Here is where they stand!

[George II]

Endorsements for each of the candidates from those with whom a President needs to work:

Martin O'Malley - 0 Governors, 0 Senators, 1 Representative
Bernard Sanders - 0 Governors, 0 Senators, 2 Representatives
Hillary Clinton - 13 Governors, 38 Senators, 143 Representatives

So, who do you think will get the cooperation of those in office who will support her proposals?

[JonLeibowitz]

1. I fully expect moneyed interests to cooperate productively with most of the candidates. not Bernie.

[George II]

6. I fully expect DEMOCRATS to cooperate productively with most of the candidates. not Bernie.

Welcome to Politics 101.

[Skidmore]

17. This.

Very much this.

[NurseJackie]

18. Thank you!

[Armstead]

40. Is there like a factory where this stuff comes from?

If by chance sanders were to get the nomination, and then get elected, one would expect the same party loyalty from "good democrats" to Sanders as is being demanded for Clinton.

If in the general Democrats sit it out and say "I won't support Sanders because I don't like the guy, and I don't care if the GOP candidate gets in" would that be any different than what "good democrats" browbeat some people who support Sanders for?

And if he were to get elected, would Democrats just sit on their hands for four years?

[George II]

42. The discussion was about endorsements by Democrats, not in the GE or as President. Should you not..

....be asking those questions of JonLiebowitz, who raised the issue of "cooperation" among the CANDIDATES prior to the Convention and nomination?

Once the nominee is determined, if it is Sanders, it's pointless for all of those Governors, Senators, and Representatives to still "endorse" a person who didn't receive the Democratic nominee.

My OP about endorsements highlights the candidate with whom those are in office would prefer to work with as President, not that they would NOT work with any of the other two candidates if elected President.

[Crystalite]

2. Where they stand on issues that matter? Is that what you meant?

[George II]

7. If only that was objectively correct. It is neither.

[bravenak]

14. People can create any graphic they want and just put stuff in.

I noticed a completely incorrect graphic earlier. I do not even bother to say anything.

[George II]

19. That's how they do it - throw together a pile of "facts", put it in a nice picture, and hope....

...people will believe it.

For example, this one in particular says that Clinton "voted for war in Syria"! When did we go to war with Syria? We're helping the Syrian rebels, but that didn't start until 2011 - more than two years after she left the Senate.

There are other gross exaggerations and outright false "facts" in that graphic.

[bravenak]

20. They don't even bother to remove the false graphics.

Reminds me of propaganda. Yet, let one of us produce a false graphic saying things that are untrue about Bernie... I can hear the impassioned cries of "LIAR, Red BAITER, EVILDOER", now. We must just rise above, we are better, we know it, so we need not resort to dishonest practices.

[upaloopa]

26. Their whole narrative about Hillary is a gross

misrepresentation of the facts.
Reality just isn't on Bernie's side.

[workinclasszero]

28. Bogus

SMH

[sleepyvoter]

3. Clinton had that many in 2007.

What else is new?

[MeNMyVolt]

4. Might want to rethink that.

[link:"?|

[NurseJackie]

21. So if people are "misinformed" about this simple and demonstrable fact ...

... it makes me suspicious about what else they're "misinformed" about and why they try to spread their "misinformation" as being truthful.

[MeNMyVolt]

44. They're not "misinformed". They don't give a shit.

They're simply here to play with us.

[NurseJackie]

45. :-)

[riversedge]

51. Thanks for this graph related to endorsements. I like visuals

[George II]

8. Hillary Clinton has already exceeded her endorsements from 2007 by a HUGE margin.

Truth wins out.

[George II]

22. No she didn't.

[MFrohike]

5. 13 governors

Weren't there like 30 Democratic governors just a few years ago?

[George II]

9. There are only 18 Democratic Governors now. She has the endorsements of 13 of them, 81%.

[MFrohike]

46. Cool

Completely irrelevant to my observation, but that's ok.

[George II]

48. Then what was your observation? I know that years ago there were more Democratic governors...

...than the 18 we have today, but I don't think it has been 30 or more in a long, long time.

[MFrohike]

50. It was what it was

It was 28 in 2008, now it's 18. She's got a big slice of a rapidly shrinking pie. That's the observation.

[Cha]

10. Thank you for putting this up, George! They know Hillary's experience and accomplishments!

[onehandle]

11. It is unfair to not include Internet endorsements.

1,000,000x the clicks.

[img][/img]

[George II]

12. .

[Cha]

13. Yeah.. wah!

[Betty Karlson]

15. If I understand you correctly:

- the argument that Sanders is unelectable is now dead. He has more cross-over appeal than Clinton.

- the argument that he is too fringe-y is now dead. Democratic socialism is not the bogey-word it used to be, and Denmark is doing pretty well.

- the argument that he has a problem with minorities is dying. Sanders is gaining popularity by the day, and Clinton has a few emerging problems that could make the argument backfire.

- accusations of sexism have been overturned. Sanders has more individual women donors than Clinton.

- Bought and Paid-for polls have not worked either. The Internet-savvy millennials are too informed to be outwitted by such trickery.

--------

So now we are going for the superdelegate-count? "Vote for Clinton, because the powers-that-be will refuse to work with anyone but her?"
Why don't you just go for the nuclear option, and cancel the primaries? If her coronation matters that much to you, no measure should be unjustified, right?

[Nitram]

23. "Bought and paid for polls?"

Only because they don't put Bernie ahead? Just "catching up"? Sour grapes a little?

[Betty Karlson]

24. I'm not the one paying for them. Clinton's super-PAC did that.

So much for her "opposition" to Citizens United.

[Nitram]

25. Betty, could you list the polls that were bought and paid for? nt

[CoffeeCat]

27. Hillary Clinton was ahead in all major polls in 2008...

...She was also ahead in every 2008 state poll.

What did that big bundle of polls (and endorsements) get her? Certainly not the 2008 Democratic nomination.

[Nitram]

29. Did she buy all those polls too?

Betty, how does one "buy" any of the respected pollsters?

[CoffeeCat]

30. I think the bottom line is...We just don't trust Hillary Clinton

The Public Policy Poll that came out after the second debate, was paid for by a Clinton SuperPAC. Sorry I don't have a receipt signed by Hillary (Hold on let me look in my purse!)

Hillary Clinton has demonstrated a consistent pattern of dishonesty.

She purchased Twitter followers.

A PR flack who works for a big agency revealed that he has been astro-turfing for her--posing as a supporter on various message boards--until he quit due to lie fatigue.

Maybe I'm a bit jaded because I'm in Iowa and I've had a front-row seat to Hillary's shenanigans.

During the 2008 caucus season, she was widely criticized for being inaccessible. She practically sprinted away from the voters after her speeches. In response, she promised to be more "open" and she hosted a Q&A that would give Iowans the opportunity to "get real" with Hillary. Bottom line--a college student wanted to ask Hillary a question about her energy policy, but Clinton staffers told her to ask something else and they gave her a planted question. I mean, seriously.

She can't be trusted.

[Nitram]

31. What does not trusting Hillary Clinton have to do with accusing her of "buying polls?"

That's not a fact-based approach to discussion of why Clinton is or isn't a good candidate. If you have a good case to make, why try to bolster it with phony charges?

[CoffeeCat]

32. Everyone knows about the PPP poll...

...that Hillary Clintons SuperPAC paid for.

There's enough reasonable doubt to suggest that the poll may be illegitimate.

Same with the Clinton Foundation being a playground for her corporate donors. Boeing donated $900k to the Clinton Foundation after being awarded a billion-dollar deal to supply military aircraft to Saudi Arabia.

Most are appalled by that. Are we supposed to have videotape evidence of her antics to make them valid?

Really now.

[Nitram]

33. What abouit the other 29 polls showing Clinton ahead?

Did she buy them all? Is she the Devil herself?

[Betty Karlson]

35. No, she is the lesser of two evils. n/t

[Nitram]

36. I don't get why some people think they can only support their candidate by attacking the other one.

But even Bernie has reneged on his pledge not to attack Clinton, so I guess it comes with the territory.

[Betty Karlson]

37. The question was whether Clinton was the Devil himself. But nice try

making is seem as if I was attacking her independent of any preceding question.

And while we are at it: which camp started slinging accusations of racism and sexism and *gasp* socialism? Did that come with the territory as well?

[Nitram]

38. I have accused Bernie of neither. You accused Clinton of being ahead in the polls...

...because she had paid for them.

[Betty Karlson]

39. One that we KNOW her PAC paid for.

That draws suspicion about all the others.

----

On a more personal note: please understand that I do not - in any way - accuse you personally of mud-slinging. Your posts speak of a very decent person behind the keyboard. I'm vociferous about Clinton's campaign team and their helpers. I make absolutely no accusations about individual supporters like yourself. As far as I am concerned, there is no animosity between us two. Just a strong difference of candidate assessment.

[Nitram]

47. It could only cast suspicion on other polls iff she had the measn to influence them.

I doubt that's true. Thanks for your objectivity and lack of personal animosity. That's essential for any reasonable discussion.

[George II]

49. Some here only like "online" polls that allow children, republicans, and....

.....anyone with internet access to vote, and vote more than once.

[Alfresco]

16. A Party United.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

34. Are you saying they wouldn't cooperate with a Democratic president?

[Attorney in Texas]

41. If this were a race to be the establishment candidate, it would be over, but this looks like a bad

year to be the establishment candidate.

[George II]

43. I think your definition of "establishment candidate" might be different from most others' definition

[NurseJackie]

52. This is outstanding news for Hillary! But...

...it's got to be a bitter pill for the Bernie fans to have to swallow when they see how far BEHIND their candidate is.

I guess I can begin to understand why they're acting so nervous and worried and aggressive. I mean, seriously, look at those numbers!! Who wouldn't be upset to see the other candidate SO FAR AHEAD? It makes sense.

[George II]

53. Basically, when you look at their comparative endorsements, Hillary Clinton has...

...a roughly 400-500 delegate head start before the first caucus or primary.

I know there are some who will moan that the Super Delegate system is unfair and will try to disparage all the dozens or even hundreds of Democrats who have endorsed Clinton. But those who moan are supporters of the candidate who for decades refused to participate in how the delegate selection rules were established.

That refusal is now coming home to roost.