I think that there are important issues that we could all be talking about. But this is one that the Clinton supporters do not want to talk about. And that's a shame.

But first, there is something that keeps coming to my mind when we are asked if we'll vote for Hillary if she is the nominee. Will they vote for Bernie if he is the nominee? I don't have a means of judging the likelihood of how many Clinton supporters will vote for Bernie. Do you have any thoughts on that? My feeling is that if we are this divided, the likelihood of them voting for Bernie is the same as that for Bernie supporters in the similar situation. This is a part of electability as well, since if the whole team doesn't act as one, the electibility of our candidate goes down.

The notion of separating out behavior from the being is one I struggle with. It's along the lines of knowing how to deal with resentment, I believe. How can they be separate? Don't they both come from the same center? No? Once again I'm reminded of a perfect being in an imperfect vessel, and I suppose part, if not all, of the answer lies therein.

Now I must get outside and walk through the rain. And I have a tree that is down, and needs to be dealt with. I try to live between the cracks of the election. Not much time for life. I love it.

for asking the best questions.

First, I think that the vast majority of Hillary supporters on DU would definitely vote for Bernie Sanders, if he is our party's nominee.

I do not think many of those involved in running her campaign would. And, obviously, none of her Wall Street supporters would do anything that could be mistaken for being pro-Bernie. The former will work against him, and the Goldman Saches types will finance opposition to him.

Regarding politicians: like each and every one of us, they are a mixture of good and bad qualities. The question is if any of those negatives might influence their job performance. The most obvious example is, of course, would someone who is paid obscene amounts of money by a corporation ......it is difficult for many to believe that would not influence their behaviors, at some levels.

It would, I dare say, taken someone as ethical as Gandhi to use the money from such a source, and not be contaminated.

http://www.pollingreport.com/hrc.htm

^cut^


"Overall, do you have a favorable or unfavorable impression of Hillary Clinton?"

3/3-6/16

Favorable 46% Unfavorable 52% No opinion 2%




"Thinking about the following characteristics and qualities, please say whether you think it applies or doesn't apply to Hillary Clinton. ... Is honest and trustworthy."

5/29-31/15

Applies 42% Doesn't apply 57% Unsure 1%

If Trump were the nominee. The map could be a whole lot worse.

I think that there is a possibility that some event -- planned or unplanned -- could upset the current balance. We used to refer to these as "October surprises."

Should be YYYYUUUUGGGGEEE!!

I tend to discount national polls for the GE at this point in the campaign. But so many DUers take the polls with the morning coffee, and every flicker of the meter rouses cries of speculation.

-- Mal

Thank you very much for that information. It is important that people understand its significance.

And he's correct.

I will unequivocally vote for the Democratic nominee in November. I pray that it is Bernie Sanders because I feel strongly that Cenk is correct. Hillary Clinton might very well lose.

Extremely important. I appreciate you sharing it with us!

...when they talk about Hillary's landslide win in Mississippi is all you to see.

It is fascinating to consider all of the various sub-plots that are playing out before our eyes.

Are you planning to watch the republican freak show tonight?

Do we vote for someone or something just because a person, event or cause is deemed an eventual winner. Sure it feels good to be on the winning side, yet voting for a leader is not a bet on a horse race. Who is going to win is low on my list of priorities concerning my vote. In my experience, I have seen too many people vote for the, "big winner" just to be on the winning side and regret their decision later. It is a sad experience to be involved in.

With the above in mind, someone tells me I need to back or vote for the, "big winner" my first thought is to look for a good reason to do the opposite. With diligent research, a competent examination will find pros and cons with the, "big winner!" Now that is the Yea or Nay of the person, event or purpose. With multiple candidates in an election, the "Electability" is still a blip on the radar even for a tie breaker.

If "Electability" is the main reason to vote for someone, back in the year of 1980, this board would be arguing whether or not to vote for Ronald Reagan.

Which is why I'm voting for Sanders, because I think the polling numbers in his favor nationally are for real, even though I think he'd probably make a marginally worse President than Clinton (I'm not terribly fond of either of them).

Voting in a Republic is a messy business

Besides, peoples view of electability are not the same.

Thank you for a very thoughtful post. You raise interesting points .....for example, how the packaging of a candidate can turn a presidential election into a junior high school popularity contest.

One of the dynamics I find interesting has been on the republican end ....in essence, Trump turned a primary contest into a dog show. He has out-alpha-dogged the others. It was actually pathetic to one point where you could almost -- almost -- feel sorry for poor Jeb. No matter how growly his trainers had him prepared beforehand, he became submissive whenever Trump growled in his direction. Luckily, Jeb is paper-trained, and held his natural reaction in, until the breaks.

Others have attempted to alpha-male Trump, but were also incapable. The poodle known as Rand Paul tried; though not as weak a dog as Jeb, his attempts fell flat. Chris Christie thought he'd be the Big Dog going in. But old Chris only dares attack the defenseless.

Thus far, none of the republicans has identified how to properly deal with Alpha Donald. It can't be by engaging him on his own terms, for there is no one more obnoxious, in this context, than Trump. (Cruz is more toxic, and the very definition of "obnoxious." But "alpha," he ain't.)

It is unclear how Trump's style would match up in a one-on-one series of debates with Hillary Clinton.Obviously, it would provide some of her supporters with an opportunity to correctly say, "Sexist!" But it's doubtful that would be seen as anything but the little boy crying "wolf" yet again.

Bernie Sanders, of course, provides the perfect contrast. Bernie knows exactly who he is. He doesn't have deep-rooted doubts about his manhood. Nor does he subscribe to Trump's definition of reality. Equally important, he knows who Donald Trump really is. Thus, Trump could not bluff him, much less intimidate him, the way that Trump has his republican opposition.

I'd love to see you elucidate this.

happening on a couple of my OPs in the past 24 hours. Curious.

...or thoughtful musings to share. Just hit-and-run slams of negative crap on someone's post and then they scurry away before having to defend their spurious remarks. Unfortunately, as this primary tightens, this and other tactics to stifle discussion and discourse will only become more common.

One person did it four or five times on an OP/thread last night. Since I couldn't see what she had said, there was no way to respond. It struck me as curious, because other than the current primary, I've enjoyed talking with her for many years.

A person whom I otherwise respect was pushing the "NRA endorses Sanders" thing a few days ago. So I asked him if he disagreed with the substance of Mr Sanders's vote (on the suing gun manufacturers bill). No reply.

Kind of hard to discuss issues, when no one wants to discuss issues.

-- Mal

called out on it instead of defending the slurs. True keyboard warrior style! Then slink back to the ward to carry on about being censored and ganged up on in GD - this poster is a rather egregious example of that.

it's so difficult to make predictions of the future. Generally candidates get big leads following their conventions and then can go up and down depending on so many variables that haven't yet arisen. Usually I go with my heart in the primary and choose who I'd most like to see as President regardless of whether they 'can win in the general.' That would lead me to Sanders. It's a crazy year this year, with I'm sure more craziness to come.

I usually am among the last people I know to identify one candidate in the Democratic primaries to endorse and campaign for. Up until that point, I try to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each one. Then I try to identify two things: the person I like the most, and who I think would have the greatest chance of winning in November. As the process flows along, the field usually narrows, until I can select "my" candidate.

There have been a few exceptions. Obviously, in 1996 and 2012, we had a president running for re-election. The other exception was Rev. Jesse Jackson. Because his beliefs and positions were so close to my own -- though he is a bit more conservative than me -- there was no question of who I was campaigning for. His concept of the Rainbow Coalition is, for all intents and purposes, the general model of what our party's best potential is. Plus, his two runs came at a time when many Democrats in DC were attempting to blend our values with those of the republican establishment .....though this would become even a more toxic blend in recent times.

I also remember at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, when John Kerry picked a young man named Barack Obama to speak. I was extremely impressed, and I remember thinking that I hoped this kid would eventually run for president.

I too felt that way about Barack Obama when he spoke at the Democratic National Convention. I'm a small letters democratic socialist & I'm most interested in the 'think globally act locally' way of living. Treating others how you like to be treated. From an intellectual standpoint I enjoy the executive level stuff. I like to 'kick the tires' so to speak, vetting each candidate completely.

I was emotionally invested in President Obama (and still am, I've always had his back). I'm glad that you can understand that for me, weighing all the various factors and not necessarily 'choosing a candidate' this time around, it's still a close call for me, and I'm waiting until the day of my vote in June to make my decision. I will most definitely vote in November as I feel republicans at every level of government deserve a sound ass-whipping.

... among otherwise dispassionate, rational voters, who are concerned about the frequency with which the Clinton campaign makes unforced errors. JEB received a lot of mockery because he wasn't "the smart one" after all. One of the selling points of Clinton the Candidate is that she is a consummate politician (despite having already lost one presidential primary, which somehow seems not to count). If so, then why is her campaign making so many mistakes? And if it makes mistakes in the primary, how will it do in the general election? Meanwhile, Mr Sanders's campaign has made few errors of note, which is possibly one reason why it has eroded so much of Mrs Clinton's support.

It is to be hoped that, if Mrs Clinton is the nominee, that much of the support which Mr Sanders's campaign has eroded will fall back in line, or it is quite possible to lose this thing.

And how could one know you and not like you?

-- Mal

Even Hillary's strongest supporters should be concerned over the number of unforced errors that she makes. Being an old person, I'm able to say this: I suspect that more people thought "age" would be a problem for Bernie. That a long, tough campaign would take a toll on him, and wear him down. But I think it is evident that this has become more of a factor for Hillary .....though not all of her errors, forced or unforced -- can accurately be attributed to the pace of the campaign wearing her out.

It's interesting .....well, at least for me. You know that I used to be married to the sport of boxing. And, even today, although boxing and I are separated, I still care deeply for it, and enjoy getting together -- for old time's sake, perhaps. But it is my younger son who boxes these days ....in fact, as I type this, he is being interviewed for a new job, teaching the great sport to young adults who are presently in the care of our government.

Anyhow, he is at the point where we talk more about "why" than "how" certain approaches are taken. For he who knows "why" always masters he who knows "how." And, in recent days, our talks have focused upon the recognition of the opponent's greatest strength.

Unless one is facing a Muhammad Ali, it is always worth identifying the opponent's greatest strength, and breaking it. Taking it away from them. Sometimes, you do this from the time the bell rings for that first round. Other times, you wait until they have used up some of their energy, and then break it.

In this case, I think Bernie has identified the manner in which he could best increase the pace of the contest -- including the expanded number of debates -- to pick when to exploit the opposition's strengths and weaknesses. For it is a tired person who makes the most unforced errors.

Does that make sense?

Now, to answer your next question: Easy, I think. Lots of people dislike me.

... so therefore it must be right! I was watching early to see if Mr Sanders could stand the pace (I may well have mentioned that to you awhile back), and it has been suggested, and seems to be the case, that he is actually thriving on the pace and the enthusiasm (he must be an extrovert). I think Mrs Clinton is getting frustrated and tired, and as for her followers... ergo, the move to call the "fight" after the 15th of March, because (to push the metaphor), the woman doesn't have the stamina to go ten rounds. (Also to push the metaphor, though, the referee and judges are on her side) That's potentially dangerous, because one might assume that Mr Trump is not going to go easy on her if they face off on the general (unless a very strange conspiracy is taking place, which I doubt).

Unfortunately for Mrs Clinton, I rather expect this one is going down to the final bell. (A knockout is not out of the question, but frankly most of the ways one could occur seem to me to be fraught with ill-effects). So the contest comes down to who gets the most points (which is why I mention the judges).

In classic fashion, it seems to me, the Clintonites underrated their opponent, and now they have to compose a strategy on the fly. They are demonstrating that they are not too good on their feet. Again to stretch the boxing metaphor, doesn't this seem very much like a classic matchup of a slugger against a boxer? And usually, if the slugger doesn't score that early KO, the points go to the other guy. (Joe Louis and Max Schmeling, anyone?)

-- Mal

I hate the electability argument. unless I am misunderstanding, the idea is that my vote should be to some degree influenced by who I think other people like the most.

In other words, I should make an effort to pick a winner.....which means I should consider voting for who the polls say is winning.

Or, if there is something about the person i want to vote for that others may not like, I should consider someone else.

Am I missing something?

I consider none of that when I vote. I base my vote on who I am voting for, and what I believe they may or may not do, if elected. I never consider changing my vote to increase my chances of picking a winner. To do so, i would have to cast votes for people I dont believe in, and why in the hell would i do that???

I think that to a very large extent, it is a popularity contest. Yet, that cannot explain why any human being would vote for Ted Crux. So we can be sure that there is more to it, other layers beneath that shallow surface.

One of them is safety. Is a given candidate "strong" enough to provide safety for the nation? And a lot of factors can influence the public's perception on this. Sad to say, Ronald Reagan's Hollywood image -- from movies to commercials -- convinced many that they'd have a rough and tough cowboy in the White House. Even George W. Bush tried to copy that, with his cowboy hat and chain saw, out at his ranch. It is pathetic that many republicans insist that W kept the country safe.

It's a fascinating topic. Thank you for a thoughtful response.

She isn't an extoverted master bullshitter like Bill Clinton or a quick thinking and inspiring orator like President Obama.

Her speaking style is forced and flat and she appears defensive and uncomfortable in impromptu public encounters. To me, while she may badly want to be president, she really would rather not go through all the effort that is required to become president.

I believe Bill is pushing her hard. He constantly needs validation and this is one way of keeping his name in front of the public.

I'm not even sure there is a "real" Hillary Clinton. Even if there is, its obvious that the one we're seeing in this campaign, isn't it. The reason she seems so bogus is that she is.

I have mentioned a number of times that when I met and talked to Hillary in a very small setting, she was relaxed and very impressive. But that level of comfort definitely does not extend to campaigning. In fact, I had previously met her at a campaign event, and was not really impressed -- she seemed no different than a hundred other politicians.

Your description of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama's individual skills is perfect. They are, of course, both extreme examples of their individual styles.

And your last paragraph nails it, too. I suspect that's why so many people are turned off by politics.

...that she helped Bill get his 8 years and then she lost to Obama and then was obligated to somewhat semi-graciously fall into line as as good little soldier, AND NOW IT IS HER TURN. She believes she has earned it and IT IS HER RIGHT. Now Hillary is completely befuddled that her Investiture, which was supposedly all but a done deal, now seems to be harder to grasp. AND HOW DARE HE take this from Her? That commoner... doesn't he know who She is? How dare they NOT support HER...after all She has done for Them. Ungrateful ingrates.

she's owed the position for all the above! She already has money, power and all the trimmings. I think this lust for the presidency is almost a pathological need for vindication. And she can't stand being thwarted again ... the country owes her, damn it!

...so she should get the Presidency.

Can you imagine the next chapter of Bill in the WH?

note to jury: It's a fair primary discussion - this will DEFINITELY be part of the general discussion if Clinton wins the primary! The GOP candidates have undoubtedly had their parts written and lined out since Obama whipped her. We skirt the issue at our own peril, IMHO!

... which I will do even though I make no claim to be able to read the hearts of men (or women), you'd need to explain why her team seems to share that attitude.

I have seen the argument that, because of her fights for this or that (women's equality, racial equality, etc), she "deserves" the office as her reward. This would seem to indicate that some think the Presidency is a bon-bon to be handed out for being a good girl, rather than something that must be earned by persuading a sufficiency of citizens that your programs are best for the future of the country.

-- Mal

And let's while we are at it, discuss Clinton's silent homophobia too. Her record and her recent hagiograghy of Nancy Reagan, in a bid to win over some "Reagan Democrats" or whatever those gay-hating DINOs are called these days, didn't exactly inspire my willingness to vote for her.

Whether she is the most likable person on earth - or the least - there are no other options if Bernie fails...right?

It is just the way the cards are falling, plain and simple. The ultimate nominees are what they are. It looks like no one else better will win, right?