Hillary Clinton cannot win the general without Bernie and his supporters

[cali]

Something to consider as you jump up and down gleefully flinging unsubstantiated poo smearing Bernie and his supporters.

[Peacetrain]

1. That road goes two ways Cali..

Something to think about..

[cali]

45. That's simply absurd. She will be the nominee

[oldandhappy]

2. Manipulations in NV took care of a lot of folk who might have wanted to vote against Trump.

[SheenaR]

3. Fact

[YouDig]

4. She can win without the ones that throw chairs and send death threats.

[Bobbie Jo]

5. No kidding

These people can get lost, don't even want their votes.

[NurseJackie]

12. They'd never vote for Hillary anyway ... why bother trying to appeal to them?

They make themselves irrelevant, they do so intentionally and willingly ... they're proud of it, and they brag about it ... and then when they realized they've given up any chance they have of influencing or guiding the party, and that nobody is listening to them, they loudly COMPLAIN that they're being ignored and treated as though they're irrelevant.

Go figure.

[ThePhilosopher04]

13. Bullshit, of course you want their votes. And you need them.

[Bobbie Jo]

21. No, I certainly don't.

People who throw chairs and issue death threats can get lost and stay lost, AFAIC.

Who needs that shit.

[ThePhilosopher04]

23. So if they stay home & Clinton loses, it won't bother you if Trump wins, based on your principled

stand on Bernie support. Besides, I doubt there are truly any Bernie supporters actually throwing chairs. That's whiny ass Clinton fan making up bullshit.

[Bobbie Jo]

26. What does that even mean?

[ThePhilosopher04]

33. What do you mean what does that mean? You said you don't want the votes of Bernie supporters

so I would assume based on your "principled" position, you would be willing to accept a Hillary loss to Trump if those voters stayed home and were the difference. If not, then you're being disingenuous when you say you don't want their vote.

[Bobbie Jo]

36. That's what I thought you said

Still doesn't make a lick of sense. If I say that you got me will you move on?

This exchange sounds like a game of "Would You Rather."

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

I don't want chair throwers or death threat-ers. Seems simple enough.

[ThePhilosopher04]

37. Did you skip reading comprehension in grade school?

[Bobbie Jo]

41. No, I comprehend just fine.

I just thought your "argument" was absurd. I'll be more direct next time.

[ThePhilosopher04]

42. No, I think you know you lost.

[brush]

46. Did you? She said she didn't want the votes of chair throwers or death threateners . . .

Not all Sanders supporters.

[libdem4life]

30. Let's concede about the supposed "chair throwers" How many?

They should definitely go over to the Trump side. There are crazies in every organization. Gosh, even HRC has a few.

[Cali_Democrat]

14. Exactly. I don't want them in the party. nt

[ThePhilosopher04]

6. No real Bernie supporters threw chairs and sent death threats. Those are Clinton goons.

[YouDig]

7. Interesting theory you have.

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. Since the call from out of state

[JaneyVee]

8. Obama won without independents or white males.

[Dawgs]

10. Completely different time and people.

Fool me once...

[LenaBaby61]

15. He...

Sure did.

Having said that, for those Sanders supporters who won't vote for Hillary Clinton, it's their right. NO ONE should be told whom to vote for. Conversely, those Sanders supporters who will vote for Hillary Clinton in the fall, they have the right do to so. I have many friends who are Sanders supporters across this country who are voting blue (And voting for Clinton without hesitation they all tell me) in the GE.

Bottom line: People are going to vote however they're going to vote in the primaries and ultimately in the General Election this fall.

[ThePhilosopher04]

16. Simply not true.

First of all, in 2008, Obama won independents by a margin of 52-44, with independents making up 29% of the electorate. He didn't win the majority of white males, but he got 41%, which was the highest percentage by a D since Carter. I doubt Hillary comes close to either of those numbers, and independents will surely make up more than 29% of the electorate in 2016. She absolutely, positively needs Sanders supporters to have any chance of beating Donald Trump.

[JaneyVee]

17. Check 2012.

[LenaBaby61]

19. Correct. Romney won independents in 2012 by 5% points ....

But NOT the election.


In the final days of the 2012 presidential campaign, Mitt Romney's political director Rich Beeson was steadfast about his candidate's chances in key swing state Ohio.

"Whoever wins independent voters in Ohio, wins Ohio," Beeson said on "Fox News Sunday," two days before the election.

He was, of course, wrong. Romney won self-identified Independents in Ohio by a overwhelming 10 points, according to exit polls, but lost the state to President Barack Obama by 2 points.

A similar trend was seen across much of the country — Romney won among Independents by 5 points, 50-45, but lost to Obama, 51-48. The numbers illustrate why winning the Independent vote in pre-election polls isn't necessarily a telltale sign of victory, as many political strategists have suggested.
In fact, what the Independent vote is often more telling of is a lack of commitment among "leaners" to the party.

The best example of that is seen in a candidate to which Romney is often compared — John Kerry, who won the Independent vote by a single point in 2004, but lost the election by about the same margin as Romney did in 2012.

What this means is that the Independent vote is, for two reasons, an unreliable indicator of electoral success. In 2004, Kerry was a candidate who was never completely accepted by the Democratic base. Sound familiar? Except this time, Romney was never fully beloved by the Republican base.

Jim Williams, an analyst at Public Policy Polling, explained during the "unskewing" controversy that a voter's choice to identify as an Independent can change by the day. Republicans who were disenchanted with Romney might have been more apt to identify as Independent, as Democrats were in 2004 when they were dissatisfied with Kerry.

In 2012, a much more reliable indicator of success — and a better example of the "swing" vote — came from voters who identified as "moderate." In every critical battleground state, Obama won the moderate vote. In Iowa, he captured more than 60% of it. Overall, Obama beat Romney by 15 points among moderates.

http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-romney-independent-vote-polls-moderates-election-2012-11

Also, as Nate Silver points out, it's a bit too early for all of these polls. We're still on the Democratic side in a primary race. Additionally as Silver points out, there's just not enough 'credible' polling out there on many fronts to be making decisive statements this early. It's not even June yet.

[ThePhilosopher04]

25. Hillary won't do as well as Romney among either independents or white males ...

and independents will likely be a larger share of the electorate in 2016.

[LenaBaby61]

35. Well...

It'll take more than just Independents and white males for Trump to win the General election. He'll have to make inroads into getting certain %'s of the minority/woman vote and with the way he's going, that's more than likely not going to happen.

What it all boils down to--post primaries, and debates between the two candidates running for president--is who gets out the vote in November. Democrats or Republicans.

We'll see.

[brush]

48. Come on. You have to know better. Independents are not a monolithic voting block

There are left-leaning, moderate, and right-leaning indies.

Clinton will get most of the sensible left-leaning and moderate indies who don't want Trump appointing the next 3 SCOTUS justices.

Trump will get hs share of the rest.

[ThePhilosopher04]

20. He was an incumbent in 2012, not running for the first time. Besides, it was a much closer election

Hillary will not do as well as Obama's 2012 numbers, among either white males or independents. And she'll certainly do worse with young voters.

[brush]

47. She'll get the sensible Sanders supporters and independents who don't want Trump . . .

appointing the next 3 SCOTUS justices.

I would say most Sanders supporters, and left-leaning and moderate independents are sensible, discerning voters who want what's best for the country in the end.

[ThePhilosopher04]

24. That's a lie.

[PufPuf23]

34. I voted for and gave money to POTUS Obama in 2008.

I cried the day of the election.

I am a white male that registered when came of age 1972 in Democratic party and have voted Democrat ever since.

Was first seriously politicized in 1968 age 15 when attending boarding school in the San Francisco Bay Area. My roommate 1968-69 Eric's (RIP) mother was Maya Miller, a noted Nevada Democratic party and feminist activist. The first time she visited she took Eric and I to an antiwar rally at the Marina Green in San Francisco in support of the Presidio soldiers accused of treason. I have identified as anti-war liberal and Democratic ever since (and don't intend to change).

Hillary Clinton was my least favorite of nine Democratic candidates in 2008; I was already any Democrat but Hillary Clinton. The reasons were all from actions post 2001. I had supported and voted for Bill Clinton and readily gave him a pass on the questionable. Some items I did not know nor understand (and I am far better educated and informed than the average voter).

POTUS Obama has been a good POTUS, somewhat disappointing because he is a neo-liberal but he brought the USA back from the brink and has been a good face for the nation.

No way that the next POTUS including Hillary Clinton will be as successful as POTUS Obama.

I supported Sanders originally because he was not Hillary Clinton and I believed that the Democratic Party would retain the POTUS Regardless of candidate. Sanders has turned out to be a refreshing surprise and represents a strong move against the neo-liberalism that has come to dominate the Democratic party and nation.

So I do not want Hillary Clinton to be the next POTUS and particularly do not want Clinton for 8 years. Clinton will continue the neo-liberal status quo and the struggle for a global empire. Clinton is to then right of POTUS Obama. Clinton has been corrupted and gained a fortune from the system.

That said I would never vote for Trump nor GOP and a 3rd party vote is senseless given our two party system. I am voting for Sanders in the California primary. I have said I would likely vote for Clinton in the general but be angry and not support her in spirit.
This may have already changed to where POTUS may be skipped on my ballot. The DNC and Democratic party establishment made a grave error in treating Hillary Clinton as an incumbent and presumed nominee given her high negatives with many within the party.

I have no intention to leave the Democratic party and think others wrong that are leaving or say they will leave.

I tend to think that if Hillary Clinton as expected is the Democratic nominee for POTUS, Clinton will win. Not because of the support of Sanders supporters, but because Clinton gains the sane and moderate GOPs and adjunct media that supported Reagan and both Bushes and the MIC's zeal for empire. Clinton treats this segment as more natural allies than the anti-war liberals, especially those of her own generation.

[jamese777]

9. Donald Trump Can't Win

without Ted Cruz and John Kasich supporters or without Mitt Romney trying to mount a conservative third party candidate run.

[asuhornets]

11. Well come aboard...What's the hold up? eom

[BillZBubb]

29. Two words:

Hillary Clinton.

[asuhornets]

49. Oh that's set in stone...n/t

[Proud Liberal Dem]

18. If the thought of Trump becoming President

isn't horrific enough to make them AT LEAST hold their noses and vote for Hillary, then I would question their progressive bonafides/concern for the country. Yeah, Hillary might not be as progressive as Bernie but she won't be a disaster for the country like four (maybe even eight) years of Trump as POTUS. I challenge anybody to make a contrary argument.

[BillZBubb]

32. That's the kind of thinking inside the box that IDs a Hillary supporter.

If you are living in a solid blue or solid red state, it isn't going to matter who you vote for. In that case, you can vote with a clear conscience for whoever you wish or not vote at all.

Is that too difficult to understand?

[BillZBubb]

27. They think the Bernie backers will all fall in line if Hillary is the nominee.

For the most part they are probably right--the left always goes for the lesser of two evils argument.

[libdem4life]

28. Not even with Republican money.

[PeteSelman]

31. Bernie will get a convention speech and platform concessions.

And Hillary will get my vote in November. I'm not really insulted by any of the primary shenanigans. That's life in politics and this isn't my first rodeo. The best person never wins the primary.

[MadBadger]

38. She doesnt need him, but she needs his supporters

This is where Obama campaigning comes in.

[Tarc]

39. Then perhaps it's time to stop terrorizing caucus convention and party chairs

Just a thought.

[JCMach1]

40. Cali, I have seen a ton of poo flying on both sides...

One reason I am vehemently not supporting either for the primaries.

I support the nominee, whoever that might be and expect whoever it is to make real efforts to bring the party together.

[Maedhros]

44. Yes! To hell with ideology and policy!

Vote for the letter after the name!



/ignore list.

[JCMach1]

52. Once again proving my point...

[B Calm]

43. I think they don't care. They are going for the Republican voters.

[JRLeft]

50. She will get a majority of his supporters even with all of her supporters shenanigans.

She's going after GOP voters too.

[Demsrule86]

51. BSSers

spread the poo on themselves by their terrible behavior...I guess we will have to without such people...sick of the blackmail.

[Jim Lane]

53. Absolutely correct. Here are some numbers for those math-loving Clinton supporters.

In 2012, Obama's popular-vote margin over Romney was less than five million. I don't know Sanders's exact total this year but I think he's at about nine million, with several states yet to vote. Factor in that Bernie has amassed that total in primaries and caucuses, which always draw fewer people than the general election.

Obviously, Clinton doesn't need every single Sanders supporter to vote for her. Still, she needs to get a lot of us.

In the projected Clinton versus Trump matchup, there are some of us who are almost certain to vote for Clinton (I'm in that camp), and some who are almost certain not to (Trump may yet scare them enough to change their minds, though). What far too many of Clinton's supporters on DU don't seem to realize, however, is that there are some in the middle whose votes are up for grabs. They don't want to see Trump win, but they're really (and in many respects justifiably) ticked off at what's happened within the Democratic Party this year. I'm appalled when I see Clinton supporters, at the Nevada convention or on DU or anywhere else, acting in a way that seems calculated to alienate those voters.

To give Hillary Clinton credit, however, she seems to be smarter than many of the DUers who advocate for her. She's argued for her policy views, which are overall more conservative than Bernie's, but she and Bernie have both kept the personal acrimony way below what it could have been (and what it's been on the Republican side). She hasn't called Sanders supporters "sexist, racist, elitist, authoritarian bullies" (to mention but one of the phrases employed on her supposed behalf on DU). She's expressly disavowed the "Bernie drop out" clamor. In short, Hillary Clinton has implicitly recognized the truth of this OP.