She's exponentially better than Sanders...and I don't like her.

Well, nobody else is running, is probably one reason why she's doing well. Either nobody is ready or nobody wanted to cross her.

As exciting and great as this election is, it sure isnt producing a real candidate.

Ok, define "real candidate".

agreed here on everything

And let's not get all riled up over the "tough primary" situation here. No need to take the bait from the dedicated opposition... but just put yourself into the shoes of a loyal Dem for a minute.

She is a former Secretary of State and US Senator, seen by most within the party (and many beyond) as effective in both roles, and like it or not was a major policy player in a previous Dem administration. She has credentials for the role that very few aspirants possess. I know that this is not major speaking point as we mull over massive issues like the DNC database and the text of paid speeches and who said what in 1986 about guns... but once the party sorts itself out, the country will be reminded that she is an extraordinarily well qualified candidate. (Not merits, just resume)

She would also be the first woman president. Right, I know the luster has come off the diversity argument a good bit since Obama, but do not dismiss this as unimportant. When the Dems get together for their convention, there will be a whole wave of inspiration (both genuine and manufactured) around that point. Making history is exciting... in a "get to the polls" way.

Next...she is smart and articulate. Yes, she has delivery issues and can seem calculating or insincere. But in a debate setup against any of the likely suspects, she is going to be strong, effective, and persuasive on policy. She will be able to talk about "when I was negotiating with [head of state]" and "I worked across the aisle on [legislative issue]" and that stuff is going to stick. She will talk about the supreme court, women's issues, middle class stuff, and a range of relatively inoffensive Dem-friendly topics with absolute ease.

She may not be a perfect candidate, by any stretch. But the selection process is often about the "path to victory" and all that stuff makes a really good case. No party has an easy road to a third term, but she's a much stronger candidate than usual in many regards. In the prediction markets, you can take it to the bank that during the week of the Dem convention, as people gush over her service and dedication and accomplishments, the needle will move toward her as a material favorite in the race.


So... THAT is what Democrats see in her. Even if you don't love her or even like her, you see a solid chance to keep the White House and retain control of administrative policies, judicial appointments, and everything that comes with the Executive Branch. Party loyalists love electability, this isn't anything new.

A poor use of words by me.

How about no real stand outs.

I dont know. Im just not sure I like what is going to happen to the country in the next 4-8 years, whoever is elected.

Is there anyone out there that could unite the country and the completely fractured houses?

Nicely said, QuikSand.

Good points.

I think you will find that Dems are not that sold on her either. Basically the only option we were given was Sanders, who is not going to win a general election (see South Carolina as proof). She has the best chance to continue Obama's policies/worldview. Rubio gave a stump speech the other day where he said he would end all of Obama's executive orders on day 1 of his presidency-Cruz has said similar. We had eight years of the Republicans in Congress obstructing Obama's policies, I sure don't want four years of Rubio/Cruz gleefully destroying his legacy. Who the hell knows what Trump will do besides probably get us into a war after he insults one world leader after another. From a personal standpoint, none of the Republican candidates will support gay rights/marriage, and I shudder to think who they would nominate to the Supreme Court. Clinton is the one best suited to prevent all that from happening from the candidates we've been given.

She had so much appeal in the first Obama election because she was (and still is) what I call a "novelty" candidate. Becoming the first woman President of the US still appeals to many, who will vote for her just to say that they did-she got beat by an even bigger novelty candidate with Obama, and has no one standing in her way this time.

"You know she is a liar?"

This is politics we're talking about, right?

Nixon had pretty good creds too.

;)

No.

But that isn't the fault of the candidates from either party.

Eh, might as well throw this in the general D bin.

Why Is DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz Co-Sponsoring a Bill to Help Predatory Payday Lenders?

The article mentioned almost all the Democrats who are sponsoring the bill are from Florida... I'm sure if Jezebel actually cared about journalism it may think to see if most payday loan companies are based in FL. After all, there has to be a connection to the state in some way right? And if that is the case, then the Congresspeople are backing their constituents.

Which constituents, the lenders or people getting the loans? Or is it both because payday lenders are not bad?

You're going on IF? Don't break your back contorting yourself...

Congrats if you had Hillary Clinton winning American Samoa on PredictIt.

American Samoa Results Election 2016 - ABC News

Edit: It's kind of surprising that American Samoa has almost 70% as many delegates as Vermont does.

It's not going to help her much. They cannot vote in national elections. But hey, it sounds good.

Winning it is better than not winning it?

No, and if there was I'd hope that person would be putting his or her skills towards something more productive than running for public office.

In the sense that a few people may talk about it instead of ignoring her, sure. But actually making a difference, no it does not matter.

Sanders with a fairly substantial win in Oklahoma, though perhaps Oklahomans thought it was Barry Sanders on the ballot.

What's going to hurt is these massive margins for Clinton in Texas, Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia and Virginia. That's a lead more positive geography can't erase.

It doesn't matter for the general election obviously, it's just kind of amusing that several hundred voters in American Samoa can cancel out out much of Sanders' win in Vermont. Not that either are particularly important unless the race turned out to be super-close

Yeah, if Clinton wins MA as reported, it's pretty much over on the D side. The bastion up here didn't hold for Sanders.

It's been over since Nevada, but nobody wants to admit it.

Both are constituents. And people generally try to help out the companies that provide jobs in their district - even Bernie Sanders (see favorable regulations he's tried to get on behalf of dairy farmers, which are a sizable constituency in Vermont). It's almost always turns into a cost-benefit analysis. Or, to put it more crudely - welcome to politics.


The alternative being that there is something strange about Democrats in the state of Florida that makes them friendly to payday loan companies. I'm going to go with Occam's Razor here.

Yeah, the delegate math will be difficult for Sanders to erase. As of right now, and granted its still kinda early (though not THAT early), the NYTimes is projecting Clinton getting 335 delegates tonight with Sanders getting 145. That's almost a 200 delegate lead... of course that will shrink as Minnesota and Colorado votes come in more and more as the night continues.

Bernie declared winner of Mass.

And now Hillary declared winner of Massachusetts. Lol

Who called this? msn.com is saying Hillary won.

It seems like a shared datasource had some error. NYTimes apparently had Sanders has winner and then shifted it back to Clinton.

Then again, it only really matters in narrative as the delegates are just about evenly split either way, no?

With the real possibility of a tie happening at 269 each, you'd think an at large territory vote for president would happen.

538.com has called the nomination for Clinton. Essentially the math simply doesn't work for Sanders anymore. He might get victories, but not by enough to make big delegate scoops in the states he wins. Conversely, Clinton will win more states, and a number of those by a big enough margin to essentially take all of those states' delegates.

Due to the large minority population it would almost certainly go to the Dem, so the GOP would never agree to it.

Not unless they could somehow gin up a Missouri Compromise 2: Electric Boogaloo.

Since this race is, for all intents & purposes, over I'll indulge in a hypothetical

Let's pretend Romney had somehow managed to win four years ago.
I don't believe that would have produced any substantial difference to what we have currently, so leave pretty much everything that Obama has done intact.

What impact would running to replace Romney rather than to succeed Obama have had on this cycle's (D) primary?

I'm thinking largely here of Clinton vs Sanders, though if you feel strongly that it would have had a third major player then I suppose you're entitled to speculate down that path.

No.

The ACA, tax rates, maybe SS/Medicare, almost certainly Medicaid, climate change regulations, at least would all have looked different at the end of a Romney term.

Trump running as a Democrat and advocating:
1. The Friendship Ditch, which we would pay for through the sale of Trump Scout cookies.
2. The creation of a National CathedraMosque-a-gogue to bring all religions to DC.
3. Single payer health care.
4. Free tuition for all to Trump University.
5. Naming Diamond Joe Biden Imperial Vice President for Life.

I don't know. If he goes this far to the right, how is he going to survive a primary challenge from Kanye in 2020?

None of them would be able to beat Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho in the general election.

See I don't believe that. He's a surrender monkey looking for an opportunity to cave in. A percentage point here or there does not qualify as "substantial change" to me.

There's only one single issue (abortion) where I think he has any determination whatsoever, ironically the one place where I have a complete disagreement him.

ll he would have had to do is sign what was put before him. No way he vetoes bill after bill passed by a GOP legislature.

I'd guess Clinton and Biden would have been the big candidates, but if we assume that Romney spent 4 years rubber-stamping the GOP's legislation doing everything JPhillips lists, the tone of the race would likely have been much different. More "Let's decide on the best candidate, ASAP, to turf out Romney and stop the bleeding."



Exactly. It's not as if they didn't try to pass this stuff (or, more specifically, repeal it) during Obama's 2nd term anyway. Maybe the Democrats mount a successful filibuster in the Senate, but a lot of stuff gets wiped out.

Unless you're somehow suggesting, Jon, that Romney would actively defend Obama's 1st term achievements?

At that point they aren't Obama's 1st term "achievements", they're Romney's.

I don't believe there's a dime's worth of difference in the two people or their approaches to most topics. Remember, I saw the pair as being similar enough that I refused to vote for either four years ago. Given my feelings about one, that speaks strongly about my feelings for the other.

OK, I see what you're saying. I disagree, of course.

As you yourself point out, Romney will give in to prevailing winds, it seems to me that the most likely scenario still would have been his rubber-stamping of the bills coming out of a Republican Congress, which I assume would be mostly in the service of dismantling what passed in Obama's first term.

Clinton's Twitter account is amusing:

Hillary Clinton on Twitter: "How many more of these do we have to sit through? Asking for a friend. #GOPdebate https://t.co/AxGFlerSRW"

Hillary Clinton on Twitter: "#GOPdebate https://t.co/SGW200luN8"

Twitter....not CNN...not FoxNews...Twitter...I'm not talking about CNN...I'm talking about Twitter....folks....not FoxNews....Twitter....how's Twitter gonna make my teammates play better???

I think Lincoln would have had the best Twitter.

He did...as far as I'm concerned. :)

For someone who likes to post the same conservative Facebook memes that I see from my hometown's high school dropouts, you sure seem to enjoy this bagging on social media schtick.