What about an "anybody but Clinton or Sanders" scenario, Skinner & DU?

[Peace Patriot]

This OP was originally posted as a comment in Joe the Revelator's thread, here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512104780

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

What about an "anybody but Clinton or Sanders" scenario, Skinner & DU?

I just read Robert Parry's article, "Waiting for California and the FBI" (6/1/16). He is not the first political analyst this week to discuss Clinton's faltering campaign, but he is the most convincing that the Democratic Party establishment may take action to save itself from a candidate who cannot beat Donald Trump.

First, who is Robert Parry? Parry is one of the more credible representatives of mainstream journalism. His journalistic tradition is from the old days when the corporate media tended to have higher journalistic standards of objectivity and neutrality. For instance, as his article bio states, he was an investigative reporter on the Iran-Contra stories which exposed crime in the Reagan administration at a time when Reagan was the darling of the uber rich.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/06/01/waiting-for-california-and-the-fbi/

More on Parry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Parry


---------------------------------

What does Robert Parry say?

How should this be handled at Democratic Underground?

What is the likelihood of an "anybody but Clinton or Sanders" convention?

-----------------

Second question first, so you can see where I'm going with this:

How should this be handled at Democratic Underground?

I think that what Parry says argues strongly for DU to remain open to criticism of Clinton and to discussions of alternative candidates through the convention. It has become increasingly possible that we are going to have a contested convention and possibly a "brokered" convention. It would be unfair to DU members--including long time members like myself--to exclude from this critically important discussion anyone but Clinton supporters.

That is my position, after reading Parry's article, and taking into consideration the other rumblings within the party in recent weeks, and the increasing likelihood of a big Sanders win in California. Whether or not Clinton clinches "the math" on June 7, the main issue, after a big Sanders win in California, will be a failing campaign vs a campaign with momentum. And THIS is why "super-delegates" were created in the first place--to rescue the party from a candidate who cannot win the GE and may well wreck down-ticket races with a crash and burn.

Again, my position: DU should not "close" behind Clinton until the convention is over.

------------------------

FYI: I am a strong Sanders supporter. I am a woman. I'm 71, and have been a loyal Democratic supporter since 1960, when I was 16 and a volunteer for JFK's one and only presidential campaign and that of the first CA Governor Brown. I've been a member of DU since 2004.

-----------------------

First question: What does Parry say?

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/06/01/waiting-for-california-and-the-fbi/

A summary (at the top of the article):

Some Democratic leaders are privately scouting around for someone to replace Hillary Clinton if she stumbles again in California and/or the FBI detects a crime in her email scandal, reports Robert Parry.

His first paragraph:

For months now, poll after poll have registered the judgment of the American people that they want neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump as the next President, but the two major parties seem unable to steer away from this looming pileup, forcing voters to choose between two widely disdained politicians.

A bit later in the article:

...the Democrats have one final chance to steer clear, on June 7 when they hold several primaries and caucuses including New Jersey and California. If Bernie Sanders can upset Clinton in California – and/or if Clinton’s legal problems over her emails worsen – there remains a long-shot chance that the Democratic convention might nominate someone else.

As far-fetched as this might seem, some senior Democrats, including reportedly White House officials, are giving serious thought to how the party can grab the wheel at the last moment and avoid the collision of two historically unpopular political figures, a smash-up where Trump might be the one walking away, damaged but victorious.

Middle of the article: Discusses the OIG report from Secretary John Kerry's State Department, which reveals very serious issues with Clinton's private email server. Quotes Doug Schoen: "Given the inspector general’s report, a clean bill of health from the Justice Department is unlikely."

Conclusion of this part of the article:

(quoting Schoen) "...with Mrs. Clinton’s negative rating nearly as high as Donald Trump’s, and with voters not trusting her by a ratio of 4 to 1, Democrats face an unnerving possibility.”

(Parry) Besides the lack of trust, voters simply don’t like her. On Wednesday, the Real Clear Politics poll average of Clinton’s favorable vs. unfavorable numbers were 37.6 percent to 55.8 percent, an 18.2-point net unfavorable.

Thence to the section in Parry's article that is relevant to a possible "anybody but Clinton or Sanders" convention. Parry quotes the Carl Bernstein article:

“I was in Washington this week, I spoke to a number of top Democratic officials and they’re terrified, including people at the White House, that her campaign is in freefall...."

Parry's analysis of the primaries:

Whereas Republican leaders failed to suppress their voters’ uprising – as Trump torched his GOP rivals one after another – the Democratic leadership did all they could to save Clinton, virtually pushing her badly damaged bandwagon toward the finish line while shouting at Sanders to concede.

But it has now dawned on some savvy Democrats that Clinton’s campaign vehicle may be damaged beyond repair....

One surprise in the article is that Democratic insiders are not just discussing Biden and Kerry as alternative candidates (this article doesn't mention Warren) but are also considering going with Sanders!

Looking down at our country and our party from as high of a perspective as I can get to, what I see is that the people who chose the wrong horse, War Admiral, have been trying to trip up the real champion, Seabiscut, because that funny little knock-kneed horse is a joke, beneath contempt, disdained by all. They don't want Sanders to win! And we know why: They are mostly Corporate Democrats like Clinton. TPP is on the line, and Sanders doesn't like TPP nor any other aspect of Corporate Rule.

So, amidst these rumbles and rumors, I really don't think that Sanders--who has run such an amazing campaign with all odds against him--is among the alternatives that our Party leaders are truly considering. They likely would want a Clinton-like candidate, and they likely think that a Clinton-like candidate without the "baggage," and without the rotten trustworthy numbers, can pull in young voters and independents and beat Trump.

Thus, what may be developing is a contested convention, with party leaders trying to make it a "brokered" convention. And in that fight, Sanders, Sanders delegates and Sanders supporters are going to have a strong hand to influence the party's choice (whether Sanders or not) and to influence the official policies of that candidate.

Shouldn't DU be engaged in that debate--evaluating Clinton's viability and choosing an alternative if necessary? It is perhaps the most important debate that Democrats will ever engage in. Is DU going to be left out of this?

------------------------------------------

What is the likelihood of an "anybody but Clinton or Sanders" convention?

Parry concludes:

...whether the Democrats have the guts to go through the pain of denying Clinton the nomination may depend on what happens in California and inside the FBI.

We don't know what the FBI is going to do (or when), though the report from Kerry's OIG does not bode well for Clinton. The FBI seems to be proceeding normally with a serious criminal investigation that has gotten to the point of granting immunity to witnesses (and extraditing a witness), interviews of various parties including Clinton aides, recovery of Clinton's "wiped" emails, rumored pending interview of Clinton, etc. The bits and pieces of what they're looking at, that have made it onto the internet, do not bode well for Clinton. But we just don't know what the FBI is going to do, and this case is fraught with political overtones and undertones and whole orchestras of behind-the-curtain music (including distant trumpets from the intelligence agencies).

California will be a known next week. Here's what we have on California:

1) Sanders has closed a big deficit in the polls to tie Clinton in recent CA polls.

2) CA has registered TWO MILLION new voters, as of the registration deadline May 23--MOST of them young voters, MOST of them Democratic registrations--an enormous surge in Dem Party registration (increase of 218%!).

3) CA Democratic voters are farther left than CA Democratic Party office holders and leaders. And CA voters in general tend to be independent-minded (not cowed by party bosses, as in some states). So items like Gov Jerry Brown's rather cool endorsement of Clinton likely won't influence many voters, especially with Bernie Sanders being so visible and energetic, up and down the state, at numerous big rallies and other events.

4) "No Party Preference voters" (NPPs, i.e., independents) can vote in the Democratic Party primary, by mail-in (if they've requested a Dem ballot) or at the polling place on June 7, by requesting a Dem Party ballot. NPP voters cannot vote in the Republican primary. So the new NPP voters likely did not register in order to vote for Trump. NPPs will be a factor in the Dem primary.

5) NPP Sanders voters are not likely being captured by polls. The many new Democratic voters are not likely being captured by polls.

6) Sanders almost always outperforms the pre-election polls.

The TWO MILLION new voters is a very strong pointer to a Sanders blowout. Sanders' polling among young voters is very high (60% to 70%). The many newly registered voters are mostly young voters. Last poll I saw, Latino voters were split 50-50, Clinton-Sanders. Sanders poll numbers have soared in California, among Dems and among Latinos, over the last month or so, bringing him to an apparent tie with Clinton, but the polls are not likely catching all of it, especially given the lateness of these new voter registrations, more than half of which occurred in April-May.

Prediction: Sanders will win California.

Guess: Sanders will win by at least 20%.

Consequences: Depending on what happens in the other June 7 states, and later in DC, Sanders will probably not reach the magic number of pledged delegates (to win a first ballot vote at the convention without superdelegate votes). Clinton may not get that number either. But, presuming he doesn't and she does, where will we be?

Clinton will limp into the convention, having lost the biggest state in the country by a significant margin, the state of which it is said, "As California goes, so goes the nation." She will have lost Oregon, recently, with blowout Sanders numbers, and a string of other primaries and caucuses. She will be a wounded candidate, whether she has a first ballot number or not. And the party bosses and delegates will have to decide whether to go with this wounded, currently losing and falling in the polls candidate, and try to put together a coalition that smothers her weaknesses and utilizes Sanders' strengths, or whether to do something else.

Clearly, this convention is NOT going to be the coronation that Clinton planned for. It is going to be a rough, contested convention for Clinton, as the primaries have been. And, despite her early wins, and despite her acquisition of superdelegates before Sanders even entered the race, she will not have a strong hand.

She has to prove:

a) that she is NOT going to be indicted and neither are any of her aides (if the FBI hasn't acted by then);

b) that she is NOT a threat to national security;

c) that she can win over young voters and independents (essential to beat Trump);

d) that she can restore some trust within the general electorate (a Nixon-like "Checkers" speech?--emotional apologies--that sort of thing? I don't know how she can do this);

e) that she will have coat-tails for down-ticket races (very important to party leaders and to all of us),

f) that she has the strong support of Secretary of State John Kerry (quite important because of the OIG report).

g) that she has the strong support of President Obama.

Looking at all of this, superdelegates and delegates to the convention must be having restless nights, dreaming of a candidate with no "baggage," with high likability and high trustworthiness, who can win half the Democratic Party voters with no news coverage for six months and then mostly negative dribbles, who can do that with small donations from millions of people and no superpac, who has not amassed personal wealth, who has served all his elected positions well, about whom the worse scandal is that his wife failed at a college fundraising campaign, who is beloved in his home state, and who has attracted young voters and disaffected voters in droves, and who can run up and down the state of California on the most grueling barnstorming schedule ever devised, and plunge himself into the Pacific Ocean in the middle of it, like he was 20 years old.

Dream candidate. Why can't we have HIM, instead of a candidate who has to START her GE campaign by proving that she won't be indicted?

-------------------------

Some scenarios:

If the FBI report comes out before the convention and recommends indictment of Clinton or her aids, then it's game over for Clinton (no matter what A.G. Lynch does, a Clinton ally, but whose own career will be on the line).

What will the convention do in that case?

If the FBI report is still pending, the convention has to face all of the above political considerations.

What will the convention do about all of the above?

If the FBI report comes out before the convention and does NOT recommend indicting anybody, but is nevertheless seriously critical of Clinton (and criticism seems almost certain and could be blistering, given the OIG report), the convention will have to assess the damage to GE chances.

How will the convention go about assessing damage to GE chances from a critical FBI report or a still pending FBI report? (Also, what implications for a Clinton presidency?)

------------------------------------------------

DU SHOULD REMAIN OPEN TO CRITICISM OF CLINTON THROUGH THE CONVENTION.

Should DU be excluded from these fateful decisions and discussions within the Democratic Party on through our convention?

It's NOT going to be a coronation. It's NOT going to be easy. It is going to require the concerted efforts of all Democrats and wide variety of opinion. We need debate of these matters! And, being the "underground," we don't want the debate to occur exclusively behind closed doors. We want to provide in-put into how our party leaders assess this situation and who gets chosen as the nominee, if Clinton is not viable, for whatever reasons. That, to me, is one important role of DU. We also educate people about Democratic candidates and issues, and this helps voters and party leaders.

-------------------------

DEAR SKINNER:

I urge you to keep DU open through the convention! You need us and we need you! And the Democratic Party needs all of us doing what we do best here, arguing it all out! I'd say leave DU discussion open through the convention even if Sanders wins California by less than 10% or only ties or only comes very close. The issues that Robert Parry and others are now raising are not going to be settled completely by California. They involve factual issues (what the FBI does, for instance) and judgement issues (for instance, what weight to give to Clinton's falling numbers against Trump?).

It seems like many Clinton supporters at DU really don't want us here, criticizing Clinton and raising difficult issues. I hope you override their desire to see us gone until the convention settles all these matters as well as it can. This is a very unusual primary and a very rocky time for the Democratic Party. I hope you will agree with me that vigorous debate will strengthen us in the coming months.

But you, of course, are the judge of this, and I'm okay with that. We need rules and focus, and consensus about rules and focus would likely be impossible to achieve, especially right now. So it's best that you, the owner, decide what's what.

My personal policy is never to use the "ignore" function and almost never to vote for "hiding" posts. I want to read what everyone has to say--even posters I really dislike and disagree with (and maybe especially them!) It is all important to arriving at good policies and good candidates, and to educating and informing ourselves (myself included) and those who only read DU and don't participate.

Thank you for DU! I love this place--you've done a wonderful job creating it and mentoring it! I don't want to see DU left out of the party reform movement. I want DU to remain a vital part of the important debates and decisions of the coming months.

Peace

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. Robert Parry is being a good parrot

poily wants a cracker, but all I can say is that something is in the water. And it will anger people to no end.

Personally I do not care, but some people are getting mighty nervous...

Oh and for the inevitable, at this point there is nothing in stone.

[onehandle]

2. No. The 'Not Hillary' Party is over. nt

[leveymg]

28. Not until the FBI exonerates her. They won't. She will be replaced.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

38. Clap harder. Have you guys thought about human sacrifices to appease the indictment gods?

[leveymg]

42. What is this, the Third Grade? R U the kid who pulls hair? Stop the fairy crap

Last edited Thu Jun 2, 2016, 11:15 PM - Edit history (1)

It wasn't very funny the first time. Go take a potty break. Cheezitz.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

45. The new and improved indictment fairy says hi.

[leveymg]

55. Can't wait until the next stage when you to try to be scary. Will you conjure up images of dragons?

Wicked witches? Ethnic specialty monsters like Chilean Brunches to strike terror when ignoring us and mere ridicule failed?

[msongs]

3. sanders surrogate from the sanders surrogate website. what else would he say?

[joshcryer]

4. Buh bye.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. With one billion sites on the internet why do people demand this one trash Hillary?

[Joe the Revelator]

12. Because some of us have been here just as long as you, and remember when this place...

actually stood by its name.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. Then you can point me to the period in time when we were allowed to trash the Democratic nominee.

Thank you in advance...

I remember a lot of PUMAs being shown the door in 08 and rightfully so.

[Joe the Revelator]

18. Can you show me another time that we nominated someone..

...so flawed and unprogressive? 2016 is not equal to 2008

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. Those are subjective.

Hard to believe someone with a lifetime 93% ADA rating is "unprogressive" but whatevers. Neither of us are going to change the other's mind.


The bottom line is PUMAs were banned in 08... If PUMAs were allowed in 016 that would mean the Administrators decided that Clinton and her supporters were unworthy of the same respect as Obama and his supporters. Think of the implications of that...

[redstateblues]

61. Ideological purity required here

[brooklynite]

32. Explain the difference between Clinton and Kerry...

I don't recall ANYONE complaining in 2004.

[Joe the Revelator]

71. You don't remember 2004 then.

At all. The difference was Dean (the sanders analog in this comparison) flamed out early. Kerry ended up being a compromise candidate who ran the map.

If social media was around, Dean would have made it through the scream and things would have been, in my opinion, even worse then 2016.

[brooklynite]

75. Dean didn't flame out because of the scream...

...he flamed out out because he was running a bad campaign, which couldn't turn rally crowds into votes. He's already lost Iowas badly by the time the scream became an issue

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-dean-scream-what-really-happened/

[redstateblues]

54. Not equal at all. The margin of victory is bigger than in 08

You don't seem to give a fuck that the one that gets the most delegates and votes in our party is the nominee. The people don't want Bernie. It's a bitter pill but it's reality. Bernie's campaign of anger and envy had it limits- Jeff Weaver ruined Bernie's brand when he urged him to go negative. His campaign never recovered from that move before NY.

[TwilightZone]

15. You might want to read about why it was founded.

Hint: it wasn't started to provide a platform for people to incessantly post right-wing nonsense and bash Democrats.

It was started to provide a platform for people to *support* Democrats.

You know...the "Democratic" part of the name? Funny how people miss that part, usually intentionally.

[Joe the Revelator]

19. Its funny how we have changed what we consider a democrat since 2000. nt

[Peace Patriot]

23. Can't face the facts?

I choose to state them at DU. Been doing that a long time, and advocating for Democrats a v-e-e-e-e-ery long time!

So what facts do you have to counter mine? Got anything to say at all, besides this silly 'don't trash poor Hillary' nonsense?

Her numbers against Trump are tanking. He's BEATING her in the polls!

Her numbers on trustworthiness tanked a long time ago. That is the most important number in a presidential election. In addition, about 70% of the electorate don't like her. Her numbers are almost as bad as Trump's.

Sanders, on the other hand, has very high trustworthy and likability numbers, and is more than likely going to beat her in California, the biggest state in the union, and may beat her by a significant margin. What does that say about your "frontrunner"?

The FBI has been investigating Clinton for about ten months--prompted by the current Secretary of State John Kerry, whose OIG just issued a report pointing out the uniqueness of her private email server set-up, her scofflaw attitude about it and putting the kobosh on all her lies and excuses. Did you know that Clinton refused to be interviewed by Kerry's IG?

FBI Director Comey last week made clear that the FBI is investigating crimes (contradicting what Clinton had said). They're immunizing witnesses, interviewing witnesses and extradited one witness. They seem to be saving her last, which means she's the target. Did you know that last week her lawyer said, "Hillary Clinton is under no obligation to speak to the FBI"?

Did you know that U.S. intelligence agents are questioning whether or not she should get national security briefings as a candidate? They're also worried about Trump. But OUR CANDIDATE should be above such suspicion! Good grief!

How about it, democratsincebirth? You got anything to say about all this? What kind of a frontrunner is this?

That is the question! As Democrats, that is what we need to discuss and address. And I'm concerned that, as this discussion rumbles through our Party, it won't be aired at DU. That's why I wrote this OP.

I'm not trashing Clinton. I'm EVALUATING her as a candidate. If you want to see me trashing Clinton, just ask me about Honduras. She deserves trashing on that and a number of other things. But that is not what this OP is about. It is about our need to discuss this candidate's very serious flaws--what could be fatal flaws, as to the GE--and what the alternatives are, and how the convention might solve them. There are a lot of viewpoints to be aired about this, not just pro-Sanders' viewpoints. We need to talk it all out, like adults--and stop throwing childish crap at each other, like you just did to me.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. Well...

She is leading by nearly 3,000,000 votes and by nearly 300 pledged delegates...She has won African Americans 4-1, Latinos 3-2, and women over 40 4-1.

It is not fair to tell them their votes should be disregarded as if the 15th Amendment, the 19th Amendment, and the Voting Rights Act doesn't exist.

Her numbers against Trump are tanking. He's BEATING her in the polls!

That is fallacious:

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus

[hrmjustin]

5. Hillary will be the nominee. Skinner is making clear after June 16th the vitriol against her here

ends.

People can cling to the indictment dream but their hearts will be broken.

[leveymg]

29. I say this utterly without vitriol, she won't be the Democratic candidate.

If she is, the party is kaput.

[hrmjustin]

30. You will be proven wrong!

Good evening!

[leveymg]

35. Thev FBI report will stun you, because you haven't allowed yourself to read the news

with sufficient objectivity to know this was all over for her in March 2015.

[hrmjustin]

36. You should not talk about objectivity because you stretch credibility.

[leveymg]

39. My sources of information are as credible as they come.

I am an honest and reasonable interpreter of the news. HRC has committed several felonies. How could I conclude otherwise?

[hrmjustin]

41. So you say.

[leveymg]

56. I've been right so far about this.

[hrmjustin]

58. In your mind yes.

[leveymg]

60. What specifically have I gotten wrong?

Not meta but factually?

[hrmjustin]

62. Life is too short!

Good night!

[leveymg]

65. That's no answer. It's what people say when they have nothing to say.

Think about it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

40. Here is a wager....

Hillary is indicted you leave DU. Hillary is not indicted I leave DU.

Deal?

[Tarc]

53. The party will be just fine without you

[leveymg]

57. You have no idea how much it has already declined. You're fine with it as it is.

Are you really?

[Tarc]

59. Yep

[leveymg]

63. Well then proceed on to what awaits you. You deserve it.

Bon voyage to your brave new world.

[Tarc]

64. Godspeed, my brotha!

[Wilms]

6. Very much agree.

And you can add that there will now be disclosure of additional email involving Bill, USAID and the Foundation.

I hope Skinner will consider more options.

[highprincipleswork]

7. Very well stated. Intelligent. Well-founded. Well-put. Thank you. Probably doomed to failure here.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. There are one billion websites on the internet. Surely you can find one to trash Hillary.

[highprincipleswork]

10. Oh, I plan on still being around.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. I don't want anybody to leave...

I just don't see the need for Skinner to allow folks to trash the Democratic nominee here...

[sadoldgirl]

24. She is not the nominee until the convention votes,

no matter what you may claim. Once she becomes the
one, there will be no quibbling about it.

Please, remember the old saying: a week in politics
may be an eternal time.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

26. Skinner said the general election season begins on 6/16

You have other sites to crap on Hillary... Pardon my French but my fealty to the truth trumps my fealty to good manners.

I have to believe people who want to deviate from the rules Skinner has put forth are just looking to create discord in the community and should be treated as such.

[amborin]

14. not allowing criticism of Clinton is stifling democracy

[Demsrule86]

17. Unlike you all

We don't want to see Trump win..so criticising the Dem nominee on a Dem site should not be allowed period end of story...if I had the power after the 16th I would toss anyone out who does it...this election is too important to have to put up with saboteurs determined to throw the election to Trump...Bernie has lost and the sooner you accept that the better.

[Andy823]

21. So then

A site that does not allow criticism of Bernie would also be stilling democracy, right? JPR for example.

[Demsrule86]

16. I will be thrilled to see posts like this hidden

Trumps team.

[Barack_America]

31. Right? All of the rah rah, Hillary! I'm with her! posts are so much more intelligent...

...and thought-provoking.

[Peace Patriot]

34. That's all you've got to say--an insult?

I never put anyone on "hide." I never "alert" on posts. And as a juror, I'm very generous on the side of free speech. I want to see everything that's posted. I'm better informed that way, about all views and about personalities.

So I would never tell you not to say this--that I am on "Trumps team." I understand it as raw, thoughtless emotion. You think I'm helping Trump.

But tell me what you think about Sanders demolishing Trump, in all polls, and doing so since January, and Clinton now LOSING to Trump. LOSING!

The Super-delegate system was put in place for just this situation, where there is strong evidence that a candidate will lose the GE, even if that candidate has a lot of delegates, or even squeaks over the majority line.

You see, the voters in the early primaries didn't know about Trump, didn't know that Clinton would tank against Trump, and didn't know about the FBI investigation.

Thus, Super-delegates, who can throw the majority the other way. The convention itself, all delegates, has that power as well. They can choose someone who hasn't even run. They wouldn't do that in ordinary circumstances. But THIS circumstance is looking more and more like one in which they would--a candidate with legal troubles and falling numbers.

I want DU to be part of the discussion of what to do if these circumstances don't improve.

So, insult me all you want. I'm tough. I can take it. It doesn't change Clinton's perilous situation. It doesn't change the ominous facts. And it doesn't shut down the discussions that are occurring about this elsewhere within the Democratic Party. We are a split-down-the-middle party and one of the reasons is these terrible Clinton poll numbers.

[Demsrule86]

49. I am not insulting you

You have to understand attacking Hillary helps Trump...she is the Democratic nominee...thus, you are on Trump's team. Why would you even do it anyway with five court picks at stake...Do you think Bernie Sanders is more important the Roe V Wade? And let's talk about what it would mean should Bernie be selected by the supers even though he lost...a white guy winning when people of color and women overwhelmingly voted for Hillary...would be an example white male privilege at its finest. It would appear racist to many and depress the vote for this election and probably the next one...bad idea.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

66. That is just not true

But tell me what you think about Sanders demolishing Trump, in all polls, and doing so since January, and Clinton now LOSING to Trump. LOSING!

That is just not true:




http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton

Falus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

[Peace Patriot]

72. Her numbers vs Trump were twice that a month ago!

She had a little blip up in late May, giving her a less than 5% edge, but it's been a steep downward trend since April! Trump's trend is upward.

Her trend is DOWN, and she has no room to go down. A 4.8% edge is nothing. (Current average: Clinton 44.9% Trump 40.1%.)

I suggest you take a look at the little chart way down in the lower lefthand corner, showing Sanders vs. Trump. Sanders 49%. Trump 38% An 11% edge with a steadily upward trend.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

76. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus

Last edited Fri Jun 3, 2016, 08:12 AM - Edit history (1)

But tell me what you think about Sanders demolishing Trump, in all polls, and doing so since January, and Clinton now LOSING to Trump. LOSING!

-Peace Patriot

Moving the goal posts , are we?

Her numbers vs Trump were twice that a month ago!

-Peace Patriot

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

I suggest you take a look at the little chart way down in the lower lefthand corner, showing Sanders vs. Trump. Sanders 49%. Trump 38% An 11% edge with a steadily upward trend.

-Peace Patriot

I suggest you take a look at the fact that the Repukes have been attacking Hillary for nearly thirty five years and have left Bernard Sanders alone because he is a non-entity and poses no threat. Heck, a cynical observer could argue him and Trump are in cahoots:

One Person Attacked Hillary for Her Brilliant, Blistering Destruction of Donald: Bernie Sanders

http://bluenationreview.com/bernie-attacked-hillary-for-her-brilliant-blistering-destruction-of-donald/

I'm just getting started...


You like apples:

Secretary Clinton has won African Americans 4-1, Latinos 2-1, and women over 40 3-1. I know you and some of your cohorts think you are better than them but you are not and their voices matter. They will not be treated like refuse.

How do you like them apples?

In closing there are one billion websites on the internet. Surely you can find one website where you can trash Hillary Clinton with impunity.

I hope that left a mark. If it didn't I am sorely disappointed and will try harder.

[StevieM]

22. You obviously put a lot of work into your post, but I just don't have the energy to respond to the

whole thing. I am afraid I am going to have to keep my response much shorter.

I seriously doubt that Bernie will win California by 20 points. I expect Hillary to win by 5-10 points.

I hardly expect a candidate for president to prove their worthiness by demonstrating support from President Obama or Secretary of State Kerry. I expect us to nominate the person who got the most votes and the most delegates.

But for what it's worth, I do expect President Obama to endorse her after she becomes the presumptive nominee. And she will be recognized as the presumptive nominee once she wins a majority of pledged delegates and has commitments from enough super delegates to establish a majority of overall delegates to the convention.

Clinton proved everything she needs to prove to get the nomination simply by getting the most votes.

It amazes me how casual Sanders supporters are when dismissing Clinton voters. We voted for her, she got more votes than him, and yet we are constantly told that we should accept Sanders as the nominee.

Secretary Clinton is not going to be indicted. A much more realistic scenario would be to ask what if she suddenly had health problems, which is no more likely in her case than with Sanders or Trump, but at least it is more of a possibility than the nonsense about her imminent indictment. If this were to happen then Bernie still wouldn't be the nominee. The convention would likely turn to Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren. And if for some unlikely reason the nominee of either party, whoever that nominee is, were to step down after the convention then their running-mate would be moved up and become the nominee.

Maybe something like that will happen in a future election. In this election there is no legitimate reason to believe anything other than that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump will be their party's nominees and will contest the GE in the Fall.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. Because they think they are our betters... This isn't nuclear physics.

It amazes me how casual Sanders supporters are when dismissing Clinton voters. We voted for her, she got more votes than him, and yet we are constantly told that we should accept Sanders as the nominee.

Because they think they are our betters... This isn't nuclear physics. Threads like this give credence to the right wing allegation that liberals are elitists and think they are better and know what is best for everybody else.

[RobertEarl]

37. Thank you Stevie

You just gave the best reason ever for making Bernie the VP candidate if Clinton somehow manages to be the nominee.

Quote: "...whoever that nominee is, were to step down after the convention then their running-mate would be moved up and become the nominee."

That would mean Bernie will be the nominee!! Fantastic!!

Whatever it takes to get Bernie in as president, I am all for.

And if H did get the nomination and then somehow beat Trump and the congress impeaches her, well, Bernie becomes president. I like how you think, Stevie. If Bernie gets beat out of the nomination, he has to become H's VP. I hope all the BoBs understand this.

[StevieM]

43. As I said, Hillary is no more likely to be indicted than Trump or Sanders. And if for some

strange reason she is not the nominee, it will be due to health problems. The same holds true for Donald Trump, and the same would have held true for Bernie Sanders if he had become the presumptive nominee. Not that we have any reason to suspect that any of the three actually has health problems.

Then again, I just read a post from a Sanders supporter who claimed that Hillary is a drug-addict. So I guess we now have another reason to deny her the nomination, even if she wins a majority of pledged delegates.

I doubt that Sanders would be interested in being her running-mate. And if she wanted to make a base pick then I think she would go with Elizabeth Warren. Although I am not sure if she is interested either, regardless of whether the nominee is Clinton or Sanders.

I am hoping that she picks Representative Xavier Becerra of California as her running-mate. He is a good progressive and I think you would like him.

[RobertEarl]

48. Sorry

First you gave the best reasons for Bernie being H's VP pick. Bravo for you. I was searching for a reason and you delivered it.

Second, your assertions that H is not in legal trouble are completely reverse of the reality. I don't know how anyone can conclude she is not.

Bernie for VP is the final solution of course, absent him being the outright nominee. You done good on that score, I'm agonna give you credit as I spread it around.

[Peace Patriot]

70. Not true. Clinton IS more likely to be indicted than Trump and Sanders.

You heard of any FBI investigations of Trump or Sanders?

Sanders = 0. Trump = 0. (I googled on Trump, cuz you never know.)

So, just on the face of it: There IS an on-going FBI investigation of Clinton. At least one witness has been given immunity (the one who set up her server). Another witness was extradited from his native land (the hacker). The FBI recovered the emails she had 'wiped.' Clinton's aides being interviewed. Ten months or so now, they've been at it. Lots of items on it around the internet. It appears to be a serious investigation, and FBI Director Comey made it clear, the other day, that Clinton was wrong--this is not a mere "security review"--the FBI does crimes.

So, of the three candidates, only one is in danger of being indicted. Hillary Clinton.

I thought about her health back in one of the early debates. Didn't like how she looked--puffy face , stiff neck. She still doesn't look very well to me. Whereas Sanders plunged into the Pacific this week, in the midst of a truly grueling schedule, and looks amazingly healthy and obviously has phenomenal energy. I sometimes wonder if his health and energy are because he never really intended to be president, just wanted to raise issues, so has no anxiety about it. It'll happen or not, seems to be his outlook. Very even-keeled. Yet another reason to elect him. He'll give it his all, I'm sure, if he gets there. But for him it's a choice, not an obsessive need. Obsessive needs suck up energy.

But health and energy aside, I don't think Clinton's nomination is at all secure. Way too many negatives. The negative vibes haven't reached critical mass yet, but I'm sure getting the feeling that it's heading that way. And political types tend to be cruel and self-involved, so if they see her going down, they are going to start unhitching their wagons from hers pretty fast.

What I DON'T see is Clinton doing much of anything about her negatives or her FBI cloud. How is she going to turn this around? I noticed her people insulted Sanders again this week, by refusing his labor appointee to a convention committee. That's not wise. What does Clinton care if a labor rep gets mouthy? She's got it wrapped up, right? Not. She's worried. And she's making bad moves. And she seems to have no understanding of how quickly her bad moves go viral.

She hires that SOB, David Brock, to spew negativity into the internet, but where are positive vibes to counter these dreadful numbers of hers?

I don't think she, or anyone around her, has the insight or strategic savvy to turn from what the campaign was, to what it is now, and to what it must become to beat Trump. She's fixed on a course, with subplans like hooking superdelegates early, and winning early states, before Sanders even announced, and arranging for endorsements to pop up along the way, etc.; that has gotten her this far; but she doesn't seem to know what to do NOW, in very altered circumstances--voter rebellion, Sanders blowout in Oregon, Sanders movement not going away, California probably lost, voters not buying "Berniebros" and all that Brockian crap, media ragging her about the OIG report, Trump beating her in polls, and the FBI not going away, and threatening a scathing report any day, if not putting her friend, the A.G., in a tight spot by recommending indictment or an aide's indictment.

She's got Nixon problems. Nobody likes her. So she's very self-protective. That's trouble, in a presidential candidate or a president. I read recently she's uncomfortable in rallies so doesn't do many, and she's also uncomfortable in press conferences, so hasn't done one since last December!

Worst. Campaign. Ever.

A resilient candidate would be out there overcoming her discomforts and fears. She doesn't seem to have the resilience and flexibility to change course. Neither did Nixon when it came to the burglary. He just dug himself in deeper and deeper.

[StevieM]

73. You're making me feel very guilty. You put so much thought and effort into all your posts, and they

Last edited Fri Jun 3, 2016, 03:08 PM - Edit history (1)

are quite long. I just don't have the energy to write anywhere near as much.

I don't agree that she will lose California. Obviously we will know in five days.

Al Gore was also investigated by the FBI and yet he was never indicted. The only difference I can see is that some people feel that James Comey, who was George W. Bush's deputy attorney general, might recommend an indictment. If there was a Democrat in the office I don't believe we would even be talking about this.

I don't think anyone is counting on Loretta Lynch to be partisan. I am counting on her to be honest and I believe she will be.

I have reviewed the accusations against Hillary Clinton. I don't believe that they have in any way succeeded in demonstrating criminal wrongdoing on her part.

The worst campaign ever doesn't usually get millions of votes more than their nearest opponent.

I am a little surprised to hear that you actually do have concerns about Hillary's health. But not stunned. A few hours ago a Sanders supporter insisted that Hillary is a drug addict. So not too much shocks me anymore.

[Peace Patriot]

79. "I have reviewed the accusations against Hillary Clinton" ???

How did you manage that? Do tell.

[StevieM]

80. As I said, I am out of energy for this.

But I have read articles that discuss that matter at length and I find their evaluations to be far more credible and reasonable than the assessments that she is in legal jeopardy.

[Demsrule86]

50. He is to old and is not a Democrat nt

[truebluegreen]

52. You are late to the party with that tripe.

[Matariki]

74. too has two o's

used to be it was the freepers who couldn't spell.

[BootinUp]

44. +1

[Peace Patriot]

46. Early Clinton voters didn't know about Trump, didn't know about Clinton's numbers...

...tanking against Trump, and didn't know about the FBI investigation.

This is exactly the situation that the Super-delegate system was created to solve--a presidential candidate with serious legal troubles and falling polls, and who can't raise her low trustworthy number, even if that candidate squeaks into the convention with a delegate margin.

This is exactly it. Or it is almost it. If Sanders wins California--whether or not it greatly affects delegate margin--the situation becomes worse.

It almost couldn't be worse, at the moment, as to the GE--our frontrunner tanking against Trump. Add a loss in California, and even just a bad FBI report (without an indictment recommendation), and Clinton could almost be said to be "toast," as some of your Clinton supporter compadres have called Sanders from time to time.

Super-delegates CAN overturn "the voters." That's what SDs were designed to do, when necessary. And there is already considerable evidence that that necessity is upon us. And I really don't think the SDs will choose Sanders. They have been so hostile to him that I expect the Biden maneuver, unfair and unwise as I think that would be. Sanders can beat Trump. All evidence points that way. But all I'm hoping for, out of a dump Clinton decision, is that all of us be part of the discussion and decisions about what to do next, and that DU is an open forum in that event.

[Demsrule86]

51. sorry

You don't get to substitute your judgement for that of voters...send a not to Bernie and tell him to concede.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

67. Every time you try to foist that canard I am going to be here to correct you.

Early Clinton voters didn't know about Trump, didn't know about Clinton's numbers..
...tanking against Trump

That is just not true:




http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton

Falus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

[leftynyc]

77. Why do you continue

to LIE about her numbers tanking against Trump? You've been shown, several times in this thread, by Democrat Since Birth, that you are LYING. Why?

[dreamnightwind]

33. Excellent post!

I competely agree, well done, and thanks for taking the trouble to put this together, it needed to be said.

[EndElectoral]

47. Excellent post.

[mythology]

68. Also from Robert Parry

He believes that Clinton would be equally dangerous and likely to use nuclear weapons as Trump. I'm sorry, but he loses all credibility when he says stupid things like that. He's firmly in the tank for Sanders, which makes his "analysis" at best suspect.

There won't be a contested convention in any meaningful sense. In a worst case scenario Clinton will win on the first ballot if Sanders decides to "contest" it.

It also doesn't help when you claim without evidence that losing California in the primary signals a weak candidate. It didn't seem to hurt Obama in 2008. Neither did losing states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, New Jersey or Massachusetts. There is no correlation between winning a party primary and the general election.

No number of words is going to change reality. Clinton will be the nominee unless she's hit by a bus. She isn't going to be indicted, general election polls are useless in a primary for many reasons, she is the clear preference among those who vote in the primary process and the super delegates aren't going to overturn the voters for a guy who wins low turnout caucuses, called them ideologically bankrupt and in Sanders' own words is a hypocrite for running as a Democrat.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

69. As a Californian I appreciate the outsized attention given to us...

As a Californian I appreciate the outsized attention given to us but this Californian doesn't arrogate to himself the right to disregard the votes of my fellow Americans in the other forty nine states and territories.

[muriel_volestrangler]

78. OK, what if the spread of the Zika virus causes a state of emergency?

People are able to change their plans in the event of something unexpected happening. That's how we all live our lives. You might say "I'm going on vacation in August", and then someone says "what if you lose your job before then? Is it wise to make plans when something might change?" If you always take every possibility into account, you'll be unable to plan anything.

In the unlikely event that something earth-shattering happens, the plans for DU will change. The far most likely scenario is that Hillary will be the Democratic nominee in the November election. Thankfully, it's also more likely that she'll win than not. But the 2nd most likely scenario is not Bernie being the nominee, or some other Democrat. Its Trump winning in November. And DU should work to avoid that, not sit on its arse and contemplate its navel by saying "well, you never know, something might change, it's premature to stop the attacks on Hillary that help Trump - after all, there's a small chance they might not matter".