Nah. I actually still think Clinton will win, though not in a landslide. I was just remarking on the recent tone of the bbs where people seem to be getting tight about the prospect of Trump actually winning, whereas 6 months ago there was a lot of bravado and schadenfreude.
I'm not concerned about Hillary Clinton defeating Trump. What I'm concerned about is the continuing demonization of Ms. Clinton by Senator Sanders and some deluded supporters, continuing, in truly bizarre fashion, what the Republican Party has been doing to her for roughly 25 years. The positive campaign that appealed to me earlier is long gone. He hired some longtime pols to run it, and now the campaign isn't much different from any other, in my humble opinion. He's raised tens of millions and has spent tens of millions. More than Clinton and more than Trump. Raising money via the Internet isn't new. He's simply gotten better at it, helped by that earlier positive message that seems to have gone by the wayside. Helped as well by the demographic that has historically had the lowest turnout at the polls of any of the demographics. They vote if a candidate excites them, like Clinton/Gore in '92 and Obama in 2008. Bernie excites them now. I'm concerned about a man I initially viewed as a positive influence on my party becoming a damaging one. We should be promoting party unity, presenting a united front. This is a great opportunity to take back the Senate and possibly the House. Sanders doesn't appear to care. In truth, the man doesn't care about the Democratic Party. It shows all too clearly. He's has become enamored with the race. It's turning him on. Right now, he views the Party as an unpleasant inconvenience, with rules he hates and labels corrupt if they don't benefit him. Decide that they just might? He changes his mind.
The only thing I will say about being certain that Trump will lose, is that most of us, and 99% of the pundits thought it was impossible that Trump would win the GOP nomination. It is never wise to underestimate Trump. We've seen him defy expectations. There are a million reasons why he should lose, just as there was for him to lose the nomination race. But somehow he won. I'm not predicting that Trump will win, just that it is a possibility and Hillary should adjust her tactics in order to win.
YOUR party is corrupt. The party you despise is corrupt. You remind me exactly why I like Bernie. If you ever wonder whats wrong with politicians, point the fingers at those who follow parties and not candidates.
Don't blame the parties, blame the people who rather live in ignorance instead of getting truly educated about economics and the issues and paying more attention to bravado. We get the leaders we deserve.
Don't have time to comment on this piece but pretty interesting analysis and one that goes against the doom and gloom economic arguments. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/hillary-clinton-will-win-in-november-says-the-economy-2016-05-25 Opinion: Why the economy may favor Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump Now we’re all atwitter about a poll or two showing Donald Trump ahead of Hillary Clinton in the race for the White House this fall. But let’s twist slightly what Warren Buffett says about stock markets: In the short run, they’re voting mechanisms (like polls) that get things wrong all the time. In the long run, they’re weighing mechanisms that are just about always right. In politics, “weighing” means looking at the economic fundamentals. And at least at Moody’s Analytics, the nation’s biggest economic-consulting firm, the economic fundamentals still point solidly to a Democratic win. Moody’s economy-based election model predicted every state outcome correctly in both 2008 and 2012. It shows Clinton winning 332 electoral votes, well north of the 270 needed to claim victory. In fact, every state should go the same way it did last time, because home prices are appreciating, gasoline is cheap, incomes are rising and voters already approve of the job President Obama’s doing, even before he and Clinton get down to re-selling it in earnest this summer. “There are only two things that could change the model between now and November: the approval rating and gas prices,” Moody’s economist Dan White said. By now, anyone can tick off the stats that point to voters choosing more of the same: Unemployment has been cut in half to 5%, and will be at a full-employment-ish 4.7% or 4.8% by fall if recent rates of improvement hold. Wages are actually kind of beginning to surge: Counting both wage gains and increases in hours, pay is up 4.7% in the past year, according to Regions Financial, and hourly pay for people who have been in their jobs at least a year is up 3.4%. And the price of gas is down from $3.75 a gallon to $2.40 in the past two years, saving households about $900 a year each. Finally, all the good news is no longer confined to the top economic strata, like early in the recovery: Median household income adjusted for inflation will hit its Internet-level peaks by summer. Sentier Research’s influential index of 50th-percentile household income, which uses January 2000 as its base value of 100, is at 99.9, up 10.3% from August 2011. It’s higher than at any point since early 2002 — an all-time high it could reach before the election. In that environment, it won’t be hard to find noisy Trump supporters, some of whom once worked at factories whose owners moved operations to Mexico or China. But the silent majority will be people who are broadly satisfied. Or so the model says. A 10% after-inflation raise will do that. To be sure, not every measure of the economy is outstanding. At Yale University, economist Ray Fair’s economic model says slow growth in gross domestic product will fuel a Republican win. (Though Fair himself has said Trump’s a wild card who could upend his model, and Fair predicted a Mitt Romney win last time.) Fair’s model is based on 0.87% GDP growth in the first three quarters of this year, about half what most economists expect. Clinton needs to stop blowing this advantage by talking about the need for “revitalizing the economy” — the job she hinted she would delegate to her husband, ex-President Bill Clinton. Mrs. Clinton needs to stop talking about revitalization — not stop talking about her husband, as feminists argued — and start pointing out that this expansion is vital indeed. The past two national campaigns show how to do this, and how to mess it up. In 2014, Democrats spent so much time pandering to social-issue groups, and apologizing for not yet employing every last member of said groups, that they forgot to argue that the stock market had tripled since the month they took over in 2009, unemployment had fallen by 3 million people since 2010, and as many as two-thirds of people in some states who had lacked health insurance were covered by Obamacare. Then-Colorado Sen. Mark Udall even used a nationally televised interview — MSNBC, but still — to tout three different kinds of gay rights without mentioning the economy. Udall lost. I’m good with gay adoption too. But pocketbook issues affect more people, more directly. They settle elections. Or Secretary Clinton could do what her husband did at Democrats’ 2012 convention, and sell Obama’s record. Bill’s job should be the one Obama jokingly said he’d earned: Secretary of Explaining Stuff. Bill (or Obama) could even borrow President Reagan’s line to sell the first President Bush’s de facto third Reagan term: Facts are stubborn things. After all, Obama’s approval ratings are better than the Gipper’s 1988 numbers. And turnabout is fair play. That Trump has little to add to his economic pitch is clear. He’s recycling stories about Bill Clinton, women and even Vince Foster. If Hillary Clinton tells the economic truth, on Nov. 9 Trump will have stubborn facts (and electoral votes) coming out of his eyes, his wherever. He’ll just think it’s hell. Tim Mullaney writes about economics and politics for MarketWatch. Follow him @timmullaney.
I haven't time to reply now, glynch, will later, but I'm glad I got your attention. Hey! You replied twice! ;-)- (I hate it when I accidentally do that)
From what I've read, these particular primary voters are "low information" and don't really understand why they're voting for Clinton. They need younger (white,male) voters to guide them.
Yeah, I noticed it awhile back and need to delete. Looking forward to it. I think without realizing it you are sort of saying how dare Bernie Sanders a mere Congressman and Senator of thirty years run and act like an equal to HILLARY !!!. The Clintons and the Bushes and are so used to acclaim that they are more relaxed around the whole excitement of celebrity. Bernie and many of his supporters like me are really not fans of the DLC Democratic Party with its dependence on about a quarter of the big bank.corporate money We work and vote for the Democratic Party, but we want to reform it very greatly and if the overall structure of virtually the constitution was different we would start another party to represent ordinary working people and leave the old Democratic party and not have it be as we see it the junior corporate party. Nothing sacred about the Democratic Party per se though many of us have long been nostalgic for the old Democratic Party of FDR which much more represented the average person and created the middle class America you and I grew up in. Each year that the Clintonian Democratic Party continues there are more ex Democrats who identify as independents and working class folks who either don't vote or vote GOP because what is the difference in their lives between the two parties.
