If Clinton Is So Sure She Will Win, Why Does She Need To Mislead Us About The Popular Vote?

[JDPriestly]

108. On every point you are wrong.

First, let's imagine that the "order" of Primaries were reversed. Hillary would have stomped Bernie early in California and NJ and been so far ahead he would never catch up. Having white, rural, Northern states with caucuses first allowed Bernie to get a name. Bernie caught all the breaks.

It was Californians who played a big role in persuading Bernie to run and the crowds and encouragement he found on visits to California that were important in Bernie's decision to run. Hillary's big head start was in the South where regardless of race, religious conservatism that she subscribes to and lack of alternative news media made her popular and assisted her big wins there. Bernie has clearly gained in popularity, wins and votes as the campaign has progressed.

Second, the DNC could easily of [have] refused to even accept Bernie as a Democrat. Hillary treated Bernie nicely and never ran obvious attack ads against him. At most there were a very few PAC ads. He got away scot free.

The DNC did not "refuse" to accept Bernie as a Democrat because
a) they don't have that power (the states establish rules on party affiliation, and in most if not all states, the DNC cannot refuse to allow a candidate in its primaries if that candidate fulfills the requirements of state law; Vermont does not have the same system as some other state with regard to party affiliation); b) Bernie votes with Democrats and belongs to the Progressive and Democratic caucuses in Congress and is closely allied with the Democrats there (Democrats in Congress need his vote and benefit from his presence and no less than Obama has campaigned for Bernie in the past); c) Bernie stated (and he is an exceptionally honest man) that he was running as a Democrat so that he would not detract from the Democratic Party's chance to win.

In other words, the Democratic Party did not have any choice, and besides it is and was in the interest of the Democratic Party that Bernie run as a Democrat. It was and is also in Bernie's interest that he run as a Democrat.

It is unrealistic to think that the Democratic Party would have wanted to appear so inhospitable to progressives as to refuse to allow a progressive to run as a Democrat. The Democratic Party pretends to be a big tent and would ruin its appearance of being a big tent, inclusive party if it did not welcome Bernie and other progressives who have traditionally been a part of the Democratic Party.

Hillary did not run attack ads against Bernie for one reason: Bernie never, ever, ever runs attack ads against his opponents. It isn't that Hillary was being nice. It is that Bernie wins hands down when his political opponents run attack ads against him. In fact the current ugliness by many Hillary supporters and the DNC against Bernie is hurting Hillary now and likely to hurt her even worse in November. Hillary complains that Bernie's presence in the primary in California and other primaries is hurting her chances in November? No. It's her nastiness about Bernie's continuing to run that is hurting her.

Bernie does not run negative ads ever. You've probably seen his ads. Those that are approved are honest and positive. So that's why Hillary did not run negative ads. It would have insured her loss. Hillary is not a nice person. She did not refuse to run negative ads because she is nice. She did not run them because had she done so she would have already decisively lost.

radio was saying the morning: exactly what did the DNC do to Bernie? He got a lot more than the original 6 debates. He got access to data (and stole stuff that wasn't his), he used Democratic voters to raise money (and got in trouble with the FEC), and the DNC did not oppose him on ballots that required them to allow Bernie to run as a Democrat (even though he didn't raise money except for himself).

Bernie has acted like a petulant child.

Sorry. For some reason part of your post disappeared on my computer when I tried to copy these last paragraphs.

The DNC has been horrible to Bernie. I understand that Hillary is now refusing to debate before the California campaign. Her campaign here has been lackluster and cheap. No signs, no headquarters that I know of, nothing much. As for the number of debates, the DNC held far more in 2004 and 2008. And the DNC scheduled the debates this year at odd times and in conflict with sports events (white male voters going for Trump? No wonder.)

Hillary's campaign has been lackluster. Her crowds are small -- spends most of her campaign time with fat-cat donors seems to me. She is not dealing with the major issues for low income and young voters -- the cost of higher education, the burden of student debt, exorbitantly high co-pays for health insurance, jobs lost due to the trade agreements and the fear of the impending trade agreements that American workers do not want, in short, income disparity.

She is also giving only lip service to the issue most on the mind of the middle and professional class voters who support Bernie and make up much of his supporters: corruption in government. Rather than attack this issue honestly and strongly, Hillary courts the big, rich donors, the corporate and foreign money. Minor issues about nit-picky campaign finance rules that are nearly impossible to understand are petty compared to Hillary's selling her influence and her voice to wealthy people around the world.

Hillary pretends to have raised money for down-ticket races but has spent a lot of that money on her own campaign. Many of us who back Bernie normally donate to the various congressional fundraising groups but are donating to Bernie instead this year because we are making a statement: we want the Democratic Party and the Democrats in Congress to pass progressive legislation and to end the waste in the military spending. We need a strong military, but we also need a healthy, educated population. Let's find a better balance there.

I hope you are not offended by my post, but your post was rather a challenge to me. You are just plain wrong on a lot of things.

I would like to see a real Democrat win in November. And the only one running at this time in my view is Bernie. I was born in 1943 during the FDR presidency and WWII. I have been a Democrat all my life.

I assure you. If Hilary should win in November, her presidency will probably end as Nixon's ended. When you vote for Hillary, you are voting for corruption and other problems that the Republicans will merrily exploit. Hillary is not a candidate who can bring harmony to our country. The Republicans hated and impeached her husband in the House, and I have no doubt they will try to do the same to Hillary should she win in November.

The best candidate for Democrats is Bernie. By far.

But that is another chapter.

Feel the Bern!