Why are Democrats deliberately choosing the weaker candidate to take on Trump?

[Cheese Sandwich]

Seems like a bad choice. Especially with the potential for so many different Clinton scandals over the next 8 years.

June 1 polling averages

Sanders vs. Trump


Clinton vs. Trump



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

[Matt_in_STL]

1. Because it is her turn. That's why.

Now stop asking questions!!! Oh, and something about 16 days left until you are gone.

I think that covers it.

[NCTraveler]

5. You forget millions of votes and hundereds of delegates. nt.

[NCTraveler]

2. You truly believe this is how we should pick our nominee? Truly?

It's a flat out stupid fucking thought process. No offense.

[tonyt53]

3. Weaker candidate??? The GOP would tear Bernie apart.

Got to have voters over 50 to win, and few will ever vote for a socialist in this country. Very damned few. People over 50 vote. I learned that as a college student supporting McGovern.

[Meteor Man]

9. Right

That's why Trump chickened out of the debate. Because he didn't want to tear Bernie apart.

In case you missed it, this is not the 60's and Bernie is not Mc Govern.

[tonyt53]

13. Uh, time for a history lesson, McGovern ran in 1972 against Nixon and the similarities are striking.

Your lack of historical knowledge is showing. And Trump didn't chicken out. He knows that there is absolutely no benefit in debating a person that is in denial about losing. Bernie got played by a reality TV host. That goes Bernie-s followers too.

[Ken Burch]

23. No, they aren't striking at all. Bernie has NOTHING in common with McGovern

1)Unlike McGovern, Bernie has a lot of labor support. You will not see the AFL-CIO staying neutral in a Trump V. Sanders race in the way they did in '72.

2)Unlike McGovern, Bernie has significant support in all age groups.

3)Unlike McGovern, Bernie isn't facing a Republican incumbent who had the power of the federal government at his disposal to disrupt and sabotage his opponents' campaigns.

4)Unlike McGovern, whoever is selected as Bernie's running mate(if Bernie gets nominated)will not produce the kind of catastrophic embarrassment that McGovern was subjected to, with two Dem senators publicly refusing to accept the slot and then Eagleton's mental health issues(which shouldn't have mattered) being unexpectedly exposed. We pretty much know everything there is to know about the personal lives of everybody in national politics now(whether we want to know it or not).

5)And in a complete reversal of the way things were in '72, the issues that cost McGovern support among traditional dems(LGBTQ, rights, defense of reproductive rights support for a rational, humane drug policy, opposition to police brutality)are now positions on which there is strong consensus support among all Democratic voting blocs(and issues which, as HRC's supporters like to remind us, HRC has been more outspoken about then Bernie in some cases-though Bernie is just as committed to fighting for those issues as president as HRC).

The lesson of 1972 is not that Democrats can't ever nominate an idealist or a crusader. The lesson of 1972 is that you're going to lose 49 states no matter what when Richard Nixon, Spiro Agnew and CREEP are your opponents.

[redstateblues]

38. Bernie is more like Mondale who also ran on raising taxes on the middle class

He won ONE state-his home state MN

[Ken Burch]

50. A closer analogy-but there was more to Mondale's humiliating defeat than that.

1)Mondale offered no program to re-industrialize the Rust Belt....thus giving working-class voters no reason to vote for him.

2)Mondale supported raising taxes, but only to balance the budget...NOT to restore Reagan's massive cuts in social services or to properly enforce environmental or labor laws.

3)Mondale refused to allocate any significant party funds to supporting Jesse Jackson's proposal for a massive voter registration campaign(the only way we were going to win or even come close in '84 was to expand the electorate-the existing pool of voters were already certain to back Reagan no matter who we nominated...even if we nominated Sam Nunn on a "no new taxes" platform).

4)At a time when there was a massive peace and justice movement all across the country, Mondale cost himself millions of potential votes by listening to Cold Warriors like Ben Wattenberg & refusing to do anything to engage peace and justice voters-he accepted only the most watered-down version of the nuclear freeze, refused to put "no first use/no )strike" language in the platform, and baked continued military aid to El Salvador PLUS a Cuban-style embargo on Nicaragua.

5)Mondale and the Democratic leadership of that era sounded totally cowed by Reagan, and when you heard them speak, you almost had the feeling they accepted the right-wing argument that it was treason for anyone to run against the Gipper from the left. When you sound as though you don't believe in your party OR yourself, the voters aren't going to trust or believe you.


Mondale's campaign was moderate to the point of timidity and paralysis. The lesson there still wasn't that the party's nominee has to tell progressive to "pound sand and peddle it walking" as a former and unlamented DU'er used to say. The lesson was that the way you beat someone like Reagan is to stand up to him and to present a clear, unapologetic alternative to what someone like that is doing. That's how you fire up the base and that's how you project the kind of leadership you need to show to win over "the center".

[Gothmog]

56. Really? The McGovern campaign reminds me a great deal of the Sanders campaign

How is this ad from McGovern any different from the campaign that Sanders is running against everyone who is accepting super pac money? http://www.vox.com/2015/9/14/9323459/mcgovern-sanders

[Ken Burch]

67. It's not as though we'd have done better in '72

with a candidate whose message was

"I HAVE fat cat money behind me"

"I will compromise CONSTANTLY"

"I will only speak out on issues WHEN THEY ARE ALREADY POPULAR"

"I CAN be bought"

(For that matter, would anyone want us to nominate someone who was accurately described by the inverse list I created there?-for the record, I DON'T think HRC would embody that set of attributes-and Bernie, for his part, has not said he wouldn't EVER compromise).

[tonyt53]

57. Yes, the similarities are striking. McGovern wooed college students the most.

On #1, Labor unions, especially the largest, are all backing Hillary. Few are behind Bernie. That is a fact.
On #2, No Bernie does not have a significant support amongst al ages. most of his supporters are male between 18-25. Most well-educated voters over the age of 45 are backing Hillary. That is a fact.
On #3, No, there is no Nixon, but there is an entire GOP establishment that has been hacking at Hillary since 1993 and they still haven't stopped er. Bernie has provided then with plenty of ammo with his past backing of communist and socialist governments. They would destroy him.
On #4, That is pure conjecture be cause that will never happen. So far you have talked about things that have happened, stick to it.
On #5, Few of those "issues" you just brought up hurt McGovern with "traditional" Democrats. Who the hell do you think brought about those changes like abortion/reproduction rights, opposition to police brutality (Kent State for starters), civil rights and equal rights for everyone? It was Democrats working together. Hillary has been a Democrat. Bernie just became one last year.

The lesson of 1972 is that the Democrats can't nominate someone that the GOP can easily destroy. Bernie can't carry the vote of those over 50. Hos socialist past will doom him. For people to no attempt to downplay that part of his past is pure lunacy. Oh, and Hubert Humphrey would have beaten Nixon; Agnew resigned and never ran for office.

[Ken Burch]

66. 1) It's not accurate to say ALL unions back HRC

Here is a list of those who back Bernie

Here is a list of Bernie's many labor endorsements:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bernie_Sanders_presidential_campaign_endorsements%2C_2016

APWU – American Postal Workers Union, representing 250,000
ATU – Amalgamated Transit Union, representing 190,000
CWA – Communication Workers of America, representing 700,000
ILWU – International Longshore and Warehouse Union, representing 50,000
NNU – National Nurses United, representing 185,000
NUHW – National Union of Healthcare Workers, representing 11,000
UE – United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, representing 35,900

State, regional, and local divisions

AFL-CIO – American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations: VT, SC
AFGE – American Federation of Government Employees: National Union for Social Security Workers (Council 220)
AFSCME – American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees: WA, WI and Locals 2724, 2057, and 25 (MI)
AFT – American Federation of Teachers: Locals 1474, 1931, 1966, 1990, 2023, 2034, 2141, 2199, 2226, and 6366 (CA)
CTU – Chicago Teachers Union: Caucus Of Rank-and-file Educators (CORE)
IAIW – International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers: Local 7 (MA)
IBEW – International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers: Locals 2222, 2304, 2313, 2320, 2321, 2322, 2323, 2324, 2325, 2326, 2327, 159, 357, 440, 490, 776, 1837, 1228, and 113 (MA, RI, CA, ME, VT, NH, NV, SC, WI, CO)
IBT – International Brotherhood of Teamsters: Local One-L, Pennsylvania Federation Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division
IFPTE – International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers: Local 70 (DC)
NEA – National Education Association: VT
PASNAP – Pennsylvania Association of Staff Nurses and Allied Professionals
SEIU – Service Employees International Union: Locals 560 and 1984 (NH)
TWU – Transport Workers Union of America: Local 100
UBC – United Brotherhood of Carpenters: Locals 1503 (OR)
UFCW – United Food and Commercial Workers International Union: Local 5 (CA)
UH – UNITE HERE: NY, CT, RI, MA, VT, NH, ME, and Locals 2, 30, 49, 54, and 2850 (CA, NJ)
USW – United Steelworkers: Local 310, 1999, 2003 (IA, IN)
UURWAW – United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers: Local 36 (CA)

2) It's not a bad thing that Bernie appeals to college students. McGovern didn't lose because he had college support-he lost because the party regulars abandoned him. We don't have to nominate people who don't connect to the young. People who hate the young and don't want them to have a say are going to be totally right-wing.

3)The Cold War is in the long-dead past. And Bernie never defended any of the bad things that happened unde the Sandinstas or Fidel(the Sandinistas were much less dogmatic than the Cuban regime and most Americans never actually supported the Contra war-or the coups against Allende and Arbenz, or the Kennedy obsession with ending the Cuban Revolution and putting the rich back in power in Havana). He only endorsed the good things-the free education and healthcare programs. There was never a progressive, humane, positive agenda behind anathemizing Cuba and Nicaragua, for that matter. Nothing got better for anyone but the rich in Nicaragua when the people were bullied into voting the Sandinstas out in 1990...and, while Cuba needs free speech and an end to repression, nothing good would come to the people there from putting the place through Eastern European-style "shock therapy&quot such as mass privatization, mass layoffs and massive cuts in state benefits).

5)The issues that hurt McGovern in '72 were his support of reproductive choice, gay rights, school desegregation and marijuana decriminalization, and his support of civil liberties and the rights of the accused against Nixon's "law and order" racebaiting. The country was with McGovern on getting out of Vietnam, increased environmental protection and doing more to fight poverty and protect working people.

So again, the lessons are that Bernie's campaign is not the McGovern campaign. that Democrats don't have to keep young people out in the cold to win, and that the country is much more progressive, anti-corporate, pro-LGBTQ, pro-choice, pro-woman and antiwar than it was in the backlash year of '72.

If it weren't, Trump(who is basically Nixon-as-a-bad-insult comic)would be thirty points ahead of either Bernie OR HRC).

[2banon]

64. Excellent, Accurate, and just otherwise Spot On, Ken..

By the way, this would make an excellent OP.

[Ken Burch]

68. done(with modifications)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512104757

[libdem4life]

26. Hillary, too.

[Gothmog]

61. But the attack ads on Sanders write themselves

The attack ads from this appearance on Meet the Press write themselves https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/12/why-bernie-sanders-isnt-going-to-be-president-in-5-words/

Meet the Press ✔ @meetthepress
CHUCK TODD: Are you a capitalist?@BernieSanders: No. I'm a Democratic Socialist.
8:33 AM - 11 Oct 2015

And, in those five words, Sanders showed why — no matter how much energy there is for him on the liberal left — he isn't getting elected president.

Why? Because Democrat or Republican (or independent), capitalism remains a pretty popular concept — especially when compared to socialism. A 2011 Pew Research Center survey showed that 50 percent of people had a favorable view of capitalism, while 40 percent had an unfavorable one. Of socialism, just three in 10 had a positive opinion, while 61 percent saw it in a negative light.

Wrote Pew in a memo analyzing the results:

Of these terms, socialism is the more politically polarizing — the reaction is almost universally negative among conservatives, while generally positive among liberals. While there are substantial differences in how liberals and conservatives think of capitalism, the gaps are far narrower.

...The simple political fact is that if Sanders did ever manage to win the Democratic presidential nomination — a long shot but far from a no shot at this point — Republicans would simply clip Sanders's answer to Todd above and put it in a 30-second TV ad. That would, almost certainly, be the end of Sanders's viability in a general election.

Americans might be increasingly aware of the economic inequality in the country and increasingly suspicious of so-called vulture capitalism — all of which has helped fuel Sanders's rise. But we are not electing someone who is an avowed socialist to the nation's top political job. Just ain't happening.

You can try to argue that the two terms are not the same but that will not stop the RNC from running $200 milion to $300 million using that term in negative ads that would be very effective.

[thesquanderer]

19. voters over 50 may prefer Hillary to Bernie, that doesn't mean they wouldn't prefer Bernie to Trump

especially if they care about social security.

[JonLeibowitz]

34. "will ever vote for a socialist"

Of course, those who are currently 30 and prefer Sanders will be 50 in 20 years. Kinda blows a hole in your argument. Yes, those over 50 will vote for a socialist -- it is only a matter of time.

[Fawke Em]

53. I'm nearly 50 (46) and my Mom and Step-Mom are in their late 60s.

We're all solid Bernie supporters.

And, we're all Southern, too.

Odd how that works.

[AgingAmerican]

58. The GOP has nothing on Sanders

"Commie!" just doesn't cut it anymore

[MisterP]

4. BUT SHE'S AHEAD!

more seriously, Trump v. Clinton is a fight between two party torchbearers--one who's a loose-cannon anti-establishment antihero fighting the most status quo candidate imaginable who's just barely quashed a challenge by every underhanded means in the book and is now flogging those who put their thumbs on the scale for her
Sanders v. Trump is a fight over who can best represent the vast majority of Americans whose needs and wants (each polling 70-90% nationwide) the political class has earned its money blocking

[NCTraveler]

6. +1 Truth. nt.

[Meteor Man]

7. Follow the money

Pretty much explains everything these days. The party of DWS/Rahm/Mc Cauliffe has chased corporate fat cats with gusto.

[GreatGazoo]

72. Bingo

[elleng]

8. If this were only NOT the case!

[LanternWaste]

18. I frame those who disagree with me the same way.

I frame those who disagree with me the same way. Our petulant tantrums made more visually stimulating (if not valid) by the internet.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

10. Because he tells them things they want to hear, even when they're not true.

And because they place excessive faith in opinion polls without much predictive power.

[Happyhippychick]

11. If Bernie has rallies with over 60 bazillion people how come he doesn't get as many votes?

[onenote]

12. Because a whole lot of people don't think she'd be the weaker candidate

GE polls this far out are essentially worthless. So instead, a lot of people analyze the relative strengths and weaknesses of the candidates based on what they know about them and what they know about the electorate and its fickleness.

But if you've got a crystal ball that can predict on June 1 what will happen five months from now, presumably you can tell me who's going to win the World Series. After all, that's only four months away.

[MineralMan]

14. Because more Democrats are voting for her in the primaries.

Simple, huh?

More votes. More delegates. More support.

The primary candidate with the majority of pledged delegates will be the nominee. That's democracy in action. Then, we'll all work to help that nominee beat Trump. That's the Democratic Party in action.

[HumanityExperiment]

29. What till you see the GE...

... independents and non party folks in action...

historic unfavorables on both candidates...

you'll need more than just DEM party so gl with earning those folk's support

[MineralMan]

37. Oh, I'll be around for that, you can be sure.

I'll be right here on DU, encouraging GOTV and supporting our nominee. I hope you'll join me.

[HumanityExperiment]

48. principle

again, until you address principle and not just party line we are at an impasse

why do you think HRC's unfavorables are so historically high?

if she's dead even with Trump, that's problematic to begin with, when you begin to peel back and look deeper you have a much larger problem to contend with... all the folks here in DU are just a lens into the larger problem within DEM party

you do realize the vastness of independents that folks malign here in DU right?

Now you're pivoting to 'encouraging GOTV'? impressive hypocrisy

[Meteor Man]

54. The Democratic Party in action

is the problem, not the solution. The reason a 74 year old socialist has pushed Hillary and the entire Democratic establishment right to the brink is because we've seen the Democratic Party in action.

[JEB]

15. Because Americans are addicted to war and trickle down. nt

[Vinca]

16. Her turn. I don't know why they bothered with a primary.

The outcome was determined long before the second candidate got in the race. Yea democracy.

[libdem4life]

31. That's why no other credible establishment Democrat challenged her.

Truly, it was Her Turn. Then along came this dark horse, Independent Senator from Vermont who knows more about what a Democrat is than the Third Way Lite folks.

Imagine. Given her 2 decade jump on him, they'are about even. And this meme about "he hasn't been vetted" is rubbish. He's an old and practiced political warrior.

The DNC wants the party at Center...not even Left Center on many issues.

[redstateblues]

41. Why did Bernie get beaten so decisively?

The people have spoken-and it's like BSS all disregard the will of the people

[Meteor Man]

52. Beaten decisively?

That's a joke right?

[Vinca]

62. If it wasn't for the party elites (superdelegates), it would be nearly even.

[redstateblues]

69. Uh. Not really. It was a larger margin than 08

[CobaltBlue]

17. Cheese Sandwich—It isn't difficult to understand.

For Hillary Clinton's Democratic primaries voters: They start with people aged 65+. They were born, est., 1950 and before. They were in their 40s, at their earliest, when Bill Clinton unseated George Bush in 1992. Clinton was the only two-term Democratic president during the Republican presidential realigning period of 1968 to 2004, during which that party won 7 of 10 election cycles (1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, and 2004). Bill is like a God to this age demographic of Democratic presidential primaries voters. And so, too, is Hillary.

The money people love the Clintons. The bankers, Wall Street, every source of capitalism and corporatism—they are very comfortable with the Clintons. They love Bill for being the president who presided over the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. And lots of people became richer while Bill was president.

None of the real power in this country want Bernie Sanders to be president. Any politician who is truly progressive—and not a sellout for the wealthy—is to be contained. Even in the Democratic Party, one who is truly progressive is limited to a minor role in the U.S. House of Representatives or a U.S. Senate seat only from a Strong Democratic state which is commonly associated as friendly to the truly progressive. (Everyone else is a—cough!—moderate.)

2016 has been a great year in which both political parties revealed they are lower than that joke about moving a rock and finding a lawyer under it. On the Republican side, there is no concern from that party and any of their officeholders about people's incomes and for climate change. On the Democratic side, progressivism is selling people out on trade deals and continuing with wars, no matter which party's president they had started, in order to further enrich the companies profiting off wars like Iraq. (They both serve the military industrial complex loyally.)

The specifics about this year's Democratic Party has been collusion to get Hillary Clinton the nomination. That Bernie Sanders was not expected by these out of touch establishment figures to be viable. And once Bernie Sanders did catch on, and we saw a few (including John Lewis) from the CBC PAC respond (meaning, reveal they too are corrupt) right after New Hampshire, all the co-conspirators—party insiders, professional pundits, "news" media—worked to malign him with their efforts to shut down Sanders (and, by that measure, his voters). You see that at even from people who don't make their living in Democratic Party politics or "news" media—the two-party system, which has at least 96 percent (since 2000) of this country living and breathing to combine for that dominance routinely propping Teams Red and Blue, is constantly being tauted as the only choices.

Bernie Sanders is not good for corrupt, rich—and really wealthy—people. He is the exact opposite of the kind of politician who would make them feel comfortable. This is recognized by the establishment from the Democratic Party. This is why we have seen corruption among the Democratic Party establishment—along with the corruption from the professional pundits and sources considered "news media"—because they, like the entire Republican Party, enjoy what is typically, for them, a sure thing: money.

[DookDook]

47. I love how on both sides, nobody really wants to tackle climate change.

As you write so eloquently, "On the Republican side, there is no concern from that party and any of their officeholders about people's incomes and for climate change. On the Democratic side, progressivism is selling people out on trade deals and continuing with wars, no matter which party's president they had started, in order to further enrich the companies profiting off wars like Iraq."

And what have the Democrats been doing to help curb climate change? Why don't we have any research going into tidal power? Why don't we have wind farms all up and down the coasts? According to my teabagger family members it's because of all the rich Democrats who vacation on the coast and don't want to be bothered looking at them. So as long as both sides don't want to do anything. What has Secretary Clinton said she'd do about the climate? The last I heard is that she'll only frack in places where it's safe to frack.

[LonePirate]

20. Those graphs have a huge caveat: the public does not know Bernie and the Repubs have not defined him

Bernie's numbers will drop, no doubt about it. Will they drop below Hillary's or match her numbers or stay above them? That's the big unknown but partisans for Bernie and Hillary obviously have different opinions here so speculation here on DU will not receive much impartial discussion.

[Ken Burch]

24. In case you've missed it, HRC's numbers JUST DROPPED.

If the trendline of the last week continues(and it very likely will continue, even if Bernie did drop out after California)there is a real possibility that HRC could arrive in Philly as far behind Trump as Humphrey was behind Nixon when he got to Chicago.

[LonePirate]

25. You must be one of those partisans convinced Bernie's numbers will never fall below Hillary's.

Your opinion has been noted.

[redstateblues]

42. Bernie is getting swamped in national polls

[libdem4life]

35. They can't have it both ways. If he was not known,

which is correct, and that Just Might Be a reason he lost early on...except for bordering NE states. In that case then she's a weak candidate, even with all the mega money, party support, name recognition et al.

When will Clinton Fatigue, the Foundation difficulties, or in her case her somewhat precarious health, set in as an issue. Lots of things to go awry before we November.

And don't even allude to the fact that I'm hoping for these things. That is so disgusting and childish I wouldn't know where to start.

[bvf]

21. What's that George Carlin observation

about stupidity?

All you need to know, right there.

https://m.

[arikara]

33. Hahaha! nt

nt

[zappaman]

22. LOL!!!!!

Seriously, I'm gonna miss you when you're gone!
The laughs you have provided have been first class!

[libdem4life]

36. Seems to me "class" is in short supply here.

[SheenaR]

27. The same people who dismiss these GE polls

will be touting the next poll in which Hillary is a head of Trump. It is what it is Cheese. Sucks, I agree.

[Purveyor]

28. Because I have a trailer of stone we picked out of the

field that combined, have an IQ greater than that of the DNC...

[RandySF]

30. Hillary will be elected

Bernie's never really gone through the campaign wringer. And if he ever is, his new first name will be 'Comrade'.

[riversedge]

32. "Since early April, Clinton's lead over Bernie Sanders among Democrats has grown steadily."

Main point is to look at TRENDS this far out.


A new poll suggests that Hillary Clinton has halted Donald Trump’s gains

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=&w=480


By Philip Bump June 1 at 9:25 AM

Donald Trump attends a fundraising event in New Jersey. (Mike Segar/Reuters)

We are, remarkably, at the 160-day mark until the presidential election, a stretch of time that is simultaneously a ton of time (months and months) and shockingly brief (on the scale of a campaign that began in late 2014). That's 160 days, 3,840 or so hours, during which Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump need to (a) solidify their bases of support and (b) appeal to voters who may be wavering. One hundred sixty days during which Trump needs to either gain a majority of support from American voters or at least gain the upper hand in enough states to cobble together an electoral college victory.

On the first strategy, some bad news. A new Quinnipiac University survey shows that Trump's position against Clinton is essentially unchanged since the last time the school polled, in March. At that point, Clinton was up six points; now, she's up four. Why is that bad news? Because this is after Trump solidified the Republican nomination. This is after Republicans theoretically ended their intraparty feuding and settled on one guy to lead them forward toward November. And in a one-on-one contest with Clinton -- whose Democratic Party is still split -- Trump still trails.

Clinton's party isn't as divided as it used to be. If we look at her lead in RealClearPolitics' average of polls since January, you can see that the Democratic contest narrowed as Clinton's lead over Trump grew. Since early April, Clinton's lead over Bernie Sanders among Democrats has grown steadily. After the Indiana primary, the point at which Trump's opponents all left the playing field, her lead over Trump vanished -- with a bit of an uptick recently......................



https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=&w=480


https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=&w=480

[Trust Buster]

39. Maybe it's because you don't believe in democracy. Hillary has millions more votes than Sanders.

You wish to ignore that fact and impose your opinion on the majority. There's a term for that and it's not democracy.

[Lil Missy]

40. Because your premise has been roundly rejected by most Democrats. And,

voters obviously prefer HRC over one-note-Johnny.

[beachbum bob]

43. a pacifist is incapable of protecting america will never be elected president

the weaker candidate been firmly reject by the voters


can't wait for june 16th

[blm]

44. President Elizabeth Dole. She was way ahead at one point.

I think you don't understand how polls and hypotheticals work. I voted Sanders last March but I am not a fool who believes that the GOP has already thrown even 1% of their evil at him and his wife at this point.

IMO, Sanders and his wife would be treated not much differently than Clintons if he were to be seen as the nominee. Reality has never been an obstacle to GOP's vileness.

[MyNameGoesHere]

45. Let me one up you

Why aren't they voting for Sanders?

[seabeyond]

46. Clinton is hands down the candidacy of strength. Sanders hasn't been vetted and would be

destroyed. No one has laid gloves on the man, and there is plenty to attack. He is not presidential. He refuses to learn, grow or do his homework, and is an unknown in foreign policy because of his own lack of interest.

He is weak.

Democrats once again put up the best candidate.

[brush]

49. Because Sanders ran a poor campaign

Keep blaming Clinton but Sanders and his campaign only have themselves to blame . . .
for coming up short.

"They committed a series of fatal strategic errors mostly attributable to incompetent staff work and an unforgivable lack of preparation against the Clinton Machine.

Among the bullet points in the campaign’s post-mortem, we can’t help but to note that Bernie & Company mistakenly went negative against Hillary, unnecessarily careening onto and embracing the low-road. Bernie, meanwhile, deeply excoriated the Democratic Party establishment and the superdelegate system, only to circle back, groveling now for establishment support after it’s too late. The Bernie get-out-the-vote effort failed to turn impressively massive rally crowds into actual votes, time and time again. Bernie himself stoked discontent and conspiracy-mongering within the party by misleading his supporters about delegate math while also failing to properly educate his ground-game activists about voter-registration and primary rules state-to-state.

Perhaps his deadliest error occurred when he pledged to run his campaign solely on individual donations famously averaging $27 when, in a general election matchup, he would’ve suddenly confronted a stratospheric pile of GOP cash that would’ve invariably crushed his chances unless he backpedaled. The list goes on and on. And now he’s willing to participate in a stunt — a debate between the GOP winner and the Democratic loser. A political exhibition bout.

These are all factors to take into consideration, and a farcical stunt-debate between Bernie and Trump wouldn’t have ameliorated Bernie’s self-inflicted damage, nor would it have sufficed as a last-minute Hail Mary. At the end of the day, it only would’ve managed to illustrate how a failed Democratic candidate was just as willing as Trump to debase himself within the idiocratic narrative."

— Bob Cesca is a regular contributor to Salon.com.

[Sky Masterson]

51. Because it worked out great for President Gore/Kerry

.

[Gothmog]

55. The polls being cited by the Sanders supporters are worthless because Sanders has not been vetted

No one including people who like Sanders think that he has been fully vetted or that he is really electable http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/05/24/bernie-sanders-is-crushing-donald-trump-head-to-head-and-it-doesn-t-mean-a-thing.html

But I don’t know a single person whose opinions I really value, and I include here Sanders supporters I know, who takes these polls seriously. There’s one simple reason Sanders polls better against Trump than Clinton does, which is that no one (yet) knows anything negative about him. He’s gotten the freest ride a top-tier presidential candidate has ever gotten. The freest, bar none.

While he’s all but called Clinton a harlot, she’s barely said a word about him, at least since the very early days of the contest. And while Republicans have occasionally jibed at him, like Lindsey Graham’s actually quite funny remark that Sanders “went to the Soviet Union on his honeymoon and I don’t think he ever came back,” in far more serious ways, Republican groups have worked to help Sanders weaken Clinton.

That would change on a dime if he became the nominee. I don’t think they’d even have to go into his radical past, although they surely would. Michelle Goldberg of Slate has written good pieces on this. He took some very hard-left and plainly anti-American positions. True, they might not matter to anyone under 45, but more than half of all voters are over 45. And then, big-P politics aside, there’s all that farkakte nonsense he wrote in The Vermont Freeman in the early ’70s about how we should let children touch each others’ genitals and such. Fine, it was 40-plus years ago but it’s out there, and it’s out there.

But if I were a conservative making anti-Sanders ads, I’d stick to taxes. An analysis earlier this year from the Tax Policy Center found that his proposals would raise taxes in the so-called middle quintile (40-60 percent) by $4,700 a year. A median household is around $53,000. Most such households pay an effective tax rate of around 11 percent, or $5,800. From $5,800 to $10,500 constitutes a 45 percent increase.

Sanders will respond that your average family will save that much in deductibles and co-payments, since there would be no more private health insurance. And in a way, he’d have a point—the average out-of-pocket expenses for a family health insurance plan in 2015 were around $4,900. But that is an average that combines families with one really sick person needing lots of care with families where they all just go see the doctor once a year, who spend far less. They’d lose out under socialized health, which Republicans would be sure to make clear.

But all the above suggests a rational discourse, and we know there’ll be no such thing during a campaign. It’ll just be: largest tax increase in American history (which will be true), and take away your doctor (which also might be true in a lot of cases). There’s a first time for everything I guess, but I don’t think anyone has ever won a presidential election proposing a 45 percent tax increase on people of modest incomes. And the increases would be a lot higher on the upper-middle-class households that tend to decide U.S. elections.

Bah, you say. Bernie can handle all these things. Plus, he’s going to get all those white working-class votes that Clinton will never get. It’s true, he will get some of those. But every yin has a yang. How is Sanders going to do with black and Latino voters? They won’t vote for Trump, obviously, but surely some percentage will just stay home. This will matter in Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, maybe Michigan—all states were a depressed turnout from unenthused voters of color might make the difference. The media find discussing this a lot less interesting than they do nattering on about the white working class, but it’s real, and Trump is smart enough to get out there and say, “Remember, black people, Bernie said your votes weren’t legitimate.”

General election polls don’t reflect anything meaningful until nominees are chosen and running mates selected—that is, July. They especially don’t reflect anything meaningful when respondents know very little about one of the candidates they’re being asked about. Superdelegates know this, and it’s one reason why they’re not going to change. I don’t blame Sanders for touting these polls; any politician would. But everyone subjected to hearing him do so is entitled to be in on the joke.

Sanders has not been vetted and would be a horrible general election candidate

[asuhornets]

59. Democrats have deliberately & on purpose voted for Hillary Clinton...n/t

[Mike Nelson]

60. Disagree...

...most Democrats are wisely picking the stronger candidate. The runner-up would face a Republican onslaught of unprecedented scandal stories - if there were no scandals, they would create them. Few predictions are as easy to make.

[Maedhros]

63. Because they were told to, and like good authoritarians they do as they are told. [n/t]

[taught_me_patience]

65. The weaker candidate is the one losing by almost 3 million votes

plain and simple. These polls don't mean shit.

[Cheese Sandwich]

71. weaker in the general election is what I'm talking about.

Not in the primary. I know Hillary is beating Bernie in the primary. That was more or less the question as to WHY Democrats are deliberately choosing her when she runs weaker against Trump.

[imagine2015]

70. Republicans called Obama "the black power communist Muslim from Kenya". How did that work out?

And people are really worried about Republicans calling Bernie "that communist from the socialist state of Vermont"?

LOL

[ContinentalOp]

73. I have no idea why so many democrats are supporting the weaker candidate.

But luckily the majority are supporting the candidate who can actually win!