Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (3 Viewers)

[TobiasFunke]

Based on primary results - I think, yes, it is inconceivable that a "large portion" of the democratic voters want Clinton.

Lets say 50-55% of the voters want Clinton - how many of those voters want Clinton because she is a woman?  How many want her to be a 3rd Obama term?

Let say 25% want her to be an historic 1st female president.  50% want her to be Obama's third term, and 25% really just don't like Bernie (which would be incredibly high, given his favorability ratings with the Democrats)

So, out of the democrats, 12% want her to be the first female president, 25-30% want her to continue Obama's presidency, 12% hate Bernie, and 45+% would rather have Bernie than Clinton. 

You know we could do this with every candidate right?  By "this" I mean choosing oversimplified or illogical reasons that people support the candidate and then arbitrarily assigning percentages to those reasons.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I think the bigger concern for Hillary is what's in those deleted emails and what she tells the FBI about them.

If she deleted them specifically to circumnavigate FOIA requests is that a crime? I would think so but I really don't know. I would love to hear more about this aspect of the case if anybody has read anything.

Supposedly Heather Samuelson is on the FBI interview list. She had almost no correspondence with Hillary, and was a second tier aide. The only reason to include her in interveiws was that she handled the actual first level filtering of Hillary's emails.

So interviews have not been announced yet but if she is on the list, I'd like to know why she is included?

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/hillary-clinton-insider-emails-heather-samuelson-screened-2016-213350

Supposedly she was to be working with the Hillary campaign, if anyone wants to go google and see if they can determine her current whereabouts or since 2014 that would be an accomplishment.

IMO her and Pagliano have some things to say on the destruction of documents anddata.

 

[pantagrapher]

You guys are on to something with this email stuff.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I do think the Politico article is good but those cases have been discussed.

I agree Giuliani isn't a good expert on this. Bfs has posted articles with a more varied range of opinions. However I think the stat that Politico offered in referral decisions is more persuasive.

I think three questions still need to be answered and let me know if you have any thoughts on them:

- why was the server seized?

- why was Pagliano granted immunity?

- why did the FBI take over the investigation and shut down State's in early February?

Dunno, I'm not an investigator or prosecutor, never have been.  All I know is what experts say, and they seem to be saying that charges in a case like this would be very unusual.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Dunno, I'm not an investigator or prosecutor, never have been.  All I know is what experts say, and they seem to be saying that charges in a case like this would be very unusual.

Ok, me either. All I know is this has marched forward without a step back for a year.

eta - Here's what we know has happened, the security review has been halted and this thing is under FBI criminal investigation.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Here are the "facts" - delegate counts from states the Dems are likely to win in November:

Colorado - Sanders 38, Clinton 28

Hawaii - Sanders 17, Clinton 8

Illinois - Sanders 73, Clinton 76

Massachusetts - Sanders 45, Clinton 46

Maine - Sanders 16, Clinton 9

Michigan - Sanders 67, Clinton 63

Minnesota - Sanders 46, Clinton 31

Nevada - Sanders 15, Clinton 20

New Hampshire - Sanders 15, Clinton 9

Ohio - Sanders 62, Clinton 81

Vermont - Sanders 16, Clinton 0

 Washington - Sanders 74, Clinton 26

Wisconsin - Sanders 48, Clinton 38

Totals - Sanders 532 (55%), Clinton 436 (45%)

Now, if you add in Florida and Virginia - both states are in play for Dems and GOP although the GOP out drew the Dems by about 33% in the primary voting in each state:

Totals Sanders 638 (50%), Clinton 639 (50%)

So, this entire narrative of the inevitable candidate, and the people's choice, etc. is built on votes from states where the Dems have no chance of winning in November, no matter who the candidate is. 

The harsh reality for Clinton, and the Dems, is that in 13 reliably democratic states so far - 9 have preferred Sanders to Clinton.  

 

[pantagrapher]

The harsh reality is that votes cast by democrats still count, even if they live in a red state.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Here are the "facts" - delegate counts from states the Dems are likely to win in November:

Colorado - Sanders 38, Clinton 28

Hawaii - Sanders 17, Clinton 8

Illinois - Sanders 73, Clinton 76

Massachusetts - Sanders 45, Clinton 46

Maine - Sanders 16, Clinton 9

Michigan - Sanders 67, Clinton 63

Minnesota - Sanders 46, Clinton 31

Nevada - Sanders 15, Clinton 20

New Hampshire - Sanders 15, Clinton 9

Ohio - Sanders 62, Clinton 81

Vermont - Sanders 16, Clinton 0

 Washington - Sanders 74, Clinton 26

Wisconsin - Sanders 48, Clinton 38

Totals - Sanders 532 (55%), Clinton 436 (45%)

Now, if you add in Florida and Virginia - both states are in play for Dems and GOP although the GOP out drew the Dems by about 33% in the primary voting in each state:

Totals Sanders 638 (50%), Clinton 639 (50%)

So, this entire narrative of the inevitable candidate, and the people's choice, etc. is built on votes from states where the Dems have no chance of winning in November, no matter who the candidate is. 

The harsh reality for Clinton, and the Dems, is that in 13 reliably democratic states so far - 9 have preferred Sanders to Clinton.  

I crossed out the states that are locks for the Dems no matter who runs.  Can you recount now?

You can't have it cut one way but not the other. You can't eliminate the states where Dems have <5% chance of winning regardless of the candidate but keep the states where Dems have a >95% chance of winning regardless of the candidate. Either you eliminate the states that are in play or you don't. 

Sanders is the better candidate, but not because of this stupid, oft-repeated argument. In fact I'd argue that the electoral map favors Clinton by a mile- she destroyed Sanders in Virginia and Ohio and if the Dems win those two states it's over. Sanders is the better candidate for the simple reason that he polls better nationally in head to head matchups with Trump and Cruz, and he doesn't have the vulnerability that come with Clinton's unfavorables. Not because of this nonsense.

 

[Sinn Fein]

The harsh reality is that votes cast by democrats still count, even if they live in a red state.

Sure.  But, is that what you want to rely on in a candidate in November?  They can get a lot of votes in red states?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Just one other point about the Politico piece, and as said that kind of thing with similar conclusions has been posted here before, including a good piece by WaPo several weeks back, and I agree with everything reported there as said by real experts in security and intelligence.

However: the cases shown are those of the most elite of America's leaders, but this was also said long ago, this is the sort of thing where having been found with just one of these documents could and would ruin the career of a serviceman, anyone in the diplomatic corps, and anyone in intelligence. Loss of job, loss of clearance, possibly being disbarred from future federal work could ensue. There are a multitude of stories on the front, including for material at a level even below classified, SBU. Hillary of course will never be faced with any such penalties but the people who work under as president will have to and they will be prosecuted by Hillary's own DOJ and other agencies for just that.

 

[pantagrapher]

Sure.  But, is that what you want to rely on in a candidate in November?  They can get a lot of votes in red states?

I honestly don't spend any time fantasizing about my dream election scenarios.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

Yeah because she isn't leading Bernie 56%-42% in votes cast so far.  What would the percentage have to be to qualify as a "large" percentage?

62.3% or higher

 

[Sammy3469]

I crossed out the states that are locks for the Dems no matter who runs.  Can you recount now?

You can't have it cut one way but not the other. You can't eliminate the states where Dems have <5% chance of winning regardless of the candidate but keep the states where Dems have a >95% chance of winning regardless of the candidate. Either you eliminate the states that are in play or you don't. 

Sanders is the better candidate, but not because of this stupid, oft-repeated argument. In fact I'd argue that the electoral map favors Clinton by a mile- she destroyed Sanders in Virginia and Ohio and if the Dems win those two states it's over. Sanders is the better candidate for the simple reason that he polls better nationally in head to head matchups with Trump and Cruz, and he doesn't have the vulnerability that come with Clinton's unfavorables. Not because of this nonsense.

Plus, wake me after NY, PA, and CA have voted. 

I just find the entire Bernie sour grapes argument very similar to Clinton in 2008.  Guess what, the delegates in GA, NC, MS, and TX matter as much as those in WI, MN, and WA.

 

[Guest]

I do think the Politico article is good but those cases have been discussed.

I agree Giuliani isn't a good expert on this. Bfs has posted articles with a more varied range of opinions. However I think the stat that Politico offered in referral decisions is more persuasive.

I think three questions still need to be answered and let me know if you have any thoughts on them:

- why was the server seized?

- why was Pagliano granted immunity?

- why did the FBI take over the investigation and shut down State's in early February?

This Politico piece is based on what we the public know.  It does not address what Pagliano has said, what Guccifer has said and the 31k emails that were wiped.

 

[Guest]

Just one other point about the Politico piece, and as said that kind of thing with similar conclusions has been posted here before, including a good piece by WaPo several weeks back, and I agree with everything reported there as said by real experts in security and intelligence.

However: the cases shown are those of the most elite of America's leaders, but this was also said long ago, this is the sort of thing where having been found with just one of these documents could and would ruin the career of a serviceman, anyone in the diplomatic corps, and anyone in intelligence. Loss of job, loss of clearance, possibly being disbarred from future federal work could ensue. There are a multitude of stories on the front, including for material at a level even below classified, SBU. Hillary of course will never be faced with any such penalties but the people who work under as president will have to and they will be prosecuted by Hillary's own DOJ and other agencies for just that.

But... Obama just said "no one is above the law."  :eyeroll:

it is interesting how in silly season these stories ebb and flow in terms of spin, and tend to fan the news cycle.  Current trend is to protect and defend, and don't think favors won't be pulled with press.  There there will be more leaks on the other side.

All meaningless.  In the end, there's the truth and the fact the FBI does appear to have autonomy to pursue it.  Which once again, given facts Saints laid out, does not bode well for Hillary.  

 

[skol asylum]

The harsh reality is that votes cast by democrats still count, even if they live in a red state.

Living in Arizona I can tell you that no they typically do not.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Plus, wake me after NY, PA, and CA have voted. 

I just find the entire Bernie sour grapes argument very similar to Clinton in 2008.  Guess what, the delegates in GA, NC, MS, and TX matter as much as those in WI, MN, and WA.

Plus imagine what could happen if Trump is the candidate, and he's just as unpopular or more unpopular in November, and the Dems run Clinton and she brings people out in the South. It could shift the House balance in a way that a Sanders campaign might not.  And I'm sure Deborah Ross, the female Dem running against the the old white guy Republican in North Carolina, would very much prefer to have Clinton on the top of the ticket.  If she wins it might very well shift the Senate to the Dems.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Plus, wake me after NY, PA, and CA have voted. 

I just find the entire Bernie sour grapes argument very similar to Clinton in 2008.  Guess what, the delegates in GA, NC, MS, and TX matter as much as those in WI, MN, and WA.

I agree that the delegates count, and if she gets enough delegates, she deserves the nomination - I just think the DNC should be careful what it wishes for - she does not have the support levels to win the general election - and that is before the notion of however many Bernie supporters will not support her in November.

 

[Trey]

Trotting out the "candidate X only wins red states" line. Straight from the Clinton 2008 playbook. I think I was crowing about it 8 years ago in the lead up to PA as well. 

Good times. 

 

[TobiasFunke]

I agree that the delegates count, and if she gets enough delegates, she deserves the nomination - I just think the DNC should be careful what it wishes for - she does not have the support levels to win the general election - and that is before the notion of however many Bernie supporters will not support her in November.

And yet you haven't responded to the argument that support-wise the map actually works out better for her than for him because while her biggest numbers come from solid red states, his come from solid blue states, and she won the two most important swing states so far (Virginia and Ohio) by large margins.

The better argument for Sanders is the national polls and the lack of risk compared to someone like Clinton with her history of scandals real and imagined. That's it, and IMO it's enough, but it's close. I think the map actually cuts exactly the opposite way that you think it does.

 

[Short Corner]

Here are the "facts" - delegate counts from states the Dems are likely to win in November:

Colorado - Sanders 38, Clinton 28

Hawaii - Sanders 17, Clinton 8

Illinois - Sanders 73, Clinton 76

Massachusetts - Sanders 45, Clinton 46

Maine - Sanders 16, Clinton 9

Michigan - Sanders 67, Clinton 63

Minnesota - Sanders 46, Clinton 31

Nevada - Sanders 15, Clinton 20

New Hampshire - Sanders 15, Clinton 9

Ohio - Sanders 62, Clinton 81

Vermont - Sanders 16, Clinton 0

 Washington - Sanders 74, Clinton 26

Wisconsin - Sanders 48, Clinton 38

Totals - Sanders 532 (55%), Clinton 436 (45%)

Now, if you add in Florida and Virginia - both states are in play for Dems and GOP although the GOP out drew the Dems by about 33% in the primary voting in each state:

Totals Sanders 638 (50%), Clinton 639 (50%)

So, this entire narrative of the inevitable candidate, and the people's choice, etc. is built on votes from states where the Dems have no chance of winning in November, no matter who the candidate is. 

The harsh reality for Clinton, and the Dems, is that in 13 reliably democratic states so far - 9 have preferred Sanders to Clinton.  

Nevada flipped.  Should be 20-15 the other way.

 

[pantagrapher]

Nevada flipped.  Should be 20-15 the other way.

False

Sanders did not belatedly achieve a favorable result that applies statewide, nor did he reverse or "flip" the overall Nevada caucus results to a win.

 

[Sinn Fein]

And yet you haven't responded to the argument that support-wise the map actually works out better for her than for him because while her biggest numbers come from solid red states, his come from solid blue states, and she won the two most important swing states so far (Virginia and Ohio) by large margins.

The better argument for Sanders is the national polls and the lack of risk compared to someone like Clinton with her history of scandals real and imagined. That's it, and IMO it's enough, but it's close. I think the map actually cuts exactly the opposite way that you think it does.

The map is never going to work out better for her - she is unelectable...

The better argument is to look at her support and compare it to Trump or Sanders.  Clinton is trying to build the Obama Coalition - Minorities, Women and Millennials. 

She is winning minorities, but at a lower rate than Obama.  She is winning women, but at a lower rate than Obama.  She is losing Millennials - badly.  Now, in the general election - lets assume against Trump (though I don't think he will be their nominee) - Clinton will overwhelmingly win the minority vote - but it is unlikely that she can match the turnout numbers that Obama generated.  That will be a net-loss of support.  Women voters will be split.  Older women, who are liberal - will turn out for Clinton (even if they support Bernie now). Conservative women will pray for Clinton, but vote for the GOP nominee - even Trump.  That leaves millennial women - mostly supporting Sanders now, and would likely support Clinton in the Fall - but not all of them.  In the end, I think she will edge the female vote overall (ahead of Obama's coalition).

So, she loses some ground on minority voters, and gains some ground on female voters.  But where she falls off the map is with Millennials - she does not have their support, and shows no signs of gaining their support.  I don't think they will be "reliable" Dem voters in the fall.  Some don't like Clinton, and many will simply become disengaged with the political process if she is the nominee.  Their notion of what they want in a candidate is not completely in-line with the Democratic Party.

She is not going to win the white middle/working class workers - which is where Bernie has the advantage from the Dem side in a national election.

So, basically, she is running on a poor-man's variation of the Obama Coalition - and it will come up short since she is not getting the percentages of that coalition that Obama drew, nor is she expanding that coalition by bringing in new voters.

The reason Sanders performs better in national head-to-head polls is because his support comes from a broader base - he is expanding the electorate for the Dems, by going after the white middle class voter.  He will get the same number of Obama Coalition supporters as Clinton (fewer women and minorities (though he did just beat Clinton in Wisconsin with more women voters) but more millennial support), plus he will add those middle class voters to win the general election.

 

[cstu]

The map is never going to work out better for her - she is unelectable...

The better argument is to look at her support and compare it to Trump or Sanders.  Clinton is trying to build the Obama Coalition - Minorities, Women and Millennials. 

She is winning minorities, but at a lower rate than Obama.  She is winning women, but at a lower rate than Obama.  She is losing Millennials - badly.  Now, in the general election - lets assume against Trump (though I don't think he will be their nominee) - Clinton will overwhelmingly win the minority vote - but it is unlikely that she can match the turnout numbers that Obama generated.  That will be a net-loss of support.  Women voters will be split.  Older women, who are liberal - will turn out for Clinton (even if they support Bernie now). Conservative women will pray for Clinton, but vote for the GOP nominee - even Trump.  That leaves millennial women - mostly supporting Sanders now, and would likely support Clinton in the Fall - but not all of them.  In the end, I think she will edge the female vote overall (ahead of Obama's coalition).

So, she loses some ground on minority voters, and gains some ground on female voters.  But where she falls off the map is with Millennials - she does not have their support, and shows no signs of gaining their support.  I don't think they will be "reliable" Dem voters in the fall.  Some don't like Clinton, and many will simply become disengaged with the political process if she is the nominee.  Their notion of what they want in a candidate is not completely in-line with the Democratic Party.

She is not going to win the white middle/working class workers - which is where Bernie has the advantage from the Dem side in a national election.

So, basically, she is running on a poor-man's variation of the Obama Coalition - and it will come up short since she is not getting the percentages of that coalition that Obama drew, nor is she expanding that coalition by bringing in new voters.

The reason Sanders performs better in national head-to-head polls is because his support comes from a broader base - he is expanding the electorate for the Dems, by going after the white middle class voter.  He will get the same number of Obama Coalition supporters as Clinton (fewer women and minorities (though he did just beat Clinton in Wisconsin with more women voters) but more millennial support), plus he will add those middle class voters to win the general election.

This chart shows just how hard it’s going to be for a Republican to win the White House in 2016

 

[TobiasFunke]

The map is never going to work out better for her - she is unelectable...

The better argument is to look at her support and compare it to Trump or Sanders.  Clinton is trying to build the Obama Coalition - Minorities, Women and Millennials. 

She is winning minorities, but at a lower rate than Obama.  She is winning women, but at a lower rate than Obama.  She is losing Millennials - badly.  Now, in the general election - lets assume against Trump (though I don't think he will be their nominee) - Clinton will overwhelmingly win the minority vote - but it is unlikely that she can match the turnout numbers that Obama generated.  That will be a net-loss of support.  Women voters will be split.  Older women, who are liberal - will turn out for Clinton (even if they support Bernie now). Conservative women will pray for Clinton, but vote for the GOP nominee - even Trump.  That leaves millennial women - mostly supporting Sanders now, and would likely support Clinton in the Fall - but not all of them.  In the end, I think she will edge the female vote overall (ahead of Obama's coalition).

So, she loses some ground on minority voters, and gains some ground on female voters.  But where she falls off the map is with Millennials - she does not have their support, and shows no signs of gaining their support.  I don't think they will be "reliable" Dem voters in the fall.  Some don't like Clinton, and many will simply become disengaged with the political process if she is the nominee.  Their notion of what they want in a candidate is not completely in-line with the Democratic Party.

She is not going to win the white middle/working class workers - which is where Bernie has the advantage from the Dem side in a national election.

So, basically, she is running on a poor-man's variation of the Obama Coalition - and it will come up short since she is not getting the percentages of that coalition that Obama drew, nor is she expanding that coalition by bringing in new voters.

The reason Sanders performs better in national head-to-head polls is because his support comes from a broader base - he is expanding the electorate for the Dems, by going after the white middle class voter.  He will get the same number of Obama Coalition supporters as Clinton (fewer women and minorities (though he did just beat Clinton in Wisconsin with more women voters) but more millennial support), plus he will add those middle class voters to win the general election.

Ah, I see. So when I destroy your electoral map-related argument with actual data and analysis and logic, you just ignore that and move on to your next rant. This time about demographics, and once again based largely on your assumptions about how various demographic groups will vote and why they will vote that way. Listening to you talk about her it's remarkable that she's won a single state. If it wasn't for those pesky southern black women she probably would have dropped out before Jim Webb I bet.

Given your keen insight and certainty regarding Clinton's electability, why don't you take every penny to your name and fade her in the general election at the books?  She's running around -200. Once you collect your winnings you won't have to worry about this stuff any more because you'll be able to afford your own beach house on the Caribbean island of your choice.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This Politico piece is based on what we the public know.  It does not address what Pagliano has said, what Guccifer has said and the 31k emails that were wiped.

I agree there are definitely other variables, as you say:

- The question of whether the FBI has additional emails we are not aware of.

- Anything that they may have recovered from Lazar/Guccifer.

I will also point out the hiring and payment of Pagliano is something which is not something Pagliano could have done by himself.

 

[cstu]

what Guccifer has said

Is this a real name? Sounds like Satan wearing designer clothes.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Ah, I see. So when I destroy your electoral map-related argument with actual data and analysis and logic, you just ignore that and move on to your next rant. This time about demographics, and once again based largely on your assumptions about how various demographic groups will vote and why they will vote that way. Listening to you talk about her it's remarkable that she's won a single state. If it wasn't for those pesky southern black women she probably would have dropped out before Jim Webb I bet.

Given your keen insight and certainty regarding Clinton's electability, why don't you take every penny to your name and fade her in the general election at the books?  She's running around -200. Once you collect your winnings you won't have to worry about this stuff any more because you'll be able to afford your own beach house on the Caribbean island of your choice.

I must have missed that...

As for the 2nd point, I have a $100 bet with someone here that Clinton will not be the next president.  Thats about the extent of my political wagering.

 

[Henry Ford]

Is this a real name? Sounds like Satan wearing designer clothes.

It's meant to.  He describes himself as having the style of Gucci and the light of Lucifer.  Hacker handle Guccifer.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Is this a real name? Sounds like Satan wearing designer clothes.

No, real name is Marcel Lehel Lazar.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/hacker-who-exposed-clintons-private-email-bush-paintings-appears-in-us-court/2016/04/01/85c55c9a-f798-11e5-a3ce-f06b5ba21f33_story.html

 

[Van Dyman]

I must have missed that...

As for the 2nd point, I have a $100 bet with someone here that Clinton will not be the next president.  Thats about the extent of my political wagering.

Someone once bet me that Bill Clinton would be thrown out of office (via impeachment).  I lost contact with the dude, bumped into him like 8 years later at a bar...and he paid up!  

 

[TobiasFunke]

I must have missed that...

As for the 2nd point, I have a $100 bet with someone here that Clinton will not be the next president.  Thats about the extent of my political wagering.

Well then I'll recap it for you-

Your argument was that if you remove the states where the Dems won't win no matter what, Sanders has the stronger support and has won more delegates, and this makes him the better candidate. My response was that this is silly way to do analysis, that you should either remove all states that aren't in play (those that are locks for either party regardless of nominee) or none of them.  Otherwise it's meaningless cherry-picking. When you do so, the map actually favors Clinton; she has run about even with Sanders in several swing states and absolutely buried him in the most important swing states by far that have already voted (Ohio, Florida, Virginia).

In fact your electoral map argument was so awful that by thinking about it more I'm actually starting to talk myself out of my current belief that Sanders is the best candidate to win the general. Sanders supporters should stay as far away from this argument as possible, frankly. I'd focus on the enthusiasm gap and the head to head polling vs likely GOP candidates.

 

[timschochet]

Sinn Fein predicted the rise of Bernie Sanders way way back when nobody else here or elsewhere took his campaign seriously- even those that were for him didn't think he had a shot in hell- and so he deserves credit for that. 

But Sinn Fein has also stated that Hillary is unelectable and cannot win the Presidency no matter who the Republicans put up, whether it's Trump, Cruz or whoever- and here I think his reasoning is, to put it mildly, very much lacking. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Sinn Fein predicted the rise of Bernie Sanders way way back when nobody else here or elsewhere took his campaign seriously- even those that were for him didn't think he had a shot in hell- and so he deserves credit for that. 

But Sinn Fein has also stated that Hillary is unelectable and cannot win the Presidency no matter who the Republicans put up, whether it's Trump, Cruz or whoever- and here I think his reasoning is, to put it mildly, very much lacking. 

That argument works both ways though, Hillary's 'must compromise with Congress' and 'we need to put up the best candidate' falls flat versus a Trump. 1. You're maybe looking at a Demo Senate and maybe a Dem House with Trump and 2. Sanders also polls even better vs Trump than Hillary so might as well go for the genuine article.

 

[timschochet]

As for myself, I originally argued that Hillary is far more electable than Bernie Sanders but I changed that when I started to believe that Donald Trump would be the candidate on the other side. Against Trump, I reasoned, both Hillary and Bernie  should be equally favored. 

But now it looks like there's a very good chance that Trump will not be the Republican nominee. In that case, I would revert once again to my original stance: Bernie would have a much more difficult time of it, mainly because he will be perceived as being too far to the left. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

As for myself, I originally argued that Hillary is far more electable than Bernie Sanders but I changed that when I started to believe that Donald Trump would be the candidate on the other side. Against Trump, I reasoned, both Hillary and Bernie  should be equally favored. 

But now it looks like there's a very good chance that Trump will not be the Republican nominee. In that case, I would revert once again to my original stance: Bernie would have a much more difficult time of it, mainly because he will be perceived as being too far to the left. 

If either party produces a likeable candidate they walk away with it. Trump is 10 points more unfavorable than Hillary, Cruz is just as high unfave. These would be the 3 most unliked nominees ever.

If Sanders makes the general vs Trump/Cruz he has it made. If the GOP manages to pull a Kasich/Ryan or someone like that out of their hat vs Hillary they have it made.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Well then I'll recap it for you-

Your argument was that if you remove the states where the Dems won't win no matter what, Sanders has the stronger support and has won more delegates, and this makes him the better candidate. My response was that this is silly way to do analysis, that you should either remove all states that aren't in play (those that are locks for either party regardless of nominee) or none of them.  Otherwise it's meaningless cherry-picking. When you do so, the map actually favors Clinton; she has run about even with Sanders in several swing states and absolutely buried him in the most important swing states by far that have already voted (Ohio, Florida, Virginia).

In fact your electoral map argument was so awful that by thinking about it more I'm actually starting to talk myself out of my current belief that Sanders is the best candidate to win the general. Sanders supporters should stay as far away from this argument as possible, frankly. I'd focus on the enthusiasm gap and the head to head polling vs likely GOP candidates.

I never said he was the better candidate because he won those states.  He won those states because he is the better candidate - but that also was not the point.

The point is that the narrative that Clinton, and her supporters, are pushing as the inevitable popular choice among the democratic voting population is flawed, and skewed by states where her support is irrelevant.  It is built on her support by minorities - which is real, but not consequential.

And, when you look at where the candidates draw their support - Clinton does not have a big enough base to win states that will be contested.  Losing Sanders' supporters in South Carolina is not going to hurt - losing those supporters in Ohio will hurt.  Given the fear mongering by Clinton supporters - they seem destined to turn out for the Dem nominee, no matter who it is.  Sanders supporters are not traditional Dems, and they will not turn out en masse to support a Clinton nomination.  That is going to cost the Dems the election - both the white house, and any chance at down ticket gains. 

 

[pantagrapher]

You have the fear mongering backwards. 

 

[JuniorNB]

I never said he was the better candidate because he won those states.  He won those states because he is the better candidate - but that also was not the point.

The point is that the narrative that Clinton, and her supporters, are pushing as the inevitable popular choice among the democratic voting population is flawed, and skewed by states where her support is irrelevant.  It is built on her support by minorities - which is real, but not consequential.

And, when you look at where the candidates draw their support - Clinton does not have a big enough base to win states that will be contested.  Losing Sanders' supporters in South Carolina is not going to hurt - losing those supporters in Ohio will hurt.  Given the fear mongering by Clinton supporters - they seem destined to turn out for the Dem nominee, no matter who it is.  Sanders supporters are not traditional Dems, and they will not turn out en masse to support a Clinton nomination.  That is going to cost the Dems the election - both the white house, and any chance at down ticket gains. 

Cruz is the polar opposite of Sanders. He's as far right as you can possibly go.  If the election turns out to be Hillary vs Cruz, then Sanders' supporters should turn out in droves to support Hillary. If they don't, and open the door for a Cruz presidency, then why were they even wasting their time on all of this?

 

[TobiasFunke]

I never said he was the better candidate because he won those states.  He won those states because he is the better candidate - but that also was not the point.

The point is that the narrative that Clinton, and her supporters, are pushing as the inevitable popular choice among the democratic voting population is flawed, and skewed by states where her support is irrelevant.  It is built on her support by minorities - which is real, but not consequential.

And, when you look at where the candidates draw their support - Clinton does not have a big enough base to win states that will be contested.  Losing Sanders' supporters in South Carolina is not going to hurt - losing those supporters in Ohio will hurt.  Given the fear mongering by Clinton supporters - they seem destined to turn out for the Dem nominee, no matter who it is.  Sanders supporters are not traditional Dems, and they will not turn out en masse to support a Clinton nomination.  That is going to cost the Dems the election - both the white house, and any chance at down ticket gains. 

This first bolded is nonsense sprinkled with a pinch of racism. Romney won the white vote by 20 points in 2012. See if you can find his name here and then tell me again about how the minority vote is "not consequential," please.

The second bolded is nonsense sprinkled with a pinch of whining. Clinton destroyed Sanders in Ohio, Florida and Virginia.  If Sanders was the better candidate in the state he would have won them. I'll even buy the argument that he'd be the better general election candidate if Clinton had won those states by razor-thin margins. But that's not the case.

You've gone Bernie-blind. You're denying mountains of evidence from polling data, primary results, the electoral map, the 2012 election, etc. because of your love for Sanders and your hatred of Clinton.

 

[timschochet]

I never said he was the better candidate because he won those states.  He won those states because he is the better candidate - but that also was not the point.

The point is that the narrative that Clinton, and her supporters, are pushing as the inevitable popular choice among the democratic voting population is flawed, and skewed by states where her support is irrelevant.  It is built on her support by minorities - which is real, but not consequential.

And, when you look at where the candidates draw their support - Clinton does not have a big enough base to win states that will be contested.  Losing Sanders' supporters in South Carolina is not going to hurt - losing those supporters in Ohio will hurt.  Given the fear mongering by Clinton supporters - they seem destined to turn out for the Dem nominee, no matter who it is.  Sanders supporters are not traditional Dems, and they will not turn out en masse to support a Clinton nomination.  That is going to cost the Dems the election - both the white house, and any chance at down ticket gains. 

This argument is flawed on many levels- not least because Clinton supporters used it in 2008 and warned of a McCain blowout victory should Obama be the nominee. 

The main flaw is your assumption that Sanders supporters are not traditional Democrats. In fact the exit polling in almost every state suggests that most of them are, and that at least 75% of them will vote for Hillary Clinton should she win the nomination (I suspect it will be much higher than that when it comes right down to it.) 

The minority of Bernie supporters who are not traditional Democrats are not traditional voters to begin with. They weren't part of the Obama coalition and if they stay at home as usual it's not going to affect the inherent demographics that heavily favor a Democrat winning the Whote House. What WOULD affect it is of the Democratic nominee is perceived as too leftist; that would drive many independents, particularly those that concern themselves with taxes as their primary issue, to the other side and give the election to the Republican. That's the bottom line. 

 

[Sinn Fein]

You have the fear mongering backwards. 

Maybe - but I don't think so.  The Clinton crowd has been in here since day 1 warning the Sanders supporters that they better support Clinton in the general election, lest the GOP take control.  This, despite many of the Sanders supporters acknowledging they will not support a Clinton candidacy.  

 

[Henry Ford]

This first bolded is nonsense sprinkled with a pinch of racism. Romney won the white vote by 20 points in 2012. See if you can find his name here and then tell me again about how the minority vote is "not consequential," please.

The second bolded is nonsense sprinkled with a pinch of whining. Clinton destroyed Sanders in Ohio, Florida and Virginia.  If Sanders was the better candidate in the state he would have won them. I'll even buy the argument that he'd be the better general election candidate if Clinton had won those states by razor-thin margins. But that's not the case.

You've gone Bernie-blind. You're denying mountains of evidence from polling data, primary results, the electoral map, the 2012 election, etc. because of your love for Sanders and your hatred of Clinton.

I think the major concern will be independents and other non-Democrats in the GE.  Clinton will not attract as many as Sanders.

 

[timschochet]

This first bolded is nonsense sprinkled with a pinch of racism. Romney won the white vote by 20 points in 2012. See if you can find his name here and then tell me again about how the minority vote is "not consequential," please.

The second bolded is nonsense sprinkled with a pinch of whining. Clinton destroyed Sanders in Ohio, Florida and Virginia.  If Sanders was the better candidate in the state he would have won them. I'll even buy the argument that he'd be the better general election candidate if Clinton had won those states by razor-thin margins. But that's not the case.

You've gone Bernie-blind. You're denying mountains of evidence from polling data, primary results, the electoral map, the 2012 election, etc. because of your love for Sanders and your hatred of Clinton.

To be quite frank, there has sadly been a bunch of paternalistic racism all over the Bernie thread when they complain about blacks supporting Hillary Clinton. I don't know how many times somebody has written "Don't they know what's good for them?" Or something close to that effect. 

 

[Sinn Fein]

This argument is flawed on many levels- not least because Clinton supporters used it in 2008 and warned of a McCain blowout victory should Obama be the nominee. 

The main flaw is your assumption that Sanders supporters are not traditional Democrats. In fact the exit polling in almost every state suggests that most of them are, and that at least 75% of them will vote for Hillary Clinton should she win the nomination (I suspect it will be much higher than that when it comes right down to it.) 

The minority of Bernie supporters who are not traditional Democrats are not traditional voters to begin with. They weren't part of the Obama coalition and if they stay at home as usual it's not going to affect the inherent demographics that heavily favor a Democrat winning the Whote House. What WOULD affect it is of the Democratic nominee is perceived as too leftist; that would drive many independents, particularly those that concern themselves with taxes as their primary issue, to the other side and give the election to the Republican. That's the bottom line. 

Its hard to call millennials "traditional" anything - but they were certainly a key component of the Obama coalition.  And, just as clearly, they are not supporting Clinton, and have no history of supporting Clinton (or the Dems).

Bernie is losing among registered democrats in most primaries - he is winning handily among independent voters.  Those are the voters who are likely leaning Dem, but are not going to automatically vote in lock-step with the nominee.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I think the major concern will be independents and other non-Democrats in the GE.  Clinton will not attract as many as Sanders.

Sure, that may well we true. That's a fine argument to make and helps explain why he does better in hypothetical head to head matchups with Cruz and Trump. 

Arguing that minority support is inconsequential and that Sanders' success in blue states means he has as bigger base that will help him win swing states when Clinton destroyed him in the three biggest swing states?  Not so much.

 

[Sinn Fein]

This first bolded is nonsense sprinkled with a pinch of racism. Romney won the white vote by 20 points in 2012. See if you can find his name here and then tell me again about how the minority vote is "not consequential," please.

The second bolded is nonsense sprinkled with a pinch of whining. Clinton destroyed Sanders in Ohio, Florida and Virginia.  If Sanders was the better candidate in the state he would have won them. I'll even buy the argument that he'd be the better general election candidate if Clinton had won those states by razor-thin margins. But that's not the case.

You've gone Bernie-blind. You're denying mountains of evidence from polling data, primary results, the electoral map, the 2012 election, etc. because of your love for Sanders and your hatred of Clinton.

  We disagree.

Don't come back in November wondering where it all went wrong...

 

[The Commish]

Sinn Fein predicted the rise of Bernie Sanders way way back when nobody else here or elsewhere took his campaign seriously- even those that were for him didn't think he had a shot in hell- and so he deserves credit for that. 

But Sinn Fein has also stated that Hillary is unelectable and cannot win the Presidency no matter who the Republicans put up, whether it's Trump, Cruz or whoever- and here I think his reasoning is, to put it mildly, very much lacking. 

This is something I agree with you on Tim....would ya lookie there!!!!!!

This is Hillary's path to the White House....it requires Trump/Cruz to be the obstacle, but this is her chance.

 

[TobiasFunke]

  We disagree.

Don't come back in November wondering where it all went wrong...

I promise I won't. In the meantime, hopefully the most passionate Sanders supporters will agree with Sanders himself that the issues at stake in the general election are far too important to ignore if the nominee isn't Sanders.

 

[Sinn Fein]

This first bolded is nonsense sprinkled with a pinch of racism. Romney won the white vote by 20 points in 2012. See if you can find his name here and then tell me again about how the minority vote is "not consequential," please.

The second bolded is nonsense sprinkled with a pinch of whining. Clinton destroyed Sanders in Ohio, Florida and Virginia.  If Sanders was the better candidate in the state he would have won them. I'll even buy the argument that he'd be the better general election candidate if Clinton had won those states by razor-thin margins. But that's not the case.

You've gone Bernie-blind. You're denying mountains of evidence from polling data, primary results, the electoral map, the 2012 election, etc. because of your love for Sanders and your hatred of Clinton.

Right - Obama won the minority and millennial vote by a substantial amount more than Clinton would - if she is the nominee.  Clinton's support among minority voters will not be enough to overcome the losses of Millennial voters.