• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

hillary more electable than sanders ?

qmuddy1

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
38
Reaction score
1
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
i think hillary is more electable (in the general election) than sanders, i'm rooting for hillary due to this: do you think she's more electable ? thanks
 
No I don't. And the polls have Bernie beating Republican opponents by larger margins than Hillary. The reason is clear. Independents are far more likely to vote for Bernie than Hillary and Independents determine presidential elections.
 
'socialist' label, clinton machine, dnc, minorities, 74 yrs. old : what about these reasons making hillary more electable ?
 
It looks to me like either will run against Trump or Cruz. I don't know that it is possible for either of them to moderate their positions enough to get any more than the far right wing base. I think Sanders will be in exactly the same position. Hillary is already right there.
 
i think hillary is more electable (in the general election) than sanders, i'm rooting for hillary due to this: do you think she's more electable ? thanks

I think it's a bit difficult this cycle to predict anything. The electorate is justifiably pissed, and connected politicians are in their cross hairs.

I'd hate to be a professional predictor in this environment. Even Nate Silver, the darling of the left, has seen his credibility crushed by reality.

Vote for the one you think will represent you best, and leave the rest to the will of the winds. It's about time principle wins over politics.
 
i think hillary is more electable (in the general election) than sanders, i'm rooting for hillary due to this: do you think she's more electable ? thanks

No I do not agree. It's more than important than electibility, to be honest, but beyond this, I don't agree that she stands a better chance of electibility. She's not well-trusted and she's not well liked. But either way, I think the following article points out what the real Sanders vs. Clinton primary is really about and why it's important.
 
The Clinton/Democratic Party Machine with the help of the American media will do a number on Sanders and Hilary Clinton is ambitious and unprincipled enough to get elected as the American president.
 
The Clinton/Democratic Party Machine with the help of the American media will do a number on Sanders and Hilary Clinton is ambitious and unprincipled enough to get elected as the American president.

You are probably right.
 
'socialist' label, clinton machine, dnc, minorities, 74 yrs. old : what about these reasons making hillary more electable ?
The socialist label isn't doing anything to hurt his poll numbers. The only reason his polls up until a few weeks ago were low was because of name recognition.

The 'Clinton machine' is exactly why a lot of liberals refuse to vote for her. They're tired of establishment politics, and Hillary is very much the face of establishment politics.

Blacks support Clinton because blacks supported Bill because Bill pandered very well to black people. This is in spite of doing absolutely nothing to help the black population rise from stagnant and multi-generational poverty or address any of the black community's problems in the slightest, so I have to agree with Alexander and Coates on this and say the black community is being a little inane in supporting Clinton. Polls change as the general comes closer precisely because a lot of people just aren't interested in the election yet, so I can see that easily changing.

The latino vote is already defecting to Bernie though. He's getting incredible momentum in Arizona, for instance.

The DNC is a legitimate reason why Hillary Clinton has a good chance of winning the primary (and for obvious reasons it shouldn't be; corruption is nothing new, but this cycle has the DNC borderline blatant in its election rigging, which is of particular concern), but it doesn't constitute any legitimate reason why Hillary Clinton is electable in the general.

They're both old. Age is always the red herring in amateur candidate vetting. If either of them were unfit to serve, republicans would have found out by now.



Consider also that nobody in US history has ever been elected to any high office with the unfavorables that Clinton has now. It just doesn't happen.
 
Last edited:
The mistake is in thinking about policies only. Sure, Hillary's policies are more electable than Bernie's BUT, she is not more electable herself and, she might not even make it to the end without being indicted. Even if she isn't, a lying dishonest crook doesn't have as good of a chance of being president as a Democratic Socialist does. The Democrat's problem is they coronated Hillary, knowing that she was a lying dishonest crook and now they are stuck with no competition, other than a Democratic socialist. To further put salt on the wound, Bloomberg will probably enter the race if Bernie should win, taking votes away from the Democratic ticket in the general election. It could get even messier if the Democrats try to steal the nomination away from Bernie by nominating Biden instead, if Hillary does have to drop out. Then voters really will be "Feeling the Bern". As I said, the problem is the Democrats betting everything on Hillary's policies and ignoring the fact that she is a lying, dishonest, crook.
 
You know, the problem with presumed electibality is that nobody knows who is electable. In 2004, Kerry was chose by the Dems because he was so much more electable than Dean. Kerry lost. Both McCain and Romney were supposed to be electable. They lost.

Now, people are telling me that I should vote for Clinton because she is so much more electable than Sanders. Then I read this:

Nevada Poll Shows Sanders Tied with Clinton
 
The Clinton/Democratic Party Machine with the help of the American media will do a number on Sanders and Hilary Clinton is ambitious and unprincipled enough to get elected as the American president.
Doesn't seem to be working. By now, all predictions were that Clinton would crush Sanders. Yet, he tied in Iowa and beat Clinton in NH and now polls show Nevada tied.
 
Doesn't seem to be working. By now, all predictions were that Clinton would crush Sanders. Yet, he tied in Iowa and beat Clinton in NH and now polls show Nevada tied.
You will see.
 
Well, barking like a dog yesterday didn't help her. LOL
 
i think hillary is more electable (in the general election) than sanders, i'm rooting for hillary due to this: do you think she's more electable ? thanks

You're right that there's an electabiity issue in the 2016 election. However, it's not Bernie Sanders, it's Hillary Clinton. These polls have been coming in for months now. Sanders has only improved his leads over Republicans for months now, and Hillary has only been losing leads (until now she's just outright losing against all prospective Republican nominees).

(The old rules are out, tell all your friends. The Establishment has lost it's edge in the class conflict due to the internet, and they've lost control of both parties. If Bloomberg runs in 2016, it'll be fascinating to watch the results. At this point, I think that a Sanders-Bloomberg-Cruz contest is actually a serious possibility.)
 
i think hillary is more electable (in the general election) than sanders, i'm rooting for hillary due to this: do you think she's more electable ? thanks

Hillary has huge negative numbers, the kind that normally kills a candidate's chances. But the candidates the Republicans are throwing up there have big negatives as well, except maybe Rubio, so it's a strange year.

She also inspires a rabid brand of hate among Republicans, the kind that gets people out to vote against her, even if they don't like their own candidate. The same kind of thing that got me off the couch to vote for a dud like Kerry in 2004 - it was a vote against Dubya, not a vote for Kerry.

She's also got 25 years of scandals to deal with, including some current issues. People just don't like this woman, and they don't trust her. She's a default choice, a lesser evil than Cruz, Trump, or Rubio. But there is no passion behind her campaign. I'll vote for her if Sanders doesn't win the nomination, but I'll be holding my nose when I do.
 
Absolutely, no contest there. If it was any other social democracy, Hillary would've been the Lincoln Chafee of this presidential race. But this is American democracy: a very exotic and incongruous political body. I'm deeply wishing for Sanders to win the democratic nomination just so his base gets the political lesson of a lifetime.

When running against a vigorous and entrenched right wing establishment, ordinary politics doesn't apply. In a nutshell, this isn't Sweden, nor is it Denmark. In the bizarro world of the current democratic primaries, Sanders is winning because he's an outsider; Clinton is struggling with her ties to the establishment. But this is exactly what you need to win against right wingers: someone who speaks their language. All that it'll take for republicans to sodomize Sanders in the general elections is to unleash their hounds in perhaps the greatest smear campaign known to man. Should that fail, a security/foreign policy shakeup of any sort will squash Sanders and his populist, socialist platform.

Obviously that analysis is crudely objective with no regards for morality or actual political philosophy, but in every imaginable situation - save for an unforeseen Clinton scandal, Hillary will cruise seamlessly and hold her own. That being said, I'm fully aware of the obstinacy of Sanders' base; so I'm going to lay back and enjoy the show.
 
save for an unforeseen Clinton scandal
She hardly needs a new one, she has plenty already, and the emails are becoming a much bigger issue than anyone on the democratic side is willing to admit. The idea that she could go into the general election with an active investigation is mind-boggling, and her rhetoric that it's all a GOP plot can't possibly take her much farther than it has already.

Her campaign seems to skirt the edge of scandal besides, trusting in the media to cover her ass. It seems they do, though. Perhaps with the media in her pocket she actually is scandal-proof.
 
Last edited:
Hitlery is far from more electable.
She has a track-record of flip-flopping;
- media manipulation.
- Corporate lobbyship.
- minority-pandering.
- General fakeness.
- support from warmongers and war-criminals.
- Warmongering.
- Lying.
- Elitism.
- Racism.
- Bigotry.
- Defending Wall St.
- Kissing Obama's ass.
- Distorting truth.
- Making money off the backs of hard-working Americans.
- Making money off of the poor.
- Collusion with mega-bankers.
- Collusion with mega-corporations.
- NAFTA (threatening our nations' sovereignty)
- Disrespect for the common people.
- Disrespect for the youth.
- Disrespect and rudeness in general.

And the list goes on.

Furthermore, her ongoing FBI investigation into her stupidity threatening our national security isn't gone away. She could very well be indicted (although it is not likely, it is not impossible either), AND her consistent lies about Bernie winning 4.5 states being a "CRUSHING DEFEAT" bull**** that is LIKELY to catch up with her in the future.

Hillary Clinton is NOT doing NEARLY as well as her bought-and-paid-for advertisements (news) would have you believe.

Question authority.
Question reality.
 
She hardly needs a new one, she has plenty already, and the emails are becoming a much bigger issue than anyone on the democratic side is willing to admit. The idea that she could go into the general election with an active investigation is mind-boggling, and her rhetoric that it's all a GOP plot can't possibly take her much farther than it has already.

Her campaign seems to skirt the edge of scandal besides, trusting in the media to cover her ass. It seems they do, though. Perhaps with the media in her pocket she actually is scandal-proof.

In response to the emerging sociopolitical reality in the U.S, the media is abandoning democrats, Clinton or otherwise, and the democratic primary debates and townhall forums moderated by the "liberal media" provide ample evidence of that. Early on in this election cycle, when special interest groups - including media conglomerates, viewed democrats and republicans as rivals to be appeased equally, the media did score points with the Clinton campaign by sidestepping around sensitive issues such as her ties with the financial industry and her stance on campaign finance reform. But as it transpired that republicans are out for blood and are willing to do anything to win the presidency, they shamelessly veered right. The phrasing of questions to both Clinton and Sanders and the comportment of the moderators eerily copy republican politics, which is a reflection of the conclusion among power brokers and elites that democrats already dropped the ball - it's time to get on with the times.

That aside, it remains a question of the validity of those scandals and how she'll continue to handle republican slander going into the general elections. A few months back republicans held the latest hearing on the emails, et.al fiasco, and the result? a public display of filthy republican partisan politics and a martyr Clinton standing large in the face of vicious hounds. Her favorability ratings immediately rose, spurring republicans to panic and decide against any more public hearings. That's not to dismiss the possibility that a criminal investigation might yield something genuine, or that some other actual scandal may unravel in the middle of the general elections, but this is to point to the possibility that it could go the other way as it did in the past.

If I were a democrat, or a sane American realizing the derangement on the republican side and the perils it poses to the state, I'd bet my bottom dollar on Hillary no matter how I look at it.
 
Clinton is objectively the less electable candidate.
 
I completely disagree, I believe Bernie is far more electable than Hillary since he is beating trump, Cruz and Rubio by far greater margins than she is.

Bernie is beating Cruz by 17% (57% to 40%), he is also beating Trump by 12% (55% to 43%), and he's also beating Rubio by 8% (53% to 45%).

While Hillary is only beating trump by 8% (52% to 44%), however she is loosing to Cruz by 1% (48% t 49%), and loosing to Rubio by 3% (50% to 47%.

As the numbers show Bernie Sanders is far more electable than Hillary Clinton.

Source: TYT
 
Hillary Clinton if MUCH, MUCH more electable than Bernie Sanders.

I love Bernie...I love what he stands for and for his steadfastness. But they are the reasons he is not nearly as electable as Hillary.

BEING ELECTED is the most important part of any politician's agenda. If you are not in office and the opposition is...things are screwed up.
 
Back
Top Bottom