Clinton up 10 points in California

The Democrats, on the other hand, are all business in their deliberations. A new Moore Methods survey of 800 likely Democratic voters in the state gives New York Sen. Hillary Clinton a lead over Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, 31 percent to 21 percent, with former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards at 19 percent.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=15726

I hope Hillary's primary numbers drop considerably, or her gen elec numbers improve considerably. The way it is looking right now makes me think I should get used to the sound of "President Giuliani."

Only in your little world...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Presidential%20Match-Ups/April%202007/Giulianiv.Clinton20070405.htm

USA Today/Gallup Poll. April 13-15, 2007. N=931 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 4.

"Thinking about the general election for president in November 2008 -- If were the Democratic Party's candidate and were the Republican Party's candidate, who would you be more likely to vote for: , the Democrat, or , the Republican?" If unsure: "As of today, do you lean more toward , the Democrat or , the Republican?" Names rotated

Giuliani 51%, Clinton 46%

Or this?

Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll. April 5-9, 2007. Registered voters nationwide.

"If the November 2008 general election for president were being held today and the choices were , the Democrat, and , the Republican, for whom would you vote: or , or would you vote for a candidate from some other party?" Names rotated. Results include leaners. N=approx. 620 registered voters (MoE ± 4).

Giuliani 48%, Clinton 42%

Or you sure I am the only one who thinks Dame Rudy could beat Clinton?

I am glad that Clinton comes close to beating Dame Rudy in that Rasmussen poll, the problem she rarely does better than Obama or Edwards in general election polls. The way it looks now if she is our nominee, we will have a tougher time beating the Republican.

"you sure I am the only one who thinks Dame Rudy could beat Clinton?"

No, I think that cuomo dude thinks that too.

We aren't going to beat him--especially with the MSM in the tank for him--with a candidate who 45-52% of people (depending on the poll) automatically rule out voting for.

The man should send you flowers!

Problem solved.

because we vote state by state. A candidate may focus on say, six or eight states and get damn near enough votes to win the election. And in 48 states, the winner of the popular vote- even if you only win by one vote, gets ALL the delegates.

I know you know that, it just needed to be said.

The Gore states plus New Hampshire in 2000 = Dem victory. In 2008 = Dem loss.

I have done a bit of anaylsis on state trends and all that, and it looks like in 2008, if the popular vote is about 50/50, the electoral map will look like Gore states + NH, and mean a Dem loss. Nevada is the next most likely state for Dems to win. If they won the Gore states, NH and NV, it would be a tie.

All this is based on trends, so I know it could turn out to be wrong.

I've never looked at which states have more evs now.

If you are interested, check out these rounded numbers for the last 5 elections. For example, "77d" means that the District of Columbia was voted 77% more for the Dem than the national average in 1988.

1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004

STRONG DEM (183 electoral votes)
District of Columbia: 77d, 70d, 67d, 76d, 82d
Massachusetts: 16d (Dukakis P), 13d, 25d, 27d, 28d (Kerry P)
Rhode Island: 19d, 12d, 24d, 29d, 23d
Vermont: 4d, 10d, 14d, 9d, 23d
New York: 12d, 10d, 20d (Kemp vp) 24d, 21d
Maryland: 5d, 9d, 7d, 16d, 15d
Connecticut: 3d, 1d, 10d, 17d (Lieberman VP) 13d
Illinois: 6d, 9d, 9d, 12d, 13d
California: 4d, 8d, 4d, 11d, 12d
Maine: 4d, 3d, 12d, 5d, 11d
Hawaii: 17d, 6d, 17d, 18d, 11d
Delaware: 5r, 3d, 7d, 13d, 10d
Washington: 9d, 6d, 4d, 5d, 10d
New Jersey: 6r, 3r, 9d, 15d, 10d

LIKELY DEM (49 electoral votes)
Michigan: 1r, 2d, 5d, 5d, 6d
Pennsylvania: 5d, 4d, 1d, 4d, 5d
Oregon: 12d, 4d, 1r, 1r, 7d
Minnesota: 15d, 6d, 8d, 2d, 6d

SWING STATES (26 electoral votes)
New Hampshire: 19r, 4r, 1r, 2r, 4d
Wisconsin: 11d, 1r, 2d, 1r, 3d
Iowa: 18d, 1d, 2d, 1r, 2D
New Mexico: 3d, 3d, 1r, 1r, 2D

WEAK REP, TRENDING DEM (14 electoral votes)
Nevada: 13r, 3r, 8r, 4r, 1r
Colorado: 1r, 1r, 10r, 9r, 3r

LIKELY REP, TRENDING DEM (13 electoral votes)
Virginia: 13r, 10r, 10r, 9r, 6r

LIKELY REP( 74 electoral votes)
Florida: 15r, 8r, 3r, 1r, 3r
Ohio: 3r, 4r, 2r, 4r, 1d
Missouri: 4d, 5d, 2r, 4r, 5r
Arkansas: 6r, 12d(Clinton P), 8d (Clinton P), 6r, 7r
Arizona: 13r, 8r, 6r, 7r, 8r

STRONG REP (167 electoral votes)
North Carolina: 9r, 6r, 13r, 13r, 10r (Edwards VP)
West Virginia: 12d, 7d, 6d, 7r, 10r
Tennessee: 9r, 1r (Gore VP) 6r (Gore VP) 4r (Gore P) 12r
Louisiana: 2r, 1r, 4d, 8r, 12r
Georgia: 13r, 5r, 10r, 12r, 14r
South Carolina: 16r, 14r, 14r, 16r, 15r
Mississippi: 13r, 14r, 14r, 17r, 17r
Kentucky: 4r, 2r, 8r, 16r, 17r
Montana: 2d, 3r, 11r, 26r, 18r
Indiana: 12r (Quayle VP), 12r (Quayle VP), 14r, 16r, 18r
South Dakota: 1d,9r, 12r, 23r, 19r
Texas: 5r (HW Bush P vs. Bentsen VP) 10r (HW Bush P) 13r, 22r (Bush P), 20r (Bush P)
Kansas: 6r, 11r, 27r (Dole P) 21r 23r
Alaska: 16r, 15r, 26r, 31r, 23r
Alabama: 12r, 12r, 15r, 15r, 23r
North Dakota: 5r, 18r, 15r, 28r, 25r
Oklahoma: 9r, 14r, 16r, 22r, 29r
Nebraska: 13r, 23r, 27r, 30r, 30r
Idaho: 18r, 19r, 27r, 40r, 36r
Wyoming: 15r, 11r, 22r, 41r (Cheney VP), 37r (Cheney VP)
Utah: 26r, 24r, 30r, 41r, 43r

except for the last election. Is it a trend, or a one time event... no way to know yet. The OH Repubs were as corrupt as you could get. The GOP under Nixon and Agnew was horrible, but voters forgave them by 1980 and Reagan won big. Hopeully Stickland and Brown can keep them happy.

Percent that Ohio was more Dem or Repub than the national average...
88, 92, 96, 00, 04
Ohio: 3r, 4r, 2r, 4r, 1d

What is the measure you are using to determine the percentage a state is vs. the national?

Registered Democrats vs. Republicans? Overall votes for each?

I am confused because Clinton won OH in 92 and 96 and Kerry should have won it in 2004

popular vote in the country. So if Kerry lost by 2% nationally, but won a specific state by 2%, that would equal 4d.

I am not sure why anyone is debating the fact that the electoral college is favoring Republicans more than it used to.

Take a look at http://www.270towin.com/

In 1988 Dukakis took 111 electoral votes. If he won those states in 2008, he would have 104.
In 1996 Clinton took 379 electoral votes. If he won those states in 2008, he would have 376.
In 2000 Gore took 266 electoral votes. If he won those states in 2008, he would have 260.

You can see that the value of states we typically win has gone down a little bit. It doesn't sound like a lot, but we know what a few electoral votes can mean. In most elections it won't matter, in close elections in may matter.

Edit to add this info from 270towin.com: Electoral Vote changes for 2004 based on 2000 Census:
<+2: AZ, FL, GA, TX>,
<+1: CA, CO, NV, NC>,
<-1: CT, IL, IN, MI, MS, OH, OK, WI>
<-2: NY, PA>

According to you we should have never gained the Hpuse or the Senate.

All I am talking about is the electoral disadvantage that Dems have. The house and the seate are not chosen by the electoral college last I checked.

It stands to reason if someone takes the electoral college in any state thats because they got the most votes, rarely is it the opposite. So I will ask again , why did we win the last election?

and the electoral college. Neither had anything to do with 2006. I am not sure what you are trying to say.

If they didn't have the numbers in 2006 to at least hold on to any part of Congress, they damn sure don't have an electoral college advantage. the two go hand in hand. Also in 2006 we gained a hell a lot of seats in State houses! Your argument of a electoral college disadvantage is well something a right wing shrill would say with a straight face.

IN A CLOSE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION (WHERE THE POPULAR VOTE IS EXTREMELY CLOSE)
REPUBLICANS HAVE AN ADVANTAGE IN THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE THAT THEY DID NOT HAVE IN 2000.

Gore states plus NH would have won in 2000. Gore states plus NH in 2008 will not win.

States that lean Dem (264 electoral votes)
District of Columbia: 77d, 70d, 67d, 76d, 82d
Massachusetts: 16d (Dukakis P), 13d, 25d, 27d, 28d (Kerry P)
Rhode Island: 19d, 12d, 24d, 29d, 23d
Vermont: 4d, 10d, 14d, 9d, 23d
New York: 12d, 10d, 20d (Kemp vp) 24d, 21d
Maryland: 5d, 9d, 7d, 16d, 15d
Connecticut: 3d, 1d, 10d, 17d (Lieberman VP) 13d
Illinois: 6d, 9d, 9d, 12d, 13d
California: 4d, 8d, 4d, 11d, 12d
Maine: 4d, 3d, 12d, 5d, 11d
Hawaii: 17d, 6d, 17d, 18d, 11d
Delaware: 5r, 3d, 7d, 13d, 10d
Washington: 9d, 6d, 4d, 5d, 10d
New Jersey: 6r, 3r, 9d, 15d, 10d
Michigan: 1r, 2d, 5d, 5d, 6d
Pennsylvania: 5d, 4d, 1d, 4d, 5d
Oregon: 12d, 4d, 1r, 1r, 7d
Minnesota: 15d, 6d, 8d, 2d, 6d
New Hampshire: 19r, 4r, 1r, 2r, 4d
Wisconsin: 11d, 1r, 2d, 1r, 3d
Iowa: 18d, 1d, 2d, 1r, 2D
New Mexico: 3d, 3d, 1r, 1r, 2D

States that lean Repub (274 EVS)
Nevada: 13r, 3r, 8r, 4r, 1r
Colorado: 1r, 1r, 10r, 9r, 3r
Virginia: 13r, 10r, 10r, 9r, 6r
Florida: 15r, 8r, 3r, 1r, 3r
Ohio: 3r, 4r, 2r, 4r, 1d
Missouri: 4d, 5d, 2r, 4r, 5r
Arkansas: 6r, 12d(Clinton P), 8d (Clinton P), 6r, 7r
Arizona: 13r, 8r, 6r, 7r, 8r
North Carolina: 9r, 6r, 13r, 13r, 10r (Edwards VP)
West Virginia: 12d, 7d, 6d, 7r, 10r
Tennessee: 9r, 1r (Gore VP) 6r (Gore VP) 4r (Gore P) 12r
Louisiana: 2r, 1r, 4d, 8r, 12r
Georgia: 13r, 5r, 10r, 12r, 14r
South Carolina: 16r, 14r, 14r, 16r, 15r
Mississippi: 13r, 14r, 14r, 17r, 17r
Kentucky: 4r, 2r, 8r, 16r, 17r
Montana: 2d, 3r, 11r, 26r, 18r
Indiana: 12r (Quayle VP), 12r (Quayle VP), 14r, 16r, 18r
South Dakota: 1d,9r, 12r, 23r, 19r
Texas: 5r (HW Bush P vs. Bentsen VP) 10r (HW Bush P) 13r, 22r (Bush P), 20r (Bush P)
Kansas: 6r, 11r, 27r (Dole P) 21r 23r
Alaska: 16r, 15r, 26r, 31r, 23r
Alabama: 12r, 12r, 15r, 15r, 23r
North Dakota: 5r, 18r, 15r, 28r, 25r
Oklahoma: 9r, 14r, 16r, 22r, 29r
Nebraska: 13r, 23r, 27r, 30r, 30r
Idaho: 18r, 19r, 27r, 40r, 36r
Wyoming: 15r, 11r, 22r, 41r (Cheney VP), 37r (Cheney VP)
Utah: 26r, 24r, 30r, 41r, 43r

Get up to speed, it's 2007 now! A lot has changed.

ON EDIT: that election was also stolen, would you not agree? They don't have that advantage this time around.

This is a pointless discussion.

Because you have to take Florida and Ohio out of you formulary. Your just mad cause you got caught.

The new post (94) above explains it better than I could.

Onething I don't understand is, if all is lost why even be here?

Mark my words (unless we come up with a better alternative).

Actually, I think his GOP opponents will do most of the kicking for us.

By the time autumn rolls around, a lot more people will know about Giuliani, will have heard him speak -- or try to speak -- at rallies and events, and his numbers will keep falling. It may be gradual, but they're going to fall.

For 2008, get ready to hang the blue balloons.

We're going to win.

Rasmussen - which seems to have the best track record on predicting elections - has Clinton and Obama tied at 32%, Edwards at 17%. Obama has slowly but surely caught up, despite Mrs. Clinton's years of experience and name recognition.

In the general election, Mrs. Clinton would have an enormous problem "Among all voters, Clinton is viewed favorably by 50% and unfavorably by 49%. Obama’s numbers are a bit stronger—59% favorable and 34% unfavorable.", says Rasmussen.

Add to all this the sound trouncing that Obama gave Clinton in first-quarter primary fundraising, and a pretty clear picture emerges.

and the primary isn't a national election. (Besides, Hillary is still ahead in all the other national polls).

In fact Hillary outraised Obama by $1,000,000...

Granted Obama's totals were impressive, but he hardly trounced her...

As I said, Obama trounced Clinton in funds raised for the PRIMARY. Mrs. Clinton got a little more cash in total - but much of it can only be used in the general election. And many, many more of her donors are now maxed out.

"As I said, Obama trounced Clinton in funds raised for the PRIMARY"

He raised $5M more.

"Mrs. Clinton got a little more cash in total"

She has alot more cash on hand. If $5M is a trouncing, what is having twice that amount?

A thrashing?

Its a sliding scale ;-)

Hillary is experienced, feminist and dedicated to good leadership.

Name one.

I can't - other than the big one that failed (no insurance-CEO-left-behind-HillaryCare). Other than that, it's a bunch of little feelgood things.

name me one thing tha tObama has done that tells you Obama can solve the three pressing issues at hand:

global warming
Iraq
economy (US)

1. She has introduced legislation to tie Congressional salary increases to an increase in the minimum wage.

2. She helped pass legislation that encouraged investment to create jobs in struggling communities through the Renewal Communities program.

3. She authored legislation that has been enacted to improve quality and lower the cost of prescription drugs and to protect our food supply from bioterrorism.

4. She sponsored legislation to increase America’s commitment to fighting the global HIV/AIDS crisis

5. The Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, to ensure the safety of prescription drugs for children.

6. She co-sponsored the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, which encourages research and development in the field of nanotechnology.

7. She included language in an energy bill to provide tax exempt bonding authority for environmentally conscious construction projects, and introduced an amendment that funds job creation to repair, renovate and modernize public schools.

1. What's the total funding of all of these measures, as a % of the federal budget?
2. Which of these took political courage?

When it comes to simple bread and butter stuff - like not supporting insane wars built on lies, wholesale offshoring of US jobs, and enforcing the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution - she walks with the Republicans.

Most Americans realize what her game is.

:rofl:

I clearly wrote 'major' issue.

As I inferred in my earlier post, it's an issue that influences significant spending, or requires political courage.

What's your (quantifiable) definition?

But I'll bet the people who benefited from what she has done would have a totally different take on it than you.

What I love most about her is that in this era of hatred for women and feminism Hillary proudly declared herself a feminist.

A brave move with this MSM!

and southern! and black! and... and...

:puke:

into our own party. Sad, sas.

And ask them why after some booed her at a 9/11 benefit concert shortly after the attack occurred...they supported her reelection bid to the Senate, and why so many are lining up to support her Presidential bid...

Ask them about her leadership after 9/11, when she was instrumental in getting money to the city, and particularly to first responders...ask them to compare her leadership on those issues to Guiliani's...

Ask families of National Guard units for whom Hillary has been tirelessly working to get them the same benefits as regular army units serving in Iraq...

Ask families of children not covered by health insurance whether they appreciate her leadership working to get ALL children covered under the SCHIP program...

Ask families of adopted children about her leadership getting the Adoption and Safe Families Act passed, after which adoptions skyrocketed, abused children had new protections, and children with disabilities again became a priority in the system...

I could go on...

Like when a sideshow candidate who has been promising impeachment finally does so because his Presidential campaign is languishing?

"like not supporting insane wars built on lies"

Seeks the same basic withdraw plans as other top tier candidates.

"
wholesale offshoring of US jobs"

Voted against CAFTA and has come out against NAFTA. She has voted for some free trade agreements but against others.


"
Most Americans realize what her game is."

Amazing in itself when so many go to such great lengths to distort her game.

She supported the Iraq war - many other Democrats did not. She was wrong. The others were right. That war has cost tens or hundreds of thousands of lives, and $2 trillion or so. That's a big, big mistake. But she still claims that it wasn't a mistake.

She is on record as being strongly in favor of permanent 'normalization' of trade relations with China, which is the big fish on outsourcing.

Her record is her record.

Except when she does

"
Several advisers, friends and donors said in interviews that they had urged her to call her vote a mistake in order to appease antiwar Democrats, who play a critical role in the nominating process. Yet Mrs. Clinton herself, backed by another faction, never wanted to apologize — even if she viewed the war as a mistake — arguing that an apology would be a gimmick.

In the end, she settled on language that was similar to Senator John Kerry’s when he was the Democratic nominee in 2004: that if she had known in 2002 what she knows now about Iraqi weaponry, she would never have voted for the Senate resolution authorizing force."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/18/us/politics/18clinton.html?ex=1177560000&en=ab9f0843be2a0eb9&ei=5070

Besides even if she said I was mistaken you wouldn't give her credit for it. You won't even give her credit now.

"Yet Mrs. Clinton herself, backed by another faction, never wanted to apologize — even if she viewed the war as a mistake — arguing that an apology would be a gimmick."

She's absolutely right and I respect her for saying that. Apologies don't merit bonus points, so although I still fault her for voting yes, I do admire that sentiment.

<Clinton also sought to draw a contrast with some of her Democratic rivals on the issue of terrorism. "Some people may be running who may tell you that we don't face a real threat from terrorism," she said. "I am not one of those.">

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/02/clinton_comes_to_south_carolin.html

May she lose and lose big.

Because Obama certainly doesn't

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0704230647apr24,1,343731.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

I can always count on you for that, can't I?

Back to HRC's gratuitous I-am-the-hawk-here-vote-for-me smear: Who exactly is she talking about? I'd like to know.

I doubt she was referring to Obama or Edwards for the simple reason that they all have the same view of combatting terrorism which is law enforcement, diplomacy while leaving military action as a last resort.

Hillary has the unenviable position of having to prove that she (as a woman) is tough enough for the job.

i.e. "Democrats as wimps," to further her own political goals.

Naughty, naughty.

Its not like I took Obama's comments regarding her and the VP role as some kind of tapping into sexist feelings.

But to each his own.

I am just excited today because numbers showing a downward trend for Rudy and a upward trend for Democrats is making the general election look brighter and brighter no matter who ends up the nominee.

but it's still very early. That and we've lost seven of the last ten presidential elections (six, if you give 2000 to the guy with the most votes in Florida...).

Another marvelous rhetorical device from the Clintons.

Surely there was a more interesting way to put down Kucinich.

President of the USA.

It cuts to the core of what people are familiar with. It is major change. Finally.

Why the implication of a conniving and manipulative plan?

She is a feminist. She won NY State as senator twice - and handily!

She fended off the neocon attack dogs who were at her throat for over 8 years.

She can lead.

After the first debate, after all of the candidates are side by side.

That is when I will start paying attention to polls.

fall.

Paying attention to the election, that is.

Is that the MSM has already told us that this race is between Hillary & Barack. With Edwards close by.

People won't even have to think. The talking heads are doing it for them.

When I start to quote poll stats, my kids look at me like I've gone completely nuts. (I've stopped doing it---I hate the ridicule of children)

with all the hype. :eyes:

A true feminist candidate stands on her own record. Albeit I was married to an AD Marine Officer 18 of the 20 years he served in The Corps, I never "wore his rank" like many officer's wives (who needed a life).

In fact, the sweetest complement I was ever given (and given often), "You're so nice and approachable. You don't behave at all like an officer's wife.

HRC's behavior reminds me of the bimbo Major and Colonel's "princess wives" who often threw their husband's rank around at every opportunity ... manipulating/intimidating the company grade officer's wives to serve their every social need. :thumbsdown:

No, IMO, HRC leans far too much on "her husband" to be considered a tried and true feminist. :(

I give my pre-teen daughter articles about Nancy Pelosi because, IMO, she is a true feminist / and feminine leader. Nancy Pelosi would make an outstanding woman President, not spoiled HRC USING the career of "her husband" to propel her to the WH. It won't work. No way, no how.

She will outclass everyone.

has extensive experience on foreign policy and has as Governor of Mexico DONE things as to talking about doing things as most Senators say.

A win here could do wonders for him getting out of the 2nd tier.

HRC is not classy ... she swaggers and USES her husband to prop her up. That shows a definite flaw in character. In fact, I see no sense of humbleness in her at all.

You don't achieve as a women, even in The Military, by out swaggering the men. This "tough gal" routine is wearing thin for HRC. I hope she faces reality in the near future. :shrug:

disparage our own to death.

We don't have the machine they do within the corporate media structure.

Take a quick look at how the candidates are framed:

Ghouliani - 9/11 hero
F. Thompson - moderatish who appeals to fundie conservatives
McCan't - war hero
Romeny - a conservative from a liberal state. wow!

And then there's what they say about ours:

H. Clinton - everyone hates her
Obama - he's black and has the same middle name as a dictator we ousted. Horrors!
Edwards - Who? Oh, yeah, that Ken Doll.

This is exactly the way it appears to voters who aren't political junkies. This is what they see in their "news."

Take a step back and listen to the rhetoric already out there. Even intelligent people fall for this shit because they actually believe the media is "liberal" and/or really tells the truth or else it couldn't be printed or said on air.

I really feel the only way for us to win is for a dark horse to appear from near nowhere, leaving the corporate media talking points in the dust.

I'm sorry I have such little faith that a Dem will be president this next time. I'm probably just feeling the malaise that Kerry, a smart, caring man who would have made a great president, couldn't beat that dufus in office now (and Gore did beat the dufus, but still isn't president).

I can't find any stats about this poll or even a link to who they are.

Here's the last CA Field Poll (4/3/07)

http://www.field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2224.pdf

Many Californians use cell or VOIP only.
The reliability of even your poll is questionable.

In my area she is not popular with Democrats or Republicans.

It is also more likely to include single, young people that don't own their own homes.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=276

The percentages of the electorate that demographic(even more so in CA) that votes in general elections is tiny.

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=141x25797

Forget about the primaries.

"In my area she is not popular with Democrats or Republicans."

In my area no one has even heard of most of the candidates. Which is why I don't rely on my social circle for voting trends.

Her support is soft indeed, and she is in a heap of trouble! 69% of Democrats don't want her!

I think she's going to have to be attacked by other candidates to whittle her 1/3 down to 1/4 or less.

I love the cackling of the anti-HRCites here at DU, plotting and scheming, trying to manipulate each and every poll to call her early demise. Funny stuff.

Its the new math!

:sarcasm:

We need experience and leadership!

where I will ROFLMAO if Hillary wins the nomination.

It would be karmic justice to all the nasty shit spewed about her here at DU.

... on DU is actually creating Clinton supporters - or at least making her the second choice of many. I see people defending her now that weren't Hillary fans previously.

Checkout this thread...http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2822946

There are quite a few "she's not my candidate but this is bunk" posts.