Hillary Clinton has gotten hundreds of thousands fewer votes than in the 2008 primaries.

[EdwardBernays]

Yes I know the graphic was compiled by Breitbart, however I randomly checked some of the numbers and they're all accurate.... what's more, some of these larger 2008 totals were her running against TWO opponents.

Example 1:

Arkansas 2016

Clinton 144,580
Sanders 64,868

Arkansas 2008

Clinton 220,136
Obama 82,476
Edwards 5,873

Example 2

Ohio 2016

Clinton 679,266
Sanders 513,549

Ohio 2008

Clinton 1,259,620
Obama 1,055,769
Edwards 39,332

For comparison in 2016:

Ohio

Trump: 727,585

Arkansas

Trump: 133,144

And both of those had Trump running against a lot of other candidates...

Draw your own conclusions

[thereismore]

1. I think if she is our nominee then she will get shellacked. nt

[Scootaloo]

2. I think if she's the nominee, WE'RE getting shellacked

President Clinton or President Trump. Christ.

It strikes me that they keep comparing Bernie to McGovern. Maybe that's apt, 'cause if this is the '72 race, that means someone's gotta be Nixon and someone's gotta be Wallace, too.

[NewImproved Deal]

5. Wallace taking the Southern States (of "Super Tuesday" fame)...

Cost Humphrey the presidency in '68.

[LiberalArkie]

3. It is not just Hillary. Arkansas has an open primary. Less total people voted in the Democratic

primary.

[EdwardBernays]

6. The same is true seemingly everywhere

Hillary Clinton is no Obama... Plus telling people that they shouldn't dream... Well.. Why vote for that?

[NewImproved Deal]

4. Interesting research--thanks!

And this is despite the Clinton Machine's picking up most of the Black Vote, which went overwhelmingly for Obama in 2008.

[emulatorloo]

8. Surely you can find a source other than Breitbart.

You're a smart guy and no doubt good with Google.

[EdwardBernays]

9. When

All you see is the source you're hobbling yourself.

Besides lots of DU approved sources have screwed up big time in the past..

If the data is correct - and this is - then the only thing to do is look at it with open eyes and decide if it matters to you.. Otherwise ignore it.

[emulatorloo]

10. There is no reason for a progressive to promote and endorse right-wing sources.

It is not hard to find sources that >aren't< habitually smearing Democrats.

It is your choice of course, but I personally would spend the extra couple minutes to find the same information from a site that is not so egregious.

As I say you are a smart guy. In the end, posting from Breitbart or other proven lie/smear sites doesn't reflect well on you.

[EdwardBernays]

11. Sorry no

No one was endorsing them or supporting them. That in your head.

Democrats aren't perfect God knows and plenty of sources trash them justifiably. Others are purely partisan but don't fabricate evidence. Others still lie. Others still do a combination of the above.

I'm sure if you list your favourite sources I can find posts you don't like, and hey I'm sure there's plenty of truth lurking on Breitbart...

By ignoring things based on the brand and not being willing to engage in finding out for yourself what is true you are just as blind as any ditto heads.

As for being judged by someone that can't see past a logo on a table of numbers, well..lets just say I'm not particularly crushed.

[emulatorloo]

13. Don't twist my words.

I am not "attacking" or "judging" you so don't need to get defensive. The ditto head comment was uncalled for.

If one cites Breitbart = that's a tacit endorsement.

You are a highly educated person from what I know from you, at some point your professors told you that "sources matter". They weren't ditto heads.

All I am saying is citing Breitbart could potentially tarnish the "EdwardBernays brand" you've worked so hard to build.

Have a great night.

And yes turnout is down from '08. Obama excited people in a way that neither Bernie nor Hillary can do. Or pretty much anybody.

[EdwardBernays]

15. So

Saying:

"In the end, posting from Breitbart or other proven lie/smear sites doesn't reflect well on you."

Is neither an attack or a judgement?

Riiiight.

Citing - and in this case we mean using a graphic that is full of information they didn't generate, but merely has their logo on it - isn't an endorsement. I have have used the WaPo but that doesn't mean I endorse their position on the Iraq War. Or the New York Times - citing them doesn't mean I endorse Krugman's nonsense or any number of their commentators nonsense.

Sources matter but there you're confusing what I did. Breitbart isn't the source. And you KNOW this. If Breitbart published an article talking up Bernie and his positions would that negate Bernie's positions? Of course not.

The data is legit. By choosing - as you are - to ignore it because of - literally - a logo - you are doing yourself a disservice.

I appreciate that you think I'm not an idiot; as not an idiot let me say this: all partisan sources should be viewed as propaganda - including that from the left. If you are accepting things because of a source that's just as ridiculous and immediately rejecting things because of a source.

Sources in fact only matter if you have to take a source at their word. If you can check a source and don't bother then you're not doing the smart thing. I looked at the data before posting this and included data I checked personally that's not in the spreadsheet with the breitbart logo. I'd also hope that anyone that chooses to place merit in this voter drop off checks the data for themselves.

Anything less means you're letting someone else decide what you need to know... And that brings us back to why sources are not a big deal - if you plan on being truly informed.

Read the left and the right and middle. Check everything. Don't be scared to learn that your ideological allies are sometimes dishonest and your political enemies sometimes honest. That's the reality of the situation.

In fact thats the bottom line in this situation: Breitbart compiled data which is freely available from official sources. I checked it and it's accurate. If it wasn't I wouldn't post it.

[emulatorloo]

16. Ed I have no interest in fighting with you.

We simply disagree on the use of rightwing sources as the basis of an argument on DU.

I'm not judging you as I already know from reading lots and lots of your posts that you are a good guy. Tone is hard to do on the Internet.

Of course I take every source with big bolder of salt. Yes there is bias in all of them. I read lots of stuff and I'm not 'scared' nor do I live in a bubble.

However, I've chosen not to cite sources on DU when the majority of their content is smears and lies about Democrats. I will look for a more 'neutral' source with the same information.

If you have a different approach fine with me.

Take care and have a great rest of the weekend.

[EdwardBernays]

17. that's fine

I guess to me all sources are pretty notoriously bad, and when people start to delineate between trusted and untrusted sources they are - IMO - generating a type of media outlet that doesn't exist: inherently trustworthy. Sure there's extremes, but overall I assume it's all slanted at very best and factually hooey as often as not.

I do understand your position, but also hate the whole logical fallacy - the so called fallacy of composition - that a right-wing source produces only right-wing propaganda, etc. That whole idea blinds many people to valuable truths. And the same is true for those on the right that studiously avoid all left-wing sources....

I occasionally poke my nose onto right-wing forums and the consensus belief is that ALL progressives worship Hillary Clinton... if I mention that in fact some of her biggest critics are progressives I get about the same response as I get here if I post something from an ideologically impure source... that reality is enough to make me be both extremely open and extremely sceptical.

But listen, I do appreciate the fact that you are saying nice things about me; I don't think you're a bad or mean person... and you have perfectly reasonable ideas about how best to pursue an agenda... I understand your position thoroughly and want no beef.

As you say, we just have a different approach.

Thanks for being reasonable!

[emulatorloo]

18. ...

[JDPriestly]

12. I first noticed this downward trend in Hillary's votes in the New York race and posted

about it right here on DU.

Hillary is not a popular candidate.

I think a lot of Hillary supporters are quite unrealistic about what is going to happen in the general election. Hillary is just no that likable.

A lot of Bernie supporters will not vote for her. I talk to them a lot. I'm working on Bernie's campaign as a volunteer. Hillary will have a hard time winning the Bernie supporters over. I don't think she can do it. She has bad polling numbers on honesty and for a reason.

Hillary supporters are very unrealistic about what will happen once the general election begins if Hillary is the Democratic candidate.

[emulatorloo]

14. Agreed on popularity. My gut feeling is the majority of GE voters won't let Trump win.

Rational Republicans will vote against him for the reasons they voted against Sarah Palin.
AA and Latino voters will crawl over broken glass to keep him out.
Some independents as well.
I think you are right that many many Bernie supporters won't vote for her.
Otoh I saw polling earlier in the primary where both Sanders and Clinton supporters said they would be happy to vote for other person if their candidate didn't get the nomination. Figure was around 75% on each side.

Maybe that is just wishful thinking on my part. Trump could still get elected because who knows what could happen between now and Election Day. Would be hell.

Still holding out hope for Bernie as our nom.