Bernie Sanders - 80%

Mike Huckabee - 73%

Jeb Bush - 73%

Hillary Clinton - 70%

 

then on down:

Ted Cruz - 57%

 

and at the very bottom:

Carly Fiorina - 17%

 

And apparantly I'm a left-wing authoritarian. Go figure.

 

 

Latest polling shows Joe Biden in with a fighting chance of beating Hillary.

Notionally with a fighting chance on favourables, but given they have near-identical political positions the contest would get nasty if he entered - because the only USP for Biden at that stage would be 'you're corrupt' (because lord knows, if he was enough of an overwhelming charisma bomb to justify entering on that front you'd have expected him to perform better than 1% in any of the other primaries he entered).

 

And given the e-mails thing would be the most laughably small thing to count as a knock-out blow on that front, well, ever, there would be a lot of absolutely furious feminists in the Democratic Party who would (quite reasonably) ask if a man would ever be held to the same standard where they were deemed to be too tarnished to be a credible presidential candidate because of having had a private e-mail server instead of a government one. It would really have to be something else that would be a knockout blow to justify Biden entering on that front, and you'd think it would've come out in 2008 if there was something like that out there.

Notionally with a fighting chance on favourables, but given they have near-identical political positions the contest would get nasty if he entered - because the only USP for Biden at that stage would be 'you're corrupt' (because lord knows, if he was enough of an overwhelming charisma bomb to justify entering on that front you'd have expected him to perform better than 1% in any of the other primaries he entered).

 

And given the e-mails thing would be the most laughably small thing to count as a knock-out blow on that front, well, ever, there would be a lot of absolutely furious feminists in the Democratic Party who would (quite reasonably) ask if a man would ever be held to the same standard where they were deemed to be too tarnished to be a credible presidential candidate because of having had a private e-mail server instead of a government one. It would really have to be something else that would be a knockout blow to justify Biden entering on that front, and you'd think it would've come out in 2008 if there was something like that out there.

 

I think Biden if he sold himself as the "real Obama heir" could very easily start chipping away at Clinton's edge with black voters, which is the one thing which is currently keeping Hillary standing.

 

If anything, I would say given the fact there's little between them on political positioning, it's hard to see what the USP for Clinton over Biden is. The polling consistently shows Biden doing better against Republicans, he's equally as experienced, and he's seen as more honest and likeable.

Edited September 24, 20159 yr by Danny

I'm sure that Biden is now reading Ed Miliband's speeches in a search for material.

If anything, I would say given the fact there's little between them on political positioning, it's hard to see what the USP for Clinton over Biden is. The polling consistently shows Biden doing better against Republicans, he's equally as experienced, and he's seen as more honest and likeable.

I mean...apart from greater support within the party (contrast her winning the popular vote in 2008 against Obama versus Biden crashing and burning with asterisk levels of support every time he tried) and first female president? Currently he's doing better, but that's because he's a hypothetical candidate who hasn't been attacked at all (as he would be if he went into the race and had opponents), has a fair amount of public sympathy given his son's just died, and hasn't had to make any unpopular decisions or come out with any unpopular policy. That's something that would change in less than a month if he were to enter the race - it's the equivalent of David Miliband's currently good ratings over here, which would fall to pieces pretty quickly the second there was any focus on him.

 

However, were Obama to endorse him that could change very quickly. But even then things would still likely get very nasty. I think a lot in the Democratic Party could accept that first black president was a hell of a milestone for America, and one that given its history contextually still gave many Hillary supporters a lot to be proud of in the Democratic candidate. There'd be blood if the most eminently qualified woman to be President who stood a realistic chance in our lifetime was shoved out of the way at the second time of asking for another mediocrity of an old white man, just because he's affable. At least Sanders has a worthy USP of some sorts that could justify that.

Looking on the other side of the ledger, I'm coming to the view that the Republicans will nominate the last non-Trump electable conservative standing with considerable support, which will likely be either Bush, Rubio (who I'd say feels most likely right now even though he's in a bad position - he's everyone's fourth or fifth preference, so if he can stay in until things get winnowed down...), or *possibly* Fiorina if she can get New Hampshire. I think Clinton would have an easy time against Bush, a tough fight against Rubio, and would annihilate Fiorina. Biden-Bush would probably be Biden, Biden-Rubio gives me a bad feeling, and I couldn't really call Biden-Fiorina (but then, what are the odds of that matchup even happening?!).

I mean...apart from greater support within the party (contrast her winning the popular vote in 2008 against Obama versus Biden crashing and burning with asterisk levels of support every time he tried) and first female president? Currently he's doing better, but that's because he's a hypothetical candidate who hasn't been attacked at all (as he would be if he went into the race and had opponents), has a fair amount of public sympathy given his son's just died, and hasn't had to make any unpopular decisions or come out with any unpopular policy. That's something that would change in less than a month if he were to enter the race - it's the equivalent of David Miliband's currently good ratings over here, which would fall to pieces pretty quickly the second there was any focus on him.

 

He's the sitting vice-president, and has been one of the loudest advocates for Obama policies for 7 years! You don't get more of a partisan-political figure than that. His numbers now are not comparable to Clinton's polling when she was a hypothetical candidate, because her previous numbers were artificially inflated by her having been "above the fray" for years in a way Biden hasn't been.

He's the sitting vice-president, and has been one of the loudest advocates for Obama policies for 7 years! You don't get more of a partisan-political figure than that. His numbers now are not comparable to Clinton's polling when she was a hypothetical candidate, because her previous numbers were artificially inflated by her having been "above the fray" for years in a way Biden hasn't been.

But that's the thing - he's been advocating someone else's policies (and on the subject, Hillary has yet to come out with anything disagreeing with Obama). And if someone wants to attack Obama policies, they attack Obama - they don't attack Biden. It also means the discussion is literally just around which policies he's advocating, rather than his suitability for leadership (given he's got historically one of the more irrelevant roles of the US government that has little to do with leadership). Clinton as Secretary of State and post-SoS wasn't being attacked for corruption and other things that impinge on her suitability for leadership. If Biden was running for president, his qualifications for a leadership role would be far more forensically analysed by the media and opponents.

Looking on the other side of the ledger, I'm coming to the view that the Republicans will nominate the last non-Trump electable conservative standing with considerable support, which will likely be either Bush, Rubio (who I'd say feels most likely right now even though he's in a bad position - he's everyone's fourth or fifth preference, so if he can stay in until things get winnowed down...), or *possibly* Fiorina if she can get New Hampshire. I think Clinton would have an easy time against Bush, a tough fight against Rubio, and would annihilate Fiorina. Biden-Bush would probably be Biden, Biden-Rubio gives me a bad feeling, and I couldn't really call Biden-Fiorina (but then, what are the odds of that matchup even happening?!).

I'm assuming that Bush will just about pull through, I'm still slightly worried about Trump though. He wouldn't win against Clinton or Biden but Sanders-Trump would be all kinds of uneasy.

The problem is that Bush is just going through the motions. He seems to be doing it just because he has to - the donors are starting to shed.

He still looks like their best bet.

93% Sanders

91% Clinton

87% Biden

76% O'Malley

59% Huckabee

46% Paul

44% Kasich

44% Bush

43% Christie

39% Jindal

34% Rubio

34% Graham

28% Fiorina

27% Carson

23% Cruz

19% Trump

16% Santorum

 

 

Well at least the 3 scumbags are that the bottom of the pile...

He still looks like their best bet.

Nah. Rubio hits pretty much all the same competencies without all the brand downsides, but he comes with charisma. And his weakness (youth and inexperience) is one the Republicans could easily throw the charge of hypocrisy back at the Democrats on because of Obama, whereas we already know it's pretty unlikely the Dems are likely to go with the charge of nepotism and 'NOT ANOTHER BUSH' anyway if they go with Jeb so their ability to rebut that if the Dems choose Hillary means little.

I think there's a strong case that Donald Trump is the Republicans' best candidate. Imo, he has potential to do much better than Romney among industrial workers in the likes of Ohio/Pennsylvania/Michigan -- amid all his craziness about immigrants, he's also made one of his big things the fact that big businesses keep "shipping jobs overseas", which could strike a chord. Plus, I still doubt Clinton especially is going to come close to the turnout that Obama managed with the young / black people.

Trump would do Clinton's turnout job for her.

Yeah, fear and hatred of Trump probably wouldn't be all that far off Obama's candidacy as a driver of votes. And (obviously) there are more women in America than black people - you wouldn't get anything as overwhelming as 95/5, and female voters would always be more diffuse than black voters, but you only have to nudge the margins and turnout on women voters up a few points for it to start outweighing the difference between winning 95/5 with black voters on a big turnout and winning 90/10 on a pre-08 turnout.

I think there's a strong case that Donald Trump is the Republicans' best candidate. Imo, he has potential to do much better than Romney among industrial workers in the likes of Ohio/Pennsylvania/Michigan -- amid all his craziness about immigrants, he's also made one of his big things the fact that big businesses keep "shipping jobs overseas", which could strike a chord. Plus, I still doubt Clinton especially is going to come close to the turnout that Obama managed with the young / black people.

I see this, but I think the gains from that would be lost by just how many people would be totally put off by how...unpresidential he is. Which sounds a little weak, but I do think there'd be a huge number of people who, even if they did agree with Trump on the point of immigration and jobs going overseas, might vote for that platform at a Senate level but blanch at the idea of Trump representing America to the world.

 

Not to mention that the Republican machine would be about as unenthusiastic for a Trump run as the Labour machine is for Corbyn.

I see this, but I think the gains from that would be lost by just how many people would be totally put off by how...unpresidential he is. Which sounds a little weak, but I do think there'd be a huge number of people who, even if they did agree with Trump on the point of immigration and jobs going overseas, might vote for that platform at a Senate level but blanch at the idea of Trump representing America to the world.

 

Not to mention that the Republican machine would be about as unenthusiastic for a Trump run as the Labour machine is for Corbyn.

You could have said the same about Bush Jr. He was widely ridiculed when he stood for the first time, yet he won (sort of). Four years later, he was generally loathed outside the USA (apart from Israel) but he still won.

You could have said the same about Bush Jr. He was widely ridiculed when he stood for the first time, yet he won (sort of). Four years later, he was generally loathed outside the USA (apart from Israel) but he still won.

Nowhere near the same level though - Bush was ridiculed for his grammar and malapropisms. He wasn't ridiculed for being a blustering wilfully offensive tool who would probably insult other countries for the sake of it. The illusion of ideology for pissing off other countries is essential - I don't think you need me to explain to you why Bush won in 2004 and why Americans didn't care that he was hated abroad at that time. Those conditions just aren't in place now, and in any case Trump vs Hillary on the nuclear button isn't the question that Bush vs Kerry was.