2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumOnly 22% of Democrats would feel enthusiastic if Hillary won the nomination.
Only 22% of Democrats would be enthusiastic if Hillary won the Democratic nomination. So that makes what, about 1 in 9 Americans enthusiastic Hillary Clinton supporters?
http://www.monmouth.edu/assets/0/32212254770/32212254991/32212254992/32212254994/32212254995/30064771087/886fdcf9-30c4-4b42-bf69-7abb6729418b.pdf
Can't our party do better?

Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)reformist2
(9,841 posts)yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)She's smart, experienced, reasoned, and quite frankly everything.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)pnwmom
(109,703 posts)That a coupled with the fact that 80% of Dems would be satisfied or enthusiastic about her candidacy sounds pretty great to me.
eridani
(51,907 posts)No such thing as winning a general election without them.
pnwmom
(109,703 posts)%
eridani
(51,907 posts)Sanders is mobilizing a lot of alienated voters, and Clinton doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of attracting them.
pnwmom
(109,703 posts)And she has a lot better chance of doing that than Bernie does. Obama appointing her Secretary of State did a lot to heal the wounds of 2008. She has very strong minority support now.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Also the huge increase of the minority jail population.
pnwmom
(109,703 posts)in the last century.
eridani
(51,907 posts)When Black people use it at similar rates as whites, and get jailed 7 times more often.
pnwmom
(109,703 posts)they seem willing to disregard that.
Apparently legal pot isn't the critical issue for many of them.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Clinton wants more of the same.
pnwmom
(109,703 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(100,515 posts)
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)There are far more votes in the middle than there are on the left fringe.
tazkcmo
(7,419 posts)And Independents make up the majority of voters. Add that support to the Democrats and he wins. Add Republican cross over and he wins. Sec. Clinton is GOP enemy #1 just as Sec Clinton proudly claims the GOP her #1 enemy. A vote for Clinton in the primary is a vote for the Republican in the general.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)Now the Scientific Polls are delusional?
DaveT
(687 posts)Sanders proposals are not the left fringe. They are the main stream.
The Big Money candidates of both parties are the Far Right Fringe. The so-called spectrum has shifted FAR to the Insane Right over the last 14 years.
The Sanders campaign is a return to what was normal from 1932 until September 11.
And the previous posts are Exhibit A and Exhibit B in the case.
People who post on internet message boards to support their favored candidate are, pretty much by definition, "enthusiastic" about him or her. Look at the overwhelming majority of Hillary posts on this board and what do you see?
1. She is going to win. This is not a good argument for gaining support from other people, and offers exactly zero reason to support her.
2. She is "ready" to be President. Yuck. What a lame reason to support somebody, and in terms of attracting new support the argument is strictly from hunger. It is, as far as I can tell, the only positive argument on this board for voting for her.
3. The other guy can't win the general election. This is false. Due to demographics, any Democrat will be favored to beat any Republican. The Hillary supporters constantly -- and mendaciously -- conflate primary polling which still heavily favors Clinton nationally with general election polling which shows very little difference between the two leading Democrats, with a very slight edge to Sanders.
The only reason to support Hillary is a personal belief that the traditional values and policies of the Democratic Party can't win. If that were true, I'd support her, too. But that is clearly not true. And it is an example of the Stockholm Syndrome that the Hillary supporters keep repeating these lame arguments that are the antithesis of enthusiasm. They are pre-emptive surrender to the forces that have us mired in perpetual war and bankrupted the country.
The only real advantage that Hillary has is that she can raise money from big donors. Proud of that, are you? Enthusiastic about that?
Divernan
(15,480 posts)This is as of the last quarter's report - can't WAIT to see the numbers after this current quarter.
Boston (CNN)Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign spent 90% of the money it raised over the last three months, campaign aides said Thursday, a staggeringly high figure for a political organization that has prided itself on being thrifty.
Aides announced Wednesday night that Clinton's campaign raised $28 million from July through September. . . . But on Thursday morning, a Clinton spokesman tweeted that the campaign currently has $32 million in the bank, meaning it spent nearly 90% of what it brought in. (T)he high burn rate has been fodder for Republicans, who gleefully highlighted that (Clinton) aides once bragged about how frugal the campaign would be.
Clinton's operation is far more expensive than the one being run by Bernie Sanders, her main opponent for the Democratic nomination. Sanders' campaign announced Wednesday night that it raised $25 million in the third quarter and ended with $25 million in the bank, giving the campaign a roughly 50% burn rate. The number is far higher than the 20% he spent in the second quarter, when he raised nearly $12 million, and shows that Sanders has started to spend money as his campaign has become more active.
"What it tells us is that Bernie has financial staying power," said Jeff Weaver, Sanders' campaign manager. "We have the financial wherewithal that will allow for a major campaign through Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada and beyond in state-by-state, delegate-by-delegate contests for the Democratic Party nomination."
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/01/politics/hillary-clinton-campaign-money-burn-rate/
pnwmom
(109,703 posts)she raised 28 and now has 32.
So why is she worse off?
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Maybe Sanders is putting his in a savings account.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)Yup! she went $ Twelve Million in the hole to vendors in her last campaign. Let's hope everyone's smart enough to demand payment in advance this time around.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/22/hillary-clinton-campaign-debt_n_2530528.html
Hillary Clinton Campaign Debt From 2008 Retired
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Tote Life
(72 posts)now that the election season is in a full swing.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)Sounds like she's desperate to get her numbers up by the end of the quarter reporting deadline on fundraising.
He's like an old race horse - put him on the track and sound the starting bell and he'll run his heart out - literally.
They had him scheduled to do 3 in one day in Pennsylvania - Pittsburgh to Bethlehem to Scranton. He cancelled the middle one just the day before. At first I thought it was because of poor turnout of people signing up - now I'm wondering if it was his health.
Is that why Chelsea's hitting the fundraising trail in January? "Hey, Mom - back off of Dad! I'll do the damned fund-raising." If he was my Dad, that's what I'd say to her.
tazkcmo
(7,419 posts)Thrifty on salaries (labor) like most corporations.
Nitram
(24,892 posts)upaloopa
(11,417 posts)In every crutial state with that money. She has been at it since 2014.
You guy decided to hold some mega events and can't break 30% support.
He is wasting his money
gvstn
(2,805 posts)There is a certain amount of automatic support for that and I would be one of them. I just don't like her. She is a DINO. No way around it. Bill was a DINO but just more likable/affable.
I will be hard pressed to pull the lever for Hillary. She won't actually support Democratic values.
I don't think any of the Republican candidates can win but Hillary is their next best option if they lose. She will do their bidding.
I knew Obama wasn't quite ready for Washington politics and the fact that he got nothing done in his first hundred days proved that true. Hillary is a bit more seasoned but I think she will not fight for what is right but instead try to make a deal that allows her to get some legislation passed with her name on it.
pnwmom
(109,703 posts)House leader announce during his first week in office that their primary objective legislatively would be to obstruct anything he proposed.'
He was the first President who was denied any kind of "honeymoon" with the opposition.
So why are you blaming him and not Congress?
And why are you ignoring the extremely important stimulus bill that he got through Congress over a great deal of opposition?
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... what we got was the Republican's insurance profits boosting "healthcare" plan.
pnwmom
(109,703 posts)was Senator Joe Lieberman, who had left the Democratic party when he lost his primary, and had won office as an Independent. And he enjoyed throwing a wrench into the works.
So we never had the 60 votes. And when Kennedy died we didn't even have 59.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... the filibuster rule.
Now, imagine what Republicans would have done with that much control.
pnwmom
(109,703 posts)Lieberman was #60 and he was an independent who was estranged from the Dems by that time.
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)"I know that some in the party have differences with Joe," Senator Obama said, all but silencing the crowd. "I'm going to go ahead and say it. It's the elephant in the room. And Joe and I don't agree on everything. But what I know is, Joe Lieberman's a man with a good heart, with a keen intellect, who cares about the working families of America."
Then, with applause beginning to build, he finished the thought: "I am absolutely certain that Connecticut's going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the United States Senate." That time, people cheered loudly.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2006/04/02/164/90446/elections2006/Obama-Endorses-Lieberman-for-Senate
so you don't get to use Lieberman as an excuse. Obama could have supported a reliable Democrat but chose this jerk instead.
gordyfl
(598 posts)I remember Obama saying that. Lieberman betrayed the Party, yet Obama endorsed him. It had made no sense to me.
Joe Lieberman was very vocal in his opposition to the Public Option. If I'm not mistaken, Obama wasn't too keen on the Public Option, either.
Lieberman is from Connecticut, where insurance companies rule.
Lieberman was a big supporter of the Iraq War, and seemed chummy with Bush. I was expecting Lieberman to lose his election in CT. I was disappointed.
pnwmom
(109,703 posts)Divernan
(15,480 posts)A calculator would help you count.
pnwmom
(109,703 posts)was unreliable.
ejbr
(5,872 posts)habit that he had of "negotiating" by starting off on their side of the issue, as if they would appreciate not meeting him halfway and not giving the Republicans cover in demonstrating Obama had to concede something during "negotiations" to their rabid supporters. If they didn't want to be voted out of office, they had "to be against" what they were already noted to be for. This is why progressives would go nuts with many of his milk toast deals; he gave no room for the requisite compromise. That, plus his chief of staff, Rahm, calling progressives fucking retarded did not warm us to his earnestness in working for us too,
But I digress, what was this post about?
gvstn
(2,805 posts)I knew from the start when he suddenly overtook Hillary that he was not ready for Washington politics. He was a good guy like Jimmy Carter.
I have never seen a President more disrespected than Obama. It is disgusting. Every President gets at least a hundred days before being questioned about his agenda. Basic Respect for the newly elected President. Barack was attacked well before he was actually inaugurated. Disgusting!
MBS
(9,688 posts)a la izquierda
(11,948 posts)I can't wait until the primaries are over.
Hepburn
(21,054 posts)I could not care less about the gender of the next POTUS. I want someone who identifies with me and not the 1%. Hillary is NOT someone who gives a damn about me or the kind of problems people like me have.
a la izquierda
(11,948 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)If she's the nominee and wins the ge I won't be shedding any tears of joy like I did when Obama was elected.
I'm sure I'll feel relieved but honestly, when your campaign slogan is "Hillary 2016: Because she's not a Republican" how much excitement am I supposed to muster?
She won't fight for us like Bernie or Martin would.
riversedge
(74,117 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I thought it was creative and spot on, not to mention funny.
I'm so ashamed.
Bad me.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)But the day is still young.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)Maybe the rumors of financial distress are true, and the checks weren't in the mail?
Tote Life
(72 posts)I like the slogan, because that's the brutal truth, friend.
Bryce Butler
(338 posts)On Thu Dec 17, 2015, 10:34 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
Well said.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=904805
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
"Hillary 2016: Because she's not a Republican"
So sick of the daily democrat bashing here. This is completely inappropriate for DU.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Dec 17, 2015, 10:41 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: THIS was alert worthy??!! Come on now.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: There is nothing about this post that is controversial. Get over yourself.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: everyone knows Hillary is a Republican. I don't see the problem. Cant wait until Bernie wins and the 1% are broke
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Not hide worthy
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I'm a Hillary supporter, but I don't see any reason why this post warrants a hide.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Thank you!
You said it. Thank you.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)Last edited Thu Dec 17, 2015, 07:46 AM - Edit history (1)
One of my kids was on Bill's first inaugural committee (and also worked for the DNC back in the 90's). I was a huge Clinton supporter and was thrilled to attend the VIP activities at his first inauguration. He lost me with l'affaire Lewinsky and being caught lying about it under oath, and then I began a decades long, critical evaluation of the Clintons' personal and professional lives, both before and after their marriage. A lot of documented, verified information is readily available via the internet that wasn't available back in the 90's.
According to published accounts quoting both Bill and her, she had a physically and emotionally abusive father. She was able, nonetheless, to achieve academically, ending with obtaining an Ivy law degree. However (and this only came out decades after the fact - she kept this secret from even her few close friends), it was after she failed the DC bar exam but passed the much easier Arkansas bar exam, that she decided to move to Arkansas and cast her lot with Bill. I wish to point out that some very fine lawyers have failed bar exams and had to retake them. My supervising/partner at my first law firm job failed the bar twice before passing, but ended up as a well-respected trial lawyer - even elected president of the Academy of Trial Lawyers in our area. But he, and all those others who had to retake a bar, had the self-confidence to weather a setback, and yes, some embarrassment at the time, and try again. This is a prime example of HRC being unable to admit an error or failure of any kind - and why she keeps doubling down. She is driven to win at any cost.
Her decision to leave DC and move to Arkansas was also doubtlessly influenced by her ignominious departure (as a researcher/NOT a licensed attorney) from the Congressional committee investigating Watergate. She "lost/misplaced" court records so she could submit a brief ignoring critical legal precedents documented in said missing court records. Flash forward to the Ken Starr/Whitewater debacle. HRC's billing records for her work as a partner in the Rose law firm - admittedly last known to be in her possession - were "lost" for 2 years. She was advised at the time, by high level Democrats/attorneys to comply with the subpoena, but she refused. Then, mirabile dictu! - after 2 years of defying the subpoena, the missing files appeared on a table next to the door to her office in the White House. If she had turned these records over to Starr when subpoenaed to do so, his investigation would have been finished MONTHS before Monica Lewinsky came onto the scene. Flash forward again - she arbitrarily and unilaterally ordered (electronically "lost" thousands of emails to be deleted from her SOS email account.
I'm not going to repost everything documenting her nuclear, pull-out-all-the-stops, bully-the-rape-victim, pro bono defense of a man she believed to be guilty of raping a 12 year old, or her vote for cluster bombs, her actions as SOS favoring corporations and foreign countries who gave $$$ to the Clinton Foundation, her laughter and joking about illegal assassinations. If anyone wants links, feel free to go to my DU Journal entries.
Time after time, HRC has demonstrated her contempt for the rule of law.
After decades of observing her, I conclude she has squandered her great potential in favor of her personal advancement. She remains her own worst enemy and she will be ours if she makes it to the Oval office with her pro-war, pro-MIC, pro-Wall Street agenda.
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)You nailed it. Being the first female President is not a reason to vote for someone - especially someone like her. Which is unfortunate because I would like to see a female president in my lifetime and now know I probably won't. She's not going to win the GE should she, by some miracle, be the nominee. Millennials won't vote for her, Independents won't vote for her and many, many women won't vote for her (just because she's a female). Most women are smarter than that and vote on the ISSUES.
pro-war, pro-MIC, pro-Wall Street agenda? I don't think so. She's trying too hard to earn the RIGHT WING vote, instead of the PROGRESSIVE vote. She has to EARN my vote and so far, she's not even close.
PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE
tazkcmo
(7,419 posts)"I'm not going to repost everything documenting her nuclear, pull-out-all-the-stops, bully-the-rape-victim, pro bono defense of a man she believed to be guilty of raping a 12 year old, or her vote for cluster bombs, her actions as SOS favoring corporations and foreign countries who gave $$$ to the Clinton Foundation, her laughter and joking about illegal assassinations. If anyone wants links, feel free to go to my DU Journal entries."
You can't post Sec. Clinton's history of her own actions! It's smearing! (sarcasm)
Divernan
(15,480 posts)Hepburn
(21,054 posts)Yep, she had potential...that was then, not so much now. With her, IMO, it is Hillary first, last and always. I don't trust her and I find her to be way, way too far right. I liked Bill Clinton and still do...he is charming and warm and even with all of the scandals associated with him, he is still likable. Hillary is cold and calculating. Whatever advances her personally appears to be her position on a specific issue at a given point in time. If the winds change, so does Hillary. Excuse me...I meant to say she "evolves."
Great post and thank you...I totally appreciate the precise facts used and your reasoning.
JMHO
Divernan
(15,480 posts)You think, and write, with a legally trained mind!
Hepburn
(21,054 posts)Nice to make your acquaintance!
Right now, even tho retired, I am in a law office doing some ghost writing on a few briefs and mx opps for a fellow atty who is taking a European vacation. Hope he is having a wonderful time! I still like to keep my hand in it... I like staying current and the only way to do that is to keep on keeping on!
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Utter crap.
Tote Life
(72 posts)Just a hmpf and a dismissal noise?
No counter argument? What a wonderful way to represent your candidate.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Tote Life
(72 posts)Not a very good way to win over undecided voters. We still need to hear arguments about why we should go to Clinton instead of Sanders. I live in a caucus state ready to vote on Super Tuesday. I am that firewall Clinton keeps boasting that will doom Sanders on Super Tuesday.
Clinton hasn't impressed me. Sanders has impressed me, but I want to see how he does in Iowa and New Hampshire. If he does extraordinarily well, then I'm more than ready to back Sanders. If Clinton wins Iowa and NH, then I've got be convinced that Clinton is still worth it. Like I said, Clinton hasn't impressed me. All I'm saying, impress me. Give me that counterargument that I'm looking for.
Air of dismissals from her supporters without any counter arguments are showing something different about Clinton and her supporters.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)How many "undecideds" are left?
Not nearly enough of them to overcome Hillary Clinton!
Divernan
(15,480 posts)if you get my drift.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)
drynberg
(1,648 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)The party is doing just fine for the big money that has taken it over. What the rest of us think is actually irrelevant, because they operate on the contemptuous "who else they gonna vote for" rule.
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)You dont resemble the majority of Democrats..
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)If, against all odds, Trump actually makes it to the nomination (I still have serious doubts), his supporters are rabid, and I mean RABID Clinton haters. If only 22% of your base is enthusiastic about the candidate you've got a HUGE problem. Under any other conditions, the DNC would be scrambling for a different horse to back, but they've painted themselves into a corner. They were so confident that Clinton could buy her way to the nomination they forgot that elections take boots on the ground and that takes enthusiasm for the candidate. This is boding VERY bad for the Democrats.
Bernie, however . . .
pnwmom
(109,703 posts)The other side will make up outrageous lies and the haters will believe.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)According to Hillary supporters on DU Bernie is Israel's #1 shill, a pro gunner that thinks women enjoy being raped, racist, gun nut, scheming little sneak, drooling, sweating old fool, scumbag, pandering phony braggart with some kind of emotional instability, tool for the NRA, Republican man with his head between women's legs, who protects the minutemen militia, pedophiles, racist cops, has rape fantasies, thinks that orgasms prevent cancer, wants the guns in the streets, and is supported by Stormfront*.
*note to jury: last time I posted this it was alerted on for linking to other posts, the alerter claimed it's against the tos.
They were wrong, I checked.
Thank you.
tazkcmo
(7,419 posts)The Scientific Polls show Sanders beating the Republican candidates by greater margins than Sanders.
pnwmom
(109,703 posts)The Rethugs haven't been wasting their time or money going after Bernie.
Response to pnwmom (Reply #36)
Divernan This message was self-deleted by its author.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The Republicans have spent 20 years convincing their base Clinton is Satan incarnate. Am I the only one who remembers the 1993 bumper sticker, "I didn't vote for Clinton...or her husband"?
It doesn't have to be Trump to tap this hatred. Every Republican candidate will have it behind them if Clinton is the nominee. Every single Republican and Republican-leaning independent will vote in order to vote against her.
To counter that, we would need every single Democrat and Democratic-leaning independent to vote for her. And 22% means that is not going to happen.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)The Party Faithful keep downplaying the Enthusiasm Gap and when asked about it we're told that the "serious people" (you know, the ones that don't participate in online polls) will show up in magical numbers that will be enough to carry her to the White House. But I'm betting the campaign knows differently. They keep sending out the same meme (thank you MSM for echoing that meme for them) that all is right in their world but they HAVE to be worried with those numbers added to her over 50% disapproval rating. If they're not worried they're party-blind idiots too stupid to run a serious campaign.
stonecutter357
(12,798 posts)Politicsandhiphop
(28 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)What percentage of dens would be enthusiastic if Sanders is the nominee?
lobodons
(1,290 posts)But yet 100 zillion percent of Americans would be enthusiastic that the GOP did not win the presidency, thanks Hillary!!!!!
bowens43
(16,064 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)
DemocratSinceBirth
(100,515 posts)
get the red out
(13,681 posts)But I would be relieved that we had a President who was neither a Theocrat nor a lunatic.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)
merrily
(45,251 posts)The OP ends with the question "Can't our party do better?," to which I replied "!Si, podemos!
Our party can do better than Hillary and, IMO, has, in the person of Bernie Sanders. Also, in my opinion, in the person of Martin O'Malley, also better than Hillary. Whether voters will do better is another pregunta.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)
pengu
(462 posts)Enthusiastic to re-register as an indie.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)Vinca
(51,513 posts)If it's a "mid-term" turnout, we're toast.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)But if Hillary won, I would be cool with it. Just wouldn't be overly enthusiastic.
firebrand80
(2,760 posts)Skidmore
(37,364 posts)Great way to void your ballot.
Hepburn
(21,054 posts)....but I hope this Hillary supporter passes this along to other HRC supporters for use in the primaries!
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)a Hillary supporter, since I am one also. Frankly, I'm not convinced he/she is.
gordyfl
(598 posts)My nephew sent me an email a couple of weeks ago stating that he and his wife will be registering as Democrats for the - first time ever, just so they can vote for Bernie. To me, that's enthusiasm.
I know they voted for Obama in '08 because they gave me "Audacity of Hope" as a Christmas gift.
Although they were enthused about Obama, they had still remained registered Independents and didn't vote in the Primary in '08. Bernie has lit a fire under them.
Nitram
(24,892 posts)Enthusiastic is nice, but not very long-lived in most cases. I suspect enthusiasm usually burns brightest in the breast of youth.
Tote Life
(72 posts)Clinton is already dead in the water if she gets the nomination. Bernie does not. It's that obvious who Americans should trust and vote for.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,817 posts)once she is matched up against the eventual Republican nominee IMHO. Some people here seem to quick to assume that these poll results mean anything terribly significant this far out. We're still a few months before we even know for sure whom the nominees for each party will be and very few people are paying attention. Democratic voters will make their wishes plainly known in the primaries.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)That doesn't change the fundamentals of the race, however. When it comes down to it, voters will make up their minds during general election season.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)We saw what happened with how many people were enthusiastic about Obama in 2008, but when it was time to actually govern, most people went home and acted like the work was over.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)for "not turning out"
meanwhile every DUer and Kosack could've brought 5 people to the polls and it wouldn't have made a difference, because the race was between two sorts of disgusting
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Pretty sizable group for the base. Get this, the base of the party is almost as large as all of Sanders support.
Zynx
(21,328 posts)Maybe as a percentage of his supporters, but then again he doesn't have as many supporters.
moobu2
(4,822 posts)"Just 11% would be dissatisfied and only 5% would be upset. Even a
majority of Sanders supporters (59%) would be okay if Clinton ultimately won the nomination over their
preferred candidate."