Presidential Election 2016

[Tiller]

25 years of damage cannot simply be wrought in less than 6 months, nor can it be fixed. Being attacked for 25 years is still a big negative for Hillary's electability.

[Nathan]

Wouldn't one think that being a first lady (usually totally loved) and being a good (was she? Eh...) senator from New York could only bring favorability to the table... and they aren't. And her role as secretary of state was definitely not helping America trust her, because there's warrant to the ads attacking her.

Most of her past roles should make her a shew in... she should have amazing favorability, it's not the ads fault.

[Didier]

You do know that Hillary is still the overwhelming favorite to win the nomination, right?

The way you guys talk about the election it's like she already lost. Every Hillary negative is blown out of proportion while every Bernie vulnerability is ignored.

[EOst]

25 years of damage cannot simply be wrought in less than 6 months, nor can it be fixed. Being attacked for 25 years is still a big negative for Hillary's electability.

Clinton's ratings were sky-high when she served as Secretary of State, and it's only recently that they've returned to earth. Don't assume Sanders's favorability ratings are any more durable, especially since his current national name recognition ratings are still pretty low. There will be plenty of time for Republicans to launch attacks on him if he begins to look like the clear nominee.

[Nathan]

You do know that Hillary is still the overwhelming favorite to win the nomination, right?

The way you guys talk about the election it's like she already lost. Every Hillary negative is blown out of proportion while every Bernie vulnerability is ignored.

We all know about Hillary. we know who she is and what she stands for, why would she be the topic of conversation? She's the status quo, she's not new or news. That's why a progressive taking on the "progressive" is so important. I'm not talking about it like anyone has already won, I'm talking about it terms of who I want to have win, based on a lot of experience in Scandinavia, and how that influences our state's politics as well. (Places that typically have higher quality of life) I don't for one second think Bernie won't have to fight and claw his way too nomination, and if Hillary wins I'm not going to be upset, it's just more of the same, that's alright... but it's not great.

[Tiller]

25 years of damage cannot simply be wrought in less than 6 months, nor can it be fixed. Being attacked for 25 years is still a big negative for Hillary's electability.

Clinton's ratings were sky-high when she served as Secretary of State, and it's only recently that they've returned to earth. Don't assume Sanders's favorability ratings are any more durable, especially since his current national name recognition ratings are still pretty low. There will be plenty of time for Republicans to launch attacks on him if he begins to look like the clear nominee.

With Bernie you get to flip the coin, while with Hillary it's already come up as tails. I'm not the one whose been assuming the outcome. Rather, I've been arguing against those who think things have already been determined.

[Nathan]

And also if you scroll down to Minnesota's most recent polling you'll find some strange information.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

Minnesotans favor Hillary over Sanders, quite a bit. Yet in an over all poll, Sanders destroys trump, Hillary only defeats him by 5 points, and can't even beat Rubio or CRUZ!!! What the actual eff... if Hillary was the cause for Minnesota going red in a presidential election I'd lose it. (I know it's one poll)

[EOst]

With Bernie you get to flip the coin, while with Hillary it's already come up as tails. I'm not the one whose been assuming the outcome. Rather, I've been arguing against those who think things have already been determined.

Whether or not Hillary Clinton is the "predetermined" nominee has very little to do with it. She is the assumed nominee, and that has led to attacks against her. If you really don't believe that Sanders's favorability ratings would suffer significantly under massively-funded Republican attack, you're kidding yourself.

Minnesotans favor Hillary over Sanders, quite a bit. Yet in an over all poll, Sanders destroys trump, Hillary only defeats him by 5 points, and can't even beat Rubio or CRUZ!!! What the actual eff... if Hillary was the cause for Minnesota going red in a presidential election I'd lose it. (I know it's one poll)

And this time in 2012, Romney and Obama were running neck-and-neck. In 2008, Obama led McCain by only four points. In 2004, Bush and Kerry were tied. We are ten months away from the general election. These polls really don't mean much.

[Nathan]

Lots of people distrust Hillary, and it's not just in Minnesota the polling says the same things in a lot of other states. Bernie consistently does a better job at beating republicans than she does. And it's because issues aside they trust Cruz and Rubio more. That's nuts.

[Tiller]

With Bernie you get to flip the coin, while with Hillary it's already come up as tails. I'm not the one whose been assuming the outcome. Rather, I've been arguing against those who think things have already been determined.

Whether or not Hillary Clinton is the "predetermined" nominee has very little to do with it. She is the assumed nominee, and that has led to attacks against her. If you really don't believe that Sanders's favorability ratings would suffer significantly under massively-funded Republican attack, you're kidding yourself.

That last sentence was more so directed at Didier, though you seem to be under the impression that Bernie would be utterly unable to contest such negativity. If you really think that is what will happen, I won't be able to change your mind without also going to the future, and bringing back the documents that contradict your alleged 2050 encyclopedia of the 2016 election.

[Nathan]

If Hillary's poor favorability level is already low because of attack ads and her actions in the past... and she's only going to face more attack ads from the other side. That's double trouble. Now say Bernie's perception level is lacking a long history of attacks... that's fine he's still very favorable. Wouldn't you rather go into the race with an advantage... the opposition will have to go a long way in less than a year to get his levels of favorability to be worse than hers... That's a lot of perception changing. THEN they have to make it worse than the Republican Candidates. I'd much rather start with a PR head start than with 25 years of (probably) unchangeable opinions.

[Didier]

You have to separate your support for Bernie from the reality of where he actually stands in the election right now. His road to the White House is considerably steeper than Hillary's. That doesn't mean he can't win, but pretending his nomination is inevitable because Hillary has flaws doesn't make it so.

[Nathan]

I'm posing the question why would someone want Hillary to be the nominee IF polling and common sense show Bernie would do better against the opposition. I was all Hillary for practicality sake until a couple of months ago. I get where you're coming from, trust me. I just don't think it should or has to be Hillary for any specific reason.

[Nathan]

Also, This.

http://robertreich.org/post/138036377515

and

http://robertreich.org/post/138168747590

[mattaudio]

Minnesotans favor Hillary over Sanders, quite a bit.

That Strib poll is landline only. Respondants also preferred bowls of Werthers candies, adjustable beds, and getoffmylawn.

[mattaudio]

So, what will happen if Hillary is indicted by Obama's Justice Department? Seems like that would be end of the road for her campaign - can't shrug it off as a Republican attack. At the same time, Obama wants to protect his legacy from being defined by "covering up" for Clinton. I'm not making any judgments about the merits of possible indictment, just the outcomes of it. Would Biden jump in as an emergency candidate?

It seems like Obama holds the strings for Clinton's future, and I'm curious to see what he'll choose to do.

[mulad]

That Strib poll is landline only. Respondants also preferred bowls of Werthers candies, adjustable beds, and getoffmylawn.

They say it was 70% landline and 30% cell phones:

http://www.startribune.com/how-the-poll ... 366321131/

[twincitizen]

I could say a lot more about this, but I have long felt that Hillary should not have run. I didn't want her to run, I hoped she wouldn't.

At the same time I also acknowledge that she's the most qualified person to run for President in a long, long time. And I think she would be very good at the job. Even though I probably am closer to Sanders in terms of policy positions, I have absolutely no qualms about saying Hillary would make a better President.

The problem is that the "inevitability" of her campaign prevented other viable mainstream Democrats from even thinking about running. Qualified as she is, her poor favorability ratings are a BIG DEAL and I don't think they should be swept under the rug. Yes, she has been the subject of right-wing attacks for 25 years now. But she hasn't exactly endeared herself to her own side either.

Short story is I wish the Democratic Party process would have turned out better (i.e. more viable candidates). Instead we have two extreme positions, neither of which is a clear lock to win the Presidency. Democrats should be a lock to win based on demographics alone, but we are not - precisely because of the two frontrunner candidates.

In a way the Democratic primary field is as bad as the Republican one, just with fewer people.

[amiller92]

you seem to be under the impression that Bernie would be utterly unable to contest such negativity.

They won't need to go that negative on Bernie. They'd just need to keep saying "socialist" and "he'll raise your taxes."

[amiller92]

So, what will happen if Hillary is indicted by Obama's Justice Department? Seems like that would be end of the road for her campaign - can't shrug it off as a Republican attack. At the same time, Obama wants to protect his legacy from being defined by "covering up" for Clinton. I'm not making any judgments about the merits of possible indictment, just the outcomes of it. Would Biden jump in as an emergency candidate?

It seems like Obama holds the strings for Clinton's future, and I'm curious to see what he'll choose to do.

He won't choose do to anything. He'll stay personally out of it, as he should.

What will Justice do? Probably decide there is nothing to indict her for.