Salon admits it: "Hillary can't win"

Well if salon says it, it must be true!

Be prepared for Hillbot who will call Salon either Right wing rag or "FAR LEFT" claptrap.

Those Hill bots just can accept the truth

I don't necessarily think Hillary can't win, but I think she is potentially a fatally flawed candidate whose liabilities make her unelectable. I don't know how we progressives got in the situation wherein she and a Socialist are the last ones standing for President. I blame Democrats for not having better candidates this year. This is sickening.

He's an elderly communist

He will NEVER be elected.

You bet we can accept the truth R2!

Salon features writers of every stripe. Even you can write something and Salon will print it. Your assertions need not have any relationship to facts as you can see from this example. I'll stick with Slate, thanks GOP Freeper Slime.

It's hilarious how much the media trolls us these days for ratings, clicks, and ad money.

It's not Salon, dear. It's an apparently unhinged freelance writer who has sold some pieces to Salon for their "marketplace of ideas," including:

"Hillary Clinton’s political machine has been busted — thanks to Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren"

"Hillary Clinton is more right wing than you think: For progressives, a vote for her over Bernie Sanders is a waste"

"I still won’t vote for Hillary — unless her supporters can answer these 20 questions"

"I wouldn’t vote for Dick Cheney, so I won’t vote for Hillary Clinton: An unrepentant only-Sanders voter fires back at critics"

"No, really, I’ll only vote for Bernie Sanders — and Paris helps explain why"

"Hillary Clinton is on wrong side of everything: Stop telling me I have to vote for her because of the Supreme Court"

"I’m a Bernie Sanders voter who will not support Hillary Clinton: Here are 10 reasons why"

"Bernie Sanders has already won: He’s not only gaining on Hillary, he’s pushing her the right direction"

"Hillary’s bizarre Keystone dodge: Once again, she plays into Sanders’ hands"

"Hillary’s Keystone problem: Bernie Sanders pushes from left, but Clinton’s position still ambiguous"

"Trump can’t buy Sanders: How campaign finance — and those old Clinton/Trump contributions — might matter"

"They’re terrified of Bernie Sanders: Fox News, Hillary surrogates and Wall Street get extra-nervous"

"If only Hillary could rope in Bernie Sanders: The primary nightmare she suddenly can’t avoid"

This guy has been shilling for Bernie for ages. It's just a blog entry, not a legit article. I looked HA Goodman up and one of the first hits was a post on a Reddit pro-Bernie group saying they needed to ban Goodman's articles! People who are FOR Bernie don't even like this guy.

OP is a moron.

Once again ........... FUCK IT ...........just tell me which DEMOCRAT is getting the nomination and let me pull the fucking lever.

Why all of the in party fighting ??

If you don't vote for your party in November, you deserve whatever you get.

That is an impressive list of nonsense R8.

Thank you for posting it.

I can't wait to see her lose, again. Be gone vile wench.

Rachel Maddow was saying the other night that despite the fabled Clinton firewall, Bernie is pulling ahead in many of those states and has more boots on the ground in them than Clinton. Thought that was interesting.

R13 Did Hillbots called out Rachael Maddow as a right wing plant yet?

I heard that most of the super delegates are voting for Hillary. I heard that a super delegate vote counts as 10,000 so she would win the nomination.

HA Goodman is the author of the notorious piece, "I'm A Liberal Democrat, and I'm Voting for Rand Paul in 2016."

If he or she posted here, s/he would have been FF'd and Ignored already.

Hillary won't have a cakewalk in the general, but Sandres would be a disaster of epic proportions. Once people start paying attention and the GOP starts running his own words about being a socialist with "radical ideas,"'it's fucking over. He might carry Nh, Vt, and MA, but that would be it.

The people fueling the Bernie parade don't know how electoral politics work. A general election is very different from a primary.

I will be voting for whoever the nominee is. The DEM primary in my state is inconsequential.

Either Clinton or Sanders is acceptable to me.

No Republican is acceptable.

R15 Wasserman Schultz and Company have fixed things. There should have been an open mix of people like Warren, Biden, Hill and Bernie boxing it out. Instead The Democratic PTB were insistent on giving Hill a coronation. However they cannot stop Bernie from running for President as an independent. He will fuck up everything for them. Add Bloomberg into the mix and the Republicunts will win. A Hillary/Castro ticket is so uninspiring to say the least. Castro is a male Sarah Palin and that is not a compliment.

Youre delusional r19......its too late for bS to run as an independent if he loses the primaries......thats a fact.....just like Trump will not be able to either if he shuns the GOP.

I'm with you, r18. I doubt the race will still be in question by the time NY primary voters get our say (again, why so late?!)

Keeping the presidency in Democratic control should be the priority for all of us. I've been a Clinton supporter going back to her first Senate run, but if Sanders is the nominee I'll contribute and do whatever else I can to ensure he does beat Trump or Rubio or Cruz.

I would hope Sanders supporters will do the same if Clinton wins the nom.

[quote]I would hope Sanders supporters will do the same if Clinton wins the nom.

Well, they HAVE stated their boundaries.

Therein lies the problem r21......the BS supporters arent mature enough to realize that.....they are very vocal about NOT voting for HC should she get the nom

R20 No you are insane. He has a ground game of very enthusiastic voters in his corner. Hill doesn't. Not even close. A lot of people will sit on their hands and not vote for Hill. She is a lying,toxic ,phony ambitious piece of shit. We should have had a full range of choices like Biden and Warren in the mix. Instead Wasserman Schultz wants to foist Hill on us because it is her turn.

R22 Her message is very uninspiring. She is no progressive. People are also turned off by her lack of trustworthiness. Unfortunately, The Republicunts have a great chance against her. If Trump wins(which would be terrible), The Dems will learn a valuable lesson. Next time have an open primary with your best and brightest. We didn't need a fix job with Hill winning even if she loses the total delegate count.

R24 right. Obama inspired people to go to the polls. Hillary Clinton will not. Sanders would inspire people.

I'm not at all convinced that Clinton would win in the general.

Then we're fucked because a 75 year old Socialist Atheist sure as hell can't win.

Robert Reich is bitter towards the Clintons'. He tries to undermine them wherever he can. He was part of the economic policies that contributed to the later mess. He's the guy that testified before Congress during the stimulus package hearings, complaining not to have too many white workers as part of the stimulus. That was not even an issue.

There are time limits and regulations as to when you have to declare an independent run.....both federally and with each individual state.....by the time the primaries are over, its too late......and I dont see BS or Trump being able to switch and meet all the criteria in time.......tick,tock,tick,tock,tick,tock.......

These proliferation of anti-Hillary threads are the work of a few. It's probably a combo of Bern bots/bros and Rove-type operatives going on websites to post negative comments about Hillary, because Bernie Sanders will be easy to beat in the general election. And I am not even a Hillary fan, but see their agenda and motives. The nitwits should understand Data Lounge is not going to impact the election, and what minds are changed here are small, gullible minds indeed.

[quote] These proliferation of anti-Hillary threads are the work of a few. It's probably a combo of Bern bots/bros and Rove-type operatives going on websites to post negative comments about Hillary, because Bernie Sanders will be easy to beat in the general election. And I am not even a Hillary fan, but see their agenda and motives. The nitwits should understand Data Lounge is not going to impact the election, and what minds are changed here are small, gullible minds indeed.

I'll vote for her, but no I think the anti-Hillary sentiment is not the work of a few, I think a lot of progressives and liberals aren't happy with her and are even more enraged by the way she's being forced down our throats by the party elite. Despite her recent work to say she isn't, she is far too hawkish, pro-Wall Street and pro-1% for a lot of people and as a young person I think it's insulting that the way she is countering her unpopularity among young people is trotting out a line of celebrities (Lena Dunham, Katy Perry, Britney) who probably are managed by the same people she is.

Bern can beat the Repub nominee?

LOLOLOLOLOL

Nominate Bern and its McGovern or Mondale all over again

"H.A. Goodman" is probably a Republican mole.

[quote] Nominate Bern and its McGovern or Mondale all over again

Nominate Hillary and it's John Kerry all over again.

R30 As opposed to Bernie, who trots out Susan Sarandon and Killer Mike?

Logic of Demons by H.A. Goodman

I'm not convinced that Bernie can win. I agree that the fears of "Socialism!" and "Tax increases!" might do him in.

But I'm even more skeptical of Hillary's chances in the general election. Lawrence O'Donnell mentioned on his show the other night that in every one of her races, including the NY Senate race, Hillary's poll numbers are always the highest at the start of the race and then decline as the race goes on (unlike a Sanders or an Obama whose numbers rise over the course of a race). Hillary is unable to win over new voters. Her challenge is to hold on to her existing supporters and stop them from defecting. This makes perfect sense. Hillary has 100% name recognition . Everyone knows who she is and has an opinion about her. There aren't a lot of voters out there saying, "Hmm. I might vote for Hillary, but first I need to know more about who she is and what she stands for."

Given this fact, Hillary should currently be beating Trump, Cruz, and Rubio by 20 or 30 points in head to head matchups. The fact that she's not, and the fact that she can't hit the 50% threshold in those polls, should Have the Democratic Party scared shitless. A lot of people seem to think that when we reach the general election, Hillary's numbers will rise and people who are now supporting Trump/Cruz/Rubio will come to their senses and switch to supporting Hillary. But that defies everything we know about how Hillary and how she typically performs.

I still think Hillary Clinton will have an easier time beating Trump,or Cruz than Bernie Sanders.

Rubio or Kasich would be tougher for either Dem.

R29 the anti-Bernie threads were coming fast and furious before these popped up. We're just answering in kind.

#feelthefuckingbern

Hilary has to do great in the South or it is President Donald J. Trump.

Salon is full of shit too.

Salon has totally gone downhill since Glen Greenwald's exile.

If you want Trump in the White House, please vote for Bernie. That's what will happen. Be smart people.

Salon speaks the truth. Hillary is toxic and people are sick to death of the corrupt, money grubbing, triangulating Clintons.

[quote] If you want Trump in the White House, please vote for Bernie. That's what will happen. Be smart people.

Give it a rest Bill.

R43 I'm not at all convinced that's the case. Not at all. Obama lit a fire under people to go to the polls. Bernie might light a similar fire. Clinton? Not bloody likely. She is not an inspirational person.

Of course, these things are impossible to know until all the nominees are in place. But I suspect the trouble Clinton is having now is a preview of coming attractions to the trouble she'll have in the general.

Let the chips fall where they may, and hope for the best!

I really don't know which is best, I just know that Rubio is the absolute worst. We should do anything and everything to keep that stupid fool out of the white house.

The media did not attack Obama. They were very pro-Obama. The corporate media will not support someone calling himself a "socialist" and saying "it is Wall Street's time to pay." The media will crush hims if he is the nominee.

The point was, Clinton could not win against Obama 8 years ago. She really is not a popular person and people should not have lied to her and told her she could win, many people simply don't like her. I don't like her because she is a hawk, or in my opinion, a Republican. Of course stupid Republicans don't seem to know they have a friend in Hillary.

[quote]Bernie might light a similar fire

The only fire Bernie could light is if you held a match to his butt after he's had chili.

Trump is an idiot but Rubio is something that is much worse, Rubio is another Reagan.

Goodman is a hack.

This guys is on Huffington post occasionally. He basically tries to write the biggest anti-Hillary hit pieces he can think of.

Still time to draft you-know-who.

R48 I don't think so.

Many Republicans vote for Obama in a crossover during the 2008 primaries just to keep Madame Clinton out of the mix for the next eight years. Do you really think he carried so many historically right wing states in 2008 and 2012 just because MORE Democrats came out to vote?

The Republican candidates for those two cycles were NOT inspiring. And in 2012, many of us just could NOT go into the privacy of the voting booth and pull the lever for a Mormon and put wild-eyed Palin one heartbeat away from the Presidency.

Now Republicans once again have their own crazy candidates, none of whom seem in any way Presidential material - but compared to the tired HRC, they seem almost inspired. Her acolytes who will not admit any possibility of wrongdoing on her part during any of her political life [all those investigations have revealed nothing....she did nothing wrong.....she is being persecuted by the right] really don't know how to read.

She can't win - but she will try with all her might and with everything in her little black book. And the country will suffer for it.

If EITHER party would put up a decent candidate, that person could walk into the White House with a vast majority - but the people who should run don't want to get involved in politics.

The president and congress don't really run the country anyway - the people who give them the most money run the country. They all laugh at us and continue to do as their bosses want them to. To hell with the voters - that's been the motto for a LONG time.

You're right R56, and that's why people are so fucking pissed off at the establishment.

[Quote] anti-Hillary sentiment is not the work of a few.

[Bold] TAKE ONE LOOK AT FACEBOOK AND IT WILL TELL YOU THE OPPOSITES, DUMB CUNTS!

Joe Biden should have run.

Glen Greenwald is an asshat. He's intellectually dishonest and a douche-bag.

Without siding with either Clinton or Sanders, I think it's fair to say that if Wasserman Schultz and the other party fascists try to overturn a Bernie victory with a fix at the Dem Convention, there will be an appalling rebellion right there on TV for the whole nation to see. The Dem party will tear itself apart, and it will make Clinton look even worse than ever before.

No one's asking me, but I think it's Wasserman Schulz who is everything that Clinton's detractors claim Clinton is--dishonest, ambitious, and heedless of the people. Every time she appears on TV I sense many thousands of voters deserting the party.

[quote]I don't like her because she is a hawk, or in my opinion, a Republican.

If your opinion is that she's a Republican, then you're deeply misinformed and your opinion isn't based on anything even remotely factual or real. Shame on you for doing what right-wingers do, when they ignore reality in order to cling to an opinion.

Republicans HATE her. There is nothing more intellectually dishonest and frankly stupid than the assertion that Hillary is even remotely a "republican". You're full of shit, and you need to stop.

You are wrong. Period.

Yes R61, she is odious.

Clinton has raised millions for the Democratic Party, Sanders virtually nothing. If Bernie gets the nomination, Democratic governor and congressional races will really suffer.

Bernie Sanders will win! Workers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!

Ay, there's the rub. Socialists are only interested in protecting the entitlements of the working class, i.e. trades unions. They could give a shit about a bunch of spoiled white middle-class kids who want freebies. And those kids are Bernie's supporters. Clueless.

What I find disturbing it a lot of the trash thrown at Hillary by young Sanders supporters comes directly from rightwing sources, like theBlaze, infowars, breitbart.com, etc.

Right, R65. A $15 minimum wage is only important to middle class kids. Which Shillary can't bring her "progressive" self to support.

Even the Establishment Organ NY Times criticized get for that. Pathetic.

Too bad Howard Dean is not a candidate.

Howard Dean endorsed Hillary. It's kind of surprising how many Vermont politicians have endorsed her. Does Bernie not work well with other people, that would be necessary if he were to miraculously win the job.

[Bold] WHAT R62 SAID.

Any argument that something can't happen because it never happened in the past is intellectually meaningless.

Just ask the current black president.

R67 uuuuhh, how's Bernie (who is a member of neither the Dem nor Repug parties) going to get that through Congress? How is Bernie doing to get free college for all those middle-class white kids who support him.. through Congress? How is Bernie going to get a bill to break up the banks through Congress? How is Bernie going to get single payer through Congress?

What else is Bernie saying he's going to do?

Young'uns: I knew LBJ and Bernie ain't no LBJ.

Regarding independent runs by Sanders or Trump if they don't get anointed by their conventions, remember that many states have "loser laws" that prevent your getting on the ballot for the general if you've already run as a member of another party.

asshole!

R72, because revolution.

R62, I hope I am wrong. I have assumed that in November I would be voting for Hillary. I want her to be a person I can trust and support but I don't want to help put her in office and then see her turn her back on working people.

The other day she sounded like she cared about all those black people who have been murdered by cops, I hope she does care and I hope she will do something about it.

ardith

Bernie's stupid brother can just drop dead.

Why do people keep saying "ambitious" as if it's a negative? I would expect any person running for President to be ambitious. Or anyone who is successful in any field.

'Please name the last person to win the presidency alongside an ongoing investigation, negative favorability ratings, questions about character linked to continual flip-flops, a dubious money trail of donors, and the genuine contempt of the rival political party.'

Richard Milhouse Nixon in 1972, Hillary is the Democratic Nixon

Nixon won and had a much worse reputation.

I am excited about Hillary. Everyone I know in real life is excited about Hillary. I think the so-called "enthusiasm gap" is a bullshit online echo chamber, a social media tempest in a teapot... or in Bernie's case, a bed pan.

[quote]how's Bernie (who is a member of neither the Dem nor Repug parties)

Bernie is now a Democrat, hon.

[quote]Clinton has raised millions for the Democratic Party, Sanders virtually nothing. If Bernie gets the nomination, Democratic governor and congressional races will really suffer.

When Sanders loses - and he WILL lose, whether it be the nomination or the presidency, the next bit will be, where did all the millions of dollars he raised go? He's going to be a very wealthy communist.

[quote]I don't like her because she is a hawk

Snowflake, have you seen the state of the world??! We need a hawk, not a pansy.

It's good to see that Karl Rove and Co. have convinced so many people that Hillary is untrustworthy -- and that Bernie's supporters are so keen to push Karl Rove's agenda.

Who'd have thought that US college students and white liberals (and liberal websites in serious decline) would be the obedient soldiers of this lieutenant of the Bush dynasty?

[quote]Bernie is now a Democrat, hon.

He is listed as an Independent on the website of his employer, the U.S. Senate. You can forgive people for being confused, I'm sure. He will no doubt be making contributions and campaign appearances for Democrats running in Congressional, gubernatorial, and other downticket races, any day now.

His campaign announced that he switched parties and is now officially a Democrat.

His campaign has announced a ton of things that the only responsible reaction to are a swift side-eye

Sometimes he's a Democrat, sometimes he's not. He's the Almond Joy and Mounds candidate.

Anybody who thinks Sanders can survive a general election only need read this...it's merely a sample of the shit that will hit him nonstop from the moment the DNC convention ends. True, not true, exaggerated, distorted, not placed in context, etc. no one will care and the middle America independent voters will eat it up and abandon Sanders in a flash. Not to mention how it will motivate the Republican base well above & beyond how they would react to Hillary.

If Hillary wants to win, she needs a positive message that tells people what she will DO as president. "I'm a problem solver!" "I'm a fighter!" "I get things done!" doesn't cut it. She was asked on Meet the Press a couple weeks ago what the main thing is she wants to accomplish as president, and she couldn't give a straight answer.(She called it an unfair question.) Voters know that Trump wants to "make America great again" and build a wall, and Sanders wants to break up the big banks. What does Hillary want to do? What's her big issue? If she can't answer that question, she's in trouble.

When people actually start paying attention to the race, they will see that Bernie and the Republicans talk in generalities.

Hillary talks in detail about how she's going to do what she proposes, how much it will cost, and where she'll get the money.

Sure Bernie talks about a liberal utopia but we all see from his lackluster history in Congress, that he can't actually do shit

[quote] Hillary talks in detail about how she's going to do what she proposes, how much it will cost, and where she'll get the money.

That kind of detail is great when it comes to governing, but it puts voters to sleep in debates and on the campaign trail. Hillary needs a little more vision and a little less policy wonk during the campaign. She needs a little more poetry and a little less prose. Bill Clinton understood that. He was great at speaking to people's hopes and dreams.

Bernie's big premise is that taxpayers bailed Wall Street out, so it's time for Wall Street to pay for free stuff. The first had a beginning, end, and specific dollar amount. The second is apparently limitless, rising, and perpetual.

Bernie's entire business model is built on fraud, to borrow a phrase.

I honestly think that a lot of liberals don't want the Dems to win. They love being in opposition.

R95 Except if the GOP pick Trump polls show even Bernie has a chance

Not once they put out their first ad against him, r96.

[quote]If Hillary wants to win, she needs a positive message that tells people what she will DO as president. "I'm a problem solver!" "I'm a fighter!" "I get things done!"

Truth. Bitch should see an opthamologist, because she clearly has an "I" problem.

If Hill wins the Dem nom (likely) & Trump the Rep nom (very possible), there'll be mud flung like I don't think we've ever seen.

Trump will pay for wall to wall TV, print, Net, radio advertising to publicize every remotely questionable thing HRC & Bill have ever done since the 60s.

Meh, Hillary or surrogates and PACs will do it right back. They money will be there. Donald's dirt is there. For God's sake, the new Trump hotel the Post Office Pavilion in D.C. is being built by undocumented immigrants.

Who the fuck would vote for Bernie? I'm not a Hillary fan, but I'll vote for her before I vote for a man who would be 5 years away from 80 years old by the time he started his presidency. Who wants some old ass person who's probably already starting to have memory problems as their president?

I agree, R101 and he probably pees the bed too. At least he smells like he does.

OK. I heard some gossip . My brother knows a guy who is plugged in to some wealthy Republican donors and insiders. They claim the super insiders like Karl Rove, etc. are taking a long look at Kasich. At first they dismissed him as someone who might make a good VP candidate for Rubio or Jeb!. But now they feel like Jeb is self -destructing and will be out no later than the end of March but probably sooner.

They don't think Jeb has the strength. Plus no one is at all enthusiastic for him. Kasich is looking stronger, and they are starting to steer money and staff to him. They were looking at Rubio for VP. if he behaves. Rubio is not necessarily a team player. But if they can't get Rubio, they will go with Nikki Haley as Kasich's running mate. Rubio has so far not been able to generate a lot of support. They are watching him.

They are pretty sure the field will narrow to Kasich, Rubio, Cruz & Trump by mid March. Everyone is afraid of Trump because if he runs 3rd party he will destroy their chances. But if they can get rid of Hillary, and Bernie is the nominee this will make it easier to deal with Trump. They won't care as much. Bernie will take away some of Trump's support so if he did run 3rd party he's be less of a threat. The point is Bernie and Trump are drawing from the same well.

I think you're missing the point as regards the Democratic nominees. Both HRC and BS are so old that EVERYTHING depends on their vice-presidential candidates. That will decide the election. That's ridiculous R102. Bernie and Trump are not drawing from the same well. Trump's fans are all over 65.

Bernie and Trump attract the same type of people: angry, gullible people who are full of resentment and sure somebody else is getting the freebies they aren't getting.

But the 1% is getting freebies nobody else is getting R104. Nothing gullible at all about it.

The Mooks driven Hillbot mentality is why she's going to lose again, it's this odd state of constant denial and implosion, which actually sums up the candidate herself. I say this because I really think SHE knows it better than anybody, but the ME chip in her head won't allow her to not crave power and history, the problem is the public at large sees the desperation in her every move. There is a fascinating tale to be told once this is all over, and it is heading towards "all over." In my bones I still think it will end up Biden/Warren vs Rubio/Haley

[quote][bold]Without siding with either Clinton or Sanders,[/bold] I think it's fair to say that if Wasserman Schultz and the other party fascists try to overturn a Bernie victory with a fix at the Dem Convention, there will be an appalling rebellion right there on TV for the whole nation to see. The Dem party will tear itself apart, and it will make Clinton look even worse than ever before.

Really, R61? Who's being intellectually dishonest now? Just claim your side and be upfront about it.

Pretend disinterest is dishonest, and in your case, glaringly obvious.

And the minute he Rethugs run with Berne's comments about being sickened by JFK not supporting the Cuban Revolution, he'll be history and the Rethugs will win. Moderates won't vote for a "communist," which is how he will be perceived on the right.

*rolls eyes*

The Berniebots are fucking desperate to push this narrative that Hillary Clinton is "imploding", or that her campaign has "collapsed." Bitches, please. She won Iowa, lost New Hampshire, and will win both Nevada and South Carolina.

So what happens when Hillary has won 3 of 4 contests? The same crowd will be trying to push the same narrative, that because she hasn't won by blowout margins, she has somehow lost. The Berniebots are completely divorced from reality. Which is why they are calling their little fan club a "revolution" despite the fact that turnouts are down from the 2008. If Sanders was running a movement campaign, he wouldn't need to create this illogical narrative that Hillary Clinton is somehow losing by winning, and he would also be getting more people to the polls to vote than he is.

You're not fooling anyone, children.

[quote] Instead Wasserman Schultz wants to foist Hill on us because it is her turn.

The other boneheaded thing that Wasserman Schultz did was limit the number of Democratic debates and schedule them on weekends or during major sports events when no one would be watching. Meanwhile, the Republicans put their debates front and center all over TV. The result? The Republican candidates got tons of free exposure in the fall, and the GOP race and the GOP agenda dominated all the news coverage. Meanwhile, the Democrats were almost invisible -- an afterthought. Yes, there have been more Democratic debates in the past couple of weeks, but it's too late. By letting the Republicans dominate the airwaves in the early stages of the primary campaign, Wasserman Schultz let them control the narrative, which is probably the main reason that Trump, Rubio and Cruz are now polling so well against Bernie and Hillary.

[quote]Many Republicans vote for Obama in a crossover during the 2008 primaries just to keep Madame Clinton out of the mix for the next eight years. Do you really think he carried so many historically right wing states in 2008 and 2012 just because MORE Democrats came out to vote?

This never happened. And if you expect anyone to believe that it did, then please produce a CREDIBLE link to an article that cites examples of the phenomena, along with an explanation for why these examples were significant enough to influence the outcome.

There are a number of reasons why Obama won the square states over Hillary Clinton, dipshit. The primary reason being that Obama out-organized her with respect to the caucus format, which happens to be the primary format for the states in question.

[quote]Bernie might light a similar fire.

He isn't doing it so far, now is he? Again, turnouts are WAY down.

And don't look to Hillary for equal blame, either. Because, unlike Sanders, Hillary has proven that she can get people excited. She is one half of the reason why the 2008 primaries smashed turn out records.

So again, we have Sanders, who is proving that he isn't not capable of generating the kind of enthusiasm that he is trying to pretend that he is, in fact, generating. And in the other corner, we have Hillary Clinton, who has actually driven record turnouts in the past.

SAlon!? how is Bernie capable LOL It's HILLARY for the WIN!

........................YES SHE CAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

........................YES SHE CAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

........................YES SHE CAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

........................YES SHE CAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What a lot of younger people don't get is anyone over 35 knows Hillary. I like Hillary enough to vote for her. If I have to, but the thing is people who are older like me don't need to listen to her because we know her already. She has been around forever. I don't ever bother watching the debates because I know basically what both of them are going to say and frankly I don't think you see a lot of excitement over Hillary because she isn't new. But rest assured that everyone who is over 35 and a democrat is voting for her including probably me. I want a President in the white who is steady and calm and rational. CA and NY are already in the Hillary camp. Most People are moderates in the real world.

Hillary's biggest impediment is that she's not a "character" or spontaneous enough of a candidate to capture the short attention spans of voters that are looking for simple bumper sticker politics and dorm room poster messiahs. Trump has really ruined it for Hillary even more than Bernie has because he has made the whole process of running for President seem like a Vegas lounge act and Hill is not a razzle dazzle politician. She is highly qualified for the job (more so than any of the other candidates running), but with years and years of dodging and weaving largely false accusations that have been thrown at her, she can't shake the stench of scandal, no matter how unmeritorious most were/are. She also bears the burden of too much time having passed since the 90s. The millennials, who were either born in the 90s or too young to remember them, have no idea how sort of radical and bad ass she was as a first lady and how "cool" Bill Clinton was for his time, even in spite of some of the horrible compromises he had to make in dealing with Republican congress and a much more conservative electorate (thanks to over a decade of Reaganomics and "morning in America", evangelical bullshit). The Hillary Clinton of 1996 would probably be a much more compelling and exciting candidate to younger voters than the Hillary Clinton of 2016. The burden she faces now is how to make her past seem relevant to the present, while simultaneously proving she has a progressive enough vision for the future.

[quote]the minute he Rethugs run with Berne's comments about being sickened by JFK not supporting the Cuban Revolution, he'll be history and the Rethugs will win.

Thank you! R108.

The Republicans are stockpiling opposition research against Bernie and they will "Swiftboat" him big time in the Fall.

The problem is huge for Democrats. Republicans control the large majority of legislatures and governors. These offices are the farm team for higher office. You deplete your farm team, you lack attractive candidates for president and US Senator. Martin O'Malley could have been a great contender, but his Lieutenant Governor lost to a Republican in 2014, and O'Malley seemed to never really find his voice on the campaign trail. The lack of southern and Midwest Democratic governors is especially horrible for the Party, because they would be our most electable candidates for President.

R111 - my proof?

Obama won, didn't he? And if you think he did that without a significant numbers of Republicans voting for him instead of their own candidates, there's nothing I can do convince you.

Madame Clinton will not experience the same crossover. In fact, it may go the other way this time - if she is the candidate.

Are there Sanders's supporters who are advocating not voting Democrat in a GE if Sanders isn't the den nomination and ergo giving Trump a better winning chance? Are they that obnoxious and stupid?

R120 Bernie's got so many skeletons in his closet. I love how the GOP is carefully avoiding discussing him, the better to pounce if he actually gets the nomination. Thomas Eagleton would have stood a better chance of being Prez than old Stalinist Bernie will.

My sister was active in the Obama caucuses. First time she'd done it. They railroaded a lot through by being masters of manipulating the caucuses. In fact, my sister got totally turned off by the way the Obama operatives worked.

[Bold] TONS OF FREEPER FUNDIE CUNTS TROLLING AS BERNIEBROS HERE. PLEASE SEE PAST THESE ANTI - HILLARY POSTS, PEOPLE!!! FFC'S WANT YOU TO DO THEIR DIRTY WORK FOR THE REPUBLICKCUNTS!!!!!!!

H. A. Goodman seems to be a major, almost delusion. Bernie Bro.

From Salon's mouth to God's ear.

Settle down, r125, and take your meds. Believe it or not people can have a different opinion of Hillary than yours. Why don't you try a bit of logical persuasion instead of that ever the fuck you call your post? Discussion can change minds you know.

There is this unsettling madness enveloping the Hillstrikescreechers, they refuse to accept anything other than "Hillary Has Already Won" when she's actually becoming so wounded that once she steals the nomination she'll be 1000% beatable, and ALL the national polling is revealing this fact. It's not that I don't want her to win, it's that I don't think she can.

As someone posted above, saying it can never happen just because it never has before, or never in (pick a number) years, or not since the Civil War, or whatever...is ridiculous.

Until Obama, not only had we never had a nonwhite president, but hadn't elected a sitting senator since JFK (that was thrown at Kerry all over the place).

Until Obama, no democrat not from the South had been elected since JFK.

My favorite: until Reagan, every president elected in a year ending in zero had died in office!

Oh, I'm also a nursing home rapist.

Yes, r128 because people who post this, " I can't wait to see her lose, again. Be gone vile wench" as YOU DID at r12 are so concerned with logical persuasion and discussion can change minds. Maybe it's time you should get back to your "FREE CANDY" little white van, hon.

What happens, if after the nomination, she can't continue because of health problems?

R133 and what happens if old guys Bernie and Trump can't?

Well seeing how this is a Hillary thread....you cunts can never answer a question about her. It's constant deflection.

R122, the question is not whether Obama won. The question is, how did he do it? Nice try though.

As I said, Obama won the 2008 primary because:

(1) he out-organized Hillary Clinton in the caucus states (2) several delegate-rich states that followed the primary format were disqualified and their delegates nullified, leaving Hillary with a massive disadvantage because she ran the table in those states

You don't know what you're talking about.

Okay, you're right. Whatever you say. You're the smartest person in the room I am sure you were right there and have all the links and numbers. You don't have to convince me anymore. I bow to your way of thinking.

The suicide pact is being planned by BernieBros as we speak right now.

So DWS steals another one for Madame Prisoner, can she steal the general as well????????????????

Can somebody please explain why the Bernbots are insisting Elizabeth Warren is going to be Bernie's VP, when she herself says she wants to stay where she is?

Biden is also out. His people did polling in September and found he couldn't win, so he dropped out. Anybody trying to come in during or after Super Tuesday, it's too late. Nobody could get the delegates now. It's too split on both sides.

Saying Bernie will have Warren on his ticket is like saying he's running with Santa Claus. Not happening. Just because you keep saying it doesn't mean she wants to do it. If she wanted to be VP, she'd be running now. That's how they do it.

HILLARY for the WIN just watch you fuckers...Like it or not!

Goodman is getting more and more unhinged by the day.

Take a look at a list of his opinion pieces on HuffPo...

Yeah, I did say that, r132. What's your point? Are you looking for a Scooby Snack?

2016's turned out to be a surprisingly unpredictable race. I don't think anything can be predicted at this point. It feels like we're wide open to any outcome.

Salon.com is correct.

There will be a major dropoff in Democratic support of the nominee is Hillary Clinton. And that would be enough for the Republicans—with Donald Trump—to win a pickup of the presidency this November.

Salon.com is full of shit.

There will be little support for the Democrats if Bernie's the nominee. He'll provide zero help for Democrats on the ticket (he isn't even a fucking Dem, he's a socialist). It is as important that Dems take a majority in Congress than the WH.

Bernie is the triumphant creation of the SJWs.

what r146 said.

She WON Nevada. Your hat has been handed to you, Mr Sanders. Now watch Mrs Clinton plough you into the dirt in South Carolina, Ohio, and Pennyslvania. Good!

Exit poll yesterday: Which candidate do you find most trustworthy?

Sanders - 87%

Clinton - 11%

I'm not saying HRC will not get the nomination - the fix is in for that - but how does that translate to support in the general? I'm sure the Clitterites will say the poll is not accurate.

And while if HRC says there were NO classified or top secret emails on the server - that's okay - she can argue that. My question is - how did she and her staff routinely handle classified and top secret emails? Did they have another secure email address or did they use only hard copies? Did she not receive ANY such emails during her stint as SOS? I have never seen an answer to that question.

Say la vee, freeps!

The American people don't usually go for the smart candidate these days. Obama is the rare exception.

R145 Actually most polls show Hillary winning more Republican voters against Trump than she loses Democrats to him and also winning independents, against Rubio that is reversed

LOL @ Hack Attack Goodman! Sanders supporters were posting his articles all the time over on Democratic Underground. I see he's now pushing his Sanders hard-on over at Salon. His articles are fact-free, biased and over-the-top. In short, he's a hack.

Trump predicts he'll face Clinton, break turnout records...

he's right!!!!!!!!!

Hillary w/ Julian! Her possible VP?

IF it is between Trump and Sanders, then Sanders will lose because Trump is all about winning, building America, making it great again, Sanders is about taking, taking from the middle classes. People will choose "wining" nonsense (and they know it is crap) but still they will rather hear about winning over the fear of having high increases in tax to get all this "free stuff".

Nothing is free. It's just college kids wanting people their parents' age (preferably not their own parents) to support them until they're forty.

And you know that's exactly what the Republicans will say, too.

Trollin' trollin' trollin'...

Salon is a Kabbutz echo chamber - don't disturb they're members only party!

I'm a huge Sanders supporter, but I've known he had an uphill, almost impossible fight. I expect Clinton to win.

Now, I would never in a million years vote for her in the general. I'm gonna go for Dr. Jill Stein with the Green Party just as I did in 2012.

I have serious doubts as to whether Clinton can win in November. Should be interesting to see.

Or, in other words, r160, you're letting Trump/Cruz/some other Republican abomination have your vote. Genius.

It will be these 2 in November...just watch fuckers!

R161 No, I'm letting Dr. Jill Stein have my vote and sending a message that the two party system is as corrupt and filthy as it can be.

I look forward to voting one day for a candidate who actually has a chance of winning and blowing up the box. Until that day, I'm going third party, as I have in every election save for 2008 when I voted for Obama.

You deserve all the shit that rains down on you, R163.

R164 Oh please. My eyes couldn't roll any further into the back of my head at THAT comment.

This is America, and I get to vote for who I want. I'm not gonna let a bunch of mealy mouthed namby pamby partisans bully me into voting for anyone, LEAST of all Hillary Clinton.

Grow up, R163. The way that our electoral system is set up guarantees that there will be only two major parties, and it's the mark of an immature person to throw it away because it's just not pure enough for someone like you. The truth is that no candidate that actually can win will ever be sufficiently noble for your taste, so your voting pattern is meant solely to make you feel superior to the rest of us voters who actually live in the real world.

If that's your choice, then waste your vote. Afterwards, take your sanctimonious belief that politics is too dirty to sully a person as noble as yourself and shove it up your own box. Politics by its very nature requires the compromises that you disdain, and I guarantee if your precious Dr. Jill Stein ever got close enough to an electoral position, she'd suddenly be too tainted for you to ever support.

You're the voting equivalent of a hipster who insists that you liked a band before they sold out by actually having a hit record, yet even more insufferable because your behavior actually hurts other people instead of just boring them at parties. If you were old enough to vote in 2000, you were probably one of those smug Naderites who thought there's no difference between a Bush and a Gore.

We learned the difference between the two parties when thousands upon thousands of people fucking died because one man became president and the other didn't. If you didn't learn from that mistake, you deserve all the pain a GOP administration can inflict on your sorry, miserable life.

Sorry, but big banks and corporations are in complete control of both major parties. It would take a very special candidate for me to vote for one of them. That certainly does NOT include someone who accepted over half a million dollars from a multinational investment banking firm that was partially responsible for the financial collapse of the country in 2008, and got off scot-free.

As for being a hipster, I am not and I could give a fuck what other people do or think.

You can say I'm wasting my vote all you want. I've heard it all before, and came to the conclusion that it was bullshit long, long ago. : - )

I don't agree with you r167, about not voting for Hillary. But I dread 9 more months of droning posts, wagging fingers at the Naderites, when everyone knows you're not going to change your mind. So what's the point? Some people just love to hear themselves rant.

Yeah vote for Dr. Jill Stein and I'm sure Donald Trump will appreciate your vote. Fuck you asshole.

We have two political parties -- to say they are the same on education, gay rights, immigration, reproduction, taxation or anything else is intellectually lazy and false on its face. Waste your vote on Jill Stein and wallow in your superiority. The rest of us will vote for the party whose candidates have not vowed to unmarry us.

r170......and dont forget want us deligated to second class citizens if not our outright annihilation........dont believe me ?.....in the past month there have been numerous anti-gay amendments passed in multiple states and that doesnt include the numerous "religious liberty" bills that have passed. Where is the outrage against that ? where are Chad Griffin and all the others who supposedly have our backs ? You never hear from any of them unless they are commenting AFTER they have been passed. We are being steam rolled over by the GOP and if they win because we dont unite, all this BS will go federal as well. What will we do then ? Sorry....I guess I answered my own question about where the support is....it will become a fundraiser for another 20 years while we fight in court.....instead of stopping it in its tracks before it happens in the first place.

"I'd rather cast a protest vote for a third party than vote for a Democrat who wasn't my first choice" is essentially saying you don't care who gets to nominate the next two or three Supreme Court justices or fill all the Executive Branch appointments, from Justice to Defense to CIA to EPA and on and on...

Petty, shortsighted and, to be honest, narcissistic thinking.

[quote][R161] No, I'm letting Dr. Jill Stein have my vote and sending a message that the two party system is as corrupt and filthy as it can be.

The only message you're sending is the one we've all received: that you're a whiny, childish idiot who'd sooner see Fuhrer Trump in office than cast a vote for an "impure" Democrat.

If it's more important to "teach people a lesson" who supposedly are too innocent or dumb to understand that politics are corrupt, than actually protect yourself and your neighbors from more Republican wars and thirty years of a Republican Supreme court, then maybe you're not as "worldly" as you think you are.

Politics is the art of compromise, not the art of declaring, "it's my way or the highway."

We live in a democratic republic. That means the guy or gal with the most electoral college votes wins. That means the most moderate candidate who appeals to the largest cross section of voters generally wins. Or at least a person that is perceived by the largest number of voters as willing to meet their needs.

The country was designed from birth to protect minority civil rights, but to be governed by representatives and executives elected by voters. The founding fathers believed a candidate who received the most votes, while not meeting every need of every voter, would at least create an environment the largest number could live with. If people don't vote with that in mind, they have to live with the consequences.

A candidate that only appeals to a very small number of Independents is not getting more votes because their policies don't reflect the needs of the largest masses. That's why they only siphon votes away from potential majority winners, and often don't even influence the ideas in the larger race.

The democratic republic system has been rigged from the first day to favor moderates. The system itself will always prevent a candidate with a tiny minority view from winning an election. "Corruption" isn't why Dr Jill Stein doesn't win. She doesn't win because the vast majority don't agree with her ideas.

That's the entire idea of a democracy in a nutshell. Have a problem with that, complain to Thomas Jefferson.

R160 is correct. It’s very likely, with her national low approval and distrust, that Hillary Clinton would be able to win in November. So, we can have a good laugh at Datalounge Elder Gays when Donald Trump wins a Republican pickup of the presidency on November 8, 2016.

I meant to say…would not.

Sorry!

I suspect you're one of the same posters who was planning a big laugh at the DL Elder Gays when Republicans took the 2008 and 2012 elections.

R175 I think you were right the first time - I think it's called a Freudian slip

Republicans will win White House this election, Hillary cannot win a general.

Don't try to reason with them R179. You just open yourself up for the hysterical Hillary supporters who can see NOTHING wrong with her.....no matter what she says or does. Everyone who says anything even remotely negative about her is attacked as part of the vast right wing conspiracy that has been working against her since she left college.

Just sit back and watch what happens.

[Bold] R163 = TRIGGERED

R169 thank you for the intelligent, reasoned discourse. You're a real credit to your candidate.

R174 she can't win because Democrats and Republicans have colluded to insure that a third party doesn't have a chance.

Again, both major parties are in the back pockets of corporations and banks. I have zero interest in voting for either of them unless Sanders is the nominee, which doesn't look likely.

[quote]No, I'm letting Dr. Jill Stein have my vote and sending a message that the two party system is as corrupt and filthy as it can be.

People have been doing this for a century now and you know what the effect has been on the two-party system? Exactly nothing. Literally. So when people tell you you're throwing away your vote, that's not them being mean or narrow-minded or wrong-headed. That's them being totally, 100 percent accurate. It is a meaningless vote which will have no effect on anything and it always has been.

R184 I completely disagree with you. I'd be throwing away my vote if I voted for someone I didn't believe in.

We don't need a hawk...you are just being manipulated by our military and the media. They always like us at war. The military robs us of our tax money and the media gets ratings. When America has to fight a war on their own soil, wait and see how many of them are pro war. It's disgusting that we drop bombs all over the place and then have the nerve to call other people terrorist. Figure that out, assholes.

[quote]Don't try to reason with them [R179].

Please point out the "reasoning" in r179's post. To me, it appeared to consist of two unsupported opinions. And no, I don't believe Hillary is a perfect candidate who can do no wrong. In fact, she's deeply flawed and in a ideal world, I'd prefer Bernie. But her flaws are nothing compared to those of the potential Republican nominees, and when push comes to shove, I think a majority of Americans will see that and elect her.

R81 Yes everyone in your Depends knitting circle must be excited about Queen Hillbot. She is so current. She won't get the young people so she will be fucked come election time.

I don't think anyone can really say what will happen in the general election until both nominees are in place. I can see a scenario where Clinton has an easy victory over Trump. But I can also see that Trump supporters have a fire lit under them like we did for Obama back in 2008. And no one is too excited about Clinton. I think he might give her a run for her money.

I have NO IDEA what to think if Rubio is their nominee.

R183, third parties candidates don't win because people don't vote for them.

In the old days, people needed a big machine behind them to be heard. Now, with the Internet, it's a lot easier for people to go out there with not much money and be heard. They can get funded with online contributions.

This doesn't change that the largest group of people vote for the most middle of the road candidate. Whether there's two candidates or three, in the end, it's like playing chicken. Which way is the least scary? The moderate who promises not to try to turn the world upside down.

People on the extreme right and left don't get that. They think people don't understand what's happening, or the candidate they don't like is "corrupt," which these days seems to be an all-encompassing word meaning, "it's wrong not to like my candidate." Other people have different needs than you. It doesn't make them corrupt or evil. Or stupid.

R187

LOL....thanks for proving my point so quickly.

Oh and thanks for being the voice of the "majority of Americans" which no one who questions HRC is allowed to do.

R190 I'm not extreme at all in my views. I'm fairly mild and moderate. But I can see that the two party system is irretrievably broken and corrupt. Sorry, not voting for someone who accepted over half a million dollars from one of the multinational investment banking firms that damn near ruined the country in 2008 and then got off scot free. Not gonna happen. Ever.

[quote][R184] I completely disagree with you. I'd be throwing away my vote if I voted for someone I didn't believe in.

That's because, like most 3rd party voters and self-proclaimed independents, you care less about what your vote actually does and more about how your vote makes you feel.

R194 Again, not true in the slightest. Voting for a major party candidate sends a message that I'm ok with the broken and corrupt system that is currently in place. I'm not. I will proudly and happily vote for Dr Stein, just as I did in 2012.

[quote]LOL....thanks for proving my point so quickly.

You still haven't explained what "reasoning" you saw in r179's post, r191, and I now I'm afraid you'll also need to clarify what point you think I proved. As to being the voice of the majority of Americans, of course I'm not (and according to you, apparently I'm not allowed to be, since I have many criticisms of HRC). I'm merely offering my prognostication as to how the majority would vote in a Clinton vs. Trump or Cruz general election.

What do you mean, "sends a message"? You are one person. It sends no message, other than you don't care about what happens in real life. Your "message" might as well be whispered into a hurricane. No one is being influenced by you.

The whole point of communication is to influence. Not meaninglessly mumble into the ether.

Sanders is highly unlikely to win a GE either, but less likely than Clinton. It a lesser of two evils, regarding Trump/ Clinton. I don't understand how people would be OK with help Trump to win by not voting for Clinton. I fully understand she has many flaws, but seriously Trump as president, can you even imagine that, how is Clinton (faults and all) not a much better option.

To throw a vote away because you are a Bernie Bro and give Trump a helping hand into the oval office to do untold damage is the trait of someone too stupid to be allowed to vote in the first place. Sanders would be an ineffectual president, none of his policy hold a drop of water, he'd spend all his time fighting with congress and his 4 years would be a waste trying to achieve the ridiculous.

[quote]Again, not true in the slightest. Voting for a major party candidate sends a message that I'm ok with the broken and corrupt system that is currently in place. I'm not. I will proudly and happily vote for Dr Stein, just as I did in 2012.

I'm afraid it's absolutely true and it's right there in your response. Absolutely no one is interested in reading or even receiving the "message" you somewhat narcissistically think you're sending by voting 3rd party. Such votes, as I said, have done nothing to move the electoral needle so much as a centimeter away from the two-party system the vast majority of the electorate chooses to work within. As I said, you vote not on what your vote does but how your vote makes you feel, which is why you will, as you so helpfully put it, "proudly and happily" vote 3rd party.

Just read that Spike Lee is endorsing Sanders in S.C.

The ad is good too.

R199 No. My vote for a major party candidate would say that I'm ok with the status quo. I am not. The record will reflect my vote, which is good enough for me. Sorry, not voting for someone who accepted over half a million dollars from a multinational investment banking firm that was partially responsible for the financial collapse of the country in 2008, and got off scot-free. Paid to her personally.

Not in a million years.

r201.....But you will allow someone to take office who will not only strip our rights, but threaten our very existence....as well as totally ruin our country and risk possible annihilation by getting us into WW3. MAKE YOUR STATEMENT !!!!!! Dont bitch and complain when life as you know it ceases to exist.

[quote]someone who accepted over half a million dollars from a multinational investment banking firm that was partially responsible for the financial collapse of the country in 2008, and got off scot-free.

As hideous and appalling as I find this to be, the thought of a Trump presidency is one million times more hideous and appalling, and it's hard to imagine how anyone whose ideas and beliefs have led him to support Bernie Sanders would think otherwise. There is no way I would consider voting for anyone other than the Dem nominee—regardless of whether it's Bernie or Hillary—in the upcoming election. I only hope most of the hardcore Hilbots and Bernbots get their shit together and do the same.

[quote]My vote for a major party candidate would say

Your vote does not "say" anything at all. No one is listening. No one cares. It will have zero effect except to make you feel better about your choice. That's what you refuse to see.

[question]Voting for a major party candidate sends a message that I'm ok with the broken and corrupt system that is currently in place.

Here's what I want to know. What makes you think a multi-system would not quickly become corrupt?

"The point was, Clinton could not win against Obama 8 years ago. "

Actually, Hillary won the popular vote in the primaries, but Michigan and Florida were not counted.

R202 Dr. Jill Stein isn't going to start ww3, baby.

r207.....and she will never be president either.....but by wasting a vote on a non-entity you allow the possible victory of the GOP party which IS our enemy. Some people are too damn stubborn and ignorant to live. Its about the greater good.....and survival moron.

[quote][R202] Dr. Jill Stein isn't going to start ww3, baby.

Nice try at being witty, but since Jill Stein stands no chance of taking office, your reply to (the admittedly rather overwrought) r202 makes no sense.

r209....I admit Im over emphasizing and being dramatic, but it is only because its like talking to a wall sometimes when dealing with these idiots who dont take this situation seriously. The thought of a Trump or Cruz as president is frightening. If we do lose, it will be because of the self righteous morons like r201.

I give up. You're right. I bow to your superior thinking - I hope you have fun at your HRC rallies. Your logic and arguments have changed my mind completely, and I will vote for HRC in the general election and sweep her up into White House. It will be a glorious day for heavy thinkers like you and the majority of Americans you claim to speak for.

Congratulations.

Don't let the thread-door hit you in the ass then, r211.

R160 is just dumb. And if he doesn't live in a swing state, he has stumbled on the truth that his vote doesn't matter. But if he is in a swing state then his vote might matter and he's just as responsible for the shitty state the country will be in under a Republican as Ted Cruz or Rubio or Trump is. He's probably a conservative anyway and doesn't believe in the welfare state because he hates poor people.

[quote]It will be a glorious day for heavy thinkers like you and the majority of Americans you claim to speak for.

It won't be a glorious day. It just won't be a day of unmitigated disaster. But I suspect the distinction is lost on a "heavy thinker" such as yourself who can't quite grasp the deeply complicated idea that "I will happily support either Democrat in the general to help ensure that Trump or Cruz doesn't win" is not the same as "I am a rabid fan of HRC and feel she is above criticism."

Sad. I already said you win. Just drop it and let others enjoy the thread, idiot.

You can't guilt Naderites into not being Naderites, they are what they are and they don't feel guilty about it.

It's not true that third party candidates, and their voters, have no effect.

It is accepted truth that Gore would have beat Bush in 2000 had Ralph Nader not been on the ballot even in just one or two close states.

On the other hand, Clinton probably won in 1992 in part thanks to the votes that went to Ross Perot instead of Bush the elder

if you live in a swing state and vote your conscience for a 3rd party candidate against the better of the two major candidates, that is a deplorable move.

I do vote Green and Liberal and sometimes Socialist, but in local and state elections.

A terrible performance by Clinton tonight at the Town Hall, exposed how she'll be sliced and diced in the general. Can't run from those transcripts...

[quote] Just drop it and let others enjoy the thread, idiot.

What a surprise; it's a control freak on top of all its other issues.

[quote]It's not true that third party candidates, and their voters, have no effect.

Yes, they sometimes have the effect of being spoilers. But thus far, they have had zero effect at changing the way our two-party system operates.

Salon is pro-Islam, pro-Sharia anti-gay tranny rag. I don't care what they say!

[quote]I give up. You're right. I bow to your superior thinking - I hope you have fun at your HRC rallies. Your logic and arguments have changed my mind completely, and I will vote for HRC in the general election and sweep her up into White House. It will be a glorious day for heavy thinkers like you and the majority of Americans you claim to speak for.

This is almost verbatim what every single "conscience-voter" has ever said to me when I've tried to explain why their votes don't matter. They do exactly what you did: stubbornly repeated the same things over and over again, refused to engage with any of the points other people were making in the conversation, and then finally, did a petulant flounce because their position is inarguable. And the reason it's inarguable is because it's not based on facts but on your own emotional response. You want to feel "proud" about your vote more than you want your vote to matter.

[quote] give up. You're right. I bow to your superior thinking - I hope you have fun at your HRC rallies. Your logic and arguments have changed my mind completely, and I will vote for HRC in the general election and sweep her up into White House. It will be a glorious day for heavy thinkers like you and the majority of Americans you claim to speak for.

A third party vote from the left helps ensure that Donald Trump will win the presidency. This is not conjecture, this is absolutely true.

It is a guarantee that the next president will be picking one supreme court justice and a likelihood that he or she will be picking two. This is not opinion, this is fact.

If the court tips overwhelmingly conservative (which it absolutely will if President Trump is allowed to pick justices), it will continue its assault on women's reproductive rights, do its best to chip away at the rights of gays and lesbians, uphold the growing militarism of law enforcement in this country, and do everything in its power to ensure that corporations and the very wealthiest Americans can pour unlimited cash into the electoral process, thereby taking more and more power away from voting citizens and putting it in the hands of an oligarchy greater than the one seen during the Gilded Age. Again, this is not conjecture but a nearly inarguable fact based on the court's makeup and the kind of cases it is ruling on lately.

You have decided that feeling good about your vote is more important than any of that. This is why no one here respects your point of view. It's also why I implore you to reconsider it. Votes have real consequences on real people. They do not "send messages."

Naderites won't change their minds. And considering they'll exist no matter what, I choose to look at the upside of a hard left. If the Dems didn't have to fear any kind of boycott, they'd be even more brazenly neoliberal.

Excellent post, r223; you are absolutely correct. Unfortunately, Petunia the Petulant Flouncer will no doubt continue to believe that she's a much deeper thinker than the rest of us and we just don't "get" her wisdom. I can only hope that most Dems (and sane Republicans, too) will understand the importance of keeping Trump out of office and unite behind the Democratic nominee, whether Sanders or Clinton. But I'm concerned about the degree to which the two camps are becoming polarized.

Strong defeat ahead for Hillary, media is turning against, led by NYT.

Thanks for spamming that message everywhere R226. I noticed you haven't linked any of your posts though?

R226 eh...you want SANDERS...NOPE....It's gonna be HILLARY! NY TIMES is only read by NY's and in CA...both Democrat and going for HILLARY....who cares about the TIMES!?

Will Hillary pull out and let Biden run now?

R226, can you please predict the stock market for us?

Cool

Welcome to 2016?

Fuck these 2015 trolls to hell.