well, I know what the pollsters and commentators say and that isn't what I'm
seeing from the voters that I deal with every day. I'm not thrilled about
Hillary but I'm less thrilled about Bernie Sanders as I think he has an
image problem as to how he comes across and I hear this bothers voters who
aren't totally on the progressive bandwagon.
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: Miriam Vieni
Sent: Friday, March 4, 2016 6:52 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: With Donald Trump Looming, Should Dems Take a
Huge Electability Gamble by Nominating Hillary Clinton?
I guess I should have been posting more of the articles which competently
argue against that point of view. There are many commentators who believe
that if Hillary is the Democratic candidate, the Democrats will lose because
it is Sanders who does well in polls against Trump, not Hillary.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Charles Krugman
(Redacted sender "ckrugman" for DMARC)
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2016 7:19 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: With Donald Trump Looming, Should Dems Take a
Huge Electability Gamble by Nominating Hillary Clinton?
whether we like it or not who else do the Democrats have? With rank and file
democrats I know Bernie Sanders is not considered to be electable and he
does not get their support. IIAside from the fact that I'm one that falls in
to that category. I don't think there is going to be a knight in shining
armor tht is going to come to the rescue. I think that Hillary is just going
to have to fight the fight and its time for a reality check in the
Democratic pParty.
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: Miriam Vieni
Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2016 12:40 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] With Donald Trump Looming, Should Dems Take a
Huge Electability Gamble by Nominating Hillary Clinton?
Greenwald writes: "Many Democrats will tell you that there has rarely, if
ever, been a more menacing or evil presidential candidate than Donald Trump.
'Trump is the most dangerous major candidate for president in memory,'
pronounced Vox's Ezra Klein two weeks ago."
Glenn Greenwald. (photo: Reuters)
With Donald Trump Looming, Should Dems Take a Huge Electability Gamble by
Nominating Hillary Clinton?
By Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept
27 February 16
Many Democrats will tell you that there has rarely, if ever, been a more
menacing or evil presidential candidate than Donald Trump. "Trump is the
most dangerous major candidate for president in memory," pronounced Vox's
Ezra Klein two weeks ago. With a consensus now emerging that the real estate
mogul is the likely GOP nominee, it would stand to reason that the most
important factor for many Democrats in choosing their own nominee is
electability: meaning, who has the best chance of defeating the GOP Satan in
the general election? In light of that, can Democrats really afford to take
such a risky gamble by nominating Hillary Clinton?
In virtually every poll, her rival, Bernie Sanders, does better, often much
better, in head-to-head match-ups against every possible GOP candidate.
Here, for instance, is a compilation of how Clinton does against Ted Cruz in
recent polls: She trails the Texas senator in all but one poll, and in the
one poll she leads, it is by a paltry 2 points:
Polling data. (photo: The Intercept)
By stark contrast, Sanders leads Cruz in every poll, including by
substantial margins in some:
Polling data. (photo: The Intercept)
A similar story is seen in their match-ups against Trump. Although they both
end up ahead in most polls, Sanders' margin over Trump is generally very
comfortable, while Clinton's is smaller. Clinton's average lead over Trump
is just 2.8 percent, while Sanders' lead is a full 6 points:
Polling data. (photo: The Intercept)
Polling data. (photo: The Intercept)
Then there's the data about how each candidate is perceived. Put simply,
Hillary Clinton is an extremely unpopular political figure. By contrast,
even after enduring months of attacks from the Clinton camp and its large
number of media surrogates, Sanders remains a popular figure.
A Gallup poll released this week reported that "29 percent of Americans
offer a positive observation about Clinton while 51 percent express
something negative." As Gallup rather starkly put it: "Unfortunately for
Clinton, the negative associations currently outnumber the positive ones by
a sizable margin, and even among Democrats, the negatives are fairly high."
Sanders is, of course, a more unknown quantity, but "the public's comments
about Sanders can be summarized as 26 percent positive and 20 percent
negative, with the rest categorized as neutral, other or no opinion."
In fact, the more the public gets to see of both candidates, the more
popular Sanders becomes, and the more unpopular Clinton becomes. Here's
Quinnipiac explaining that dynamic in one graph just a few days ago:
This Huffington Post chart, compiling recent polls, shows not only that
Clinton is deeply unpopular among the electorate, but becomes increasingly
unpopular the more the public is exposed to her during this campaign:
Polling data. (photo: The Intercept)
Polling data. (photo: The Intercept)
Or look at the same metric for critical states. In Ohio, for example,
Sanders' favorability rating is +3 (44-41 percent), while Clinton's is
negative 20 (37-57 percent).
Then there's the particular climate of the electorate. While it's
undoubtedly true that racism and ethno-nationalism are significant factors
in Trump's appeal, also quite significant is a pervasive, long-standing
contempt for the political establishment, combined with enduring rage at
Wall Street and corporate America, which - along with the bipartisan agenda
of globalization and free trade - have spawned intense economic suffering
and deprivation among a huge number of Americans. This article by the
conservative writer Michael Brendan Dougherty is the best I've read
explaining the sustained success of Trump's candidacy, and it very
convincingly documents those factors: "There are a number of Americans who
are losers from a process of economic globalization that enriches a
transnational global elite."
In this type of climate, why would anyone assume that a candidate who is the
very embodiment of Globalist Establishment Power (see her new, shiny
endorsement from Tony Blair), who is virtually drowning both personally and
politically in Wall Street cash, has "electability" in her favor? Maybe one
can find reasons to support a candidate like that. But in this environment,
"electability" is most certainly not one of them. Has anyone made a
convincing case why someone with those attributes would be a strong
candidate in 2016?
Despite this mountain of data, the pundit consensus - which has been wrong
about essentially everything - is that Hillary Clinton is electable and
Bernie Sanders is not. There's virtually no data to support this assertion.
All of the relevant data compels the opposite conclusion. Rather than data,
the assertion relies on highly speculative, evidence-free claims: Sanders
will also become unpopular once he's the target of GOP attacks; nobody who
self-identifies as a "socialist" can win a national election; he's too old
or too ethnic to win, etc. The very same supporters of Hillary Clinton were
saying very similar things just eight years ago about an unknown
African-American first-term senator with the name Barack Hussein Obama.
Perhaps those claims are true this time. But given the stakes we're being
told are at play if Trump is nominated, wouldn't one want to base one's
assessment in empirical evidence rather than pundit assertions, no matter
how authoritative the tone used to express them?
It's possible to argue that electability should not be the primary factor.
That's certainly reasonable: Elections often are and should be about
aspirations, ideology, and opinion-changing leaders. But given the lurking
possibility of a Trump presidency, is now really the time to gamble on such
a risky general election candidate as Hillary Clinton?
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Glenn Greenwald. (photo: Reuters)
https://theintercept.com/2016/02/24/with-trump-looming-should-dems-take-a-hu
ge-electability-gamble-by-nominating-hillary-clinton/https://theintercept.co
m/2016/02/24/with-trump-looming-should-dems-take-a-huge-electability-gamble-
by-nominating-hillary-clinton/
With Donald Trump Looming, Should Dems Take a Huge Electability Gamble by
Nominating Hillary Clinton?
By Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept
27 February 16
any Democrats will tell you that there has rarely, if ever, been a more
menacing or evil presidential candidate than Donald Trump. "Trump is the
most dangerous major candidate for president in memory," pronounced Vox's
Ezra Klein two weeks ago. With a consensus now emerging that the real estate
mogul is the likely GOP nominee, it would stand to reason that the most
important factor for many Democrats in choosing their own nominee is
electability: meaning, who has the best chance of defeating the GOP Satan in
the general election? In light of that, can Democrats really afford to take
such a risky gamble by nominating Hillary Clinton?
In virtually every poll, her rival, Bernie Sanders, does better, often much
better, in head-to-head match-ups against every possible GOP candidate.
Here, for instance, is a compilation of how Clinton does against Ted Cruz in
recent polls: She trails the Texas senator in all but one poll, and in the
one poll she leads, it is by a paltry 2 points:
Polling data. (photo: The Intercept)
By stark contrast, Sanders leads Cruz in every poll, including by
substantial margins in some:
Polling data. (photo: The Intercept)
A similar story is seen in their match-ups against Trump. Although they both
end up ahead in most polls, Sanders' margin over Trump is generally very
comfortable, while Clinton's is smaller. Clinton's average lead over Trump
is just 2.8 percent, while Sanders' lead is a full 6 points:
Polling data. (photo: The Intercept)
Polling data. (photo: The Intercept)
Then there's the data about how each candidate is perceived. Put simply,
Hillary Clinton is an extremely unpopular political figure. By contrast,
even after enduring months of attacks from the Clinton camp and its large
number of media surrogates, Sanders remains a popular figure.
A Gallup poll released this week reported that "29 percent of Americans
offer a positive observation about Clinton while 51 percent express
something negative." As Gallup rather starkly put it: "Unfortunately for
Clinton, the negative associations currently outnumber the positive ones by
a sizable margin, and even among Democrats, the negatives are fairly high."
Sanders is, of course, a more unknown quantity, but "the public's comments
about Sanders can be summarized as 26 percent positive and 20 percent
negative, with the rest categorized as neutral, other or no opinion."
In fact, the more the public gets to see of both candidates, the more
popular Sanders becomes, and the more unpopular Clinton becomes. Here's
Quinnipiac explaining that dynamic in one graph just a few days ago:
This Huffington Post chart, compiling recent polls, shows not only that
Clinton is deeply unpopular among the electorate, but becomes increasingly
unpopular the more the public is exposed to her during this campaign:
Polling data. (photo: The Intercept)
Polling data. (photo: The Intercept)
Or look at the same metric for critical states. In Ohio, for example,
Sanders' favorability rating is +3 (44-41 percent), while Clinton's is
negative 20 (37-57 percent).
Then there's the particular climate of the electorate. While it's
undoubtedly true that racism and ethno-nationalism are significant factors
in Trump's appeal, also quite significant is a pervasive, long-standing
contempt for the political establishment, combined with enduring rage at
Wall Street and corporate America, which - along with the bipartisan agenda
of globalization and free trade - have spawned intense economic suffering
and deprivation among a huge number of Americans. This article by the
conservative writer Michael Brendan Dougherty is the best I've read
explaining the sustained success of Trump's candidacy, and it very
convincingly documents those factors: "There are a number of Americans who
are losers from a process of economic globalization that enriches a
transnational global elite."
In this type of climate, why would anyone assume that a candidate who is the
very embodiment of Globalist Establishment Power (see her new, shiny
endorsement from Tony Blair), who is virtually drowning both personally and
politically in Wall Street cash, has "electability" in her favor? Maybe one
can find reasons to support a candidate like that. But in this environment,
"electability" is most certainly not one of them. Has anyone made a
convincing case why someone with those attributes would be a strong
candidate in 2016?
Despite this mountain of data, the pundit consensus - which has been wrong
about essentially everything - is that Hillary Clinton is electable and
Bernie Sanders is not. There's virtually no data to support this assertion.
All of the relevant data compels the opposite conclusion. Rather than data,
the assertion relies on highly speculative, evidence-free claims: Sanders
will also become unpopular once he's the target of GOP attacks; nobody who
self-identifies as a "socialist" can win a national election; he's too old
or too ethnic to win, etc. The very same supporters of Hillary Clinton were
saying very similar things just eight years ago about an unknown
African-American first-term senator with the name Barack Hussein Obama.
Perhaps those claims are true this time. But given the stakes we're being
told are at play if Trump is nominated, wouldn't one want to base one's
assessment in empirical evidence rather than pundit assertions, no matter
how authoritative the tone used to express them?
It's possible to argue that electability should not be the primary factor.
That's certainly reasonable: Elections often are and should be about
aspirations, ideology, and opinion-changing leaders. But given the lurking
possibility of a Trump presidency, is now really the time to gamble on such
a risky general election candidate as Hillary Clinton?
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
