Let's be clear. If Hillary loses the General. The responsibility is on her primary voters

[Rilgin]

There has been ample evidence that she was and is a risk in the General Election to lose to a republican. No candidate is perfect but people (like me) have been warning that Hillary is a risk for a while now ever since she became a candidate again. Polls showed that she would or could have problems against moderate republicans.

She, we and the democratic party got very lucky that the Republican establishment was not able to get their disliked front running candidate (Trump) out of the race. We did the opposite. The democratic party insiders desperately wanted our front running establishment candidate with high unfavorables to win. We could have selected someone with better favorables and with less problems if the early process had not looked so locked up so we could have had other candidates. Biden seems similar to Hillary policy wise but does not have her baggage. If it really looked like an open primary we might have got Warren to run which would have united a lot of parts of the Democratic Party. However we did not. We seem to be left with Hillary.

Trump is the only candidate in history who has had higher unfavorables and net unfavorables than Hillary. If Hillary wins she will be very lucky that Trump is her opponent. However, it is not a foregone conclusion. She tends to have her unfavorables increase the longer she is showing publically. It will be difficult for her to change that especially if some of the foundation and email stuff explodes. It is not certain that Trump can not change his unfavorables somewhat since he seems more of an actor than a politician.

Turning solely to Hillary as a candidate.

Hillary has high unfavorables, generates little excitement in the young and energizes the republican base. She is very intelligent but has a long history of being surrounded by scandal both real and purely created by the Republican hit machine. However, she also brings some of the problems on herself with equivocating, flip flopping and lying as a candidate and has hidden her relationship with corporate america. Most people who plan to run for president do not solicit donations and big money from corporations that they hope to regulate in a few years. It is a problem to have a cozy and personally lucrative business relationship with wall street in a party that is suspicious of the role of wall street in our economy.

We, on the left side of the party, are really left to hope she is a good liberal and will protect social security, not flip flop back on the TPP, really support a more robust minimum wage. Her image is problematic and hated by republicans but some of her votes are distrusted by the left side of the democratic party. She voted for the Iraq War, supported Doma, the bankruptcy bill, cluster bombs. She introduced a bill on flag burning. These worry the leftists in her own party which is not a great place for a candidate who needs all people in her party to support her. Her relative inauthenticity and the war vote are two of the the reasons she lost in 2008 to a relative newbie to politics although one with great political gifts and has lost 45% of the primary to an older leftist senator.

All the people who advocated for her and voted for her in the primary bear the responsibility if she loses. If she loses do not try to shift responsibility to people who do not later vote for her. She is a candidate that against our advice you supported as our standard bearer. Hopefully she can win against trump. She would have a hard time if the Republicans could have nominated a better candidate but we got lucky. However if she loses you take responsibility for voting for her. Do not blame the people who thought she was a bad candidate and wanted someone else who polls say is a better candidate against the republicans.

You can start by taking responsibility now rather than setting it up so you will blame Bernie people, young people, leftists, people not voting You have told us that she is a candidate who can win. If she does not its on YOU.

[BooScout]

1. Okey Doke...

[barrow-wight]

2. Should we not support a candidate on the idea that they might lose?

Isn't that always the chance you take?

[underthematrix]

3. it looks like Bernie's campaign is winding down

This is a very interesting article
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/5/20/1528657/-The-problem-isn-t-Bernie-Sanders-supporters-It-s-Bernie-Sanders-himself

[djean111]

11. More "throwing chairs" utter bullshit from a Hillary supporter.

All that is "winding down" is the fantasy that Bernie's supporters will unite behind Hillary.

[underthematrix]

64. I don't think I said that. I said Bernie's campaign is winding down

what you do with that information is up to you.

[djean111]

65. The article you linked to was utter drivel about how Bernie did not take responsibility for or

apologize enough for "thrown chairs".

[underthematrix]

66. I thought the article indicated Bernie had some of the

same challenges Clinton had in 2008. Both PBO and Clinton were fortunate though that neither of them used the problems to demonize each other or the integrity of the process.

Apparently HRC has hired some of the laid off Bernie staff which is definitely a good thing. I saw a couple of tweets about it on The Obama Diary

We're moving forward

[Skinner]

4. This is really very simple.

If you vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election then it's not your fault if she loses.

[Rilgin]

7. It is also the case that if you put up a bad candidate its your fault. (NT)

[onenote]

13. So when the repubs defeat progressive legislation

responsibility belongs not on those who voted against the bill, but on those who supported it.

Right.

[Rilgin]

16. Pretty simple. If you have a choice of two different paths. Be responsible for the path you want.

Deliberate misunderstandings are beneath people here. There are a few paths (meaning candidates we could have taken) in picking candidates. Be responsible for the path you have advocated for, having Hillary as a candidate.

Its not one bill with an up and down vote. Its a selection of and choice of candidates. I think she is a risky candidate and should not have been selected as our candidate. Hillary supporters say different. Since we are going your way, take responsibility for it. If Bernie won the Primary and ended up not elected in the General, I would not Blame Hillary people. I might think that I had made a mistake in my choice of candidate as he turned out not elected in the GE.

See how simple it is. We went your way. You won and it looks like we selected your candidate. Now take responsibility if it turns out that she was a bad candidate.

[randome]

40. You don't get to define the paths, Sherlock.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[onenote]

44. Its not "my" way.

I voted for Bernie in Virginia. I gave money.

But its over. Has been for a while.

And defeating Trump is now my number one priority.

Will Clinton defeat Trump? I think so and will work to make that happen. Just as I think Sanders would have defeated him and would have worked to make that happen if he had won the nomination.

But at this point in the process, anyone who thinks they know the outcome of the General Election is lying. No one knows. But if you think you know and want to turn your belief into a self-fulfilling prophecy, join those who will elect Trump by not supporting the Democratic party candidate.

Who will be responsible for electing Trump if that happens? Easy:
The republicans who vote for him and the republicans who don't vote the Democratic nominee.
The independents who vote for him and the independents who don't vote for the Democratic nominee
The Democrats who vote for him and who don't vote for the Democratic nominee.

The voters who supported Al Gore didn't elect George W. Bush
The voters who supported Michael Dukakis didn't elect George H.W. Bush
The voters who supported Jimmy Carter didn't elect Ronald Reagan
The voters who supported Walter Mondale didn't re-elect Reagan
The voters who supported Hubert Humphrey didn't elect Richard Nixon
The voters who supported George McGovern didn't re-elect Nixon

[Rilgin]

51. I have not said a word advocating voting for trump or not voting. I hope Hillary wins.

There is always a chance of losing an election. We have a divided country. The problem in this current election is that we ended up with a compromised candidate in a way that models the fractures within our own party which seem to be coming to a head.

Gore, Kerry, Dukakis, Mondale were disliked by the Republicans and might not have been first choices of everyone in the Democratic Party. However, it was not quite as fractured as now and I suggest it because we are putting up a candidate that is compromised and divisive in a ways that these others were not.

The closest is the PUMAs from 2008 but Obama and Hillary are somewhat close policy wise. Our party is somewhat fractured and the party ended up with a candidate that exacerbates these fractures. It was predictable. Half of the party has been telling the other half that by picking a non-establishment senator who was predicted initially to be no more than an issue generator as we marched to a Hillary early primary. I am writing to the half who is not listening in the hope that if she ends up losing they might learn that it was not the voters it was Hillary as a candidate and that we, as a party, need to learn from that rather than think well its just the voters.

We can hope she is able to defeat Trump to at least prevent Trump from being president. It will not fix the fractures but at least Trump will be defeated. If she is defeated, the people who pushed her and advocated for her against people who were warning that her baggage makes her unelectable actually learn something and do not do it again.

[onenote]

56. Not as fractured? Some history:

1988: Dukakis gets 42 percent of the popular vote in the primaries, a margin of around 3 million over Jesse Jackson, with Al Gore picking up over 13 percent.

1984: Mondale actually loses more primary contests than Hart and beats him the popular vote by around a half million 6.9 million popular votes [38.3%] v. 6.5 million[35.9%). Jesse Jackson gets over 3 million popular votes (18 percent).

[Rilgin]

57. I lived and voted then.

I woud suggest that there was less divisiveness between these candidates supporters similar to what is occurring now in both parties. Much of the electorate is not really in a business as usual mood.

These elections were before the crash before the climate change accelerated before we had these levels of income inequality which have caused a pretty clear fracture in our party not just a choice of candidate.

Personally i have been a democrat for a long time and retrear to a need to vote against republicans rather than vote for our candidate. However i am not sure that lesser evil campaigning wiill work this year and not wholely sure it should work.

It is always the case that our candidate can lose. It just seems like we gave the republican party a great gift of a compromised divisive candidate.

[onenote]

58. So did I. There were differences then, too.

But the absence of 24 hour news channels and Internet information sharing didn't exaggerate them as happens now.

I would submit that Sanders and Clinton supporters have more in common than not, but that the way races are reported on and the avenues for the expression of individual views has focused more attention on the differences than on the commonalities.

[Skinner]

17. The problem here is that we won't know how any candidate performs in the general election...

...unless they actually participate in the general election. It is easy to look back once it's all over and say that some other candidate might have done better, but without actually testing the proposition we have no way of knowing. It's just words.

Hillary Clinton is almost certain to be our nominee. The choice we face is Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. If you have a preference between those two people, then you have a responsibility to vote for that preference. Any other vote is tantamount to stating that you do not care which one of those two becomes our next president.

[Rilgin]

20. You are right.

If Hillary wins, I will be glad to admit that my misgivings about her electability were wrong. Its a pretty easy concept. If she loses, it does not mean that it proves Bernie would have won. You are clearly right about that. However, it will have proved that Hillary was not the electable candidate that she has been claimed to be and her supporters should take responsibility for supporting a bad candidate rather than blaming other people. Right now in the primary season is where we pick the Democratic Candidate and unfortunately the US voting process is digital. We can only have two real candidates since parties have great advantages.

Democrats have a demographic advantage in the presidential races against republicans and if Hillary loses its cause she was a bad candidate not any other reason. You obviously dont think she is a bad candidate or I hope you would not support her. So take the responsibility now. You apparently look like you are going to win the primary. If she wins, I will know I was wrong in fearing that she would lose. If she loses, you can take some responsibility for your candidate not actually being a good candidate.

[Skinner]

26. Nobody needs to admit they were wrong.

It's a primary. You support whatever candidate you want in a primary for whatever reason -- that's why we have primaries. Nobody needs to apologize for their preference.

As for my opinion: I don't think either Democrayic candidate is bad. I do think one will make a better general election candidate, but that does not make either candidate "bad."

You are right to fear she might lose -- because she might. Anyone who says otherwise is deluding themselves.

[Rilgin]

31. After responding to a few people I realize something really about why I wanted to say this

In the past 20 years we have won the presidency but have lost the House, Senate, Supreme Court, numerous state houses and governships.

After every midterm, we hear memes blaming the voters and not the selection of candidates. This always bothers me when I hear it. People vote for candidates that inspire them and whom they like and whom they think are on their side. When the democratic establishment puts up candidates that are more compromised, conservative and triangulated its on a political theory that seems to be proven wrong since we keep losing government positions. I want our candidates to win, but I think the fault is more in the candidates that we select than in the voters. If we keep thinking its the voters we will keep losing if we keep putting up bad candidates.

It is this about Hillary. Hillary is a risky candidate. We are putting up a candidate that has high unfavorables and is thought to be dishonest. These are facts. There are plenty of posts throughout the internet trying already to blame voters if they do not vote for Hillary without any thought of whether the blame is on the candidate herself. So I hope that if she is not elected, we can actually learn something and not keep selecting bad candidates who can not by themselves cause devotion in the general election from a majority of the electorate.

[Skinner]

38. Obviously the candidates we select matter.

Especially at the top of the ticket during a presidential election year.

But the truth is that as long as we hold the presidency we are going to keep losing down-ticket races in midterm elections. It sucks but it's true. President Obama is a popular president, but we still got killed in the midterms.

The exception is the Supreme Court. Right now we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to move the court to the left. And that will require a Democratic president.

I understand the desire to be inspired. But pretty much by definition only a minority of voters are going to be truly psyched by their general election options. This is a very diverse country but we only get two viable candidates.

[Rilgin]

45. I think the lesson from recent mid term losses is different than what you took

I think it is mostly a decision of the establishment players to put up triangulated candidates. In recent republican wave elections, clear liberal candidates survived and won.

I believe that if we actually stand firm for something, the party will grow. I think playing politics through triangulating might win some elections in the short term but you lose your party and lose more elections over time. I think that is what has happened and why we lose when the democratic party has such clear democratic and sane advantages over the republican party who has turned crazy.

Its connection to the current presidential election is exactly how you view Hillary. I know you posted that you think both current candidates are good. I actually disagree with that. I think Hillary is incredibly compromised by all the money she has recently taken from corporate america and some other facets of her history. Between her and Bernie I prefer Bernie although what I really wish is that Hillary had not locked up all the money and establishment players and we had a better slate of new candidates to pick from. There are a lot of other democrats who are not as divisive within the party and even if not perfect would be better at being at least liked by most people and do not have her baggage.

If she loses, I believe it relates to her being a bad candidate. If voters who pushed her in the primary this year confront that fact if she loses, we might be able to avoid it the next time a highly connected, rich, powerful, moneyed candidate with lots of baggage who is hated by the other side and not supported or trusted fully by all of her own base runs, Hillary's current supporters will urge a different track rather than just blame voters again.

[BernieforPres2016]

22. For me it's saying neither of the two meet my minimum threshold of acceptability

Either will be a disaster as President. They are both corrupt scumbags that I have watched for 25 years in the case of Clinton and about 30 years in the case of Trump. I won't have a vote for either on my conscience.

[Skinner]

33. Do you have a preference between Hillary or Trump?

Do you think they would be equally bad, or do you think one would be less bad than the other?

(For the record, I am aware that many people resent having to choose the "less bad" option. But I am curious to know whether you have a preference at all. I find it hard to believe that any thinking person does not see a difference between "private email server bad" and "incite violence against minorities bad.&quot

[IdaBriggs]

35. Publicly inciting violence against minorities is despicable.

Promoting acceptance of a lack of government transparency is condoning corruption and a rejection of democratic principles. One is overtly destructive to society, while the second is hidden corrosiveness that destroys democracy. I am not being hyperbolic with that last -- politicians who are bought and sold by the rich instead of acting in the best interest of the voters are anathma to a democratic society.

But "it's just some emails" does minimize it for those who are used to "vast right wing conspiracy" attacks. It is a perfect cover for corruption when "only the righteous can see the Emperor's new clothing" and everyone must therefore pretend to see them.

[randome]

42. Two entire paragraphs without an answer to what was a very simple question.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[IdaBriggs]

49. Apologies if I wasn't clear: I pick NEITHER. I reject the premise

that either is good or better for America. One is overtly destructive while the other is covertly destructive. Thus: NEITHER.

[BernieforPres2016]

39. I could never vote for either but think Hillary would probably be worse

The downside risk with Trump is obviously terrible, but I think the highest probability is that he would be an ineffective clown who would become a laughing stock. But Hillary knows how to get things done, the kind of things that I don't want to get done, like the TPP and more wars. And with Hillary we also get Bill and the Clinton Foundation, which I believe is basically a corrupt enterprise disguised as a charity. And I suspect we get the launch of Chelsea's political career to extend the family dynasty.

None of which is to minimize what a contempible character Trump is. But Bill Clinton pushed through a bigger Republican agenda than any Republican President could have: NAFTA, Welfare Reform, the Crime Bill, the Telecommunications Act, financial services deregulation. I don't know that there is that much left to accomplish in the corporate takeover of government, but whatever there is, Hillary will do her best to get it done.

[Skinner]

43. So you prefer Trump to Hillary.

Ok, then.

[BernieforPres2016]

46. You prefer Hillary to Bernie

I take it that means you don't support a single payer healthcare system, campaign finance reform, etc.

OK, then.

[IdaBriggs]

34. Disagree. When a candidate has a DOCUMENTED history of lying, like Trump and Hillary,

we know how they will behave as both a candidate and office holder. It is one of the things that primaries are supposed to vet for -- do we want this person in charge? Can we trust the judgment they will offer during times of crisis? Can we count on them to tell us the truth, even if the truth is unpleasant?

I am grateful we are in primary mode while I am still allowed to point out that Hillary is a Liar isn't an OPINION - it's a FACT. Having done my homework on the "email thing" (aka "attempted destruction of government records, failure to comply with FOIA laws, and failure to protect classified material&quot I am clapping like crazy for the indictment fairy so we can get someone else - Bernie preferred, but I've read the Biden rumors - in there before she further blows up the brand with her Nixon like excuses of "it's not illegal when Hillary does it."

I keep trying to picture how this place would be responding if Colin Powell or Condaleeza Rice had hidden their government emails on private servers in their basements, signed documents saying they had turned in all work related material, gotten caught not having done that, deleted and/or changed emails before turning them in to a Congressional investigating committee, hidden records and failed to comply with FOIA, then publicly lied about "not being contacted by the FBI" while their lawyer was in near daily negotiations on their behalf. The righteous wrath about this abuse and over reach would have been epic, but hypocritically for some, apparently good team players are supposed to ignore this when "our side" does it.

True character is best displayed in the face of fear. Do you stand up for principles or pragmatically settle?

It will be a tough choice for many.

[pdsimdars]

50. But there are parameters that we can understand from history. If we choose to ignore them

then the fault is our own.











.

[Rilgin]

53. Good post. It is exactly what I look at.

These are the numbers on the GE election date if I am not wrong but it shows the importance of net favorable as a predictor of who will win.

It is this more than anything that I point to as our primaries resulting in a bad candidate and Hillary's supporters not listening to the points that support that conclusion including with emphasis her net favorables. Again we are very lucky (unless of course he wins) that the Republicans are so out of control that they also selected a candidate with high net unfavorables.

It is this recognition that would be good to push at the Hillary supporters so we do not make the mistake again in future contests. If they actually accept that they supported a candidate which history supported was a losing candidate maybe they will not point to the voters if she loses.

[joshcryer]

68. That's the exact argument I use for Sanders.

My state went for him. It is not on me that he'll lose the nomination.

[Thinkingabout]

5. We have to GOTV, electing Democrats at every level, staying home and not voting is

Not going to promote progressive ideas. I really don't want a Trump presidency either. Sanders will be backing Hillary, he knows a Trump presidency will be disastrous.

[ibegurpard]

61. That requires enthusiasm

Good luck.

[Thinkingabout]

62. This is where leadership arises.

[JimDandy]

67. You better hope she has leadership then, because she's piss poor at generating enthusiasm for her.

[Broward]

6. Great post, nt.

[Uben]

8. Someone's trying to re-invent reality, I'm afraid.

The reality is, if your candidate is not elected, it's the people who do not vote for them that causes the loss. Trying to place blame because your candidate lost the primary is about as pathetic as I can imagine. Using that logic, that makes Sanders' primary loss the fault of everyone who voted for him......which, of course, it is not.

[Rilgin]

14. Looks like I hit a nerve. Shifting blame already to someone else

Its pretty easy concept.

The reason my candidate is not going to be our democratic candidate is because you did not vote for him. You were for a different candidate. However, it is not your fault that Bernie is losing. Nor is it mine. However, be responsible for your choice. You picked your candidate. If she loses its cause you picked wrong.

There were multiple choices. You made yours for Hillary I assume. If she loses its your fault, it is not mine. When she became the democratic candidate in the primaries it was against my advice and support.

You won the primaries for your candidate now you take responsibility for that candidate winning or losing in the General. If you want me to be responsible, select the candidate that I have advocated for. Its pretty simple concept. If I have a choice of paths, tools, what have you, if I pick wrong for a task (in this case winning the GE) its my fault if I pick wrong.

Be happy if Hillary wins but if she loses dont blame me because I have warned that she can lose for a long time.

[Uben]

21. I didn't say I voted for Clinton

..you're just trying to stir up things around here....again...pathetic. You can't type away the fact that Sanders' bid for the nomination was unsuccessful. I would gladly vote for Sanders were he the nominee. I think he is a wonderful candidate and would make a wonderful president. But, that's not the case, and I will be voting for Clinton for president, it appears.

I've been through every election here on DU. I've learned not to let it control my emotions or get the best of me. I think before I type and before I post. Consequently, not many of my posts actually get posted. If I just posted every thing I typed, my post count would be in the tens of thousands probably. My candidate lost in 2000, 2004, and 2008. I know the feeling. I don't trash candidates during the primaries. There will be another election in four years.

[Rilgin]

27. I am actually addressing a different issue

There is a theme in the democratic party where instead of blaming the Democratic Party insiders for putting up bad candidates in off year elections they blame voters.

We see this often. We have lost the House, Senate, numerous state governments. The establishment meme is that its the democratic voters fault for not supporting the candidates that were put up. I object to that and believe its the fault of the candidates put up. Put up candidates that people get excited to vote for because they stand for something and people will vote for them.

Usually this meme is put forth after the mid term is over. I thought it would be useful to point it out before hand that since Hillary looks like she will be our candidate, her supporters should not blame others if it turns out again that the Democratic Party picked a bad candidate.

You either misread my post or want to keep your options open to thinking you made a perfect selection and want to be able to blame others if she loses. If she is elected, in the future, I will say I was wrong about her electability. See how easy it is. If she is not electable, do not blame others because it has been pointed out over and over what her problems are as a candidate.

[Uben]

52. You want them to put up candidates that excite people

I agree, of course, but the facts are that Clinton has received the most votes and the most delegates. You can't skew the fact that Sanders is losing based on the number of votes he has received. Obviously, he has failed to excite as many as Clinton has.

I'm not blaming anyone for anything...you are, but I think your blame is misplaced. We all have and are entitled to our opinions. I respect yours, but disagree with your logic.

I respect Sec. Clinton. She has been dogged by the republicans forever. Investigation after investigation.. nothing sticks. Yes, she has faults, as does Sanders. The perfect candidate does not exist. As far as Sanders goes, I think the man has done wonders for our party and has the ability to become a leading voice in the future of the party. And, I hope he does!

[Rilgin]

55. If nothing stuck, then her net favorables would not be at historic lows.

Actually they have stuck to her. Her net favorables are at historic lows and the word most associated with her in the General Electorate is dishonest. How can you say that is not sticking to her. I agree she is not dead or in jail or a mental word or shunned with a branded A across her face but she is a highly damaged candidate.

In the democratic party, she is divisive by policy not be personality. Half the democratic party does not like her issues and most importantly her war vote. Its not that she is disliked like republicans dislike her but that she causes the policy fractures in the democratic party to erupt because of the policies she articulates and her connection to some of the DLC policies of her husbands administration. This does meant she is an outcast, its just that the current problems with her electability were totally predictable if really looked at closely.

I use responsible perhaps wrongly although I can not think of a better word. If one is responsible then it is up to that person to learn from a mistake. If she loses it will be because of things that were predictable at the beginning of the primaries. Her supporters ignored these signs. If they come to grips with it maybe they will not do it again.

[jimlup]

9. God forbid ... but if she does

many of her supporters here will blame Bernie

[djean111]

12. So what?

Her supporters are evidently just fine with war and fracking and the TPP and means-testing Social Security and no to Single Payer. Why would anyone care about their opinion? They are spouting lies and ugly nastiness NOW, like releasing clips edited to make it look like chairs were actually thrown. Why care about the opinion of folks like that?

[apcalc]

15. Blame people who did not vote for her...

And if you don't it's on YOU.

[BernieforPres2016]

23. Who cares what the kind of people who support Hillary Clinton say about anything?

We've seen them in action. To quote FDR, I welcome their hatred.

[onenote]

10. No. Let's be truthful. If Clinton loses the GE

the responsibility will be on those who don't vote for her in the GE.

Period. End of discussion.

[Justice]

18. Absolutely

[Rilgin]

19. There were two different paths. You look like you will win. Take responsibility for selecting it.

Its pretty easy concept. We are at a fork in a road without a set map. We can go left or right. You pick right and I pick left because I say that the right road has various obstacles that might not let us get to a place. We go right and we are blocked. Do not blame me because I told you to pick the other path. If you want me to be responsible pick my candidate.

If Hillary wins you can celebrate that your candidate was able to win over my objections. I will have been wrong. If she does not win, you take responsibility for ignoring many peoples objections and warnings. How simple a concept is this.

[Jester Messiah]

32. No, it's on the people who foisted her on the rest of us.

You were told what would happen and you did it anyway. The consequences are squarely on your heads.

[DrDan]

36. That's the way I see it

[Skwmom]

24. No the Democratic Establishment is responsible.

[smiley]

25. The Hillary camp isn't worried.

Our elections are a facade of democracy. They will steal the general, just like they've stolen the primary.

[My Good Babushka]

28. Every time we get a lousy president or a seemingly good president starts making lousy choices

it's mostly due to the corrupting influence of money in politics. Until we fix that, we're stuck with this.

[cantbeserious]

29. IMHO - A Vote For HRC In The Primary Is A Vote For Trump In The General - Trump Can Easily Win

eom

[Waiting For Everyman]

30. Of course. If you deliberately pick a bad candidate

you're responsible for the loss. "Winning" the primary doesn't absolve them of the responsibility to pick a candidate who can win the General. But they know this.

[hrmjustin]

37. Ok thanks for letting us know.

[treestar]

41. NO it's people voting or not voting

AGAINST their own interests, because they'd rather suffer the results of Trump's presidency than have thing be better for them. They'd rather gloat over Hillary's supporters than see their own interests served. Trump and an R Congress would do horrible things, but that doesn't bother people who take the primary wars so seriously that they have to hang onto it forever.

[bigtree]

47. you're fucking campaigning, advocating against her here

...and you want someone to imagine it's her supporters fault if she loses?

Tell yourself whatever you want. Advocating against Hillary now, in the strident manner you've chosen, is almost indistinguishable from any other opposition she'll face in the general election against Trump.

That kind of fuckery is on you, Rilgin.

[pdsimdars]

48. IF Hillary is the nominee she will lose in the General. She is a weak candidate.

[Hiraeth]

54. Bless you for trying and thank you for a well thought out OP and the good discussion it provoked.

K&R

[Zorra]

59. The Clinton campaign has been so consisently filthy that it drove away many who would have

held their noses and voted for Clinton. The all pervasive corruption of the Republican party disgusts them, and when they see members of the Democratic party consistently behaving like Republicans, they feel the same contempt for these Democrats that they feel for Republicans. They may feel that, at the end of the day, the lesser of two evils is, at the end of the day, still evil.

"The time is always right to do what is right.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

I have always found the quotations above and below to be of value when making life decisions:

"By their fruits you will know them. Do you gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles?"
Matthew 7:16

From this perspective, if Clinton is nominated, we can, in part, blame a President Trump on every one of her supporters who lied, cheated, and pushed false memes designed to libel and slander innocent people in order for Clinton to "win". Many people of conscience find this type of behavior abhorrent, and do not want to be associated with it, or those who promote it, in any way. Some folks might regard this type of contemptuous behavior acceptable, simply just "politics as usual". But "business as usual" would be more accurate.

It is what it is.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

60. She is a fine example of The Bland leading The Bland.

[workinclasszero]

63. OK?