Hillary Clinton Paradox

[iNow]

4 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Not the right time. <...> Bernie Sanders couldn't win not because he wasn't the right person, but because it was the wrong time.

So, you acknowledge that my rebuttal of your point was valid and you wish you’d added a few caveats about “right times” when you said:

”Once a viable third option arises, people will leave their respective party.”

Correct?

[Raider5678]

Just now, iNow said:

So, you acknowledge that my rebuttal of your point was valid and you wish you’d added a few caveats about “right times” when you said:

”Once a viable third option arises, people will leave their respective party.”

Correct?

Quote the line right prior to that as well.

20 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I suspect if a promising candidate showed up, they could win. It wouldn't be a single election cycle, or even within a decade, but independents would get control of state legislatures, then Congress, some governors, and eventually the president.

I mentioned starting with state legislatures, then Congress, then some governors, and eventually the president.

[Ten oz]

Just now, Raider5678 said:

The first major area to go to independents will not be president.

I don't understand this. We (USA) have already had independent Governors, Senators, House members, and etc. Those are all "major" areas. 

2 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Bernie Sanders stood no chance because in the court of public opinion he wasn't a viable candidate for president. Only party politicians are so far.

Sanders appeared to stand a chance because half of the political spectrum (Republicans) were rooting for him to beat Hillary Clinton. During the Primary Clinton was running against the wing of liberals who honestly supported Sanders and the entire Republican field. Sanders was only running against Clinton. Sanders was a useful tool to hurt Clinton's campaign but never a true viable candidate in my opinion. Clinton beat Sanders by 12% of the vote and than was basically with just the two of them running head to head and Republicans lending their support to Sanders. 

7 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Bernie Sanders couldn't win not because he wasn't the right person, but because it was the wrong time.

Nope. Think of all the Clinton and Obama scandals; emailgate, benghazi, fast furious, White Water, and etc. Think of all the slander: secret Muslim, Kenya, Clinton's Kill count, "crooked Hillary", and etc. Sanders was never attacked by the right. Haven't you ever heard the saying the saying "the enemy or my enemy is my friend"? Sanders was treated great. Scandal free. If Sanders actually posed a threat he was be attacked and we'd see investigations into nepotism surround his wife and son well have all types of conspiratorial nonsense about his brand of socialism. The idea that Sanders is a viable independent candidate is a facade. Sorry to break it to you.   

14 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

After Trump, I believe anything is possible.

You give Trump too much credit then. 

[rangerx]

A third party can present issues too, like splitting votes so an even lesser minority could seize power.

To prevent this, a third party system in the parliamentary system has the ability coalesce with the other minority to bring down the government in what's called a "non-confidence" motion.

It rarely comes to that, insomuch as forces the governments hand to call an election.

You guys threw that out in protest when you declared independence. It worked well for centuries, but all that went out the window with Trump, but for a complete lack of decorum and fairness. Fixed terms lead to tyrants and career liars in it solely for the money and perks. Trump is a dictator, not a statesman. Even Nixon had the good sense to step down, for his party and country. Trump is scorched earth.

Term limits seem to be gaining traction in America. Third party coalitions are a good way to do that.
 

[J.C.MacSwell]

6 hours ago, Ten oz said:

I am not a fan of general statements which imply  parity between Democrats and Republicans.

Don't worry. I realize one of the parties is currently more openly sexist than the other.

 

[Ten oz]

8 hours ago, rangerx said:

Even Nixon had the good sense to step down, for his party and country. Trump is scorched earth.

Nixon was going to be impeached and potentially prosecuted if he stayed. Stepping down was the safe opinion. Nixon did do it for the good of anyone but himself.Thus far under Trump Republicans have had total control of the govt. If Democrats win back a portion during the mid term more investigations will be launched, more Trump cronies will be charged with crimes, and it is possible Trump won't even run for re-election. 

8 hours ago, rangerx said:

It worked well for centuries, but all that went out the window with Trump, but for a complete lack of decorum and fairness.

It didn't work that well. We kept slaves too long, fought a civil war, segregated people, killed or effectively imprisoned natives, repatriated Hispanics, and etc. The ego of the U.S. is one of our biggest weaknesses. From Vietnam to Iraq here in the U.S. we have a tough times acknowledging error. Rather we just march on insisting that no country has ever been greater. Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. 

[swansont]

10 hours ago, Ten oz said:

I think you are looking at the numbers wrong. More people my call themselves independent but they are still voting the same way overwhelming. In 2004 Bush won 58% of the white vote, 11% of the black vote, 48% of women, and 62.04 million votes total. In 2018 Trump won 57% of the white vote, 8% of the black vote, 41% of the women vote, and got 62.9 million votes overall. Here

While the number of individuals who may claim to be independent has changed by nearly 20 points the individual demographics are far more consistent. I actually find it astonishingly similar when you consider how many millions of people pass away between 04' and 16' or how many millions grew up and became became eligible. Looking deeper into the at Demographics age, income, education, and so on many of the numbers are within the statistically margin of error. 

I see no tipping point. The only demo which has changed appreciably is Hispanic. They have moved about 10 points to the left over the last 20 years. Considering the anti Latino rhetoric on the Right is is stunning the shift hasn't been greater and speaks to just how resistant the long term trend is to current political narratives. 

 

Break it down by age. 

[Ten oz]

30 minutes ago, swansont said:

Break it down by age. 

In 04' Kerry won 54% of 18-29 and in 2016 Clinton won 55% of the same group. Kerry won 47% of 65 and over and Clinton won 45% of the same group.  Kerry  won 46.5% of 30-65 and Clinton won 47.5%. Here is 2016 and here is 2004. The numbers are astonishingly similar. 

 

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

In 04' Kerry won 54% of 18-29 and in 2016 Clinton won 55% of the same group. Kerry won 47% of 65 and over and Clinton won 45% of the same group.  Kerry  won 46.5% of 30-65 and Clinton won 47.5%. Here is 2016 and here is 2004. The numbers are astonishingly similar. 

 

1% is over a million votes for the overall voting group.

Bush won the 30-49 age group (7 pts) but Clinton won the 30-44 group by 10 pts.  The sample isn't quite the same but it indicates that younger voters are supporting Democrats more. 

[Ten oz]

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

1% is over a million votes for the overall voting group.

Bush won the 30-49 age group (7 pts) but Clinton won the 30-44 group by 10 pts.  The sample isn't quite the same but it indicates that younger voters are supporting Democrats more. 

1% is a lot of votes but 1%(up to a few %) is also well within the standard deviation of nearly any demographical stat in society. The change in how different age groups vote appears to cause by increased diversity and not any sort of attitude shift within a specific group. 30 somethings and 40 somethings today have greater proportions of Black, Hispanic, and Asian than they did in decades past and those groups are majority Democrat. 

[swansont]

2 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

1% is a lot of votes but 1%(up to a few %) is also well within the standard deviation of nearly any demographical stat in society. The change in how different age groups vote appears to cause by increased diversity and not any sort of attitude shift within a specific group. 30 somethings and 40 somethings today have greater proportions of Black, Hispanic, and Asian than they did in decades past and those groups are majority Democrat. 

We're talking about vote counting in this instance. The error in those numbers had better be a hell of a lot smaller than 1%. There's no samling error statistic here.

 

[Ten oz]

18 minutes ago, swansont said:

We're talking about vote counting in this instance. The error in those numbers had better be a hell of a lot smaller than 1%. There's no samling error statistic here.

 

I didn't say there was.

 

[mistermack]

Clinton shouldn't have a prayer of getting even the nomination. Is there nobody out there with more appeal? I personally don't dislike her, but her speaking style make me wince. Last election was decided on who they disliked the most. Obviously the electorate has had ins and outs since then, but as well as more left wing people coming into the electorate, you get a roughly equal number getting more right wing with age. 

She would have the slight plus of being less known to the newer voters, but she would have the minus of being a loser from the last election. It's a long time since the US elected a "loser". It would be a weapon to use against her. She lost to Obama too. There's history there. 

The Democrats would do better with a fresh face, if they can find one. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

46 minutes ago, swansont said:

We're talking about vote counting in this instance. The error in those numbers had better be a hell of a lot smaller than 1%. There's no samling error statistic here.

 

Other than geographically, vote counting cannot get broken down by demographic.

[iNow]

21 minutes ago, mistermack said:

The Democrats would do better with a fresh face, if they can find one. 

As I said previously, this strikes me as a nonstory being amped up to distract us all and sow further discord. Of course Hillary has considered whether or not to run again. Every one of us would. That doesn’t mean it’s in any way serious or being actioned right now.

Regardless..I can see a more likely primary with Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar against Kamala Harris and Cory Booker. At least three of those four have been introducing some serious populist legislation with actual policy specific details to legitimately address inequality, education, prison reform, healthcare, and more to up their bonafides and national profile/appeal.

Edited October 20, 2018 by iNow

[StringJunky]

15 hours ago, iNow said:

Two words: Nicky Haley

Yes. I have actually had that thought. She has sufficient gravitas.

[Ten oz]

8 minutes ago, iNow said:

As I said previously, this strikes me as a nonstory being amped up to distract us all and sow further discord. Of course Hillary has considered whether or not to run again. Every one of us would. That doesn’t mean it’s in any way serious or being actioned right now.

Regardless..I can see a more likely primary with Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar against Kamala Harris and Cory Booker. At least three of those four have been introducing some serious populist legislation with actual policy specific details to legitimately address inequality, education, prison reform, healthcare, and more to up their bonafides and national profile/appeal.

I do not disagree with anything you posted. As a nod back towards the primary focus of the topic I find it paradoxical that in discussing who should run in 2020 much of the conversation centers around who can win with the assumption being not Hillary Clinton. It is paradoxical because she did win the popular vote, by millions, even while Trump's campaign broke the law. I think arguing against Clinton as a quality candidate moving forward legitimizes Trump victory and diminishes the complaints his campaign broke the law. Not just that but i think fear of losing only increases the likelihood of losing. People a generally more responsive to confidence. Trump not only lost the popular vote but his electoral win was one of the slimiest ever and yet he brags excessively about winning. In part because of Trump's bragging Democrats are filled with doubts and worry about which candidates can succeed when it should be vice versa. It is Trump who has the terrible approval rating and fail to win the popular vote in the first place. I think progressives are allowing themselves to bullied and simply don't seem to have the courage to stand up and just say "enough". It is a rough and tough world out there and Progressives need to harden up a little bit.  No candidate in 2020 won't be vigorously attacked from the right. It wasn't that long ago Conservatives antagonized Obama as a loser and attempted to use him to sow division. The contest in 2020 will not be free from this regardless of who that candidate is and Progressive voters should be eager to confront it rather than eager to avoid it in my opinion. That is my 2 cents (which is probably worth more like .02 cents). 

Quote

 

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- He has publicly urged Republicans to vote for Sen. Hillary Clinton to keep the divisive Democratic nomination fight alive, but talk radio host Rush Limbaugh said Wednesday he really wants Sen. Barack Obama to be the party's nominee.

Rush Limbaugh urged listeners in states with open primaries to cross party lines and support Hillary Clinton.

"I now believe he would be the weakest of the Democrat nominees," Limbaugh, among the most powerful voices in conservative radio, said on his program. "I now urge the Democrat superdelegates to make your mind up and publicly go for Obama."

"Barack Obama has shown he cannot get the votes Democrats need to win -- blue-collar, working-class people," Limbaugh said. "He can get effete snobs, he can get wealthy academics, he can get the young, and he can get the black vote, but Democrats do not win with that."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/07/limbaugh.obama/

 

 

 

26 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Yes. I have actually had that thought. She has sufficient gravitas.

Problem is You, iNow, and myself aren't the ones who'd have to vote for her. All the tens of millions of red MAGA hat wearers are and they are an odd bunch to get into the minds of. One of the few Republican voters who was active on this forum throughout 2016 was Tar. I think his journey that year is worth remembering. He began the year conceding that Hillary Clinton would make a decent President and lamenting about how terrible the Republican field was. That evolved into strong supported Kasich and a stated opinion that Ted Cruz and Donald Trump were lunatics. Tar even posted at one point that if Trump was the nominee he'd vote for Clinton. Then on election day Tar voted for Trump . Following  the election Tar picked up the conspiracy mantle arguing against the fake news media, Democratic deep state, calling Russia meddling a hoax, and etc before swearing off political threads in frustration.  Tar is an example of how difficult it is to predict who Republicans may or may not support. Those are the voters Nicki Haley would have to win. Not you, iNow, and myself. You in particular can't vote here in the U.S. anyway. So the question is would Raider and Tar vote for Nicki Haley with the caveat being that only their answer in real time on election day itself matters. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

20 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I do not disagree with anything you posted. As a nod back towards the primary focus of the topic I find it paradoxical that in discussing who should run in 2020 much of the conversation centers around who can win with the assumption being not Hillary Clinton. It is paradoxical because she did win the popular vote, by millions, even while Trump's campaign broke the law. I think arguing against Clinton as a quality candidate moving forward legitimizes Trump victory and diminishes the complaints his campaign broke the law.

 

A "quality candidate" should have not just won the popular vote by the "millions" she did. Trump should not have been anywhere in the same ballpark.

How many votes did she get simply from being considered a bad choice that was not as bad as the alternative? She was not a "popular" choice.

[iNow]

27 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

That is my 2 cents (which is probably worth more like .02 cents). 

Likewise, don’t disagree with anything you posted. I might,  however, take a slightly different perspective on Clinton’s 3 million vote popular vote win.

Against Trump, she should’ve won by 30 million votes. The fact that she didn’t and that it was as close as it was does, in some ways, speak to her overall weakness as a candidate unable to make passionate supporters (despite her clear qualifications as a policy maker and diplomat and the clear decades long campaign against her that made her so unpopular with so many in the first place).

[Ten oz]

22 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

A "quality candidate" should have not just won the popular vote by the "millions" she did. Trump should not have been anywhere in the same ballpark.

How many votes did she get simply from being considered a bad choice that was not as bad as the alternative? She was not a "popular" choice.

Back to the discussion about voting habits though the trends remain fairly consistent regardless of who the candidate is. Trump only won 700 thousand votes different than Bush did in 2004. That is remarkable considering 130 million people voted. I personally know a several people who said back in February-June of 2016 they'd never vote Trump but then did. We can blame Clinton for that but I don't think she was the reason. Hillary Clinton isn't in office today yet those same people still support Trump. 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Other than geographically, vote counting cannot get broken down by demographic.

Point taken. 

29 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

A "quality candidate" should have not just won the popular vote by the "millions" she did. Trump should not have been anywhere in the same ballpark.

How many votes did she get simply from being considered a bad choice that was not as bad as the alternative? She was not a "popular" choice.

How much of her "popularity" was driven by outside interference and other misinformation?

[Ten oz]

24 minutes ago, iNow said:

Against Trump, she should’ve won by 30 million votes

In our 2 party system no one is winning by that margin. Especially with all the voter suppression. In a fair election without voter suppression and where turnout is solid 9 million more votes is probably the maximum one can win by today I think. 

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

How much of her "popularity" was driven by outside interference and other misinformation?

...and how many more votes might she have gotten without voter suppression? 

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

I didn't say there was.

You said standard deviation. For the total vote count, that doesn't apply.

[rangerx]

6 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Nixon was going to be impeached and potentially prosecuted if he stayed. Stepping down was the safe opinion. Nixon did do it for the good of anyone but himself.

Of course, but my point was missed. Nixon knew his goose was cooked and digging in would have caused a constitutional crisis.

Trump knows his goose is cooked too, but unlike Nixon, he thinks he can stack the courts with loyalists, then lie his way out of it with the help of a screaming red hatted mob.

Seems the only fix for America at this point is a constitutional crisis.

[J.C.MacSwell]

27 minutes ago, swansont said:

 

How much of her "popularity" was driven by outside interference and other misinformation?

In terms of votes? I think the effect of outside interference might only have been significant in very close races. "Other misinformation"...probably a more significant effect that would go both ways, for and against both Clinton and Trump...an effect that seems to have been ramped up for candidates in this coming mid terms.