I think New York is the one state where the closed system might work in his favour -- most Wall Street bankers (who would presumably favour Clinton overwhelmingly) are unlikely to be registered Democrats.

Well, it's not as if there are enough of those to make a difference in a state of 20 million people either way.

He will win Wyoming and that will give him momentum enough to win New York. He will win every ither state except Maryland and Penslyvania, giving him the momentum to win Cali. Annd race over? Superdelegates will switch then.

Again though - why would they switch? Hillary has a vote lead of 2.5 million which isn't going to disappear any time soon, unless Bernie wins by the kinds of margins that would settle it without superdelegates anyway. Superdelegates are not made up of the kinds of people disposed to vote for Bernie if they have a solid delegate or votes-based argument for not doing so. They're not even especially disposed to voting for him if they don't have those arguments.

Well, it's not as if there are enough of those to make a difference in a state of 20 million people either way.

 

Widen it out to financial services generally and it's a pretty major employer in New York State, actually.

Meanwhile, the match-up polls are still showing Sanders would perform better in the general election than Clinton.

 

Latest poll from Pennsylvania (a state Democrats have won ever since 1992) has Clinton only narrowly ahead of Trump, tied with Cruz and getting absolutely thumped by Kasich.

Widen it out to financial services generally and it's a pretty major employer in New York State, actually.

Sure, but it's probably less fun an 'EVIL BLOODSUCKING CAPITALISTS SUPPORTING HILLARY!!' line if we're talking receptionists and admin moms voting Hillary.

I still stand by the idea that there's little stock in talking about Bernie's match-ups when nobody's talking about his tax plans. Hillary's not going to attack him on that because it would make it near impossible for Bernie fans to unite behind her if she's gone full Republican scare ad on him, but there's no way in hell he'd still be as popular if everyone knew he had a 10% tax increase for all but the least well-off. People will agree that the economy is stacked against them and that Wall Street bankers are evil. Not all of them are going to be as enthusiastic about paying the difference.

Have you seen his recent bungled interview where he FINALLY got prodded on the how of his policies and had waifer thin answers and not much else? Criinge worthy. But if he wins NY without independents it's kinda game over.

But if he wins NY without independents it's kinda game over.

Yeah, that isn't how delegate counts work.

The momentum gained would be massive.

Whatever happens if Clinton wins the nomination the Republicans will win the election IMO!

Edited April 6, 20169 yr by Steve201

Whatever happens if Clinton wins the nomination the Republicans will win the election IMO!

Are you kidding? Trump is so stratospherically unpopular and Cruz is so stratospherically and partisanly right wing that your average voter isn't going to go 'oh, I don't really trust her that much, guess I'll go with the mentalist'.

I just think in the current nomination election it's been shown she is stale and an establishmentarian so I think there be a reaction in November, but we shall see!

Since when did anti-establishment candidates ever win general elections in developed countries?

 

(Even in multi-party systems where you'd expect it to be easier the best most manage is second. Iceland's probably about to make its mark as the first where one actually gets a plurality.)

This thing about Trump having "the worst approval ratings for any presidential candidate on record" might be a bit more powerful if Clinton didn't have the second-worst ratings on record.

This thing about Trump having "the worst approval ratings for any presidential candidate on record" might be a bit more powerful if Clinton didn't have the second-worst ratings on record.

Nup. Cruz is doing worse than Hillary too. And it's still a fair gap given Hillary's mid-40s approving vs low-50s disapproving (essentially where Obama's approval ratings have been for a good chunk of his presidency), whereas Trump's at low-30s approving, high-50s to mid-60s disapproving. Probably on a par with where Goldwater would've been.

 

When it comes down to it, I think she's H.W. to Obama's Reagan. That's at least a big consolidation for the Democrats though I think, and unlike the Democrats in '88 there isn't even the faintest hint that the Republicans are going to get their act together in time for 2020.

When it comes down to it, I think she's H.W. to Obama's Reagan. That's at least a big consolidation for the Democrats though I think, and unlike the Democrats in '88 there isn't even the faintest hint that the Republicans are going to get their act together in time for 2020.

 

But she might well be George H.W. Bush in 1992 rather than in 1988 -- at this point in the '92 election, he was miles ahead of Bill Clinton in the polls, because the Democrat nomination battle had been so bruising and so much muck had been thrown at Clinton that a lot of Democrat voters supporting other candidates were answering "don't know" in the Bush v Clinton polls.

 

But as soon as the nomination battle was over, all the Democrats who had previously been reluctant started holding their noses and saying Clinton was the lesser of two evils, while people were reminded of Bush's negatives too. I would argue both are entirely possible this time too if/when Trump finally clinches the nomination (I know you think Hillary has been getting hounded by the media, but, the left-wing blogosphere aside, it's my impression that the major US media has been pretty much ignoring Hillary/the Democrat battle for the past month or so, so it's not surprising her standing in polls vs Trump has risen when people aren't being reminded why they dislike her on a daily basis).

 

That's without even considering the distinct possibility in the next 6 months of an economic shock or a terrorist attack on American soil which might make a lot of swing voters think "Trump is a douche, but he has a point about things needing a shake-up".

Edited April 6, 20169 yr by Danny

I wouldn't say they've been hounding Hillary much over the last month or two ever since Benghazi retreated, if only because there hasn't been much to say. From what I can see they've been playing up how much of a chance Bernie has when they have covered the Democratic race, but I think that's more down to just horse race reporting in general. I just think that Hillary's negatives are pretty low-level constant ones where non-aligned voters that dislike her don't *like* her, as opposed to outright loathing her (in that regard I think she's quite similar to Cameron), which I think is a better place than its given credit for when up against someone as bombastic and divisive as Trump or Cruz.

 

I don't think your analogy fits too well. Bill Clinton had the downside of not being especially well known to the American public, at least much less so than Trump or Cruz are, so what he was known for was a mixture of constant infidelity allegations along with maybe his message (which only really properly came through at the convention, giving him a massive jump).

 

As you say, I think both sides are likely to hold their noses out of loathing for the other, but I think far fewer Republican voters will unite behind Trump compared to Democrats uniting behind Hillary. After all, it doesn't get mentioned all that much but Hillary's really well liked among Democratic voters (you don't get to constant 45 percent approval ratings from nowhere) and has very few Democrats saying they wouldn't be able to vote for her, compared with Trump who's getting about 30 to 40 percent of Republican female voters outright saying they don't think they could vote for him. Bill Clinton had a fairly bruising nomination, but infidelity was far easier to get past in uniting the party than I think outright racism and misogyny will be. Cruz would probably be able to unite self-identified Republican voters, but that's without getting onto Trump almost certainly going third party (out of spite, if nothing else) and how much independents will loathe him/Democrats will be motivated against him.

I wouldn't say they've been hounding Hillary much over the last month or two ever since Benghazi retreated, if only because there hasn't been much to say. From what I can see they've been playing up how much of a chance Bernie has when they have covered the Democratic race, but I think that's more down to just horse race reporting in general. I just think that Hillary's negatives are pretty low-level constant ones where non-aligned voters that dislike her don't *like* her, as opposed to outright loathing her (in that regard I think she's quite similar to Cameron), which I think is a better place than its given credit for when up against someone as bombastic and divisive as Trump or Cruz.

 

I really don't agree with that. All the various focus groups have said Republican-leaners hate her more even than Obama. The most common words people use about her are not vaguely negative low-level ones like "boring" which I would agree would be manageable -- they're really vitriolic words like "liar", "fake" and "crook".

 

I would say she is less Cameron and more Gordon Brown, who people loathed with a passion even if they grudgingly respected his competence.

 

She doesn't consistently get 45% approval btw - that's her *best* but her current average is 40.4% (with a net of -15%), considerably worse than Obama's at anytime in his presidency: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollst...avorable-rating

Edited April 6, 20169 yr by Danny

Well that's the thing - I imagine Republican-leaners would be more inclined to those opinions than genuine swing independents. I'd still be interested to see how liar, fake and crook lined up against racist, mad and sexist (there's no chance the result would be on such a crushing level, but I could see something similar to Chirac vs Le Pen's 'I'm voting for the crook, not the fascist' memes, albeit not quite as extreme in either case)

She doesn't consistently get 45% approval btw - that's her *best* but her current average is 40.4% (with a net of -15%), considerably worse than Obama's at anytime in his presidency: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollst...avorable-rating

Fivethirtyeight, how could you feed me the outlier!

 

*sends hate mail to nate*