Trump Beats Clinton for First Time in Average of Recent Polls

[Omaha Steve]

Source: Telesur

A new poll found that a strong majority of U.S. voters think the presumptive Republican candidate Donald Trump is not qualified to be president, just as an average of national polls revealed Trump overtaking Hillary Clinton for the first time.

A Washington Post-ABC poll published Sunday found that both Trump and Clinton are viewed unfavorably by the electorate.

According to the Washington Post, never have the two leading candidates from the major parties been viewed as negatively as Clinton and Trump, with 57 percent viewing both unfavorably.

Senator Bernie Sanders, who has pledged to stay in the race until the Democratic Party's convention, is seen as the most positive of all three.

FULL story at link.

Read more: http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Trump-Beats-Clinton-for-First-Time-in-Average-of-Recent-Polls-20160522-0038.html

---

Published 22 May 2016 (6 hours 21 minutes ago)

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/pages/about.html

teleSUR has always been breaking the news on big events, not only in Latin America but around the world. For the last nine years we have been covering important news and information, reporting the truth internationally.

[onehandle]

1. Seem like a sure thing. Just ask President McCain and President Romney. nt

[NutmegYankee]

19. I hope your confidence is well placed.

Otherwise quite a few of us are possibly going to be staring into ditches while Trump's Einsatzgruppen freaks finish us off.

[7962]

36. I dont buy the poll either, but your analogy is disgusting

Thats absolutely ridiculous regardless of how incompetent trump is

[NutmegYankee]

84. Don't expect an apology.

I grew up in the Southeast and know what Trump's voters are capable of with the right leader.

[7962]

86. I didnt really expect one.

Many folks here proudly throw out the Nazi card on a regular basis
I remember people were going to be "rounded up" if W got a 2nd term too.

[Kingofalldems]

88. Odd, you weren't here then.

Any links on that? Because I don't remember anything of the sort.

[7962]

93. Sure, here ya go sparky!

Just because I wasnt signed up doesnt mean I wasnt reading the site.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1682371

Just scroll down and read the replies.
"Those of us who will have been rounded up and sent to the gulags won't be allowed to vote anyway."
"If Kerry does not win, it is Civil War."
"I will "vote" for whoever is heading the armed resistance by then.....
my guess it will be Clark, unless they assassinate the likely leaders"

And thats just from ONE Op. Not to mention all the "martial law" stuff we heard back then. Funny thing is, now its the RW saying the same thing about Pres Obama!

[Kingofalldems]

97. Looks like half a dozen people who aren't here anymore.

[7962]

99. Well, it WAS a dozen yrs ago. Even today I see some go missing

Some names that I've seen for years with tens of thousands of posts just disappear.
Or its possible they stay in rooms I never visit.
And of course, to be fair, its easy to find people on the right who think the same thing about Obama. He's just DAYS away from locking up everyone and shutting down free speech. And he's been "just days away" from it for 7 years!

[liberalnarb]

106. A lot of innocent Iraqis were "rounded up" and murdered. So maybe its true.

[7962]

108. Totally different topic than being discussed here, as you know.

[liberalnarb]

109. Regardless,

lots of horrible things happened during that administration. Knit-picking what DUers said at the time is silly.

[Dustlawyer]

26. And Hillary in 08.

[Calista241]

30. Comparing Hillary to Obama.

The big question is can Hillary turnout voters like Obama.

Everyone forgets that if everyone who voted for McCain voted for Romney, we'd have had a Republican president the last 4 years. Can Hillary get 60 million voters to show up and vote? Because if she can only turnout 55 million voters, we've lost big time.

[Kokonoe]

64. lets just win the primary,

Who Cares about the hippie math.

[PatrynXX]

72. yeah cheating is so easy

until you need actual voters fake votes = no votes

[HooptieWagon]

102. That's the key Hillarians are ignoring.

Hillary simply isn't going to get the turnout and votes that Obama did in '08 and '12. Youth turned out strong for Obama, they won't vote for Hillary. Left/liberals supported Obama, they won't vote for Hillary. Obama got a near 50/50 split with Independants, Clinton only gets 33%. Hillary will get a similar % of Minority votes, but will they turn out in the same numbers? Probably not. Add in general voter disgust with the two major candidates, and it looks like voter turnout will be the lowest in several years. That doesn't favor Clinton.

[BigDemVoter]

120. Horse Shit

The fear of having Trump's sorry ass in the WH will frighten ALL of us into voting for HRC. . . She CERTAINLY isn't my 1st choice, but I'm not going to fuck myself and everybody I know by staying home or by voting for a 3rd party.

And EVERYBODY I know, all extreme liberals, will SCRAMBLE to the polls to avoid having Trump as President. Trump will be the biggest cause for a "Yuge" turnout to keep him OUT. It may have nothing to do with Hillary, but the rightful fear of Trump will send 99.5% of Dems and many Republicans to the polls to support her.

[HooptieWagon]

121. Good luck with that plan.

About half of Sanders supporters think Clinton is just as bad as Trump. The other half MAY hold their nose snd vote for her, unless spending the day st the beach sounds like more fun. I don't know the plan to get Ssnders supporters to vote for the Third Way that continuously insults and demeans them, then completely ignores the left wing. How many times are they expected to vote for the Third Way that doesn't represent them one iota? Peep are fed up with corporatist Dems, and fine with giving them a big F-U in return.

[tabasco]

101. Both of those candidates were behind in the polls at this point. They lost.

So, what's your point?

[liberalnarb]

107. Maybe you haven't noticed but Hillary and Obama are two different people.

Not only did Obama have enthusiasm behind him, but he was also taking over for a disaster of a President.

[Jester Messiah]

2. If only someone could have predicted this. n/t

[derpderpderp]

5. Shocking, isn't it?

[AgerolanAmerican]

3. and so it begins

on a totally unrelated note, this is probably a good time to renew passports

[Person 2713]

31. Thanks for the reminder!

[davidpdx]

82. You can come over here to South Korea and I'll help you get set up teaching

[virtualobserver]

4. So, they think that Trump isn't qualified, but they prefer him over Hillary....

Hillary sure is one humdinger of a candidate!

[rtracey]

13. and yet

And yet Sanders is losing... Im not sure I understand, unless the voters are enjoying the rallies, the signs and the busting on Hillary, yet are they actually voting for Sanders, because seems to me he would be winning.

[thesquanderer]

15. Sanders is losing because, unlike these polls...

...the winners of the primaries are not determined by the general population. The Dem winner is determined largely (and in the case of closed primaries, entirely) by registered Dems, a sub-group which is a minority of the population as well as one that overwhelmingly views Hillary favorably.

[wisteria]

58. Bull shit. Dems elect Dems snd a Republicans elect Republicans.

She is winning the popular vote. And, when Sander's is really given a good vetting, come back and push his true electability. Until then, he is nothing more than a novelty.

[thesquanderer]

62. No BS. The question was how Sanders could be losing, with the poll numbers in the OP.

The answer is the poll numbers in the OP are for the population at large, but that does not represent the people who have been eligible to vote for him. Because as you basically said, for the most part, the Dem nominee is chosen by Dems and the Repub nominee by Repubs... and neither will accurately represent what the public as a whole thinks.

(The rest of your post has nothing to do with my comment.)

[virtualobserver]

16. The problem is that independents like Bernie.....and they don't like Hillary......

They will vote in the general election, whether or not they have a chance to vote in a primary.


Hillary's ability to win the nomination with the advantage of the party structure behind her does nothing to help her beat Trump.

And....she hasn't done it yet.

[Calista241]

33. And independents don't cast protest votes.

If someone doesn't inspire them, they tend to not show up.

[AgerolanAmerican]

23. I don't believe the "Sanders is losing" mantra for a minute

If we had free and fair elections instead of this rigged and fraud-ridden farce, Sanders would be running away with the nomination right now.

Sanders is winning. The fact is that with all the fraud and all the dirty tricks and all the ways things have been rigged in her favor from the get-go, Clinton cannot put Sanders away - and he is beating her in state after state after state after state.

[Chicago1980]

28. So because your guy isn't winning the elections are full of fraud?

Funny how when Sanders wins a primary it's all good, but when he loses it's a fraud ridden farce to some.

It wasn't rigger, there were rules to play by.

Clinton has put Sanders away where it counts in terms of delegate count and popular vote.

Just like in 2008 when Clinton stayed in until the end, was it that Obama couldn't put her away?

She's won more states than he so what are you getting at exactly? She's won states and he's won states.

[AgerolanAmerican]

38. Other way around

Sanders isn't in the lead because the elections are full of fraud, not vice versa.

[lancer78]

76. No

Its because in 4 southern states, Sanders failed to win a single county. Kinda hard to win when you lose the AA vote 70-30.

[wisteria]

60. No he wouldn't. Democrats don't vote for him.

And, this primary has been as fair to him as it had been to any candidates now and in the past.

[stillwaiting]

100. THAT is some premium grade bullshit. Bye! nt

[Ikonoklast]

35. Primary voters do not determine the winner of a general election.

Primary voters are only a small fraction of the party they vote in, and an even smaller part of all voters in the general.

And when the party is determined to have the candidate it chose before primary voting even started, it is difficult for a challenger to overcome an already rigged election process.

[pansypoo53219]

40. the teevee gnewz WANTS it this way. less werk.

[SouthernDemLinda]

69. He Is Winning

First you had all those coin tosses that Hillary won and Bernie lost (all of them)! Was he calling all of them tails or what?

Then the problem of the delegates and super delegates, and how they get awarded.

And then in some state only registered Democrats can vote in the Democratic primary. And only registered Republicans can vote in the GOP contest. More voters identify as independent than Republican or Democrat.

California will be the same as Arizona, New York, and etc. California voters registered under the Independent Party, will not be able to vote for the two party candidates.

[Miles Archer]

92. This formula is only going to get you so far, and then...

...it will be time for the General Election.

You'll see the difference between the DNC running the show and voters choosing between Clinton and Trump.

I'm not saying she can't beat him.

I'm saying the unholiest of unholy ass whippings, as a victorious and beaming Clinton stands over the battered and bloodied carcass of the Donald, is not going to happen.

Take Sanders out of the equation.

All of the H-> avatar people will be voting.

And so will everyone else.

[cstanleytech]

73. I suspect this is largely due to the bump he got when Cruz dropped out and that it will fade once

the Democrats decide on their candidate at which time alot of people who might vaguely been favoring Trump will suddenly feel like they just woke up from a 3 day binge with a hangover to match.

[virtualobserver]

79. your theory doesn't explain why Bernie kicks Trump's ass

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

80. Kinda says it all, doesn't it? Bernie is the only one who can save us...

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

[Igel]

98. Different "theys".

On the other hand, it's really rather a forced-choice test, isn't it?

"Gee, do I want the boiled liver or the fermented flounder?"

The one thing keeping my blood from running cold is the notion that polls this early in the election cycle are pretty much random.

[MisterP]

6. "but that's only because Sanders!"

[Feeling the Bern]

7. South Park was right. Giant Douche v. Turd Sandwich

Welcome to the election of 2016. Thanks, DNC, for working so hard to screw the stronger candidate and allow someone the Republicans can unite against quickly, as well as someone independents don't trust, to anointed the Chosen candidate before any votes were cast.

Historically, Clinton's polling trends down and once that happens, it never goes back up again.

[retrowire]

10. We've been telling them this ALL ALONG

BUT NOW, we're going to get blamed for this bullshit happening, EVEN THOUGH WE'VE POINTED IT OUT ALL ALONG.

[Delver Rootnose]

46. I think this is.....

...the motivation behind all the diaries here and other places like daily Kos slamming Bernie as violent or sexist or racist. Her supporters know deep down she us a weak candidate and want to pre blame someone if she fails.

See look it is Bernie's fault, not ours, for anointing a spectacularly unliked and untrusted candidate.

[retrowire]

8. Fuck. nt

[William769]

9. Your giddyness is showing. Eventhough it will be short lived. nt

[retrowire]

11. Your apathy is showing. And that's dangerous in this era. nt

[Feeling the Bern]

12. Doesn't mean I'm not voting, but a Giant Douche v. a Turd Sandwich is not much of a choice

The lesser of two evils is still evil in my eyes.

[Chicago1980]

29. Clinton isn't evil.

The sooner you realize that the better for everyone else.

[Hydra]

41. She's inviting Bushco into the party

If they aren't evil, then what are they? And what are you if you enable evil? We can't say stupid or naive, because she's not either of those.

[Chicago1980]

47. So the enabler of evil now?

First Trump says she enabled Bill's cheating and now you this...

[Hydra]

57. Oh, enabling evil by her is not new

Remember her Iraq war vote and stumping? Could Bushco have done it without her?

"Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full."

[bvar22]

110. On FULL display in this video.

[font color=red]*****WARNING...This video is very creepy******[/font]

Hillary giggling about Gaddafi being raped to death with a bayonet by the Islamic Fundamentalists she "helped" in the destruction of Libya.

[sheshe2]

21. No shit! nt

[Tal Vez]

14. It will be interesting to see what happens when we have only one candidate.

[Ash_F]

17. ugh..

[silvershadow]

18. K&R

[captainarizona]

20. clinton sanders 2016

It is the only way to keep the party together. Both will have to hold their noses as they shake hands for joint ticket.

[Chicago1980]

32. Or she can pick Warren.

[7962]

39. Never happen. All eyes must be on HER

Come on, you know the rules

[Chicago1980]

43. Enlighten me.

Seeing as you seem to think you know.

[7962]

87. She will only pick someone who checks boxes & doesnt take away attention.

1st, Warrens more well liked than Hillary
2nd, Warren has critiqued H for changing her votes after getting donations. The ads write themselves,
3rd They have no chemistry. Rarely if ever appear together
4th Warren brings MASS, a state H will already win
5th Hillary is NOT going to pick another woman as VP; it water down her "1st woman pres" clout

She'll go with a Hispanic or someone from a swing state. Easy

[libdem4life]

116. Warren is not interested.

[7962]

117. #6, an there's that too!!

[Person 2713]

44. Reagan Bush the father ...didn't seem to hurt them to get together

In the case of Reagan and Bush, the background is illuminating, and it explains a lot about their flexibility. "The history was one of intense competition between the two," recalls Baker, a longtime political strategist who worked for Bush against Reagan in the 1980 campaign and then worked for Reagan as both White House chief of staff and Treasury secretary. He became Bush's secretary of state in 1989. As Baker says, "Reagan would have liked to pick somebody other than Bush," his rival, to be his running mate in 1980, but he went with the man who had lasted longest against him in the primaries. And Reagan concluded that Bush could help him unify the party and, most important, help him to govern if he won the election
US news

When vying for the Republican party presidential nomination for the 1980 election, George H.W. Bush derided Reagan's supply-side policies as "voodoo economics". That term has stuck to Reagan legacy even now . They did not agree on many things
I've read when Reagans left the WH there was still distaste for one another after 8 years
but they kept the WH for 8 in unity

Both Clinton and Sanders would have to give some but both once senators they have experience with that and poll numbers may move in the right direction for dems

[wisteria]

61. No.

[BlueStater]

22. A more appealing nominee would be trouncing this unqualified lummox.

If the Democratic party manages to botch this one up, they'll have only themselves to blame for shoving someone like Hillary Clinton down voters' throats.

[Reter]

49. While true, the same can be said for him

Kasich would be up by 10 points if they had nominated him or another similar.

[w4rma]

89. Bernie Sanders beats Kasich, too. It isn't the landslide win that he has against Trump, though. (nt)

[Darb]

24. Bunk. It will be a landslide for Hillary.

And her coattails will be long.

[w4rma]

90. You're delusional, Darb. She's costing us the Presidency and all the down ticket races. (nt)

[Darb]

124. Uh, no, she isn't costing us those things in any way.

Firstly, there hasn't been an election yet, she hasn't completely finished the nominating process for chrissakes. When the primary dust settles, her campaign will kick into gear and by September The Donald will be in full scale collapse mode. Repubes will be running from him like rats off a sinking ship, and the stay home factor for the pubes will be huge.

It will be a total destruction of the Republican bullshit brand.

[Bodych]

25. Glad I'm not a down-ticket Dem candidate in 2016.

What they must be thinking behind closed doors.

No amount of hand-me-down money can help them if voters aren't happy with the choices.

But...it's her turn, because being a member of the Wal-Mart board of directors, living in the White House for 8 years, being a US senator, being Secretary of State...why, it's about time the poor thing got a fair shake in life, isn't it?

[Chicago1980]

34. So what if she was on a board of directors of Wal-Mart.

It was for six-years 25 years ago. Wal-Mart was a different company 25 years ago.

Stop hating.

[Ikonoklast]

37. They were virulently anti-Union then. Hillary said nothing then.

Same as now.

[Chicago1980]

51. Maybe the workers should do something about that then...

That's how unions are formed right? By the workers banding together and standing up?

[Omaha Steve]

91. Hard to organize when Walmart is a well known union buster.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/us/politics/20walmart.html?_r=0

Snip: Mrs. Clinton’s six-year tenure as a director of Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest company, remains a little known chapter in her closely scrutinized career. And it is little known for a reason. Mrs. Clinton rarely, if ever, discusses it, leaving her board membership out of her speeches and off her campaign Web site.

Fellow board members and company executives, who have not spoken publicly about her role at Wal-Mart, say Mrs. Clinton used her position to champion personal causes, like the need for more women in management and a comprehensive environmental program, despite being Wal-Mart’s only female director, the youngest and arguably the least experienced in business. On other topics, like Wal-Mart’s vehement anti-unionism, for example, she was largely silent, they said.

Her years on the Wal-Mart board, from 1986 to 1992, gave her an unusual tutorial in the ways of American business — a credential that could serve as an antidote to Republican efforts to portray her as an enemy of free markets and an advocate for big government.

But that education came via a company that the Democratic Party — and its major ally, organized labor — has held up as a model of what is wrong with American business, with both groups accusing it of offering unaffordable health insurance and mistreating its workers.


http://makingchangeatwalmart.org/2014/01/15/feds-walmart-broke-the-law/

Posted by mperry on Jan 15, 2014 in Press Releases, Walmart Watch Blog | 4 Comments
WALMART ILLEGALLY RETALIATED AGAINST WORKERS SPEAKING OUT FOR HIGHER WAGES, AGAINST INCOME INEQUALITY
Sweeping decision by labor board is largest ever complaint against employer

WASHINGTON —The National Labor Relations Board issued the largest-ever complaint against Walmart today for breaking federal labor law by violating workers’ rights. The complaint alleges Walmart illegally fired and disciplined more than 117 workers, including those who went on strike last June to speak out for better jobs.

The NLRB asserts illegal activities in 14 states at 34 stores and shows that company executives conceived—and oversaw implementation—of an unlawful retaliation policy for store managers to execute. The complaint—the largest ever against Walmart in both size and scale—names 63 individual store managers and company spokesperson and vice president of communication David Tovar’s illegal threats made to employees.

Walmart workers, part of the national organization OUR Walmart, have been taking the country’s income inequality head on by standing up for better wages at the country’s largest employer. While the majority of Walmart associates are paid less than $25,000 a year, Walmart makes $17 billion in annual profits and the Waltons—the richest family in the country—have a combined wealth of $144.7 billion.

“Walmart thinks it can scare us with attacks to keep us from having a real conversation about the poverty wages we’re paid,” said Barbara Collins a fired Walmart worker from Placerville, CA, who is one of the 117 workers named in the complaint. “But too much is at stake—the strength of our economy and the security of our families—to stay silent about why Walmart needs to improve jobs. Now the federal government is confirming what we already know: we have the right to speak out, and Walmart fired me and my coworkers illegally. With a new CEO taking over in a few weeks, we hope that Walmart will take a new direction in listening to associates and the country in the growing calls to improve jobs.”

FULL story at link.

[laundry_queen]

122. +1 nt

[Bodych]

42. Open your eyes

Clinton's entire life is one of entitlement, pampered exceptionalism, special treatment, special pay.

Next you're going to tell us that Goldman-Sachs was a different company only months ago, when Clinton's speeches were huge golden nuggets of cash.

Stop hating the truth.

[Chicago1980]

50. I don't care if she made money from speeches.

Are you going to bitch every time some makes money from speeches, whether it be from a company or a university?

Her life has been one of hard work.

I can't hate the truth when you've not displayed any.

[Bodych]

56. You seem very blind to me.

An hour of work for about quarter million cold cash, and you think that's "hard"?

Millions upon millions of Democrats, republicans, and Independents are going to want to know what was in those speeches, whether you like it or not.

They'll also want to know about private email servers and national security, aka, carelessness.

We'll hear more about dodging sniper fire in Bosnia.

Then there's the old standby issues: Iraq, Honduras, Syria, We Came He Died stuff.

Fossil fuels, anyone? Super-duper PACS, anyone?

YOU will likely bitch every time these topics come up, providing she makes it to November. There isn't a darned thing you can do to silence the people who want answers.

I'm the least of the voices you will detest.

[ReRe]

53. Awwww....

.... they're probably all pointing fingers at each other right now. If the state Dem Party bosses had just run an up and up Primary, they wouldn't be in this GD mess. Lying, cheating and stealing just don't get it, no matter if it's an election or on the playground. The whole election process would be so much easier if they would just be fair and allow the people to participate.

Welcome to DU.

[FailureToCommunicate]

27. Dead man walking

[George II]

45. Sorry, but did you not recently lock a thread in "LBN" because it was about a poll?

[Omaha Steve]

48. I locked a poll in LBN?

You mean the one that didn't use the correct title and had no story?

[okasha]

114. You also locked at least two other posts

favorable to Hillary.

Did you think no one would notice?

[Omaha Steve]

115. And opened one up

I guess you didn't notice.

[BootinUp]

52. President Dukakis always says GE polls in May are double plus good. nt

[angrychair]

94. A single GE poll in May means nothing

This isn't a single poll, this story is about a trend line of polls over several months. That does matter.

More importantly, Dukakis losing was despite the polling. He lost because of poor optics and bad choices by the DNC and party insiders. Sound familiar?

[BootinUp]

95. All polls in May are done IN MAY

What don't you get? That polls in May are not good predictors because people are not yet tuned into the races or that polls in May aren't good predictors because because the campaigns for GE haven't even started or that the Primary in the D Party has not been conceded?

[wisteria]

54. That is because Reoublicans are excepting Trump as their nominee

And we still have a primary of sorts going on. The one with less delegates and less of the popular vote, need to start wrapping it up. No more attacks, no more excuses and no more bs about being the stronger candidate. As long as there has not been a complete vetting the polls mean nothing.

[thereismore]

55. Maybe the biggest thing is that both are viewed unfavorably by 57% of people. That is news. She has

had better (if only slightly) "unfavorables" than him. Now that "advantage" of sorts is gone too.

[billhicks76]

59. People Allergic To Clinton's and Bushes

Our party falling for it a little more but no matter. Nepotism and dynastys are not popular. I guess it's more important for some democrats to defeat Sanders than Trump. Truly pathetic.

[Brother Joe Observes]

63. Telesur?

[Omaha Steve]

65. It has been used in LBN before by me

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014974916

And others: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141428802

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141436574

How many do you need?

[Brother Joe Observes]

68. I had never heard of it before

That's all, OS. No offense intended.

[Omaha Steve]

70. None taken

[Gman]

66. Thanks to Sanders

as he drags this out for no good reason.

[Omaha Steve]

67.  The 2008 Democratic Primary Was Far Nastier Than 2016’s

Clinton had not surrendered at this point eight years ago—and the party still came together at the convention.



 Then-Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton debate in Austin on February 21, 2008. (AP Photo / Deborah Cannon)

http://www.thenation.com/article/the-2008-democratic-primary-was-far-nastier-than-2016s/

 By Joan Walsh APRIL 11, 2016

Last week was the harshest so far, by far, in the presidential contest between Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders. It was childishly harsh, with the “she did it first” back and forth over who said who wasn’t “qualified.” But was it harsh enough to hurt the party’s chances to unite in November against the Republicans?

I don’t know the answer to that, for sure, but let’s remember: this is nothing compared to 2008. As if to remind us, Monday marks the eighth anniversary of the discovery of remarks by then-Senator Obama, made to a roomful of wealthy San Francisco supporters, about white, working-class voters in Pennsylvania. It was supposed to doom his candidacy—not just according to the GOP, but to other Democrats, and not just Democrats on Clinton’s team.

On the eve of the supposedly crucial Pennsylvania primary—Clinton won it 55-45, and went on to take most of the big closing 2008 primaries—Obama had this to say:

You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate, and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

FULL story at link.

[PoliticalMalcontent]

71. Giving people a voice in the primaries seems like a decent thing to do at this stage.

If he runs as a third party candidate maybe I'll be more inclined to agree with you, but letting democracy play out isn't a bad thing.

Really, part of the blame should go toward the system for keeping independents (I.E. the majority) from being able to pick candidates. A system in which a majority don't get to pick potential leaders is a bad system to begin with, and I think we're dealing a bit with the fallout from that right now.

[Gman]

74. If independents want a say

They should join the party. You can't have it both ways. Democracy is for the General Election not the primary.

[PoliticalMalcontent]

77. It's interesting. A lot of folks did try to join the party this year.

The GOP and DNC intentionally make it difficult to register at the last minute by instituting dates a majority of people aren't aware of (or alternatively 'lose' voter registration files).

If someone isn't committed to always voting democrat or always voting republican I don't see why they should be penalized for that decision.

Admittedly, closed voting and open voting both have flaws and I'm not quite sure what the answer to that is, but Clinton is clearly not the stronger candidate heading into the general election. She got through the primaries because the primary is set up to alienate independents (who, again, are the majority). That, despite the fact that Bernie Sanders may have had more democratic ideas than her.

Now... Now people will go into the election thinking they have to choose between Trump and Clinton. It'll be a decision driven by fear. Bad things happen when people make decisions based on fear.

[Babel_17]

75. People have been consistenly recognizing both the positive and negative with Secretary Clinton

The negatives aren't going to just fade away on their own, and her appeal is going to have to overshadow that for her to win. Trump can still go lower on several metrics, so the Democratic ticket can still hope for a decisive victory, and possibly a blow-out. The next several weeks are going to revealing, imo.

[gwheezie]

78. When Bernie throws his support to hillary

I'm sure his supporters will follow his lead. Her numbers will improve. And unless he's lying, he said he'd do everything he can to prevent trump from getting in the WH.

[Dawgs]

118. Then you obviously know nothing about his supporters.

It's not about him or the party. It's about the movement. They have no interest in voting for Hillary, or any other status-quo Democrat. It doesn't matter who supports her.

[pansypoo53219]

81. I am getting pissed. the blacks got a wonerdfultop notch FIRST black president. i have to

SETTLE for the coronation of thatcher-lite. and SHE COULD LOSE IN THE END, FOR HER VANITY.

[davidpdx]

83. Well put pansypoo

[Stevepol]

85. Please people factor in the voting machines!

Bernie lost MA because of the voting machines. Bernie lost KY because of the voting machines. A number of other states he also lost because of the voting machines.

When are people going to wake up? I know it's impossible to prove the assertion that the voting machines were responsible for a defeat, but that's the whole point. As long as you can't verify the elections or the victor in a "democratic race" YOU CANNOT HAVE A DEMOCRACY. The voting machines are being used regularly to tilt the vote. This is just fact and many studies have shown that and are showing it, not indisputable evidence for sure but as much evidence as it's possible to have, good honest statistical facts. Statistics is based on fact. It's one of the most important tools available to scientists.

[RussBLib]

112. I vacillate

On the one hand, people getting involved and voting is about the only way to make your voice heard, unless you're a billionaire, of course.

On the other hand, thanks to no verifiable paper trail, there is really not much point in voting, if they can make the outcome what they want it to be.

Whoever "they" are.

[uhnope]

96. Telesur to spin my polls? No thx

WTF are they doing on LBN anyway

[Omaha Steve]

103. It has been used before

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1460662

[uhnope]

111. but it shouldn't be

See http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/TeleSUR
and thank you for your help in keeping LBN a quality news source

[Omaha Steve]

123. Do you see anything in the story you feel is incorrect?

This is as far back as search will go, or there would be a lot more. Apparently LBN has been crap for years and you just noticed?

[Helen Borg]

104. Again!

[tabasco]

105. A strong Democratic candidate would be leading 70 to 30, with just the usual diehard

republicans supporting Trump. But the Democratic party has its weakest candidate in a generation, and Trump has a good shot at moving into the White House in January.

[MosheFeingold]

113. meaningless this far out

But note Bernie beats Donnie.

[BigDemVoter]

119. Doesn't mean diarrhea in a dishwasher. . .

Dems are still divided. Hilllary isn't yet the nominee. . . . These polls aren't serious ones.