ACRIMONY

@maxdancona,

Glad I could give you a laugh.

@engineer,

I was kinda hoping you would lighten up a bit and laugh with me (or even at me... I don't care).

We were talking about making some "I'm with Mensch" stickers for a little while.

0 Replies

What if the Democrats can take both houses of Congress, but Trump takes the White House.

That might be an interesting result, especially with an 8 person Supreme Court for 4 years.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Extremely unlikely, but maybe more likely than Clinton putting control of the Senate by her party over her mission to win the White House.

It doesn't matter who is running, they all have extraordinarily oversized egos. At at this stage of the race, it's all about them, not America and not their party.

Primary races that split the party wide open don't usually end up very well for their ultimate candidate. Think Humphrey and Ford. Here though we have two divided parties.

If Trump gets the GOP nod, I imagine most of the Berners will hold their nose and vote for Clinton. Not all, but most.

However, if somehow Kasich pulls off a miracle or the party pulls someone like Ryan or Rubio from the sidelines, there a decent chance a bunch of Sanders supporters would vote for them over the hell-bitch they have come to the most as much as conservatives.

It will be interesting. If Clinton wants to unite her party, she needs to keep moving left, but if she wants to attract Anybody But Trumpers she will have to at least play up her hawkish tendencies...that which generates great distrust of her among the Berners.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

We will see Finn, but I think Trump will be easy to defeat for any number of reasons. He will have to rely on getting a exceedingly large percentage of White men since he will do very poorly among every other demographic group. His chance of winning is very slim.

I am hoping that Trump is the nominee although I think that Cruz is just as unlikely to win.

My prediction, assuming that Trump is the nominee and nothing surprising happens (like the email scandal becoming a disaster for Clinton), is that Clinton will win easily and that the Democrats will take the Senate (but not the House). I agree that if the Democrats don't win the White House, they will almost certainly fail to win the Senate either.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

We will see Finn, but I think Trump will be easy to defeat for any number of reasons.

The 2013 gun control debacle guarantees that the Republican candidate will win in 2016.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

What if the Democrats can take both houses of Congress, but Trump takes the White House.

That might be an interesting result, especially with an 8 person Supreme Court for 4 years.

The Democrats might want to take note that every dirty trick that they pull on the Republicans, the Republicans will turn around and use against them.

If the Democrats want to escalate and block nominees for an entire presidential term, they had better be ready to have the Republicans do the same thing to them.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

The rest of the country is not obsessed with gun control the way you are. As for blocking nominations, the Republicans have already been doing that.

**********************************

There's no way the Democrats can take the House. The power of incumbents is too strong in the House. The last time the Democrats did that, Bush was president, and his approval rating was in the crapper. That's not the situation now.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

The rest of the country is not obsessed with gun control the way you are.

They do however tend to vote against do-nothing presidencies. At this point a Republican victory in 2016 is all but inevitable.

Setanta wrote:

As for blocking nominations, the Republicans have already been doing that.

Max was proposing an escalation where a Supreme Court vacancy would be left open for an entire presidential term.

The Republicans will not do that unless the Democrats do it to them first.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

I've seen several people claim this but the polling data just doesn't support it. In poll after poll Democrats aren't reporting this as a divisive contest and the support among Democrats for both of their candidates remains high.

I think people must be talking about their personal microcosms here (which may certainly be more acrimonious) and their run ins with inordinately passionate supporters of certain candidates.

Last election more Hillary supporters claimed they wouldn't vote for Obama than Sanders supporters this year claiming they won't vote for Hillary in every poll I have seen.

Hope nimh shows up with the nimhjob he did on this subject that he posted in a reply to a friend's facebook comment.

2 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

Hope nimh shows up with the nimhjob he did on this subject that he posted in a reply to a friend's facebook comment.

Here is what nimh posted on this subject:

Quote:

Contrary to what the mood among the most passionate Bernie and Hillary supporters would suggest, most Democrats haven't actually experienced this primary as a particularly bitter one. In the exit poll in New York, for example, people were asked whether the democratic campaign mostly energized or divided the party. A whopping 66% answered that it had energized the party, only 30% said it had divided the party (http://edition.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls/ny/Dem). A Siena poll shortly before the primary (which actually understated Hillary's lead) showed a majority of likely Democratic voters with favorable views of both candidates: Sanders was seen favorably by 75% and Clinton by 73% (https://www.siena.edu/.../SNY_April_2016_PRES_Poll...).

The 29% or so of Bernie voters in NY who said they wouldn't vote for Hillary in the GE sure does seem high. But it's maybe worth recalling the 2008 election. The equivalent question wasn't asked that year in New York, but Pennsylvania voted around this time of the year (April 22) and isn't so very different a state. And back then, a whopping 45% (!) of Hillary voters said they would either vote for John McCain or not vote at all in the general election if Barack Obama were to be the nominee (http://politics.nytimes.com/.../results/vote-polls/PA.html). The primary left much more bitter feelings that year. But of course by the time the general elections came round, they had overwhelmingly come around, and Obama won the state 54% to 44%, improving significantly on Kerry and Gore's results in the state.

Quote:

...the share of Hillary '08 voters who said they wouldn't vote for Obama in the general was far higher than the share of Bernie voters now giving the equivalent answer. I mean, 45% vs 29% - the alienation/bitterness was at a different level then.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Thanks for missing my point. The question is whether or not the Democrats can get out the vote for would-be Senators. There are thirty-three or thirty-four seats up for grabs in the Senate. The Democrats need to take nineteen or twenty of those, including any incumbent Democrats. I would certainly be delighted to think that they can "get out the vote." The Senate is far more important than who ends up in the Oval Office.

1 Reply

By the way, i did not start with my remarks about the Senate--i acknowledge that. This is still the most acrimonious election cycle i've seen since 1980.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Thanks for missing my point.

How am I missing your point? You claimed: "This is the most acrimonious presidential election campaign i've seen since 1980."

I don't dispute your personal experience, but I'm just providing context that is not anecdotal to the effect that this isn't even more acrimonious than the 2008 election on the Democrat side of the fence for most participants.

I think you might be having a more acrimonious experience than is typical is my point, and I don't see how that misses or fails to address yours.

0 Replies

This thread was, in respect to interchanges with other members, a continuation of a conversation in other threads. The most important task for the Democrats is to retake the Senate. In 2008, Mr. Obama appealed to young voters, a group which does not traditionally turn out in a body--and Mr. Obama got the nomination. However, this year, it is Mr. Sanders who appeals to young voters, and he is not likely to get the nomination. If the Democrats cannot turn out the vote well, they may not be able to take control of the Senate. The Democrats are unlikely to take the House, which doesn't really matter as it is in the Senate that appointments are approved or turned down. Whether Mr. Sanders or Mrs. Clinton takes the White House, a Republican controlled Senate, especially given Mr. McConnell's recent demagoguery, would be likely to force unwelcome compromise in appointments. It would be even more disastrous if the Republicans take the White House, and also control the Senate. That is what bothers me. I don't doubt Habibi's political intelligence--perhaps he could break down the demographics of those who say they wouldn't vote for Mrs. Clinton.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

Rabel was a part of the other conversation, and he took the point right away--i acknowledge that i did not make this clear.

RABEL222 wrote:

Quote:
I fear for the unity of the so-called left in American politics.

So do I. Bernie isent a democrat and he is showing it by staying in the race even when he can see he dosent have a chance to win. He is helping Trump or who ever the republicans run. The longer he stays the less chance a dem. senate will be elected.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

In 2008, Mr. Obama appealed to young voters, a group which does not traditionally turn out in a body--and Mr. Obama got the nomination. However, this year, it is Mr. Sanders who appeals to young voters, and he is not likely to get the nomination.

This is a good point (that was also discussed in the thread I quoted from) and a legitimate concern, but though some people here on A2K say this primary is particularly acrimonious it really doesn't seem like there is data to support this on a wide scale and that the guy energizing typical non-voters is going to lose is not really a measure of acrimony even though it is not great news for downstream Democrat elections.

Quote:

I don't doubt Habibi's political intelligence--perhaps he could break down the demographics of those who say they wouldn't vote for Mrs. Clinton.

BTW, I always see you call him that but his name is actually Joost (just in case you thought that was his name).

In that discussion he did acknowledge the youth vote point and while the concerns you have are legitimate about the Democrat's chances I don't think the root is acrimony so much as the fact that the new voters just aren't all that interested in establishment candidates.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

I disagree with that (and was refuting the central point of the fear of unity on the left, the data is showing that it is less divided than in 2008), as long as Bernie shifts the types of criticism he makes of Clinton it is not a big deal for him to stay longer, just as it wasn't when Clinton did it last time and Obama supporters wanted her to drop out sooner.

Everyone always wants whoever is not their choice to drop out as soon as possible and every candidate in such a situation wants to keep the campaign going as long as possible. This is just the usual tug of war between camps who want to call their win and those who don't want to cede defeat yet. Frankly there is a lot of acrimony in this part of the back and forth itself that will mostly just all evaporate by general elections like it always does.

Ultimately I don't know of many cases where merely staying in the primary too long cost anyone an election and I think the concern is overblown. Sure it would help Hillary more if Bernie started campaigning for her as soon as possible, but it's also not the end of the world if he doesn't and this aspect of the primaries tend to be exaggerated due to the fatigue of the longer and longer campaigns.

They want it to be over and Hillary the winner already, but it really isn't gonna make a huge difference if Sanders goes all the way to the convention as long as he does not ramp up attacks on Hillary.

4 Replies

Sanders supporters are spewing vitriol all over the landscape--and you're trying to teach me about politics and the history of campaigns in the United States. Mrs. Clinton is not my candidate. Mr. Sanders is not my candidate. The Senate is the issue which i consider most important. Spare me your shallow analysis. Have a nice day.

2 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

You're evidently right. People should grow a skin, especially in politics.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know