Because of her delegate count, it is assumed by most in the media that Hillary Clinton is the strongest candate. But a check of recent poll averages tells something quite different. Nationally, for example, adding the polls against Trump, Cruz and Rubio, Sanders comes out 17 points ahead. In states where there are comparable polls he leads by 135 points with doubled digit leads in Illinois, Michigan Minnesota, New Hampshire, Virginia and Wisconsin. The only state in which Clinton is ahead by double digits is Pennsylvania.
Obviously, lumping the polls against the three top GOP choices is not what happens in a real election but it is useful guide to the relative strength of the Democratic candidates.
3 comments:
Folks need to look at the numbers that reflect actual voter participation versus misleading emphasis on percentages. The sad reality is that in many of the races turnout for either Democratic has been dismal. Only 1,398 voters showed up for the Iowa caucu---forth place Republican candidate Carson more than topped that with his 9.3$ showing of 17,395 votes. Cruz had 51,666 and Trump scored 45,427 votes.
We are agreed that Bernie might well be the better candidate, but how are voters going to be convinced given Tad Devine's tepid, conventional, and overly cautious strategy? There is a podcast interview with Devine posted on Politico: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/full-transcript-glenn-thrush-interview-tad-devine-220342
It's rather revealing, and for those willing to read between the lines, a validation of the criticisms raised months ago by Bruce Dixon, Glen Ford, and others.
In short, the plan has been to not damage the Obama/DNC brand, coral the enthusiasm of a potentially volatile youth vote, and most importantly generate tons of cash.
There's little or no talk about peace.
There's little or no talk about the waves of mega-mergers and consolidation.
There's little or no...
Suffice to say, it's a long list.
The only suspense now is will Bernie accept being the other half of the ticket?
Interesting piece in the Guardian today from Thomas Frank:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/07/donald-trump-why-americans-support
It's worth the read. In doing so, contemplate the comparison between the raw, visceral rage Trump taps versus the very managed rhetoric of the Tad Devine crafted & reined in candidate, Bernie Sanders.
Imagine where we'd be today if Bernie hadn't given Hils the free pass on the emails and instead gone for the jugular that is her record?
Early on, campaign operatives issued instructions for volunteers to not name names, tread lightly, etc. How one could imagine defeating a Clinton with such a certain holds-barred approach boggles imagination. Is that really taking a 'high road' approach or is more about protecting brand Obama/DNC?
I don't think Bernie is trying to protect the Obama/DNC brand. Choosing the 'high road' is what his moral integrity is all about. And if that is not recognized by the majority of Americans, I would say they are going to get what they deserve. Hopefully, that will not be the case. Regardless, I wouldn't be surprised if he did get more feisty..then of course, the Bernie bashing will be about 'I thought you weren't going to go negative'. Silly thing is, all he's doing is telling the truth. Sad when truth becomes synonymous with negativity...or, you could realize that the truth reveals what is negative/bad in our government affairs and it would be positive to head in the direction of real change. I think he is a genuine good guy and I don't think we have seen one of those since JFK.
Post a Comment