Discussion for article #240177
So who would those Biden supporters vote for, if he chooses not to run? His 20% is more than the difference between Clinton’s 38% and Sanders’ 27%. In any event with all the money and Democratic party insiders pushing Clinton, she should be doing a lot better. Her minions have intimidated all others except Sanders into not running, at least not hard enough to be a threat to the chosen one.
There is a newish article on Politico on how the Clinton campaign is encouraging surrogates - other Democratic politicos and even some big donors - to question Sanders’ voting record and disparage his electability (all the while denying to do so). Meanwhile candidate Clinton won’t even acknowledge candidate by name. On the other hand, candidate Sanders has maintained his pledge to focus on issues and not say anything negative about other Democratic candidates.
1 Like
In recent polls taken without Biden, Clinton still leads. It’s fantasy to think that Biden supporters are really Sander’s supporters merely pining for Biden because he is an even more progressive voice than Sanders (he isn’t).
Biden occupies the same space on the political spectrum of the Democratic party that Clinton does (possibly, just slightly, to her right even). Biden supporters going to Sanders will not be doing so because they love Bernie…they will be doing so because they hate Hillary.
As for her doing better, consider that every mention of Hillary for the past several months on the MSM has been negative, its rather remarkable that she has a double digit lead.
And really, intimidated? I think that’s a bit over the top in describing why people aren’t running against her. Its not like she is having bricks tossed through windows, or breaking kneecaps of people. She is playing to win, and has been for the better part of year. Wouldn’t you want your candidate of choice to do the same?
2 Likes
I agree, mostly.
But: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2015_09/hillary_clinton_sets_up_anothe057460.php
I agree with the argument of that article, that she goes into a defensive posture far too often as a campaigner, but, it is still a strategy aimed at locking up the nomination.
The problem is she is still haunted by the ghosts of the 2008 campaign. Probably because she knows she isn’t anywhere near the campaigner that her husband is. Bill relished the campaign battles; Hillary would just as soon neutralize them so they never occur.
I mean, think about it. Should she ignore the bigger delegate states because Bernie is doing well in his neighboring NH, where he was always assumed to do well? How is THAT a good strategy?
So the GOP is pushing into the primary season without even one legitimate national candidate. If there’s some kind of subversive strategy behind this positioning of Trump and Carson, two unelectable candidates, as the Republican hope for the White House, I cannot decipher it. In the meantime, both of those non-candidates would lose to each Democratic nominee, whether it’s Hillary, Bernie or VP Joe, by a long shot once it comes down to people picking, in the solitary confines of the voting booth, an actual leader of the free world.
There must be some bizarre GOP strategy at work here, because on the face of it, this is an out-and-out loser for the Republicans.
Please, someone, convince me that Trump “can’t win”. I keep hearing this assertion, but am still worried. Of course, U.S. Voters would never elect a dummy like W…I mean Trump, but I’m still just a little wary.
HRC has the resources for a 50-state strategy.
I haven’t read the article yet proclaiming that Hillary is pulling out of Iowa or New Hampshire. Instead this article is mentioning that she is also campaigning in southern states in an aim to get those delegates as early as possible.
But somehow, that means…something bad.