Hillary's early clinch of the nomination will mean a GOP House and Senate stacked against her

[FreakinDJ]

Not much to get fired up about

And the thoroughly disenfranchised Millennials (thanks to Debbie Wasserman Shultz and Team Clinton Strategist) in States YET to vote their Primary Elections for the many Senate and House seat Elections will have no incentive to show up at the polls. "In True Debbie Wasserman Shultz Midterm fashion" we will see a fired up GOP crush any Dem Senate and House hopefuls.

If your worried about the Flip Flopping Candidate reversing course on her many new found progressive opinions now - just wait until a truly embattled Team Clinton under siege in the Whitehouse begins triangulating with the GOP Majority in the House and Senate


A "Progressive that likes to get things done" will quickly mean "Were Fucked"

[daleanime]

1. The only 'coat-tails' she's likely to have....

would be a deep red color.

[Wilms]

2. And a bunch of corporatists and sycophants.

[Live and Learn]

22. Yep, just had a call from a lady for Emily's list and they were stunned when I told them

that all my money was going to Bernie. She said rather haughtily that even if Bernie won they would need progressive women downstream and I replied that if he didn't win, I didn't see any point in it. She just said, "wow."

[BreakfastClub]

32. Good for her. She reacted the same way I would have. Wow, indeed. nt

[Live and Learn]

33. Then you just don't get it. nt

[RBInMaine]

3. Thanks for the latest helping of radical Tea-Left hyperbolic nonsense.

[beachbum bob]

4. Heard same from Hillary supporters in 2008

If millennials want to pay the price for not voting and supporting our nominee and candidates... They deserve everything they will be getting from conservatives....

[Live and Learn]

23. So will the people that refused to give us a candidate we could support. nt

[Chichiri]

5. How have millennials been disenfranchised? Nt

[NHprogressive]

7. My read on that was that the continued eye-rolling at millenials

towards Sanders supporters by Clinton supporters (as well as by right-wing memes such as this one: )

may be having an effect on the enthusiasm of said generation for their turning out to vote. I think it's a valid concern: if one wants Democrats in office (I do), then one should avoid being divisive when at all possible. Calling out an entire generation as privileged purist unicornophiles or whatever the current iteration of that nonsense is seems thoroughly misguided and shortsighted, to me.

Whose-side-are-you-on stuff aside, I think that it helps nobody for either side to crow about victories and present the race as over until people have cast their votes. It only encourages the perception that voting is not as powerful as actually is (but only if people actually do it)

[Chichiri]

9. Good point, but how are Clinton or Schultz doing that? nt

[NHprogressive]

14. In my understanding,

there is a widespread perception that Schultz is in Clinton's pocket. The DNC's laughable debate schedule, Schultz's rolling back of Obama's lobbying restrictions, etc, all contribute to / confirm that suspicion and do their part in disenfranchising a generation that skews progressive and reducing the likelihood they'll get politically involved.

As for Clinton personally disenfranchising that generation, I have no examples. For her to disagree with a new generation of potential Democratic voters is not disenfranchising them, but it is not helping us, either.

[Chichiri]

15. I still don't understand how they're disenfranchised.

If I want to buy a Chevy, and the car dealership gives the Ford next to it better advertising and fewer side-by-side comparison opportunities, that doesn't make it any harder, much less impossible, to buy the Chevy.

[NHprogressive]

18. I am not sure that I think that's what the OP is talking about

By all means, buy the car you want. I'm hoping to buy the other one, and that's each of our decisions. Nobody on this board can reasonably disagree with that part. I just don't think your car will get me where I want to go, and likely vice versa.

I thought the OP was saying that Hillary Clinton's campaign is doing the party a dangerous disservice by repeatedly calling the race as done-for before the electorate has had the chance to weigh in on the matter, especially in a year as politically bizarre as this one. Your signature image is an unfortunately relevant example of this behavior, unless I am misreading its intended meaning.

To tell such a vast portion of the electorate that it's too late for their vote to matter (and that it will always be so in every election, by extension, due to the order in which states vote) is disenfranchising in the sense that I think the OP means. This is to say that telling so many people that they may as well lay down and die or write in a cartoon character rather than fight for the candidate they believe best represents them ensures that those people, who may feel (I think rightly so) that they are/were/will be denied a voice, will be more likely to say "oh, fuck it" when it comes down to local, state, and even national elections. This is idiotic behavior IF you want Democrats in office. If you don't, go right ahead.

[Chichiri]

25. The only way to fix the problem you're talking about...

...is for all states and territories to vote on the same day, which I would not mind in the slightest. But so long as it's spread out like this, there are going to be people ahead and people behind, and there's no point in pretending that the math is other than what it is. Also, it works both ways: if people in California learn that Hillary is inevitable, they may not show up either. Again, it's no reason to ignore the math.

You're not misreading my signature image, but I will note that I don't go as far as those analysts who (for pretty good reasons) called the race as early as Iowa. Right now I'm about 98% that it's inevitable, which is enough to treat it as a fact, but I'm also watching to see if coming states will close that last two percent.

There are good arguments to be made for continuing Bernie's campaign past the point of mathematical viability; there are also arguments to be made for conceding. In neither case are people prevented from voting as they choose. I have no problem with Bernie supporters encouraging them to do so.

[Jenny_92808]

6. Bernie is going

to win!

[Skwmom]

8. It will make it that much easier for her to carry out her corporate and big money agenda. n/t

[FreakinDJ]

11. That is the sad truth

[MSMITH33156]

10. I'm trying to figure out

what you think the DNC did to stack the deck here? The states chose when they voted, for the most part, other than the exalted states (IA, NH, NV, and SC). To "bribe" states so they wouldn't all go early, states going later got more delegates.

That's it. I'm not sure why any of this is the fault of the DNC, or even a problem.

IF Sanders gets more pledged delegates, and Hillary is given the nomination by the Superdelegates, I, as a Hillary supporter will be upset.

But so far, Hillary is winning 58% of pledged delegates. If you want to argue that she's had her stronger states, and now Bernie will close the gap....fine, let him do it.

More people have been voting for her, that's why she's in front. There's no injustice here. He's losing. He has plenty of opportunity to reverse it. The process has been fair, so far. When it becomes unfair, complain about it.

Right now, the only thing you should be upset with is your candidate, who hasn't convinced enough people to vote for him.

[FreakinDJ]

13. Team Hillary and DWS figured out a long time ago the millenials were not voting for Hillary

Between the Democrats hosting their debate at a swanky Las Vegas hotel and casino and the Republicans only allotting 50 some tickets to actual students, Gen Y is all but excluded from the political conversations that actually matter. Again.

"It really feels like they don't feel like our vote or input is important at all," says University of Colorado student William Raley in an interview with USA Today. "It's almost that they're like 'This is a private event, it doesn't concern you.'"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kelsey-clark/post_10295_b_8287322.html

[MSMITH33156]

16. I'm confused

is the criticism that the first debate was at a "swanky Las Vegas hotel"?

1) I'm not sure why that prevented Millenials from attending if they acquired a ticket.

2) I'm not sure how watching it on TV like 99.999999999% of voters is a disadvantage. Almost everyone in every demographic doesn't attend a debate in person, and I don't even see how it is an advantage to attend a debate in person.

3) There have been 8 debates so far, and a 9th scheduled for Wednesday. Of those 9, 6 were/are at universities or colleges, which kind of steps on the entire point that that article was making.

[FreakinDJ]

17. You might be confused but the Millennials are not

Hillary's Superdelegate Coup Just Confirms to Millennials: The System Is Rigged

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/russ-belville/hillarys-superdelegate-co_b_9206252.html

Doesn't bode well after they turned out in force for Obama to be told now they don't count

[MSMITH33156]

19. Again

you are going with innuendo. The system is not rigged. She's getting more votes and winning.

IF Bernie Sanders wins more pledged delegates than Hillary Clinton, AND then the superdelegates come in and hand the nomination to Hillary, THEN you can say they rigged it for her, or put their thumb on the scale, or whatever. But of course, we all know if Bernie wins more pledged delegates, the superdelegates will fall in line. It's a non-issue right now, anyway.

The reason Hillary is ahead is that more people are voting for here. She's won 58% of PLEDGED delegates. That's why she's in front.

It's not because of a rigged or unfair system. It's because more people are voting for her.

You are complaining about hypotheticals that haven't happened. The only thing that's happened is that Hillary has EARNED a lot more delegates by getting more people to vote for. There has been nothing unfair here.

[FreakinDJ]

21. Whisteling in the Dark - 40 yrs of Dem Majorities ended on Bill's watch

Perhaps it was the reason Schumer recruited Obama to defeat Hillary in 08 even after he publically endorsed her. He was concerned what the Clinton DLC/Third Way Brand would do to the Dem party

[Optimism]

28. What are you talking about ... the system is COMPLETELY rigged!

So, in the states where Bernie has already won the vote of the people by large margins ... why haven't those Super delegates already switched their stated commitments to Hillary on over to Bernie? There's supposed to be a reason they're called REPRESENTATIVES, for goodness sake! You'd have us swallow their line of 'Trust Us, come convention time we'll switch back on over (and vote against our OWN self interest) then' ?!

The narrative right now (pushed mightily by corporate media) is that Hillary is SO far ahead at this point, her coronation is inevitable. They always display the graphic of 1000+ delegates for Hillary, a mere 400+ for Bernie. Sometimes they deign to mention that this total includes the Super delegates (not that many even understand that very undemocratic construct), but most often they conveniently do not, counting on the snowball effect to discourage more Sanders voters from even bothering to fight the tsunami.

shameful (but not surprising)

[dflprincess]

12. That's how she'll "get things done"

selling us out to compromise with the Republicans and giving her donors everything they expected.

[msongs]

20. few if any millenials are being "disenfranchised" . lots of primaries done and more to come.

they can all get out and vote if they wish to

[brooklynite]

24. UNREC

...for offering no explanation or evidence...

We are ahead in three States (WI, OH and IL) are tied or competitive in FL, PA and NH, and have pick opportunities in NC, IA, MO and AZ.

Now, I've talked to all these candidates (all of whom prefer Clinton as top-of-ticket) but maybe you know better...

[DeGreg]

26. Under siege? I think not, more like, in lock-step

Everyone's dancing around the obvious

Hillary is not really a Democrat,
Hillary is closet a Republican.
If either one of these is true, then there is no difference (anymore––for those just learning this in this election) between the two parties.

I think Democrats who are voting for Hillary in good conscience (no compromising, no lesser evil votes, no I only vote for winners votes...), Hillary supporters that really own it––ought not to call themselves Democrats; sorry but I don't see how it's possible with this candidate.

That's our two party system that now has been revealed to be a one party system––The Establishment Party.
So, the a Republican Congress will be a homecoming for Hillary should she win, no need to sweat that.

[amborin]

30. ^^ this ^^ except not even closet

[silvershadow]

27. Early clinch? LOL nt

[dana_b]

29. right?!

[LisaM]

31. How would millennials have no incentive to vote on state

And local issues? Surely anyone can see what has been going on with the collusion of the GOP governors and the incredible damage they ate doing. Scott Walker, Rick Snyder, anyone?