Why should the Democratic Party nominate a candidate disliked and not trusted by most voters?

[imagine2015]

Is that a new formula for winning presidential elections?

I writing about Secretary Clinton of course.

[grasswire]

1. why, indeed?

when there is an alternative with 86 percent trustworthy ratings and immense crossover appeal?

[Hav]

2. Well, there is a simple answer.

Apparently that candidate is well liked and trusted by the Democrats who voted during these primaries.

[Gomez163]

3. There you go using your facts again.

[amborin]

7. no; the M$M has ignored or denigrated Bernie, while lobbying for HRC & ignoring her

multitude of misdeeds. Many voters get all of their info from the M$M. Critical theorists (aka the Frankfurt School) have addressed this issue: passive totalitarianism. Sit someone in front of the TV and you've got sway over them.

[That Guy 888]

36. She had a tremendous insider advantage before anyone announced they were running.

She schmoozed the super-delegates and other democratic leaning leaders(labor/union leaders, Civil rights leaders, etc) before a single Democratic opponent announced they would run. This primary was supposed to be over before it left the South.

[imagine2015]

45. And that would be less than 10% of registered Democrats.

Do you think she can win with that small base and few of the registered independents who are over 40% of the voters?

[metroins]

4. The voters like and trust Hillary Rodham Clinton

She has more votes than any other candidate in any of the races.

Leads Bernie in pledged delegates, votes, super delegates and every other measure.

But you know all of this.

[Trust Buster]

5. Why should the losing candidate and his supporters join the Republican nominee in

attacking the Democratic nominee ? You might as well vote for Trump.

[amborin]

9. the Republian nominee? The candidate endorsed by Kissinger, the Kochs, Rupert Murdoch, George Will?

[oldandhappy]

15. and now maybe supported by Rove??

[MattP]

21. Some people say?

[oldandhappy]

34. Saw it somewhere this morning. Will look for it.

[amborin]

37. it's been reported in the media

[Vincardog]

6. Becaues it is her turn. Because MATH. Because Primary voters count and caucses don't. Because the

Machine can steal it for her. Because If she is the democratic nominee the entrenched regressive oligarchy can sleep secure in the knowledge that there will be no political threat to their fortunes.

[msongs]

14. your crowd keeps saying this but your candidate has not offered any evidence or even

contested results in anything regarding hillary

[fun n serious]

23. Because she is the most qualified BY A LONG SHOT.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

8. Why do anti Democratic party agenda people spend so much time on DU?

[Gore1FL]

19. In 2001 when this was set up the Democrats were considered left-leaning.

There are a lot of us who joined DU then.

[Ned_Devine]

26. I was one of them in 2004

[amborin]

38. democrats value principles, not Party or person; it's about core values

[bigwillq]

10. The people are speaking, and the majority voted for Hillary

in the Democratic primary. She should be the nominee of the Democratic party.

[msongs]

11. well besides the fact that she has gotten more votes than bernie or trump lol.... nt

[Tarc]

12. "disliked and not trusted by most voters" ?

Obviously the voters that can actually show up to the ballot box disagree.

[MisterP]

13. her consistuency's among party honchos--she can only win closed primaries

but that just means they're gonna try and make the GEs closed!

[oldandhappy]

16. because she is winning!!!!!! giggle

[CrowCityDem]

17. The other option: why would the party nominate the loser?

[bjo59]

18. It's bizarre, for sure. But it's the whole system that put her where she is, not just the people

voted for her in the primaries. I think the corporate goal was and is simply to prevent anyone who campaigns for what Bernie is campaigning for to never, ever be installed in the White House. For them, any candidate is better for them than Bernie. The corporate media, as the propaganda arm of the corpo-government power bloc, has worked over time to achieve that goal. I'm just assuming that the Democratic Party is now a wing of that power block and has a similar view even if never stated aloud even to themselves. The system must be preserved exactly as it is for the many powerful players that benefit from that system. If the goal of the Democratic Party is to elect a Democrat as the next president, then... no, nominating a candidate who is not trusted and disliked by most voters is incredibly dumb (the kind of dumb that is born of arrogance and exaggerated self regard).

[MattP]

20. Rove is supporting Bernie by running ads against Hillary

[doc03]

22. I think it's called democracy she is getting the most votes. If Bernie gets enough votes

in what is left of primaries he will be the nominee.

[litlbilly]

25. You're wrong, Not exactly clear on that at all with NY, AZ and others who suppressed the

votes in very large numbers. the entire system, DNC, M$M, etc are all against Bernie and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to get that, unless you are part of the crowd that doesn't care. I am still thinking Bernie can catch her in delegates going forward and the supers will prove or disprove my point. The game is rigged big time against non-establishment types. We will see, but, if they just think they can blow us off, they will be in for a big surprise come convention day.

[KelleyD]

30. No one is blowing you off. Blame the Repubs in your state where voter suppression happened.

Unless you believe that the pole workers were psychic and knew which voters were for either candidate. Please... CT does not belong in our party! Oh I forgot...this is not your party!
When anyone starts complaining that they were ROBBED means they are losing.

[justiceischeap]

32. "...others who suppressed the votes in very large numbers."

This makes the assumption that the suppressed votes were all votes cast for Sanders and absolutely none for anyone else.

Do you see how wrong that logic is?

[72DejaVu]

27. I think it's got something to do with getting the most votes.

[Scurrilous]

28. It's not a popularity contest. n/t

[KansDem]

29. To preserve the new American dynasties?

1980: Reagan/Bush
1984: Reagan/Bush
1988: Bush/Quayle
1992: Clinton/Gore
1996: Clinton/Gore
2000: Bush/Cheney
2004: Bush/Cheney
2008: Obama/Biden
2012: Obama/Biden
2016: ?Clinton (Hillary) or Bush (Jeb)?

Of course, Jeb dropped out of the race, but still, he was a contender.

The oligarchs are elated.

[KelleyD]

31. Kind of blew your CT!!!! eom

[JoePhilly]

33. Because she's winning the primary.

Here's an idea ... rather than wait for the liberal Messiah to appear, go make a few.

The movement wanted Warren, not Bernie.

She said NO ... Bernie said OK.

That's where we are.

If you wanted someone else to win the primary, you needed to do more long before now.

Get it?

I bet not.

[imagine2015]

35. Well if you like a Wall Street messiah go with the former Senator from Wall Street

[asuhornets]

39. because Hillary has the most votes, maybe?

You talk about dislike or untrustworthy like we're in high school.

[imagine2015]

40. Even if she can't defeat Trump?

[asuhornets]

43. But she's beating Sanders..

In order for Sanders to beat Trump like the polls says ---he needs to beat Hillary in the primaries. But you already know that. Hence, what's the point of stating Sanders beats Trump by a wider margin than Hillary Clinton.

[w4rma]

41. Money. Donors before voters. (nt)

[Agschmid]

42. But she's ahead in the vote, and pledged delegate count.

So... No.

[Recursion]

44. IDK. Why nominate someone who can't get more votes than that person?

We had a weak bench this year, with an exception or two. You still have to run the play with what you have.