2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

TheDoctor

Didnt see any highlights yet. Was there a clear winner last night?

Akrasia

I think it was a case of if you're a Hillary supporter, you'll say she won, if you're a Bernie supporter, you'll say he won.

I thought a lot of Hillary's points were cheap shots and mischaracterisations

Sanders referred to Hillary's voting record on Iraq so in response, she talked about the NY Daily news hatchet job interview and the implication that he didn't know his own policies.

Again, she accused him of being a puppet of the NRA, she tried to imply that Sanders wasn't a strong supporter of reproductive rights by referring to his comment about the media sensationalising everything that Trump says

she tried to disarm Sanders by pretending that she shares his views on universal healthcare and free education and breaking up the banks

Watching the debate made me dislike Hillary more than I already did, but I'm not sure if it will swing many voters from Hillary to Bernie.

honru

Clinton's continued excuse for not releasing transcripts of her paid speeches to Goldman Sachs (e.g., "I'll do it when the Republicans do it", "I'll do it when we set the same standard for everybody") is still pathetic. Worth mentioning that the moderator continued to press her on this at which point she looked backed into a corner. When the question of the speeches was initially raised, it seemed like the contention would eventually be forgotten about, but her perpetual refusal to address the issue — a valid concern of voters — makes it clear that she does not want the public to see those speeches. What does she have to hide?

BoJack Horseman

Akrasia wrote: »

she talked about the NY Daily news hatchet job interview and the implication that he didn't know his own policies..

What was the 'hatchet job'?

matthew8

Billy86 wrote: »

How have Silver & co been doing so far? The last two elections I think it was, they basically had crystal-ball type of predictions.

He's had a poor campaign I'm pretty sure. Sometimes the polls have just got it wrong (he projected Clinton with a 99% chance to win Michigan but I don't blame him for that, she was a certainty on polling) but he's made other mistakes, like overestimating the effect of endorsements. He's also in the very large club of having written off Trump for a long time, but again I don't blame him.

Akrasia

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

What was the 'hatchet job'?

There was an interview with the editorial board of the NY Daily News where they asked a load of questions deliberately aimed at making Sanders look bad, and then reported afterwards that he couldn't answer their questions

For example, they asked him how he would break up the banks

Daily News: Okay. Well, let's assume that you're correct on that point. How do you go about doing it?

Sanders: How you go about doing it is having legislation passed, or giving the authority to the secretary of treasury to determine, under Dodd-Frank, that these banks are a danger to the economy over the problem of too-big-to-fail.

Daily News: But do you think that the Fed, now, has that authority?


Sanders: Well, I don't know if the Fed has it. But I think the administration can have it.

The headline the next day is 'Sanders doesn't know how to break up the banks, but when he said 'I don't know how the fed has it' it was because they asked him about the fed, Sanders never mentioned the fed, he talked about the Treasury.

Another gotcha question was a game of 'name the statute' when sanders said he wanted to prosecute corporate crime

Daily News: Okay. Staying with Wall Street, you've pointed out, that "not one major Wall Street executive has been prosecuted for causing the near collapse of our entire economy." Why was that? Why did that happen? Why was there no prosecution?

Sanders: I would suspect that the answer that some would give you is that while what they did was horrific, and greedy and had a huge impact on our economy, that some suggest that...that those activities were not illegal. I disagree. And I think an aggressive attorney general would have found illegal activity.

Daily News: So do you think that President Obama's Justice Department essentially was either in the tank or not as...

Sanders: No, I wouldn’t say they were in the tank. I'm saying, a Sanders administration would have a much more aggressive attorney general looking at all of the legal implications. All I can tell you is that if you have Goldman Sachs paying a settlement fee of $5 billion, other banks paying a larger fee, I think most Americans think, "Well, why do they pay $5 billion?" Not because they're heck of a nice guys who want to pay $5 billion. Something was wrong there. And if something was wrong, I think they were illegal activities.

Daily News: Okay. But do you have a sense that there is a particular statute or statutes that a prosecutor could have or should have invoked to bring indictments?

Sanders: I suspect that there are. Yes.

Daily News: You believe that? But do you know?

Sanders: I believe that that is the case. Do I have them in front of me, now, legal statutes? No, I don't. But if I would...yeah, that's what I believe, yes. When a company pays a $5 billion fine for doing something that's illegal, yeah, I think we can bring charges against the executives.

Just because someone can't name a specific statute off the cuff in a heated interview doesn't make them incompetent.

The interview was leapt upon by the overtly pro Hillary media organisations, Washington post, CNN etc who all reported that Sanders was shown to be incompetent in the interview

A week later after the interview, they came out and officially endorsed Hillary Clinton for president.

So Hillary was referring in the debate, to inaccurate reporting that Sanders performed 'disasterously' under a hostile interrogation by a newspaper that strongly supports her campaign

FAIR agrees with me
http://fair.org/home/dc-press-corps-spins-itself-silly-over-sanders-specifics/

BoJack Horseman

Akrasia wrote: »

under a hostile interrogation

The old diddums!

I found that audio on the newspapers website..... I didn't think it was overly hard on him nor did he perform particularly badly.

It was middling really, if it's the hardest grilling he faces, it will be an easy campaign!

After all, no mention of taxation and the only foreign policy was on Israel & ISIS, both dead-batted easily with canned answers.
Nothing too hard.

TheDoctor

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

The old diddums!

I found that audio on the newspapers website..... I didn't think it was overly hard on him nor did he perform particularly badly.

It was middling really, if it's the hardest grilling he faces, it will be an easy campaign!

After all, no mention of taxation and the only foreign policy was on Israel & ISIS, both dead-batted easily with canned answers.
Nothing too hard.

So if you're saying he didnt perform badly, then would you think this pro-Hilary publication over exaggerated his performance?

Manic Moran

Again, she accused him of being a puppet of the NRA

Yeah, no. Props to Bernie for being logical on that one. I am aware of no other precedent where anyone can think it's a good idea to sue a product manufacturer for making a product which is perfectly legal, and which performs exactly what it's supposed to do without flaw or issue. It's like sueing Toyota because a bank robber's getaway car ran over a child. The argument against the GOPA is pure politics and his analysis of it being intended to remove firearms because they can't legislate them away is quite on.

Interesting poll yesterday, in a head-to-head, Hilary would beat Trump and Cruz, but lose to Kasich. I don't recall hearing how Sanders would fare. Which makes sense, as Kasich seems to be the sensible one of the three Republicans. Of course, the Republicans are going to completely ignore the idea of 'winning the presidential election' and go with one of the other two.

Nate is very much into believing his own hype. He got 51/51 last time, anyone could've got 49 and 50 wasn't a big stretch either.

BoJack Horseman

TheDoctor wrote: »

So if you're saying he didnt perform badly, then would you think this pro-Hilary publication over exaggerated his performance?

Indeed. ... but this isn't a surprise is it?

the media picks it's side & does what it does..... it's the same everywhere.
Let no one pretend to be shocked over that.

Billy86

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Indeed. ... but this isn't a surprise is it?

the media picks it's side & does what it does..... it's the same everywhere.
Let no one pretend to be shocked over that.

I'm lost here, you seem to agree that it was a hatchet job, but your posts beforehand suggest you think otherwise.

Akrasia

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Indeed. ... but this isn't a surprise is it?

the media picks it's side & does what it does..... it's the same everywhere.
Let no one pretend to be shocked over that.

The media is the media, but Hillary has referred to this interview several times in the last week and again last night, indeed,this is where the whole 'qualified' saga originated. So much for not campaigning negatively.

BoJack Horseman

Billy86 wrote: »

I'm lost here, you seem to agree that it was a hatchet job, but your posts beforehand suggest you think otherwise.

I think it was a middling interview that Sanders neither covered himself in glory nor heinously f*cked up over.....
If Hill-dog uses that to hammer him with via her media proxies, then that's politics, it's a blood sport.

Sanders will survive it.

Akrasia

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

I think it was a middling interview that Sanders neither covered himself in glory nor heinously f*cked up over.....
If Hill-dog uses that to hammer him with via her media proxies, then that's politics, it's a blood sport.

Sanders will survive it.

He'll survive, but her dirty tricks will cost him votes. 'That's politics' is the old establishment view, his opposition to that is the reason Bernie is so popular amongst people who are engaged in the debate.

The reason he's not winning is because of all the institutional barriers that are in his way (superdelegates, media bias, name recognition, corporate support, establishment DNC support...)

RobertKK

I watched numerous debates - mostly the Republican debates, only a few Democrat debates, but the most entertaining debate was the Democrat debate during the week, finally the Democrats candidates really went after eachother.
Bernie Sanders raised a lot of very valid points about Hillary Clinton, I bet now he wishes he hadn't let her off on her emails earlier in the race.

On the Democrat side, Sanders is easily far superior to Clinton who seems to be hiding a lot from her mistakes, she justified removing "genocidal dictators", yet one could easily argue the path she took led to more deaths than any genocidal dictator.
She wants to hide away from her speeches to Goldman Sachs, yet elsewhere in the debate said one of her parents told her 'you don't get something for nothing', so if one was to apply that for her Goldman Sachs speeches which she wants to keep hidden...
Clinton spoke of her support for the Muslim Brotherhood and Morsi in Egypt, yet they are now declared as terrorists, but then it was found some of the rebels her state department helped with weapons were Al Qaeda affiliates...
Clinton again pushed an anti-Iran sentiment which in a Middle East context is a show of support for Saudi Arabia - Saudi Arabia whom members of congress - both Republican and Democrat want to directly link to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Sanders comes across as more pragmatic, the Clinton foreign policy is one where one takes sides and there is no peace, Sanders seems to be more balanced and that you need to work with all sides.
This could be seen in regards to Israel, Clinton only spoke about Israel as if the Palestinians didn't exist, while Sanders addressed the issue in a balanced way dealing with both sides, and he being Jewish.

I think the USA would do alright if the election was Kasich v Sanders. They are the best on each side in my opinion.
The worst being Clinton and Cruz.

JPNelsforearm

Further to pragmatic foreign policy^ If its a Clinton v Cruz face off, it'll be funny to see the revisionist views of Obama's foreign policy, what'll they call him, the great peacemaker, a few drone strikes will pale in comparison to what lurks over the horizon.

BoJack Horseman

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Further to pragmatic foreign policy^ If its a Clinton v Cruz face off, it'll be funny to see the revisionist views of Obama's foreign policy, what'll they call him, the great peacemaker, a few drone strikes will pale in comparison to what lurks over the horizon.

There is always a cognitive dissonance wrt to revisionism.... always to suit an agenda or a future fight.

However Barry did ok overall.... Though, reading that the very amenable & stalwart ally of Jordan may be considering a change to the Russian sphere would be an enormous blot on the Obama administration's copy book.

Suryavarman

Akrasia wrote: »

He'll survive, but her dirty tricks will cost him votes. 'That's politics' is the old establishment view, his opposition to that is the reason Bernie is so popular amongst people who are engaged in the debate.

The reason he's not winning is because of all the institutional barriers that are in his way (superdelegates, media bias, name recognition, corporate support, establishment DNC support...)

The reason he's not winning is because Clinton is more popular. Hence her 2.5m lead in votes and her 250 delegate lead in pledged delegates. Not too mention her 438 delegate lead in superdelegates. This before a number of high population, delegate rich states that favour Clinton vote.

It's been a two-horse race for months so Sanders has had plenty of exposure in the debates. He is getting less coverage than Hillary Clinton but that probably has something to do with the ongoing email scandal. Sanders still has more media coverage than any of the Republican candidates bar Trump. In fact he has received more attention than Cruz and Kasich combined. He also receives less negative media coverage than Clinton while receiving more positive coverage.

Clinton has the support of the establishment because she is far more likeable than Sanders. This article details Barney Frank's long running distaste of Bernie Sanders. Hillary is a Democrat and has been for a long time whereas Sanders is running as a Democrat because it suits him. That might explain why he has only committed to raising money for other Democrats in the last couple of days.

He has a lack of name recognition because he hasn't really achieved anything in his time in Congress. Compare that to fellow progressive Barney Frank who managed to pass one of the most important pieces of financial regulation in American history among other pieces of legislation.

Bernie Sanders's failure is all on him.

RandomName2

Suryavarman wrote: »

The reason he's not winning is because Clinton is more popular. Hence her 2.5m lead in votes and her 250 delegate lead in pledged delegates. Not too mention her 438 delegate lead in superdelegates. This before a number of high population, delegate rich states that favour Clinton vote.

Sanders is in a strange position of being in the process of winning (as in, continually increasing his support against Clinton) while being continually behind. As he likes to point out, he has gone from 2% last August to 45% today, although much of this is due to Clinton being inherently unpopular.

Suryavarman wrote: »

It's been a two-horse race for months so Sanders has had plenty of exposure in the debates. He is getting less coverage than Hillary Clinton but that probably has something to do with the ongoing email scandal. Sanders still has more media coverage than any of the Republican candidates bar Trump. In fact he has received more attention than Cruz and Kasich combined. He also receives less negative media coverage than Clinton while receiving more positive coverage.

Most of the time primaries are a ONE HORSE RACE. 2008 was an aberration. By Super Tuesday the swing is usually decisive and the rest is ignored by most non-party elements.

Suryavarman wrote: »

Clinton has the support of the establishment because she is far more likeable than Sanders.

Clinton isn't likeable: she said so herself. She said that she believes that she is not liked is due to her not being "a politician", which was a strange thing to say. I am not sure why she is disliked as much as she is, but she clearly is.

Suryavarman wrote: »

This article details Barney Frank's long running distaste of Bernie Sanders. Hillary is a Democrat and has been for a long time whereas Sanders is running as a Democrat because it suits him. That might explain why he has only committed to raising money for other Democrats in the last couple of days.

Well obviously. He specifically refused to be backed by the Democratic party either time he ran for the senate (he also refused Republican overtures). He is inherently an independent.

Suryavarman wrote: »

He has a lack of name recognition because he hasn't really achieved anything in his time in Congress. Compare that to fellow progressive Barney Frank who managed to pass one of the most important pieces of financial regulation in American history among other pieces of legislation.

If Barney Frank was running for president he would be even more of an outsider. I don't even know who he is, and I probably keep abreast of politics more than the average voter.

You become known either for celebrity reasons, due to high political office (Vice President, Governor or Secretary) or because you are specifically féted by your party. Clinton fits all three of these categories.

Suryavarman wrote: »

Bernie Sanders's failure is all on him.

You are right, but not, perhaps, for the reasons you think.

Manic Moran

You are one of the few people I've heard of saying Clinton is more likable. It didn't jive with what I'm hearing on the radio, and as of four days ago http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/04/12/sanders_lags_in_delegates_but_leads_in_likability_130257.html

On the matter of people voting against the guy they don't want in office, from my observations, people will vote against Sanders because they dislike his policies and positions, but will vote against Clinton because they don't like -her-.

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

On the matter of people voting against the guy they don't want in office, from my observations, people will vote against Sanders because they dislike his policies and positions, but will vote against Clinton because they don't like -her-.

USC/LATimes Poll:

Candidate | Tot Fav | Tot Unfav
Sanders | 57 | 34
Clinton | 52 | 45
Cruz | 29 | 57
Trump | 23 | 73

Sanders has the highest total favourability and Clinton 2nd, while Trump leads them all with 73 total unfavourability.

Suryavarman

Manic Moran wrote: »

You are one of the few people I've heard of saying Clinton is more likable. It didn't jive with what I'm hearing on the radio, and as of four days ago http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/04/12/sanders_lags_in_delegates_but_leads_in_likability_130257.html

On the matter of people voting against the guy they don't want in office, from my observations, people will vote against Sanders because they dislike his policies and positions, but will vote against Clinton because they don't like -her-.

Clinton is leading in every measure that matters. Pledged delegates, superdelegates and raw vote count. Polls might say Sanders is more popular but reality states otherwise.

Sorry to nitpick, but I did mean that Clinton was more likeable to the establishment than Sanders. That is clearly the case. Clinton actually works for the Democratic Party and helps fundraise for other Democrat candidates. Sanders on the other hand continually chastises others for not being real progressives and has regularly claimed there to be no difference between the Democrats and Republicans. This is why Clinton holds a massive lead in superdelegates.

KingBrian2

Suryavarman wrote: »

Clinton is leading in every measure that matters. Pledged delegates, superdelegates and raw vote count. Polls might say Sanders is more popular but reality states otherwise.

Sorry to nitpick, but I did mean that Clinton was more likeable to the establishment than Sanders. That is clearly the case. Clinton actually works for the Democratic Party and helps fundraise for other Democrat candidates. Sanders on the other hand continually chastises others for not being real progressives and has regularly claimed there to be no difference between the Democrats and Republicans. This is why Clinton holds a massive lead in superdelegates.

Clinton also has the argument that she is the only one on the Democratic side that can beat the GOP. Palin and Cruz have taken the party well away from old school conservatives towards a reinvigorated base.

eire4

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Clinton also has the argument that she is the only one on the Democratic side that can beat the GOP. Palin and Cruz have taken the party well away from old school conservatives towards a reinvigorated base.

To be fair whatever the various different arguments for and against Clinton that is not one of the ones in her favour. The clear majority of polls and for some time as well as currently show Sanders beating the 3 Republicans and usually by bigger margins then Clinton in potential head to head presidential matchups.

Currently the RCP averages are:
Sanders v Trump 53-37 Sanders by 16
Sanders v Cruz 50-39 Sanders by 11
Sanders v Kaisch 45-42 Sanders by 3

Clinton v Trump 49-39 Clinton by 10
Clinton v Cruz 46-42 Clinton by 4
Clinton v Kaisch 40-47 Kaisch by 7

Thargor

What happened with Ted Cruz and his long list of mistresses? That story seemed to vanish without a trace after 48 hours.

KingBrian2

eire4 wrote: »

To be fair whatever the various different arguments for and against Clinton that is not one of the ones in her favour. The clear majority of polls and for some time as well as currently show Sanders beating the 3 Republicans and usually by bigger margins then Clinton in potential head to head presidential matchups.

Currently the RCP averages are:
Sanders v Trump 53-37 Sanders by 16
Sanders v Cruz 50-39 Sanders by 11
Sanders v Kaisch 45-42 Sanders by 3

Clinton v Trump 49-39 Clinton by 10
Clinton v Cruz 46-42 Clinton by 4
Clinton v Kaisch 40-47 Kaisch by 7

People are not going to vote for Sanders because he can beat a Republican they will pick a politician who can work with Congress. Remember Congress is still Republican majority and indeed many mayoralties and governors are all in Republican territory.

K-9

Tbh the working with Congress line suits the establishment narrative, but in reality? Clinton is probably a more divisive character than Sanders! Really, saying Hillary has a better chance of working with Congress is like choosing between 2 hopes!

There seems to be a narrative of dismissing Sanders, that suits Clinton and most Republicans because they want her as the candidate. If Sanders can get within 10 points in NY it's a victory for him and weakens Hillary yet again. This race should have been over 2 months ago.

As for Sanders chances, he needs 57% of the delegates to draw level, similar to Cruz. Cruz could finish third in NY and nobody will say he should pull out, not even Trump!

The Randy Riverbeast

KingBrian2 wrote: »

People are not going to vote for Sanders because he can beat a Republican they will pick a politician who can work with Congress. Remember Congress is still Republican majority and indeed many mayoralties and governors are all in Republican territory.

Given the amount of money and time republicans have spent trying to get something pinned to Clinton I don't see them working with her, never mind her working with them.

Fr Tod Umptious

K-9 wrote: »

Tbh the working with Congress line suits the establishment narrative, but in reality? Clinton is probably a more divisive character than Sanders! Really, saying Hillary has a better chance of working with Congress is like choosing between 2 hopes!

There seems to be a narrative of dismissing Sanders, that suits Clinton and most Republicans because they want her as the candidate. If Sanders can get within 10 points in NY it's a victory for him and weakens Hillary yet again. This race should have been over 2 months ago.

As for Sanders chances, he needs 57% of the delegates to draw level, similar to Cruz. Cruz could finish third in NY and nobody will say he should pull out, not even Trump!

That's because Trump may not get enough delegates to make him the GOP nomination, and you may have a contested convention where anything and everything may happen.

No such problem exists on the Dem. Side.