Yet another dishonest post from a Clinton supporter. Why am I not shocked?

Nothing has changed in 8 years.

I've been saying this for months and months. She has more than an "enthusiasm gap," she has a credibility gap. She has no huge rallies. There has been absolutely NO activity in my neck of the woods for her. Social Media has responded with a huge "yawn." She's not catching fire and she won't.

IF she somehow "wins" the nomination, the Republicans will come out of the woodwork to vote AGAINST her. Hillary's only support are die-hard Yellow Dog Democrats. That's it. She has no other supporters. She gets no crossover votes. The millennials and progressives won't come out for her (the vote will be scattered between Green and write ins) and what's left isn't enough for her to win in the General.

or the majority of independents. She will have to rely of on a huge turnout of Democrats in order for her to win. Also remember if she wins the nomination there will be no energy left in the base. With Obama and Bernie voters are energetic.

….is so scary because it's a really accurate analysis.

Now Bernie, on the other hand, is energizing people like never before. Bigger crowds and more donations than Obama at this time period. People will come out to vote for him. The youth, who will stay home if Hillary is the Dem candidate, will come out in droves for Bernie. We've already seen evidence of that from social media and the crowds Bernie got.

What kind of crowds did Hillary generate on her "listening" tour? Nothing even close to Bernie's. Nominate Hillary and throw away possibly millions of votes for the Dem Party.

They don't go to her rallies.

They don't watch her debates.

They don't post on message boards.

They don't even vote in the dreaded internet polls.

One wonders - one has to wonder - what *do* they do??? These kinds of supporters are not the kind that win elections.

Will that help win an election?

Really ugly stuff posted at that place.

So nice illustration of the point.

Well established here and elsewhere- election fraud occurred both times, and was not only allowed to stand but was left unpunished along with the rest of Bushco's crimes by this administration.

Unless you are suggesting Former Secretary Clinton is going to engage in election fraud, or is going to get new voters into the pool on her side, she has a mathematical problem right now. You simply posted something that reinforces that point by accident.

Of course they would -- and not just the "fans," either.

Read this. http://commondreams.org/views06/0601-34.htm

Headline:

But I'm not particularly interested in that subject and doubt that you are, either. Furthermore, it's off topic.

I think some people will do anything to keep their hermetically sealed minds closed to all information that doesn't further their political ends. So thank you for letting me see you more clearly, wyldwolf.

Only one of the links I shared with you had Kennedy's byline, and that article is a compilation of information about the theft of the 2004 election.

But it's a little strange that you'd be in such firm denial about the possibility that Kerry may have won in 2004. Sure you're a Democrat?

I don't know what episode it was but it was earlier in the year.

What's your next false reason to refute whatever it is you are attempting to refute?

Ohio.

in case you need them in some other context.

A reprint of a Rolling Stones article by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that compiles known information about the stolen election of 2004: http://commondreams.org/views06/0601-34.htm

An in-depth look at what happened in Ohio: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/2004votefraud_ohio.html

I'm sure there's more out there. I used to have a pretty good collection but it's gone now.

I'll send him/her your way...!

For a decade

They are really out there playing hard and smart. It's no walk in the park. The one who wins is the way it works and the way it should. This does seem to be a strategy both Sanders supporters and Hillary supporters employ. It's a fair discussion and both sides have made certain "strong" points. At the end of the day I will happily take the winner of the primary.

Many will vote as they often have, given the choices: the lesser evil.

Hate to out it out there, but if there is apathy or hopelessness about having two evils to choose from then turn out is lower. Closer the margin of error between two candidates, the easier to rig the electronic voting.

... not only to elect the POTUS, but to take back the House & Senate.

I've argued in many threads we need a candidate who will generate enthusiasm and motivate folks (especially young people) to go to the polls, and Hillary Clinton is not that candidate. Bernie Sanders is the one who is generating genuine enthusiasm.

I think either of them would beat the Republican nominee, so the bigger payback will be gains in the House & Senate that will come along with a higher turnout for Bernie.

In my first post I was just pointing out that polls can be misleading. I think most (but not all) Bernie supports in DU who have a negative opinion of Hillary will go to the polls for other races in the general election and also vote for Hillary if they live in a swing state (they certainly won't check the R box). Although the DU demographic isn't representative of all eligible voters, there are millions who are left of center and will vote for the Dem nominee even if they have to hold their nose. The Rethugs are too destructive, and people not brainwashed by Faux News can see that.

Bernie has some negatives to overcome himself. He needs to do a better job of explaining what a Democratic Socialist is, rather than just going into his oft repeated talking point about how wrong it is that the top .1% own as much wealth as the bottom 90%. I agree 100% with him on that, but he also has to state clearly he believes in free enterprise for businesses both small & large. He should point out how single payer health insurance would lift that burden from employers, for example.

Bernie Sanders is not the ideal candidate, IMO. He's old, he's Jewish, and he's a self proclaimed Democratic SOCIALIST. Those factors do not bother me personally but they are obstacles to overcome for millions of voters, especially the last one. He is also, however, a potentially transformational candidate who is inspiring a lot of people to get involved in politics and this concept of government of, by, and FOR The People.

Bernie Sanders has my vote. The status quo just won't do.

It's not about what percentage of the population likes you, it's about getting to 270. Ask President Gore about the importance of the popular vote. The electoral college favors the Dem in 2016, regardless of who the candidate is.

She's 41.2% favorable, 51.7% unfavorable.
Sanders is 37.0% favorable, 32.9% unfavorable.

While a majority are clearly against Hillary, Sanders has much more room to improve.

is siphoned off to a privatizer profiteer, then the sons and daughters of the retired and elderly will have to make up the difference, in the living standard, of their parents and/or Seniors and people with disabilities. The Social Security issue will effect about half the total population. There will be no raise for 2016 even though Seniors are not the ones doing all the driving on lower gasoline prices.

The Sanders policy will solve the problem. Clinton's Plan is to deepen the Obama Social Security Plan. She has said that she will go further with Obama's policies.

she is unliked thanks to the millions of our tax dollars spent by the GOP on fake ass investigations smearing Hillary these past 20+ years. All backed by a fake news network that spread those lies.

Hey I'm team Biden but I'll gladly vote Hillary (or whatever Democrat) when the primaries are done. But the real bullshit is that we think HilLary is unelectable because our tax dollars have been wasted by the GOP to make her look like that. Stop buying into the bullshit.

They couldn't have genuine thoughts and opinions of their own. Clinton is perfect, and anyone who says otherwise is just buyign right-wing lies.

Couldn't have anything to do with her part in the Iraq war. or her cockamemie defense of "traditional marriage." or her plan to deport children. or her endorsement of McCain over Obama's foreign policy in 2008 - or any of the OTHER wild shit she did in that campaign. it couldn't be anything she's actually said, or done, or any positions she's taken, opinions she's voiced

Naw. All we liberals are too stupid to understand her magnificent greatness, and are easily led astray by the garbled ravings of Sean Hannity.

Maybe she should run as an independent.

First, the 1%er must steal the nomination...if she can...

If it's Jeb, were fucked. People under 30--who have zero interest in a replay of 1992--will stay home. If the Repuke is bad enough, she stands a chance of winning. Still, it's bad strategy to place your hopes for winning on having a crappy opponent.

would have been 6 or 7 at the oldest in 1992. Why the fuck would they care? You are projecting your own sullen state or imagining that an inability to be inspired is deep analytical political prowess.

Quite a lot of Sanders supporters are alienated voters who will not vote for Clinton. Strategic voters (mostly Democrats) will vote for whoever the nominee is. We are a minority in all the WA State Sanders groups I've been to. I am talking personal experience here.

... and that's the fact that HRC has been the front-runner since she announced, and still is - by a wide margin.

This meme about "how unenthused Dems are to support Hillary" - where does THAT come from? Just because her supporters (who are clearly more legion than any other Dem candidate's) don't spend their time voting on on-line polls?

Maybe it comes from the same line of thinking as: "HRC continues to lead in all polls, and her numbers are going up! She keeps picking up endorsements from unions, organizations, as well as from her Democratic colleagues! Her performance in last week's debate has been lauded everywhere! She's got broad support among AAs and PoCs, a key voting demographic! Yeah, we need to dump her, before it's too late!"

I can't decide which is the more appropriate smilie: or

Are you doing something to help preventing Harper to be reelected? Like volunteer work or writing opinion pieces in some of the many newspapers in the area where you live, for example. It would be more constructive than coming here to take a dump once in a while then go back to BernieHaters.com to continue trashing DU and a majority of Duers, don't you think?

As such, I am not (a) able to vote in Canadian elections, (b) have never taken an interest in Canadian politics and, as a result thereof, (c) I do not comment on political goings-on that I know very little about.

I do, however, vote in US elections, contribute funds to US campaigns, and follow US politics religiously.

Is there a BernieHaters.com site somewhere? I hadn't heard of it - and wouldn't be interested, in any event. I don't hate Bernie - I just don't take him seriously, and his supporters even less so.

As for BernieHaters.com, you know perfectly well what site I'm talking about. If you honestly don't hate Bernie then you're in a tiny minority at that place.

... perfectly well what site you're talking about.

Why don't you enlighten me - and everyone else?

Good night Canadian friend! And good luck on Monday.

So why don't you spell it out for me - and everyone here?

As for being your "Canadian friend", I am an American citizen. Therefore, Monday's vote has nothing to do with me, being as I cannot vote in Canada because I'm a US citizen.

I will, however, be voting next November, via absentee ballot in NY, where I was born and raised.

But getting back to that "other site" ... why don't you post a link to it?

Once the media gets tired of pushing that non-story her numbers will improve significantly. Furthermore once we have an actual Republican candidate that we can focus on you can sure the negative stories will begin for that candidate as well. Hillary is going to win this thing.. I have no doubt.

And by the way her negatives have been dropping and positives increasing recently. Here is latest graph from HuffPollster customized to show just last 5 months and with less smoothing option..



I suspect even more positive movement once the effects of her good debate performance show up in these numbers and as the fake email scandal runs out of gas.

... against her in droves!

would drive Republicans to the polls in record numbers . And besides, what about all these claims that HRC is Republican lite? If that's true, there are a lot of moderate independents and Republicans that would vote for her and not Trump. You can't have it both ways. Socialism may be the latest rage here on DU- in middle America?-not so much.

Relying on my background in psychology and political science I elaborated on the genesis for these attacks in a previous post and the results were an unjust hide. In a bow to discretion I will refrain from doing so again.


I do expect these attacks to grow exponentially as Madame Secretary rises further in the polls.

They are going with her because she has the strength, experience, and temperament to become an outstanding president and all those characteristics were on display Tuesday night. In a scant fourteen months Hillary Clinton will be inaugurated as our forty fifth president and preside over a period of peace and tranquility unprecedented in the annals of American history, her detractors notwithstanding.

Do you also have the winning Powerball numbers? What about the next 9 world series winners?

I don't care if someone has the "strength, experience, and temperament to become an outstanding president" if their policy stances are not about helping the working people and keeping us out of illegal wars.

A useless stat, in my opinion. Only good for political propaganda.

There has been a tremendous amount of research regarding the predictive value of attitudinal surveys. I'm not going to go into great detail, but here is a quick summary.

If you want to predict how people will ACT (voting is an action), you have to ask them about their attitude towards performing the specific action in question. In other words you have to ask them their attitude towards voting for person X. Not if they like or approve of that person.

If you ask people questions about how much they "like" some thing or some one, your ability to predict their subsequent behavior (i.e., will they BUY the thing, or VOTE for the person, etc) will be almost zero.

Bottom line. You are trying to make these numbers say something that they do not say.

If you want to learn more about the study of attitudes and their relationship to and ability to predict behavior, you should start here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_reasoned_action

The books and research by Martin Fishbein and Icek Ajzen are the gold standard.

On edit: A side note ... people often reach for these abstract notions of "approval" or "like" when the data looking at actual intent to perfom the action does NOT support their preferred outcomes. In other words, they try to use these weak attitudinal questions in an attempt to SHAPE attitudes. Its a propaganda technique.

who make or break an election. It's Bernie or Biden or Bust. My choice is Bernie.

Look, we know that you Hillary supporters are energized but you're her base and you're Dems.
Ina general, her negative numbers are a huge issue. You back that up with being what has been called by both left and right wing pundits as "the most polarizing figure in politics", we have a very big problem.

What worries me is this----beyond her supporters, she's not energizing anybody. Her numbers are upside down and if she is the nominee, it will bring out the right wing base in droves in terms of numbers, if only to vote against her. If Trump does wind up being the nominee, us libs have a huge frickin' problem because honestly, I don't think she'll beat him with her numbers right now that she has.

Hillary doesn't have the pull among Republican voters and indy's that Bernie has. Keep that in mind that in a general, those are huge numbers. That is where the big problem lies. In the "blue zone", ok, she looks great but once you're outside that safety net, the picture is painted very differently.

At the end of the day, it's about those truly undecided voters, not the ones who say they are independent but always vote for the same party, whether it's Dem or GOP. The problem for HRC is that most people HAVE decided about her, and the hate factor is HUGE. Yet if you ask a Republican or Independent about Bernie, one who doesn't stand in the Socialism = Communism tent, you'll hear things like "He has some good ideas".

The GOP base is made up of the wealthy, the evangelicals, and the poor , deluded individuals who think they might be wealthy some day so they have to vote as if they are a 1%er. That base will not vote for HRC. But I think the truly independent voters are more likely to lean towards Bernie in the general election than Trump, Carson or Jeb!

Iceberg? Full steam ahead!
Every one of us political geeks who pay attention will vote for her. You know it and I know it. She does not inspire or excite the general public.

One of my favorite cliché's is the one that says, "When you discover you have dug yourself into a hole, the first thing to do is stop shoveling." We have been shoveling ever since 1980, and our knee jerk reaction to the Reagan landslide. To hang onto congressional seats, Democrats have spoken out against traditional Democratic values at every turn. They voted for legislation that serves the interests of the big financial institutions, the military-industrial complex, and all the rest, while dismantling the New Deal and pushing working people further down. They pursue this strategy because they believe it will allow them to win elections. But it doesn't work. Republicans are gaining steadily, and may soon be in complete control, and they are doing it by remaining true to their traditional values: unregulated capitalism, greed as a moral attribute, making war on weaker nations, etc. They never diverted from their True Path. We could learn something from them, without being like them.

Because the latest Washington Post poll, taken after the CBS poll you cite, has her at 47% favorable/ 49% unfavorable.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/polls/abc-post-22912

I bet no Daily Kossack will make a diary out of that one.

Yet she is essentially even money at the off shore betting sites, you know where people put their money where their mouths are, while her closest GOP rival is 5-1 and the former independent senator from Vermont is 10-1 :


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


Here is a link to predictwise that distills the betting odds and turns them into percentages:


http://www.predictwise.com/

Hillary will never be President. You can take that to the bank
Bernie is going to be your next President whether you vote for him or not.

What are the negatives for Cruz, Bush, Rubio et al?

This could be the first election for President in which past history would say that neither candidate can get elected, lol.

So, let's not feed the GOP trolls.

It is why we keep losing. This childishness has to stop if we are to overturn the overwhelming wall that the GOP has built. They have the US senate (granted, temporarily. Thankfully Senate races cannot be Gerrymandered), the US House, the state Governorships, and the state legislatures.

The extent that we focus solely on POTUS is the extent that we will eventually lose everything. And it might be 2016. The GOP has virtually everything else.

We focus solely on POTUS at our collective peril.

We need to register voters and really take back our country.