably it will lean right or left even by the slightest of margins as exampled above.

To me a media outlet’s bias is as clear as spots on a leopard and again why I watch and read as many “leopards” as I can so I get a rounded and balanced view of what is really going on in our world both politically and all things in between. What scares me the most is the people who don’t possess the capacity to understand that watching and believing every word of that one leopard is what is their compass to navigate their world is and we now have these sheeples that are easy prey for these leopards.

Its only human nature that people will gravitate towards that messenger that tells them what they want to hear and to the savvy politician these sheeples are putty in their hands as said politician tailors their message to elevate the sheeps desire to hear what they want to hear.

I take the time to listen to and better understand what liberal Democrats want and need to have a happy life as everyone is truly entitled to at least some part of what they want and I do the same with the conservative Republican’s desires as we all have to live together and we will get so much more out of our government if we learn to play nice and get along. The candidate who demonstrates an understanding and willingness to champion this need for both liberals and conservatives to rip off their blinders and come together to make America great again will get my vote.

ibstubro's avatar

When, @Cruiser, did America stop being “great”?

If America’s not still the standard bearer for great, who is?

stanleybmanly's avatar

@ibstubro The question is “great for whom”? I read last week that more undocumented Mexicans return to their country now than enter the United States. We are still the “land of opportunity” for Hondurans and Guatemalans.

Cruiser's avatar

@ibstubro We stopped being great when we let Government tell us what to do, what is best for us and how we should live our lives. Big Government is controlling so much of our lives and gives so much away for free that it has destroyed the work ethic that was once what made America truly great. Never before in the history of this country can abled bodied people actually do nothing at all and survive and not only are people and our leaders OK with that…they enable it! Something terribly wrong with that picture.

stanleybmanly's avatar

The increasing numbers of people qualifying for government assistance are necessary to perpetuate the illusion of ours as a viable society. The situation is of course in the long run unsustainable, but fiscal conservatives miss the boat by not investigating the reason the dole is NECESSARY, and the one “solution” grudgingly accepted by all. The truth is that it is necessary to pay people for doing nothing, when there is nothing for them to do that will provide a subsistence wage. I tire of saying this, but there’s no great difficulty spotting our problem. In a nation with the wealth of the United States, why are so many on the dole? The answer is simple and obvious with the answer to the question who has all that wealth and in whose pockets do all those dole dollars ultimately wind up, and who is it left holding the debt financing that dole?

Fiscal conservatives tell us the solution is to throw folks off the dole. How about redirecting the flow of wealth from those who already have most of it?

Cruiser's avatar

@stanleybmanly The “dole” is indeed necessary because of the ineptitude of our leaders to take on the impediments to the growth of a nation that was built on the strength of solid work ethics that has devolved into a nanny state sense of entitlement. If I can bust my ass for over 35 years…underscore 35 years to finally get to a point in my life to where I have a nest egg that allows me to know I can retire comfortably and occasionally enjoy a few nice things in life and not go further into debt than IMO most anyone else should be able to. Instead young people today expect and demand to have their slice of the American Dream NOW instead of rolling up their sleeves and walking the tried and true path of hard work and dedication that it takes to finally get to that slice of pie they actually earned.

The problem as I see it is I grew up in a time and place where credit was an unknown and people only bought things they could afford. Saving your money was a concept that was seared into my mind by my parents. Today teenagers have credit cards and other people make a career out of sucking up handouts from the government which was something people in days gone by did everything they could to avoid doing that.

This entitlement mindset is IMO what separates conservatives from liberals and I doubt you can show me may liberals that will admit to this distinction

zenvelo's avatar

@Cruiser Most of those on the dole happen to be rugged individualist small government proponents with farms and cattle ranches or resource extraction companies. The real corporate mantra is not “no regulation” but ” no regulation for me, regulate everyone else.”

jerv's avatar

Actually, we stopped being great when we were no longer the “Land of opportunity”. I know your story, @Cruiser, and I think that you were very, very lucky to even have the chance that you did to do what what you did.

People often speak of going to college to get an education so that they can get a job better than Frycook, often telling you how they paid for their education with just such a job. They neglect to mention that tuitions are exponentially higher nowadays while incomes have remained nearly flat because the truth that 2016 is not 1966 doesn’t fit their narrative. Reality proves them wrong yet they refuse to accept that.

Or maybe they just don’t realize that being born into wealth and power makes it far easier to obtain wealth and power than for someone of more modest upbringing who has to work their balls off just to make rent and cannot afford to put food on the table… or even a table to put food on.

The work ethic disappeared because hard work ceased to make a difference. You were one of the lucky ones, @Cruiser, because you got your big break back when hard work was still rewarded. You caught the tail end of it though. Imagine if you had it all to do over again, but had to work 100 times harder for 1,000 times as long.

Of course, it’s easier to blame the “entitlement mindset” than admit that the world isn’t what it used to be. You had opportunity, so that “proves” that everyone has the same chances. By that logic, I can prove that every human on Earth is about six feet tall with dark hair and light skin.

Sisyphus rolled up his sleeves too. Look where that got him. What we have now is closer to Feudalism than any society where merit or effort lead to success. But it’s easier to call people lazy than admit that you are wrong about the world. A Conservative will do whatever they can to refute that. To them, change only happens by choice because *EVERYTHING is a choice.

But if you are so down on the entitlement mindset, then why do you feel so entitled to prosper? Who says you earned it when you worked no harder than many, many, many other people who have not reached your level of success? Is it that you feel entitled to be rewarded for your efforts even when you did nothing more than those who have failed to get rewarded have?

And before you answer that, remember that you are one of the nicer, more benevolent and altruistic men who follow Conservative ideology. I’d say you are one of the most intelligent and rational ones as well. Unlike many of your mindset though, you are not so self-entitled that you would pay slave wages for your own personal profit. That right there is almost enough to get you labelled “Socialist” by your peers who have radicalized considerably in recent years.

Yet even you seem to be unable to admit that the world has changed such that what worked for you won’t work nearly so well now that the world Conservatives think exists is in the past while non-Conservatives are living in the present. I would wager that Liberals will admit to the distinction when Conservatives admit to the hypocrisy of complaining when they feel so self-entitled themselves, though admitting that 2016 is not 1966 would be a good start.

As an aside regarding credit scores, when was the last time you went to rent an apartment or change cellphone carriers? For a long time, I could do neither because I did the “save and pay cash” thing and thus was a ghost in the system because I didn’t have enough of a credit history to have a credit score. Bad credit is actually better than no credit history at all if you want to function in 2016 America.

Society has changed. Try to keep up.

Cruiser's avatar

@zenvelo Cherry picking headlines in an attempt to make a point is lame at best especially when you choose ranchers who think they are above the law. And to me there in lies the very problem we all face…regulations that our Government not only fails to enforce but in light of your example of ranchers taking over a Federally owned building and land, subsequently sit back on their heels and do nothing for weeks! IMO this sends a mixed signal to everyone…extremists included to think…Hey!! I can occupy any Government entity and the feds will just stand down while I get my face on CNN 24/7.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@Cruiser I disagree on the take that there is some deterioration of character in today’s young people in comparison to the prevailing standards of my long ago youth. What has changed is the playing field on which those kids are forced to play. And the change is ominous.
I won’t speak for you, but I know for a fact that I was damned lucky to be young in an era where massive debt was not a requirement for a college education and a stint in the hospital the ticket to destitution. The fact is that today the hammer falls hard on every choke point key to middle class existence in this country, and the BIG government failure is about its catering to the monied interests owning it to the clear detriment of those being governed.

Cruiser's avatar

@stanleybmanly I get the point you are trying to make but it does not hold water no matter what point in time you are referencing as everyone has financial crosses to bear. I couldn’t afford college but was able to enroll as my parents stepped up to help with tuition room and board. I had a ‘68 Camaro back then (in 1979) which was my dream car that I loved to death and ultimately I had to sell that car because school I could not afford the insurance on the car and my education took priority.

Your point of “massive debt” is lacking in context as nothing IMO could be a more “massive debt” to a 19 yr old than signing over the title to his dream car in order to pursue a higher education with a very uncertain future.

Kids today now have that golden opportunity to vote for Bernie Sanders who is promising to give them a free college education. Damn! If I was young, today I could have the chance to still have my dream car and a college education!

stanleybmanly's avatar

I kept my car in college because I had a damned good full time union job from 4 to midnight 3 years straight. My point is that both the load and the road are a damned sight tougher for any kid contemplating the duplication of my feat today. The changes in the society have been systemic and severely detrimental to young people in particular. I no longer bother with asking why things are as they are. It’s much quicker and more effective to ask WHO EXACTLY IS IT THAT BENEFITS FROM THE PRESENT SETUP?

jerv's avatar

@Cruiser How about just plain not being able to afford the education no matter what you sold? Imagine never being able to get a car, let alone your dream car, unless you planned to live in it. And I don’t think anyone but you cares about sentimental value; truth is that even now that it’s a collectible, a ‘68 Camaro is worth less than the cost of one year of college. Possibly less than a semester if you have to pay for room and board.

Take that heart-crushing feeling when you sold your car and imagine living every day of the rest of your life feeling that way without fading over time. And imagine if instead of paying for education, you did it to survive; to get nothing more than another month or two of food and shelter. And the reason it won’t fade over time is that you’ll be doing it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again until you leave your next of kin saddled with a few thousand dollars in funeral expenses. Want to break out of the cycle? Well, you could take on $80–150k in debt to get a metaphorical lottery ticket with a slim chance of earning enough to single-handedly afford a solid middle-class lifestyle… but odds are that you won’t, and you ‘ll wind up working the same sort of jobs you would without a degree, only with a lot more debt.

It probably doesn’t hold water for you because by the time the world got that way, you were already fairly well-off and secure. Not completely, but enough so that all you really had to do was keep on doing what you’d already been doing for years. Read this comic and tell me if you can at least grasp why I’m a little skeptical about whether or not you have a bit of a skewed perspective here. Selling your dream car may have been tragic for you, but it sure beats a lot of the things I’ve seen impeded people in their pursuit of “The American Dream”. I know you’ve seen the pictures of the car I loved and what happened to it. Hey, at least you got money when your dream car left you; I paid thousands of dollars out instead, and am still dealing with other aftermath of the events surrounding the end of my ownership of that vehicle. So forgive me if I can’t muster much sympathy for a kid who traded their hotrod for a degree.

@stanleybmanly There was a time when “Conservative” referred to those who kept up with changing times and adapted as quickly as due diligence deemed was safe, but the scale shifted so nowadays those people are called “Liberals”. In fact, even admitting that the world has changed is enough to get you kicked out of the GOP these days. Is it any wonder so many of them refute the notion that they’ve radicalized? As the old Joe Walsh song says, “Everybody’s so different, I haven’t changed”.

zenvelo's avatar

@Cruiser My example may have been lame, but it is correct. The biggest welfare recipients in the US are corporations and so called conservatives.

Look at today’s story on the ethanol mandate , a waste of money and efficiency.

stanleybmanly's avatar

And when you step back and look at just which factors in our civilization are allowed the greatest latitude for exploitation, it always turns out to be the essentials where the necessities of the profit motive have been engineered to drive us to the wall. It’s no accident that it’s things like the rent, health insurance, a college education, childcare, all of the expenses which are clearly out of control and under any rational government would be rigidly managed in the public interest. The popular and well honed explanation is that these mountains on the backs of those saddled with the load are unavoidable “market driven” phenomena. And those railing against such things are relegated to the status of folks complaining about the weather. The truth is that these onerous developments are the direct consequence of manipulation of our government to restrict it from intervention by those reaping the profits. And once again, in each and every instance, there’s no secret to the culprits foisting the illusion that “this is just the way things work”. All becomes clear with the answer to the simple question WHO IS IT THAT BENEFITS FROM THE CURRENT SETUP?

stanleybmanly's avatar

Bravo @zenvelo I agree. The ethanol mandate is particularly instructive on manipulation of the government AGAINST the public interest

ibstubro's avatar

If I may be allowed 2¢ on the ethanol debate? The same argument was made – successfully – against President Carter’s renewable energy initiative of the 80’s.

I’m not suggesting any altruism in the current ethanol debate, but certain benefits – higher national corn production and alternative fuel availability – accrue regardless of intent.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Neither of those arguments are viable. And this is glaringly true in the current economic environment. Ethanol amounts to little more than a huge subsidy to ADM and ConAgra. It effectively drives up the price of corn for desperately hungry people in the world, and more petroleum is burned in producing it than is saved when it is used as an additive. It’s a gift to corporate farming and a glaring rip off of taxpayers AND EVERYBODY KNOWS IT.

jerv's avatar

In any event, Iowa is upon us, so lets grab a beer and watch the fireworks.

The Democrats will be decided by turn-out while the Republicans are still splintered enough that a strong third will be enough to keep someone in the race.

Regardless of one’s political leanings or views, the only things that are even close to certain are that Martin O’Malley is effectively done, the Republicans will be throwing a lot of people out of the clown car and that both Trump and Cruz will emerge with enough support to make it viable to continue.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Clown car. I love it!

ibstubro's avatar

…effectively drives up the price of corn for desperately hungry people in the world…
lol. CRP, notwithstanding.

janbb's avatar

Apparently not.

Pandora's avatar

I certainly hope not. Both are wild cards and not the best. I wish they would announce who is going to be their running mates because that in the end can win or kill a candidate. It gives a better view of what kind of people they are going to have along side with them to run the country. I think if Hillary chose someone who people can see as a potential candidate for President down the road, then it will help her out. If a candidate chooses only a talking head then they have a problem. What helped President Obama was Joe Biden. If Hillary could get Elizabeth Warren to be her Vice, she would have an easy road ahead. She would lock in the womans votes and the young vote. People actually like her better than Bernie and she is wider known.

jerv's avatar

Well, with Bernie getting 60% of the vote in NH yet Hillary getting as many delegates as she did, I think the better question is whether or not it matters if Hillary even campaigns since the outcome seems to have been determined in back-room deals years ago, and the voters have no say in the process.

@Pandora Many Moderates, myself included, were leaning towards McCain, and were initially pleased that he announced a female running mate. Then Sarah Palin opened her mouth. Since that moment, I haven’t been able to take any conservative or right-;leaning moderate seriously.

However, Hillary can’t even lock in an endorsement from Warren, who is more ideologically aligned with Sanders anyways, is trailing badly among young voters (at least under-30; by some polls under-45), and enough women are voting with their brains instead of voting on sisterly solidarity that I don’t see gender playing a role. Hillary’s numbers among women voters are too close to her numbers among male voters for me to see her gender making a difference.

That said, I think Warren is a highly probable running mate pick for both candidates.

Pandora's avatar

@jerv Unfortunately I don’t see Warren deciding to go for VP with either. She seems determined to stay where she is and believes she can do more in her current position or she would’ve ran for President. She would’ve been a slam dunk.
I agree she may be more in line with Bernie than Hillary but Hillary has decades of pushing for womens issues. Bernie may be about equality but it isn’t his hard core issue and with womens rights constantly being attacked we need someone who is mostly about making sure women aren’t put in the back of the bus.
In the meantime. Warren is playing it cool. She knows that her endorsement would go a long way to making the next candidate, so in the meantime, she gives sound bites of congrats to candidates to get them to talk about issues that she favors. So she is slyly steering the issues and won’t give either candidate her endorsement. She’s a smart cookie.

jerv's avatar

@Pandora I think that Sanders’ pushing for equality across the board instead of just one narrow aspect of it may be enough to counter that. Bernie may not have women’s rights as a core issue, but I think that the number of people earning under $50k/yr and the number of voters under-30 more than make up for that. As for the females under 30 who earn under $50k/yr, it’s conceivable that they may vote for their age or income rather than their gender.

Pandora's avatar

@jerv I like Sanders but I don’t think his goals are realistic. He is pandering to the youth with promises of paid college education and I don’t see that happening. We don’t even have funds for infrastructure that is crumbling and k though 12 schools now. The idea that taxes will not touch the middle class and only the rich is a pipe dream. And a bigger dream would be believing that the rich will stick around and be taxed heavier along with paying higher wages is something else that won’t happen. They will more likely take all their cash and close up shop before sharing a dime extra. He also wants to get rid of Obama care and make it free medical care like in Canada.

I don’t know how he plans to have all these things paid for and somehow provide higher wages and more jobs. I mean with his plan the insurance industry would dry up and doctors that are currently working will have to accept a government wage. They already were not happy with Obama care, imagine what this would do. I just don’t see anything practical in his goals. At worst he will accomplish some of these things and our economy will flounder because higher taxes means less spending. At best the legislative branch will stop his at every turn and we have another 8 years of stale mate and the economy suffers a little.

stanleybmanly's avatar

It’s true that Sanders would face an all but hopeless task in implementing his views and policies in the country. But his value in being in the race whether he is elected or not, is in his message. Because Bernie is putting forth a narrative on the way the country works that has been effectively suppressed and disallowed in our politics. Hillary is in effect playing the traditional tune of “elect me and as many democrats as possible and we will work within the system to make things better” Sanders says that it is the system itself that is corrupted and skewed against the economic interests of the great majority of those within it. He lays out a different explanation for why things are such a struggle for so many while a very few grow richer than God. And since he’s a viable candidate, it’s an explanation that is heard and MUST be considered. Hillary’s in a tough spot as the “business as usual” candidate and even with the advantage of establishment money and backing, is going to bleed off support as Sanders’ momentum builds. In addition, as attention on Sanders and his explanation increases, defections from the Trump contingent are very likely among those capable of abstract thought. Bernie’s on a roll.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@Pandora You’re right about the practical impossibility of the quick implementation of universal health care and a government financed college education for all with academic qualifications. But the 2 things to consider regarding this are 1. Ours is the richest country in the world. 2. Other countries are doing it and have been for decades. As for the rich closing up shop and taking their winnings elsewhere, where are they going to go with it? And more importantly, what happens when their government sponsored ability
to extract wealth from the rest of us is cut off.

The great difference between the rich and most of the rest of us is that the rich recognize that it is the GOVERNMENT that decides whether the wealth of the country goes to them or to roads, education, health care, etc. If the public ever comes to understand this, perhaps things can be turned around.

jerv's avatar

@Pandora Here is how I read your post;

“Just accept reality as it is, change nothing, and maintain the status quo until the sands of time bury us. Don’t even try as it’s not worth it. Sweeping reforms are impossible. Anything other than ‘more of the same’ is either fantasy or dangerous delusion. Doing what other countries have done for decades can never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever work for America. Anything other than our current perverted take on Capitalism will kill our economy.”

That post made it clear that I am not (small-c) conservative enough to be nearly as hidebound as you are, and there is no chance of you and I agreeing unless we can agree to disagree and drop it. You can’t convince me, but you can provoke me and I doubt either of us want that, so lets just stop while we still have mutual respect.

@stanleybmanly A lot of people think the system is perfectly fine because ‘Murica! A lot of them do so out of the same sort of fear that causes otherwise decent, intelligent people to act against their own self interests by supporting repressive regimes. Many people, even those who claim to want change, actually fear change more than they fear known bad things. In other words, they would rather live in chains eating only half a moldy bread crust a day and getting beaten every hour on the hour than roll the dice and try something else.

We are used to hatred and greed and all that to the point where Trump has a depressingly good chance at actually taking the Oval Office simply because he is what we expect. Think about the implications of that for a moment… and try not to slit your wrists when the implications of that statement finally hit you.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther