Sanders Pulls Nearly Even With Clinton in New Poll

[Sunstone]

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/02...-winning-the-hearts-of-democratic-voters.html

A new poll from Quinnipiac University shows that Bernie Sanders has virtually erased Hillary Clinton’s national lead with Democratic voters. In the contest for the heart of the party, Sanders has swept Democrats off their feet.

According to Quinnipiac, “In the Democratic race nationwide, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has 44 percent, with Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont at 42 percent, and 11 percent undecided. This compares to a 61 – 30 percent Clinton lead in a December 22 survey by the independent Quinnipiac University Poll.”

The article also shows that Sanders might be more electable against likely Republican candidates than Clinton. Please discuss!

 

[Wirey]

I am rooting for Sanders. I know, a Canadian so who cares, but our economy piggybacks on yours, and I think he'd be a better president than Hillary.

 

[Sunstone]

I am rooting for Sanders. I know, a Canadian so who cares, but our economy piggybacks on yours, and I think he'd be a better president than Hillary.

I think he's a "Hail Marry" pass at the problems facing us, but what better option do we have now?

 

[Quintessence]

I am rooting for Sanders. I know, a Canadian so who cares, but our economy piggybacks on yours, and I think he'd be a better president than Hillary.

When you say "better president," what do you mean? In terms of being qualified for and fitting the responsibilities of the presidential office, Hillary is definitely the stronger candidate, as far as I'm aware. I didn't stand with Bernie because I thought he would make the better president; I stood on that side of the room because he tells the better story. Put another way, he speaks more aggressively towards the issues that fundamentally bother me, which is highly unusual to see in the political arena because doing so is often to commit political suicide.

 

[columbus]

The article also shows that Sanders might be more electable against likely Republican candidates than Clinton.

I wish I could believe in Sanders. But I can't.

I believed in Obama. What did that get me? Daesh, Romneycare, a Dow Jones around 18,000, and a "jobless" recovery. Sanders looks like even more of the same. He'll dither around while the USA becomes even more 3rd worldish.
Hillary the Hardcore B***h, who won't bother playing bipartisan and a uniter, is currently my top choice. Because she is the best person to get it done. I may only find 75% of her platform appealing, whereas I like 90% of Sanders. But she can get it done, and I don't think Sanders can.
I would rather get 80% of 75% than 20% of 90%.
Tom

 

[freethinker44]

The article also shows that Sanders might be more electable against likely Republican candidates than Clinton. Please discuss!

I think he could beat Trump or Cruz easily enough, but Rubio and Bush (if Bush overcomes his slump, that is) make me nervous. They might be too moderate for Sanders to beat. So if it's Trump or Cruz I hope Sanders gets the nomination, but if it's Rubio or Bush I think Clinton would be the better nomination. Whoever has the best chance of thwarting the Republican idiocracy is who I vote for.

 

[Orbit]

When you say "better president," what do you mean? In terms of being qualified for and fitting the responsibilities of the presidential office, Hillary is definitely the stronger candidate, as far as I'm aware. I didn't stand with Bernie because I thought he would make the better president; I stood on that side of the room because he tells the better story. Put another way, he speaks more aggressively towards the issues that fundamentally bother me, which is highly unusual to see in the political arena because doing so is often to commit political suicide.

Hillary is the establishment "business as usual" candidate, backed by Wall Street. We need what Bernie is proposing which is to get corporate money out of our "democratic" political process. We need an end to tax loopholes for corporation, we need an end to disastrous trade deals like TPP. Only Bernie is brave enough to go there, only Bernie won't be bought.

 

[Orbit]

I wish I could believe in Sanders. But I can't.

I believed in Obama. What did that get me? Daesh, Romneycare, a Dow Jones around 18,000, and a "jobless" recovery. Sanders looks like even more of the same. He'll dither around while the USA becomes even more 3rd worldish.
Hillary the Hardcore B***h, who won't bother playing bipartisan and a uniter, is currently my top choice. Because she is the best person to get it done. I may only find 75% of her platform appealing, whereas I like 90% of Sanders. But she can get it done, and I don't think Sanders can.
I would rather get 80% of 75% than 20% of 90%.
Tom

Sanders spent 35 years in Congress getting things done. He was on the committee that wrote the ACA. Hillary has only served 2 terms in Congress. She is bought and paid for by Wall Street. Bernie isn't. Go to berniesanders.com and look at his platform. Obama never had a platform like that, Obama was an establishment Democrat.

 

[Quintessence]

Hillary is the establishment "business as usual" candidate, backed by Wall Street. We need what Bernie is proposing which is to get corporate money out of our "democratic" political process. We need an end to tax loopholes for corporation, we need an end to disastrous trade deals like TPP. Only Bernie is brave enough to go there, only Bernie won't be bought.

That's a fair assessment of the situation. On the other hand, rhetoric is one thing, and the ability to actually get something done is entirely something else. Given the current political climate, it wouldn't surprise me if Hillary would overall be more effective in getting some of what she proposes implemented. I mean, yeah, in my ideal little America, someone like Bernie would swoop in and dismantle this poorly-regulated capitalism we have going on, but I'm not quite naive enough to believe that will happen. It will be some amount of "business as usual" regardless of who ends up in office, because the presidential office does not have infinite cosmic powers.

 

[Sunstone]

Sanders does have at least one advantage over Hillary. Hillary is unlikely to focus national attention on at least some of the major problems that confront us. Sanders is more likely to raise those issues and keep raising them until something gets done.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Sanders does focus rather heavily on overcoming bought government.
Hillary, OTOH, has already been bought.
Most of the rep candidates are a joke and the ones that aren't are nowhere near the top.

Rather easy choice to make, I think.

 

[Wirey]

When you say "better president," what do you mean? In terms of being qualified for and fitting the responsibilities of the presidential office, Hillary is definitely the stronger candidate, as far as I'm aware. I didn't stand with Bernie because I thought he would make the better president; I stood on that side of the room because he tells the better story. Put another way, he speaks more aggressively towards the issues that fundamentally bother me, which is highly unusual to see in the political arena because doing so is often to commit political suicide.

I mean better president. I didn't think that was an ambiguous statement, sorry. Hillary reminds me of the line in Won't Get Fooled Again that says "Meet the new boss / Same as the old boss." She is just a continuation of the same polices that have existed since Nixon that have led America from being the single richest, most advanced, industrial powerhouse to a nation wearing made-in-China Wal-Mart crap and watching billionaires buy the nation out from under them with their own money. America was the nation that put men on the moon, and now you can't send your kids to school without bullet proof vests, and the crux of the shift seems to be the greedy slimebags who run your country through your politicians. You know, the ones who paid Hillary $9M for speaking engagements? Sanders, although a long shot, seems to offer some hope that America can shake of it's malaise and return to the top of the pile. He seems to be more realistic about what America can do, and he seems more competent as well (subjective, I know, but observation is my job).

I mentioned America putting men on the moon. The peak of human evolution and ingenuity. A dream started by the last president not wholly owned by industry. Perhaps it's time for another one. That was what I meant by better president.

 

[columbus]

Sanders is more likely to raise those issues and keep raising them until something gets done.

Obama could close Gitmo. He is the Commander in Chief.

Hasn't happened though.

Tom

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I think he's a "Hail Marry" pass at the problems facing us, but what better option do we have now?

So was the March on Washington.

Bernie has already accomplished the unthinkable: Social Democracy has re-emerged as part of the national discourse for the first time since the Red Scare. The question becomes one of how to transform the passion into a movement. Standing at the bully pulpit and proclaiming the justice of a $15/hr minimum wage does not, in and of itself, produce a $15/hr minimum wage. Just how Sanders plans to effectively pressure an essentially center-right Congress is less than obvious.

 

[Sunstone]

Just how Sanders plans to effectively pressure an essentially center-right Congress is less than obvious.

Agreed. Add to that the fact the Congress is largely insulated from public pressure perhaps owning to it being largely funded by the very rich, etc. I wonder, though, whether Clinton would be able to get more done than him. That's the argument that's being made nowadays, but I'm not sure it's correct. It seems to assume that Sanders will either accomplish everything -- or nothing at all; while Clinton will set out with more modest goals and accomplish all or almost all of them.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Agreed. Add to that the fact the Congress is largely insulated from public pressure perhaps owning to it being largely funded by the very rich, etc. I wonder, though, whether Clinton would be able to get more done than him. That's the argument that's being made nowadays, but I'm not sure it's correct. It seems to assume that Sanders will either accomplish everything -- or nothing at all; while Clinton will set out with more modest goals and accomplish all or almost all of them.

What would happen if President Sanders called for a March on Washington?

 

[LuisDantas]

Personally, I wish I had a clue about how come the GOP is still that popular with such a list of ideas and candidates.

Because if I did, maybe I would know how to break the tendency to deadlock things in Congress.

 

[Sunstone]

Personally, I wish I had a clue about how come the GOP is still that popular with such a list of ideas and candidates.

Because if I did, maybe I would know how to break the tendency to deadlock things in Congress.

Gerrymandering and voter suppression laws help.

 

[Sunstone]

What would happen if President Sanders called for a March on Washington?

I really have very few ideas what might happen, but it's fascinating to think about it. What do you think would happen?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I really have very few ideas what might happen, but it's fascinating to think about it. What do you think would happen?

That would greatly depend on (a) the response, and (b) how many Congressional seats were up for review.