Maybe Hillary Clinton is the unelectable candidate

[DianeK]

http://linkis.com/thehill.com/blogs/co/hmCEB

Maybe Hillary Clinton is the unelectable candidate

October 20, 2015, 06:00 am
By Elia Pales

For some reason, when in talks with fellow Democrats about Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) I often hear something along the lines of "well, I would love to vote for Bernie, I agree with him on so much, but he is simply unelectable in a general election." If you, too, are a strong Bernie supporter then it is quite possible you have heard much of the same rhetoric. As Democrats we can all agree upon one unified goal—to get someone into the White House who shares our party’s core beliefs. Thus, it would seem to make sense that many pundits have been rallying behind Hillary Clinton as the so-called “inevitable bid,” an individual with a household name and well-established brand. Still, we should consider very carefully the following: Is Clinton, the presumptive nominee, even electable in a general election?

The former Secretary of State definitely has a notable advantage in terms of fundraising. Through her intricate network of financial support Clinton has the power to spawn millions of dollars, far outpacing the fundraising of any Republican candidates. Surely, in our current political climate Clinton's fundraising alone should qualify her for the party's nomination. Clinton also has the impressive ability to reel in endorsements from labor unions and politicians alike, far outpacing her Democratic challengers.

However, there is much more to the election process than big-names and bank accounts. A recent poll conducted by NBC asked supporters of both Clinton and Sanders in New Hampshire to rate their enthusiasm for their preferred candidate’s campaigns. The Sanders campaign boasts a rate of 78 percent of supporters who label themselves “enthusiastic,” as compared with a just 39 percent on the Clinton side. Supporters of Hillary Clinton are simply far less likely to be enthusiastic about their candidate’s campaign, a statistic that plays an important role in the vigor of grass-roots campaigning efforts (and eventual voter turnout). The more alarming statistic, however, was the polling breakdown among young voters. In the NBC poll, Sanders won the 18-29 category in both Iowa and New Hampshire by a more than three to one margin.

(more at link)

[ibegurpard]

1. maybe?

Not only is she a disaster in the making for the general she will drag us all down all the way down the ticket.

[lewebley3]

14. Hillary is going to leader the country; Sanders supporters

Wishful thinking

[Ed Suspicious]

42. You're playing a dangerous game here giving republicans somebody they hate to vote against.

Seriously.

[MyNameGoesHere]

66. Yeah republicans love

socialist right? Come on they are both a target of the republicans. Seriously they are.

[Ed Suspicious]

69. Every Democrat is a socialist to the Republicans. There's only one Hillary Clinton.

[BlueCaliDem]

82. And the only reason they attack Hillary Clinton is because they know what Sanders supporters

don't appear to understand - she is the only Democrat currently running for the White House who can defeat them at their own game.

When Republicans are targeting you, it's a good sign. It means they consider you a threat to their win, and it should be regarded by Democrats and other non-Republicans as a badge of honor.

They haven't even mentioned Sanders. That's because he's not a threat to them.

Sanders is unelectable only to the extent that he refuses to play the campaign game by the current rules. He's playing by his own rules, and he'll fail. Can't play a game and expect to win when you don't play by the same rules as your opponent.

[AgingAmerican]

100. The Republicans fear Sanders more than Hillary does

Your right wing arguments are tripe.

[BlueCaliDem]

110. Yeah. You keep telling yourself that.

[AgingAmerican]

111. Particularly their corporate backers

They are the ones who would feel the biggest impact should Sanders become president.

[BlueCaliDem]

112. But not Lockheed Martin or gun manufacturers. They're safe!

[AgingAmerican]

113. It is a safe bet he would cut the military budget

By executive order if he had to.

On what specific gun issue does Hillary disagree with Sanders? He backed every single measure in Obama's gun control package after Sandy Hook.

[BlueCaliDem]

114. I'll believe it when I see it.

Lockheed Martin, the corporation Bernie Sanders appears to love, is the manufacturer of the weak and failed but far too expensive F-35 - the fighter jet that lost in a dogfight against the F-16 that's 40 years old. Eighty-two percent of Lockheed Martin's revenue comes from taxpayers via the military budget. The F-35, which is built in Burlington, Vermont, is the epitome of Pentagon wasteful spending at a cost of over a trillion dollars already. Sanders also gets campaign donations from workers in Burlington, Vermont. Do you actually believe Sanders would do anything to jeopardize their revenue by cutting the military budget?

On what specific gun issue does Hillary disagree with Sanders? He backed every single measure in Obama's gun control package after Sandy Hook.

He's flip-flopped on his view because he knew he'd be running for president as a Democrat, and Democrats, by and large, are for sensible gun safety laws.

As for what gun issue does Hillary Clinton disagrees with Sanders, there are several.

The PLCAA, for one. And it's a biggie. In the past, Sanders has voted to make it easier to sue airlines for crashes over water, machine tool makers for injuries that happen after 18 years of use, and made it easier to sue restaurants over mislabeled food that contributed to weight gain and more. But he voted for the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, giving gun manufacturers, gun sellers, and gun distributors a special immunity from lawsuits that the above examples don't have. Senator Clinton voted against the PLCAA.

The Brady Bill, is another, that, as she explained, he voted five times against but what had passed despite his no-votes and what has kept 2.1 million guns out of the hands of felons, domestic abusers.

[pinebox]

78. If that's you argument

then there is none because it doesn't compare with decades worth of hate and anger.
Can you show us any books that RW pundits have written about Bernie as far as Benghazi or (insert day of the week title here) about Bernie destroying middle earth? It's complete hate.

A Hillary nomination would make the GOP base show up in record numbers to make sure he is NOT elected POTUS.

[in_cog_ni_to]

81. The minute Bill Clinton was in the White House Repub investigations started and

Lasted until his impeachment. They wasted $80 MILLION (with Hillary's current Hit Man, David Brock leading the investigations against them!) and never stopped digging for dirt. The minute Hillary was SOS, they just waited for their chance to get her. BENGHAZI! Endless hearings and investigations. Now we have the emails and let's not forget the private server.

I personally think they have a smoking gun they're just waiting to unleash IF she's elected. If they don't have a smoking gun on the email/server investigation, don't believe for one second they'll stop there!

They will DEFINITELY start investigating Hillary's connections with governments as SOS, her speech payments, Clinton Foundation donations and ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING connected to Bill and Hillary and The Clinton Foundation.

What exactly will they investigate Bernie for? They don't hate him with the burning passion they do the Clintons. Bernie is clean of scandal.

The REPUBLICANS ABSOLUTELY HATE THE CLINTONS and having Bill back in the WH will make their blood boil!

[merrily]

105. Everything is relative. And, yes, Republicans in Congress work with, and respect, Sanders.

Certainly a hell of a lot more than Hillary. An excerpt from a recent post of mine:

Republicans currently control both Houses. Projections are that, because of the 2010 redistricting, they will continue to control the House for years. Obama should have "fought" them 2009-2011, when he had strong majorities in both Houses. When Republicans are in control, fighting them is pissing in the wind and only makes a Democrat look weak. When they are in control, you have to work with them, not false bravado "fight" them for benefit of the fans in the bleachers.

Hillary has long berated Republicans in ad hom, applause line/cheap shot ways, sometimes making herself look foolish in the process. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vast_right-wing_conspiracy

She was disrespectful to, and openly contemptuous, of Republican members of the House during her "grilling," which, judging by the gifs in DU sig lines she and her DU fans apparently found Hillarious. However, I thought it extremely shortsighted for someone who was then simultaneously seeking the Presidency. She recently called them the enemy of which she is most proud. Say what you will, they are her fellow Americans and people with whom she hopes to work, beginning in January, 2017. To me, all this was not funny, but very poor judgment-- not nearly as bad as Hillary's Iraq War speech and vote, but bad.

Contradistinctively, Sanders has (mostly) berated Republican politicians on issues, something all politicians understand. They may not agree with him, but they like him personally and respect him (as someone with whom to work). http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251715777. Also, he is able to work with them so well that the veterans' bill he did with McCain not only passed, but became a case study in working across the aisle in the Brookings Institute. https://www.google.com/search?q=merrily+Sanders+Brookings+Institute&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com&gws_rd=ssl

Despite all her boasts of getting things done better than Obama and Sanders could, Hillary's Senate record on passing bills or amendments that she wrote or co-wrote is pitiful. Sanders's record, even as an independent, is much better than hers--and with bills and amendments that were substantive, not re-naming a Post Office or celebrating the anniversary of the American Revolution.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1251&pid=800355

[lewebley3]

89. Not just republicans would vote against Bernie, but

most Americans won't vote for a socialist. Trump
is already call Sanders a commie

[Divernan]

72. "leader the country"?

Strange use of the English language. "leader" is a noun; lead, as in "to lead", is a verb.

[dirtydickcheney]

2. Yes, she'll definitely be a drag on the ticket.

Nominate Bernie and I think it'll be likely that the House and the Senate wind up in the hands of the Democratic Party.

Nominate Hillary and it's significantly more likely that the House, Senate and the Presidency end up in the hands of the Republican Party.

Hillary just doesn't excite people the way Bernie does and I'm not aware of a single Republican who will vote for her. OTOH I hear plenty of Republicans say that they like Bernie and think he's honest and trustworthy. Those things matter.

Just my 2 cents....

[lewebley3]

16. Hillary is the best person to lead the Dem's

[bvar22]

32. Not THIS Democrat.

I follow FDR & The New Deal .
Hillary isn't even on the radar when it comes to the Democratic Values of the New Deal and the Great Society that built the largest, wealthiest, and most upwardly mobile Middle/Working Class the WORLD had ever seen.
I vote to try THAT again.

I won't follow anyone going in the opposite direction.

[blondie58]

45. Me neither!

In fact, Thom Hartmann Has Called him the FDR Of our time.

Last Night, I went to a meetup with other Bernie enthusiasts.
Just putting Heads together Talking how Important caucus is. Got some instructions on how to make phone calls.
I am excited. Never had a candidate like him beföre!

[lewebley3]

87. You need to do you homework: Hillary is the heir to FDR Democratic Values

[bvar22]

92. Did you forget the sarcasm tag?

...because your statement is a good laugh.

[lewebley3]

94. My is a fact and the truth

[bvar22]

95. OK. List the programs of the "New Deal" and "Great Society"

that Hillary has given unqualified support.

I can list them.
Can you?

[lewebley3]

96. Hillary is for all the New Deal: and She is very crafty poltiican like

FDR: I am not going teach you your history, go
to the lib

[bvar22]

97. Knew you couldn't do it.

Hillary is for ALL the New Deal?
LOL.
Most of it has been dismantled, thanks to Repubs and Conservative Dems,
and the Democrats under Obama were working to destroy one of the corner stone pieces.

*I don't recall her proposing another Civilian Conservation Corp,
or massive government spending to rebuild infrastructure and provide jobs of last resort to Americans.

*I don't recall her calling for free education for every American

* I haven't heard her propose a single Payer Program like Medicare.

...but YOU, and everybody else reading this thread knows that you don't have a clue about FDR and the New Deal....or the History of the Democratic Party.


<in best computer voice>Do you want to play another game?
Tell us about all the Great Society Programs Hillary supports.

[lewebley3]

108. Hillary is Dem not a socialist: She believes in working

The GOP have been the ones taking about the New Deal,
not Dems

[bvar22]

115. ARe you just spamming threads with bullsh*t, or do you rally believe that nonsense.

Were you Home Schooled in American History?

Please post a link to your claim that.
"The GOP have been the ones taking about the New Deal," ???!!!!!

Please, please, PLEASE post a link that supports your absurd claim.
I'll be waiting.


If the GOP is talking about FDR's New Deal, or LBJ's Great Society (Medicare, Medicaid, Civil Rights Act, etc.) it is only to say how much they hate it.

[merrily]

40. Waits to take or change a position until she feels it can't possibly cost her anything.

2013 equal rights for members of the LGBT

About to run for the 2016 primary before she admits voting for the Iraq War was a mistake.

Calls TPP the gold standard then walks that back vaguely when it looks as though Democratic primary voters don't like TPP

As Secretary of State, says State will approve Keystone and not change its position, then claims to have taken no position on Keystone

One example after another.

Took a bold lead on war and surge votes, but not on being on the right side of history.

[lewebley3]

84. That is smart: A good President is a good card player: FDR

[merrily]

85. FDR took the lead more than any President in US history with the possible except of GW, who had no

other choice but to lead. Pity you are so unaware.

[lewebley3]

86. FDR changed positions when needed: He also was in office 12 years: things change

[MannyGoldstein]

98. He often took unpoular positions

e.g., building up for war in the late 1930s.

[lewebley3]

107. Yes, and he toke smart political positions

He believed in lying to everyone in office until
he could determine if she or he could be trusted.

FDR was a card payer, a crafty politician that
had Dem party values, just like Hillary

Hillary like FDR has always been playing for the Dems,
not for socialism.

[merrily]

101. Kindly name 3 significant positions FDR changed.

[Divernan]

73. It's "Dems", not "Dem's"

"Dems" is the plural form of "Dem"; "Dem's" is the singular possessive form.

[ibegurpard]

75. blame autocorrect

It does that often

[merrily]

103. In this instance, it's a toss up at best.

[lewebley3]

83. Thanks

[Vincardog]

60. Look at the last 3 election cycles to see what happens when you run a GOP lite canpaign. You

Get SMOKED. Fuck neoliberal policies and candidates.

[Ron Green]

3. The message that our country needs a deep systemic change and that

many people are needed to work for it is not likely to emerge through the conventional media, whose existence depends on the very things that would be swept away in such a change.

The tipping point is whether enough energy from people who see this and are willing to push it through will overcome the bought system. Working hard for Bernie's election while accepting the long odds is to, as the Zen master says, "Do the right thing and detach from the outcome."

[daybranch]

48. Bernie's support derives from a belief that things should be better

Hillary's support not so much. Bernie's ideals will not die because they are the result of believing in a better America for all.

[Ron Green]

56. That's right, and Bernie's name will remain as a rallying point for system change, even of he

doesn't prevail in 2016.

The sad thing, of course, is that we will have lost a significant opportunity and valuable time if Hillary or a Republican is elected.

[VanillaRhapsody]

4. let me just say...

[RobertEarl]

6. That's a good pic of you?

Rather odd way of representing yourself on an adult forum, don't you think?

[mindwalker_i]

17. What an argument without a :rofl:?

Reminds be of the blue-link deity, who would just post a rofl for any argument they couldn't refute but really, really wanted to.

[VanillaRhapsody]

19. there was nothing else to say

it was ridiculous...

Hillary is unelectable!!!!

again....

[mindwalker_i]

49. Which only shows the limits of your beautiful mind

It has a single answer. It will stick with that answer to the exclusion of all other data. This is why support for Hillary seems so much like an issue of faith.

[VanillaRhapsody]

57. Yes..it has THE answer...

A candidate that KNOWS how to go MMA on Republicans and hang them on their own petards the way Obama did.Sanders telegraphs all his punches....and has a glass jaw.

[randys1]

51. Seeing this unelectable Hillary meme is distressing. When all is said and done, if a con

takes the WH and we can trace that result to this meme, this self fulfilled prophecy, some folks around here gonna have some splainin to do.

[Cassiopeia]

70. I notice you say nothing about the meme that Sanders is unelectable.

Strange, especially coming from a Sanders supporter.

You work awfully hard to defend her, but not him. I find that very odd.

[VanillaRhapsody]

77. He has only just recently had his "come to Jesus" moment...and became an actual Democrat

did you expect that would mean all Hillary supporters would just abandon her for him automatically?

[Cassiopeia]

79. No, I didn't say that at all.

In fact that wasn't even the discussion I was having with Randys1.

[VanillaRhapsody]

80. I know....

but it does speak to it...

[leftofcool]

5. I am voting for Hillary Rodham Clinton.

[rhett o rick]

8. You left off, "no matter what." nm

[Hepburn]

31. So this means that you will write her in no matter who the Dem nominee is?

[VanillaRhapsody]

59. Did left say that

Perhaps some projection?

With a 7% chance it teally makes no difference...

[leftofcool]

93. Where did you see that in my post?

[FlatBaroque]

7. Sanders won the 18-29 category in both Iowa and New Hampshire by a more than three to one margin.

....the people who don't get polled, IOW

[msongs]

9. or vote... nt

[Lochloosa]

11. Beat me too it. I lost faith in the "Youth" vote with Mondale.

And nothing has changed to change my mind since.

(that is a weird sentence)

[jeff47]

13. Fucking kids! What did they ever do!

Besides elect Obama twice...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#Voter_demographics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008#Voter_demographics

[tecelote]

37. Good one.

[Lochloosa]

46. You are not convincing me...and yes they helped Obama get elected.

[zalinda]

62. This graph is interesting

1992 - saxophone playing Clinton appealed to the young crowd, on Arsenio's show.

1996 - they realize he's not all he was cracked up to be.

2004 - Bush's second term and the young said, no you don't and came out for Kerry, who decided not to fight.

2008 - Obama sparked the youth again, maybe this time.

2012 - well damn, we got taken for a ride again.

Give the youth something to vote for and they'll be there. Disappoint them and they don't show up. They vote for, not against.


Z

[jeff47]

67. Obama lost among over 40 in 2012 and lost or tied over 40 in 2008.

So, if it wasn't for "the kids", Obama loses 2012, and probably loses 2008 - depends on which states the "ties" landed in.

Meanwhile, the 65+ demographic you're so proud of voted for Romney and McCain.

Tell me again how the kids are awful for preventing what 65+ wanted.

[merrily]

50. Not sure what that means, but Mondale was a centrist VP with zero charisma who

got mislabeled as a liberal because his loss to Reagan as a centrist did not fit the agenda of the DLC types.

Also, what may or may not have true of politics in 1984 does not necessarily remain true 31 years later. Mondale really has nothing to do with this election, unless perhaps you want to compare him to the centrist currently running for the Democratic nomination.

The youth vote did fine by Obama in 2008 and supposedly was actually decisive in 2012.

http://www.politico.com/story/2012/11/study-youth-vote-was-decisive-083510

Aren't facts fun?

[jeff47]

12. Sure, that's why Romney's in the white house right now!

Remember, Obama lost the 2012 election among everyone over 40. The only reason he won the election is "the kids" voted for him.

[FlatBaroque]

34. Bill Daley and Al Frum know better

[merrily]

41. They voted for Obama in 2008.

Whether they will vote in the 2016 primary remains to be seen. And, they are the future of the Democratic Party. Or some Party or other.

Most people of all ages who are eligible to vote don't vote these days, even in a general. But, sure, let's pretend it's only millennials and leftist activists.

[lewebley3]

18. The people are working hard for Hillary

[Ed Suspicious]

43. I heard they go 8-1 from, I think it was the Sane Progressive lady.

That's crazy!

I'm seeing Bernie bumper stickers and yard signs increasingly this past couple weeks. There's something happening here. What it is IS exactly clear.

[cascadiance]

44. Yep, they don't get polled because they have a cell phone or no voting history...

... of voting for democrats in the past, especially many independents this election that are registering as Dems to vote for Bernie in the primaries now. Many young people have dropped land line phones these days, if they ever even had them.

So many ways these pollsters can introduce systemic error to produce the outcome that Korporate Amerika wants them to provide them. Then they also just need to get enough cheerleaders to keep echoing what is being said here that she's inevitable so why should we stop the coronation!

[onenote]

10. For the 99th time: neither Bernie or Clinton can get elected if their respective supporters don't

come together when the nominating process is over.

I'm a Bernie supporter. And I agree that there seems to be a greater level of enthusiasm for Bernie than there is for HRC, although I have no doubt that there are very many highly energized and enthusiastic Clinton supporters.

But just as it's fair to ask whether this enthusiasm gap poses a threat to Clinton in the general, it is fair to ask whether the folks that support Clinton enthusiastically as well as those that's support her less than enthusiastically will suddenly become "enthusiastic" supporters of a Sanders nomination in the general.

In other words, if Bernie's supporters don't stay fired up if he's not the candidate, it will hurt Clinton. But if the Clinton supporters don't get fired up for Bernie, that too doesn't bode well for Bernie's general election prospects.

This isn't the playoffs where one can decide to find other things to do after your team is eliminated. No matter who the Democratic nominee is, folks had better be prepared to work their asses of their that nominee elected and it would serve everyone's interests to start that process of coming together (or at least to stop tearing each other down) sooner rather than later.

[Dem2]

20. I agree

Many arguments are made simple to make a point, problem being they become potentially invalid.

[VanillaRhapsody]

22. How can an enthusiasm gap be a serious problem for her?

she has a 92% chance of winning...

[jeff47]

23. Enthusiasm is what actually gets people to the polls.

Because enthusiastic supporters get a lot of indifferent people to go vote.

Low enthusiasm, low turnout.

[VanillaRhapsody]

24. and what part of 92% chance tells you that there is an enthusiasm gap?

[jeff47]

25. Vegas odds are not a measure of enthusiasm.

What tells us there is an enthusiasm gap is the polls mentioned in the OP:

Only 39% of Clinton supporters are enthusiastic about her. While 78% of Sanders supporters are enthusiastic about him.

[VanillaRhapsody]

27. Vegas odds? At 92%.....

he is a underdog at only 7%!

and I just did a google search...guess where your "enthusiasm gap" is coming from?

[jeff47]

29. Yes, that's what predictwise is.

Again, only 39% of Clinton supporters claim to be enthusiastic about her. If your claims were remotely correct, she could get at least a majority of her supporters to be enthusiastic about her.

[onenote]

30. No one wins an election 12 months before it is conducted.

I've worked on a lot of campaigns over the years (I'm in my 60s). And short of those in which there is essentially no opposition (typically a congressional district or municipal level election), I've never felt completely confident about the outcome until it was over. Winning elections is hard work most of the time. While Obama's victories in 2008 and 2012 look comfortable now, I certainly wasn't taking the day off and not doing GOTV on election day because the polls indicating things were breaking our way.

[blackspade]

71. Well said.

[Pathwalker]

99. OMG! Your post makes sense!

I suspect it will be ignored, sadly.

[in_cog_ni_to]

15. Sheesh! Finally someone sees the reality here.

Hillary is HATED, with a passion, by Repubs. They will show up in droves just for the sheer pleasure of voting against a Clinton.

The Majority of Millennials will NOT be voting for Wall St. Hillary. It's not going to happen. They will just stay home.

Disenfranchised Independents aren't going to vote for her either. The THIRD WAY, same as Repub bullshit, is why they're registered Independents. Bill and Hillary helped start the DLC, that DESTROYED the Democratic Party.

There's also a LOT of Bernie supporters who refuse to vote for any warmonger ever again.

Hillary cannot and will not win the GE.

No Millennials (83 million of them), no Independents, no crossover Repubs ( because they hate her) and very few Bernie supporters - she loses BIG.

[lewebley3]

21. Hillary is love with a passion by supporters: and they

will work hard:

[jeff47]

26. Only 39% of them will work hard.

As shown in the poll mentioned in the OP.

[lewebley3]

88. When we get to the general; Hillary have Obama and all the Dem party behind her

[jeff47]

90. No. That's the point of the OP.

It's those excited supporters that will drag others to the polls. No excitement, and no dragging of other people.

Result is a low-turnout election, which is very bad for us.

"Obama and all the Dem party" is 30% of the electorate. You don't win with 30%. We have to have lots of enthusiastic supporters to get some of the remaining 70% to the polls.

[lewebley3]

91. There is great excitement for Hillary: The is no excitement for a socialist

[jeff47]

104. Polling shows the exact opposite.

So...we're supposed to not trust polls about enthusiasm, but blindly trust polls about candidate support?

[lewebley3]

106. We are just getting started in the running for Presidency

[Hepburn]

35. And this means that those who hate her suddenly support her???

It does not work that way. I had no hard feelings against Hillary at the start of the primary season. But I sure can tell you that the "passion" of her supporters has taken me from like, to neutral, to dislike, to strong dislike. Keep shoving her down my throat and I am fast approaching a point where I will despise her.

[Hepburn]

33. +1

[onenote]

39. The problem is that it works both ways

As I discussed in my post above -- one can't assume that the Clinton supporters will be enthusiastic for Sanders, particularly if the tone of the discussion between and among the two sides' supporters continues to have a nasty edge to it.

It's easy to make the case that Clinton can't win the election because Millenials, independents and crossover repubs won't support her.

But one could just as easily make the case that if the support of Millenials and indpendents can't produce primary victories for Sanders, there's reason to be concerned about his prospects in the general election as well.

The good news is that most of the primaries up to and through Super Tuesday are open primaries or semi-open/semi-closed primaries. In other words, millenials who haven't voted in the past and independents who want to vote against Clinton as much as they want to vote for Sanders will have an opportunity to make their voices heard.

I think that the results in these primaries will be closer than people think, but I'm not about to predict the outcome of any of them.

[Metric System]

53. Polling says otherwise re: millenials. I say this as a millenial. Sanders supporters like to pretend

that he has them locked down, but it's simply not true.

[PADemD]

64. +1

[coyote]

76. I agree with your assessment

I am registered as an independent. I left the Democratic Party 8 years ago because I did not like the direction the party was going and they no longer represented me. If Hillary gets the nomination, then I will likely stay home in the GE. I see no point in voting for someone that does not represent my interests. I also have real issues with Hilary's voting history and stances on certain issues.

I want real change not just lip service. Someone who wants to fight for the people, and Hillary is simply not that person.

[sabrina 1]

28. Well, her campaign seems to be worried about her electibility. See the smear campaigns

they are pouring out against Bernie who gets more and more support each day. So yes, maybe they are worried and imo, they should be.

[6chars]

38. Who can tell?

Elections are just always unpredictable. I can concoct scenarios where she does amazingly well based on experience, moderation appealing to independents, and being the first woman. I can also concoct scenarios where Republicans are enthused against her and some elements of the Democratic party have relatively low turnout.

It's all so unpredictable, don't put much stock in general electability during the primaries. The party should nominate the person they think is best, and then support that person and try to ensure they win the general.

[thereismore]

47. Afraid so. She is not a leader, she is a follower. Her speech about the Iraq war resolution was

enough for me.

[Thinkingabout]

52. A Sanders supporter wants to stop the smearing and talk about the issues.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=799167

Where are the issues?

[ibegurpard]

58. Yeah you're not the messenger for this

Look in the mirror

[DanTex]

54. Nope. That's Bernie. Those Democrats the author talks to are spot on.

[retrowire]

55. I believe it is because of this reason that

many of Hillary's supporters are complacent.

No doubt in my mind that Hillary supporters are less likely to walk the beat for her or canvas much because after all.... She's got this in the bag!

That complacency will be one of the many reasons she may fail to win.

[SoapBox]

61. She cannot and will not win the Presidency.

Dislike for her runs very, very deep and is either being underestimated or ignored, by her Entrenched Establishment Club.

It will be her downfall...again.

[jalan48]

63. What concerns me is DW Schultz's record of electing Democratic candidates in recent elections.

If her record is any indication, things don't bode well for her gal Hillary.

[brooklynite]

74. Remind me who won the Presidency in 2012?

[Kip Humphrey]

65. Hillary spans more enthusiasm among republicons to vote against her than she does

enthusiasm among Democrats to vote for her. Her negative rating among independents is the proverbial nail in the coffin. These facts are the basis for understanding the Hillary is dangerously unelectable in the general election. Bernie, on the other hand has high likability generally and high enthusiasm among millennials and progressives - the very grassroots who we will need to get the vote out. Additionally, Bernie is drawing conservatives who see no preferred choice among the GOP contenders. Bernie's name recognition is still relatively low, but, then, that is what campaigning is all about. As his name recognition climbs and awareness of his record and policy stances grows, Bernie's electability improves. His campaign continues to outperform Obama's by calendar date which is indicative of a popular and receptive response to his campaign. Hillary is old guard and yesterday's news. Bernie is what people are hungering for.

[Jarqui]

68. Seems a little early to deem her unelectable

We don't even know who she is up against - which will have an influence on that.

For example, if it's Trump, maybe a bunch of women flock to Hillary. I'm not sure. Too early for me.

But I do think she has a ceiling. We talked about that in 2008. There are a substantial number of folks who do not like her. On that basis, that could be a problem depending on who she faces. And there will be a percentage that won't vote for a woman as president. etc.

I don't think Bernie has either of those problems. He has other issues to overcome as a candidate. Contrary to Clinton's ceiling - he's kind of got a floor and he's got to get up and off it by Mar 1 in Iowa!

[cantbeserious]

102. It Is Increasingly Clear That HRC Must Withdraw From The 2016 Election For Her Role As A Neocon

eom

[MisterP]

109. the bubble extends to her campaign as well as to her policies

whenever there's a flap with her crew there's always this repeated theme of high group identity--the footmen dragging a rope to drag the media forward, the cops called on BLM amidst chanting, even the water bottles handed out only to those with Clinton t-shirts

any contradiction is a sign of either infiltration or betrayal and is punished with human walls and the usual chants

unfortunately meatspace is not a DU Group: they can't just expel anyone from reality