Speak for YOURself, Democrat supporting a candidate 55% of the voters don’t like. At least I know my guy i hated. Democrats seem to think that Hillary’s popularity is going to turn the corner any day now, just as soon as the media and the Obama administration stop persecuting her.
The party voters are *not *part of the public? Explain that, please - perhaps with reference to your assertions about the meaning of Clinton’s disapproval ratings.
Party members choose their candidates, but the wider public does not get a vote, and even within the party only a minority choose. Trump won nomination with only what, 5% of registered voters? How many did Clinton win, 4%?
Both conventions have more than enough reason to override the primary voters.
Heh. I can’t wait for the newspaper headlines the day after the election, featuring The Donald’s photo with a YUGE headline reading: “LOSER!” 
Errr…
According to Wiki
Trump got 13.95 million primary votes
Clinton got 16.78 million primary votes
In the respective primaries -
By my reckoning that’s Clinton by 20% over Trump…
For the 2014 elections there were 142 million registered voters -
that gives Clinton 11.77% in the primary against Trump’s 9.8%
For the record Trump got a mere 950,000 votes more than Sanders
Which is still few enough to justify a change. The parties are not obligated to endorse candidates the general electorate hates.
Somewhat inexplicable? The Loudmouth is bellowing that Brexit is good for Britain and, more importantly, good for Trump. And yet he also blames (or rather credits?) Obama for the Brexit vote. Obama recommended Remain … this led directly to the decision not to Remain. “If he had not said it, I think your result might have been different.”
I’m not arguing with you, but Republicans have a classic dilemma. Nominate Trump, and face a near certain defeat up and down the ballot, or steal the nomination from him, and alienate the base which was already rapidly losing patience with it. I suggest an alternative: disband the party and start over with a new name and new policies.
I do think that a Clinton win is the most likely outcome, but I’m not as sanguine about it as you are. I think that a significant portion of the Sanders supporters will not vote for her, and that she will have to win without them.
I would agree with your assessment if I hadn’t seen the behavior I described. Your assuming that rationality will prevail. I wish we could count on that.
That said, I will admit that I’ve been associating with some of the most dedicated Bernie supporters - people who’ve attended meetups, made phone calls, knocked on doors, etc. - so they’re not the most scientific sample.
That’s not how the political parties work. The parties - all of them, not just Democrats - choose their candidate based on who the Party thinks best represents their interests. Some parties choose via a primary system. Some parties just pick someone. In no case does the general electorate choose the Party nominee.
The general electorate will get their chance to weigh in come November. In the meantime, it’s the parties that will decide who they want as their representatives. It’s ridiculous to suggest that the Democrats are obligated to ditch the candidate who won their nomination process because a bunch of non-Democrats didn’t participate in the selection.
It’s especially ridiculous when the winning Democratic candidate has the full support of her party, unlike the mental defective that won the Republican process and who is spending his time attacking his allies.
“I’m building a wall!! I’m building a wall!! I’m building a wall!!”
Weird … did anyone else hear that?
The House of Reps is 57% GOP and, by the Hastert Rule, the 55% most virulent of those Congressmen control the House. Those virulent Congressmen were selected as the darlings of the Tea Party which dominates the GOP primaries and then, no matter how nutso they are, win 52% of the general-election vote due to gerrymandering and voting with the philosophy “better a GOP lunatic than a Democrat.”
Do the math to see that 8% of primary voters — themselves a small group — control the U.S. Congress.
This is the insane havoc which your ilk has wrought with extreme partisanship and inanities like the Hastert Rule. Don’t pretend to regret your sins when the inmates you’ve empowered turn against the Establishment which has long exploited their ignorance.
The “Dump Trump” movement seems to be picking up organizational steam:
That seems to be more work than the party establishment ever put into trying to stop Trump, which basically amounted to hand-wringing.
I’d be in favor of this for the Republicans, but only because it would further damage their chances of winning the general election. Going against the will of the party voters on either side would be an electoral disaster.
No, we recognize that it’s relative popularity that matters, not absolute popularity. Further, we recognize that plenty of people don’t particularly like Hillary but are happy to vote for her – hell, I’m not sure how I’d answer a polling question about whether I find her favorable, but I will very enthusiastically vote for her.
There’s a remarkable lack of interest by top Republicans in speaking at the RNC. Hmm - I wonder why?: Hardly anybody wants to speak at Trump's convention - POLITICO
One thing I haven’t seen mentioned — perhaps because I’ve been trying to avoid election “news” — is the respective campaigns’ GOTV strategies. While the personnel are probably different, I would imagine that the Clinton camp can build on the highly successful methods used by Obama in 2008 and (especially) 2012; the Trump campaign. on the other hand, has ORCA, the 2012 Romney program that crashed on election day due to problems most second-year CompSci students would have anticipated and dealt with.
Of course, all that may be moot given the lack of a Trump organization in the first place, but it’s still something I’d be interested in hearing about.
I had actually meant that Clinton built her primary win on more reliable voting blocs than Sanders’ brigades of young people. Sanders’ young voters may not break for her, but if they don’t, I doubt they’ll mobilize in sufficient force to tip the scales decisively toward any other candidate.
Is there a cite saying the Trump campaign is using ORCA again this year?
I’m quite content to continue supporting Hillary–no, I don’t think we should throw our convention open to nominating a loser.
Glad to see you admit that The Donald is “your guy.” Back to the subject of the OP–Your Guy’s Campaign :
They aren’t saying they plan to dump him, either. Why don’t you offer *them *your advice?
Another bulletin–the Republican “hiring spree” is ongoing because some stalwarts are sitting this one out.
You’re right, that’s the least. The very least. Don’t get more least than that.