Sanders to back Clinton. Will supporters follow?

[Linzz]

so much for the convictions of this communist/liberal/left wing idiot! for months he has been bad mouthing heavy hips and saying he would not be associated with her and now he shows his true colors! a politician!

I would like to take this moment to bring something to the attention to the non-Americans here (and even some Americans who aren't overly partisan).

First, the Basics:

Hillary is the Democrat running for president, Trump is the Republican running for president. That much should be obvious.

Hillary and Trump are both deeply flawed candidates and it is shameful & embarrassing that one of them will be the next president.

The Difference:

Almost all other Republican candidates (out of 16) & former nominees are either refusing to endorse Trump or doing so, less than enthusiastically. They know he is deeply flawed.

Other Democrat candidates (ok, there was really only one) plus the Democrat President are enthusiastically backing Hillary. They know she is deeply flawed.

The Spin:

Some can spin it as the Republicans are in disarray while the Democrats are untied behind their candidate. Bad for Republicans! Good for Democrats!

Some can spin it as the Republicans have something resembling ethics and are not willing to "do anything to win" while the Democrats have no shame and will do anything to win.

Bernie Sanders' part in this...

Does deciding to endorse Hillary (let's be honest, she has broken federal law and got away with it because of her elite status) make Bernie Sanders look good? Or is he just another politician willing to sell out their values in exchange for something?

What about Jeb Bush and the other Republican candidates following their conscience and refusing to endorse Trump? They know that risks putting Hillary in the White House and handing over the Supreme Court to the Democrats for the next few decades. Are they stupid for following their conscience? Is there room in politics for such a thing?

Don't pay attention to the politicians say. Don't pay attention to what the media says. Look at how the Democrats and Republicans are behaving and decide for yourself which is a bigger sh*t sandwich.

Full disclosure, I'm voting for Gary Johnson because Hillary would be awful for our country and the odds are in favor of Trump being a disaster in a different kind of way.

Check out where Johnson stands on the issues, I think the majority of voters, even non-Americans, will find they agree with a lot of it. Unfortunately, the two major parties control just about everything and Johnson is mostly an unknown quantity... https://johnsonweld.com/issues/

Stoned in the White house? There's already been issues with cigars!

[Linzz]

I had just started my Bernie tat when I heard the news...

I said WAIT..!!!!

So disappointed, I said fcukit why not go the whole hog

Great huh?

[Andreas2]

I had just started my Bernie tat when I heard the news...

Bernie1.jpg

I said WAIT..!!!!

So disappointed, I said fcukit why not go the whole hog

Trump2.png

Great huh?

Wait, wait! There is still hope to save some grace for you without digging yourself into an even deeper hole:

I envy you, at least you have an option - With my bloody tattoo, I can't claim that anymore.

Cheers.

[Andreas2]

Interesting: THE DAY AFTER: Bernie mentions Hillary ZERO times during 23 minute speech

The love fest between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders lasted about as long as it took to tear down the stage at their “unity” rally on Monday.

At least he still denounces Mr. Trump .

[ilostmypassword]

I'm a life-long democrat but I will not vote for HRC. I will either abstain or vote for Jill Stein. Platforms will not mean anything to Clinton. She will be a 'business as usual' Wall Street democrat. I'm mad as hell and I won't take it anymore! (Network)

It's so strange. Clinton is repeatedly accused of being an opportunist and someone without principles. Well, iff Hillary wants to get renominated for a second term in 2020., she will have to deliver to her constituency. Whether her support of programs they support is sincere or not. And you seem totally unaware of what massive damage a renewed right-wing Supreme court can do. You should consider what it has done already.

The sad reality is that Clinton and Debbie Wasserman Schultz hijacked the democratic primary voting process and caucuses. It turns my stomach. 'Democratic' party my ass - and that's not a pun! Clinton is a shill for Wall Street and will never receive my support. You're already talking about a 'second' term. How many times has a democratic convention rejected an incumbent? I will vote for Democrats who stand with the people and workers in the US. Hillary will support the TPP. Not only does the TPP mean a continued exodus or jobs from the US, it means a loss of sovereignty on significant issues of consumer affairs, the environment, etc. These issues are far more important to me than a conservative Supreme Court which will be powerless to address domestic issues that arise as a result of the the TPP.

Complete nonsense. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/upshot/exit-polls-and-why-the-primary-was-not-stolen-from-bernie-sanders.html

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/hillary-clinton-clinches-democratic-nomination-according-to-ap/

What's more, I don't see Sanders supporters criticizing the unfairness of the caucus system. Far more unfair than primaries and far less representative of the electorate. Maybe that's why Sanders did so well in them?

[pookiki]

I'm a life-long democrat but I will not vote for HRC. I will either abstain or vote for Jill Stein. Platforms will not mean anything to Clinton. She will be a 'business as usual' Wall Street democrat. I'm mad as hell and I won't take it anymore! (Network)

It's so strange. Clinton is repeatedly accused of being an opportunist and someone without principles. Well, iff Hillary wants to get renominated for a second term in 2020., she will have to deliver to her constituency. Whether her support of programs they support is sincere or not. And you seem totally unaware of what massive damage a renewed right-wing Supreme court can do. You should consider what it has done already.

The sad reality is that Clinton and Debbie Wasserman Schultz hijacked the democratic primary voting process and caucuses. It turns my stomach. 'Democratic' party my ass - and that's not a pun! Clinton is a shill for Wall Street and will never receive my support. You're already talking about a 'second' term. How many times has a democratic convention rejected an incumbent? I will vote for Democrats who stand with the people and workers in the US. Hillary will support the TPP. Not only does the TPP mean a continued exodus or jobs from the US, it means a loss of sovereignty on significant issues of consumer affairs, the environment, etc. These issues are far more important to me than a conservative Supreme Court which will be powerless to address domestic issues that arise as a result of the the TPP.

Complete nonsense. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/upshot/exit-polls-and-why-the-primary-was-not-stolen-from-bernie-sanders.html

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/hillary-clinton-clinches-democratic-nomination-according-to-ap/

What's more, I don't see Sanders supporters criticizing the unfairness of the caucus system. Far more unfair than primaries and far less representative of the electorate. Maybe that's why Sanders did so well in them?

Nothing like relying on corporate controlled media to define nonsense! What a laugh. The 'democrats' should adopt open primaries in all states. In the Democrats Abroad primary which allowed registration at the polls, Sanders won by a 70-30 margin. And the super-delegate system is super undemocratic. I don't favor caucus systems and I'm a Sanders supporter but I guess that didn't make the NY Times or AP!

[Jingthing]

Get over it. Sanders lost. He conceded. He endorsed Clinton and there are reports he will be actively campaigning all over the country for both Clinton and for lesser democratic races where his progressive voice can make a difference.

[JHolmesJr]

There was far greater honour in saying... "I can't endorse Hilary as it clashes with my ideals but I respect of the wishes of the Democratic majority"...

But I guess whatever post she is going to toss him in the administration is a lot more attractive.

He's only human, our Bernie.

[Jingthing]

He's not getting any position. He has power as a senator.

He's not an idiot. He can see trump is a horrible fascistic demagogue and the progressive agenda that he represents is much better served by electing Hillary Clinton running on the most progressive democratic party platform in American history than trump.

The Sanders movement influenced the platform to the left on almost EVERY issue that was important to it.

Sanders as a candidate did lose, but the progressive Sanders movement can continue to make a difference working within the democratic party, with Hillary Clinton as president.

Sanders people are already on board with this. 85 percent according to Pew and likely that can grow to 90. You can't get 100 percent of anything in politics.

Edited July 15, 2016 by Jingthing

[ilostmypassword]

It's so strange. Clinton is repeatedly accused of being an opportunist and someone without principles. Well, iff Hillary wants to get renominated for a second term in 2020., she will have to deliver to her constituency. Whether her support of programs they support is sincere or not. And you seem totally unaware of what massive damage a renewed right-wing Supreme court can do. You should consider what it has done already.

The sad reality is that Clinton and Debbie Wasserman Schultz hijacked the democratic primary voting process and caucuses. It turns my stomach. 'Democratic' party my ass - and that's not a pun! Clinton is a shill for Wall Street and will never receive my support. You're already talking about a 'second' term. How many times has a democratic convention rejected an incumbent? I will vote for Democrats who stand with the people and workers in the US. Hillary will support the TPP. Not only does the TPP mean a continued exodus or jobs from the US, it means a loss of sovereignty on significant issues of consumer affairs, the environment, etc. These issues are far more important to me than a conservative Supreme Court which will be powerless to address domestic issues that arise as a result of the the TPP.

Complete nonsense. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/upshot/exit-polls-and-why-the-primary-was-not-stolen-from-bernie-sanders.html

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/hillary-clinton-clinches-democratic-nomination-according-to-ap/

What's more, I don't see Sanders supporters criticizing the unfairness of the caucus system. Far more unfair than primaries and far less representative of the electorate. Maybe that's why Sanders did so well in them?

Nothing like relying on corporate controlled media to define nonsense! What a laugh. The 'democrats' should adopt open primaries in all states. In the Democrats Abroad primary which allowed registration at the polls, Sanders won by a 70-30 margin. And the super-delegate system is super undemocratic. I don't favor caucus systems and I'm a Sanders supporter but I guess that didn't make the NY Times or AP!

Substitute "lame stream media" for "corporate controlled media" and this sentence could have come from Sarah Palin. Did you actually read the articles? This is the same kind of reasoning, or lack of it, that led to right-wing criticism of Nate Silver for predicting Obama's victory in 2012.

As for open primaries...presumably it means something to be a democrat. If anybody can vote in a democratic primary it kind of fails the committment test.

As for the expat vote, I somehow suspect that the demographic of Americans supporting Sanders closely tallies with that found in the USA. Probably not a heckuvalot of African-Americans or Latinos. Do you really think expats are a representative sample of the Democratic electorate?

As for this: don't favor caucus systems and I'm a Sanders supporter but I guess that didn't make the NY Times or AP!

Do you really think the NY Times should be reporting on you? And did you bring up the topic of the caucuses in this thread before I raised it? I don't find much mention of it among Sanders partisans.

Edited July 15, 2016 by ilostmypassword

[pookiki]

It's so strange. Clinton is repeatedly accused of being an opportunist and someone without principles. Well, iff Hillary wants to get renominated for a second term in 2020., she will have to deliver to her constituency. Whether her support of programs they support is sincere or not. And you seem totally unaware of what massive damage a renewed right-wing Supreme court can do. You should consider what it has done already.

The sad reality is that Clinton and Debbie Wasserman Schultz hijacked the democratic primary voting process and caucuses. It turns my stomach. 'Democratic' party my ass - and that's not a pun! Clinton is a shill for Wall Street and will never receive my support. You're already talking about a 'second' term. How many times has a democratic convention rejected an incumbent? I will vote for Democrats who stand with the people and workers in the US. Hillary will support the TPP. Not only does the TPP mean a continued exodus or jobs from the US, it means a loss of sovereignty on significant issues of consumer affairs, the environment, etc. These issues are far more important to me than a conservative Supreme Court which will be powerless to address domestic issues that arise as a result of the the TPP.

Complete nonsense. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/upshot/exit-polls-and-why-the-primary-was-not-stolen-from-bernie-sanders.html

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/hillary-clinton-clinches-democratic-nomination-according-to-ap/

What's more, I don't see Sanders supporters criticizing the unfairness of the caucus system. Far more unfair than primaries and far less representative of the electorate. Maybe that's why Sanders did so well in them?

Nothing like relying on corporate controlled media to define nonsense! What a laugh. The 'democrats' should adopt open primaries in all states. In the Democrats Abroad primary which allowed registration at the polls, Sanders won by a 70-30 margin. And the super-delegate system is super undemocratic. I don't favor caucus systems and I'm a Sanders supporter but I guess that didn't make the NY Times or AP!

Substitute "lame stream media" for "corporate controlled media" and this sentence could have come from Sarah Palin. Did you actually read the articles? This is the same kind of reasoning, or lack of it, that led to right-wing criticism of Nate Silver for predicting Obama's victory in 2012.

As for open primaries...presumably it means something to be a democrat. If anybody can vote in a democratic primary it kind of fails the committment test.

As for the expat vote, I somehow suspect that the demographic of Americans supporting Sanders closely tallies with that found in the USA. Probably not a heckuvalot of African-Americans or Latinos. Do you really think expats are a representative sample of the Democratic electorate?

As for this: don't favor caucus systems and I'm a Sanders supporter but I guess that didn't make the NY Times or AP!

Do you really think the NY Times should be reporting on you? And did you bring up the topic of the caucuses in this thread before I raised it? I don't find much mention of it among Sanders partisans.

I would assume that you consider yourself to be a person who is well read but exactly what sources do you rely on for reliable news? There's a lot more balanced reporting going on outside of corporate controlled media. Can you tell me with a straight face that the corporate media was not biased against Sanders? It was so obvious - especially the NY Times. Sanders energized people to participate in a democratic system that is basically moribund. Frankly, I like Will Rogers quote: 'I'm not a member of an organized political party, I'm a democrat.' Why should we be afraid of open primaries if it gets people to participate? The stats on voter registration and people who actually go to the polls in the US is dismal. There are many ways to reform the way we decide people who stand for office or who are elected. I addressed the caucus system because you did. I shouldn't have? I told you what my preferences are for conducting primaries and you disagree - so be it. The democratic party has to start living up to its name and be a party that energizes people and is as inclusive as possible. That's the way to get people to commit instead of alienating people that have been committed all their life. I WILL NOT vote for Clinton - NEVER!

[Jingthing]

OK. You won't vote for Clinton. Whatever, dude! Many of the young people for Sanders would have been too distracted with Pokeman Go to vote for Sanders if he had been nominated. That's the U.S. system. Most people don't vote. Younger people have poor turnouts regardless.

Also, of course, if your U.S. voting state is not one of the minority of states that will be at all competitive for president, your vote is basically not even counted, whatever it is!

Cheers.

Edited July 15, 2016 by Jingthing

[mopar71]

[mopar71]

Obviously, part of the deal Sanders made did not include being allowed to hold his own rally...

Another Blow for Bernie: DNC Rally Permit Denied by City of Philadelphia

The campaign sought to hold a rally for up to 40,000 people on a baseball field at FDR Park, according to the rejection letter from a deputy city managing director.

In bold all caps, the city told John Robinson of Bernie 2016, Inc. that it was "DENIED" in its application to hold a rally at Ashburn Field because the field is not permitted for "non-recreational purposes."

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Another-Blow-for-Bernie-DNC-Rally-Permit-Denied-by-City-of-Philadelphia-387098081.html

[spidermike007]

His supporters will only back Clinton for if they hold their noses. I am a lifelong democratic voter, and I do not like her. She is compromised beyond imagination. Having said that, she would make a far better, and far more competent politician than Disgusting Donald, who is so far in over his head, and as usual he does not know it. And I think that is the choice many Sanders supporters have. They an choose like me, to sit out this election. I could not stand voting for either of these mediocre candidates. Many will do just that. Sanders was perhaps the only person in this race, that had some integrity. I know that is a difficult word to use to describe either a politician, or a crime boss like Trump. But, it is true. Sanders is a decent man, in my opinion. But, the days of the US electing a decent person are way, way behind us.

It is a broken nation, and it's politics reflect that. Perhaps it is safe to compare modern day America, with the late 5th century Western Roman empire. Is Clinton or Trump the modern day version of Romulus? We shall see.

Edited July 18, 2016 by spidermike007

[ilostmypassword]

His supporters will only back Clinton for if they hold their noses. I am a lifelong democratic voter, and I do not like her. She is compromised beyond imagination. Having said that, she would make a far better, and far more competent politician than Disgusting Donald, who is so far in over his head, and as usual he does not know it. And I think that is the choice many Sanders supporters have. They an choose like me, to sit out this election. I could not stand voting for either of these mediocre candidates. Many will do just that. Sanders was perhaps the only person in this race, that had some integrity. I know that is a difficult word to use to describe either a politician, or a crime boss like Trump. But, it is true. Sanders is a decent man, in my opinion. But, the days of the US electing a decent person are way, way behind us.

It is a broken nation, and it's politics reflect that. Perhaps it is safe to compare modern day America, with the late 5th century Western Roman empire. Is Clinton or Trump the modern day version of Romulus? We shall see.

That's the second time I've seen a die hard Sanders supporters use the word "many" to describe Sanders supporters who won't back Clinton. Can you attach an actual number to "many"? Without that, it delivers no meaninfgul information at all.

[Linzz]

Does a Republic ever last? Or any federation or empire for that matter

Edited July 18, 2016 by Linzz

[ilostmypassword]

Does a Republic ever last? Or any federation or empire for that matter

Adam Smith's sceptical reply to someone prophesying a similar disaster: "There is a great deal of ruin in a nation." . .

Edited July 18, 2016 by ilostmypassword

[spidermike007]

His supporters will only back Clinton for if they hold their noses. I am a lifelong democratic voter, and I do not like her. She is compromised beyond imagination. Having said that, she would make a far better, and far more competent politician than Disgusting Donald, who is so far in over his head, and as usual he does not know it. And I think that is the choice many Sanders supporters have. They an choose like me, to sit out this election. I could not stand voting for either of these mediocre candidates. Many will do just that. Sanders was perhaps the only person in this race, that had some integrity. I know that is a difficult word to use to describe either a politician, or a crime boss like Trump. But, it is true. Sanders is a decent man, in my opinion. But, the days of the US electing a decent person are way, way behind us.

It is a broken nation, and it's politics reflect that. Perhaps it is safe to compare modern day America, with the late 5th century Western Roman empire. Is Clinton or Trump the modern day version of Romulus? We shall see.

That's the second time I've seen a die hard Sanders supporters use the word "many" to describe Sanders supporters who won't back Clinton. Can you attach an actual number to "many"? Without that, it delivers no meaninfgul information at all.

I never have been a die hard sanders supporter. That was alot to read into my post. I was only saying he is a decent man. Much more than I can say for either Clinton or Trump. And with Clinton the term would be decent woman, which does not apply. I am making a presumption, based on "many" I have spoken with.

[ilostmypassword]

His supporters will only back Clinton for if they hold their noses. I am a lifelong democratic voter, and I do not like her. She is compromised beyond imagination. Having said that, she would make a far better, and far more competent politician than Disgusting Donald, who is so far in over his head, and as usual he does not know it. And I think that is the choice many Sanders supporters have. They an choose like me, to sit out this election. I could not stand voting for either of these mediocre candidates. Many will do just that. Sanders was perhaps the only person in this race, that had some integrity. I know that is a difficult word to use to describe either a politician, or a crime boss like Trump. But, it is true. Sanders is a decent man, in my opinion. But, the days of the US electing a decent person are way, way behind us.

It is a broken nation, and it's politics reflect that. Perhaps it is safe to compare modern day America, with the late 5th century Western Roman empire. Is Clinton or Trump the modern day version of Romulus? We shall see.

That's the second time I've seen a die hard Sanders supporters use the word "many" to describe Sanders supporters who won't back Clinton. Can you attach an actual number to "many"? Without that, it delivers no meaninfgul information at all.

I never have been a die hard sanders supporter. That was alot to read into my post. I was only saying he is a decent man. Much more than I can say for either Clinton or Trump. And with Clinton the term would be decent woman, which does not apply. I am making a presumption, based on "many" I have spoken with.

And you consider your conversations a valid way to arrive at a representative sample?

[spidermike007]

His supporters will only back Clinton for if they hold their noses. I am a lifelong democratic voter, and I do not like her. She is compromised beyond imagination. Having said that, she would make a far better, and far more competent politician than Disgusting Donald, who is so far in over his head, and as usual he does not know it. And I think that is the choice many Sanders supporters have. They an choose like me, to sit out this election. I could not stand voting for either of these mediocre candidates. Many will do just that. Sanders was perhaps the only person in this race, that had some integrity. I know that is a difficult word to use to describe either a politician, or a crime boss like Trump. But, it is true. Sanders is a decent man, in my opinion. But, the days of the US electing a decent person are way, way behind us.

It is a broken nation, and it's politics reflect that. Perhaps it is safe to compare modern day America, with the late 5th century Western Roman empire. Is Clinton or Trump the modern day version of Romulus? We shall see.

That's the second time I've seen a die hard Sanders supporters use the word "many" to describe Sanders supporters who won't back Clinton. Can you attach an actual number to "many"? Without that, it delivers no meaninfgul information at all.

I never have been a die hard sanders supporter. That was alot to read into my post. I was only saying he is a decent man. Much more than I can say for either Clinton or Trump. And with Clinton the term would be decent woman, which does not apply. I am making a presumption, based on "many" I have spoken with.

And you consider your conversations a valid way to arrive at a representative sample?

You were obviously on the debate team in college. Rather than play semantics, why don't you venture an opinion, one way or the other? How am I supposed to be able to attach an actual number to my opinion that many won't back Clinton? Any suggestions?

[ilostmypassword]

That's the second time I've seen a die hard Sanders supporters use the word "many" to describe Sanders supporters who won't back Clinton. Can you attach an actual number to "many"? Without that, it delivers no meaninfgul information at all.

I never have been a die hard sanders supporter. That was alot to read into my post. I was only saying he is a decent man. Much more than I can say for either Clinton or Trump. And with Clinton the term would be decent woman, which does not apply. I am making a presumption, based on "many" I have spoken with.

And you consider your conversations a valid way to arrive at a representative sample?

You were obviously on the debate team in college. Rather than play semantics, why don't you venture an opinion, one way or the other? How am I supposed to be able to attach an actual number to my opinion that many won't back Clinton? Any suggestions?

Use google and do a search using a phrase like "Sanders voters backing clinton percentage". That will direct you to various polling data.

[Jingthing]

Only a small percentage of nihilistic Sander's supporters will vote trump. The key question will be the percentage that stay home or vote third party.

[spidermike007]

That's the second time I've seen a die hard Sanders supporters use the word "many" to describe Sanders supporters who won't back Clinton. Can you attach an actual number to "many"? Without that, it delivers no meaninfgul information at all.

I never have been a die hard sanders supporter. That was alot to read into my post. I was only saying he is a decent man. Much more than I can say for either Clinton or Trump. And with Clinton the term would be decent woman, which does not apply. I am making a presumption, based on "many" I have spoken with.

And you consider your conversations a valid way to arrive at a representative sample?

You were obviously on the debate team in college. Rather than play semantics, why don't you venture an opinion, one way or the other? How am I supposed to be able to attach an actual number to my opinion that many won't back Clinton? Any suggestions?

Use google and do a search using a phrase like "Sanders voters backing clinton percentage". That will direct you to various polling data.

Well, that was certainly something you could have done, to satisfy your insatiable sense of curiosity. But, I did it for you. Granted this poll was done last month. But, I think it gets the point across. And it more or less backs up my assertion that a good percentage of his supporters will not support her instead. Like me, they will probably be sitting out this election, for lack of a viable candidate.

A June 14 Bloomberg Politics National poll of likely voters in November’s election found that barely half of those who favored Sanders -- 55 percent -- plan to vote for Clinton. Instead, 22 percent say they’ll vote for Trump, while 18 percent favor Libertarian Gary Johnson. “I’m a registered Democrat, but I cannot bring myself to vote for another establishment politician like Hillary,” says Laura Armes, a 43-year-old homemaker from Beeville, Texas, who participated in the Bloomberg poll and plans to vote for Trump. “I don’t agree with a lot of what Trump says. But he won’t owe anybody. What you see is what you get.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-06-22/nearly-half-of-sanders-supporters-won-t-support-clinton

And yet another from two days ago:

Supporters of rebel Democrat Sen. Bernie Sanders are not following his lead in backing Hillary Rodham Clinton, detouring away from the establishment Democrat to other candidates including Donald Trump.

A new Economist/YouGov poll showed that the email scandal, and FBI Director James Comey's charge that Clinton's behavior was "extremely careless," has led Sanders backers to abandon the former secretary of State.http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-losing-sanders-voters-down-12-points-in-a-week/article/2596714

[ilostmypassword]

And you consider your conversations a valid way to arrive at a representative sample?

You were obviously on the debate team in college. Rather than play semantics, why don't you venture an opinion, one way or the other? How am I supposed to be able to attach an actual number to my opinion that many won't back Clinton? Any suggestions?

Use google and do a search using a phrase like "Sanders voters backing clinton percentage". That will direct you to various polling data.

Well, that was certainly something you could have done, to satisfy your insatiable sense of curiosity. But, I did it for you. Granted this poll was done last month. But, I think it gets the point across. And it more or less backs up my assertion that a good percentage of his supporters will not support her instead. Like me, they will probably be sitting out this election, for lack of a viable candidate.

A June 14 Bloomberg Politics National poll of likely voters in November’s election found that barely half of those who favored Sanders -- 55 percent -- plan to vote for Clinton. Instead, 22 percent say they’ll vote for Trump, while 18 percent favor Libertarian Gary Johnson. “I’m a registered Democrat, but I cannot bring myself to vote for another establishment politician like Hillary,” says Laura Armes, a 43-year-old homemaker from Beeville, Texas, who participated in the Bloomberg poll and plans to vote for Trump. “I don’t agree with a lot of what Trump says. But he won’t owe anybody. What you see is what you get.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-06-22/nearly-half-of-sanders-supporters-won-t-support-clinton

And yet another from two days ago:

Supporters of rebel Democrat Sen. Bernie Sanders are not following his lead in backing Hillary Rodham Clinton, detouring away from the establishment Democrat to other candidates including Donald Trump.

A new Economist/YouGov poll showed that the email scandal, and FBI Director James Comey's charge that Clinton's behavior was "extremely careless," has led Sanders backers to abandon the former secretary of State.http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-losing-sanders-voters-down-12-points-in-a-week/article/2596714

First off, one of the links is from almost a month ago. So not pertinent. the other comes from yougov which is not a particularly highly rated polling organization. It's an internet poll and their predictive power isn't as good as polls that do live telephone interviews. fivethirtyeight.com does an evaluation of virtually all the pollsters in presidential races based on their past performance.

yougov gets a B. The Pew Poll which was released on Jul 8 gave Clinton shows 85% of Sanders supporters will back Clinton and 9% will back Trump. Pew gets a B+ from fivethirtyeight.com

On the other hand it's an older poll and was released before the James Comey stuff.

If you want to see fivethirtyeight's evaluation of pollsters, here's the link: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/

Edited July 18, 2016 by ilostmypassword

[boomerangutang]

I can understand Trump fans building up layers of hate towards HRC - that's what they're required to do. Trump's entire campaign is built on fear, hate-mongering and paranoia.

But for others who are not redneck Trump fans; why the hate?

I've been watching the Clintons since before HRC was First Lady. I haven't seen her as the Virgin Mary, but come on folks. Why the hate mongering?

She's mortal. She's had a long career. We're not 5th graders any more, so we don't have to see the world in black & white; everything and every person is either super-great or horrible-yucky.

Yet that's how a lot of y'all are sounding. It's not enough to acknowledge some of her failings, but it's as though there's a self-compellment to making her look as awful as possible.

Again, I understand why redneck Trump fans do that (they don't need to respond to this post. We already know where you're at) - but reasonable people don't need to amp-up their hate to stratospheric levels.

Look at things fairly. Fine. But don't feel like you have to float with the hate-filled propaganda. If you can't resist the tide, then too bad for your mentality. Are you afraid the sky is falling each time hear some thunder?

[Boon Mee]

FAIL: Bernie Sanders Endorsement of Hillary Clinton Flops With Millennials

Crooked Hillary was hoping an endorsement from Bernie Sanders would convince his young followers to get behind her campaign but it didn’t work.

.http://redalertpolitics.com/2016/07/18/new-poll-sanders-endorsement-flops-millennials/

[ilostmypassword]

FAIL: Bernie Sanders Endorsement of Hillary Clinton Flops With Millennials

Crooked Hillary was hoping an endorsement from Bernie Sanders would convince his young followers to get behind her campaign but it didn’t work.

.http://redalertpolitics.com/2016/07/18/new-poll-sanders-endorsement-flops-millennials/

Maybe next time you should look at the actual data from the source: Monmouth. It did show that 67% pf people aged 18-34 didn't change their minds because of Sanders' endorsement. But it didn't say that these 18-34 year olds were Sanders supporters. It did say that his endorsement made 23 percent of 18-34 year olds more likely to vote for Clinton as opposed to 13 percent who said it made them less likely. But again, nowhere did the poll say that these were originally Sanders supporters. Finally the poll did show Clinton leading among voters in that age group by 45% to 28% for Trump.

http://www.monmouth.edu/MonmouthPoll_US_071816/

Maybe you should just give up trying to deal with facts and just spew bile. You seem to have an endless supply of it.

Edited July 19, 2016 by ilostmypassword