Most Americans are nervous or scared about Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton

[Attorney in Texas]

Source: The Week

There's good news and bad news for Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in a new national New York Times/CBS News poll, partly released Thursday morning. ... most Americans said they were concerned with both frontrunners: 40 percent of respondents expressed fear and 24 concern about a President Trump, while 34 percent were scared and 23 percent concerned about a President Hillary Clinton.

Read more: http://theweek.com/speedreads/593588/most-americans-are-nervous-scared-about-donald-trump-hillary-clinton

---

Here is a link to the polling results data.

The "excited" vs. "concerned" vs. "scared" data concerning independent voters was the most interesting, especially as contrasted with partisan voters:

Independents on Trump:

8% .....excited
26% ...concerned
41% ...scared

Independents on Clinton:

4% .....excited
27% ...concerned
32% ...scared

Democrats on Trump:

2% .....excited
25% ...concerned
63% ...scared

Democrats on Clinton:

22% ...excited
17% ...concerned
6% .....scared

Republicans on Trump:

25% ...excited
20% ...concerned
13% ...scared

Republicans on Clinton:

2% .....excited
24% ...concerned
65% ...scared

All Voters on Trump:

11% ...excited
24% ...concerned
40% ...scared

All Voters on Clinton:

9% .....excited
23% ...concerned
34% ...scared

[Buzz Clik]

1. I really love the cleverness of the Bernie Movement in equating HRC and Trump.

It certainly sets them apart from the GOP.

But, wouldn't it be a bit more honest to say who is scared of whom? Just a bit more honest? Please?

[obnoxiousdrunk]

2. +1 .. n/t

[Hortensis]

26. Agree. What nonsense equating Hillary with a dysfunctional fascist.

[Hortensis]

34. The OP misstates Clinton support BADLY,

From the NY Times DIRECTLY:
Clinton Democrats
22% "excited"
54% "optimistic"

This totals 76% feeling pretty darned good about her.

Note that 23% of Democrats said they were "concerned or scared," but that doesn't separate out those who will vote for her and are worried she won't be elected from those who are worried she will (undoubtedly a far smaller number).

I didn't check the other groups for mistakes, but please note THIS important point: REPUBLICANS make up majorities of both those who are worried about Trump (of course) AND those who are worried about Clinton (of course).

[staggerleem]

59. The OP ...

is quoting a different poll from what you saw, that asked different questions - the poll the OP is discussing, in fact, has NOTHING TO DO with support.

[Hortensis]

69. 76% of Democrats feel GOOD about Hillary. As for the OP,

for some reason it did not show the NY Times report, but another source that merely reported on the NY Times report. I didn't check the OP source to see if the mistake was there or in copying here.

[blackspade]

62. So NOW your wanting to parse a national poll?

Too funny.

[Hortensis]

73. No, it's not. It's polled Democrats.

[itcfish]

86. Now That Sounds

Just about right!!!

[Gman]

55. The similarities between the RW and Sanders folks

Just gets more and more apparent. They both can be so simple minded in making connections between two unrelated things in order to disparage someone.

That's not the real problem. The problem is insisting it's a valid comparison. I have my response well rehearsed as j use it daily in life..."ummm....okay." It's an exercise in futility to even attempt to argue.

[staggerleem]

61. Funny ...

... my wife & I were observing the EXACT same thing about Hillary supporters last night.

[Hortensis]

117. On this forum there are a few non-bernies who have become trollish,

always whacking at the bernie-hive with a stick, it's true. BUT, the similarity between the behavior of many zealous, anti-Democrat, anti-establishment Bernie supporters and the tea-partiers and rest of the GOP base is very striking. It seems to be the similarity between peoples toward the extremes on each end of a u-shape or o-shape political spectrum, compared to those of more moderate viewpoints.

[m-lekktor]

5. A New York Times/CBS poll result is "the Bernie Movement"? nt.

[Buzz Clik]

91. I was NOT speaking of the poll, which is incredibly obvious to those not looking for an argument.

I was speaking of the poster and the dozens of others making similar comparisons.

[840high]

11. What did Bernie have to do with this?

[Buzz Clik]

92. Absolutely nothing.

[mindwalker_i]

21. Rectal extraction at its finest

[Buzz Clik]

93. I assume you're referring to the OP: I totally agree.

[mindwalker_i]

99. If I had meant to respond to the OP, I would have responded to the OP

But you knew that.

[Buzz Clik]

101. Yep. But in the spirit of your original response to me:

If you ever feel the need for some fresh air, I can perform a rectal extraction for you, too.

[azurnoir]

52. the only equation is that they are both the 'front runners' for their respective parties

or so we're told therefor the comparisons

another day another smear

[Buzz Clik]

94. "another day another smear" Indeed. The author of the OP should be ashamed, but we know better.

[morningfog]

53. The HIllary movement has been equating Bernie to Ron Paul for months.

[Buzz Clik]

95. Not the same.

But chase that tangent if you like.

[morningfog]

103. Of course not. Of course.

[Buzz Clik]

110. The parallel between Gore and HRC in that context is true.

Ron Paul did make it a campaign issue that there was no difference between Bush and Gore. (btw -- did we ever properly thank Ron Paul for his contribution to the existence of ISIS?)

Some of the Sanders followers are making a similar claim.

The difference, however is gigantic: in the 2000 election, the candidate (Paul) made the comparison; in this election it is ONLY the candidate's more awful supporters making that claim.

And, if you're having a sad because some mean old HRC fan said you were behaving like Ron Paul -- quit acting like Ron Paul.

[morningfog]

111. I am not "having a sad" and I think you are confused.

Your post seems to be about Ralph Nader, but we are talking about the silly comparison of Sanders to Ron Paul. For months posters have been trying to link Sanders and Paul on the grounds that they each draw large crowds and energize the youth. It's a stupid pound to pimp, but it's been done repeatedly.

It's the hypocrisy that gets me. This OP is better grounded than the Sanders-Paul idiocy, and that was my original point.

[Buzz Clik]

112. Good lord. No idea why I locked in on Nader. That's embarrassing.

I have seen the comparison between Nader/Gore and Berners/HRC, and I get it.

Ron Paul? I don't see it. Your original point is well taken.

I apologize for my brain cramp.

[morningfog]

113. I spend the better part of my day in a brain cramp.

[still_one]

54. Yup, that has been the pattern among some for some time. The old Nader

strategy, no difference between republicans and Democrats talking point, only demand nitrates either a self-imposed bubble, or a way to create flame bait

[MADem]

57. I love the way people use RIGHT WING SOURCES like THE WEEK to make their points.

I think it's fascinating! By their links we shall know them!

Consider the source, people. Consider the source. A magazine founded by a guy who used to run the UK Sunday Telegraph, and which features the word stylings of David Frum....just the sort of garbage we like to see here at DU....


smh.

[blackspade]

60. The CBS poll is equating Trump and Clinton.

Not Sanders or his supporters.

Besides, I thought you all liked the national polling?

[staggerleem]

63. The poll isn't equating ANYONE OR ANYTHING!

It's COMPARING T-Rump & Clinton.

Words have meanings.

[blackspade]

64. You're misunderstanding my response.

Words do have meanings.

[Buzz Clik]

96. It's not the poll that's the problem, it is the OP and posters who make similar comparison.

Willful. Ignorance. Why is that?

[blackspade]

107. The poll is doing the comparing.

I honestly don't like the poll to begin with.
I think the premise sucks.
But the OP is not doing the comparing, merely reporting the results.

[roguevalley]

97. the poll did. jeez

[Buzz Clik]

98. Nope. The author of the OP misled the readers with the thread title and supporting text.

The poll was just fine.

[George II]

3. And yet 52% say they'll vote for Clinton, only 32% (down 1% from November) for Sanders.

I wonder why the poll didn't ask the same question about the other candidate(s)?

And why did you edit the categories in which they expressed their opinion?

[restorefreedom]

45. it makes complete sense to restrict the question

to the current frontrunners. especially with a zillion people running gop,,although i would not have minded seeing results regarding the top two or three on each side.

[baldguy]

4. Which one of these candidates would you like to see the Democratic Party nominate?

* DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY VOTERS *

52% ... Hillary Clinton
32% ... Bernie Sanders
2% ... Martin O'Malley

[jeff47]

6. The Democratic party is 30% of the electorate.

You don't win the GE with 30% of the electorate.

[George II]

8. But the Democratic Party is almost 100% of the Democratic Primary electorate.

[jeff47]

9. And that still doesn't win the GE.

You need those independents in the OP, which aren't exactly looking good for Clinton.

[Cali_Democrat]

10. Except Obama lost independents in 2012....and still won. nt

[jeff47]

18. He got enough of them to win. Independents are roughly split 50-50

between Democratic-leaning and Republican-leaning.

Again, Democrats are 30% of the electorate. You don't win with 30%. You have to get the 20% of the electorate that are Democratic-leaning independents. They will either vote for the Democrat or stay home.

They will not "fall in line", because they are not Democrats.
They will not vote because "Republicans bad!", as demonstrated by 2010 and 2014 (and 2004, and 2000).
They are to the left of the median Democrat, so "pivot to the center" is exactly the wrong thing to do.

Obama got them in 2008, and barely held on to enough of them in 2012 - his margin in popular vote in 2012 was half that of 2008, which is not terribly good for an incumbent. Still "got the job done", but also shows there is a problem.

Clinton has a very large general election problem. Yet there's zero evidence Team Clinton thinks there could be a problem, much less have a plan to address it.

[redstateblues]

104. So Bernie has 30% of the Democrats 30%

Comes out to about 10%. Pretty weak even for a Socialist

[jeff47]

116. Virtually all registered Democrats will vote for the nominee.

Your claim is that Clinton and O'Malley supporters in the primary will stay home in the GE. You really want to make that claim?

And are you utterly unaware that such a claim also means Clinton is doomed when Sanders and O'Malley supporters stay home in the GE?

[Doctor_J]

16. 52% of 30% of the electorate

I don't see her motivating a large number of new/undecided/discouraged/independent voters. I am a little worried by her candidacy.

[jeff47]

22. You should be.

A decent chunk of the 48% of Democrats who are not for Clinton will "fall in line" for the GE.

But Democratic leaning independents will not "fall in line". They are not part of the party.

Democratic leaning independents are not motivated by "Republicans bad!" as demonstrated by the massive failures of our "Republicans bad!" campaigns in 2014 and 2010 (and to a lesser extent, 2004 and 2000).

And Clinton's history is to "pivot to the center" for the general election. Democratic-leaning independents are to the left of the median Democrat. "Pivot to the center" is exactly the wrong thing to do.

There is a very large general election problem looming. And it doesn't look like Team Clinton thinks a problem is even possible, much less have a plan to deal with it.

[itcfish]

89. Wait!!!

35% of the registered voters are Democrats as opposed to 27% of the registered voters who are republicans. 49 % of the independent voter leans democratic and 39% lean republican. How do you figure 30%????

[Hepburn]

15. It's independents and cross-overs who win GE elections.

BFD that HRC is getting Dem votes. She lacks where it counts the most for the GE. She is a loser. She will not get the votes needed to take the WH if we Dems unfortunately nominate her. Again: She loses because she does not have the necessary appeal to Independents and Repubs whereas Bernie does.

JMHO

[baldguy]

23. And do you know what drives those people away?

Insisting that the RW lie of both parties being the same is true.

Do you know why Hillary will win? Because she's over the last 8 yrs she's been laying the groundwork to win.

For some reason the Berniestas think this is a bad thing.

[Hepburn]

29. To the people I have spoken with -- what drives them away is...

...the thought of Hillary Clinton anywhere near the WH.

I do not merely think she is the bad thing, I know the difference between a DINO and a progressive and true liberal. She is of the 1% and for the 1% and simply not one of us.

Hillary may win the nomination -- UNFORTUNATELY -- but against all of the Repukes but tRump she will lose. She does not have the necessary appeal to win the GE -- lack of appeal to the independents and lack of Republican cross-overs. Winning the nomination in no manner makes her POTUS...in fact, it pretty much makes for a loss for the WH and down the line.

The fact that she laid campaign groundwork is a frightening thought -- says to me that she does not speak the truth, but will do what it takes to win. Out of your own post, you gave one of the major reasons to not support her...however the wind blows for the nom, so blows Hillary.

And, stop with the insults like BGernistas...it makes YOU and not Bernie Sander supporters look bad. TIA

[Beacool]

28. As if Sanders could win the general election,

when he doesn't even get the majority of Democrats to vote for him.

[jeff47]

36. Democrats are 30% of the electorate. You don't win a general election with 30%.

Most of that 30% will vote for the Democratic nominee, be it Sanders or O'Malley or Clinton.

For winning the GE, you need the 20% of the electorate that are Democratic-leaning independents. They will either show up or stay home. They will not vote for the Republican.

Independents are not centrists. There are two major blobs - Democratic-leaning independents and Republican-leaning independents. They are roughly the same size. They will never vote for the opposing party. They will either vote for one party or stay home. Polls often treat "independents" as one block, which makes them appear to be centrists since you are effectively averaging Democrats and Republicans.

They will not "fall in line". They are not Democrats.

They will not vote only because "Republicans bad!". That's why they stayed home in 2010 and 2014 (and to a lesser extent in 2012. That's why Obama's popular vote margin went down by half)

They are to the left of the median Democrat. Clinton's history of "pivot to the center for the GE" is exactly the wrong thing to do.

Clinton is starting in a very bad place with these voters, and she needs them to win the GE. She has very little "room" to change their opinion over her, due to her long time in the spotlight. it is going to be very hard for Clinton to get these voters to the polls. And if they don't show up, it's 2000 or 2004 again.

Sanders and O'Malley are starting in a much, much better place with these voters.

[Vincardog]

44. Would you care to expand on your thoughts? Or is that the extent of your observation?

I believe Bernie wins with all the voters democratic, independent and even some cross over republicans. Exactly how many left leaning independents do you see Hill getting?

[Beacool]

106. My point was clear.

If Sanders can't even win enough votes to win the party's nomination, he obviously can't win in a general election. Where do you see Sanders winning "with all the voters Democratic"?

[Vincardog]

108. Yes see Bernie winning every democratic voter that cares a out winning the GE. The winner is the

Last edited Fri Dec 11, 2015, 05:04 PM - Edit history (1)

one who gets the INDEPENDANTS. Do you really see Hill getting any moderate INDEPENDANTS?

[CoffeeCat]

7. I saw another poll with Clinton getting 6 percent of the Indpedendent vote

How in the world can a Democratic candidate win a national election with only 6 percent of Independents? They can't.

Break this down:

-The vast majority of Republicans have deranged hate for her (mainly due to talk radio)
-She's got single-digit support among Independents
-25 percent of Democrats are either scared by or concerned about her policies--and there is an enthusiasm gap.

This is a recipe for disaster.

How could Hillary possibly win a GE?

[leftynyc]

13. I'd like to see that poll

because what you're saying is 94% of Independents plan on voting republican if Hillary is the candidate. I don't believe that crap for even one second.

[Hepburn]

17. No, 94% will not vote for Hillary -- that is the issue. n/t

[leftynyc]

20. So somewhere in that poll

they say they will vote for Bernie? Where is that poll? What are the other 94% going to do? Vote republican? Stay home? Do you really expect people to buy that bullshit?

[Hepburn]

24. You are not getting this, are you?

The issue is NOT voting Republican and/or voting for Bernie -- the issue is that apparently approx 94% of independent voters will NOT vote for Hillary. Now, you go and figure out how that impacts her chances at the general. It means she loses the GE.

Hint: It may mean also that if we Dems unfortunately nominate Hillary that people will stay home and/or pass votes...it does not ipso facto mean Repubbie and/or Bernie votes ... it simply means NO on Hillary...PERIOD.

The only BS I see that is being bought is that HRC is a progressive or a true liberal. She IMO is nothing of the kind. If you want corporations-in-control, Wall Street-making-the-Rules establishment BS, then the choice is simple...support HRC.

JMHO

[leftynyc]

39. And the Poll STILL hasn't been posted

So I still think it's complete bullshit. Along with your read on it. The thought that 94% of independents will stay home or vote con is so hilarious, I can't believe you actually typed it.

[Desert805]

82. So what percentage will it be?

You can't win an election with 30% of the votes (assuming 100% of Democrats vote for Hillary, that is).

So, what percentage will it be?

[leftynyc]

87. No idea

It would depend on who the gop candidate is. But throwing out bullshit numbers and refusing to provide links is unmitigated garbage.

[Hepburn]

84. What does it matter?

She cannot win the GE with ONLY Dems supporting her.

She MUST HAVE independents and cross-overs to get elected. That is NOT going to happened. She could have 100% of all Dems backing her and if no support from Independents and Republies, she loses.

Do you understand this yet?

[leftynyc]

88. Bullshit

You and the suspiciously absent poster who threw out those bullshit numbers can't provide any evidence of your arguments. And who would even look at a poll when you don't know who the gop candidate is going to be? You have ZERO evidence that independents will support Bernie over Hillary. ZERO EVIDENCE. The desperation is getting very smelly.

[leftofcool]

105. Link to the poll please.

[jeff47]

25. No. Voting is not zero-sum.

Democratic-leaning independents won't vote for the Republican. They'll just stay home. Like they did in 2010 and 2014, and to a lesser extent in 2012 (Obama lost 1/2 of his popular vote margin between 2008 and 2012, largely due to Democratic-leaning independents staying home).

Democratic-leaning independents will not "fall in line". They are not Democrats.
Democratic-leaning independents are not motivated by "Republicans bad!".
Democratic-leaning independents are to the left of the median Democrat. So "pivot to the center" is exactly the wrong thing to do.

We need high turnout among Democratic-leaning independents or we lose. Clinton is starting in a massive hole with them, and shows no evidence of believing it's possible she's below grade, much less have a plan to get out of that hole.

[leftynyc]

41. So you've seen this

poll also? Where? Or do you just believe whatever bullshit anyone on your side posts? I asked for a link to that poll HOURS ago.

[jeff47]

48. I'm not talking about that poll. I'm talking about the make-up of the electorate

as shown by a whole lot of polls and studies, as well as actual election results and exit polling.

Here's one article about it. There are many others, with minor differences in percentages.

Roughly speaking, 30% are Democrats. 30% are Republicans. 40% are independents, half of which "lean Democratic" and half of which "lean Republican". "Leaners" will never vote for the opposite party. True "swing" voters that will vote for either party are a trivial fraction of the electorate.

You are trying to dismiss problems with independents as "94% will vote for the Republican". My point is voting is not zero-sum. Democratic-leaning independents will not vote for the Republican. They will stay home if they do not want to vote for the Democrat. And voting for the Democrat is not the same thing as voting against the Republican.

[leftynyc]

65. Take it up with the

person who posted the results from a poll they wont link to who said only 6% of independents will vote for Hillary. That was the claim I calling bullshit on.

[leftynyc]

40. Are you EVER going to post

a link to that ridiculous poll? I asked HOURS ago.

[George II]

12. This poll as presented by NYT/CBS is a pretty bad gauge of the opinions of Americans....

...there were 72 questions asked, they've chosen to release the results of only 8 questions. The others are all "Held for future release".

I wonder what they're trying to hide and when they intend on releasing the remaining 64 questions?

[Doctor_J]

14. Finally I am in the majority on something

Wait...actually majorities of Americans want healthcare, school, infrastructure improvement, social security expansion, higher taxes on the hyper rich, action on climate change, a major bump in the minimum wage, less pentagon spending, and wall street regulation.

Luckily there is one person running for president who sides with the majority on these issues.

[SmittynMo]

27. K/R 1K n/t

[upaloopa]

37. The majority of Americans don't want their taxes raised

You are telling a part of the story. Tell it all.
To get what Bernie is talking about you will have to pay more in taxes. After all that is what socialism is all about. You pay into the government and get those things you mentioned back.

The problem is for Bernie that the majority of Americans have a negative view of having their taxes raised when they are struggling as it is. And the right will never agree to it.

But one of Bernie's biggest negative is his lack of foreign policy experience and his unwillingness to discuss terrorism.

So a large part of the electorate do not want to pay more taxes for more government services and they worry about terrorism.

You can argue that they should not feel that way but the fact is they do.

Hillary is less extreme and would do better in the general when all the facts are out on the table.

[Doctor_J]

43. When it's framed by right wingers, you are correct

If the dimwitted Limbeciles were told they could pay an extra $400/yr in taxes and their healthcare would decrease by $6000/yr, even they might catch on. Or maybe not. And it is telling that a segment of the Dem party has adopted the Fox/hate radio spin. A major reason for the heavy losses in recent years. I recently posted that new people at my place of work take home about $29K/yr, and might now be on the hook for a max of $12K/yr in healthcare expenses - 40% of their net pay. A follow-up by one of the DU fans of for-profit health insurance: "That's less than the ACA allows"

ummm...yeah

[upaloopa]

75. Again you are using talking points

You have no studies or anything to back up what you say.

I won't vote for talking points.

And other countries do it is not proof it works here. It isn't as simple as Bernie folks say it is.

[Laser102]

74. I saw him get upset when reporters asked about foreign policy. He wanted to talk about the economy.

Reporters aren't going to follow his script. They are going to ask whatever they want. He knows that by now. No one wants a cranky old man yelling at them. If they do, I have a husband in mind for president.

[KingCharlemagne]

115. Why is HRC unwilling to apologize for her vote for a WAR CRIME???? Why

do you support someone who voted for a war crime,????

Why are you and all the fucking Hillbots on this site UNWILLING to discuss that??????

[Beacool]

30. When the chips are down, I doubt that Trump will be the Republican nominee.

On the other hand, I have no doubt that Hillary will be the Democratic nominee.

[Beacool]

33. I read that kind of wishful thinking on RW sites.

I expect a bit better on a Democratic site.

[riversedge]

46. and you are proud of smearing a Dem on a Dem board!! Shame on you.

[whatthehey]

49. Irony ain't just a lump of ferrous material...

[leftynyc]

42. LOL - the cons have

been making that claim about "indictments any day now" for over 2 decades. How lovely to see that bullshit on a board called Democratic Underground. Get lost.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

35. Holy False Equivalency, Batman! nt

[riversedge]

47. Thank you.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

50. And for the record for all the GD:P people out there.....

....equating Bernie Sanders to Donald Trump simply because both are considered "outsider" candidates is equally false of an equivalency.

There is no Democratic counterpart to Donald Trump. Period.

[VanillaRhapsody]

78. well Bernie is NOT an outsider

so there is that...

[Thenewire]

56. Why?

Why are some of you guys turning against other democrats or equating them to vile xenophobic trash like Trump? Are you telling me that in a hypothetical election between Clinton and Trump you wouldn't go out to vote for her just because she isn't Bernie Sanders? You guys realize that you are buying into the same right wing propaganda as the right wingers if you believe all the bullshit thrown against Clinton.

[Xithras]

58. Everyone I've spoken with agrees that this election SUCKS. There are NO decent candidates.

I like Bernie, but his numbers are climbing too slowly to win the nomination. Hillary is a neoliberal corporatist hawk. Trump is insane and the rest of the Republican herd is close behind him.

Where is the John Kennedy? Where is the Roosevelt? Hell, for that matter I'd take a Jimmy Carter over this crop of losers. How did we get to this point? Why, in a nation of 350 million people, can we not come up with a better selection of candidates?

[steve2470]

109. One reason, IMHO, is the post-Watergate micro-scrutiny of candidates

I would never run for public office. I don't want practically every aspect of my life under the white-hot spotlight of media and opposition research scrutiny. I think most people are exactly like me. Therefore, anyone intelligent and decent is not going to run unless they are 1) confident something less-than-morally-perfect isn't going to be revealed in public ; 2) they don't really care; and/or 3) they think they can survive the scrutiny. I'm glad some people are willing to run the gauntlet.

tl;dr: Too much bullshit, not worth it for most people.

[LanternWaste]

66. I admire supporters who work tirelessly for their candidate.

I admire campaign supporters who work tirelessly for their candidate; though I dismiss as mentally lazy (or simply incompetent) those supporters who's only tactic is to tear down the opposition candidate to make theirs appear higher than is actual.

But America's short attention span, love of fear and divisiveness, and ability to pretend the irrational it rational, I'm rarely surprised when I see it happen.





“I like your candidate, I do not like your candidate's supporters. Your candidate's supporters are so unlike your candidate.”
Mahatma Gandhi - True story.

[murielm99]

70. This is such bullshit.

It shows how morally bankrupt the bernouts are.

[frylock]

76. Insightful analysis.

[frylock]

77. 22% of Democrats are excited about Clinton.

Good luck with that.

[ThoughtCriminal]

79. Why even care about what Republicans think?

What do brain-damaged rabid raccoons think?

They are going to be scared of anybody who is not as evil/mean/insane as they are.

Independents matter, but frankly if you are still on the fence between Republicans and Democrats, you have to live in a very deep cave.

[Attorney in Texas]

80. Trump cannot win the general election because he has no support among independents and Democrats.

I take comfort in that, but I don't see why the same is not true of Clinton.

If we nominate her, and the Republicans do not nominate Trump whose candidacy is equally unpleasant to independents, it is difficult to find any objective justification to support the hope that she'll have any appeal among independents or potential cross-over Republicans. Clinton's model seems to work in a primary, but it does seem to have much potential past the primary. This path is a dead end.

[Nitram]

81. There you go again. Another post conflating Trump and Hillary.

It would be tiresome if it weren't so petty.

[Bernin]

83. 26 years

For 26 years I have been voting Democratic straight party ticket. With one minor exception that was a local seat years ago.

I will not be falling in line if Hillary is the nominee. She will not get my vote.
I have many friends that are registered Democrats as well. They have said they will not vote for her. They also said they might even vote Republican for the first time in their lives if she is the nominee.

A Hillary run for the WH will be a disaster.

If she is the nominee look forward to Republican control of ALL branches of government for the next decade.

[itcfish]

85. Come On Now

Scared of Hillary? After 8 years of Bush and a possibility of Trump, Hillary is the best candidate. Why this propaganda now? 9% Excited? Sorry I don't believe it.

[yurbud]

90. one is a neocon who will continue the endless wars, the other is insane.

people are right to be concerned.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

100. Plain ridiculous that Americans are almost as scared of Hillary Clinton as they are of Trump.

I don't buy it. Hillary Clinton is not scary.

[Thinkingabout]

102. A Sanders nomination is scary to me, he does not have a foreign policy

And failed the fp question in debate #2, still does not want to answer questions about ISIS, voted no on the ISIS Resolution,

[Attorney in Texas]

114. Your fears about ISIS are misdirected. You are 187 times more likely to starve to death in American

than to be killed by a terrorist.

[Thinkingabout]

118. This information does not give Sanders foreign affairs knowedge, he lacks in this area.

[Attorney in Texas]

119. Clinton has less experience focusing on poverty than Sanders has focusing on foreign affairs.

Poverty is a greater threat -- by far -- to American lives than terrorism.

I prefer Sanders' experience over Clinton's experience.

If you are going to pick a candidate or a president based on your perception of the candidate's ability to protect you from the minuscule threat of terrorism, I cannot dissuade you, but that is EXACTLY the goal of terrorism -- to affect political decisions by public acts of violence.

When Trump offends and alienates Muslims across the globe, the terrorists have won that battle.

Similarly, if you make a political decision based on a fear that ther terrorists have sparked within your mind, the terrorists have won that battle.

[Thinkingabout]

120. What, less experience, has Sanders ever went into migrant camps seeking the children in those

camps to improve their lives? She lived in Arkansas for several years, yes she has experience living and being around poverty. She has visited areas of the world where women are in dire poverty, has advocated for women not only in the US but around the world. Women are the head of households, she has fought for equal wages for women because this helps more households. Poverty is an issue Hillary has lots of experience. Try another one.

On Trump offending Muslims, she has said what Trump is doing is not in the best interest of the US and is placing a bad image on the US, this is something Trump is responsible.

In the last debate, it was oblivious Sanders lacks in foreign experience, we need a well rounded president not one who only has a one horse show.