Joe Trippi: No, pundits, Hillary Clinton isn't collapsing

[portlander23]

Joe Trippi: No, pundits, Hillary Clinton isn't collapsing

Can Bernie Sanders, who is 15 points behind her in recent polling, represent a real threat to her nomination? No. Hell no. Not a chance.

Was the private server a mistake? Yes. Have questions about Clinton's emails hurt her? Of course. Has her campaign been clumsy and mishandled the situation? No doubt about it.

Sanders may hold the lead in Iowa and New Hampshire, but those states have never decided who the Democratic nominee will be; they merely winnow the field. Two or three candidates emerge out of those two states to fight for the nomination across the country. Right now, it looks as if Clinton and Sanders will be those two candidates.

Perhaps the biggest flaw in the "Hillary is collapsing" storyline is the complete underestimation of her strength beyond Iowa and New Hampshire, in more ethnically diverse states.

First, 56% of Democratic voters are women, who prefer Clinton to her rivals. And unlike Obama, who held Clinton to just 20% of the nonwhite vote through much of 2008, Sanders is trailing Clinton by 40 to 60 points among nonwhite Democrats.

The pundits have it wrong. Unless or until Biden decides to run, Clinton doesn't face much of a challenge. And if Biden does run, Clinton is still going to be very tough to beat.

The consistent argument against Mr. Sanders seems to be that he can't win with women or people of color. Polls have shown that Mr.s Clinton's numbers have slipped with women, not so much with nonwhite voters.

Of course if Mr. Sanders is unable to widen his base he's at risk. That said, I don't think "women" and "nonwhite voters" are opaque classes of people unable to evaluate candidates and make up their own minds.

At this point in the race, there's no denying the numbers, but to assume these numbers are fixed in stone is dubious.

[FarPoint]

1. Hillary wins with Delegates..

She's done all the back court work....Checkmate.

[portlander23]

4. You may be correct

The Democratic nominating process is fairly undemocratic. It is very true that delegates, and specifically super delegates matter. Mr. Sanders could very well have the support of the voters in the party and still lose.

[HooptieWagon]

6. The Super Delegates can switch.

And if Sanders wins most of the elected delegates, and the Super delegates swing the nomination to Hillary, the Democratic Party will erupt in civil war. There's not a chance in hell of her winning the GE in that case. She'll be blamed for the demise of the party.

[FarPoint]

8. That's a long shot hypothetical option.

I believe the deal is set.

[restorefreedom]

9. the deal being set

is exactly what is wrong with this process and why she will lose

elections are won and lost, not set or fixed

its called democracy, perhaps hillary has heard of it....

[tularetom]

11. "I believe the deal is set". Truer words were never spoken

WTF do we even need delegates for? What do we need voters for? Whoever made "the deal" can just decide who will be president and things can go on pretty much like they have for the past 30 years or so.

[artislife]

16. Maybe

But you know how workers no longer are loyal to companies they work for because those companies are no longer to them.....kind of the same thing.

With a lot of Dino votes in the last 2 decades, the loyalty has grown thin.

[LiberalArkie]

17. The deal was set back in 2008.

[frylock]

53. And if it goes down that way, you've just shown an entire generation of new voters..

that the system is good and fucked. If you get your wish, and the super delegates throw the nom to Clinton, you will see the lowest voter turnout in Presidential election history. Bank it.

[jeff47]

54. And low turnout = Republican win.

The scenario above would utterly annihilate Democratic turnout. Just like the last time they tried to pull this stunt.

Meanwhile, Republican turnout will be through the roof in order to vote against Clinton.

[frylock]

55. Yessir.

I agree with everything you just said.

[demwing]

7. Who gets checkmated?

Hillary, time and again, has supported big money interests over those of the middle class.

She may well win, but the applause will come from Wall Street, not Main Street.

[Snap the Turtle]

10. Superdelegates can and will change their endorsements

That's all it is - an endorsement - which means they are not a lock, and can change their minds.

That large rumble you'll be hearing after the debates are the new voters signing up for Bernie. Minds will also be changed in regards to Clinton's support.

[Fawke Em]

22. She does and there will be rebellion.

You have to give the people what they want - and delegates picking their candidate for them won't be met well.

She could single-handedly tear the Democratic Party from stem to stern if she doesn't release her delegates in the face of a people's choice should Sanders start earning the majority vote.

[FarPoint]

44. There will be no rebellion... Some disappointed Democrats for sure.

We will ultimately unite at the Democratic Convention... We did so successfully in 2008....That was a rough Primary Season.. Bruised feeling heal for the greater good.

[Fawke Em]

52. Most of the country aren't party types, FP.

In many states, one doesn't even have to register with a party to vote in the primary:


Alabama
Arkansas
Georgia
Hawaii (Open primary for state, local, and congressional races; caucus system for presidential races.)
Massachusetts (All races' primaries open for "unenrolled"/unaffiliated voters only)
Michigan
Mississippi
Missouri
New Hampshire
North Carolina
North Dakota
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont
Virginia
Wisconsin


And, even if the regular votes does have to register, the majority don't go to the convention.

I wasn't speaking of the convention. I was talking about the average Joe and Jill who'll see a majority people's vote usurped by Super Delegates they didn't elect.

(This is, of course, if Sanders gets more than half the Dem vote in a majority of states).

[99Forever]

23. Not a big fan of democracy, eh?

And people like you seriously expect people like me to turn around and vote for your candidate if the general election, after you circumvent the primary process to CHEAT my candidate out of the nomination?

Really?

Well fucking dream on, buddy.

Back court? Fuck no.

More like back rooms.

[FarPoint]

36. It's how things will go down....

In your heart, you know I'm right....Not saying it's a good thing now but it is a hard reality.

[99Forever]

43. And if they do "go down" like that...

... Clinton will lose big in the general.

And that is the "hard reality."

[FarPoint]

45. I believe she is a winner in the end.

I feel confident.

[99Forever]

47. Heard that exact same thing in 2008.

How'd that work for your "winner?"

[Art_from_Ark]

2. Hmmm

"Sanders may hold the lead in Iowa and New Hampshire, but those states have never decided who the Democratic nominee will be; they merely winnow the field."

Well, given that the Democratic winner of Iowa has gone on to win the nomination all but two times since 1980, I don't put a whole lot of credence in that assertion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucuses

[dsc]

29. that is kind of a small n

in 80 96 and 12 we had incumbents running against next to no opposition. That leaves 84 88 92 00 and 04. Of those five that makes it 2 losers and 3 winners not exactly a great predictor.

[Recursion]

59. Not to mention the noise that Harking throws into that

In 92 nobody else even contested Iowa IIRC

[HooptieWagon]

3. Clinton 42, Sanders 35.

Latest NBC/WSJ poll. Clinton's campaign isn't collapsing, it's imploding. Biden is warming up the bus.

[Fawke Em]

24. And that's one of the vaulted national polls the Hill fans often cite.

We don't vote, nationally, of course, but seeing him going up in a national poll means more people are becoming aware of him and like his ideas.

A funny thing is happening on the way to the coronation...

[Cartoonist]

5. Just another case

Of calling the game over in the second inning.

[Fearless]

12. 15%? Try 7%.

[Warren Stupidity]

19. yes but those are just numbers!

[NorthCarolina]

13. I really don't believe that Hillary's problems are a result of the email

scuffle. America has given the "Democratic Centrist" route exclusive authority since Bill Clinton held office, and the middle class has continued to suffer. Her email policy isn't standing in her way, but her political policy IS.

[wyldwolf]

14. When Clinton wins...

Some Sanders supporters will immediately:

1. Call for changes in how the nominees is picked because if only things favorable to Sanders had been different, he would have won. Categories will include how money is raised, how delegates are chosen and how votes are counted.
2. Try to find some connection between Hillary and voting machines.

[artislife]

18. Or they will forget about the general

and focus mainly on the local.

[Divernan]

51. I'll work for progressive candidates for U.S. Senate & House; state house.

[artislife]

58. I am in giving Murray and Cantwell

My feelings about how they are not as up to snuff on issues that matter to me. They cannot coast and rely on my vote anymore. They will have to work for it.

That is why I like the top of the ticket to be Bernie, it will push the lower part of the ticket further left.

[Warren Stupidity]

20. when Sanders wins...

Some Clinton supporters will immediately:

1. Call for changes in how the nominees is picked because if only things favorable to Clinton had been different, she would have won. Categories will include how money is raised, how delegates are chosen and how votes are counted.
2. Try to find some connection between Bernie and voting machines.

[wyldwolf]

21. the difference between my reply and yours is...

'Progressives' actually have a history of retroactively blaming traditional processes and voting machines for losses.

[Warren Stupidity]

28. I seem to recall an event here when it became clear that Obama was defeating Clinton in the 2008

primaries. Some sort of upset. Some sort of major malfunction. Some sort of massive and complete breakdown by Clinton supporters. Sound familiar to you? Ring any bells? Anything?

[wyldwolf]

34. Did Clinton supporters in 2008 blame traditional processes and voting machines?

Nope.

However, I recall complete meltdowns from Dean supporters in 2004 - they said the Diebold machines stopped Dean. They said Republicans secretly wanted Kerry as an opponent and rigged the the primaries for him. They blamed the delegates. They blamed caucus states. Etc. Etc.

Sound familiar to you? Ring any bells? Anything?

[ljm2002]

30. Never mind retroactively blaming voting machines...

...I don't trust them and there has been plenty of evidence to support my position over the years.

Regardless of the outcome, I will say right now that we should go back to voter-verified paper ballots in all of our elections.

[juajen]

60. I so agree!

[questionseverything]

31. golly gee i wonder why

http://bradblog.com/?p=7875

-- Brad Friedman, The BRAD BLOG

What's going on in Monroe County, Arkansas?

We've been looking at their May 18 "Super-ish Tuesday" election night numbers on the AR Secretary of State's website (Monroe County doesn't have its own public election results website) since the night of the election, and the posted results can only be described as going from "impossible" on the day after the election, to possible but still entirely inexplicable.

At least six different election officials at both the county and state levels remain unable to tell The BRAD BLOG how any of it could have happened, even though thousands of votes appear to have simply disappeared in the final certified results, and the state is set to hold its primary run-off election next Tuesday...

Impossible Numbers

The original tip-off to concerns about Monroe County's results came when on May 19th, the day after the election, the state's SoS website showed a total of 3,393 out of the county's 5,252 registered voters had cast ballots --- a rather impressive 64.60% turnout! But not "impossible."

Here's the screenshot of those numbers, as taken from the AR SoS website on May 19th...

n that CD1 race, there were 1,860 Democratic and 318 Republican votes cast, for a total of 2,178. That certainly represents a more reasonable undervote rate, but how can it be possible that there were 1,860 votes cast in the Dem CD1 race, when there were only 600 votes cast in the Dem Senate race, yet the "total votes" were all supposedly accounted for, according to the SoS's turnout numbers, in both the Dem and Republican Senate races?

///

A total of 1,465 votes seem to have suddenly showed up in the Dem Senate race! And then there are the disappearing votes in the Republican race...

///

read the article,numbers flipping all over the place with no explanation according to all the election officials brad interviews but yet we are to believe whatever "output" is fed us by said machines

[haikugal]

37. 'Progressives' seriously?

So you consider progressives the other? What are you?

You mention that they 'question' processes and voting machines as though that's somehow undesirable or inappropriate. Where were you when Bush stole elections? How can you not be aware of the irregularities in our elections?

Wow...

[wyldwolf]

38. that wasn't a denial by you. You tried to lecture me for pointing it all out,

[haikugal]

39. I wanted to make it clear...

[wyldwolf]

48. you made my original point crystal clear

[haikugal]

50. .

Anytime....

[Krytan11c]

27. As a Bernie supporter

I think we should take a close look at how money is raised for elections. I will still believe this after Bernie wins the nomination.

[enid602]

33. implode

I think they'll simply implode.

[sabrina 1]

15. Yes, Hillary is losing women voters rapidly and the talking point about POC is just that, as we are

seeing now as more and more POC are learning about Bernie. Of courst Trippi would be pushing those talking points, but that's all they are, talking points with no basis in fact.

It's fun to see the goal posts constantly shifting though.

At first they completely dismissed Bernie, and the idea that he might win Iowa and NH was laughed at, 'Hillary has those states locked up' etc.

But now the goal posts are being moved to 'Those states don't determine the outcome of an election' with the acknowledgement that Bernie is indeed capable of winning those states.

Now it's 'she is strong in the rest of the country'. Okay, but again, they are ignoring polls from around the country where Bernie is becoming known to voters.

Eg, in Utah, Bernie beats everyone in the field, Repubs and Dems, and in WV he's doing great also.

But the job of a political insider is to keep trying to deflate enthusiasm for everyone but the Establishment's choice. They don't make money by going against the grain.

[ljm2002]

35. Not only that...

...but Bernie's campaign has to be smart about where they campaign and when. They have had to concentrate on the early primary states, and are only now setting their sites on the Super Tuesday states.

His campaign does not have a bottomless pit of funding and Super PAC support. What his campaign does have, though, is an army of volunteers at the ready. When they do start actively campaigning in a state, the volunteers will multiply their efforts there.

None of us knows how it will play out. But I predict that Bernie will make a strong showing over the course of this primary, regardless of the ultimate outcome.

[sabrina 1]

57. Yes, the campaign was brilliantly strategized. That is exactly what they are doing, though the

talking point 'concerns' were probably intended to force them to change their strategy somewhat and try to go after other voting blocs. They don't know Bernie if they thought he could be distracted.

And the pay off of remaining focused on a goal is that he has momentum now, and 'wins' to show the rest of the country that he is very much a viable, electable and winning candidate. He had to have successes before convincing millions of people to get over the 'fear', implanted every election about non establishment candidates, that they need not fear he could not beat the Repubs. Latest polls in NH show him destroying GOP Front Runner, Trump, while Trump fares better against Hillary who defeats only by about 8 points to Bernie's 20.

Once that fear is overcome, I think there will be a tidal wave of support for him and he has so much crossover appeal. The few polls of Independents I've seen eg, show him beating EVERYONE Repubs and Dems.

Not to mention his main target, non voters. That is a huge bloc of potential supporters perfect for Bernie since many of them gave up on the Status Quo, saw no one who could represent them successfully and are now seeing Bernie, speaking FOR them AND proving he CAN win.

But the more likely it becomes that he can defeat the Front Runners from both parties, the more brutally they will go after him. That is when the people will have to be ready to stop their Corporate Financed smear campaigns from having any effect other than to benefit him, the way Brock's nasty smear mongering was.

[Thinkingabout]

25. For a Peace loving group, civil war?......

[lunamagica]

26. K&R. Go Hillary!

I truly believe she will be our next POTUS

[Robbins]

32. This is complete bullcrap

of course she is collopsing.remember when they claimed primarys would just be formality?

With or without biden in race Bernie is now polling at least 35% nationwide.Huge lead in NH.and according to some ahead or even In Iowa.this is all better than obama was doing at this time In 2007.

if people seriously think Hilary can lose Iowa and NH and that won't affect race they are living in fantasyland.

For those who now dismiss Iowa and NH I seem to remember Bill Clinton dismisses SC Obama win by suggesting dem voters there were fringe since Jesse Jackson won primary in 1984 and 1988.by the way Bernie supported Jackson so remember that when you try to say him and his supporters are racists.Some of us were supporting obama in 2007/2008 nomatter how we feel about him now.

Bernie is improving with women.

Story of this race as time goes on and people see Bernie and his views her numbers go down and his goes up.

[cherokeeprogressive]

40. Hillary Clinton may not be collapsing... but man-oh-man have you seen her numbers?

And Trippi says "...56% of Democratic voters are women, who prefer Clinton to her rivals."

Is Joe really saying ALL WOMEN who are Democratic voters support Clinton?

[Motown_Johnny]

41. He is trying to spin it that way.

no doubt about that.

[cherokeeprogressive]

42. It sure seems early for them to be in "say anything" mode. Early, but not surprising. n/t

[sadoldgirl]

46. Just a simple question here:

When has it happened that a candidate won
IA and NH in the primary, and lost the nomination?

I am just curious about this.

[Robbins]

49. Bill Clinton In 1992

But,there are factors to consider

1:Cnadiates cededed Iowa with Tom harkin had homestate advantage
2;Clintons spin a strong second place finish In NH as a win after gennifer flowers and Vietnam storys hit

However to suggest Bill Clinton heavily campagined in both and lost is not truthful.

[kenn3d]

56. Good question

I think Robbins had a correct answer here, but maybe not to your specific question.

First, the OP stated:

Sanders may hold the lead in Iowa and New Hampshire, but those states have never decided who the Democratic nominee will be...

Taken together however, they may decide who the President will NOT be.
I'm not sure Sanders "holds the lead" over HRC in Iowa, but he's completely closed her 50pt lead in IA since he announced 4 months ago. And the current trends in the primary polls, the pundits, and even the Clinton campaign team all say he definitely could win both NH and IA.

But if Hillary should lose both of these first two states to a legitimate opponent (like Sanders), and she still goes on to become President, it will be the first time that has ever happened.

Bill Clinton (in 1992) is the only candidate who ever lost both IA and NH, and then went on to win the Presidency. But in that primary cycle Bill lost IA to Sen.Tom Harkin (of Iowa) who carried only his home state (by 77%). Harkin soon withdrew during the primaries and garnered only 1.39% of the total popular vote. WJC also lost NH, but carried 35 other primary states in a landslide win (52%) over Jerry Brown (20%).

The 2016 primary certainly seems like it may be an entirely different kind of race for Mrs. Clinton.

And I'm also curious btw, to know the answer to your question:

When has it happened that a candidate won
IA and NH in the primary, and lost the nomination?

Anything can happen... so GOTV!

[Live and Learn]

61. Trippi has a terrible record. Most of the candidates he works for end up losing. nt