But fans of losing teams sometimes look to exogenous factors like the referees to rationalize their poor performance.

against a well oiled political machine with huge corporate and WS backing?

Ha.

forget all of that.

You all have more excuses than carter has pills...Obama went up against the same 'machine' and won. Bernie lost...Brooklyn would have made no difference to him...in fact, Hillary lost votes probably. He lost because people did not vote for him. He lost Ohio, Florida and will lose Pennsylvania-must win states. By the way Ohio has an open primary...just saying.

But go ahead with GOP style use of words like "Boo Hoo" and "excuses" ( rather than legitimate reasons).

Sounding like Republicans is not away to help Democrats rule.

Dude, where did you get these talking points?

We got a champion of civil rights on one side, and a dishonest and corrupted war hawk on the other.

You like the dishonest one?

Wow.

Also rampant cheating is taking place.

Without significant backing, including significant support from a Democratic or republican Party and its leadership, you are labeled a kook, spoiler or worse.

Saying the "field is open to all" is a serious exaggeration.

-she has a lot of baggage the GOP will have a field day with
-a LOT of the country want Change, real change. Hillary doesn't represent them, she's Status Quo

He is weaker. And when the GOP digs up his dirt...down he goes...they Bernie because they can beat him which is why they have not laid a glove on him.

All of the support went to Hillary Clinton just as the media outlets. The primary polling places were played with as well. I know it isn't true and we are just sore losers. Take all of those "rumours" and pretend, just play advocate for once in your life and really "pretend" that they were true, would you still say that Hillary Clinton is such a strong candidate seeing how Hillary Clinton was a rockstar when this primary season started and Bernie Sanders was an unknown?

Can you just give an answer to this question without going off into full attack and Hillary Clinton mode?

Her pristine record should be enough to speak and defend itself.

But Clinton, Inc. HAS to pay people to play cover up what should be easy defensible because........why?

Glad she's not my candidate. Life's too short to have to constantly find ways to defend the indefensible.

Sell that shit to Indys.

The GOP long knives are salivating at the prospect of a HRC nomination.

There, that's much better.

with Latino American voters. And we all know he's not getting African American voters, and for that matter, the rest of the Obama coalition — Asian Americans, women, gays, and progressive whites who will sensibly vote blue no matter who.

The GOP will be lucky to come out of their convention as a single entity after they try to steal the nomination from Trump. The only long knives they'll be wielding will be at each other.

And we don't know jack about who will or won't vote for him. 2016 is different than any election year in decades.

trying to steal the nomination from him. If they do that, the party splinters and no one out of their convention could even get elected to dog catcher.

I mean who would want them governing the country if they can even govern their own party?

and being up by only 2 points in national polls is hardly "beating the shit out of".

She started out being up by 40%+ and is now only up by 2%.

She's incredibly weak and almost 60% of the country agrees.

Yet she has a mind numbing 73% chance of winning at the predictions markets:


http://predictwise.com/politics/2016-president-winner#Link3


and is a remarkable 1-3 favorite at the offshore betting markets:


http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2016/winner




1-3 is fricking unbelievable. That means you have to bet $300.00 to win $100.00 in the event she wins.

I think I will go with the wisdom of the crowds and not the wisdom of a value laden poster with an axe to grind. Talk is cheap. I'm not a high flyer like you. Remember, we know each other from this board and had cordial relations before you went over to the dark side, so lets make a small wager with the loser donating $100.00 to the charity of the winner's choice. To prove I'm not fronting we can find a member of this board with a pay pal account to hold the money in escrow until after Secretary Clinton wins the general election.

We can do it this morning.

has chalked up a large enough share of votes to be a real contender?

If she wins, it will be by the skin of her teeth. Between her sky high negatives and uninspiring campaign--Something like "Let's Make America Whole Again"--she is going to have a tough time.

If she does get to the GE, these primaries will look like Sunday school picnics.

She had a 50 point lead before the game even started.

She had 100% name recognition and the entire media and political establishment pulling every lever they could to give her an edge. This was supposed to be a cakewalk. In no way, shape, or form was it. Nearly half the party supports the 74 yr old virtually unknown socialist. Independents will not vote for her in the general. She's alienating a huge swath of the left. Bernie would do better in the general, period. Especially against Trump. It's just a better matchup. And yes, he's stronger. He took a campaign he was never supposed to do anything in and has made it a huge dogfight. He'd destroy Trump in the General. Hillary will hopefully still win in the General, but she's not who we should be running in a hugely anti-establishment year. People are hurting, the status quo isn't working, and she's pretty much the last one to make the case that she can overhaul a broken system she's been a huge part of breaking for decades.

Right leaning Indy's aren't breaking her way either.

You are right that "Nearly half the party supports the 74 yr old virtually unknown socialist." And not being a "74 yr old virtually unknown socialist" is part of what makes her a stronger candidate.

If you think the electorate is in a mood for an establishment corporatist, you are really burying your head in the sand. She's morally repugnant to true progressives like myself. No how, n way do we pull the lever for Wall Street's Chosen One.

The general electorate is less progressive than the primary electorate. If she was going to lose by being to conservative, she already would have lost.

actually the GE electorate is dominated by the scary independents, who went in droves for Bernie... and are sick and tired of the establishment, Indies are the king makers, People who understand this and obviously that is not you, know this.

She is likely one of the weakest candidates dems nominate in years... and I am not the only one saying this. Elite media in the US has, and foreign media, for whom this is not a sports game, knows this as well.

Yup I expect a couple in British media to ape that famous 2004 returns photo about 300 million are THAT STUPID.

Oh and for the record, we are seeing more and more evidence of how elections are being manipulated, starting in 2000. You know how much I trust that my vote will count as cast? NOT whatsoever. And a Harvard study now has found our elections are kind of crooked.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027772551

For the record, this does not surprise me at all, I will continue to PRETEND to vote, in these PRETEND elections I suppose.

With Hillary? Not so much. I am hopeful she'd still win the general. I am convinced Bernie absolutely would. He's tapping right into the mood of the country right now. She's still stuck in the 90s.

And yes, Bernie lost there. By a lot. Not unexpected but disappointing for sure. Do you not think most of those voters would vote for Bernie in the General? Do you think the vote would have been the same if it were an open Primary?

That's my main point, really. Generals and Primaries are different animals. And I believe his strengths would do help him do better in the General. He speaks to Independents. He wins in open contests. She does better among long time Dems- but if he got the nomination most would still support him. I really don't think Independents will go to her, especially against Trump.

And it just came out that Trump has the lowest rating EVER among Latino Americans. EVER!

And you know he's not getting the African American vote, nor for that matter, the rest of the Obama coalition.

It doesn't look good for Trump and the repug bigwigs know it. Why do you think they're trying to steal the nomination from him?

Honestly, I can make the case for him winning or losing in a landslide. And yes- establishment republicans are terrified of him. But we underestimate him at our peril. He's not stupid. He's a con man- and a good one at that. I do not want him to win. I suspect you feel the same. We just disagree on who our best shot at preventing that is. I fear Hillary will do far more to inspire their base to come out than ours, and that is not good.

her entrenchment in NY state politics, her Wall Street ties, and given that she does better in areas with money. The poor and working class people upstate voted for Sanders in droves.

That's where the votes are.

That stinkeroo performance?

The only ones in question are those multiple states with "shenanigans" We used to call them glitches when the republicans were stealing elections. I guess it's just those silly shenanigans, with HRH

of a superficial understanding of democracy, weak argument, and simplistic thinking. Perhaps we could talk about policy?

if we had those...

Happy to clear that up for you.

He's to Hillary's left, if he couldn't sell his democratic socialism to the more receptive and liberal primary electorate, then with the more conservative general electorate, it would be even worse.

If the roles were reversed, maybe you'd have an argument -- a candidate can win primaries but be too liberal for the general.

Bernie has out-polled Hillary in every match-up vs the GOP I've seen. He polls vastly better among independents (40+% of the electorate...). He has an overwhelmingly better approval rating. And so forth...

I'd argue that his democratic socialism is far, far less of a problem in the GE than is Hillary's "corrupt insider" status. This isn't being called the "year of the outsider" for nothing. She motivates the GOP base more effectively than any of their candidates.

Face it: Hillary only wins in closed primary states (preferably with lots of African American voters). The Democratic primary system could hardly have been more engineered to assure her victory. The party is fooling itself if it thinks that will transfer to the GE.

It really is just speculation as to whether Bernie's GE numbers will hold up. I don't think so, you do, where do we go from here? I really think that it's much easier to sell Single Payer, for example, to the primary electorate than the general. Hillary's criticisms of it, for example, have basically been that it's not realistic. The GOP would take a totally different approach, saying that it would be horrible and death panels and government takeover (which it really would be this time) and taxes and so on. We don't know how the electorate would respond, because Hillary hasn't made those arguments. But I don't see the electorate going for it after the GOP attacks.

About the closed primary thing, actually the Southern states with high AA populations where she won were mainly open. And as much as closed primaries in states like NY helped her (and they did), caucuses helped Bernie run up some big margin victories that wouldn't have been possible otherwise.

I also agree that Bernie would be facing a very different sort of attack than v. Hillary. She can't afford to alienate the liberal wing of the party (and liberal-leaning independents) by attacking core left-wing values. The GOP nominee can. Hillary will face many of the same attacks, but not all: her positions don't include some of Bernie's more radical items. This is definitely a factor, although not a deciding one, in my estimation.

Thank you for bringing both civility and substance to this little discussion. All too rare here these days...

Bernie for 10 months.

people don't want to be Democrats anymore. You guys look at an empty glass and say, "It's not empty, it's FULL of air!"

It's true that closed primaries favor Hillary, but caucuses, which are even more distorting, favor Bernie. The bottom line is, Hillary won by a lot.

Driving people out of the Party is evidence you have a very weak candidate. Look at California. 300,000 people mistakenly registered with the ultra right-wing Independece Party. And if they're none the wiser, they'll be SOL, too, because CA is a closed primary. That's awesome news for a weak ass candidate.

Just one reason he's a stronger candidate

But it has nothing to do with the fact that he's losing the primary.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

Double digit leads across the country. Household name recognition. A media that could not get enough coverage of her and the DNC in her pocket...yet has only narrowly pulled out the win (which is not official yet but most likely) against a guy no one knew or even heard of.

...and she has not seen nothing yet. She is the republican dream candidate. The republicans will simply not have enough time in the physical universe we live in to run all the negative adds possible.

First, Bernie hasn't lost "handily" to her. For someone with his disadvantages in the race, he's kept this thing remarkably close. Remember she was supposed to cruise to the nomination. Then, Bernie was supposed to be finished after Super Tuesday, and then he was going to be destroyed in the Midwest, etc. But, he's still standing and she hasn't clinched the nomination.

Second, this has been a contest among Democrats only. That's 30% of the electorate. The other 70% to varying degrees dislike and distrust Hillary. While her negatives among Democrats are not too high, among all other groups her negatives are in the 60% range. Added to that the FBI investigation hanging over her head and the yet unexposed damaging email contents, she's an electoral disaster waiting to happen.

Bernie on the other hand is much more popular among the independents who will determine the winner of the GE.

So, yeah, she's a very weak candidate who's only hope is for a republican nominee who is an even bigger liability.

This isn't a handicapped bowling league. It doesn't matter that Bernie did better than he was "supposed" to, he lost is the thing.

Independents are 40% of the electorate. They don't like or trust Hillary by a wide majority.

They will decide the GE result, not Democratic primary voters.

primaries were not expected to be the tougher battle. It is not what Bernie was "supposed to do", the problem is that Clinton has far underperformed what she was expected to do. Before heading to the general, she needs to look at what can be improved - in her campaign and frankly, with her as a candidate.

she will most likely lose. Don't way we didn't warn you. I'm sure you'll want to blame everyone else but it is you who decided not to pay attention.

... At work ...

Welcome to DU ... Say hi to David while you're here ...

Now, goodbye forever ....

She can't even attract half of the individual campaign contributions that Bernie does.

Bernie's got 28,000 people at his rallies. Hillary is lucky if she attracts a few hundred.

She's forced to buy paid shills to tout her (and bully Bernie supporters) because apparently, she doesn't have enough support.

She's got a 56 percent "No thanks, we can't stand you" unfavorables.

BUT...somehow she's winning elections.

Gee, one of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesn't belong!

He won ONE state-his home state of MN. All the Republicans would have to do is run that ad a few thousand time and Bernie's approval numbers would be in single digits

This would be like if last year's winner played its own minor team -- and it was not a complete blow out. In general, the people MOST worried about this are people who are not impressed by Bernie. The less impressed by Bernie you are, the more troubling it may be that she has not already put this away.

Consider that Al Gore, in a similar position of having the bulk of the establishment behind him, won EVERY state against Senator Bradley, who, on paper, was a tougher opponent than Sanders. Kerry, with less media support than Dean, Edwards and Clark and fewer superdelegates than Dean pre Iowa, also had gained enough pledged delegates to win by this time. He lost only 4 states, 2 to favorite sons after they were out of the race.

Given these comparisons, people have to accept one of two things:
1) Bernie Sanders is a strong opponent and has run a surprisingly powerful campaign.

OR

2) Hillary Clinton, given her support, has run a pretty mediocre campaign, but her inherent strengths - her resume, her name recognition and more party support than any non-incumbent President in my life time - are why she is winning IN SPITE OF HER CAMPAIGN.

It is possible that it is a combination of the two plus this year being very anti establishment, but given that she likely will be our nominee, it is a good idea for Hillary Clinton to take a very thoughtful look at her campaign to see what she can change to make herself a better candidate. Our nominee will have the advantage of running against likely the weakest Republican nominee in our lifetime - both Trump and Cruz are extreme candidates.

It is kind of like last year's winner (runner-up) playing a team from the minors and having it be closer than expected. Yes, it's a good showing for the minor league team, but the major league team is still the better team.

Hillary has ZERO support outside of the Democratic Party, and IN the party she has only about 50%'ish support. No Independent support, and certainly no chance of disgruntled GOP crossover vote. She is a fatally flawed candidate and will likely lose the election.

It is only the ability of establishment Democrats to control the outcomes by creatively preventing people from casting ballots that are counted.

Bernie has the support of a majority of Independents who are unable to voice their support through most of the primary, and he aslo has the support of a segment of traditionally GOP voters, and roughly 50% of the registered Democrats.

Hillary may be able to keep herself afloat in a largely closed Democratic Party process, but in the General Election she will be decimated unless the powers that be can sufficiently manipulate the vote to her advantage through their myriad of available tricks and sabotage.

That's all without even mentioning the possibility of an FBI indictment and how that would affect the outcome of things.

Hillary will never be 45.

She is. Face it.

David Brock and Hillary's team are doing now.

Their candidate can't even win the nomination and they think he would win the GE? It's laughable. Bernie would be crushed in the GE. Once the Republican attack machine focused on Bernie, his checkered past and his plan to raise taxes on the middle class he would be crushed.

ever put Clinton's nomination in doubt. She took a commanding lead in South Carolina, and never lost that lead.

Sanders ran a race fueled by populist anger at the mainstream establishment, an anger that affected both sides of the election, with amazing success. His failure to connect with several of the core constituencies kept him from overcoming Clinton's delegate lead. Clinton's link to those constituencies developed over decades proved an insurmountable obstacle.

Had Democrats had fifteen candidates instead of the original five (with most of them refusing to withdraw), echoing the Republicans huge field of candidates, I think Sanders would have won a plurality that would have taken him unscathed to the General Election.

If those five candidates had the funds to run well into the South, it may have made a difference. Democratic Candidates, except for Clinton and Sanders, did not have the funding. The ability of Republican Candidates to tap into funding streams to fuel the #stoptrump movement may be an indicator of how money can affect the race, keeping unviable candidates in contention long after they would have dropped out with their campaign chests deep in debt forcing them to make a deal with the winner to pay off debts for their support.

In the end, Clintons long ties with core Democratic constituencies made her the strongest candidate in the Democratic Party. In a one on one race, those links made the difference.

TO THE NAUGHTY LIST WITH YOU!!!!!!!!!!!

...precisely because the public has not demanded better of her, and because triangulation pays so well.

EDIT: To be fair, I think that as a woman she has had to be ten times more cautious than a man would have had to be. That much is not her fault, but I haven't seen much indication that she intends to stand up for us, finally, if elected to the presidency.

Just like 2008, she does terrible in closing.

I don't call her weak, I call her a criminal.

I don't know if 'weak' is the right adjective. I think we can all agree that she's anything but weak in nature, and that translates to her campaign. She'll get down in the dirt and trade dirty shots with anyone if that's what's necessary. She's been doing that for a while now.

I think a better word is vulnerable. She's wide open to several different attacks, and the repukes are not going to pull any punches. The more I think about it, the more I wonder if Bernie actually didn't do a disservice to HRC, the party and perhaps the electorate by not digging into those vulnerabilities. At least they'd be out there and vetted, HRC would have gotten some experience dealing with them and they wouldn't be as 'new' or 'shocking' as they will be when they come out in the GE. Don't get me wrong - I think it speaks well of Bernie that he laid off of that crap for him as a human, but in purely political terms I am uneasy about HRC heading into the GE with unexplored vulnerabilities that are going to be exploited.

Not to mention, HRC's typical response of playing the victim/sexism/right-wing conspiracy card isn't going to deter the flying monkeys from the Wizard of Oz that is the repukes from continuing to hammer away at any number of scandals, real or fabricated.

She's like a widdle tree tied to the poles of establishment politics and mass media. Meanwhile full grown trees do it alone. Luckily we can drop some fertilizer but nothing like the coddled propped up sapling who gets treated exceedingly well.

Better 'payola' as well.