RoadWarriorFromLP

Primaries aren't general elections.

Doing well in primaries is not an indication of general election performance. Those who do very well in presidential primaries often lose the general election.

And it should be noted that Clinton is beating Sanders by a popular vote landslide -- she is currently leading by 14 points.

The Sanders fans refuse to acknowledge that they are losing. Their candidate is not as popular among Democrats as is Clinton.

zargof

Neither is a Senate election. Again, what's the relevance?

Clinton lost to Obama when it was expected she would win.

Sanders has done much better than expected and Clinton's favourables are in the tank.

RoadWarriorFromLP

As was noted several times, she is better at campaign logistics and winning over voters who should be inclined to vote against her party than you would like to believe.

Essentially, they were tied for the popular vote in the primaries. And the fact that Obama barely squeaked out a primary victory did not prevent him from winning an electoral vote landslide, which goes against your earlier assertion about primary margins being relevant to general election results.


And yet he is losing by a landslide.

zargof

You have no idea what I believe. You're still drawing conclusions based on no evidence. John Spencer was a very weak candidate. Chuck Schumer defeated Howard Mills by a larger margin and spent a lot less money. Kirsten Gillibrand defeated Wendy Long by an even larger margin and spent less money.

Yet just like this time Clinton had all the support and all the superdelegates (in the beginning) and still couldn't get the job done. As for campaign logistics. Clinton may have been good, but Obama was better.

Also, I'm not saying the primary is relevant. I just don't see how the Senate is either.

And Clinton's favourables are still in the tank.

RoadWarriorFromLP

You can look at a map to see how she won in Republican districts. Apparently, GOP voters didn't hate her enough to bring down her campaign.


Er, you just claimed a few minutes ago that "the evidence from Presidential primaries isn't good." Sorry that your argument proved to be bogus.


And yet Sanders still can't win over a majority of Democrats. Maybe he's not that impressive, after all.


It is typical for relatively unknown contenders to have higher favorables, as the electorate has yet to learn about what's wrong with them. John Kasich had the highest favorable among the GOP nominees, yet he didn't attract many votes.


If Sanders was the nominee, he would be villified as a tax-hiking socialist and his favorables would sink like a stone. Clinton has been attacked for more than two decades; Sanders hasn't received much attention, but he would if he was running for president.

zargof

I did, and it isn't as good as Schumer's or Gillibrand's. It might suggest that Clinton was going to win regardless of how well she campaigned.

Nice cherry picking, but you've still done nothing to show how the Senate election is relevant.


No his isn't, certainly not as a campaigner anyway. Which makes the fact the primary has gone all this way even more telling.

Clinton's favourables are the second worse for a Presidental nominee since polling began. The good news is Donald Trump's are the worst. But not by much.


And yet every debate and townhall has said that Sanders is a tax hiking socialist. WaPo and the NYT have done the same. And Sander's favourables have gone up. Weird.

Oh and BTW you forgot the bit about Sanders' proposals being pie in the sky, and rainbows and unicorns.

scrubbedexpat099

I have yet to meet anybody who likes Hillary. The more she spends the more the point is made that she is a representative of who most despise.

zargof

Ssshh. Don't say that, otherwise Roadie will be here telling you that black is white, up is down and everyone loves Hillary.

johnwoo

A little OTT but I like it.


Many Bernie Sanders activists and supporters are understandably disgusted by the contemptuous mistreatment they and their candidate have received from the corporate-Clintonite Democratic Party and its numerous media allies. The examples of this disrespect and abuse include:

The discourteous rapid-fire inquisition that the New York Daily News editorial board conducted with Sanders and then released as an interview transcript prior to the New York Democratic presidential primary last April.

Hillary Clinton telling MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough that the Daily News grilling “raise[d] a lot of questions” about Sanders’ qualification for the presidency.

Bill Clinton in New Hampshire calling Sanders and his team “hermetically sealed” purists, hypocrites, and thieves and mocking Sanders as “the champion of all things small and the enemy of all things big.”

Hillary’s good friend the blood-soaked mass murderer Madeline Albright telling female voters there was a “special place in Hell” for them if they backed Bernie.

The fake-progressive feminist icon Gloria Steinem’s curious claim that young women were voting for Sanders because “when you’re [a] young [woman], you’re thinking ‘where are the boys?’ The boys are with Bernie.”

Feel the Hate

Giantaxe

A bit OTT? More like, could the author have sounded more whiney?

johnwoo

If liked that you'll love this

Giantaxe

The guy's been dead five years and this is probably even older than that... iirc, Hitchens turned into a professional Clinton hater during Bill's second term.

johnwoo

What's so wrong with being a Clinton hater? Aren't you a Bernnie Hater/ Trump hater.

Giantaxe

Why do you think I'm a Bernie hater? I quite like the guy, in fact, although I disagree with a lot of his economic policies. Trump I think is simply a dangerous idiot.

zargof

I'm curious which economic policies you disagree with.