If Trump beats Clinton in the general who will the Democrats blame?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump is urging Bernie to run as an independent in his speech just now, and on Twitter earlier today. He knows that's his only chance of beating HRC.

Nah. He likes having Bernie in the race. Bernie exposes Hillary’s hypocritical positions.

Did you not watch the speech? This is his new thing: call Bernie a victim of the Democrats, appeal to his ego, urge him to run as an independent.

Trump also just called himself the presumptive nominee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Better question: Who will the Republicans blame when they lose their majority in the Senate and the White House? Easy to blame Trump, but they voted for him. Who will catch the blame? Reince Priebus?

Oh no if Trump wins old Reince is gone...he and his establishment Wisconsin mafia will be out on their fat asses. Same for all those bozos at the U.S. Chamber and the club for growth. Gone, gone, gone....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump is urging Bernie to run as an independent in his speech just now, and on Twitter earlier today. He knows that's his only chance of beating HRC.

Nah. He likes having Bernie in the race. Bernie exposes Hillary’s hypocritical positions.

Did you not watch the speech? This is his new thing: call Bernie a victim of the Democrats, appeal to his ego, urge him to run as an independent.

Trump also just called himself the presumptive nominee.

He also talked about wage stagnation...sounded like Sanders...oh Hillary you don't know what you are in for

[Anonymous]

It is such a republican habit to have an excuse for losing ready before election day.

[Anonymous]

Trump is courting Sanders supporters, but Hillary is doing nothing to reach out to them.

Maybe Hillary doesn't really want to win this after all.

[Anonymous]

The Clinton's never take responsibility, so I suspect it will be the imaginary "narcissistic left's" fault.

That and a big finger wag to young people. The Clinton's love wagging fingers and seem to also revile young people, so it's a twofer.

The media and "good liberals" will bite and follow whatever the Clinton's say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will blame Hillary Clinton's supporters. Sanders would surely beat Trump in the general.

Nope. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/04/polls_say_bernie_is_more_electable_than_hillary_don_t_believe_them.html

That article is stupid and downright Bushian. It basically boils down to "don't trust the data, trust my gut because I know what will happen." It's utter nonsense. I prefer to trust objective data thank you very much.

[Anonymous]

I think Trump has a better chance of winning this than anyone here realizes. Clinton is just a horrible candidate, evidenced by the fact that a self-professed socialist is giving her a run for her money. It seems that the more people are exposed to her on a regular basis, the less people like her.

Look at the polling 6 months ago with her and Sanders and then look at the trajectory today. Now remember that Sanders started with 3% support. Trump will start with a built-in 40% support nationally.

[Anonymous]

If it's Trump vs Hillary, Trump will win in a landslide. He's attracting both moderate Republicans as well as the crazies. Plus, there are many Dems who don't trust Hillary and will sit out if she becomes the nominee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump has just swept the five primaries pretty decisively and will likely get the nomination. If he wins the general against Hillary, who will the Democrats blame?

Here are the choices:

1. Americans are dumb, uninformed, bigoted so why would anyone be surprised

2. Sanders did not do enough to support Clinton

3. Those stupid, short-sighted , stubborn Sanders supporters did not get their way and sat out the election

4. Not surprised because there are a lot of sexists and misogynists

5. Democrats f-cked up and should never have nominated someone who was so distrusted and viewed as dishonest

Add other reasons if you think I have missed any.

You must be remembering what Dems were saying in that brief period after the Palin selection, when McCain was up over Obama. Just replace "Clinton" for "Sanders" in 2 and 3 above, then replace "racists" for "sexists" in 4. This stuff writes itself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will blame Hillary Clinton's supporters. Sanders would surely beat Trump in the general.

Nope. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/04/polls_say_bernie_is_more_electable_than_hillary_don_t_believe_them.html

That article is stupid and downright Bushian. It basically boils down to "don't trust the data, trust my gut because I know what will happen." It's utter nonsense. I prefer to trust objective data thank you very much.

You are delusional. This article is full of data. Here's an example:
"
Sanders’ explicit socialism would help Republicans broaden this critique into an all-out scare campaign about a government takeover. There are lots of reasons to believe such a campaign would succeed. In a national Reason-Rupe poll taken two years ago, capitalism had a net favorable rating of 55 percent to 38 percent. Socialism had a net unfavorable rating of 58 percent to 36 percent. Last year, Gallup asked Americans: “If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be socialist, would you vote for that person?” Forty-seven percent of respondents said they would, but 50 percent said they wouldn’t. Every other kind of candidate tested in the Gallup poll—black, Mormon, gay, Muslim, atheist—garnered majority support, probably because the question stipulated that the candidate had already been nominated by “your party.” Only a socialist nominee was rejected. Among Democrats, a socialist was the only type of nominee who didn’t get 60 percent support."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Better question: Who will the Republicans blame when they lose their majority in the Senate and the White House? Easy to blame Trump, but they voted for him. Who will catch the blame? Reince Priebus?

This is the better question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will blame Hillary Clinton's supporters. Sanders would surely beat Trump in the general.

Nope. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/04/polls_say_bernie_is_more_electable_than_hillary_don_t_believe_them.html

That article is stupid and downright Bushian. It basically boils down to "don't trust the data, trust my gut because I know what will happen." It's utter nonsense. I prefer to trust objective data thank you very much.

You are delusional. This article is full of data. Here's an example:
"
Sanders’ explicit socialism would help Republicans broaden this critique into an all-out scare campaign about a government takeover. There are lots of reasons to believe such a campaign would succeed. In a national Reason-Rupe poll taken two years ago, capitalism had a net favorable rating of 55 percent to 38 percent. Socialism had a net unfavorable rating of 58 percent to 36 percent. Last year, Gallup asked Americans: “If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be socialist, would you vote for that person?” Forty-seven percent of respondents said they would, but 50 percent said they wouldn’t. Every other kind of candidate tested in the Gallup poll—black, Mormon, gay, Muslim, atheist—garnered majority support, probably because the question stipulated that the candidate had already been nominated by “your party.” Only a socialist nominee was rejected. Among Democrats, a socialist was the only type of nominee who didn’t get 60 percent support."

So you trust polls taken one or two years ago on a different question over polls on the direct question at hand taken yesterday? Talk about head in the sand. Everyone knows Sanders is a socialist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will blame Hillary Clinton's supporters. Sanders would surely beat Trump in the general.

Nope. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/04/polls_say_bernie_is_more_electable_than_hillary_don_t_believe_them.html

That article is stupid and downright Bushian. It basically boils down to "don't trust the data, trust my gut because I know what will happen." It's utter nonsense. I prefer to trust objective data thank you very much.

You are delusional. This article is full of data. Here's an example:
"
Sanders’ explicit socialism would help Republicans broaden this critique into an all-out scare campaign about a government takeover. There are lots of reasons to believe such a campaign would succeed. In a national Reason-Rupe poll taken two years ago, capitalism had a net favorable rating of 55 percent to 38 percent. Socialism had a net unfavorable rating of 58 percent to 36 percent. Last year, Gallup asked Americans: “If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be socialist, would you vote for that person?” Forty-seven percent of respondents said they would, but 50 percent said they wouldn’t. Every other kind of candidate tested in the Gallup poll—black, Mormon, gay, Muslim, atheist—garnered majority support, probably because the question stipulated that the candidate had already been nominated by “your party.” Only a socialist nominee was rejected. Among Democrats, a socialist was the only type of nominee who didn’t get 60 percent support."

So you trust polls taken one or two years ago on a different question over polls on the direct question at hand taken yesterday? Talk about head in the sand. Everyone knows Sanders is a socialist.

Yes. And 50% of Americans say that they will not vote for a socialist, period. "Socialist" has higher negatives than "atheist" or "Muslim" in the polling.

Here's more for you: http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2016/04/sanders-socialism-and-myth-november-polls

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will blame Hillary Clinton's supporters. Sanders would surely beat Trump in the general.

Nope. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/04/polls_say_bernie_is_more_electable_than_hillary_don_t_believe_them.html

That article is stupid and downright Bushian. It basically boils down to "don't trust the data, trust my gut because I know what will happen." It's utter nonsense. I prefer to trust objective data thank you very much.

You are delusional. This article is full of data. Here's an example:
"
Sanders’ explicit socialism would help Republicans broaden this critique into an all-out scare campaign about a government takeover. There are lots of reasons to believe such a campaign would succeed. In a national Reason-Rupe poll taken two years ago, capitalism had a net favorable rating of 55 percent to 38 percent. Socialism had a net unfavorable rating of 58 percent to 36 percent. Last year, Gallup asked Americans: “If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be socialist, would you vote for that person?” Forty-seven percent of respondents said they would, but 50 percent said they wouldn’t. Every other kind of candidate tested in the Gallup poll—black, Mormon, gay, Muslim, atheist—garnered majority support, probably because the question stipulated that the candidate had already been nominated by “your party.” Only a socialist nominee was rejected. Among Democrats, a socialist was the only type of nominee who didn’t get 60 percent support."

So you trust polls taken one or two years ago on a different question over polls on the direct question at hand taken yesterday? Talk about head in the sand. Everyone knows Sanders is a socialist.

Yes. And 50% of Americans say that they will not vote for a socialist, period. "Socialist" has higher negatives than "atheist" or "Muslim" in the polling.

Here's more for you: http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2016/04/sanders-socialism-and-myth-november-polls

Wow, you are myopic. Good luck with that when Clinton loses.