Bernin4U
Bernin4U's JournalCarson and Trump, really? And yet you buy into the polls?
Only bringing this up now, as I was curious to see Dr Carson's appearance on The View, as well as the debate/discussion with Bernie on CNN about the SOTU. Read plenty about his statements and positions up to now, but had never actually heard him before.
Also have seen the questions raised about whether Dr Carson may have had a stroke or similar. While I have little experience with such conditions, I can now see how that the question can be raised in sincerity. He's often described as calm and soft spoken, but it seems to go much further than that. He really does not seem to be "all there". Considering his tremendous accomplishments, has he always been this way? I have trouble visualizing him getting past a first interview as a mid-level manager anywhere in the white-collar world (whereas for reference, I could see, say, Dubya succeeding, as his "fratboyism" isn't necessarily considered a problem, or at least isn't uncommon, in the corp landscape).
Anyway, here we have Trump and now Carson leading in the polls on the GOP side. No question they're currently enjoying a big boost by the TP's and/or fundamentalists. But for the party in general? Anybody here want to give them even a double-digit chance of going all the way rather than fizzling out? Any Hillary supporters who think they have a chance (especially those who claim Bernie is too extreme for the mainstream)?
So when a Hillary supporter says, "Look at the polls!" ask them about Trump and Carson and why the polls have meaning only on the Dem side.
Edit: Also to point out, remember who won IA the last couple times out? Santorum and Huckabee. Where did that get them?
Being ahead right now means squat. We're in -maybe- the 2nd Inning. Let Hillary have her 2-to-1 lead. Do you really believe she's going to be pitching a shutout from here on out?
The Three Types of Hillary Supporters
And what to do about them. (All IMVHO of course. And I'll be happy to edit in any good comments.)
1. The Corporate Machine.
DNC, MSM, Wall Street, etc. Not much can be done. For them, they're just doing their job. Nothing personal, it's business.
2. Hillary Fans.
The folks who still likely resent that Obama won the first time. Not much can be done here either. Trying to convince them to consider Bernie will be like trying to convince a Neocon in 2002 against invading Iraq. Fortunately, at least many will "hold their nose" and vote for Bernie in the general.
3. "I Like Bernie, But He Can't Win."
This is who we care about. This is where 100% of our efforts should be going. These are the folks who need our help to better understand the reality of the situation. What to do?
A. "Bernie is a Socialist!"
Obama is a Socialist! Kerry was a Socialist! Gore was a Socialist! All were The Most Liberal Senator in Congress! Please. You think it matters one hoot who the Dems put forward? A moderate like Kerry, or a true Progressive like Bernie, or a ...(?) like Hillary? All will get the same treatment, regardless of their actual position. Since they apply it equally, it's becoming something of a "Boy Who Cried Wolf" scenario, losing a lot of its meaning. Any candidate's gonna get the full works no matter, so why choose the centrist?
B. "Hillary can get the crossover vote."
Sure she has a lot of supporters, but I wonder if you have an inkling just how much so many people dislike Hillary? The Right absolutely hate her, and seriously believe she belongs (if not "soon will be"
in jail. Or worse. No matter how centrist or moderate she may be (again, day of the week), they only see her as extreme left.
Those more towards the middle may not loathe her, but it doesn't mean they like her. They probably don't trust her. And this is really the issue: like her or not, 100% of Americans have a fairly strong opinon about her. And it's not going to change (for the better, anyway). Her strong brand, overall, is a negative.
With Bernie, they'll of course brand him as a Socialist. But again, that's already automatic with either of them, just as it's been for their predecessors. Beyond that, what have they got? His age? His religion? His relatively reasonable approach to gun control? There's no scandals, no skeletons. There's too little they can attack him on personally, which means it quickly moves to issues. That's not the game they want to be playing.
Bernie's lack of name recognition may appear to be a weakness, but it's really not. It's an opportunity. Plus, just look at the Repubs.
Trump leads, due to his celebrity, but does anyone consider him to be more than a publicity stunt? Among the "serious" candidates, who's leading? A doctor whom nobody's heard of. And even the others aren't huge names. It's just not that important.
D. "Hillary can get more done."
Presumably being closer to the center (depending on the day of the week), means Congress will be more likely to give her what she wants. Seriously?
If you plan to sell your house, and you want at least $300K for it. Do you ask $300,001? Or do you list it for, say, $319,999? Starting from the center means you have no hope to end up at the center. Just as Pres Obama.
Plus, Bernie has an excellent record of achievement in the Senate. Shall we compare it to hers?
E. "Hillary has the most qualifications and experience."
Does it mean that Bernie isn't qualified? It was a somewhat plausible argument against the junior senator from IL maybe, but hardly so against the junior senator from VT. The argument can maybe be made that Hillary has more experince, but that doesn't make her better. Just as one candidate for a job may have 10 years' experience, while another has 8. If the job requirement is to have 5 years', then both are qualified. You meet with both and choose based on who you think will meet your needs best. One having more experience than the other does not make the choice automatic.
For the election, Hillary may indeed have more foriegn policy experience as a former Secretary of State. But her record is clearly hawkish. She's been pro-war at every turn, and now wants to enstate no-fly zones in Syria. There is certainly merit to the statement about one candidate wanting to send your kids to college, and the other to war.
On the domestic side, Bernie has been in congress nearly 25 years. Hillary does not come close to that.
Plus, have you seen the Repub candidates?
F. "Hillary looks more presidential."
So maybe we should run Kevin Spacey or Martin Sheen or Harrison Ford? Looking "presidential" was certainly important years ago, but these days? I'm not so sure it's still a huge asset. And again, have you seen the Repubs? Certainly a lot of them are trying their best to look the part, but the front runners don't seem overly concerned about it.
G. "He won't have a Congress that will pass anything."
You really believe the Party of No is going to go any easier on Hillary than on Bernie (or they did on Obama)? The only thing keeping Hillary from being the most hated political figure in America is that Obama is still in office. Of course they're not going to want to work with Hillary. No way she has any advantage over Bernie, as far as being able to connect across the aisle.
But things can change. It's hardly long ago that marriage equality was a pipe dream. Or a black president. Or the pope on Twitter. Big changes happen fast. "Where there's a will, there's a way," may sound trite, but it's absolutely the case. What allows it to happen? Major cultural shifts in society. Equal marriage likely would have been slower to happen under a President Romney. But what if Obama had shown the courage to stand up for equal marriage from the beginning, rather than pushing for this "civil unions" garbage, because David Axelrod advised him it would be more politically expedient?
Obama squandered a lot of political capital this way. Hillary herself says she's Barack Obama minus the Y chromosome. Bernie will not make this mistake. A vote for him sends a clear message of, "Enough is enough!" Whereas a vote for Hillary only says, "More of the same."
H. "Hillary can beat the Repubs."
And Bernie can't? The polls say otherwise. Don't be too quick to assume. Plus, have you seen the Repubs? Of course they'll largely rally behind whomever emerges. But do you see any of them putting up a decent fight?
Don't vote out of fear. It means you're starting from a defensive position. You're trying to second guess, based on what you think might happen. It's never a winning strategy. Someone else said it better than I can:
"I am certain that my fellow Americans expect that on my induction into the Presidency I will address them with a candor and a decision which the present situation of our people impel. This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory."
I. "Winning for the team matters most."
Bernie is the "Look Ma, no pragmatism!" candidate. When does that ever happen? He's engaging the (far? true? disenfranchised?) left and draw votes away from the likes of Jill Stein (Green Party). Whereas if Hillary gets it, many won't have the appetite to hold their nose for her, making Stein likely to do quite well next year.
J. "Hillary leads in almost all the polls."
It's true. But in business, what we care about are trends and trajectories. When the iPhone came out in 2007, BlackBerry fans ridiculed it. "Who wants a phone that's all screen and no buttons?" BlackBerry had a formidable domination of the smartphone market at that time. But the sales trends showed the iPhone making huge gains, while BlackBerry sales were stagnant. By the time RIM reacted, it was already too late.
If the primaries were tomorrow, it's no question who'd win. But they're not. As it's been said, Bernie by some measures is ahead of where Barack Obama was at this point 8 years ago. So to say that history can't repeat itself (no, the reasons behind it won't all be the same) seems a little foolish.
K. "Hillary and Bernie share 93% the same voting record (so the actual differences are minimal)."
And a Chimpanzee and a human share 96% the same DNA. Statistics are meaningless without clear context. I've read this "93%" figure dozens of times, which seems to have gone viral lately in concert with Hillary's recent "found religion" tack. Have yet to see it cited or substantiated. Plus that remaining 7% could be a lot of space. I need to research this when I have time (or, any help?), but for now just remember that Hillary was ranked as 11th most liberal senator (to which she seems to agree, and lately try to boast about), but who was Number One?
L. "Bernie isn't even a Democrat"
Rather than trying to force the similarities between Hillary and Bernie, how about we look at the similarities between Bernie and FDR? Was FDR enough of a Democrat for you? If Bernie has chosen not to be Dem, it's because he hates the DNC's creep towards "Republican Lite". You can claim the differences are night and day, but in far more ways than not, it's two sides of the same coin. The true differences are more about gamesmanship (ie, politics). The DNC is run by DWS, who tried to run Hillary as more moderate than Obama (and failed), tried to run the mid-terms as "Republican Lite" (and failed), and up till just weeks ago was trying to promote Hillary as a Moderate.
"Republican Lite" is never a winning strategy, nor is it what the people want. So now we suddenly have Hillary instead running as "Bernie Lite". But it's still the same problem. A watered-down Lite version is never going to be as strong as the Real Thing.
Profile Information
Member since: Fri Oct 16, 2015, 04:58 PMNumber of posts: 812
