Nominating Hillary will depress Dem turnout and hand the WH to one of the crazies

[wt1531]

As one who can't stand any of the Repubs, if Hillary was the nominee, I would definitely will not have the will power to go out and vote, much less canvass and spread the word on her behalf. She was dead to me in 2008 after what she tried to do to Obama. I well remember that "shame on you Barack Obama" scream of hers in Ohio. Just watching her speak, she always comes off to me as a person who thinks that she is entitled to the presidency and anyone who challenges her, in her view, is trying to steal what "belongs" to her. I am sure enough people who would otherwise vote Democratic would either stay home or in worse case scenario cross over and vote for Trump. She is very arrogant and arrogant never wins general elections. Bernie comes off as a humble guy who wants to earn the vote. One thing I noticed also is that most of her surrogates that come on TV are as arrogant....they always look past the primaries as if she has already won it and talk about Trump and Hillary in the fall. I wish this lady would just go away to some nice retirement and enjoy all the millions she collected from Goldman Sachs and leave the presidency to some one like Bernie who really want the job not because they feel like it is their "turn" but really want to do their best to help the poor and the middle class.

[metroins]

1. I think nominating Bernie will do the same

Hillary leads in the popular vote.

I am not excited for Bernies pie in the sky ideas and I see through them as just that.

There is compromise needed in this country and electing a "Democratic" socialist means we would lose 2020 and beyond because he'd get nothing done.

I also don't trust him to lead our country during a tough war if one were to arise (a real war, where our country is at stake).

[WillyT]

2. So The Corporations Are Popular ???

Because... she's a Corporatist.

[metroins]

3. What?

[WillyT]

6. Go Here:

DULink: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511464363

[metroins]

9. No.

I'm in this thread.

[WillyT]

10. LOL !!! - Ok... Nice Knowing You... I Think...

[Wilms]

4. You are tallying votes from states that will never elect a Dem in the GE.

Does that fact bounce off of you?

[metroins]

7. Not at all.

Because swing states are what matters and we have a bunch coming up in less than a week.

[6chars]

86. what do the polls say

in those swing states?

[metroins]

88. Check them out

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/09/politics/trump-clinton-lead-florida-ohio/

[6chars]

103. these are a couple big swing states

Florida C 63 S 33
Ohio C 61 S 34

[Dem2]

8. What a ridiculous canard

"Your votes don't count cuz Democrats in Red states are like, you know, fake Democrats".

[Cal Carpenter]

17. That's not at all what Wilms said

In the context of the general election, red states are red. The votes should matter, but they really don't. Take it up with the electoral college.

[Dem2]

18. Primary vs. GE

Equating them is silly.

[Cal Carpenter]

21. Exactly, you can't equate them.

This thread is about how primary votes translate to the general. Obviously Clinton's giant wins in the South will rarely result in success in the general.

[Dem2]

23. Exactly

Saying Hillary can't win the GE based on which states she won in the primary is ludicrous.

[Marr]

135. I think it can overestimated, definitely-- but it is hardly irrelevant.

If a candidate has big positives in the south, and is actually pretty unpopular outside of the south, that's going to be a big factor in the general election. Factor in Hillary's energizing effect on the right just about everywhere, and I think it's pretty reasonable to say the primary vote indicates a problem for her in the general election.

[Bubzer]

22. They are inextricably linked. If hillary only wins red states... or even manages to win 1 or 2 blue

and goes on to be the nominee... voter turnout will absolutely be depressed. There's no denying that. The flip side is if she does manage to get a fair number of blue states to come out for her, she'll be just fine... but she's off to a terrible start. Bernie has won the blue states, she's won the red... he may have catch-up to do in delegates, but she has catch-up to do in actual democratic voting states.

[Dem2]

28. I'd like to see proof of this

People are making these claims without ANY supporting data, I call BS

[Bubzer]

33. Why should you be presented proof when you've offered none yourself?

You haven't done anything more than say nu uh.

[Dem2]

41. The idea that there's linkage is a new thing

You claim this linkage, a little proof would be nice.

When I search, there is little info out there, much of it being DU posts.

[ellennelle]

47. sorry buddy

you lost that battle. not only is there proof of said linkage, it is considered CW; conventional wisdom.

not only that, it does not take tooooo much cortex to parse thru the logic. which has been done here for you already, pre-chewed, as it were.

i have every faith that, by applying your intellect and basic math skills and general knowledge, following the reasoning presented here you'll get it.

and this is not a partisan thing, or something that only works for bernie; it also applies to the GOP candidates and anyone who runs in the GE. hell, it applied to obama.

i wish you luck, but i believe you have it in ya.

[Dem2]

48. Patronizing and funny

thanks for the laugh.

[jeepers]

112. Let's use a little reason here

In all but Maine and Nebraska electors are awarded as winner take all.
In the general the candidate who wins 270 electoral votes wins the presidency.
A democrat candidate in the general will not win any electoral votes in red states. Haven't since 1976.
Those 450 delegates won in the red state primaries, what you think is your candidates strength, strength she will bring to the general will not win even 1 electoral vote for the democratic party in the general. That is not strength, it is a false indication that will not move democrats any closer to winning the general.The same thing is true of Bernies delegates from the southern states. They wont win democrats any electoral votes.

Democrats win electoral votes in the northern states, Bernie has won 9 states, soundly. Hillary has won three, weakly.

It is early in the primary process but as it stands now in delegate votes in the primary that will translate into election victories and electoral votes in the general, Bernie is stronger by about 250 delegates. If Hillary can win strong victories in blue states over coming Bernies already 7 state lead she has a chance of being considered the stronger candidate otherwise the strength is with Bernie and the supers will/should go with the stronger candidate higher primary delegate count or not

But if all of what i just told you is true about those 450 southern delegate votes being worthless why do democrats primary in the southern states? Why should democrats even run in the south in the general if they can't win electors there? Why don't we just count the red states and award them to the republicans and count the blue states give them to the democrats, count up the electors and hand out the crown. It is because of the swing states and the purple states. They decide the election and besides what would it look like for American democracy if the democratic party simply wrote off the south?


Hey I appreciate your reading. I'm just an old house painter frrom way back. Got no real edumacation beyond liberal arts but this is what I see and I would appreciate any observations, corrections, constructive criticisms, or loose doobies you might like to share. Yo.

[marions ghost]

116. Makes sense to me

.... welcome to DU jeepers

[Dem2]

130. Couple of points

1. I'm not a Hillary supporter per se, I support both Hillary and Bernie. I don't attack either candidate, I praise both and I defend both against unfair attacks. Since Bernie supporters outnumber Hillary supporters > 5:1 here, I may unintentionally defend Hillary more (for obvious reasons.)

2. I read an interesting piece (which I can't find now) yesterday that stated that Democratic presidents that win (since Nixon's Southern Strategy) will usually come from the South or have greater Southern appeal (Jimmy Carter, check. Bill Clinton, check. Barack Obama, check.) It even applies to Republicans - they must be from California or the South to win.

This has been the traditional formula in Democratic politics - find a candidate that will appeal to more moderate Democrats. It makes sense when one thinks about it - being strong in the traditional Blue states is not, in fact, what one needs to win the Presidency, it's being strong in purple states that counts and that often boils down to appealing to more moderate voters. It also never hurts to have strong minority support, Obama being a prime example of this. Thus it could be argued that Hillary's strength in the South and with black voters increases her odds of winning in November.

[jeepers]

132. Except that Hillary is a northern liberal

Educated in an elite east coast woman's college. She is not from Cal or the south. I am not here to criticize Hillary either. All I want to do is point out the math as it translates from primary strength to GE victories. If you will excuse the reference, Hillary already tried to get in bed with the moderates when she called herself a moderate but when that didn't excite her base she suddenly became a progressive who gets things done.

[Dem2]

133. "elite east coast woman's college."

I love how Republican sounding tweaks are acceptable when criticizing one's candidate of non-choice

Anyway, Bill Clinton, Arkansas and the black vote say that my term "Southern appeal" applies here.

Not concerned that much with primary politics, if anything it might hurt her in November, using old-style thinking. I hope that's wrong as I'd prefer Bernie or someone like him in the WH.

[bvar22]

137. Do you really believe that Hillary can win Alabama in the GE?

or Louisiana?

or Mississippi?

or Georgia?

or South Carolina?

or Texas?

Which one of those will Hillary "win" in the General Election?
If the answer is none (which is the correct answer) then what good will the "popular vote" be from those states?

[chervilant]

59. I have learned that

I can easily relegate the diehard Hi11ary supporters to my IL by perusing the "trending now" OPs posted to "that group" for just a wee while, before I trash the thread -- just long enough to add all the responders therein to my IL. This has worked wonderfully well.

I'll be adding another from this very OP.

[Bubzer]

63. Hrmmm...not a bad strategy!

I approve

(not that you need my approval or anything)

[Dem2]

68. Please, make them go away!

I support Bernie and Hillary and never criticize either.

But I do criticize comments about either candidate that seem unfair.

If you can't handle that, then there isn't much you can handle.

[Major Hogwash]

50. True, but that's the only canard they've got!

They've got nothing.

And it shows.

[cemaphonic]

62. This line of thinking was BS when the Hillary camp used it against Obama in 2008

and it's still BS. The GE and primaries have different dynamics. If (GE) Obama had only won the blue states that he won in the primaries, the election would have been a total rout. If anything, his strength in VA and NC put those traditionally Republican states in play, and ultimately into wins.

On top of that, it's only fair to include every part of the country in nominating a candidate. It's bad enough that the setup of the electoral college means that a half-dozen states dominate the direction of the general, and everywhere else is largely irrelevant. If we're going to base our primaries around who will win the big swing states, we may as well just elect the President of Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania and be done with it.

[Divernan]

12. A "real" war, as opposed to all the wars Hillary has pursued as SOS?

Clinton has never met a war/military action/regime change she couldn't push. Her MIC sponsors expect no less from her. For her and her quid pro quo "donors", it's not a matter of whether "our country" is at stake, but whether their ever increasing, blood soaked profits are at stake.

Most of Hillary's "lead in the popular vote" would disappear in that it comes from southern states which will go red in the general election.

And all of what you dismiss as "pie in the sky ideas" are realities in the rest of the industrialized, "first world" countries.

[metroins]

16. Swing states

We shall see how they vote soon.

A lot of what you're writing is acting as if Hillary Clinton is the sole decider in those matters.

If she has that kind of power, that's who I definitely want in. We'd have a Democrat in office with no need for checks and balances using your logic.

[AgingAmerican]

19. Hillary polls behind most of the GOP candidates

His ideas are decidedly mainstream, not 'pie in the sky'.
Republicans do not compromise, so any compromise with them is a one sided giveaway.
War! War! War!

[metroins]

26. GE polls don't matter now

Look at any past GE election and polls aren't clear until about 1-4 weeks before the election. I'm not going to argue an election on polls 6 months from now. 6 months ago Bernie was at 10 or so.

Congress will need to compromise soon. It goes in waves.

The reality is, we're going to have an R President sooner or later. I want to keep D as long as possible and I think Clinton can serve the full 8 years.

Bernie wants to remove employer Healthcare, remove ACA, implement a public healthcare. Forgive student loan debt; become protectionist on foreign policy, repeal our trade agreements and increase tax rates.

Those aren't mainstream.

He's talking about changing everything we currently do. America is not a speed boat, we're a large navy tanker. Major changes take a long time to implement or our entire economy crashes.

We've spent a lot of time improving our country, we're the #1 place to live. I do not need a revolution.

[AgingAmerican]

27. They are a harbinger of things to come

[metroins]

31. The polls

In the swing states are a harbinger.

The GE polls are wrought with variance.

Hillary leads FL and OH:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/09/politics/trump-clinton-lead-florida-ohio/

[AgingAmerican]

32. Swing states don't matter in the primaries

But don't let that stop you from trying!

[ellennelle]

49. she led in MI by 20 points

less than a week ago.

how'd that work out?

[metroins]

52. We'll see Tuesday.

[revbones]

44. So the people that wanted to

get rid of segregation should have just said no to the civil rights movement and been ok with incrementalism?

What about womens suffrage? Slavery? Should we just not have had the American Revolution and let good King George incrementally make things better? Were those things "mainstream" enough for you?

[metroins]

51. Not taking that bait

How about you put a timeline together of when those all passed. Then let me know if it was quick or slow.

And you're talking about MAJOR issues that go to the core of our Constitution, which should've been no brainers.

[revbones]

60. The point wasn't about the speed.

The point is that as Bernie so aptly said

"If you start off asking for half a loaf, you going to end up with crumbs. If you start off asking for a full damn loaf, you may actually get something."

Love or hate Obama, but one thing I feel he does horribly from a liberal position (which some would argue he isn't) is to negotiate with himself before the negotiations with republicans even start. The same is true of Hillary with the $12 vs $15 minimum wage.

If you don't try for the big things, you will never achieve them. The point is trying. You may only get small bits at a time, but you never lose sight of the big goal.

Arguing for starting out small will only allow you to take one step forward and two steps back because the republicans certainly are not looking at small stuff. They have set their sights on the big prizes and will chip away constantly until they get them.

Taking how things happen and conflating the step by step progress with the actual goal you set doesn't do anyone any good.

[metroins]

66. And getting the whole loaf

Could wreck our economy.

I do not want a revolution. Crime down, mortality up, unemployment down, standard of living up.

The things Sanders proposes only work if we're in a depression, when things aren't working. On a whole, our country is working very well right now.

[revbones]

75. I think you missed the point of my previous comment or you seem to have contradicted yourself

You seemed to advocate slowness over getting things done. Now you're saying don't do anything?

So you think our country is fine and can't be improved? How much change is too much for you? Where is the line?

[metroins]

83. I think you missed my point

[ellennelle]

98. how would that wreck our economy?

what facts are you basing that fear upon?

how do you figure sanders' proposals only work in a depression? where are your numbers on that?

and evidently you have not noticed that for most of us, things are NOT working. 'on a whole' is only measured by bankers' standards, whose standard of living is way up. not by the numbers of starving children and imprisoned or slaughtered young black men. if you look at averages, you completely lose sight of the little guy.

wow, should i read metroins, as metro ins, as in metro insurance? is that telling or what? or trolling or what?

wow. well, then, all the more reason to proceed with my intended last thought.

you seem to be living in quite the bubble. hey, whatever floats. but you also appear to have your head buried in the sand. do allow me to clue you; the ostrich does not show his best side in that position.

[ellennelle]

92. love the loaf meme

tho i like my uncle's version better:

shoot for the moon! anywhere you land between here and there will be grand!

i swear, hearing hillary get all miserly about each of these aspirations - which are beyond reasonable, and were once reality, many of them - sets my teeth on edge. it honestly sounds like the land baron chuckling and smiling that well, we'll see that you don't starve, here's your crumbs.

[metroins]

99. I believe

America is the land of prosperity.

If you want to succeed, you will (barring bad luck).

I would have loved to have 60k in college debt with a degree to fall back on. I love having the ACA as my health insurance. I love that Solar is becoming affordable.

Life is grand right now, it's almost impossible to fail.

Heck, I've got kidney disease, grew up poor and I'm still able to run a company while employing 5 people.

I think our current biggest issue is prison populations.

[ellennelle]

106. wow, so sorry about your disease

and very glad ACA has you covered. that's great.

but your dream is more unrealistic than bernie's ever thought of being.

america is only the land of prosperity for the precious few; income and wealth inequality are real. please read picketty on this; the rich get rich and the poor get poorer; it's baked into the capitalist cake.

have you ever talked to a kid with that much college debt who cannot find a job, or if they do, they're at starbucks or macdonald's?

or what about the guy who had it all in 07 and the crash crushed him. and his family. and his job. and his home. and his health. homeless now, heart condition, ACA won't pay for his meds.

i see these people with these stories every single day, professionally. they wanted success; we all do. but there is worse than bad luck out there, there is nefarious immorality afoot, and ruthless greed; it appears determined to take us all down.

this is reality for so many you evidently never encounter. well, good for you. and good for you that you can afford five employees and can entertain solar for anything.

i'm glad you're still able to manage your business with your condition, and i sincerely hope that continues to go well.

but, please note the likelihood that your current life may well be a dream. the economy is so unstable (have you not noticed that?), because the same criminals are at the same crimes, and that house of cards will collapse. again. regardless of exactly when that happens, the planet will continue to wreak its righteous havoc upon us, and that scenario will stress everything everywhere. it's already started; syria is largely a function of record-breaking drought. and so on.

i don't want to belabor this, as quite honestly - and i say this with respect and concern - your line of arguments have seemed actually driven by a deep fear. and i appreciate your candor regarding your health, as it confirms my concerns.

i can only wish you luck and hope you are ready when the bubble bursts.

i worry it will happen before the GE. by your reckoning, we'll sure need bernie then.

be well.

[metroins]

108. Hi.

I've got a father in law in prison, just dx with stage IV colon cancer. My dad lost his job in 2010 and filed bankruptcy in 2013. My wife had 40k in student loan debt as a social worker (income 32k/year). My mom has drug and alcohol issues, on SSDI since 2007 (700/mo) and she was dx with stage 3a Fallopian cancer. My wife has scoliosis at a 70 degrees angle, a hole in her heart and a syrinx in her spine. And again I have kidney disease at age 31.

I'm literally living all of this stuff now.

The thing that keeps me going is my dad always told me "If you fail, you can only blame yourself" in regards to being a business owner. I started my company with negative dollars.

I look at each issue and see a clear path to correction. In other countries there's no path forward. Here I can go to Mayo, I can petition for my FIL to get out, I helped my dad get a job by faxing resumes, I took my mom to MD Anderson and she's in remission (she lived with me for 8 months).

I mean life sucks but this is possible in America.

My wife and I have been married 2 years and haven't had a honeymoon because we're helping others.

[Fumesucker]

115. You sound like the Repub who said Stephen Hawking would be dead in a socialized medicine setting

And yet Hawking has many times praised the National Health Service that has kept him alive long after the prognosis for people with his condition calls for them to be dead, dead, dead.

[marions ghost]

122. Beautiful

is all I can say about your post--

[marions ghost]

117. ^^^^

"never lose sight of the big goal"...

[ellennelle]

89. FDR's plans

in the 30s; these happened pretty damn quickly. did well, and he was then convinced by the money bags he could relax the rules, and instantly, things started going south again.

and then the war effort. hey howdy, that happened right quick. pretty impressive responsiveness on our part, if you know anything about that history.

also, women's suffrage; it was not, and then it was law. it all happened on one day in 1920 when the 19th amendment was ratified. and the sky did not fall, as was predicted, if we did not move slowly.

same with the emancipation proclamation. there were slaves, and then they were freed. midst of a wrenching war, i'll grant you, but - as has been queried by another commenter - do you prefer your moral progress on the slow steady IV drip? or in full bodied tall cool drinks?

no really, it is possible to reverse dangerous trends quickly without destruction. in fact, those tend to avoid oncoming destruction.

which is what we're faced with now, destruction of the species and the planet. we truly do need to put our shoulders to this problem, or we are toast. literally.

and just what no brainer, major issues are you talking about that go to the core of our constitution?

forgive me, but you're sounding a bit like a nervous nelly. what is it that you fear, precisely? giving up your comfort zone?

[metroins]

94. It took decades

For those real Constitutional changes to occur.

FDR was needed, at the time, the country was in free fall. When things are so bad for the common person, you need an ultra left progressive. When things are going well, we don't need to destroy the systems we have in place.

Right wingers are ~50% of our population. We might not like it, but they are and they're currently better at local politicking than we are.

An ultra far left Democratic Socialist during a time of prosperity is a rallying cry to lose for the next 12 years. I liked Jimmy Carter, a lot, but I learned how his demeanor and stances set us back years of progress.

[ellennelle]

102. holy crap

forgive me, but this is just about the most distorted view of any of the history i have ever seen.

first of all, it was not jimmy carter, but open treason on the part of ghw bush (on reagan's behalf) sabotaging negations for the tehran hostages that stole that election. that was full out neocon theft of an election. funny how the bush folks tend to be involved with all that stuff.

second, i'll give you progress was reversed during the raygun years, but see point the first. glad to know you approved of jimmy carter, but it was nothing of his doing that made raygun happen; they stole it, pure and simple. voters are much better informed now, and even smarter, wiser to establishment crap and crimes. hence the election of obama. twice. and hence the bernie momentum and hillary hesitation. the facts are out there, not handed out on the evening news like crumbs.

i don't know where you get this idea that progressive leaders are only needed when things are bad, or that that will destroy what's in place when things are going well. nor do i have a clue where you get the notion that things are going well now. if you only look at unemployment numbers and GDP, you might be able to justify it as being better than it was 8 years ago. but as i've pointed out already, starving children, police murdering young men of color, mass incarceration, perpetual wars, continued healthcare problems, outrageous student debt, obscene income inequality, third world poverty here, a frikkin' frying planet ferchrissake!!

yeah, things are great if you're in the top bracket. i guess it's easier not to look down if you don't have to.

[metroins]

104. I'm sorry

We don't need to argue Carter here. I don't think the hostages were the only or the largest reason for the landslide, I think it was the overall perception of Carter. If you respond to Carter, I won't respond, I don't want to get too off topic.

To the rest of your points, if you look at those trends, they've been steeply declining over time.

I think it's currently too late at night for me to post graphs and stuff, so I might have to leave it here. I'm not trying to run away, I just have to work in the morning.

Thank you for your civil and thoughtful insight.

[ellennelle]

107. likewise

and sleep soundly.

sure hope you see my previous response.

[ellennelle]

73. not mainstream?

have you seen polling on these issues? they are indeed supported by the vast majorities of US.

remove employer healthcare? well, yeah; if you have universal healthcare, employers are no longer burdened with providing it. duh.

remove ACA? ah, that brock meme again. seriously, what sense is there to that notion? bernie wants to expand medicare to everyone; how the hell does that remove ACA? it improves it!! ACA is a bit like watered down, and increasingly expensive, medicare. that needs to be stopped, pronto, and expanding medicare for all is the way to do it most effectively and efficiently.

you have a problem with public healthcare? really? you don't like medicare? how old are you? your parents? know anyone over 50 who wants to get rid of it? medicare IS public healthcare. as is the VA system. these actually work, with the highest efficiency and effectiveness - and patient satisfaction - compared to any private insurance in this country.

as for tax increases, sure, of course, these things have to be paid for. but the taxes are almost entirely at the upper end, where they were before reagan started dropping them below 50%. are you in that bracket? i suspect not (not an insult at all), so why are you worried? everyone wants the fat cats to be taxed more fairly, progressively. and as for any hike in my lower middle class tax rate? i would be thrilled to pay a couple of thousand more in taxes each year if it means i will never pay another health insurance premium, deductible, or co-pay as long as i live. and neither will my kids or elders. not only can i live with that, i can thrive on that! saves me tons of money, money that will go back into the economy.

you can't get more mainstream than that.

i don't know where you get your notions on these matters, but seriously, it appears you are spilling partially chewed talking points.

if you are so comfortable that you do not see any need to change anything, and are convinced this is the #1 place to live, then you are living in a cushy bubble, and are not likely a minority or disabled or a single mother.

the truth is, and i hate to break it to ya, we're way down the ranks of industrialized countries on infant mortality, literacy, healthcare, job satisfaction, living wages, and education, just to name a few shameful truths. used to be better, used to be the best. but, no more, no more. to get a good sense of this, go see michael moore's new film. seriously; all these things are the theme.

your naivete on these matters is really kind of sweet, but sad. tho i do agree that national polling is useless this far out from the GE, but seriously, do you believe this congress will compromise ever? really? that wave has not even crested, dear friend; i do believe the GOP has decided to become its own tsunami. dream on.

and dream on about an R prez; the entire party is imploding, in case you have not noticed. their base is spitting them out whole. they are unrecognizable as republicans, so will morph into gawd knows what, but not what you have ever known. all the more reason to be smart and unified, not fearful and selfish.

if you truly are so comfortable that you don't want anything to change, then bully for you. but the rest of us have been getting screwed by the status quo establishment.

and we have had enough!

[Cassiopeia]

36. That's only true at the moment

and because of the southern states that just don't matter in the GE.

While The Dem voters in those states fight the good fight, there will not be enough of them to win those states for any Dem in the GE.

Let us wait until the rest of the states vote before we decide where the popular vote is, especially the blue and purple states that matter the most in the GE.

[metroins]

71. Swing states

We'll know by next week.

[ellennelle]

77. we'll know what?

there will still be almost half of the states - and more than half of the voters - still to go after tuesday.

tuesday is not THE magic day, any more than last tuesday was, or the tuesday before that.

i suggest you settle in; this will take a while.

[metroins]

82. FL and OH

Clinton already won VA and NV.

FL and OH are the big ones.

[angrychair]

39. Not how the real world works

Democratic Party nominations may sometimes be won with just Democrats but General Elections require lots of Independents.
In far to many states registered Independents are king in politics. In every swing state this is a solid fact: you don't win a swing state without carrying a majority of independents.
Enter a middle America state like Michigan. Sanders carried Independents over HRC by 43 points (71/28)
We will learn more as we progress through states like OH and IL but Sanders has carried independents even in states he has lost to HRC. In South Carolina, Sanders carried Independents by 7 points (53/46)

In Massachusetts, Sanders carried independents by 33 points (66/33)

The point I am making is that while you may win a lot of states or even a whole Democratic Party nomination without Independents, you do not win General Elections without carrying a lot of Independents.


Also, on your "pie in the sky" comment, you do realize that a man on the moon, flying and the Internet were all "pie in the sky" ideas until they were not.
All of his ideas are possible we just have to have the will to achieve it. No, not right away. Some may take longer than others. Yes, it will cost money. Never-the-less, they are very real and very achievable goals.

[Thespian2]

40. hmmmm

[ellennelle]

43. wow

she's lost about ten points in the past 2 weeks in national polls, and has been losing steadily all along. bernie has the momentum, and the enthusiasm, by a huge margin, and he beats her on favorables and when pitted against trump and all other GOP candidates. so, there's that.

which ideas are pie in the sky? single payer? virtually all other major countries provide this as a right to their citizens. free public college? we had that here almost everywhere, and most notably in CA until their property tax was repealed and reagan went after those libruhl profs. unions? a real progressive tax code? an economy that is not of by and for the rich but (at least more) of by and for the people? from FDR till reagan, all this was not pie in the sky but reality. and bernie's economic plan - despite hillary's econ cronies blathering noises about how 'pie in the sky' it is (see? it worked even on you!) - has been upheld and lauded by scores of major economists, and those hillary econs debunked.

what makes you think hillary could get anything done any better than bernie? bernie's been working with these guys solid for almost 30 years. republicans hate her with a passion more red hot than they hate obama. and they've trained their minions well to do the same. i hate that this is true but it is (see joe bidder's comments on this from 08). but, she would not even get the chance to lose in 2020, imho, as she would likely lose in november.

compromise? she not only has compromised the people of this country for decades, she - again, imho - IS compromised. there is an abundant and long record to show it, but the most recent evidence is how she has completely co-opted bernie's talking points as soon as his popularity became evident! she has fewer scruples about this sort of thing than she has principles; forget about policy. compromise when negotiating legislation is a bernie strength, as he has worked across the aisle for decades. compromising his principles is something bernie seems incapable of doing. ever.

as for leading our country during a tough war, you are aware we are in one 14 years now? whoever wins will inherit that debacle. so i ask you, how's that regime change, american interests thing working out for ya?

do avail yourself of hillary's foreign policy record, i beg you. she was actively involved in intervention and regime change (see esp. haiti, honduras, libya, ukraine, for starters), and is on record as being to the right of obama in many of his decisions; we won't have him to temper her hawkishness if she is in the WH.

in short, that piece frankly scares me to death; she does not evidently see any potential for US intervention she does not like. she appears to feel the need to prove her bona fides as cmdr in chief by going to war, not unlike bush, sadly, and very unlike obama. what i've admired about obama in foreign affairs, regardless of any differences on his positions, is his calm and measured demeanor, his no drama rejection of theatrics and histrionics. bernie is steady; he speaks loudly, but his manner is humble and practical. hell, he does his own laundry and drives an old chevy, ferchrissake; unlike hillary who shares a hundred mill with her hubby, bullhorn bill.

and in case you have not noticed, our country is at stake, but the 'real' war you fear is here at home, battling the GOP and corporate idiots who insist global warming is a farce. hillary is so in bed with fossil fuels and wall street, she's had to lie about her stand on TPP and keystone, just for starters. if you ever had a beef against obama's waffling on the environment or wall street, fasten your seat belt honey; hillary will be the bumpiest ride ever.

[chervilant]

45. I keep hearing that

wee bon mot: "Hi11ary leads in the popular vote." How is it, then, that Bernie's crowds are significantly larger than hers? How is it, then, that Bernie won Michigan? How is it, then, that lines of supporters stretch farther than the eye can see? How is it, then, that Bernie is raising MILLIONS in campaign contributions without accepting money from Wall Street?

Is your "pie in the sky ideas" assertion a Brock meme? Bernie promises nothing less than hard work for all of us. I am more than willing to meet his challenge. Are you?

And, let's address the other fallacy in your post: "he'd get nothing done." You think the obstructionists are going to cotton to Hi11ary? I would find that laughable if it wasn't so very sad. Hi11ary has the highest disapproval rating according to contemporary surveys, other than some of the Republicans. Does this not concern you in the least?

But your last salvo, "I also don't trust him to lead our country during a tough war if one were to arise (a real war, where our country is at stake)." A real war?!? You can make such a statement after Hi11ary was so terribly wrong about Iraq? SMDH...

Feeling the BERN!!!

#NotMeUs

[ellennelle]

55. a brock meme

yes, but more specifically, part of the goolsbee gang econ hit job.

thankfully, jamie galbraith set them all straight by calling them out on their sloppy non-calculations.

pie in the sky indeed.

[Unknown Beatle]

57. That 'Bernies pie in the sky ideas' meme

was started by Hillary supporters, you know that right? I mean, who else could it be, the republicans? Nope, they have their own wars going on right now between three idiots. Actually, it was Hillary herself that started that and now it's being parroted by her supporters.

[ellennelle]

80. goolsbee, specifically

he used that term in that econ hit job with 2-3 other establishment economists. which has since been debunked by jamie galbraith.

[basselope]

67. This line baffles me...

" I also don't trust him to lead our country during a tough war if one were to arise (a real war, where our country is at stake)."

And you trust HER? Someone who has gotten LITERALLY every single foreign policy decision she has been involved in WRONG.

I'll trust the guy who has been correct over and over and over again over the person who has been wrong each and every time.

[metroins]

70. I think she's gotten FP correct

The ME is destabilized and fighting itself.

Instead of consolidation, they're killing themselves and we don't need to even send large ground troops.

The nuclear power Iran has no buffer.

You're talking about a macro chess game. I don't care about ISIL.

The Iraq AUMF wasn't a rebuilding effort. We destroyed them in 2 weeks. The mistake in Iraq was hanging around for 10 years for no reason wasting money.

[basselope]

90. HUH???

The entire region has been destabilized and ultimately made it easier for the growth of rouge groups.. which was our REAL enemy the entire time.

So thanks to Clinton FP, we now don't just have Al Qeada, but now also ISIS and we have no idea what is going to happen in the region.

The entire concept behind the Iraq war was regime change. It failed, the way it always fails. Every. Single. Time. And then she did it AGAIN in Libya. She doesn't even learn from her own mistakes.

Nuclear Iran was always the very VERY least of my concerns b/c actual nations are much easier to keep in check, because the LEADERS don't want to die. However, rogue groups, like the ones she has created with reckless FP decisions are the ones far more likely to cause real damage. (Like 9/11).

Trust her with FP?

I wouldn't give her the combination to my locker, let alone nuclear codes.

[metroins]

95. Rogue groups are a joke

Look at macro.

Rogue groups fighting each other means you weaken the entire region. There's no consolidation. No threat. Forces compromise.

50 Americans dying a year in terroristic attacks is better than 1,500 troops wounded or killed in combat or the threat of the ME condensing into a real "alliance".

[basselope]

110. is this a joke?

Rogue gruops have caused more damage than ANY modern nation state (unless we stipidly attacked them for no reason).

HC is the cause od our FP problems.


We cant have a blunderer in chief.

[metroins]

111. Lol

HC is the cause of our problems is very naive.

You give her way too much credit.

[basselope]

131. SO I guess she wasn't as influential

as she has been claiming.

Good to know, she didn't actually do anything then.

[Unknown Beatle]

91. Well, ISIL wouldn't have been born without a war in Iraq,

which, by the way, Hillary voted for going to war. Guess who voted against it? That's right, Bernie.

So, you see, I trust Bernie in making decisions on war, rather than Hillary, who has friends in the defense industry who give her gobs of money.

[metroins]

96. I don't care about ISIL

I care about nuclear countries. Iran came to the table because the ME is destabilized.

The AUMF was meant for war, not rebuilding.

The rebuilding effort falls squarely on Bush/Cheney.

[Unknown Beatle]

100. That's an easy out for Hillary, isn't it?

Since she signed on to go to war, she shouldn't be held accountable for rebuilding?

That's like saying, 'She broke it, but she shouldn't have to pay for it because she said she was sorry.'

Another thing, since Bush/Cheney are long gone, who does it fall squarely on now?

Oh yeah, another thing, Iran is not a nuclear country, nor are they going to be in the near future.

[metroins]

101. Same deal

As Bernie and TARP/auto bailout. You vote for a bill, then it creeps in and changes. The war was sold on Iraq having WMDs. If POTUS and the alphabet soup tell me there's WMDs, I'm going to believe it.

Iran was/is a nuclear country. They aren't weaponized yet because our foreign policy is working.

[Unknown Beatle]

113. That's not true.

Everyone knew there were no WMD in Iraq. People here in DU knew. I knew. All one had to do is research and the answer was there, no WMD. If other people were duped, that's their problem. They were either ignorant of the facts or they knew but voted for AUMF.

Everyone Knew that Iraq Didn’t Have WMDs

Everyone knew the WMD claims were fake.

For example, Tony Blair – the British Prime Minister – knew that Saddam possessed no WMDs. If America’s closest ally Britain knew, then the White House knew as well.

And the number 2 Democrat in the Senate -who was on the Senate intelligence committee – admitted that the Senate intelligence committee knew before the war started that Bush’s public statements about Iraqi WMDs were false. If the committee knew, then the White House knew as well.

But we don’t even have to use logic to be able to conclude that the White House knew.

60 Minutes: CIA Official Reveals Bush, Cheney, Rice Were Personally Told Iraq Had No WMD in Fall 2002

Tonight on 60 Minutes, Tyler Drumheller, the former chief of the CIA’s Europe division, revealed that in the fall of 2002, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and others were told by CIA Director George Tenet that Iraq’s foreign minister — who agreed to act as a spy for the United States — had reported that Iraq had no active weapons of mass destruction program.

Ex-CIA official: WMD evidence ignored

[noiretextatique]

127. You think she was right about Honduras?

There is a thread about it here right now. Please read it.

[Binkie The Clown]

78. Hillary may lead in the DEMOCRATIC vote, but not every US voter is a Democrat.

And winning the Democrats is a far cry from winning the general election.

[metroins]

84. GE polls don't matter now

It's all about swing states and Clinton is going to lock them in on Tuesday with FL and OH.

[basselope]

93. And she is only winning right now b/c most of the states that have voted have been red states...

We will see what happens as we move into progressive states.

[pinebox]

124. "Hillary leads in the popular vote"---For now. That changes after the 15th

She is seen as untrustworthy and nothing but.
Piein the sky ideas is an excuse for NO WE CAN'T!
You guys don't even fight. You sound like the French FFS!
No sorry, nominating a candidate who is under an FBI investigation means you would lose the election. Hell they are already saying they will impeach Hillary on day 1 should she be the nominee. Do you not understand that Hillary is the MOST HATED politician?


A Hillary nomination ensures a GOP win.

[LyndaG]

5. Sorry you feel that way

I'll be voting for the Democratic nominee.

[Bubzer]

25. You do that. I'll be voting for Bernie.

GO BERNIE!!!!

[PonyUp]

120. I'll be voting for the Democrat. Bernie! n/t

[Lucinda]

11. Nope. Dems will vote in the GE. Thats the way we roll.

08 had twice the GE vs Primary turnout.

[zeemike]

56. That is because there was hope for change.

That is what Obama promised and the voters responded by voting.
Now if it is Hillary there is no promise of change. And in fact it is back to the old.

So don't expect a big turnout if Hillary is the one...because no one believes she will change anything.

[Lucinda]

58. Nonsense. She is quite popular with Dems and they will vote in the GE.

[zeemike]

65. No she is not.

She has high negatives. And if she was all that popular she would be filling rallies like Obama did and like Sanders is doing now.
And Dems will not be enough to elect her anyway...she needs independents.

[Lucinda]

109. She doesn't do big rallies. On purpose.

They are working a great ground game. Getting her up close with smaller groups of people, and those who are working on the ground for her campaign. The occasional large groups, so far, have been election day parties.

And I'm pretty sure the 4,940,095+ people who have voted for her, so far, like her just fine.

[dana_b]

13. well said

it's how I see them also.

[alcibiades_mystery]

14. ...

[SunSeeker]

54. LOL

[Fairgo]

105. Yoots?

God I loved that movie

[NCTraveler]

15. Dems will turn out in numbers.

Sorry we won't have your support.

[grasswire]

20. FBI nt

[G_j]

24. I wouldn't be thinking of voting for her

I'd be casting my vote against a GOP nightmare.

[Cleita]

29. No argument from me. eom

[Onlooker]

30. Well, you're pretty useless then.

Perhaps if Hillary wins, you will no longer be in DU, so you can go into retirement yourself, and take pride that your bitterness helped put a Republican racist in the White House.

[Katashi_itto]

118. Guess you should have run something other than a corporate operative.

[Ivan Kaputski]

140. ^ this ^

[litlbilly]

34. bravo wt, great op, my thoughts exactly

[jalan48]

35. I'm not sure the young, enthused Bernie supporters will turn out for Hillary.

Why should they? She's been running a negative campaign, trashing a good man. If she had stuck to the issues she might have had better luck.

[fun n serious]

46. He has to be vetted.nt

[jalan48]

53. Tell that to the young people who support him-I'm sure it will win them over.

[fun n serious]

129. I have been. Where I am not censored for my free speech.

[noiretextatique]

128. How? By creating fake issues like ghettogate?

That's not vetting.

[Garrett78]

37. Isn't Clinton getting a higher percentage of Dem support in the primary?

The likes of Cruz and Trump have a lower ceiling, and the electoral college map favors the Democratic nominee.

Much has been made of Clinton winning "red" states, which I touched on here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511460282

But it's actually Sanders who is most reliant on states such as Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Montana, etc.

Anyway, many voting for Sanders now will vote for Clinton if she's the nominee, even if many on DU wouldn't. It's not like the Democratic nominee is likely to lose the New England states, regardless of who it is.

[Dustlawyer]

38. K&R!!!

[SoapBox]

42. Agree 1,000%!

It is totally underestimated how much people do NOT like her.

[quantumjunkie]

61. As an AA i agree 100%

[oasis]

64. The specter of three Scalia clones ascending to the US Supreme Court

will be enough to UNdepress Dem turnout.

[PyaarRevolution]

81. How did ANYONE respect Scalia?!

I mean even Conservatives should despise the man since he would vote on cases where he had a CLEAR conflict of interest. All of the Liberals seemed to abstain unlike Scalia and Thomas(I don't know about Alito).

[oasis]

87. If Dems don't show up and vote we'll have three more Scaliatypes "clones"

taking seats on the Supreme Court over 4 years, after a GOP president is elected.

[Carlo Marx]

69. The only region Hillary has shown strength is the southeast.

With almost the entire Democratic Party pushing her, media acolytes rotating between 'Hillary is inevitable'--Bernie is a 'fringe commie loser' narration, and having sleazy super pacs spending millions for her, Hillary has only squeaked out 3 wins among the 12 states not in the southeast. The media has been coddling her; the Washington Post running 16 negative Bernie adds in 16 hours is only one source among the many willing to savage the idea that working people should have a seat at the table. Hillary is as robotic and slimy as Rubio, and it took the emergence of tough debate moderators and Bernie's willingness to actually fight back and clobber her with some of her atrocious record of neoliberal bullshit.

[oldandhappy]

74. and on cable news, giggle. very strong there.

[CarrieLynne]

72. then vote against trump -

[shenmue]

76. Oh for pete's sake

[PyaarRevolution]

79. If Cruz gets the nom. EVERYONE will vote for Hillary, even many Republicans.

Trust me, people will RUN to not see Cruz elected. His father is a Dominionist and if you heard what his father said about Cruz it will creep you way out. Thom played a clip of it and it freaked me out plus his stance on immigration with Christians. I mean is he only for letting Christians in from the Middle East or only letting Christians into the U.S. in general?

[PonyUp]

125. "I'll still write Bernie in. n/t

[DebbieCDC]

85. I want someone to vote FOR

I want to be FOR something positive, not be coerced by DWS and the turd way into settling for HRC to keep tRump out of the White House front door (while letting Goldman Sachs in through the back door).

HRC will never EVER get my vote, not even as a vote against der trumpenfuhrer. If Berne's not the nominee I'll either not vote for president at all, write in Bernie's name or vote Green Party. Hell I'd write in Ralph Fucking Nader before I'd cast a vote for HRC.

I'm a progressive first who identifies as a Democrat second, not the other way around. I was sold a fake progressive agenda by HRC's husband. I won't make that mistake again.

[mwrguy]

97. You not having the willpower is Hillary's fault?

OK

[NurseJackie]

114. Ha! :-D

and

[asuhornets]

119. Not True at all..

Democrats will come out in droves to vote for Hillary, guaranteed. She will be our first woman President alot of us want to see that...

[gollygee]

121. We will win no matter if Bernie or Hillary is nominated

I wish we'd just get through the primaries so we could stop seeing one group claim the other group is less electable. You're both electable!

[Lizzie Poppet]

126. I think Hillary is pure poison in the GE.

Not just for the presidential contest, but for the downballot, as well. She's a complete disaster with young voters. It took two groups of voters to put Obama over the top: blacks and young voters. Subtract either one to any significant degree, and he'd have lost. Hillary has already done that. Any boost in black turnout she represents is offset by her tanking among young voters. Their turnout will be abysmal.

Moreover, her turnout motivation factor for the far right is unequaled.

She also tanks badly with independents. Moderate independents will still likely split about evenly...although there's the "year of the outsider" thing to consider, even with them. Left-leaning independents will be a mixed bag. Some will select the more-liberal candidate, even if they're not "more liberal" by much. Others (like me) are tired of having to hold our noses and select the slightly-less-shitty candidate...and won't vote for president (or will vote for Jill Stein).

I strongly believe Hillary's nomination can be summed up in two words: "President Trump." If I'm wrong, I'll be happy to admit it...but I think we have a disaster in the making.

[shenmue]

138. Except she's ahead in states and delegates.

[Lizzie Poppet]

141. Pssst: "GE"

[riversedge]

123. The silly season gets sillier with your OP

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

134. I always vote. I also try to choose the most progressive candidate on the ballot.

If Hillary wins the nomination, she won't be the most progressive candidate on the ballot.

[Herman4747]

136. wt1531 writes: "I would definitely will not have the will power to go out & vote"

...if Hillary gets the nomination. I posit that if you live in a battleground, toss-up state you should vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination, since you definitely DO NOT WANT A PRESIDENT TRUMP OR A PRESIDENT CRUZ. That is if you live in a state like Ohio or Florida, vote for Hillary if she is our nominee!

Think about how utterly horrible Bush II was. His presidency was nightmarish, far worse than what Hillary would bring. You can regard a ballot selection showing Hillary as a vote against Trump (or Cruz).

[randr]

139. It is the swing voters and those who do not vote

who decide elections.
Given that more swing voters would vote for Bernie and more millennials will sit out if Hillary is the candidate we have set up a perfect storm for Trump to walk into our WH.