I’m not trying to convince you of anything. I’m looking for a reasonable discussion of the general election that analyzes the current situation and considers what happens between now and then, and how the vote will go in November. You’ve added nothing to that.
I’ve been politically active since I was distributing election materials for the 1960 election as a small child. I went to jail in 1972 trying to keep Nixon out of the White House. I have registered voters in the past and convinced many people to vote for the best candidate instead of a party or personality cult. When you’ve actually done something come back and we’ll compare notes.
I’ve added at least as much as you have. I’ve been talking about political reality, and you’ve been talking about some kind of ideal that no candidate has reached since Lincoln. You claim that Hillary has no substance. What am I supposed to say to that? It’s there, I’ve even told you where it is. There will be no submissive kowtowing to Bernie, which you also suggest. Everything is Hillary bad, and your clear implication is that, at least for her to win your vote, she must do thus and so. Guess what? It’s not happening. There’s really no point in going any further, as I stated before. You staked your claim, and it’s completely out of line with objective reality. But that’s your decision, and it looks like you’ve already made it, at least insofar as voting for her. I’m not going to go blue in the face trying to talk you out of an insoluble position.
I can’t claim the same pedigree, since I’m younger than you and my parents were almost fanatically fixated on my success as a student. Thus I didn’t have a chance to get involved until I was an adult. But I have been involved in the second Reagan and first Bush campaign, as well as volunteering twice for my local Congressman. If that doesn’t measure up to your standard of greatness, sorry about that. I have a life that sometimes precludes political activity. However, I delude myself that I’m well-informed on politics and I don’t just sit on my ass.
I think the two campaigns will continue as they have for the last few weeks, without attacking each other substantially, and when Hillary earns a majority of pledged delegates, she will meet with Bernie, they will have a long talk, and he will enthusiastically endorse her, and they will shift their focus towards defeating Trump. And, like 2008, I think most of the supporters of the Democratic runner up will support the Democratic nominee. Especially because that was a far, far closer and more contentious primary than this one.
I have no doubt of that. I never had any doubts since the beginning. Even the Republicans are backing Trump after a their free-for-all. At the moment I can’t think of a primary season that didn’t end with the parties unified for their candidates.
I’ve been criticizing the Hillary campaign because i think it’s vulnerable. I don’t know what standard you’re talking about, I’m talking about perceptions, strengths and weaknesses. There is no shortage of people who will say anything bad about Trump whether it has any basis or not, and that doesn’t matter because those people aren’t going to vote for him anyway. And those people who think Hillary can do no wrong aren’t going to vote for Trump. So the question that remains is what happens to those people who could go either way, or end up staying home. They will have higher standards for Hillary than you do or they wouldn’t still be sitting on the fence. She will face those comparisons in the general election. Now how do you think she will do with those voters? How is she going to get them to vote for her? Clearly what she’s done already has not been sufficient. Frankly, I’m amazed that the polls show only a few points difference between these two candidates right now.
ETA: I’m guessing you meant that you DON’T delude yourself.
Of some relevance to this thread is this Politico piece arguing that most of the “new voters” Trump has brought in are not new to voting for Republicans in the general election…just to voting in the primary.
Not that I shouldn’t have expected it, but I just had a bit of curiosity about Trump’s claim that he’s won more popular votes than any candidate in history. Ignoring the fact that the population is higher than it’s ever been before, and presumably so is the total number of registered voters, I checked the numbers according to RealClearPolitics…Hillary has upwards of 1.7 million more votes than the Loudmouth Liar, with a couple of extra primaries to go on the Dem side.
ACtually, they do, they are just poor at predicting the situation in November. There is little doubt that Clinton would easily win if the election were held today.
You’d like to think these polls are wrong, except all these state polls are showing huge leads for Sanders. Having Clinton on the ballot is clearly costing some votes.
Let Sanders get out of the way. let her become the clear cut nominee. Then polls will show actual picture and she will be leading by more %age points against Trump in the polls at that point.
True - but a president can apparently refuse to enforce provisions for it, refuse to defend it in court, interpret it unfavorably, etc. Doing so would likely doom it to failure and a repeal would be required. This is an unlikely scenario.
Well, them’s the rules. Similar to it being perfectly proper to leave the Supreme Court a man short for the year (or however long). Whatcha gonna do? ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Luckily Cruz is out because I doubt what you describe would be as unlikely in that case.