Turning away from Donald and Hillary
http://m.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election...
Rasmussen is notoriously conservative and I suspect that they are failing to address accurately the true representation of the electorate, by age or, more important, party affiliation. But the ugliness of the campaign season hasn't even gotten UGLY yet. Assuming Trump and Clinton are put in the cage together, blood will flow, causing the fully conscious among us to turn from them in even greater numbers than stated in the Rasmussen poll. I'm actually shocked that any poll only finds 24% turning from these two nasty creatures, or that anyone would cross party lines to vote for the other. I would love to see a poll with Bernie thrown into the cage. Can you imagine him riding higher and higher as the two children scratch each other and fart in each other's face? I can.
Fun, fun, fun times ahead for the USA.
Comments
I can see it.
Increased voter alienation and apathy as fang and claw go to work across the media.
The Party Faithful will not be discouraged, maybe - but they are a minority. What effect might general disillusionment and not-voting of everybody else have on downballot races?
"They're all crooks!" "Everybody does it!" "They're all liars!" "What difference does it make who I vote for?" "We have to have our own paid shills because the other side already has theirs!" (Oh, sorry - thought I was in TOP...)
Yep - should be a swell election.
Issues with a low turnout election
!. Many more voter suppression laws are in place across the country now, which will disproportionately disenfranchise traditional Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters than in past presidential election cycles. In other words, the minority and young voters Clinton is relying upon as part of the Obama coalition in 2008 and 2012. We got a taste of how that will play out in the Arizona primary, already.
2. The GOP base always turns out to vote, and they are far more cohesive in their voting pattern, even when the candidate is not one they particularly like (See Romney, 2012 where he beat McCain's numbers from 2008, especially in battleground states).
3. The younger voters who are Sander's largest demographic of support and feel particular disgust over how our corrupt election process played out this year.
I'm sure you can think of other reasons why HRC's campaign is especially vulnerable thanks to her negative attack mode style of pursuing victory at all costs, rather than engaging in a more positive effort to win over voters who supported her opponent.
Yes Trump has high negatives, but he isn't going against a candidate like Obama or even her husband, Bill, whose charisma and likeability during their own election campaigns only highlights Hillary's high unfavorables and lackluster campaign style. In a highly ugly, negative campaign this Fall, this makes her far more vulnerable than her husband or Obama ever were.
"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott
Bridge to the Past Century
Good analysis. I wanted to add another vulnerability for the Clintons: They represent a bridge to the past century. The typical American has always been forward looking, seeking something different. Even the South, known for its traditions, strongly supported Trump, not the establishment candidates. Trump is different, "rebellious", and not begging for $$. These characteristics play well with a decent swatch of the electorate. Clinton represents just the opposite. She has been around too long, is perceived as the pinnacle of the Democratic elite, and begging for $$. Bernie represents something different, talks of political revolution, and is honestly trying to make the country a better place for the average citizen.
It's early. But I'd like to know more about that 24%
because if 24% are voting third party, that's a different story than not voting. Actually a HUGELY different story.
As long as I've been alive, none of the above has been pretty popular... Option C would be a great change.
Edit: read a little closer... 16% says Third Party... That's MUCH better. Twice as many going for the C option...
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
That is why we need to start organizing now
to capitalize on the voters' discontent of the current candidates and system.
Brand New Congress
From Salon
This is what the revolution looks like: Former Sanders staffers are launching a new PAC aimed at midterm Congressional elections There is at least one positive sign that the Sanders movement will not end in November. According to The Huffington Post’s Samantha Lachman, some of Sanders former staffers and volunteers have formed a new political action committee, the purpose of which is to put progressives in Congress.
This looks promising.
Brand New Congress
Solidarity
Perot
Was an odd little fellow with a few good ideas, a few not good ideas, an insane running mate, and a penchant for going crazy in brief moments. He got 19% against a sitting president and Clinton I. Whaddaya figure Bernie could get? Is 35% out of reach with someone like Tulsi as a running mate?
I'm sorry but
James Stockdale was not insane. If ever there was a true hero he fit the bill. As an Vietnam era POW, the man had the shit kicked out of him daily in order to protect the other prisoners. He won the CMH for his actions. As for running for VP and his apparent confusion on things;
This lead to his famous "what am I doing here" comment.
Anyway, back to the poll.
If this is another way of saying "among independent voters", Hillary is in deep shit...
Apologies
I should not have referred to Stockdale as insane. Unfortunately, the endearing nuttiness of Perot was made much more unsettling by the public appearances of Stockdale.
No problem
most people didn't know this about Mr. Stockdale. Perot used him for his military credentials and left him out to hang. My brother, a Vietnam combat vet, had the pleasure of meeting and talking with Stockdale back in the mid 80s. He told me "Jim Stockdale is the real deal." He was truly impressed and my brother don't impress easily...
I wouldn't describe Perot
I wouldn't describe Perot as letting Stockdale out to hang. Stockdale had a extremely poor , even embarrassing debate. Stockdale was no politician and Ill prepared for a Presidential Debate or campaign. That doesn't mean he wasn't a great military man, he just wasn't even in the game as an effective politician.
Read my post above
the one you replied to. He wasn't even supposed to be on the ticket. Perot suspended his campaign in July then decided to jump back in in October. Little did Stockdale know that he was to debate within a week. Stockdale thought all along he was just a temp in Perot's campaign. He was asked to join the campaign to help Perot out believing he was going to be replaced. He did this, I believe, because Perot's wife was heavily involved in the POW issue.
So let me rephrase. Perot blindsided Stockdale. So yeah, I watched the debate. Stockdale did not want to be there. He didn't want to be a politician. He wasn't even prepped for the debate by Perot's people. I'll give the man credit for even attending.
With Tulsi and 2 opponents with low favorables
It seems pretty likely to me that Bernie would win if everybody could vote for him on their ballots. Ballot deadlines are really important.
Beware the bullshit factories.
Maybe the DNC will get smart
Give Bernie the super delegates and let him clean house in the party. Otherwise, both establishment parties will become media propped illusions and nothing more and will die along with unregulated corporate media.
Beware the bullshit factories.
Question, will they care as
Question, will they care as long as the money keeps flowing to them? The DNC as it is now is pretty much bought and paid for by the corporate vampires.
Good point
If the party is going to die anyway why not get rich as you participate in its self-destruction and threaten the future of the World.
Beware the bullshit factories.
Missed Opportunity
It's possible Sanders will walk back his pledge to support Clinton if she becomes the nominee, but I personally doubt that will happen. Perhaps the Clinton-ites will throw him a few little bones insofar as the wording of the party platform. Regardless, it won't make a particle of difference in terms of impacting actual policy.
Since there was never any credible scenario under which the powers that be in the Democratic Party would have allowed Sanders to become the presidential nominee, it really wouldn't have hurt him in any material way to have said at the outset that there were fundamental and irreconcilable differences between him and Clinton, and that he would therefore wait until the end of the primary season to determine the best way to move his agenda forward. That would have allowed him to make a seamless and entirely credible transition from Democratic hopeful to 3rd-party challenger.
What the polls are showing pretty consistently is that even as the percentage of independent voters continues to increase, the two mainstream parties are finding it increasingly difficult to extend their appeal beyond their hard core base. This would seem to create a golden opportunity for a independent or 3rd-party candidate to essentially break the duopoly and at least start laying the groundwork for a new political movement that offers a viable alternative to the current reality of a choice between two equally corrupt and dishonest corporate tools.
I only hope that Bernie's commitment to his ideals and progressive agenda turns out to be stronger than his loyalty to a morally rancid political machine that has treated him with undisguised contempt throughout the entire process. Certainly opportunities like this don't come very often.
inactive account
I completely agree
And am still surprised/baffled that Bernie could be so passionately for the 99% while treating Clinton for far too long as an ally against conservative idealogues. Dismissing the email issue, a genuine threat though it is, should have been enough deference to her. From there, he should have had both barrels blazing.
He's a decent human being
End of story.
HRC, not so much.
"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott
Did he pledge to support Hillary?
I thought his pledge was to do all he could to prevent a Republican out of the White House.
Certainly sounds like it to me. How else
could he work to keep Trump out except by supporting the only person who can keep him out, Clinton. It's what he's said since he started running, I suppose his most fervent supporters won't accept it until they hear it at the convention.
It was a Clintonian answer that keeps the door open
For what, I don't know.
Right
But how does he work to keep a Republican from winning? Either he supports the Dem or he fights like crap to beat the other Dems to beat the R. As much as I hate political non-answers, his answer to all the questions of support for the D (Clinton) should have been limited to, "I am running to be president." Period.
Yes, he did
I found this article on Huffington Post, dated April 7. The following sounds pretty unequivocal to me:
As the two Democratic presidential candidates engage in some of their sharpest attacks of the campaign, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Thursday affirmed that he would support opponent Hillary Clinton in the general election if she wins the nomination.
“Sure I will,” he said, when pressed by CBS News’ Charlie Rose in an interview. “Look, as I said a million times, I think the idea of a Donald Trump or a Ted Cruz presidency would be an unmitigated disaster for this country. I will do everything in my power and work as hard as I can to make sure that that does not happen. And if Secretary Clinton is the nominee, I will certainly support her.”
inactive account
One thing is certain
It's going to be a vomit-inducing GE.
Pass me the bag.
By the time November comes around, perhaps 30 people might show up to vote.
God help us all.
Gëzuar!!
from a reasonably stable genius.
Wait. Now I can't recall.
There is a near-majority of voter-eligible who never vote. Then there are those who are involved enough to register Independent (42%?). There is a massive majority of citizens who have already not committed to either of our two political parties.
Pipe dreams that the rabble can be roused to Do Something, I guess. To connect to the dis-connected would require a functional free media (all of them). So screwed we are. Elected in the Board Room.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
If he wants to ignore the fraud
during all those states in which he would have done substantially better, I will forgive his indiscretion.
But I believe that he is a Democratic Socialist first, and a Democrat second.
Elections should be a purely mechanical process without anyone working behind the curtains to push buttons that changes vote counts, or close down stations, or play games with the numbers in any way. Exit polling must be absolutely mandatory in every instance where the voting takes place.
He really should not show any kind of tacit or overt support after the way Hillary and the DNC consistently turned screws on his campaign. It is time for election reform and he has a role to play in that process.