Home | About | Donate

Americans' Dislike for Trump and Clinton Bolsters Sanders' Superdelegate Pitch


#1


#5

Like I have posted before presidents are not elected; they are selected and there are many checks and balances put in the systems of both parties in order to make sure of that! Super un elected ( corrupt) delegates are for the most part party hacks that are installed to make sure the people running ( like HRC ) are selected and people like Bernie are not selected. In other words, we select who you get to vote for.

We cannot let that happen! Trump has it correct: " the system is rigged against Bernie".


#6

Exactly! And if by some miracle Bernie became POTUS I could see the same thing that happened to JFK, happen to Bernie, because the same criminal cabal are still in power in the deep state. Although I would love to be wrong!


#8

Me too!


#9

The contempt and actual hatred many feel for Hillary Clinton, with many many good reasons, IMO, along with the fear and loathing Trump generates from his blowhard narcissism, pathological lies/distortions/bragging, bigotry, racism, and childish idiot blather, are several GREAT reasons for the Dem "super-delegates" to wake-up and smell the stench - to shift NOW to a real candidate of truth, wisdom and integrity! Bernie Sanders!

Either Dems with any common sense (are there any?) figure out Hillary represents the death of the Democratic Party (and perhaps much else) and utter betrayal of millions of voters who are looking for something that represents meaningful issues, justice, and honor - a progressive direction for the future - decide to abandon the Clinton crime family and support Sanders or forever live with your failure......and betrayal


#10

I keep noticing about these Clinton / Trump polls is that they never ask these people whether they would vote for Bernie if he was the nominee! All those people who hate Clinton and Trump both would amount to a lot of votes for Bernie. But just those who will vote for Trump only because they hate Hillary are again a very real reason that the Dems should fear Hillary losing to Trump.

The tell us polls say that some Dems will vote against Hillary and that some Repubs will vote against Trump but they never seem to want to tell us that all these people would probably vote for Bernie.


#13

The DNC establishment seems to feel that the reason people support Sanders over Clinton has little to do with values and that those same values are really not all that important to said voter. That same establishment inside of the DNC has only one value, and that winning and project their own lack of values onto the electorate.

They do not understand that the reason Sanders draws such support and mobilizes many younger voters is that those values are important to this group and they simply cannot support a person who does not have those same values.


#14

It will be hard for Clinton to rally Bernie supporters to her side. Hard isn't the word, impossible is more like it. The two corrupt parties are so broken by their own design they are running the two most hated candidates. Does that make sense? They are finished they just don't know it yet.
Since Hillary touts the super delegates she loves so much, let's see how much they love her at convention when Bernie beats Trump but she doesn't.
It's a new day in this country and whether they like it or not it will just get stronger.


#15

The Democratic voters have seen these match-up polls and still prefer Clinton. There is no way the Superdelegates are going to vote for the candidate with the fewest pledged delegates. Plus a large number of them are members of Congress who have endorsed Hillary Clinton. The Superdelegate pitch for the most part will fall on deaf ears. There are still enough pledged delegates remaining to be chosen for Sanders to overtake Clinton. I think he has to win about 700 or so of the remaining pledged delegates. That is his only chance of being the nominee. Theoretically it is possible. Of course the biggest obstacle is that by far most of the remaining pledged delegates are in two diverse states where Clinton not surprisingly is well ahead in the polls. Sanders got into this situation because he lost by big margins in every state from New York to Florida along the Atlantic Coast and in every state on the Gulf of Mexico. In addition he also lost by considerable margins in Pennsylvania and Ohio. Basically he lost every state in the south and every northeast state (many by very wide margins) except four states in New England with relatively small populations. That is not how you become the nominee of the Democratic Party.


#16

A "low information voter" is just someone who doesn't use the internet much and has to rely on the capitalist media for their "news."


#17

Our job now is to build a UNITED PARTY of the LEFT.

Berners, Greens, Peace and Freedom, Working Families, Progressives, and various flavors of Socialist all have to get together and form a coalition party.

And not just for elections, but also to organize in communities, neighborhoods and workplaces.


#18

Oh yes, that's right Lrx. You certainly don't become the nominee of the New UnDeal Corporate Servicing Democratic Party by trying to make the case of a more equitable society by checking corporate governance and greed.

That's what you were trying to say right, tool?


#19

The trick is to have a Vice President in the wings that might be worse than Bernie. Representative Tulsi Gabbard would be such a VP, life insurance for Bernie.


#20

We've called/emailed supers in NH and they are adamant they won't vote for Bernie. One even stated she would NEVER vote for him. If I remember correctly, she called him "that socialist". This in a state that overwhelmingly voted for the guy.


#21

Win with Bernie, lose with Mike Dukakis. Actually Governor Dukakis wasn't that bad, but even he will freely admit that he made stupid election campaign mistakes. Also he was short and way too unhappy all the time.


#22

And yet the Democratic bonzos continue blinded by their ostrich policies of clientelism and Wall Street/MIC slavery.


#24

Leaving aside how much he really "lost" (due to fraud), what the supers and bots like you are totally ignoring is that if Bernie is the candidate, HE WINS! If Hillary is the candidate SHE LOSES! A Hillary nomination at the convention is not a victory at the polls!

Ever hear of a Pyrrhic victory? "A Pyrrhic victory is a victory that inflicts such a devastating toll on the victor that it is tantamount to defeat. Someone who wins a Pyrrhic victory has been victorious in some way. However, the heavy toll negates any sense of achievement or profit." --Wikipedia

Putz.


#26

Many Sanders and Trump supporters have never been Democrats or Republicans and have never voted or have not voted in decades. They will vote for whoever they believe will eliminate the reasons that they have never voted or haven't voted in many years.


#31

IPSOS Ideas Spotlight (http://spotlight.ipsos-na.com/index.php/news/election-poll-accuracy-over-time/) studied the reliability of election polls over time. Two types of measurement error affect the accuracy of polls: "election salience" and "strategic voting". The first refers to how much attention people are paying to an election; typically, the farther out it is, the less they know or care about it. The second concerns voters' unpredictable decisions made at the time of voting that don't correspond with polling results.

Before I tie this in to current polling results showing Sanders beating Trump more convincingly than Clinton, I will briefly explain the study's measurement parameters. In a two-way race, the Average Absolute Difference (AAD) is the absolute simple difference between a candidate's predicted vote share and her actual percentage of the total vote on election day, averaged with her opponent's. The Margin of Error (MoE) is the statistical uncertainty in a random poll.

The study looked at 1000 polls. What it showed is that at six months out, which is about where we are now from the November general election, the average AAD = 7.48%, reflecting the greater inaccuracy of polls the farther out from the election they're taken. The average MoE of the sample equaled 3.1%. Right now Clinton comes out on top over Trump within the statistical MoE of 5% for a typical poll. In other words, Trump could as easily be showing up ahead of her right now. But Sanders beats the Donald by over twice that percentage, sometimes even by three times that amount, well outside the MoE.

Sanders also polls far better than the AAD measure of error. What this suggests is that, contrary to what the corporate media talking heads have been assuring us, namely that polls taken this far out are meaningless, might not be true. Polls taken now are definitely less reliable than those that will be taken close to the election, but they're not utterly insignificant.

Most people in America who are following the election already know who Sanders is and what he represents. Is it likely that Republican red-baiting and amped-up character assassination would make that much of a difference in how voters view him? The man's clean as a whistle. In fact, his personal life is boring. He's not particularly wealthy for a man in his position. He's worth about $600,000, a pittance compared to the average U.S. senator. Indeed, data shows that the more people get to know Sanders, the better they like him. This is definitely not true of Hillary, whose unfavorability numbers have risen slightly over the primary season.

While what I've laid out in this post isn't hard and fast, it does indicate that the pundits who assure us that Sanders' lead in the polls doesn't count for anything might not be basing their assertions on hard evidence.


#33

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.