She loves WaPo. Well, she still has CNN and MSNBC.

Except he can't win the primary.

He would have won tho if more people had voted for him than Hillary.

But mostly if more people had voted for him than Hillary.
That's the big one right there.

You miss the point.

I'm not sure what you mean.

What is the point?

has been doing everything in its power to tilt this election toward his opponent. Not only is he up against Clinton, her PACS, and her super PACS, he is also up against a DNC that is pushing for Clinton to win. It's that simple. You implied agreement earlier in this thread when you said, "Yeah, that too," in response to Loudestlib pointing out that Sanders would be successful if he didn't have to run against the DNC.

I'm not sure what the DNC has done to tilt things.
They did let him run as a Democrat so he had access to their data.

The elections are governed state by state.

Hillary does have deep roots in the Democratic Party so that works in her favor.
She's spent 25 years making connections so she's built
up a lot of loyalty.

But the DNC can't make people vote for her.
She had the same advantages in 2008 and Obama beat her.

..during the first half of the primaries.
DWS, Chair of the DNC was the kingpin who purposely scheduled the early debates to keep as few voters as possible from hearing Bernie, his issues, and the contrast between Bernie and Hillary, because everybody knows that the more people who see and hear Bernie like him MORE and Hillary LESS.
This is UNDENIABLE.



[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]

If they tuned in to watch Hillary they aslo saw Bernie.

Also I thought the campaigns were responsible for their own ads.

You know where to advertise and when and how much to spend in any particular market.
Like a media team.

I saw the debate.
But if nobody saw Bernie they didn't see Hillary either.

She has one of the largest name recognition quotients of any recent candidate. If not for her constant weathervaning, we'd all know what she stood for as well without a debate. She should have been a shoe in for the presidency, and in fact that's how it was all planned. Over at Iowa. No platform needed, no promises to walk back on.

Oops.

He's running against them.

If he's running against them then they're probly push back.

Except she's going to have a hell of a time in the general.

To be fair, so would Bernie, but I feel like Hillary's image is just too negative, and Republicans have more ammo against her than ever.

Now we'll see if it's the same kind of
non starter stuff they've been smearing her with for the
last 25 years.
I expect the smearing will start as soon as the Republicans stop
beating up on each other.

One good thing is that Hillary is going to have a lot of ammo to shoot back
at them.

You Bought It, You Name It


Let it be known far and wide that we tried to stop this. We came up short, but damn, we tried.

Don't give an inch.

Paul Wellstone: "Stand up! Keep fighting!"

The spectacle of Donald Trump has gotten so much attention that she’s slipped under the radar for what ought to be a real story. .?.?. Her numbers have gone from terrible to historic and disqualifying.”

Mission Accomplished. Keep the voters focused on the clown car race while
the DNC goes all dirty and pushes the fallacy that the race is in the bag
for HRC.

The fact that her numbers have gone from bad to worse really should be a big story...and it worries the hell out of me if she is the nominee.

And if the email server issue turns into recommendations of endictment by the FBI (which is a real possibility no matter how much Clinton supporters want to poo-poo it), the Democratic Party is hosed.

That vote totals and delegate totals only show what Dem primary voters think about her.

So there is no contradiction between the WaPo article and the results so far.

Hillary is going to win the battle (the primary) but is going to have a harder time than Bernie would have had winning the war (the general).

The purpose of the primary is to choose the parties standard bearer. Membership in a party, or a refusal to join a party, are protected under the 14th amendment. (Right of association). Parties have the right to set the rules.

The majority of the Democratic Party does not agree with the Washington Post, and in a Primary, it is the Party that decides.

The purpose of the General Election is to choose a government from the available options. It has a much larger electorate.

Which she does horrible with.

Which independents does she do poorly? The ones that are to the left of Democrats? The ones to the right of Republicans if there are such? Or the one that range between Democrat and Republican on a graph? Or the ones that think they are independents?

Once the primary is over, we can discuss how the electorate will decide between the likely options of Clinton and Trump.

What is clear is that most Democrats prefer and like Hillary Clinton in the Primary.

Trump and Cruz's negatives with minorities and women are huuuuuge. I think Clinton will compare favorably to either of those candidates in the General Election.

Personally, I think considerations of electability in the general are well worth discussing before the primaries are over. But at this point, it's pretty much a done deal, I think. Unless Hillary runs into legal issues, but I don't think that's likely.

The primary determines that.

re: "A candidate that is not supported by his or her party is not electable in the General."

There is no evidence for that.

Consider that, obviously, half the candidates nominated by either party for the General election lose. It is silly to assume that the party could not have won if they had put up another candidate. Are you really sure that Ted Kennedy couldn't have beaten Reagan in 1980? Was Dukakis necessarily really our best bet for beating George Bush in 1988? Are you sure that one of the Kerry alternatives (John Edwards, Howard Dean, Wesley Clark) might not have been able to beat Bush in 2004? It's a different contest, with a different electorate. It is impossible to say with any certainty that we couldn't have done better in the general with a different candidate. The primary simply does not tell you with any certainty who your best candidate will be in the general, when you must appeal beyond your party. (And especially when you have so many closed primaries, which only tell you who the Dem base prefers, who make up a distinct minority of the November voters.)

It works in reverse, too. Trump may well win enough delegates to be nominated on their first ballot. He may or may not win in November, but I think most people agree, he is not their most electable candidate. Kasich, Rubio, Jeb would all be more appealing in the general than Trump or Cruz, because they have more appeal to independents, moderates, and potential disenchanted cross-party voters. The primary system simply is not specifically designed to ferret out your most electable candidate, because the primary voters are not representative of who you must appeal to in the general.

If Dems were voting on electability alone, at this point, why not pick the one who polls far better against every likely Republican candidate, the one who doesn't have sky-high unfavorables outside the base, and the one who doesn't have a legal cloud hanging over his head? But primaries are not strictly about finding the most electable candidate, whether you're R or D.

This is true for both parties. Clinton was not the most electable candidate in 2008. In that same year, Republicans decided that McCain was the most electable candidate.

The General election proved which side was right.

Parties do not choose a candidate because they think they nominated a loser.

Even theoretically, that would only be true if every primary voter votes strictly based on who they think is most electable, which is not necessarily the case. Further, the idea of who is most electable might be different at the start of the process in February than at the end of the process in June, but people can't go back and change their earlier votes. Another kink is how voters split among multiple candidates who may all be seen as roughly equally electable. Arguably, this is one of the things that helped Trump, as early on, the people voting largely on "electability" may have split their votes among, say Rubio and Bush, helping give neither of them enough votes to survive, leaving the party with one of their *less* electable candidates in the lead. It simply doesn't work as you describe, that the primary automatically generates the party's most electable candidate. It is not true logically, and it is not true empirically.

to pick their nominee. They don't worry about who is electable.

Last edited Wed Apr 20, 2016, 07:12 PM - Edit history (1)

Is about to nominate a hell of a weak candidate.

For the record, spoken to them. Some Republicans will hold their noses and vote for her...or stay home. ABT is at play.

I doubt this will overcome the large number of independents that will not.
But hey, it's your party.

But if you intend to close all primaries from now on, and I urge you to do so...I as a tax payer don't pay for any of it M'kay

will be leaving THIS Party after this election. There are 13 Dems. in my family who will hang in until this election is over, but we're leaving the Party!

Never in my entire life have I disliked a candidate more than I do Hillary Clinton. I've been a Democrat since I was 20, and that was many years ago and I clearly understand how to lose and have been able to adjust to these outcomes. However, HILLARY turned me off many years ago. I consider myself very well informed as I've been an activist for a very LONG time and regardless of WHO the candidate is I don't take comments pro or con WITHOUT doing my own research. When any candidate actually makes a comment that I KNOW are contradictory to something they've said AND actually done in the past leave me to question that truth. I'm not talking about slips of the tongue that I know happens with almost every candidate. It's more about their "pattern" and actual factual information that's been well documented over their career.

For me to THINK that Hillary will suddenly change her "pattern" and how she's carried out her duties just in the past 15 to 20 years have left me feeling that she will do ANYTHING and say ANYTHING simply to get elected. There are far too many issues she's supported over the years that leave me COLD! Not only cold, but suspicious and filled with fear as to what she may do. I have NO TRUST nor do I BELIEVE she's changed her stripes.

Because of how Bernie has energized the millions of younger people who are new to politics and has gotten them to participate now, I can only HOPE they keep pushing for HIS Movement! I have 3 grand children who actually decided on their own to become activists for Bernie after they realized Obama's "Hope & Change" message left them cold. They understand what he was up against with Repukes, but they have also seen how much he compromised AND how much our very own Democratic Party has betrayed us. This Democratic Party decided early on that Bernie NEEDED to be stopped when he began to form his movement. Include me in this too because THIS DEMOCRATIC PARTY has let all of us down too!

Knowing that there is FACTUAL information that proves our system of voting is unreliable if not actually corrupt this country should hold it's head in shame! More and more countries are now openly questioning how our elections are run. I do have friends from quite a few other countries who ask me why the people are unable to get their representatives to change the laws. I can't answer them because I've wondered for years ifs MY vote really gets counted.

In the end if Hillary gets elected my faith in Our Shining Beacon of Democracy will die. We ARE now an OLIGARCHY and at this point in time should she get elected I DREAD to see what may happen!

I haven't posted much lately and probably will only post sporadically depending on how this election goes forward, but I do know if this Democratic Party doesn't change how it's been governing, I'll become an Independent or NPA and so will my family. In fact, some in my family were already Independent before I helped them switch to vote for Bernie down here in FL. Even THIS state didn't require people to switch affiliation long before ALL candidates got name recognition! And that ain't saying much!

So, I fully expect attacks... SO WHAT! Keep feeding the Corporatists! Go Ahead... have your fun, I'm outta here!

I so agree with you. My hope is that Bernie has awakened enough of our fellow citizens, especially the young ones, that things won't be able to continue as they are. But my fear is that, with HRC in the WH, corporate control of our government will be cemented in place.

he has historically been to the left of Hillary on a number of issues;

Hillary's track record is bad for Latino voters; Trump's rhetoric is abhorrent and scary, but Hillary has actually "voted many times" for a border wall to keep out "illegal immigrants." her biggest donor, Saban, has said he's not exactly against "torturing Muslims"

so if both were to get the nomination, voters might compare words with actions

I consider him a rw fascist. Just saying...

Which should scare people, right there.

The vast majority of voters will flock to Hillary!

Something Hillary democrats have abandoned.

He will get the angry white male vote sure, and Hillary will win the election!

The majority are sick of the establishment. If it's Hillary against trump, he will win. There will be no flocking.

They are just going to give up and let the Democrats take it.

on voter purges, right where here HQ is located, Brooklyn. Stunning I tell you, just stunning!

Bernie mentioned Brooklyn is where he was born when he talked about the purges last night.

before the General Election starts.

once she is locked in after the convention.

It is Hillary who has been personally attacking Bernie. Intelligent brains have to make the distinction between what is a PERSONAL attack and what is an ISSUE attack

that Bernie's NY ads were so mild and upbeat; he could have shellacked her on so many issues: Libya, donations, quid pro quo, etc........wait until she's the nominee: TOAST

And ubiquitous Trolls. Hillary Clinton is America's Imelda Marcos.

like, gee, we heard about the voters on the ground here, and we want a full investigation. I don't want any delegates I have not earned. That...would have gone a long way. She never does this, throughout these shenanigans now in several states. Who wouldn't? Only someone pretending not to know what's really going on. Believe me, she does. They run it.

Lashing out is normal. Don't hold back. Rage like a sullen teen denied the car keys.

Her image is underwater because the WP HELPED PUT IT THERE.

Sanders, meanwhile… gets invited to the Vatican to speak by the Pope and has angelic birds land on his podium and has huge rallies and has momentum.

Never any mention of any his bio or negatives.

You mean like that?

until he finally got elected to office at age 40+ once he got the nomination?

LOLZ.

Sanders bio hasn't even been mentioned.

The Republicans would shred poor Bernie and his checkered past

the mayor of Burlington, went with Jane to represent their city. And ya, they had recently gotten married.

Was sold and is now a rightwing rag. You know who is more unpopular...Bernie...that is why he lost the primary. How you all think he can win...when he can't win a primary...I don't know.

Educate yourself.

/ignore list.

in national polls. So Hillary does well with Democrats (less than a third of people voting in the GE).
Bernie gets over 70% of Independents. Hillary doesn't, she does LOUSEY.

So, she may do a little better in a small part of the pie, but Bernie does a LOT better in the whole pie. And that is why all those national polls show he beats every GOP candidate by MUCH BIGGER margins than Hillary.

You gotta think BIGGER than the SMALL POND.

Sid

Name recognition was slow. But his numbers go up when he goes into a state. Trump and Clinton were household names nationally. But then that's well known. Maybe there are.reasons we don't know about.

70% would not vote for him-Meet Madame President!

You may like her. She is an awesome woman, and smart. But you cannot win the WH with this reality.
You have to think or you will lose the WH. Period.

ground.

How did that get published by WaPo?

Wapo. You've carried her water for months. Pinnichios. Slanting the news.

Now that you fucked it up for the country...NOW you've found some integrity and you're going to state the obvious truth?

Go fuck your own face Wapo.

With all the dem infighting of course it went up. But in a couple months it will go back to what it was before, mostly. That's just common sense.

More media drama to get clicks. Good thing my brain is still turned on

Hillary's supporters believe in Hillary

whereas

Bernie's supporters believe in Bernie's message

im not trump.

Did your state already caucus?

We know all there is to know about HRC. But what do we really know about Benie beyond the projection, the abbreviated info and hero worship of his supporters?

Because a Republican cannot be permitted to win.

What difference does it make?

Nobody in her camp is willing to accept this. They just assume because the super delegates all went her way in the beginning (a given) and the first contests in southern states went her way, she will keep the win going till the end.

I don't know if she can. I think it's only fair to give more of us a chance to vote, and the longer he stays in the race, the more name recognition Bernie gets...and the more people like his message.

You neglected to mention that the last 3 quotes in your post are from a Republican pollster.

You ignored the quotes from the Democratic pollster who essentially blames Bernie's character attacks for the decline.

You also left out the part where the author points out that Bernie hasn't received anywhere near the level of scrutiny from the media, not suffered Republican attacks, which helps explain the decline in her favorability ratings.

With that kind of hackery, you'd be a shoe-in for a job at the Drudge Report...

I didn't see this last week and it's very interesting. Well it's interesting to me because well it's an I told you so article. I predicted this would happen several months ago. When Hillary is more visible her likability goes way down.