and outlier Latinas like me.

who are tired of working past retirement age to insure health care for a disabled child.

and certainly the young who weren't born to privilege don't matter.

Greg Sargent ?@ThePlumLineGS 2h2 hours ago
Via @paulwaldman1: No, Hillary Clinton doesn't have a (serious) problem with white men: http://wapo.st/22oO79o


Clinton will have the support of tens of millions of white men. But she doesn’t need to do any better among them than any Democrat has, and even if she does worse, she’ll probably be completely fine.

That’s because whites are declining as a proportion of the electorate as the country grows more diverse with each passing year. In 1992, just 24 years ago, whites made up 87 percent of the voters, according to exit polls. By 2012 the figure had declined to 72 percent. Since women vote at slightly higher rates than men, white men made up around 35 percent of the voters.

Those numbers will be lower this year, which means that even if nothing changes in how non-whites vote, Republicans will need to keep increasing their margins among whites to even stay where they are overall — in other words, to keep losing by the same amount.

By way of illustration, in 1988, George H.W. Bush won 60 percent of white voters on his way to beating Michael Dukakis by seven points. In 2012, Mitt Romney did just as well among whites, winning 59 percent of their votes. But he lost to Barack Obama by four points. The electorate is now even less white than it was four years ago, which means that Donald Trump (or whoever the GOP nominee is) will have to do not just better among whites than Romney did in order to win, but much better.

Exactly how much better is difficult to say because we don’t know exactly what turnout will look like among different groups (David Bernstein recently estimated that Trump would have to get at least 70 percent of the white male vote, compared to Mitt Romney’s 62 percent). But as turnout increases among groups other than white men, the need to run up the score among white men gets higher and higher. And for certain groups — particularly Latinos and women of all races — Donald Trump provides an extraordinary incentive to get out and vote. Not only that, as I argued yesterday, women are likely to vote in even stronger numbers for Clinton.

more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/03/18/hillary-clinton-doesnt-need-white-men/

ethnicities are resisting her. Independents are resisting her. Those that make under $250,000 are resisting her. Those under 65 are resisting her. I as a white female Independent under the age of 65 and who makes less than $250,000 stand together with white men in saying we are tired of having our jobs shipped over seas and having our social services cut while corporations get a $400 billion tax forgiveness deal. Between losing jobs because of NAFTA and the financial crisis of 2008 millions of working people have lost everything and they are pissed.

But that would require the Hillary acolytes to have actual principles. Sadly, they emulate their candidate.

Hilarious how they piss and moan about "throwing a civil rights icon under the bus" (even though she's a proven liar), but have no problem with, well...throwing a civil rights icon under the bus. Hypocrites and simpletons...

perhaps I misunderstood your post.

that rag is trying to take Bernie down. Shitbags.

Let's see how you do in November, Shillary, w/o 2/3 of the "Obama Coalition" and about 25% of independents.

O hai there, President Trump.

And what do you suppose their turnout numbers are going to be like, hmm?

... Sanders among young Hispanic and blacks.

Sanders for the most part has a racially homogeneous movement

Regardless of who they vote for, young people voting is a Good Thing.

Disagree, by all means, but leave out the obvious Right Wing terminology.

By the way, "ratfucking" (your post #12) does not mean what you think it means. Just sayin'

I use "Shillary" because it perfectly illustrates my take on Clinton: a shill for Big Money. I couldn't give a single, solitary fuck if some RW toad uses it, too. See: blind pig, acorn, barnyard...

...as a constant irritant and it has now been absorbed into the media.

If you are unfamiliar with Newt Gingrich's seminal paper on "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control," I highly recommend you read up on it. You can start here http://fair.org/extra/language-a-key-mechanism-of-control/

Gingrich was really brilliant that way. I can date the decline of the term "liberal" from a neutral descriptive term to one of opprobrium, almost one would say, a dirty word, from Newt's accession to Dubya's appointment to the Oval Office. In 2001 I suddenly I realized I felt creepy in describing myself as a liberal, and I realized it was because it had become a dirty word -- the only parallel I could think of was "dirty Jew" which really offended my husband (incidentally Jewish) until he thought about it more and until I showed him the evidence. Then he got it too.

So I take your "blind pig acorn barnyard" for what it is (i.e. nothing to me, thank you), but I do urge you to consider the language YOU are using and how it may have been MANIPULATED into your thoughts by clever propagandists the likes of whom you would never break bread with.

Words do matter. Disagree with other Democrats all you like, but my advice would be to avoid using language of which Newt Gingrich et al. would be proud.

Sometimes it really does pay to take your audience into consideration. There are all kind of venues and outlets in this world for you to say the most awful rabidly hateful things about Hillary. DU just doesn't happen to be one of them. So if you want to spout hateful shit, you take your chances.

Obviously.

Sorry, I was born white. The crankiness became more apparent when contending with corrupt politicians.

But you probably knew that.

White men are the ONLY group resisting. More lies from the NYT.

He tends to be very popular among white men.

Let the southern states that secured her nomination carry her to the WH.