NBC/WallSt Poll: Hillary now only leading Bern by 2 points in Cali!

[sandorski]

As compared to... Donald Trump? Really? As compared to the raging incompetence of his Repub rivals for the nomination?

What planet are you from, anyway?

She's barely better than Trump. The only thing that Trump has got right is the very thing she is, that all the Presidential Candidates were mere Puppets of people like Trump.

That is why she is very likely to Lose at this point.

 

[Starbuck1975]

As compared to... Donald Trump? Really? As compared to the raging incompetence of his Repub rivals for the nomination?

What planet are you from, anyway?

I don't subscribe to the lesser of two evils justification for supporting a candidate. Right now I am comparing her to Sanders, and I find him a more inspirational option.

 

[evident]

She's barely better than Trump.

statements like these are objectively absurd. Are people this brainwashed with their Hillary hate ? I already know the answer.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Sanders winning narrowly in California wouldn't change the race (much like Clinton winning CA in 2008 didn't spell Obama's eventual defeat), but it'd create a shitty news cycle on a day she wants to be overwhelmingly positive.
.

If Sanders wins CA, it is more than just a bad news cycle she needs to worry about. Sanders winning CA feeds his narrative. The coalition he is building represents the future for the Democrats in an election cycle where independents are desperately looking for change. Clinton represents the past. The superdelegates will have to think strategically on which narrative is more compelling.

 

[sandorski]

statements like these are objectively absurd. Are people this brainwashed with their Hillary hate ? I already know the answer.

She's a terrible Status Quo Candidate when everyone is sick of the Status Quo. This has nothing to do with her being a woman and everything to do with her being a sleazy say-anything Politician.

 

[fskimospy]

If Sanders wins CA, it is more than just a bad news cycle she needs to worry about. Sanders winning CA feeds his narrative. The coalition he is building represents the future for the Democrats in an election cycle where independents are desperately looking for change. Clinton represents the past. The superdelegates will have to think strategically on which narrative is more compelling.

So to be clear you want the superdelegates to overturn the will of the voters? Can you imagine what Sanders supporters would do if the situation was reversed?

If Sanders is the future then a Sanders type candidate will win the next nomination. He lost this one.

 

[K1052]

So to be clear you want the superdelegates to overturn the will of the voters? Can you imagine what Sanders supporters would do if the situation was reversed?

If Sanders is the future then a Sanders type candidate will win the next nomination. He lost this one.

*Obligatory closed primaries are rigged argument and shouldn't count*

Sanders wants all he rules changed to his advantage. The irony is even if they were he sill wouldn't be able to clinch the nomination.

 

[Starbuck1975]

So to be clear you want the superdelegates to overturn the will of the voters? Can you imagine what Sanders supporters would do if the situation was reversed.

Yes. A year ago, did anyone believe Clinton would face a viable opponent? She was the presumptive nominee. I believe the narrative that the DNC establishment with close ties to the Clintons did many things to assure that outcome.

The reality today is different. Sanders emerged as a viable alternative. I believe he has the momentum and coalition to defeat Trump.

The superdelegates have a tough choice, no question. I happen to believe Clinton is the weaker candidate. I could be wrong.

 

[PokerGuy]

What's interesting is that initially this seemed to be a simple matter of math. hildebeast has the numbers and the superdelegates, and that isn't going to change. Bernie is not going to crush her in CA and elsewhere to even get close in terms of math. What's becoming apparent is that it's not a simple matter of math -- more and more people are starting to think that Bernie is the better and stronger candidate, no matter what the delegate count is. That sets up a very interesting showdown where a sizeable portion of the dem voters are going to come away feeling screwed.

That's really why hildabeast and her minions and fellow scum are campaigning so hard in CA. If she loses cali -- even by a slim margin -- it impacts the perception of her as a candidate more than it impacts the math. It's no longer about the math (which is a done deal), it's actually about perception at this point.

 

[DrPizza]

If the Bern can get more votes in Cali then the Supers will notice, and Supers can always switch for people who can really do math. That means Bern could easily win at the convention if Supers switch sides but it's stating the obvious.

It's been pointed out to you that when Obama beat Hilary, Hilary won 5 of the last 7 states. The Obama/Hilary race was FAR closer, and the supers didn't switch over. You've claimed a pretty high IQ, but I'm not seeing it, given your inability to look at historical data and see parallels to this year's race. As I said to you before, this is like the last playoff game before the Superbowl. The home team is up by several touchdowns. They're resting their starting players; they just need to keep even in the home stretch, not run up the score.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes. A year ago, did anyone believe Clinton would face a viable opponent? She was the presumptive nominee. I believe the narrative that the DNC establishment with close ties to the Clintons did many things to assure that outcome.

The reality today is different. Sanders emerged as a viable alternative. I believe he has the momentum and coalition to defeat Trump.

The superdelegates have a tough choice, no question. I happen to believe Clinton is the weaker candidate. I could be wrong.

I would say you should be careful of what you wish for. If the superdelegates did this (and they won't) then basically you're going to have the party establishment picking whatever candidate they want in every contested primary. The superdelegate to delegate ratio is high enough that any remotely close primary will simply be resolved by the very DC insiders that you don't like. They are far more likely to choose candidates that you don't like than candidates that you do.

It is also frankly baffling to me that a populist candidate would advocate for overturning the nomination of someone who won by millions and millions of votes. That's profoundly undemocratic.

 

[evident]

She's a terrible Status Quo Candidate when everyone is sick of the Status Quo. This has nothing to do with her being a woman and everything to do with her being a sleazy say-anything Politician.

While I don't disagree with some of the things you said, I think the fact that she's calculated, level headed and competent makes her well more qualified than a candidate who will lash out at the media for calling him out on his vet donations, among other trivial things he's focused on, and frankly, I dont want to be embarassed by having an incompetent douchebag running the country.

 

[nageov3t]

if Hillary gets indicted and Bernie gets the nomination by default just because he's #2, then fine.

but man... if the DNC were to overturn the majority vote and pledged delegate winner via super just because of hypothetical head-to-head polls, that would be a surefire trick to get me to seriously think about voting 3rd party or staying home.

can't imagine I'd be the only person feeling that way, especially Hillary's African American supporters who have been voting for her by +60 point margins.

 

[DrPizza]

Yes. A year ago, did anyone believe Clinton would face a viable opponent? She was the presumptive nominee. I believe the narrative that the DNC establishment with close ties to the Clintons did many things to assure that outcome.

The reality today is different. Sanders emerged as a viable alternative. I believe he has the momentum and coalition to defeat Trump.

The superdelegates have a tough choice, no question. I happen to believe Clinton is the weaker candidate. I could be wrong.

Like what? Pay people to vote Clinton? Pay Sanders supporters to stay home? There were primary elections or caucuses in every state (well, once they're done.) The people have spoken.

Futher, people have already posted on here what the first ads would look like if Trump were facing Sanders rather than Clinton. Trump hasn't attacked Sanders because Sanders would be a much easier opponent for him to beat. Clinton hasn't gone overboard with attacks on Bernie, because she can't alienate his followers. Otherwise we'd be hearing his praise of Castro non-stop. We'd see tons of commercials alluding to people who spoke out being "disappeared" in Cuba, meanwhile Bernie praising Castro for what he's done. These types of commercials, to characterize Bernie as an old kook, would play non-stop.

 

[fskimospy]

Like what? Pay people to vote Clinton? Pay Sanders supporters to stay home? There were primary elections or caucuses in every state (well, once they're done.) The people have spoken.

Futher, people have already posted on here what the first ads would look like if Trump were facing Sanders rather than Clinton. Trump hasn't attacked Sanders because Sanders would be a much easier opponent for him to beat. Clinton hasn't gone overboard with attacks on Bernie, because she can't alienate his followers. Otherwise we'd be hearing his praise of Castro non-stop. We'd see tons of commercials alluding to people who spoke out being "disappeared" in Cuba, meanwhile Bernie praising Castro for what he's done. These types of commercials, to characterize Bernie as an old kook, would play non-stop.

What's weird is that if anything the 'system' has helped Sanders, not hurt him. His share of delegates is far larger than his share of the popular vote. Other than that, most of the discrepancies I've seen Sanders supporters say are evidence of bias against him like the Brooklyn voter purge thing don't make any sense either. (she would have been purging her own voters)

 

[sandorski]

While I don't disagree with some of the things you said, I think the fact that she's calculated, level headed and competent makes her well more qualified than a candidate who will lash out at the media for calling him out on his vet donations, among other trivial things he's focused on, and frankly, I dont want to be embarassed by having an incompetent douchebag running the country.

Trump is a sleazebag for sure, but he's a sleazebag with a message that resonates with Voters.

The strength of Sanders is that his message also resonates with Voters. He also has near impeccable integrity.

 

[cubby1223]

It's not sufficient for Hillary to only lose by a few points and still claim victory. Yes, Bernie may need something like a 30 point win to pull even, but if Hillary loses California by even a single vote it will be really bad for her in the general.

Are you playing the overused "Sanders' voters will support Trump over Clinton" argument?

 

[cubby1223]

What's weird is that if anything the 'system' has helped Sanders, not hurt him. His share of delegates is far larger than his share of the popular vote. Other than that, most of the discrepancies I've seen Sanders supporters say are evidence of bias against him like the Brooklyn voter purge thing don't make any sense either. (she would have been purging her own voters)

Current primary vote totals:

Clinton: 12,989,134
Sanders: 9,957,889
Spread: Clinton +3,031,245


If you actually look at the state breakdown, Clinton is far and away more popular in swing states than Sanders, meaning Clinton has the greater shot of defeating Trump.

 

[Starbuck1975]

It's been pointed out to you that when Obama beat Hilary, Hilary won 5 of the last 7 states. The Obama/Hilary race was FAR closer, and the supers didn't switch over. You've claimed a pretty high IQ, but I'm not seeing it, given your inability to look at historical data and see parallels to this year's race. As I said to you before, this is like the last playoff game before the Superbowl. The home team is up by several touchdowns. They're resting their starting players; they just need to keep even in the home stretch, not run up the score.

Apples and oranges comparison. Against Obama, Clinton as the establishment, "experienced" and presumptive nominee lost to the underdog agent of change. Against Sanders, Hillary is still the same candidate appealing to the same base. Using your same analogy, the Democrats are playing their battered and handicapped star quarterback because it's his turn to lead the team to victory, when the backup quarterback who got them into the playoffs and represents the future of the team is who should start. Not to mention the opposing team is playing a wild card and unpredictable quarterback who has demonstrated a tenacity for destroying teams that play by the book. Perhaps the team wins regardless because the unpredictable quarterback will most likely self destruct, so it becomes a question of short term vs long term gains.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Like what? Pay people to vote Clinton? Pay Sanders supporters to stay home? There were primary elections or caucuses in every state (well, once they're done.) The people have spoken.

Registered Democrats who meet a demographic profile favorable to Clinton have spoken. I suppose the nominee should be of the party, but an increasing proportion of the electorate consider themselves independents in an election year where the trend is a clear rebuttal of the status quo. Amazing that the Republican process was a better vehicle for a candidate to destroy the establishment and ride the wave of change.

 

[Jhhnn]

more and more people are starting to think that Bernie is the better and stronger candidate, no matter what the delegate count is.

Not really. It's just that conservatives are trolling harder. Having been denied their preferred opponent they're now trying to sow dissension among Democrats.

Nobody's going for it but that won't stop them from trying.

People who are dissatisfied with the status quo need to remember how we got here. The GWB years marked the zenith of Republican ideology & governance. There was damned little that they didn't have their way- deregulated finance. Ultra low taxes for the lootocracy. hugely successful fear based propaganda from the greatest political windfall since Pearl Harbor. A line of patriotic bullshit & a real money maker of an invasion.

And then what happened? It all collapsed into what easily could have been a re-run of the Great Depression. We'll be paying for that for years yet to come.

And what did they do after they lost power? Have they been the least bit contrite about what they really accomplished? Have they shown us any new ideas or have they merely opposed the efforts of their rivals? Have they not contrived scandal after scandal in an effort to avoid substantive issues?

What is Donald J. Trump pitching if not a return to the same policies that led us here? Who will he choose as his captains if not people committed to more of the same?

Do we set that aside because of icky brown people so we can build a wall as a giant emotional security blanket like bunkers in Albania?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You realize that Clinton will most likely get the required delegates before the California primary, right? And I'm sure your high IQ self also knows that for Hillary not to get the required delegates that Bernie would have to destroy her in California, right?

I get the feeling that politics really isn't your strong suit.

Neither is it Clinton supporters. Bernie was long favored over Trump, and independents were in his pocket. Dems are going with Hillary, who Trump can beat. If he wins it's not because the public adores him, but the worst choice was picked by the dems. You don't have to agree or like it, but the unfavorable ratings for either candidate would normally mean a whipping on election day of monumental proportions. Instead both sides went to the bottom of the barrel, with Trump supporters trying to get Hillary in office and Clinton loyalists doing the same for Trump. It's like watching baby seals clubbing each other.

 

[fskimospy]

Registered Democrats who meet a demographic profile favorable to Clinton have spoken. I suppose the nominee should be of the party, but an increasing proportion of the electorate consider themselves independents in an election year where the trend is a clear rebuttal of the status quo. Amazing that the Republican process was a better vehicle for a candidate to destroy the establishment and ride the wave of change.

Not just registered Democrats. I find that Sanders supporters have taken to saying that if all the primaries were open that somehow he would have won. This is also incorrect. I would suggest you read this analysis of various scenarios. There isn't a single one where he gets the most votes.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-system-isnt-rigged-against-sanders/

Realistically, if you throw everything together, the math suggests that Sanders doesn’t have much to complain about. If the Democratic nomination were open to as many Democrats as possible — through closed primaries — Clinton would be dominating Sanders. And if the nomination were open to as many voters as possible — through open primaries — she’d still be winning.

 

[Hugo Drax]

Neither candidate will have enough pledged delegates to claim the nomination. The superdelegates annointed Clinton long before Sanders emerged as a viable alternative and well before her email issues escalated as a viable attack vector for the Republicans.

Sanders has every right to take his argument to the convention floor, and a CA victory lends credibility to his argument.

Superdelegates already chose Clinton in day one, they are not going to switch. The super delegates represent industries like Wall street, war industries, payday loan companies,etc..

 

[Starbuck1975]

Not just registered Democrats. I find that Sanders supporters have taken to saying that if all the primaries were open that somehow he would have won. This is also incorrect. I would suggest you read this analysis of various scenarios. There isn't a single one where he gets the most votes.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-system-isnt-rigged-against-sanders/

Thank you for the link but I've read that article several times. It relies on traditional demographics and trends of Democrat voters and then extrapolates for caucus and closed primary scenarios. It is impossible to account for the independent and first time voters energized by Sanders but who were unable to participate due to archaic laws that favor establishment candidates like Hillary.

The Democrats are lucky that the Republicans were unable to field a credible candidate. By any metric, Hillary is very vulnerable.