Pundit On Cnn This Morning: Every Sanders Win Weakens Clinton

[coffeeAM]

This was followed by another pundit saying that these losses expose what a weak candidate Clinton is for the general election since more voters are supporting Sanders this late in the season.

[farleftlib]

1. Actually

I see it as she was a weak candidate from the starting gate and the illusion of inevitability
is being exposed for what it is - manufactured.

[frylock]

24. Indeed.

She's been propped up by the media and the Party Machine since jump.

[ciaobaby]

57. You got that right !

[CruzinNCrying]

63. Amen

And propping her up is getting heavy. It is hard to keep discounting Bernie Win after Bernie Win as she limps to securing the nomination ONLY through paid off supers.

[Ferd Berfel]

26. Oh Bang...Snap

spot on!

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. I said my piece on that note

months ago

[pa28]

54. The Democratic machine threw the kitchen sink at Bernie.

Despite that she's not going to have enough earned delegates to win the nomination outright.

That's why they're howling for Bernie to drop out now. That way she can claim it was never close, call it a victorious referendum and sweep Sanders along with all of his supporters under the rug.

[NanceGreggs]

80. It isn't close ...

... it's never been close, and it won't ever be close.

Voters can see the numbers. There is no need to "claim it was never close" - people know that it isn't.

[dchill]

76. Nice and concise!

[GreatGazoo]

87. Yes, as much as I like Sanders, I believe that if Hillary was running against Sanders plus another

mainstream Dem, like Biden, she would be third.

[Trust Buster]

2. Then Trump will be our next President. Thanks Sanders.

[coyote]

3. Let me correct that for you...

"Thanks Clinton"

[Merryland]

60. Exactly. Her dislikability factor is enormous.

[farleftlib]

6. So you agree she should drop out

so that the country won't be punished for not supporting her weak campaign. Bravo.

[Demsrule86]

19. No Bernie should drop out

He is a spoiler like Nader...hopefully she will recover and beat Trump. I have no interest in overturning the will of voters...and do not believe Sanders can win the GE. I would not vote for him should he steal the primary.

[Human101948]

30. Don't blame Nader...Gore was a weak candidate just like Hillary...

He should have slaughtered George Bush Jr. It should not have even been close enough to steal.

Guess what, it's happening again.

[closeupready]

46. +1. Remember: Gore LOST Tennessee, his OWN STATE.

Gore's loss was ALL on Al Gore.

[Fawke Em]

48. Ahem....

I would not vote for him should he steal the primary

.

Dusting off Hillary fanboi talking points: ARE YOU INSANE? YOU DON'T LOVE YOUR COUNTRY!!! YOU'RE STUPID, DUMB, IDIOTIC TO WASTE YOUR VOTE!!! WHAT WILL YOU DO IF WE HAVE PRESIDENT TRUMP. THAT'S THE STUPIDEST THING I'VE EVER HEARD. YOU'RE NOT A TRUE LIBERAL!! ARGLE BARGLE BLAH!

Point: When liberal Bernie supporters say the same thing because Hillary is too far to the right for our comfort, we are treated to the above tirade.

Thank you.

[Matariki]

55. Clinton is both spoiler and spoiled

Primaries have a purpose. Just because YOU don't like someone legitimately running in that primary doesn't make them a 'spoiler'.

By the same selfish logic you are using, I assert that Clinton is a spoiler. She's ruining the party by running with a looming FBI investigation. She's a corporatist and a wall street & political insider in a time when people are fed up with what those institutions are doing to our standard of living.

[Merryland]

64. Well said.

[dchill]

78. Spoiler? No...

Candidate, yes.

[BillZBubb]

8. If that happens it is ALL on Hillary and her myopic backers.

[Autumn]

13. No you can thank Hillary for her actions, and be sure to send a little note to DWS and the DNC.

[Peace Patriot]

16. All polls show Sanders demolishing Trump.

National match-up polls are now (post-April) good predictors of what will happen later in the year. Sanders has been demolishing Trump in match-up polls since January, and is still doing so.

Clinton's margins against Trump are half of Sanders, and she loses to Trump in one poll (Rasmussen). Sanders also beats Trump in swing states (FLA, PA and OH), where Clinton actually loses in one state, and Sanders has high trustworthy and favorability numbers, while Clinton's numbers in those polls are dismal.

Sanders is a much better candidate against Trump, and we surely will thank him when he demolishes Trump in November. And if he can't get to November, past our very, very Clinton-rigged convention, we will have have Clinton to thank for hog-tying us to her weaknesses.

[frylock]

25. No. Thanks, Hillary.

Don't blame Bernie for your incredibly flawed candidate.

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. Excuses for a weak candidate

nice

[brush]

37. I don't get all the Sanders supporters saying Clinton is weak

She's way ahead in votes and delegates.

If she's weak, why is he not ahead in votes and delegates?

[Sparkly]

38. Because because because...

because because...Because of the wonderful things he does?

[brush]

39. Heehee! That made me chuckle.

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. It is not just Sanders supporters

it is elite media in the US, and foreign press.

Trust me, some of the things written abroad, where this election is extremely consequential is far from nice.

Analysts in Germany are not being partisan. Nor are the idiots in Mexico City, or for that matter London. When I read some of those pieces, takes getting out of the US Media bubble, I was amazed though at how much they agreed with some of my analysis and that of US elite media months ago. They did further inform my thought though. Oh and for the silly folks in Mexico City, a Trump presidency is a matter of national importance.

I said my piece months ago. It is what it is. And I expect you guys to line the usual suspects and blame them. Some of those usual suspects. not the mercurial RW of your party, as the poll in WV last night again revealed (15 percent of HRC supporters will vote for Trump in November), are getting tired of being whipping boys, so some at least, are planning to sit it out.

And the threat "BUT, BUT TRUMP!" will not work with them anymore. It is kind of ironic, the level of amused cognitive dissonance at play here. She is what she is.

[brush]

44. Be clear please.

You say you've said your piece about this before. What is it?

Readers may have missed it.

Why is Sanders such a strong candidate but is losing badly to such a weak one?

[nadinbrzezinski]

70. She is likely the weakest candidate that the dems will nominate in decades

I went as far as Mondale. somebody here corrected me and said McGovern. I still will stand by Mondale as to her weakness.

That is the summary of it.

And Sanders is not winning due to the internal mechanics of how elections are done in the US. Partisan elections are designed to prevent insurgencies. For the record, both parties have those mechanisms in place, but the fracturing of the Republican party is much further along than the democratic party, which is also in the process of fracturing. You can see it here, but you can see it in the field too. (For the record, at times we local reporters exchange notes on different social media we all watch and post at, due to this interest on the fracturing of the political system. It is actually a fascinating and scary thing when you live though it in real time)

The signal that the dems do not have full control in that process, this will go to the floor of the convention. NEITHER will have the necessary number of pledged delegates to win outright without the "electoral college" aka the Supers (They have the same function actually). Nor was this expected by the party elite, In their disconnect they actually believed Sanders would be so weak that it would be perfunctory. Yes, I have been told this by members of the democratic party here in CA over coffee. They are actually shocked that this year, we might sort of count. That was not supposed to happen.

I reached that conclusion as to her weakness months ago after watching a few of her events on C-SPAN and the debates. She is hyper controlled, robotic and she actually admits, it, she is not, and it is true, a natural politician. Her opponent in the GE is a natural. He lies like a pro, but damn he is a natural at the game. The way he pivoted from Primary to GE last week, had both of us watching stunned. We watch this professionally, and we have not seen such a smooth pivot in years. Obama was good in 2008, but literally trump went from Primary to GE in a way not seen since JFK, because like JFK he knows the new medium. That is why I will not make any predictions of who will win, but I will say it will be close.

And yes, I do recommend you get out of the DU bubble and the US Media bubble (CNN is starting now, it is too late), and go read some of the UK Independent, if you read Spanish El Universal (RW sort off) La Jornada (LW, very much so), and a few German English papers have extremely good pieces, Also read Foreign Policy as far as US elite media is concerned, they are somewhat center to slightly center left, and Foreign Affairs has also run a couple, they are be forwarded, somewhat to the right of Atila the Hun at times, Over the years they have been captured by the neocons. And for some reason, they don't like her, even though she is a neocon. Yeah, go figure. And at that level those labels mean something... so it is baffling, becuase Trump is completely against their intents and goals.

[Jester Messiah]

41. Sanders can beat him, Hillary can't. You insist on Hillary. Who's giving us Trump again? n/t

[Logical]

50. If it is that easy to hurt hill then she has issues. Nt

[dchill]

77. Oh yeah - who couldn't see THAT coming?

[AgingAmerican]

79. If she can't win it's on her and those who shoved her down our throats

[GreatGazoo]

88. Sanders and many other Dems could beat Trump easily

Running Hillary turns this into a high stakes game of chicken.

If your candidate can't beat Trump then maybe you should support someone who can (?)

[d_legendary1]

4. If at this point in time she still can't put Sanders away

who's been nothing but a gentlemen regarding policy, imagine what its gonna be like when she has to deal with the Neanderthal.

[MoonRiver]

7. It will be a lot easier because....Neanderthal.

[d_legendary1]

9. You underestimate the public at large

who actually agree with that Neanderthal.

[MoonRiver]

74. Is that how Obama and Clinton got elected?

Don't think so!

[d_legendary1]

75. Hillary is neither

Both Bubba and B.O. managed to pull the independent vote to their cause. They also have charisma. Hillary has neither.

[MoonRiver]

81. She has 3 million more votes than Bernie. THAT is charisma.

[d_legendary1]

82. That is questionable

In open primaries she loses cuz of independents. In echo chambers like the one you find yourself in, she dominates but not by much. How is that being charismatic?

[all american girl]

83. Um, she's won more open primaries

[d_legendary1]

84. You sure about that?

When Independents Can Vote, Bernie Sanders Wins

[all american girl]

85. Yes, she has won more open primaries. Bernie has won more mixed primaries, but only by

one, I think.

[JoePhilly]

10. He's been "put away" for weeks.

[d_legendary1]

17. Then where's the coronation ceremony

being held other than in your head? Last I checked a convention needs to happen to officially declare the winner since neither is gonna get the delegates needed to get the nom.

[seabeyond]

5. A bunch of Republican voting Libertarians and baggers, voting in Democratic primary....

[frylock]

27. The same bunch of Republican voting Libertarians and baggers that will vote in the GE.

What will the excuses look like then?

[seabeyond]

28. Ya. Kinda the way the election works. What they shouldn't do is pick our Democratic candidate.

[frylock]

31. As NPP, I disagree.

People shouldn't have to join a private organization for the opportunity to determine who is going to run OUR country.

[seabeyond]

32. People absolutely should have to be a part of the party electing their candidate. NPP? Clueless.

[frylock]

40. Thank you so much for your condescension.

Clueless? Look in a fucking mirror.

[seabeyond]

49. Lol. NNP? Question. I am clueless what that means. Fuck

[JonLeibowitz]

56. No Party Preference, the California designation for Indys.

I am one as well; I agree with Washington that parties are bad for the country.

[seabeyond]

62. Thank you. I appreciate the info.

[frylock]

65. No Party Preference.

[Human101948]

33. They haven't and you will have to take responsibility for the results...

Oh the humanity!

[seabeyond]

34. Fine. And good.

[Logical]

51. Lol, your whining is really getting silly. Nt

[seabeyond]

52. Clinton, winner. Sanders, loser.

[Logical]

53. And country loser. Nt

[seabeyond]

59. Nope. Averted a catastrophe.

[Logical]

67. Canada or the USA???

[seabeyond]

69. Fred or Henry. Ocean or sky. Yellow or ball.

[LiberalFighter]

11. Why Political Pundits Are Becoming More Wrong

The New Yorker

From that broad reading of the data, Tetlock pulled some important details: the longer the range, the lower the accuracy, so that “when you move beyond about one year,” predictions rarely perform better than random chance (i.e., dart-chucking primates); second, he found that analysts are prone to unassailable, and unwarranted, personal confidence: “When they say they’re eighty or ninety per cent confident, they’re often right only sixty or seventy per cent of the time.” Lastly, he found that fame breeds certainty, such that prominent predictors were “more overconfident than their colleagues who eked out existences far from the limelight.”

The same might be said of us, the “traditional” media. Reporters have discovered that we don’t understand the electorate as well as we thought we did, and that we have a limited ability to shape it. “Part of this is social vanity,” as my colleague Benjamin Wallace-Wells put it on a recent edition of the Politics and More podcast. “I think we want to presume that the person who is going to be elected President, who other people respect, looks more or less like we do in the media.”

[Adrahil]

12. It's nonsense. Obama lost 9 of the last 12 contests. NT

[ieoeja]

43. And he won or tied in 6 of the last 12.

There is no last 12 as 4 were held on March 4th with only 11 being held thereafter. But if you count all 4 held on March 4th as being #12 - since they are “tied” for being the twelfth from the end – then you can get “lost 9 of the last 12”.

12. 3/04 H Ohio
12. 3/04 H Rhode Island
12. 3/04 H Texas
12. 3/04 O Vermont

11. 3/11 O Mississippi
10. 4/22 H Pennsylvania
09. 5/03 T Guam
07. 5/06 H Indiana
07. 5/06 O North Carolina
06. 5/13 H West Virginia
04. 5/20 H Kentucky
04. 5/20 O Oregon
03. 6/01 H Puerto Rico
01. 6/03 H South Dakota
01. 6/03 O Montana

[SFnomad]

71. There were a last 12, you forgot Wyoming on March 8th which Obama won

In your example you can't still call it "last 12" when you included 4 on the same date anyway ... that would then become last 15 (when you skip Wyoming)

[ieoeja]

72. So he only lost 6 of the last 12 primaries!

I was trying to figure out how the other poster came up with a last 12. I was not counting secondary caucuses/conventions, just the principal primary results. I mistook Wyoming's for a secondary.

12. 3/08 O Wyoming
11. 3/11 O Mississippi
10. 4/22 H Pennsylvania
09. 5/03 T Guam
07. 5/06 H Indiana
07. 5/06 O North Carolina
06. 5/13 H West Virginia
04. 5/20 H Kentucky
04. 5/20 O Oregon
03. 6/01 H Puerto Rico
01. 6/03 H South Dakota
01. 6/03 O Montana

Now I have no idea where the other poster got their numbers.

[SheilaT]

15. She supposedly had the nomination sewn up

a good two years ago. She raised tons of money starting in 2014 not only to fund her campaign, but to intimidate any potential challengers sufficiently that they'd back off.

And then some unknown Senator from Vermont -- who wasn't even a Democrat for chrissake! -- declared he was running and everyone got a good laugh out of that. He was polling single digits, and it seemed clear he'd be lucky to win New Hampshire, and would certainly be gone no later than Super Tuesday, early March.

But he not only virtually tied her in Iowa, he won in New Hampshire and then just kept on going. Just yesterday he won West Virginia in a pretty big way. And if Hillary supporters want to claim she won Nebraska yesterday, that was a completely meaningless exercise: their caucus back in March, the one that awarded delegates, went strongly for Bernie.

Clinton has always been a weak candidate. All she ever had going for her was name recognition, and a lot of starry-eyed wishful thinking about being the first female President. Her negatives are enormous, even among those who vote for her. It's pretty depressing to think that "the lesser of two evils" thinking is so strong, that so many people willlingly vote for an evil candidate, rather than looking at the other possibility and choosing to vote for a candidate they really do support.

As for me, I'm completely over the lesser of two evils bullshit. I will vote FOR someone I want, or not at all.

[pdsimdars]

22. You're in good company on the lesser of two evils

Once you say you're going to settle for second, that's what happens to you in life.

--- John F. Kennedy



Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/j/johnfkenn166598.html

[Arugula Latte]

47. Very good summary post, SheilaT.

[arcane1]

66. Perfectly said. Right now the best she has is "She's not Trump" and that's sad.

[cali]

18. This is so obvious

[Demsrule86]

20. Who was the pundit?

I think I can guess. The GOP is rooting for Bernie to be the nominee...and only a rightie would think a WVA win where 30-40 % plan to vote for Trump and not Sanders in the fall is significant.

[Orsino]

21. Therefore it doesn't.

That was easy.

[pdsimdars]

23. The fact that they were allowed to say that on the air on CNN is a breakthrough in itself

[Maedhros]

29. Good.

That gives Progressives more power.

[closeupready]

45. She can (and should) suspend her campaign, immediately then.

It would be the unifying thing to do.

[silvershadow]

58. When an election is actually allowed to play out to the actual end instead of

disenfranchising voters, sometimes the true nature of the landscape is revealed- such as in this case.

[pat_k]

61. "expose what a weak candidate Clinton is"

Key word: "Expose"

You can only expose what is already there.

Bernie Sanders is not "weakening" her. He merely exposes weakness that is already there. And if she is too weak a candidate to beat Trump, that weakness is what will have done her in. NOT anything he has done, or will do.

If the superdelegates don't wake up, we will have burden of trying to carry this weak candidate over the finish line. It will be an uphill battle. The only thing Sanders is doing with his uphill battle is try to save us from that one.

[JackRiddler]

68. Oh! Oh! A PUNDIT SPOKE ON CNN!

It's very important what they think. They are EXPERTS and everyone else are fools and idiots.

[JSup]

73. Sooner or later Chuck Norris...

...will do this again so I'm not worried about it:

[lumberjack_jeff]

86. If true, then Clinton is a weak candidate. n/t

[amborin]

89. Let's Nominate Bernie and Win the GE!!!!!!! #BernieOrTrump