2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumIf Bernie Wins California, Should Hillary Step Down?
If Bernie Wins California, Should Hillary Step Down?5/20/2016 * Les Leopold * HuffPo
The Democratic Party must nominate the candidate with the best chance of defeating Trump. If Bernie wins California, Hillary is not the best candidate.
Oh, I hear the groans aplenty. Hillary won the most votes. Hillary has the most delegates. Bernie cant possibly win against the Republican attack machine. Katha Pollitt in The Nation colorfully expresses the position heard often from progressive Hillary supporters:
I just dont believe Americans are ready for a 74-year-old self-described socialist with a long far-left CV who would raise their taxes by quite a lot. By the time the Republicans got finished with him, hed be the love child of Rosa Luxemburg and the Ayatollah Khomeini, and then its hello, President Trump.
But if Hillary loses California, what does that say about her ability to win in the fall? It would mean that she has alienated most white voters. It would mean she again has lost the vast majority of independents, a crucial category. It would mean she couldnt win dog catcher among those under 30. And most importantly it would mean that she could lose to Trump.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/les-leopold/if-bernie-wins-california_b_10051886.html
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)onenote
(42,531 posts)Next stupid question?
The double standard is ridiculous.
Bernin4U
(812 posts)Instead of the first, then maybe yes.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Than winning a reliably blue state. Who won Florida, Ohio and Virginia?
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)The swing states are Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida.
They've both won their fair share of swing states, so you question is moot,
Proud Public Servant
(2,097 posts)And WI is not a swing state by any reasonable measure (nor is PA).
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)However, the Republicans may be gaining an advantage in three pale-Blue states: Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. In all three of these states, the population over fifty constitutes a significant percentage of eligible voters: 44% in Michigan, 46% in Pennsylvania, and 44% in Wisconsin as of 2012. Even more significant, in these states their turnout is close to half of the actual voter turnout. If Republicans can reach out to the white voters over fifty in these states, they may coax them into swing states by 2016.
http://potus2016.org/swing-states-election-2016/
hack89
(39,171 posts)It tells us nothing about the GE.
floriduck
(2,262 posts)message.
Side note: M's took game two against Reds. Felix looked better today.
hack89
(39,171 posts)She won CA. Yet Obama was not a weak GE candidate. And Hillary won't be a weak candidate either.
floriduck
(2,262 posts)Last edited Sun May 22, 2016, 01:40 PM - Edit history (1)
hack89
(39,171 posts)Let's see more than your opinion. Show some hard facts so I can see why you believe what you believe.
floriduck
(2,262 posts)caucuses. That's what I meant by finishing stronger than Hillary.
hack89
(39,171 posts)yet he was a strong GE candidate. In any case it is irrelevant - Bernie has no fair and democratic path to the nomination.
Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)Sander has lost...he is making deals for after he quits...can't you see that...he would get nothing if he had not agreed to concede.
Mrs. Clinton won the hard-fought Democratic race in California, where both she and Mr. Obama had sought the state's wealth of 370 delegates to be chosen on Tuesday. According to early returns, Mrs. Clinton had strong showings in Los Angeles, Santa Clara and San Diego. Early exit polls showed Mr. Obama running strongly among African-Americans, white men, younger voters and liberals. Mrs. Clinton did well among Hispanics, white women, moderates and those who described themselves as "somewhat conservative." Those who identified themselves as Democrats tended to choose Mrs. Clinton; "independents or something else" overwhelmingly voted for Mr. Obama. A majority of Californians who were surveyed said they made up their minds in the last month. The economy was ranked most often as the top issue facing the nation, followed by the war in Iraq and health care. There were signs that both Democratic camps were growing polarized; only half of the voters said they would be satisfied if either candidate became the nominee.
Based on questionnaires filled out by voters across the state.
floriduck
(2,262 posts)CobaltBlue
(1,122 posts)It depends on the type of presidential year we have.
In 2008, a Democratic presidential pickup year, the swing states were ones in the 2004 Republican column for President Bush. And it was no surpriseincumbent Republican president George W. Bush was so severely unpopular that any nominee from that party (not just John McCain) was going to end up playing for second.
In 2012, resulting in re-election for an incumbent Democratic president, swing states were a mix of states which were 2008 Republican and 2008 Democraticbut mostly the latter because, going against common historical trend, President Obama underperformed 2012 vs. 2008. (In 2008, he won nationally by +07.26 percentage points and with 28 states plus Nebraska #02 and District of Columbia with 365 electoral votes. In 2012, he was re-elected with +03.86 percentage points and District of Columbia with 332 electoral votes.)
I notice that, with having looked at the past presidential elections of 17892012, no one given presidential election has resulted in a freezethat the same percentage-points margin held, compared to the previous election cycle, and we ended up with exactly the same map. In fact, there has never been one presidential elections electoral map exactly repeated later. (Close connections between Republicans Herbert Hoover, in 1928, and Dwight Eisenhower, in 1952 and 1956, were interesting
but there were some differences in carried states.)
2016 is not going to duplicate 2012. If the likely nominee from the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton, is going to win a third consecutive election for her party, her supportcompared to a 2012 Barack Obamawill either increase or decrease.
This would bring a change to the 2016 map (even if that change is modest). Decreased party support, from just a +03.86 margin, makes this election favorable to the effective nominee of the Republican Party, Donald Trump. That would mean he would retain all 24 states, with 206 electoral votes, which carried for the losing 2012 Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, and put into play bellwether states which would flip to Trump if he ends up winning: Colorado, Florida, Ohio, and Virginiaalong with Iowa. And after that would come New Hampshire and others. If Hillary Clinton wins this election with significant increased support, that would take all 2012 states for a re-elected Democratic president Barack Obama and flip from the 2012 Republican column the likes of North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, Missouri, Indiana, and possibly more.
This all depends on the numbers in the national shift2012 to 2016and going in which partys direction. This should be a key issue for those who are genuinely concerned with Democratic primariesespecially with regard for hypothetical, general-election matchups for both nationwide and state after state.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)The answer is no.
SCantiGOP
(13,862 posts)If Mars aligns with Jupiter, or if monkeys fly out of my butt.
LoverOfLiberty
(1,438 posts)is more likely than Sanders taking California, IMO
CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)So How Is She expecting to win when people have such a poor opinion of her on so many levels?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)kayakjohnny
(5,235 posts)Is that supposed to be endearing?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)kayakjohnny
(5,235 posts)Let's compare notes in a few month's time shall we?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)kayakjohnny
(5,235 posts)Metaphors be damned.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)with the "dandruff" thing.
Just sayin'...
frazzled
(18,402 posts)Hillary won California in 2008--51.5% to Obama's 43.2%.
So no, she's ahead in delegates by far more than Obama was in 2008 (indeed, she's about is ahead by 3 times the delegate margin that Obama had then).
Can we please get real? This is not how nominating primaries work. Also, California is not the nation.
SCantiGOP
(13,862 posts)with The Onion?
Delusional postings are the order of the day.
(On edit: refers to OP, not your post Frazzled)
Proud Public Servant
(2,097 posts)It says nothing about her ability to beat Trump. It says something about her ability to carry a liberal state against an even more liberal opponent, and that has no bearing on the general election.
My money's on her carrying the state on the strength of its large Hispanic population. But it doesn't matter. California will go Dem in the fall regardless.
What's more telling is that, with the exception of New Hampshire, Hillary has has beaten Bernie in every single swing state AND in the four states most likely to become swing states this year (AZ, GA, MO, and NC). If you want to talk stronger candidate against Trump, that's the more important stat.
eastwestdem
(1,220 posts)Particularly with the nomination already decided. It makes it very hard to predict how (or if) people will vote.
anotherproletariat
(1,446 posts)TexasBushwhacker
(20,129 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)That's simply not realistic.
amborin
(16,631 posts)change, etc. The worst possible candidate
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)LMAO
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)the Primary wheel's still in spin.
dchill
(38,432 posts)There is however, the real possibility of indictment. And the FBI investigation is real.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)Metric System
(6,048 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Doesn't even realize that whites make up only 46% of the population in California.
What a clown.
oldandhappy
(6,719 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... Nevada, South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Massachusetts, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, Illinois, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Arizona, New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, what does that say about his ability to win in the fall?
I guess we're entering the bargaining stage: "Hey, how 'bout we just throw everything into the pot and whoever wins California gets the nomination?"
This stuff just gets funnier (and more pathetic) with every passing day.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)in Vermont.
Puglover
(16,380 posts)Please would you advise us all when the last time:South Carolina,Alabama.Georgia,Tennessee,Texas,Louisiana,Mississippi, went blue? They haven't been blue for a long long time. So that shrinks your impressive list just a tad.
And if you believe they are going to light up all pretty blue for Hillary...well good luck with that.
FWIW With our current sad election process I believe the OP's point to be moot.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... that the purpose of Democratic primaries is for ALL Democrats to have a voice in who their nominee is, regardless of what state they live in?
Thus far, the Bernie crowd have found one reason or another to completely discount every state that Bernie lost: too red, too diverse, too "southern", too "Confederate" - I'm actually waiting to hear things like "too hot in the summer, too cold in the winter, too rainy, too dry, too crowded, too just plain yukky."
I'm pretty confident that Hillary will win California - so I'm waiting to see what excuse there will be for not counting Cali either: Too hippy-dippy? Too close to the ocean? Too many trees? Too few outlet malls?
It's been the cry of the BS supporters since Iowa: Let's just NOT count the states that Bernie didn't win, m'kay?
Puglover
(16,380 posts)Yes, I am aware of the purpose of the Democratic primaries. Are you aware of how the general works?
I don't really give a shit about what you are waiting to hear. That's just pap Nancy.
We shall see who wins CA. I don't pretend to know. I doubt that whoever wins will make a whole lot of difference on the predetermined outcome of this primary.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... of the purpose of primaries, because you're conflating the primary contests with the GE.
Two different things: one determines the Dem nominee, the other determines the next POTUS.
Therefore, pointing out the states that "won't go blue in the GE" has absolutely nothing to do with the Democrats who live in those states voting to select the Party's candidate.
If you really believe that the outcome of the Dem primary has been "predetermined", I wonder why you even bother to weigh-in on which states are "red" or "blue" in the first instance. If it's all "rigged", why bother mentioning that at all?
KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)JI7
(89,237 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)auntpurl
(4,311 posts)I know you're not one.
PAMod
(906 posts)...for the rest of the primary season. The results the rest of the way have to be viewed in that light.
Zynx
(21,328 posts)onecaliberal
(32,763 posts)EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)onecaliberal
(32,763 posts)barrow-wight
(744 posts)litlbilly
(2,227 posts)they are well aware of that so that's why the full on panic mode. Also why all the reg shenanigans going on in CA. Hopefully the lawsuit filed will allow all the people to vote regardless of the misinformation being sent to them by the state. I saw one form where it said they had to be registered my Mar 12 or something like that. We need to crush CA, that should make the Sd's thing twice before backing Hill at the convention.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Which won't happen ... but you can fantasize about it for a while longer.
vintx
(1,748 posts)redstateblues
(10,565 posts)Godhumor
(6,437 posts)Just stupid...
bvf
(6,604 posts)Give her until the convention. Otherwise, it would be like cutting schoolyard recess short.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)"should Hillary step down?"
Hint: No one needs to step down until every primary is over and every vote is counted.
bvf
(6,604 posts)of jealousy of Trump's campaign in certain quarters hereabouts.
Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Seriously stupid article.
Retrograde
(10,126 posts)The Democratic delegates are assigned by Congressional (I think) district in proportion to how much of the vote in that district their candidate got. So if the vote is split 50/50 in my district, each will get the same number of delegates.
Nonhlanhla
(2,074 posts)Skid Rogue
(711 posts)one single delegate more than Sanders, it's hers.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)How about Pennsylvania? Florida? Ohio?
Sid
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)primnickel
(38 posts)They know she is toast in the general.
Samantha
(9,314 posts)Another issue not discussed much at DU is the fact when the issue of the improper use of a private server for classified information is resolved, the next stage will be the issue of public corruption (pay to play) with regards to transactions executed under the Clinton Foundation.
Sam
One Black Sheep
(458 posts)thelordofhell
(4,569 posts)Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)Delegates matter. She could 'lose ' the remaining races (don't' think she will) and still win. Bernie is done...He can not win. He can go on TV, say mean things and help Trump, but he will not be the Democratic nominee which is a good thing. He would lose badly in a GE.
stone space
(6,498 posts)If Bernie exceeds expectations and comes into the convention with a majority of pledged delegates due to his enormous unexpected landslide victory in California, he won't need Hillary to step down.
The supers will follow the pledged delegates and he'll be the Democratic nominee.
If he doesn't, the supers will still follow the pledged delegates, and he won't be the nominee.
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)but look, even with all the crap sanders, the media....has throw at hillary...all the money sanders as spent on attacking hillary...she still beats Trump...the nomination is about total delegates...and votes....hillary has resoundingly defeated sanders on both
her nomination is secured on the first ballot. Get used to it
LAS14
(13,769 posts)Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)That's an easy one.
AND, Bernie's the better candidate to win.
thesquanderer
(11,970 posts)GoneOffShore
(17,336 posts)And it's a tremendous shame that Pres Obama appointed her Sec of State when she was best suited to be ambassador to Fiji.
TexasBushwhacker
(20,129 posts)But momentum is a powerful thing.
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)Tarc
(10,472 posts)Good luck with that.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)Should the Broncos give the Super Bowl trophy to the Panthers?
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)why would a little thing like losing Cal sway her?
Playinghardball
(11,665 posts)So do I...
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)brooklynite
(94,296 posts)Bernie is nowhere close to closing the gap with Clinton in California (much less getting to the 67% margin he needs in Delegates), with only two weeks to go, no TV advertising and his money drying up.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)Same stupidity, different blogger.
anotherproletariat
(1,446 posts)such as huffpo. I wonder if it will start backing Trump? It wouldn't be surprising at all.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)silvershadow
(10,336 posts)anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)Bernie might win in California but right now that prospect looks remote.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)had something to do with that didn't he? Like the guy who killed his parents and is now claiming orphan status...sorry Bernie you lose. I hope you are happy to see the progressive movement which I have worked my entire life to promote in danger...thanks to you...thanks Bern.
thucythucy
(8,037 posts)will you be urging Bernie to step down?
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)I expect neither will step down, not until every state votes and every vote is
counted. This is as it should be IMHO.
Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)Bernie can't win by enough...to make a difference...Clinton won California last time ...and Ohio and PA too...he is the loser and I sincerely hope to never have to listen to him again.