Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This has been discussed quite a lot on talk radio this week. The answer is that she is laying off in the remaining states. She's NOT going after Bernie as hard as she could. There are two reasons for this. She doesn't need the states that badly (she's going to be the nominee whether some of you like it or not). And, also, to the point lots of Bernie supporters have been complaining about without any foundation, she doesn't want to make things so poor between the campaigns. She wants some of those folks to come over to her (as they should). She gains absolutely nothing by hammering away at Bernie at this point and will only piss off he supporters (not something hard to do based on what I've read on here).

She is campaigning furiously in Kentucky because she does not want to lose the state so I am not sure about the layng off business.

It's about keeping the vote reasonably close in order to get a good delegate split. In Kentucky that's possible, in Oregon not likely. Chess, as another poster said.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hillary accumulated her lead because of her victories in the Southern states where she got a large portion of the black vote.

The problem is that these are mainly red states that she will not win in the general.

You mean Southern states like PA, VA, NY, OH, NV, FL, MA, IL, CT, MD?(I put FL in there because it's a swing state)

The PP has no idea how offensive she sounds. None. She also hasn't seen the last few polls of Georgia, which show it's clearly in play this year.

Victory by a Democrat in red states in the primaries is of limited significance because these states will go Republican in the general whether they are won by Hillary or Bernie. By the same token, victory by Trump in blue states like California or NY are also of limited significance because they are deep blue states that he will not win.

She won some of these states because of the black vote and the Hillary campaign emphasized how states like SC were a firewall because of her support with black voters. Read racism into it if you like - but it is reality.

Just for fun, you should google the New York Times Upshot story about the places Democrats dislike Hillary Clinton the most outside of Vermont.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hillary accumulated her lead because of her victories in the Southern states where she got a large portion of the black vote.

The problem is that these are mainly red states that she will not win in the general.

You mean Southern states like PA, VA, NY, OH, NV, FL, MA, IL, CT, MD?(I put FL in there because it's a swing state)

The PP has no idea how offensive she sounds. None. She also hasn't seen the last few polls of Georgia, which show it's clearly in play this year.

Victory by a Democrat in red states in the primaries is of limited significance because these states will go Republican in the general whether they are won by Hillary or Bernie. By the same token, victory by Trump in blue states like California or NY are also of limited significance because they are deep blue states that he will not win.

She won some of these states because of the black vote and the Hillary campaign emphasized how states like SC were a firewall because of her support with black voters. Read racism into it if you like - but it is reality.

Um, again. PA, VA, OH, NY, FL, MA, CT, MD

Anonymous wrote:

This has been discussed quite a lot on talk radio this week. The answer is that she is laying off in the remaining states. She's NOT going after Bernie as hard as she could. There are two reasons for this. She doesn't need the states that badly (she's going to be the nominee whether some of you like it or not). And, also, to the point lots of Bernie supporters have been complaining about without any foundation, she doesn't want to make things so poor between the campaigns. She wants some of those folks to come over to her (as they should). She gains absolutely nothing by hammering away at Bernie at this point and will only piss off he supporters (not something hard to do based on what I've read on here).

She is campaigning furiously in Kentucky because she does not want to lose the state so I am not sure about the layng off business.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hillary accumulated her lead because of her victories in the Southern states where she got a large portion of the black vote.

The problem is that these are mainly red states that she will not win in the general.

You mean Southern states like PA, VA, NY, OH, NV, FL, MA, IL, CT, MD?(I put FL in there because it's a swing state)

The PP has no idea how offensive she sounds. None. She also hasn't seen the last few polls of Georgia, which show it's clearly in play this year.

Victory by a Democrat in red states in the primaries is of limited significance because these states will go Republican in the general whether they are won by Hillary or Bernie. By the same token, victory by Trump in blue states like California or NY are also of limited significance because they are deep blue states that he will not win.

She won some of these states because of the black vote and the Hillary campaign emphasized how states like SC were a firewall because of her support with black voters. Read racism into it if you like - but it is reality.

She's playing chess losing these primaries, folks! All you BernieBros are stuck playing checkers.

Anonymous wrote:The use of superdelegates has been a major bone of contention.

ThIs LA Times article offers some interesting history on how superdelegates came into being. An excerpt:

After the party was torn asunder by the Vietnam War -- some Democrats believing Vice President Hubert Humphrey had been forced down their throats as the 1968 nominee -- leaders changed the nominating system to give more say to voters at the grass-roots level. But after the landslide defeat of George McGovern in 1972 and Jimmy Carter in 1980, the feeling was some recalibration was needed, leavening the will of the people with the presumed wisdom of political insiders. Hence the birth of superdelegates.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-clinton-sanders-democrats-20160516-snap-story.html

So the intention with the superdelegates was to supersede the will of the voters if the insiders felt it was warranted because of the "presumed wisdom of the political insiders" over the judgement of the voters!

The Democratic party does not seem very democratic!

This has been discussed quite a lot on talk radio this week. The answer is that she is laying off in the remaining states. She's NOT going after Bernie as hard as she could. There are two reasons for this. She doesn't need the states that badly (she's going to be the nominee whether some of you like it or not). And, also, to the point lots of Bernie supporters have been complaining about without any foundation, she doesn't want to make things so poor between the campaigns. She wants some of those folks to come over to her (as they should). She gains absolutely nothing by hammering away at Bernie at this point and will only piss off he supporters (not something hard to do based on what I've read on here).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hillary accumulated her lead because of her victories in the Southern states where she got a large portion of the black vote.

The problem is that these are mainly red states that she will not win in the general.

You mean Southern states like PA, VA, NY, OH, NV, FL, MA, IL, CT, MD?(I put FL in there because it's a swing state)

The PP has no idea how offensive she sounds. None. She also hasn't seen the last few polls of Georgia, which show it's clearly in play this year.

Anonymous wrote:Hillary accumulated her lead because of her victories in the Southern states where she got a large portion of the black vote.

The problem is that these are mainly red states that she will not win in the general.

First, black people everywhere greatly appreciate this point of view. Really they do. Keep it up. Maybe those votes should just be 3/5 of a white person's vote?

Second, if you think Bernie's big states like Wyoming, Oklahoma, Kansas, et al. will go blue in the fall, well....

Anonymous wrote:Hillary accumulated her lead because of her victories in the Southern states where she got a large portion of the black vote.

The problem is that these are mainly red states that she will not win in the general.

You mean Southern states like PA, VA, NY, OH, NV, FL, MA, IL, CT, MD?(I put FL in there because it's a swing state)

Hillary accumulated her lead because of her victories in the Southern states where she got a large portion of the black vote.

The problem is that these are mainly red states that she will not win in the general.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This super deep dive from VT Digger explains a lot about what went wrong for Bernie. Rallies and meeting the pope are exciting, but the day-to-day work on the ground is what matters.

http://vtdigger.org/2016/05/16/once-an-organizational-army-team-sanders-now-skeleton-crew/

Meanwhile, Clinton methodically organizes, trains, wins and therefore amasses delegates.

She also continues to amass cross-state accusations of voter fraud.

Fascinating that you think she is so powerful she controls the entire voting apparatus and every straight across the country, or at least in the states that she wins. That must be very difficult logistically!

There are plenty of postmortems out there that explain why Bernie is losing. I just posted one, as a matter of fact. If you understand anything at all about how campaigns work, it's easy to grasp why he's losing. Even the story the OP cited in her link points out that Bernie losing has nothing to do with conspiracies.

I merely stated a FACT that she continues to amass allegations of voter fraud in multiple states. That statement is true whether you like it or not.

She is amassing allegations of fraud? Please do tell what the Clinton campaign has done to commit voter fraud.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The trends that worry me:

1) Clinton's delegate lead came early in the race from the southern red states.

2) Sanders consistently outperformed Clinton in states with open primaries. This is a better indicator of how a candidate will perform in the general election.

3) In the second half of this primary Clinton has lost momentum. Since 3/16 Sander's has 8 wins to Clinton's 2 and earned 354 to her 279 delegates.

Lots is factual errors here. Bernie's "momentum" in later states is largely about demographics, just as Clinton's was in 2008. Bernie's victories in red states like Wyoming and Oklahoma will not carry over to the general. Georgia, on the other hand, where Clinton won handily, is clearly in play this year.

But none of this really worries you. You're a concern troll trying, yet again, to make the case that Bernie should be the nominee. As though DCUM decides that.

Expressing an opinion without facts does nothing to refute the poster's concerns, nor does insulting people with whom you disagree.
I'm not a Sander's supporter, but I can understand why HRC wants him to bow out. He could win every primary between now and the convention and that will be embarrassing.

You think Bernie is going to win NJ, CA, PR and DC? Based on what premise do you predict this?

The key word there is COULD, and regardless Sanders will likely win the majority of states and delegates in the second half of the primary. Easy to see how this might weaken Clinton going into the convention.

Just like Clinton won more states than Obama at the end. Does not matter.

The only thing that weakens her is bad Berner behavior, as on Saturday. Bernie is either unwilling or unable to address that. Real leadership there!

And Hillary is either unwilling or unable to stop her celebrity fans from physically assaulting women.

(see how stupid lumping a candidate in with his/her followers is)

Surely one incident that happened in a bar at 3 am is the same as hundreds of incidents, threatening phone calls, assaults etc.

You need a reality check.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This super deep dive from VT Digger explains a lot about what went wrong for Bernie. Rallies and meeting the pope are exciting, but the day-to-day work on the ground is what matters.

http://vtdigger.org/2016/05/16/once-an-organizational-army-team-sanders-now-skeleton-crew/

Meanwhile, Clinton methodically organizes, trains, wins and therefore amasses delegates.

She also continues to amass cross-state accusations of voter fraud.

Fascinating that you think she is so powerful she controls the entire voting apparatus and every straight across the country, or at least in the states that she wins. That must be very difficult logistically!

There are plenty of postmortems out there that explain why Bernie is losing. I just posted one, as a matter of fact. If you understand anything at all about how campaigns work, it's easy to grasp why he's losing. Even the story the OP cited in her link points out that Bernie losing has nothing to do with conspiracies.

I merely stated a FACT that she continues to amass allegations of voter fraud in multiple states. That statement is true whether you like it or not.

"We didn't get our way because the Democratic Party is corrupt!"

"On what basis do you claim it's corrupt?"

"Because we didn't get our way!"

It couldn't be because Bernie was out-organized, or mostly visited white states in the two years leading up to his candidacy and didn't build any networks with black and Latino voters, or failed to have a long-term plan. That's what his staffers say, off the record.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The trends that worry me:

1) Clinton's delegate lead came early in the race from the southern red states.

2) Sanders consistently outperformed Clinton in states with open primaries. This is a better indicator of how a candidate will perform in the general election.

3) In the second half of this primary Clinton has lost momentum. Since 3/16 Sander's has 8 wins to Clinton's 2 and earned 354 to her 279 delegates.

Lots is factual errors here. Bernie's "momentum" in later states is largely about demographics, just as Clinton's was in 2008. Bernie's victories in red states like Wyoming and Oklahoma will not carry over to the general. Georgia, on the other hand, where Clinton won handily, is clearly in play this year.

But none of this really worries you. You're a concern troll trying, yet again, to make the case that Bernie should be the nominee. As though DCUM decides that.

Expressing an opinion without facts does nothing to refute the poster's concerns, nor does insulting people with whom you disagree.
I'm not a Sander's supporter, but I can understand why HRC wants him to bow out. He could win every primary between now and the convention and that will be embarrassing.

You think Bernie is going to win NJ, CA, PR and DC? Based on what premise do you predict this?

The key word there is COULD, and regardless Sanders will likely win the majority of states and delegates in the second half of the primary. Easy to see how this might weaken Clinton going into the convention.

Just like Clinton won more states than Obama at the end. Does not matter.

The only thing that weakens her is bad Berner behavior, as on Saturday. Bernie is either unwilling or unable to address that. Real leadership there!

And Hillary is either unwilling or unable to stop her celebrity fans from physically assaulting women.

(see how stupid lumping a candidate in with his/her followers is)

You are talking about one person. But okay.