Is there anything to gain by repeating the false meme that Clinton can't win against Trump?

[joshcryer]

1) It is mathematically unlikely Sanders can win the plegeded delegate count, as well as the popular vote, so arguing that Clinton can't win will not have an effect on the polls. Hillary Clinton used this argument against Obama, saying in polls she did better against McCain than Obama.

2) Given 1) and the fact that we have precedence where the superdelegates choose the pledged delegate leader (Obama had 62 more than Clinton in 2008), it's also unlikely that making Clinton's 2008 argument will change their minds.

3) If the superdelegates did flip the nomination to the popular vote and pledged delegate loser, the will of the core minority vote will be overturned, and they may just well sit it out in protest.

So, there really doesn't seem to be any positive gain here, especially since it's just totally wrong. Trump has an even worse demographic disadvantage than Romney. He's fucked. You can point to polls all you want. The key problem in these debates is a fundamental inability to do third grade math.

[Dem2]

1. I've asked same

no answers that were on topic

[Baobab]

21. Its far less probable, "can't implies impossibility.

Clinton will pick up lots of Republican hawks in the general so you never know..

her new-found friends..

[JI7]

2. i think there are some people who want trump to beat clinton

and will vote for him.

[joshcryer]

4. Yeah, Trump pumpers.

They also believe he's secretly a Hollywood liberal despite his documented history of being a racist sexist xenophobic bigot.

[auntpurl]

75. Oh yeah. On this very website. Loads.

[Actor]

101. Yes, I have witnessed that here.

The numbers today will change.

It is important to remember any republican has an advantage given the right to vote no longer exists for POC, students, old people, etc.

They have the ability to vote maybe, at best

[Hortensis]

130. Oh, yes. And some few are eaten up with malice.

I finally had too much, gave up waiting for the election to be called, and have been putting them on "ignore" by the dozens. I figured this thread should draw out a bunch I haven't hit yet.

[SheenaR]

3. Thought I had you on ignore

After you called me privileged for having worked my way to pay for college but I'll bite and answer this.

Nobody should be saying she can't beat him. Sure, she mathematically could. We are saying she won't beat him. Different.

[joshcryer]

5. And you're wrong.

It's, again, a failure to understand third grade math. And yeah, you must forgive me for saying a college grad is privileged.

Totally out of line.

[SheenaR]

6. Yup

Still the same guy. Clueless. Enjoy your night.

[joshcryer]

8. You didn't answer the question.

So much disappointment come Nov fit the Trump believers. Pity.

[cheapdate]

40. And that's how a useful word becomes meaningless

through careless and indiscriminate overuse.

I see you're spending your free time using a computer connected to the internet to chat with strangers.

Privilege.

See how that works?

[joshcryer]

45. How can I disagree with that?

Am I not privileged?

What an absurd argument.

FYI you don't know the context of that comment, it was about voting.

[cheapdate]

49. Your "privilege" attack was absurd,

unnecessary, and devoid of meaning.

[joshcryer]

52. People saying they are not privileged...

...while saying they can afford a Trump presidency are contradicting themselves.

[skepticscott]

78. Not just third grade math

Anyone who cites popular vote polls to prove that Clinton can't beat Trump is either blatantly dishonest or blindingly ignorant. The president is not elected by popular vote. If you want to prove Trump is a sure winner against Clinton, show us the STATES he's got locked up. Show us what STATES he's sure to win that McCain and Romney didn't. Show us Trump's winning electoral map. Show us what demographics in those states they didn't win that he will.

[madokie]

82. and just what states does Clinton have locked up?

That map of yours I want to see

[skepticscott]

87. Where did I say she had any states locked up?

Oh, right... I didn't. I'm not the one making claims about the GE. Those who are have the burden of showing meaningful evidence. Which I'm still waiting for.

[nadinbrzezinski]

125. Well I can assure you that CA is not in play

but some internal polls in the past, leaked to the NY Post had Bloomberg dropped out, since NY might be.

[SheenaR]

96. Ask and you shall receive

http://www.270towin.com/maps/azJ94

And yes, I included RI because if anyone had a clue as to what's going on around here they would know why she lost RI and why record numbers dropped their Dem affiliation to vote Trump.

There's your math buddy

[DemocratSinceBirth]

102. Obama won RI 63-35 in 012 . If she's losing RI she is literally going to lose all fifty states.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Rhode_Island,_2012


States don't move in isolation. Any political scientist will tell you that.


BTW, you claim a familiarity with odds...If you believe what you write here is a chance to steal bookie's money:




http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2016/winner

[SheenaR]

104. If someone was going to bet Trump

I'd say now, or right after his next screwup would be the time to do it. I don't want him to win. So no bet here.

RI and MA SHOULD go to HRC. I am telling you as being here and in the mix, it's going to be a lot closer than usual and I really feel the politics of RI (3 corruption scandals in 3 weeks) are representative of that faction that has had it with anyone remotely resembling status quo.

As of right now, my vote will be Democrat and will never be Republican

[DemocratSinceBirth]

105. Trump is in a demographic straitjacket.

He needs > 65% of the white vote to win, and even in that instance it can go either way.

Only Nixon and Reagan reached or came close to reaching those lofty numbers.

[skepticscott]

135. Nice try, but laughable fail

You put up a user-generated map that assigns a bunch of states to Trump, with no evidence whatsoever that he's a lock to win them all.

Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Virginia, New Hampshire, Nevada, Rhode Island were all won by the Democrats in 2008 and 2012. A guy who is even less popular among blacks, women and Hispanics than Romney or McCain were is going to flip all of them? Prove it.

Try again. Show us why Clinton cannot win.

[Miles Archer]

85. The definition of the word "baggage."

"Nobody should be saying she can't beat him. Sure, she mathematically could. We are saying she won't beat him. Different."

There's a lot of wisdom in that, and I hope that folks with "H->" as their avatar can grasp it.

1). Look at where Trump is right now. He pretty much destroyed the Republican party and laid to waste all 17 occupants of the Primaries Clown Car© to become the "presumptive nominee."

2). He's rude, he's vulgar, he's a self-promoter and pitchman with no political experience, and...see #1.

3). There is no authoritative demographic, no "definitive" percentage, of voters who dislike or distrust Hillary Clinton, but from every number I've seen, the numbers aren't low.

4). The "two for one" Clinton deal (http://nypost.com/2016/05/16/hillarys-going-to-put-bill-in-charge-of-fixing-the-economy/)...“My husband . . . I’m going to put in charge of revitalizing the economy because you know, he knows how to do it,”...is not going to be met with universal enthusiasm from all voters, and Trump is already hammering Bill's "alleged" infidelities. Take the personal component out of it and you still have Welfare Reform, NAFTA, and the rest. We're talking about a landfill's worth of baggage, and so far I don't see a feasible charm offensive to deflect it.

5). Trump's supporters do not question or challenge any statement he makes. Build a wall? Get 'er done. End of story.

6). Hillary's frequent contempt for questions she doesn't like, the whole "That's ridiculous, I'm not even going to answer that" stance is not going to play well with voters.

7). Bernie Sanders. We are well past the point of Bernie "telling" his supporters to "rally behind Hillary." Even if he does that, too many people have worked too hard to trade apples for oranges. What they will do is anybody's guess. Stay home and not vote? Rally behind Hillary? Vote for a third party candidate, if there is one? If you take the total number of voters who do not plan to vote for Clinton under any circumstances, and couple that with disenfranchised Bernie supporters, the numbers don't look good.

No one is saying he will win. But to think that this is a slam-dunk for Clinton would be a tragic error.

bag·gage
ˈbaɡij/
noun
noun: baggage

1.
personal belongings packed in suitcases for traveling; luggage.
synonyms: luggage, suitcases, cases, bags
"leave your baggage with the inspectors"
the portable equipment of an army.
2.
past experiences or long-held ideas regarded as burdens and impediments.
"the emotional baggage I'm hauling around"

[timmymoff]

7. Then you have nothing to worry about

self delete before you show the gop operatives your fear You are only weakening your candidate with such questions get on the ball, get in line, tighten up this ship, they are always watching sounds like whistling past a graveyard to me

[joshcryer]

10. Worry?

Trump is the next McGovern. I'm wondering if anything is to gain from it, like if people can argue a strategy for shitting on the likely nominee as having a positive result. It sure isn't going to get Sanders elected.

It's mostly pointless blather.

[timmymoff]

11. Then self delete, I knew that before your admission.

[joshcryer]

12. Nope.

My argument is sound. None of this helps Sanders or Clinton.

The good thing I can see is that we're getting it out if our system early. This should be resolved by the time Sanders comes out in support of her, and it won't be revisited.

[timmymoff]

15. Yea hopefully bernie can get 1/4 of his support to go woth clinton, but doubt it

2 million more votes won't hurt. It won't be 9 million, but every vote counts when people don't like you. Especially all those independent thinkers. Well her gop donors will help her.

[Baobab]

23. Hillary has to change her platform

But she cant, because of those pesky "disciplines on domestic regulation" they never told us about.

#HillarySoDishonest

[PufPuf23]

86. McGovern was a good man and would have been a better POTUS than the corrupt Nixon.

What happened to McGovern was more a negative indictment of the American voters who foolishly put Nixon in office.

The American voters put Nixon in office and are capable of putting Trump in office.

Hillary Clinton could very well lose a POTUS election against Trump but I don't think that will happen.

Clinton is the heir apparent of the neo-liberal and global empire trend that put Reagan, the Bushes, Bill Clinton, and to a lesser extent POTUS Obama in office.

I would rather see the Democratic convention come up with a brokered candidate than nominate Clinton. I would be disappointed because Sanders is refreshingly not a neo-liberal. If something negative happens to Clinton, I expect that the Democratic establishment would try to displace Sanders in any case at the Philadelphia convention.

The Democratic establishment and DNC made a major error in treating Hillary Clinton as an incumbent and presumed nominee because her high negatives with the American people and within the Democratic party were already known. That strategy dampened any POTUS ambition be other Democratic pols, to seriously challenge Clinton would have been career suicide. Even now, the "committed" super-delegates ties to Clinton have to consider the repercussions from the DNC and a POTUS Clinton of coming out against Clinton.

The math is that Sanders will do better in a general election than Hillary Clinton, especially if the same Democratic support is offered to Sanders.

Hillary Clinton and her campaign surrogates have smeared Sanders while Clinton has smeared herself by her actions, who she has chosen for financial support, past decisions, and lies. I voted for and supported Bill Clinton in the 1990s and find more to criticize with hindsight; however, my animus towards Hillary Clinton comes from what has occurred since 2000, specifically how Clinton has campaigned in 2008 and 2016, The Clinton Foundation, her taking money from banks, and her foreign policy stance as SOS and Senator (Ukraine, Iraq, Honduras, Syria, Iran, Libya; buddies with Netanyahu and Kissinger). Hillary Clinton strikes me as entitled mean.

So I am more against Hillary Clinton than for Bernie Sanders no matter how surprising and refreshing Sanders is to me specifically. I would be glad if the Democratic party found a third candidate at the convention to replace Clinton but disappointed that Sanders never received full party support.

[lovemydog]

9. No, not for the left.

Other than maybe personal satisfaction, for narcissists.

Or those who believe they are great prognosticators. And never remember any time they've been wrong.

In my opinion.

[basselope]

13. Its not a "false meme"

It is reality. It is repeated b/c it is the only way the democrats can win.

Clinton cannot beat Trump.

People fail to understand how difficult a time Clinton will have in key swing states like Ohio, Florida, PA, Wisc, North Carolina.

Given the voter suppression tactics of the GOP that are in place in these states, Clinton would need OVERWHELMING turnout among the democratic base and it just ain't gonna happen for her. .

Sorry, but she can't win.

[joshcryer]

16. Statements about GE polls are pointless this far out.

Obama was losing handedly to McCain in the pre connection polls in 2008. Hillary Clinton used that argument to the supers. We've been down this road before. If Sanders busts his ass for Hillary like she did for Obama, unification is ez and her favorables skyrocket.

[kaleckim]

35. You're wrong, possibly lying

Obama was not a tenth as well known as Clinton is. People know her, whether you like it or not, they don't like her or trust her. What are people going to learn between now and November that will result in a major upsurge in support? Be honest, isn't it also possible that dirt is going to be brought up that can also make her look even worse? May be true of Trump too. They're the two most unpopular candidates in polling history, and given how horribly negative the campaign is likely to be, the victor in the election will be viewed negatively by the public. Clinton, as we stand now according to all the polls, is more beatable and while things can change, you also can't predict the damn future any more than I can. That's where we are and you saying that there is not a strong correlation between polls now, approaching June, and the final results is wrong. If that were the case, Democrats would refrain from citing any polls about the November elections, and Nate Silver would stop doing any polling on November elections for a few months, since it is supposedly meaningless. You don't believe that, no one does. You all should have listened before we got to this point.

[joshcryer]

39. The same thing that gave Obama his push.

A party unified with the loser backing the winner.

I'm not telling anyone to stop doing anything except pretending that this is useful rhetoric, because it's not. Please by all means continue on.

It's a fact Clinton made the same arguments to no avail in 2008. That's not a lie.

[kaleckim]

48. The ideological divide

between Clinton and Obama was paper thin. When it came time for her to concede, she proudly points out now that she demanded nothing at all policy wise, as if that is a good thing. She didn't care enough about any issue to demand action in any way, what she got was her gig at the State Department. She and Sanders are much further apart ideologically and it's naive to think he's going to back her unquestionably, since she in many ways is exactly what he's running against. She's corrupt, won't take on the interests backing her, has a center-right economic record and is to his right on foreign policy (and I don't think either are great on foreign policy, she's just worse). Why would he go against his principles, especially given how she and the DNC have treated him, and stop pushing her? Even if he did, do you think his followers would just automatically do the same? A large number would lose respect for him and wonder what the hell his candidacy was ultimately about. Him backing her will have zero impact on me and whatever decision I make, whether to support her or someone like Jill Stein, or another third party candidate. Earn my vote, ain't too much to ask.

Oh, and before you try the whole, you must want Trump as president thing, I live in a state that will go to her if she's the nominee. So, if you bother to respond, make a case for her in isolation relative to someone like Jill Stein on policy. Good luck.

[joshcryer]

51. You have pour judgement of Sanders character.

Everyone, even Clinton supporters here, think Sanders is going to contest this thing and "Bern Down Philly."

The world doesn't work that way.

History is repeating itself.

[kaleckim]

57. Do you realize

that everything you say is predicated on your ability to predict the future and to see dimensions of reality no other human can? I'm impressed. I bow my head in respect and wish you a good night. It was an honor, sir.

[joshcryer]

62. It's called judgement...

...like, you recognize past behavior and extrapolate. You do this in your life daily, just walking down the street. Cars driving by? You judge that they're not going to drive off the road and kill you.

Me? I read Sanders books, I followed his career. He's a great man.

[basselope]

56. You're not understanding the issue.

You are not going to see "unification" in the same type of way you say in 2008 b/c Hillary and Obama were basically the same. People had some hope that Obama was going to turn out to be different, so they gave him a try, but by 2012 he lost 10MM of his voters b/c they saw the same old, same old. Clinton won't even be able to keep that number.

No matter how much Bernie endorses and BEGS his people to vote for Clinton.. a LARGE number of them (including myself) will never do it, because Clinton is the embodiment of what is wrong with democratic party and politics today. Many of us ONLY came back for Bernie.. not for the party.. because we needed him to change the party. We understand that he must follow through on his promises to help her.. but as he said, he can't snap his fingers and make us vote for her.

You are also ignoring the main point. The GOP has spent the last 8 years sharpening their voter suppression tactics in key swing states. Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania. Hillary is going to have a VERY VERY VERY hard time in these states no matter what the polls show b/c the places where she is counting on getting the most votes is going to have the hardest time voting. Further, to add to her woes, he is suffering from a lack of enthusiasm in the general electorate and low voter turnout = GOP victory.

The next thing everyone wants to ignore is that the polls have been fairly, consistently, WRONG in the same direction. They have underestimated Trump and Bernie. You can check RCP for the majority of primaries. Trump and Bernie have both outperformed their expectations.. often by more than 10 points. This is b/c most polls look at Likely Voters. Well... they aren't attracting "likely voters".

If the democrats make the mistake of putting Hillary as the nominee.. this election comes down to "establishment" vs "anti-establishment", with the only difference being that Trump will likely get the establishment republican vote, but Hillary WON'T get the anti-establishment democratic vote.

She just doesn't have a viable path.

[joshcryer]

60. Nah, you're exaggerating.

The numbers are lower this year than in 2008 (this less people 'burned' by the process). The BOB movement is smaller than the PUMAs.

[basselope]

88. Sorry, but no.

In 2008 you didn't have any real differences between the candidates.

This time, you do.

[joshcryer]

90. That wasn't the perception then.

Back then Clinton was seen as a warhawk and Obama was a liberal savior. That's why so many, oh so many, became disillusioned with Obama, because he didn't really bring that "hope and change" that he was pretending to bring. His campaign was ultimately a massive consumer campaign that misled a lot of people, a whole lot of people.

I'm not concerned.

[basselope]

92. LOL.

And you therein explain why he lost 10MM votes between 2008 and 2012 and fell apart during the midterms.

Yes, a % of people believed in hope and change. I didn't and warned people. I also didn't vote for him.

Policy wise; however, they were nearly identical and the vast majority recognized that.

You can not be concerned all you want, but the reality is that she has no viable path.

[joshcryer]

95. Right, those 10 million didn't go to Romney, though.

And they won't go to Trump.

It's going to be the same thing.

[basselope]

98. Are you really this much inside the bubble??

Trump isn't looking for THOSE 10 MM people.

He has a whole different group that are the same. THOSE 10MM people are the strong liberals who gave up when they realized Obama wasn't going to fight for his principles. Bernie has them right now, but Clinton doesn't and there is nothing she can do to get them.

On the other side of the coin, there are far right wingers who felt the same way about McCain and Romney.. but Trump has them. THEY are going to turn and vote for him.

THEY are the "unlikely voters" who don't get counted in polls. This is why the polls have been so off in so many places against both Trump and Sanders. They both attract the unlikely voter.. the person who feels strongly one way or the other and dislikes "the system".

[joshcryer]

99. Once Clinton cinches I'll write up an OP.

Trump, like Sanders, cannot rely on some mythical voting bloc. We see how well his nomination is going relying on the youth vote.

The winner in November is going to win by solid connections with old school groups, the AA vote, and in particular the woman and Latino vote. Demographics Trump has no hope of winning.

The ineffectual left tried to depress turnout in 2012, it didn't work.

[basselope]

100. LOL.

Wow. You are so lost inside the bubble.

You can write whatever you want as an OP. If clinton clinches, I won't be here to read it.

However, I will just say it here.

I have NEVER in my entire life gotten a presidential election wrong.

My friends are still amazed by the fact that when they asked me about 2000 I told them that bush "was going to keep it close enough to steal".

This isn't going to be a first for me.

But I am guessing you thought Kerry was going to win in 2004?

I was here then, warning people that if they went with Kerry, there was no chance.

I was right then and I am right now.

[joshcryer]

106. I knew Kerry wasn't going to win.

And I predicted Obama would win very shortly after he announced. (When people said he was a long shot.)

[basselope]

116. I doubt your Kerry statement, but do not feel like combing through 56K posts to use your own words

against you.

And ANYONE with a brain knew Obama was going to win.

There was no other solid candidate.

[joshcryer]

108. Btw, if you leave, like so many...

...what do you expect to gain from this rhetoric? It seems you will scuttle off cowardly so you can come back at a later time to prattle about whatever.

If I felt so strongly about something my account be damned. I wish all the cowards would put their money where their mouth is.

[basselope]

119. I'd be happy to stay, but I am not allowed.

This forum's rules forbid me to stay if Clinton is the nominee, because I will not be supporting her.

What would be the point? Post a message that will get deleted before anyone who matters sees it and my account tombstoned?

There are other places to post.

What is to gain from this "rhetoric." Because, IF the democratic party chooses to nominate Clinton, they are going to have to look back and wonder why they lost and the posts I am posting today will serve as the hindsight people need to have.

The only cowards I see are the ones who demand "party unity" and make up rules like "to post here you must support our candidate". That's cowardly.

[ContinentalOp]

19. You make a strong point.

All this time, I was thinking that it was quite likely that she would crush Trump, but I had no idea about these new facts that you're bringing to light. I wish somebody had told me "Clinton cannot beat Trump" sooner. Why weren't we alerted to this? In addition, "Sorry, but she can't win" is important information that voters should have been told months ago. This startling new information will definitely change my vote in the CA primary that has absolutely no chance of changing the outcome.

If only we had all noticed sooner that Sanders beat Clinton in all of those key swing states like Ohio, Florida, PA, and North Carolina!

[basselope]

58. Way to ignore it.

Do you honestly not understand how hard it is going to be for her to turn out voters?

Do you honestly not understand how wrong the polls have been and how consistently?

She has no viable path to victory b/c she won't win Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin or North Carolina just due to voter suppression and low turnout.

You NEED a candidate who can appeal to independents to do that and that certainly isn't Clinton.

[ContinentalOp]

61. If she's going to lose due to voter suppression in Penn, Ohio, FL, NC

Then how would Sanders do any better considering that she beat him in all of those states?

[obamanut2012]

71. You said it before I could

I love the "fact" Bernie would do better than Hillary in stets she beat him in, especially landslide states like PA and FL.

She will will FL, OH, WI, and PA -- and has a very good shot at NC.

[basselope]

89. B/c Sanders appeal is to a different set of voters.

Big difference when you are fighting over then 29% of the population who considers themselves democrats and the 41% of the population who are independents.

Clinton will not be able to get the turnout.

[Iliyah]

14. Corporate media say the same shit every presidential election cycle always in favor

to GOP.

[PufPuf23]

17. The Democratic party could draft at the convention for POTUS just about any Democratic politician

with national recognition and they would have a more favorable outlook for the general election than Hillary Clinton.

I expect Clinton to win as Clinton best continues the tradition of (Kissinger), Reagan, both Bushes, Bill Clinton, and to a lesser extent POTUS Obama.

A more accurate concept is that Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee most likely to lose the general election for POTUS.

The Democratic establishment and DNC made a grave error in treating Hillary Clinton like an incumbent and presumptive nominee.

The damage to the Democratic party is done (and the damage appears in part deliberate to me. The neo-liberals want the anti-war liberals out of the party but still useful to scape goat).

edit to replace "m" with "n" in national

[ContinentalOp]

20. That's why we support Clinton

Because she is "any Democratic politician" unlike the non-democrat who can't even win the democratic primary! Duh.

[PufPuf23]

26. You forgot, "they would have a more favorable outlook for the general election than Hillary Clinton"

That's one reason why I do not support Hillary Clinton.

[ContinentalOp]

31. Somebody else who isn't running might theoretically do better than Clinton,

so you're not going to support Clinton in the GE?

[PufPuf23]

38. I am keeping my powder dry now.

I have posted earlier at DU that I would vote as a Democrat for Clinton but not as a Clinton supporter, and I would be angry and hold a grudge about that circumstance.

Hillary Clinton lacks the character to be CIC and POTUS.

I know I won't vote Trump nor GOP nor 3rd party. I never have in 45 years of being a registered and voting member of the Democratic party.

One exception, I registered GOP to vote in the 1980 POTUS primary for John Anderson, a vote specifically against Reagan; my favored candidate that year for POTUS was Jerry Brown but I did vote Carter in general elections of 1976 and 1980.

[woolldog]

73. It's sad that Jerry Brown was never President.

He would've made a great POTUS.

[PufPuf23]

79. Agree. The 1970s Jerry Brown would have been a great POTUS.

Jerry Brown is one of the few politicians that takes the skills of governing and administration seriously, a very pragmatic man of good heart.

Jerry Brown of the 1970s was way ahead of the curve and got called Governor Moonbeam for his correct vision and good heart.

Brown is one of the few politicians that I have voted for than other by a process of elimination or because they bore the label Democrat.

I liked Ron Dellums of the 1970s and 1980s very much as well.

Glad that the older Jerry Brown is Governor of California, he has done so much for the state.

If I had known a 70 plus year old person would be my favorite candidate for POTUS in 2016, I would have chosen Brown still.

[Bonobo]

18. Polls are polls. False memes are something else.

Are you suggesting we should not discuss the polls that have consistently shown Sanders to be a better matchup?

I decline.

[joshcryer]

22. How accurate were they with Obama?

And you didn't answer the question. What gain is there? Sanders has lost. It's third grade math.

Please by all means get it out of your system. Spend the next three weeks talking about how the most qualified candidate in modern history is weak against a sexist bigoted xenophobe billionaire. A wall building, mass deportation, torturer. My oh my. You say it enough times you might just believe it.

But please don't pretend you're doing it for some greater good. Be honest with yourself.

[Bonobo]

24. The trend is at least significant, Josh.

I am completely honest with myself by the way.

I am interested in a re-empowered working class and a Democratic Party that supports it.

[joshcryer]

29. Trend in a contested primary?

With mud slinging still going on?

This is the same time in the 2008 primary Obama dipped in the polls against McCain.

[Bonobo]

32. I'm referring to the matchup between Hillary and Trump VS. Sanders and Trump.

The number may be off.

The trend is not.

[joshcryer]

36. Trump is getting a bump from unification.

Clinton will as well.

The trend will flip just as it did in 2008.

Really, we've been here before.

[kaleckim]

41. Situations not at all the same

He wasn't nearly as well known as Clinton is now, and had lots of room to grow as a result. People know her, there is nothing that is likely to lead to a radical upsurge in support for her, and information that does come out between now and the election is just as likely to hurt as harm her, especially given all the stuff swirling around her, her foundation, the banks, etc. If she were running against anyone but Trump, she'd be toast, and even with Trump (the most disliked nominee in polling history), she's now essentially tied nationally and in key swing states. Amazingly, her supporters thought it was a bright idea to blatantly lie about Sanders supporters, days after they pulled their undemocratic BS in Vegas. Brilliant move there, and DWS is lying about one of her parties nominees in front of the damn national media. That's gonna help Clinton's chances.

[libdem4life]

131. How can you say polls are inaccurate...

or undependable ... using 3rd grade math ... then cite them when declaring who has won or lost. Given that logic, we don't know if Hillary is winning either. That means even Jeb might still have a chance.

No candidate in history has destroyed evidence, wiped servers, refused to cooperate, and has unfavorables and Investigations pending as a first time candidate. The Investigation, unlike even the unfavorables, can not be dismissed as just polling magic.

Depositions...which I hear nothing about here or from any "good" Democrats...are legal and binding and if they don't match up with whatever evidence the Investigation has and the other they deposed...and no one really knows that, even HRC herself. Her aides could conceivably do jail time if they lie for her. And poor Huma Abedin...first her husband, then her employer.

She should have stepped down long ago. Now she brings in Bill just to double down on her lack of judgment.

Amazing Bubble.

.

[bvf]

25. Like a lot of people here,

you need to learn what a meme is, and how it differs from real life.

You're about to find out.

The term is overused by the ignorant. Please educate yourself.

[joshcryer]

33. Oh it's a meme all right.

[Bonobo]

27. Fixed OP Title: "Let's not discuss the impending train wreck that is still barely avoidable" nt

[Trajan]

28. I support Sanders

I do NOT support Clinton, OR Trump, and will never vote for either ...

Do you understand ? ...

Good ... we are done here ....

[joshcryer]

30. So when Sanders stumps for Clinton you won't support him?

[Trajan]

34. No ... I wont ....

I love Bernie for many reasons, but that is primarily because 1) He cares, and 2) I embrace his stated policy positions, to the letter ... When it comes to MY vote, however, I don't expect to follow anybody's guidance except my own ...

Tell me .... Who informed YOU to vote for Clinton ?

[joshcryer]

37. I'm not voting for Clinton.

I'm voting against Trump.

[silvershadow]

43. Oh, so then you WILL vote for Bernie if he comes out of the convention the nominee? nt

[joshcryer]

46. Without a doubt.

I guess I didn't make your ignore list?

[silvershadow]

50. No. So far you haven't appeared to me to be delusional. Just in the other camp.

[joshcryer]

55. My state went for Sanders.

With my efforts. It's not on me that he lost, I did my part. My delegates are going to the convention. I did all I could do. Now my sights are on the general election.

[silvershadow]

59. Mine will be, at the appropriate time. nt

[Trajan]

44. Good luck with that

I'm voting FOR something - The well being of the Poor and Middle Classes ...

Perhaps the person whom you intend to vote for should say things that the poor and middle classes want to hear ...

And, be authentic saying it ...

Maybe that candidate would be more successful without having to cheat ... Cheating is quite unbecoming, dontcha know ...

[silvershadow]

42. CNN just reported latest polling suggesting the "meme" isn't false (and thus, not a "meme"). nt

[still_one]

47. Those wo propagate that have the mindset of either their person, or they will take the whole

party down.

That won't happen though, and just another reason to avoid engagement with those whose entire intention is flamebait

[dchill]

53. It is politically unlikely that...

a candidate under FBI investigation can be elected president. What is to be gained by nominating her?

[The_Casual_Observer]

54. If you were a pissed off bernie anarchist it would the logical thing to say

[underthematrix]

63. Let the Bernie supporters say whatever they need to make themselves feel better

in 2008, some of HRC's most vocal supporters went through the same mourning process. In the end, I'm with President Obama. There will NOT be a president trump in the WH in 2017.

[SheilaT]

64. Well, let's see. Polling since last fall has shown

Bernie doing better than Hillary in the GE. What do you mean by "false meme'?

[joshcryer]

68. Trump needs nearly half the Latino vote.

And Romney couldn't even get a third if it. Si guess that going to work? Obama had a very similar do in the polls around this same time against McCain.

[Tortmaster]

65. Only if you're a Republican, or if ...

... you live in such a privileged world that Donald Trump as President won't fuck you over.

I suspect a lot of the polling is ratfucking by Sanders' supporters. Most of those, in the end, will vote for the only sane choice.

[KPN]

66. No generally but yes in this case

because it's really not false. Hillary is a weak candidate as all the polls have and continue to show. In fact, her numbers are trending down and she trails Trump already. Whenb will this downward trend end? Not anytime soon if you look at her last run.

[joshcryer]

69. This latest poll is literally the first credible poll putting her behind.

Obama had a very similar thing happen.

[ThePhilosopher04]

67. If there's nothing to gain and it's a "false meme" why are you bothering to respond.

[quaker bill]

70. There is nothing to gain, saying it here in 2004 did not help either

Telling folks here that Mr. Kerry would lose by 3% here before the Iowa Caucus in 2004 did not stop the bandwagon. Been there, done that.

The problem with Hillary in my mind is that she has a very loyal following that represents 46 to 47 percent of the vote. 53 to 54 percent disapprove. She is a very well known candidate and these numbers have set like concrete.

Her only hope of winning is to drive Trump's turnout numbers down. This will be difficult to do, as the 17 other Republicans have learned. Over and over Trump has done stuff that would have ended the political career of nearly any politician we have ever seen. Hillary is faced with the very difficult challenge of making Trump more offensive than he makes himself.

Well trained politicians are no good at this, and Trump knows that. Hillary is a well trained politician who paints within the lines. A candidate cannot smear this man better than he smears himself. Heck, JEB, the latest BFEE product could not touch him. Remember the BFEE had no problem with smearing McCain. This is an entirely different task.

Hillary might win, but I do not think the odds of that are anywhere near as good as many here expect. If I was betting, I would put money on Trump, but I would desperately hope to lose.

[Hortensis]

132. Most of Trump's polls are very deceptive because

they so often measure Republicans, not conservatives. Pubs are something like 26% of the electorate these days. If Trump's getting 57% of 26% of the electorate, he's not doing nearly as well as people imagine. Of course, most right-leaning indies have in recent elections been voting the same as if they'd never left the GOP, and we'll have to see how they break this time around, also what turnout is in November.

Also, most media have a strong tendency to play with their reporting to not only make a horse race, but to tighten the races up so badly that they bear little resemblance to reality. Look at how many "respectable" journals have been styling their stories the past couple of months to make it seem as if Bernie still really could win, not just theoretically but in reality, when it has been effectively impossible.

[quaker bill]

133. It was effectively impossible for Bernie

When Hillary started with 524 SD before the first vote was cast. That he has done as well as he has in spite of the fact that the deck was severely stacked against him, is impressive.

I am not concerned about the Trump polls. The only thing that has concerned me is Hillary's consistent 53 to 56% disapproval rate nationwide. It is cast in concrete and has been around for well more than a decade. It concerned me in 2008 and nothing about this has changed.

I do not see how she moves this number and in the final analysis, does whoever is standing against her with an (R) next to his name get whatever she doesn't? I see the odds of this pretty high.

I will vote for Hillary to oppose Trump, but am afraid a somewhat larger number will vote for Trump simply to oppose Hillary.

[Hortensis]

134. The SD stacked AGAINST Bernie?

I don't think you've given this enough thought. It should have been stacked FOR him, and it's entirely his fault that it was not.

Bernie was in Congress for a quarter century. He had a quarter century start on developing relationships with his colleagues, to let them know him, realize he shared their goals and they could count on him for support, and become impressed and see him as a person they could support. Also, as a very powerful U.S. Senator, he should have been able to form alliances with other influential people around the nation.

But--0! It didn't happen. During those 25 years, most of them as a U.S. Senator, many came and moved past Sanders to positions of greater influence and importance, including Hillary, over whom he should have had a tremendous advantage in "SD"s.

But he had made almost no alliances, impressed no one particularly at his level, irritated more than a few, and when he ran for president and needed his colleagues' support, I think initially, wasn't it none who would endorse him? Two or three after a while? Slowly building to whatever it is today as he did exceptionally well in some congressional districts?

You know, Trump has nothing like the support of 524 colleagues who will work for him. I agree there is much to be afraid of right now, and no matter who our candidate was, I would be afraid. You really should consider what that giant, extremely impressive number, 524, means, though. All these professionals know her and believe she can win.

And, although Bernie's followers severely and unfairly underestimate the ideals of so many in Congress, yes, many did endorse her not only because they thought she was the best way to achieve their legislative goals but also to hitch their career wagons to her star.

[quaker bill]

136. Oh come now,

Sec. Clinton has had every possible advantage. She was in the Whitehouse for 8 years. She is the establishment.

Sure, you are correct, politics are not played "fair". It is played "for keeps". It is not a matter of what you stand for, it is who you know and have formed alliances with over the decades. There is nothing wrong with that per se, it just produces losers.

I am pretty sure you are correct about the system and how it works. I happen to find it objectionable. John Kerry played this same game quite well, won the nomination, and came up short. My family spent a lot of time and money coming up short on that one, as I was sure we would. A lot of party professionals knew John Kerry and believed he would win. They were wrong from day 1.

Ideals are what you actually stand up for, not what you say you "believe" in while passing something else. A person's ideals are best understood by what they do, not by the speeches they make, but what they are willing to risk.

Sec. Clinton is risk adverse. It was riskier to vote no on the IWR. She and Sen Kerry, fell on the safe side, Bernie took a risk. It did not make him friends. I am ok with that.

[Hortensis]

138. Making friends is objectionable to you?

You want a system without it? Your partisanship is leading you down a bizarre road.

[quaker bill]

140. As stated, there is nothing wrong with it per se

The system just produces losers.

Think about it a bit. Who has won and where did they come from?

Jimmy Carter came from the outside and was generally rejected by the Washington establishment. In fact when he was elected, the establishment democrats in Washington still opposed him and fought with him on legislative matters. Then they primaried him.

Bill Clinton came from outside the Washington establishment and was given little chance by them to win in the primaries. He overcame them and won the Whitehouse (with the help of Perot)

Barack Obama came from the relative outside and faced the "inevitable" Hillary Clinton who had lots of SDs and was heavily favored by the Washington establishment.

Now let's consider who lost

Fritz Mondale, an establishment politician and former VP.

Dukakis, a Governor favored by the Washington establishment.

Gore, a sitting VP, very much favored by the Washington establishment.

John Kerry, Senator, a war hero, with many friends on the hill, and the establishment choice.


The road may seem bizarre to you, but it is the road none the less. It is not there to make you comfortable just to be observed.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with making lots of friends in the party establishment. I am sure it is a lovely pastime. It is just that the people who have done this best almost never become President. You and I might prefer that things were different, you might even imagine that they are. They are not.

This is not partisanship on my part. I am a very loyal democrat who has never voted (R) in any race ever, and I always vote. Accordingly I have voted for, worked for and donated to many losers and am familiar with the smell and flavor of it.

[Hortensis]

142. You sound very sincere, but here's my viewpoint.

Basically, we have a truly great system. Over the centuries many have been amazed that our system of, by, and for the people has even survived, much less stumbled on as well as it has. The "people" factor being the kicker.

Winston Churchill's “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others” isn't just a humorous little chuckle, it was a grim statement of fact by a man who rose to the top of his government and fought to succeed in spite of that reality every day.

This is all a way of saying, don't bother imagining people who just abandon filthy run-down old houses to move into sparkly, fresh new ones don't end up living in filthy run-down houses, because they do. It's not the house's doing. We not only would not benefit from "new" systems to trash, we would be making an absolutely dreadful mistake to not care for and further develop the ones those who came before us handed down.

We do, of course, absolutely need to get off our collective lazy, irresponsible, dishonest butts and fixed all the dreadful damage we have since allowed and add our own advancements. It took years to trash them this badly because it was done against great resistance, though, and it's going to take years just to restore what we need to because that will have to happen against great resistance.

Short form: "It's the people, Stupid!" I suggest maybe printing that huge factor out and tacking it up as a reminder. It's not "the system" or "them," all problems start with us and will be fixed by us, or not.

[RogueTrooper]

72. Nothing

The only group to gain from this are Republicans. This should be considered Republican enablement.

[pdsimdars]

74. First, it is the truth. Second, maybe it will sink in BEFORE it is too late.

She is not the nominee yet, maybe by continuing to shout that the bridge is out, maybe you'll stop the train before it is too late. You know, like smart people do, who use facts and their intelligence. Remember that?

Rather than bullying forward and then saying, "Who could have known?"

[SmittynMo]

76. Are you friggin blind?

A TV entertainer just obliterated the GOP establishment. All 17 of them. And for some reason, people think he's done? WRONG!!!

This is exactly what he has been planning for. Once she is the one, look out HRC, he's coming, and he's coming hard. She'll just be another notch on his belt.

Trump is not stupid, He just said it the other day. He knows his chances are slim to none if Bernie is the nominee.

Wake up people. You're playing right into his hand.

[riversedge]

77. The only thing to gain is to give Republicans more fodder, which so many Sanders fan seem to enjoy.

[madokie]

80. its not a false meme

Hillary will never win a national election against about anyone they put up against her. Too many people don't like her. She rubs too many people the wrong way and thats not my or anyone else's fault but rather of her own making.
If she wins the dem nom its hello president tRump.

[beachbum bob]

81. feeds red meat to sanders supporters so they keep sending money and sanders still has a

microphone glued to his face....

he is done and now it appears his intent is to make sure trump is our next president......many of sanders supporters love the idea of "teaching america a lesson".....

[Vinca]

83. Have you seen this morning's polling?

And this is after Hillary's powerful ad with women mouthing Trump quotes. I don't know how you figure this is a "false meme."

[Armstead]

84. Um because this is a discussion board -- where people discuss?

We're not some smoke-filled room making the ultimate decisions on who will be the nominee.

We're an amorphous collection of people who are discussing our opinions.

[lagomorph777]

91. Uh, please have a look at the polls

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-sanders

[joshcryer]

93. The same thing happened to Obama in 2008 in the same time period.

Long protracted primary.



I'll worry if there isn't a post primary bounce back like there was for Obama. Until then I take these polls with a grain of salt.

[NCTraveler]

94. It is about personal ego. That's it. It makes themselves feel better about losing.

Schoolyard tactic. I lost... Well you will lose to. It's based in about as much reality as well. Childish temper tantrums for most and ratfucking for the rest.

[MineralMan]

97. Depends on the goal.

If the goal is to help Trump win in November, then it's useful to try to create disillusionment and despair among Democrats.

If the goal is to help Bernie get the Democratic nomination, it's a waste of time, since Hillary Clinton will be the nominee, regardless of what happens in the few remaining primaries. Proportional delegate allocation makes a Sanders nomination impossible at this point.

The general election campaign has not truly begun, since there is no actual Democratic nominee. When it does begin, the situation is going to change. Current GE polling is useless.

[lumberjack_jeff]

103. Right. We have everything to gain by ignoring Trump's advantage over Clinton.

It's important to pretend that nothing bad will happen in November. We wouldn't want to feel bad or afraid, it's a human right.

[zappaman]

107. No.

Unless you're a Trump supporter, I suppose.

[nadinbrzezinski]

109. Josh you are free to ignore reality

And this is not 2008 either. Here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511994370

[joshcryer]

110. Get back to me if she doesn't get a post primary surge.

Then we'll talk.

[nadinbrzezinski]

111. I don't care, what happens after the post convention

because I care what happens in September and October, and the dynamics I pointed to you are real. There are way more people angry at the system... and the establishment,. This is what this elections has shown to any who are actually paying attention, and I think your glasses are colored by party loyalty. There, I said it.

Now time for me to go back to my voter guide of sorts.

[joshcryer]

112. Well, if she gets the surge, why should I worry?

That means we're following the same pattern as in the last two elections.

If she doesn't, then I get concerned.

Until then I can't take it seriously.

This OP is about motivations, and not a single person responded to the arguments I made. They just reiterated the false meme.

[nadinbrzezinski]

113. Because this false meme is what is happening right now

and if this false meme happens to be real, congrats, say hi to President Trump. All I can say is people tried to warn Democrats. Myself, I am here for the show anymore. I am not going to change your mind, and you are not going to change mine. Suffice to say, many here, including you, laughed about Trump, I did not.

For the record, I expect a higher number of CA voters to NOT vote for either Trump or Clinton, but for Stein. We might even break the historic trend... yes, people are that pissed at the system, A couple of them are life members of the democratic party, who left in disgust.One became an NDP like myself, I left in disgust in 2011. The other went and joined the Greens and is now active in the party. Worst than that, they were central committee members. When I hear things like that, my ears perk up.

I don't expect yours to perk up either.

[joshcryer]

114. I don't consider Stein a credible candidate.

Now if the Greens ran someone more interesting I'd worry.

[nadinbrzezinski]

117. As I said, your ears are not going to perk

Mine did, when central committee members resigned on the spot, for good reasons mind you, and one went to the registrar, changed to green and joined the greens the same active way he has been active in the D side of the house for 35 years.

There are seismic changes going on and voting against trump is just the same shit that is ignoring that seismic anger. You are pretty good at sensing disturbances in the force abroad. There is one here. A strong one.

And no Stein is not going to win... though Tom and I were joking about it. she would be shocked if she did.

And you know why you do not sense that disturbance in the force partly, and we were also talking about it. When our glorious always honest media (I crack me up) dares to touch the subject of income inequality, for example, they do it by using charts and numbers, I talk to people affected by it. I know how pissed they are.

And when HJRC people here go about how privileged Sanders supporters are, in my mind any more that is fucking projection because they are very privilege to ignore the pain of many of the other posters, or blind I don't know. This cauldron will explode, and it will not be nice. But I do expect Trump to be the next president. I said my piece as to why months ago.

[joshcryer]

118. I have a post on privilege I'm preparing.

I wrote a similar one in 2012, when the admins let trolls like BBI post daily screeds, and people were sowing doubt about Obama's chance to win, depressing the vote, making people disillusioned.

It will be posted when the new rules take effect, because it will not go over well for the actually privileged among US.

[nadinbrzezinski]

120. Well when the new rules go into effect

i realize posting that CNN had a panel discussion on her weakness as a candidate, never mind it is on my fucking TV. will not be allowed, So I will take my leave... becuase I expect that. Or just fucking not talk about presidential politics and the rest that actually matters, maybe the Kardashians will be what to talk about.. But I said it months ago. Trump will won, and what you saw in Nevada was the visible crack of the sub-rosa war within the party.

By the way there were no chairs thrown and portraying themselves as my god I was afraid... will be political fodder in the GE. Count on it. Democrats are so afraid of their own base... that will be the meme. We are going to go back, courtesy of that stupidity, to Democrats are just weak...

And it was a strategic mistake from hell, unless the intent is NOT to unify any party but to continue the drift rightwards to a conservative party, which the democrats already are. They will get their wish. But they still need that left they despise to win. It was stupid.

[joshcryer]

121. Seems like a lot of people are going to scatter.

If there is a polling issue going into the election I won't be afraid to talk about it, because it will be important to discuss it and prepare.

As of now I'm not the least bit concerned. I don't even plan on volunteering for Clinton, that's how so blase this election is looking. Hell, if I do anything I'd have to get paid. Seems Brock is buying everyone out (see benchmark politics). Could be easy cash since I do this for free (and I have to say I have a good track record).

[nadinbrzezinski]

122. Why would people stay where they are told watch what you say

as I said, I might stay to talk about the Kardashians... that should be safe and what the PTB does.

We just had Bedlam in the House. I just ran a story because one of the gentleman part of it is one of my distinguished Congress Critters. DU, for the most part, does not care about that. To be fair the first source in news does not either.

So the safest course of action after the convention is to watch what I say (and stick to entertainment), and you being blasse, well, I said my piece, you are not getting the disturbance in the force. And quite personally I am looking forwards to the day you might, but not expecting it.

[joshcryer]

123. I don't see why we can't discuss this supposed Clinton collapse.

If it's backed by polls and actual evidence. We should be able to do so constructively.

I think people "leaving" is just as much as their not wanting to endure gloating when Clinton wins as much as a false hope she loses. This has been a very long and painful run.

[nadinbrzezinski]

124. Nah it is what it is

I will stick to E Tonight as far as DU is concerned. I do not think it will be safe to discuss politics on a political board, that is a hell of a statement but I just don't think so.

Kitties though, and kitty videos are always good. Hmm maybe parrot videos.

[joshcryer]

126. I'll continue the political discussion.

And I'll defy the admins to ban me over posting factual articles.

Of course, I won't make up bullshit memes either, so there's that...

[nadinbrzezinski]

128. Like polls and the fact that CNN (FINALLY) spoke to her weakness as a candidate

yesterday and this is becoming a media narrative now? They should have done this months ago, when Der Spiegel and La Jornada, and wait CNN=I did explore this theme.

By the way, that is not a meme. Enjoy

[Fast Walker 52]

115. I agree. At this point it is very counter-productive to say she can't win against him

Now it's still fair to say that Bernie seems to do better, IMO.

[silvershadow]

127. False? CNN just reported legitimate polling that shows Trump overtaking her for the first time. nt

[joshcryer]

129. Same happened to Obama, there's a post primary surge.

This is the pattern you can expect:



If there's no surge then you may have a point. It's going to get worse before it gets better.

[Bill USA]

137. to Bernie fans it feels good to say it. That's all the 'reason' they need.

[frustrated_lefty]

139. I'm really not sure it's false.

1) The Clintons are more hated by republicans than any other family in history.
2) Hillary is unpopular among independents, and the more they see her the less they like her.
3) Democrats are torn on Hillary.
4) The debates aren't going to be about policy, they're going to be mudslinging contests.

I respect your opinion, josh, but I don't see how Hilary overcomes the aforementioned challenges.

[Sky Masterson]

141. Probably not. Because it is not false.

I'd rather say "I told you so" when She loses to Trump and watch all the sadness and anger erupt from those clouded from reality.
She is very unlikable.
She is uninspiring.
And she will lose.
Republicans fall in line and Democrats fall in love.
She isn't loved,you can't force people to love her so many will stay home.
Sorry.