Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah, while Sanders say they will not vote for Hillary, I am pretty sure they will when either Cruz or Trump take the nomination. I can't imagine they would let any of those two be Presidents.
Sanders supporters would probably vote for Clinton to prevent either of those from getting into the White House. However, if Sanders did not endorse Clinton that could change things... Trump could potentially pivot hard to the center after the primary and also change things.
And if Kasich somehow emerges from a brokered convention as the nominee... then I don't think progressives will be motivated to help Clinton out against him. I think we'd see big 3rd party support from both sides (no way Kasich can be the nominee without disenfranchising a LOT of people, and those people would not be happy), as it would be the closest we've ever come to the candidates being the same.
Location: Sitting on a bar stool. Guinness in hand.
4,428 posts, read 6,511,903 times
Reputation: 1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraC
If I could, I'd bet money that Clinton's problem will be turnout. I said that almost a year ago when the talk was Clinton vs Bush or as I put it, The Battle of Low Voter Turnout. It's not that Democrats dislike her, in my opinion. It's that they don't like her enough to get up off the couch and vote. She's just been around for so long, she's not the shiny new penny. I don't think she should count on Obama voters turning out for her in the same big numbers. I especially think young voters and younger African Americans won't bother to vote like they did for Obama.
Agree with for the most part. I expect voter turnout in general to be extremely low. But I expect Clinton to win The general election if she is The Democrats nominee. But then it becomes a question of mandate. If the voter turnout is extremely low. It kind of shows the vote of no confidence for whoever becomes the president. At this point it's probably more important to A Democratic president considering where the house and senate are right now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponderosa
Trump is the antidote to Democrat apathy. Voting against Trump will be an act of patriotism for people from all sides of the political spectrum come November.
No. Cruz is far more dangerous to liberals. If he gets the nod at the convention.....then you're going to see a$$es move.
It's typical for voters to express these feelings during the primaries. Gerald Ford was down 30 points in the summer of '76 after the fierce nomination battle with Ronald Reagan. However, Ford nearly pulled off the win in November as GOP voters came home. Likewise in 1968, Hubert Humphrey was 15 points down in mid-September and the Democratic party was completely split. Humphrey lost by a razor-thin margin as Democrats finally showed up on Election Day.
Sanders supporters would probably vote for Clinton to prevent either of those from getting into the White House. However, if Sanders did not endorse Clinton that could change things... Trump could potentially pivot hard to the center after the primary and also change things.
Sanders stated that he would support Clinton if she's the nominee.
More bad news for Hillary. Now that she is having to defend herself as even being qualified to be President, a new poll shows that 1 in 4 Bernie supporters say they will not vote for Hillary. This after 8 years of Obama has driven millions away from the Democrat party.
He's stated he would support Clinton, because he kind of has to say that to stay in the primary. In order to play the democrats' game he has to be a democrat. If he wants any chance of winning superdelegates he has to cozy up. And I think if Clinton wins fair and square, he'll continue supporting her. However... if he were to win a majority of pledged delegates and the superdelegates press the scales against him anyway, I could conceive of his position changing. It would very much divide the party the same way a contested convention where someone other than the frontrunner was given the nomination would divide Republicans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
....and with the majority of states already having their primaries, republican turnout has been above that of the democrat turnout.
After Obama, the democrats hearts are not in it.
That was true in the early races but stopped being true in mid-february when it became clear to more democrats that their primary was also competitive.
That's true, but Hillary is the only candidate from either party to have received more than 9 million votes.
....and she and all her posse, is fixing to be indicted, for being the mole that exposed all our secrets to our world enemies. Way worse than Petreus ever did.
That was true in the early races but stopped being true in mid-february when it became clear to more democrats that their primary was also competitive.
The only races so far it hasn't been the case, have been Massachusetts, New Hampshire. New York may be next.
The only races so far it hasn't been the case, have been Massachusetts, New Hampshire. New York may be next.
My home state of NC had equal turnout.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
