If most who voted for Obama vote for Clinton, she wins in a landslide.

[Garrett78]

Sure, some Sanders supporters won't vote for Clinton. I imagine quite a few of those folks have never voted for a Democratic presidential candidate, meaning they'll have no impact on the result unless they're voting for Trump (most, I'm guessing, will vote for Stein or won't vote for any presidential candidate).

And there will no doubt be some Obama supporters who won't vote for Clinton, even though a Clinton Admin would operate in more or less the same fashion as the Obama Admin has.

Most independents are party loyalists, and there are few actual swing voters. I doubt Trump will win over many of those swing voters.

So, as long as most of those who voted for Obama vote for Clinton, Clinton will win with ease. I know it's popular on DU and some other message boards to suggest that Clinton will lose (and lose badly), but that certainly defies the general consensus. The electoral college map is very favorable for the Democratic candidate.

[grossproffit]

1. Fired up and ready to go, round 2!

[BootinUp]

2. The experts are saying she only needs one swing state. FL, PA, OH, NC,

other possibilities.

[Garrett78]

3. That might be a bit simplistic.

There are 18 states (plus DC) that the Democratic candidate has won in each of the last 6 presidential elections (including PA, making it hard for me to consider PA a swing state). Those 18 (plus DC) total 242 electoral college votes. I can't see Trump of all people winning any of those states.

28 more and it's a done deal. Florida alone has 29. But none of the other swing states have that many electoral college votes. So, without Florida, Clinton would need to win multiple swing states (such as Ohio plus Virginia). Personally, I think she'll win Florida and most other swing states. And she may even win some traditionally red states, such as Arizona or Georgia.

[rusty quoin]

4. I'm of course voting for her, but I have concerns.

I was excited about Obama, but now I'm dutifully voting for her.

I run this around in my head time and again. When she was First Lady, I backed her in everything. I loved that smart woman.

I think maybe because of the 2008 election I have bad feelings about her. But I can reason it out and wait for her to do good..maybe great things.

My concern is about what the country feels rather than thinks. From the very beginning she has been a target from the right. But there is no one more intelligent, and prepared for the fight than her.

Obama is "The Natural", Robert Redford. Hillary is "Patton", George C. Scott.

[Fumesucker]

5. A tremendous mandate for neoliberalism

Yay.

[redstateblues]

7. what about the Oligarchs, third wayers, neo socialists, corporatists?

which straw men am I leaving out? Gotta hand it to you guys and your straw men.

[Fumesucker]

10. I think Shakespeare covered it

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

[msongs]

11. you forgot fraud committers, cheaters, southerners, californians, and probably even more nt

[earthshine]

16. I don't think you understand the term "straw man."

Please look up the term "logical fallacy."

Since she IS a third-way corporatist, and is friends with oligarchs world-wide, your post seems devoid of meaning.

[Garrett78]

12. Consider the 3 (most likely) potential outcomes:

1) Clinton wins big
2) Clinton wins by a small margin
3) Trump wins

Which of those scenarios is most likely to help enable the masses to lay the groundwork for progressive change? I think the answer is clearly #1, especially since #1 also means Dems have won more of the down-ticket races than they would in the other scenarios. Trump winning or even coming close to winning would send a horrible message (particularly to POC, women and the international community) and give a Clinton Admin even less reason to push for progressive legislation.

I get that there's a valid leftist critique of the Democratic Party and of the US political system as a whole. I really do. But I also think our individualistic culture overemphasizes the power and influence of individual actors, while underestimating systemic forces. And our instant gratification culture has an unrealistic expectation of how (and how quickly) systemic change happens. I don't invest much energy in national politics, as I think local politics and local organization are key to bringing about systemic change. Bottom-up, not top-down. Planting seeds in the collective consciousness, recognizing that the type of change I'd like to see probably won't be fully realized in my lifetime.

[Fumesucker]

18. I was fairly cynical coming into this primary, didn't really think Sanders had a chance

Watching the reaction to him here on DU has made me far more cynical than I was, I realize there are many here who I don't have nearly as much in common with I as I had thought before.

I thought Obama's election revealed a lot and now Hillary's nomination has far outstripped that event for educational opportunities.

[Garrett78]

23. Sanders didn't stand a chance. And that's not cynicism.

The Sanders campaign was a message campaign. Because he wasn't ever truly viable, Sanders was free to run on a platform that would have zero chance of being realized.

If not for vote-suppressing caucuses, Clinton's delegate lead would be even greater.

[onehandle]

6. Polls say Bernie voters are more likely to vote for Hillary...

...than Hillary voters would for Obama at this time in 2008.

Like PUMA, Bernie or Bust is bulllshit.

[redstateblues]

8. Boom-

[Night Watchman]

21. I Suspect So

Though I'm not taking anything for granted.

[Live and Learn]

9. I know quite a number of Obama supporters that refuse to vote for her. nt

[Garrett78]

13. As I wrote, I don't doubt that such folks exist.

The pro-Obama but anti-Clinton position doesn't really make logical sense, but such folks do exist. But I doubt they number in the millions, which is what it would take to have an impact.

There may be just as many Republicans and right-leaning "independents" who vote for Clinton, or - at the very least - opt to not vote for Trump. Effectively cancelling out those pro-O and anti-C folks.

[Live and Learn]

14. It makes plenty of sense. Pro-war vs anti-war. Pro-hope vs anti-hope.

I don't see how you can even compare Hillary to Obama.

[Garrett78]

15. There's virtually no difference between them policy-wise.

I don't see how you can suggest a Clinton Admin would function much differently than the Obama Admin has. There's no basis for believing that.

[Live and Learn]

17. Sure there is. Wait and see. nt

[karynnj]

19. Read HRC's book or her Jeffery Goldberg interview

It shows that HRC was in line with the entrenched US foreign policy establishment, which Obama really has fought at times - successfully on Iran. Consider it is unlikely that the recent 51 signed State Department memo would have been both written and leaked had Clinton been either Secretary of State or President. Why? She advocated their policies.

I do agree that on domestic policy there is little different in the direction they would move and the degree of progress is limited by Congress. Note I have said the same even contrasting Sanders and Clinton.

Different as they are on foreign policy, much as I far prefer Obama, the choice in November is Trump or Clinton. Even if the Republicans find a way to a sane nominee, which I doubt, it is entirely unlikely that they have one willing to buck the entrenched career SD experts and most of their allies in think tanks AND he/she would support Republican domestic policies.

In real life, I will try to keep discussions on domestic policy and the Supreme Court. This is the ONLY way I can positively support Clinton. It is more fun when you are enthusiastic, buy that does not happen every election.

[LoverOfLiberty]

20. You can't convince someone of something

when they have already decided that their mind cannot be changed based on evidence. They will continue to hold onto their belief until one day they move on to their next outrage or injustice.

[Garrett78]

24. Where's the outrage regarding Bernie's foreign policy history?

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernie-sanders-troubling-history-supporting-us-military-violence-abroad

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/04/27/kill-a27.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/16/blood-traces-bernies-iraq-war-hypocrisy/

People who think there are enormous gaps between Clinton and Obama and Sanders in terms of foreign policy are sadly mistaken.

The pro-war and anti-war dichotomy that people have invented is beyond simplistic. It's ignorant.

And pro-hope vs. anti-hope is just laughable, completely devoid of substance.

[Thinkingabout]

22. President Obama will be out asking those same voters to show up and vote for Hillary.