However, when you look at Trumps primary numbers, and polling, it's quite clear that most of his support is coming from people who don't normally identify themselves as Republicans, and certainly don't normally vote in the GOP primaries.
Not really. His main base of support is lower-educated white Republicans who feel upset that "the establishment" has failed to stop Obamacare or immigration or any of the other stuff they were supposed to do. They tend to be more xenophobic than the average and much more likely to support extreme measures against Hispanic immigrants and Muslims. They most definitely self-identify as Republicans for the most part which is why they are so upset at a failed Republican leadership that hasn't kept their promises. Issues polling for them shows them most definitely in the GOP side of the spectrum on a range of topics.
The fact that they don't often vote in primaries (of any type) is true and represents a big problem for the GOP -- if they feel like Trump was robbed of the nomination, they're very likely to stay home. They came out to vote against the Republican establishment and said establishment putting up a general election candidate of their choosing/liking instead of the guy who was winning is just going to lead to massive defections in their ranks. Of course, a Trump candidacy will lead to a massive loss anyway so... get used to "President Clinton", I guess.
There's also McTurtle's insistence of blowing the judge nomination so "the people can choose." At this point the most damaging thing conservatives can do to the GOP is to throw Trump out.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
The irony is that Hillary Clinton is a beatable candidate. She has unique vulnerabilities, many a product of being shopworn after a quarter-century of public controversies. Other Republican candidates, had they been the party standard-bearer (such as John Kasich or Marco Rubio), might well have started as the frontrunner. But Rubio is long gone, and Kasich is far behind Trump and Cruz — with no credible pathway to the nomination that we’ve heard. If either is selected as the vice presidential nominee, it will not fundamentally change the election picture. VP candidates almost never do.
Seriously, nail on the head here. You have someone on the Democratic side who's been no stranger to the kind of stuff Americans usually hate in their politicians, and yet it seems like the Republicans are stuck fielding the one candidate that's the most likely to lose to Hillary because they can't get anyone else past the primary process.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
I would actually not put it past Trump to come at Hilary from the left. As bizarre as it sounds, if he went full radical protectionist/populist he could swing a GE win. Also it would make everybody in both parties mad which is modus operandi.
I mean, if anyone could turn the tables, Trump seems like the kind of wild-card that could conceivably do it. Just can't get past the fact he's really bad at producing some rather horrifying sound bites. It's not the kind of thing that's going to sway his passionate base, but in a general election, he's going to really need to watch what he says a lot more. There's always room for a couple of "off-the-cuff comments that are taken out of context" but he's pushing the limits already, and it's not even May yet.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
No, you don't understand; he doesn't have to watch what he's going to say, because he is the candidate who doesn't. Ok think of it this way, when a very serious person says something off, they lose legitimacy and establishment credibility. Trump neither largely wants nor cares about those things, nor does any part of his base, and in fact the lack of those things expands his base.
Yeah, the idea is everyone says or thinks quesationable things, and we don't really want to apologize for them, so his approach to just saying whatever and not apologizing is attractive from certain vantage points.
Edited, Apr 1st 2016 12:37pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101 You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain Forum FAQ
I would actually not put it past Trump to come at Hilary from the left. As bizarre as it sounds, if he went full radical protectionist/populist he could swing a GE win.
Doubtful. Who is he winning? There really aren't enough available white voters for Trump to win the general and he's not going to suddenly change his message to start drawing in alienated women/minorities without losing some of the angry white guys he already has. Trump's not going to pick up a double-digit gain on white votes over Romney's 2012 total which is what he needs unless he finds a way to retool his pitch to blacks and Latinos without losing any whites.
No, you don't understand; he doesn't have to watch what he's going to say, because he is the candidate who doesn't. Ok think of it this way, when a very serious person says something off, they lose legitimacy and establishment credibility. Trump neither largely wants nor cares about those things, nor does any part of his base, and in fact the lack of those things expands his base.
Yeah, and it also makes 2/3rd of Americans dislike him. That's not a problem in the primary, he can get by there with a lot of dislike assuming a sufficient number of people do like him, but that's a problem in the general election. He's going to have to pivot from that somehow. It's hard to win an general election when that many people have an unfavorable view of you.
Man needs to hope Hillary does something phenomenally stupid if he wants a chance.
Edited, Apr 1st 2016 10:40am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
No, you don't understand; he doesn't have to watch what he's going to say, because he is the candidate who doesn't. Ok think of it this way, when a very serious person says something off, they lose legitimacy and establishment credibility. Trump neither largely wants nor cares about those things, nor does any part of his base, and in fact the lack of those things expands his base.
Yeah, and it also makes 2/3rd of Americans dislike him. That's not a problem in the primary, he can get by there with a lot of dislike assuming a sufficient number of people do like him, but that's a problem in the general election. He's going to have to pivot from that somehow. It's hard to win an general election when that many people have an unfavorable view of you.
Man needs to hope Hillary does something phenomenally stupid if he wants a chance.
Edited, Apr 1st 2016 10:40am by someproteinguy
The big question is "how many of those who hate him also hate Hilary, and why?"
No, you don't understand; he doesn't have to watch what he's going to say, because he is the candidate who doesn't. Ok think of it this way, when a very serious person says something off, they lose legitimacy and establishment credibility. Trump neither largely wants nor cares about those things, nor does any part of his base, and in fact the lack of those things expands his base.
Yeah, and it also makes 2/3rd of Americans dislike him. That's not a problem in the primary, he can get by there with a lot of dislike assuming a sufficient number of people do like him, but that's a problem in the general election. He's going to have to pivot from that somehow. It's hard to win an general election when that many people have an unfavorable view of you.
Man needs to hope Hillary does something phenomenally stupid if he wants a chance.
Edited, Apr 1st 2016 10:40am by someproteinguy
The big question is "how many of those who hate him also hate Hilary, and why?"
Trump has about a 14 point lead in the "I hate your guts and wish you were bagels" category.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
However, when you look at Trumps primary numbers, and polling, it's quite clear that most of his support is coming from people who don't normally identify themselves as Republicans, and certainly don't normally vote in the GOP primaries.
Not really. His main base of support is lower-educated white Republicans who feel upset that "the establishment" has failed to stop Obamacare or immigration or any of the other stuff they were supposed to do. They tend to be more xenophobic than the average and much more likely to support extreme measures against Hispanic immigrants and Muslims. They most definitely self-identify as Republicans for the most part which is why they are so upset at a failed Republican leadership that hasn't kept their promises. Issues polling for them shows them most definitely in the GOP side of the spectrum on a range of topics.
I'm sure that's what the analysts at MSNBC told you. They don't identify as Republican. They identify as Conservative (different brand than I subscribe to, of course). That's not the same thing. Lots of Trump supporters define themselves as independents in terms of political party, and historically are as likely to vote libertarian, or democrat, or conservative party, as they are to vote republican in any given general election. What I find odd is that you acknowledge that these are people who are angry at the GOP, and have for some time been dissatisfied with both/all parties, yet seem to also want to assume that by adding them into the mix, the GOP doesn't actually gain any numbers in terms of voters in the general election.
I think that's foolish. I'm not a Trump fan by any means, but it's absurd to suggest that his support is coming entirely, or even primarily, from within the pool of normal general election Republican voters. He's bringing a lot of new people with him. I don't necessarily (or at all) agree with what those new voters want, but I'm not foolish enough to think they aren't just that: New voters. If they were just rank and file GOP voters latching onto a new message and leader, I'd actually be far less concerned about Trump. It's the fact that he's appealing to a set of people who, if they enter the Republican party in sufficient numbers and gain sufficient influence over the party platform, could move the GOP away from the Reagan style small government party it's been for the last 40 years to a more fire breathing populist party, caring more about winning popular opinion than in adhering to any core principles. And while that might result in more wins for the GOP, it would be wins running on a platform that I'm not very thrilled with.
I honestly have no clue what you think that has to do with what I wrote. You're like rambling off in different directions. Say on target man!
I shortened my original response, so it appears out of place. You claimed that her being owed this election has nothing to do with her personal strength as a politician. I countered to say that it is everything to do with her political strength. It was blatantly obvious that she was the stronger candidate in 2008, yet the party went for the more attractive candidate. Now, she is still the strongest candidate and that's why the party "owes" her. The Sen Rubio reference was to demonstrate that Sec. Clinton was the stronger candidate in 2008.
Gbaji wrote:
I said she's "weak" in terms of voter support.
How can the person with the most votes compared to any other candidate in the race (GOP and DNC) be "weak" in terms of voter support?
Gbaji wrote:
I just freaking did! WTF is wrong with you? At least acknowledge and respond to my answer instead of just re-asking the exact same question. If you don't agree that her narrow lead against a candidate like Sanders indicates weakness, then by all means make that claim and support it.
Gbaji wrote:
And I'm telling you exactly why I believe that. She should be blowing him away in delegate count, not beating him 57/43.
" He's a terrifically weak candidate". That's the answer that I was looking for.
Gbaji wrote:
but you keep acting as though all that needs to happen is you sign a piece of paper and your name magically appears on the ballot a month or two later, and you just spend money on TV ads or something and win.
You keep acting like there isn't an Anti-Trump campaign attacking Trump after he has already swept the majority of the states? Again, there were draft movements for candidates BEFORE Sec. Clinton even announced. If something had happened to Sec. Clinton in November or August, the DNC would have made sure that a candidate was on the ballots and the Super Delegates would make sure that the candidate was in the running.
I shortened my original response, so it appears out of place. You claimed that her being owed this election has nothing to do with her personal strength as a politician. I countered to say that it is everything to do with her political strength. It was blatantly obvious that she was the stronger candidate in 2008, yet the party went for the more attractive candidate. Now, she is still the strongest candidate and that's why the party "owes" her.
I think you and I fundamentally disagree on what "strong" and "weak" means in this context. I'm talking about voter support. I'm talking about positive versus negative attributes of a candidate which might make someone want to vote for them. What I'm not talking about is the degree to which the party establishment supports them, somewhat specifically because that is circular. All candidates supported by the party powerful would therefore be defined as "strong". Which tells us nothing about that candidate's odds of actually winning the general election.
Quote:
The Sen Rubio reference was to demonstrate that Sec. Clinton was the stronger candidate in 2008.
I'm still baffled how you thought it did so. So because Senator Rubio was not the chosen establishment candidate, and did not "wait his turn", and failed to secure the nomination, this means that Clinton is strong and not weak? Um... I'm not getting that at all. I'm not even sure how they're related. If anything, it would support my argument. If you're trying to create some kind of equivalence between Rubio and Obama, then one could argue that Clinton is weak because Obama (the guy who didn't wait his turn) beat her in 2008. We could certainly say that those left in the race are stronger than Clinton because they were able to push back someone like that where she could not.
But to be honest, that difference speaks far more to differences between an Obama campaign and a Rubio campaign than it tells us anything at all about Clinton. So again, I'm just not getting it.
Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
I said she's "weak" in terms of voter support.
How can the person with the most votes compared to any other candidate in the race (GOP and DNC) be "weak" in terms of voter support?
She has not been in a voter decided contest against any GOP candidates, so let's stop talking about "numbers of voters" across parties and look just at the Dem primary races. The *only* measurement we have is her against Sanders. And in that measurement, she's barely beating him. This is not Obama. It's Sanders. A 70something year old socialist whom no one takes seriously.
What you're saying is the equivalent of a GOP primary race where the only two people in the race are Cruz and say Palin. And Cruz has only managed to garner 57% of the delegates. No one in their right mind would call Cruz a strong candidate in that situation, right? It's not enough to merely have a majority, we have to look at who you have a majority against. Clinton should be beating Sanders by massive margins. She's not.
Quote:
" He's a terrifically weak candidate". That's the answer that I was looking for.
Then why didn't you pay attention the first three times I said that (or something equivalent). She's weak because she's just barely beating a candidate who should be, at best, getting single digit polling, and in any sane primary, would get zero delegates and drop out in the first couple weeks. He's an issue candidate. He's not supposed to actually give the chosen frontrunner any sort of challenge at all. That he is doing just that, is frankly an embarrassment.
Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
but you keep acting as though all that needs to happen is you sign a piece of paper and your name magically appears on the ballot a month or two later, and you just spend money on TV ads or something and win.
You keep acting like there isn't an Anti-Trump campaign attacking Trump after he has already swept the majority of the states?
What... The... Hell... does that have to do with what I just wrote? It's like you just pivot into random nonsense. Wow.
Quote:
Again, there were draft movements for candidates BEFORE Sec. Clinton even announced. If something had happened to Sec. Clinton in November or August, the DNC would have made sure that a candidate was on the ballots and the Super Delegates would make sure that the candidate was in the running.
Um... Whatever. The DNC can't do this. The candidate has to do this. Sure. I suppose they can tell the super delegates who to support, but the candidate himself has to garner people in each state to serve as pledged delegates if he wins them a seat in the delegation. He has to do this, in each and every state. And he has to trust (as best he can) that they'll actually support him in the convention. You can't just put your name in a hat and be placed on the ballot. Each state runs their own primary or caucus, and each has their own rules.
You didn't seem to grasp this the last time we had this conversation, and it appears you still don't. It's not remotely that easy. There's a reason why candidates declare their intention to run in spring or early summer, and actually hire staff and have boots on the grounds in many states in early fall. You can't just wait until the last minute. I get you want to believe otherwise, but you just can't.
It's meaningless anyway. Clinton didn't get indicted (yet), and no one else got dropped in. So I'm not sure why you keep arguing this "what if" long after it's no longer relevant. If she gets indicted at this point, her delegates still stand and can be freed up to vote for whomever they want. Which, presumably, will be some other establishment candidate that the DNC selects. The danger point would have been if she'd been indicted in say January, prior to any delegates being won, but far too late for any additional candidates to get their names on the earlier primary states. We're past that point, so it's really kinda moot.
I think you and I fundamentally disagree on what "strong" and "weak" means in this context
No we're not. "My" definition is more inclusive, but even with your narrow definition, she is strong. It appears that you're conflating "negative media coverage" with "weak".
Gbaji wrote:
So because Senator Rubio was not the chosen establishment candidate, and did not "wait his turn", and failed to secure the nomination, this means that Clinton is strong and not weak?
Sen. Rubio losing has nothing to do with my point, which is that Sen. Obama (on paper) was a weaker candidate and the GOP relived that fact when attacking junior senators running for president. That's why the party feels like they owe Sec. Clinton the nomination.
Gbaji wrote:
She has not been in a voter decided contest against any GOP candidates, so let's stop talking about "numbers of voters" across parties and look just at the Dem primary races. The *only* measurement we have is her against Sanders. And in that measurement, she's barely beating him. This is not Obama. It's Sanders. A 70something year old socialist whom no one takes seriously.
What you're saying is the equivalent of a GOP primary race where the only two people in the race are Cruz and say Palin. And Cruz has only managed to garner 57% of the delegates. No one in their right mind would call Cruz a strong candidate in that situation, right? It's not enough to merely have a majority, we have to look at who you have a majority against. Clinton should be beating Sanders by massive margins. She's not.
Open primaries allow anyone to vote for anyone. In that since, if a person votes for Sec. Clinton, that person is voting for her OVER a GOP candidate. I'm not sure how 2.5 million votes is "barely" winning at the "half-way" mark.
Gbaji wrote:
or something equivalent
The fact that you felt the need to say that is a clear indication that you did no such thing.
Gbaji wrote:
What... The... ****... does that have to do with what I just wrote? It's like you just pivot into random nonsense. Wow.
Don't be upset if you're too slow to understand. You're arguing that a political party would be unable to put together a candidate in August or November 2015 to be competitive, when the GOP is literally trying to do pick an entirely new candidate in April 2016. If the party is united (which the GOP isn't), they could have pushed forward an Elizabeth Warren or Joe Biden in November with ease. To think otherwise is denial.
Gbaji wrote:
Um... Whatever. The DNC can't do this. The candidate has to do this.
Paul Ryan would like to have a word with you. Before you say "WTF does that have to do with anything?" With enough pressure of the "survival of the party and nation", a person will crack. People announce early for money and support in order to be competetive. If you go in the race with all of the support and donations, you can afford to enter late.
Clinton is "barely winning" the same way that Obama "barely won" re-election (which Gbaji also said).
You're comparing a general election to a primary though. 57% to 43% is a great lead against another candidate in a general election. It's an outstanding lead, in fact. And it's an "ok" lead against another candidate in a primary if both candidates are similarly strong. When the other candidate is Bernie Sanders, and that's your lead, that means you are weak. Very very weak.
I get why you'd want to argue otherwise, but you're really only fooling yourself (and I'm not sure you're even accomplishing that much). If Warren had gotten in the race last spring, we'd be talking about how Clinton's getting her butt handed to her, just like happened with Obama 8 years ago, and no one would know who Bernie Sanders is. He's an inconsequential candidate made consequential only because he's the sole alternative in a race with a supremely unpopular Democratic candidate. You could probably have picked any random Democrat politician's name out of a hat and they'd be doing as well as Sanders against her right now.
Sanders is more or less a political floatation device, being desperately grabbed onto by people who see no other good option. If Clinton was a strong candidate, they wouldn't even be considering him.
I think you and I fundamentally disagree on what "strong" and "weak" means in this context
No we're not.
Um... Obviously, we are.
Quote:
"My" definition is more inclusive, but even with your narrow definition, she is strong. It appears that you're conflating "negative media coverage" with "weak".
No. I'm saying that poor voter support means "weak candidate". My argument has nothing at all to do with media coverage. I am talking purely about the primary vote results. She should be creaming Sanders by like 50% or more. Probably closer to 80%. She's not.
Quote:
Sen. Rubio losing has nothing to do with my point, which is that Sen. Obama (on paper) was a weaker candidate and the GOP relived that fact when attacking junior senators running for president. That's why the party feels like they owe Sec. Clinton the nomination.
I'm still utterly confused how you leap from the first point to the second. It's like saying that dogs like bones, and that's why the sun rises in the east. Um... what? Total nonsense.
Quote:
Open primaries allow anyone to vote for anyone. In that since, if a person votes for Sec. Clinton, that person is voting for her OVER a GOP candidate.
What!!!???
She's running for the Democratic party nomination. What votes may or may not be being cast for Republicans in the Republican party nomination has nothing at all to do with it. First off, most primaries are not open. And even those which are, don't function the way you seem to think they do. If you choose to vote for Clinton in say New Hampshire (where everyone is free to vote for anyone), you're not choosing Clinton above say Cruz. You're choosing to cast your ballot for a Democrat, and among the two Democrats, you're choosing Clinton over Sanders. The votes are still divided into different pools based on whether they were cast for someone running for the GOP nomination or the Dem nomination. And the winner of the Dem primary is based on who gets the most votes among the Democrats in the race. Period. The GOP count has nothing at all to do with it.
You're seriously confused.
Quote:
I'm not sure how 2.5 million votes is "barely" winning at the "half-way" mark.
Sigh. I've said this several times. She has won 57% of the pledged delegates for the Democratic party nomination. Sanders has won 43% of the pledged delegates in the Democratic party nomination. That's the only race I'm looking at here. I'm seeing how well Clinton is doing against Sanders. And while she is winning, she's not winning by that much. Certainly, not nearly as much as she should be against a candidate like Sanders. I'm just not sure how many different times and ways I can explain the exact same concept to you before it'll sink in (if ever).
You're playing mental gymnastic games with vote totals, and GOP comparisons, and polling data, and ignoring the most important number: The actual delegate count. That's what determines who wins. And that's what presumably any candidate in the race is focusing on with their strategy. So one has to wonder why she's doing so poorly. She should be wiping the floor with Sanders. If she were the powerhouse nominee that many are claiming her to be, that is. Since she's not, it supports a conclusion that she's much weaker than people are claiming her to be.
You're trying to make something that is really simple into something really complicated. It's just not. Clinton is not leading Sanders by nearly the delegate count she should. That can only mean one of two things: Sanders is much much stronger than previously thought (very unlikely), or Clinton is much weaker, and folks are voting Sanders out of the simple fact of having no other choice. That's a far more likely explanation.
Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
or something equivalent
The fact that you felt the need to say that is a clear indication that you did no such thing.
No. It's a clear indication that I don't want to deal with stupid gotcha games.
Quote:
Don't be upset if you're too slow to understand. You're arguing that a political party would be unable to put together a candidate in August or November 2015 to be competitive, when the GOP is literally trying to do pick an entirely new candidate in April 2016. If the party is united (which the GOP isn't), they could have pushed forward an Elizabeth Warren or Joe Biden in November with ease. To think otherwise is denial.
Oh. I see. You actually have no clue how a primary works. That explains a lot.
The voters will vote. Based on the votes, delegates will be pledged. They can only be pledged to candidates who are on the ballot in the state (except in the possibility of a state allowing write-ins or something). If you don't have a candidate's name on the ballot in a state, then that candidate can't win pledged delegates. Period. Someone else will be awarded those delegates, and those delegates can only be awarded based on votes for candidates on the ballot. When convention time comes, if any candidate has a majority of delegates, they win. So, if Clinton gets indicted in say January, with Sanders being the only other Democrat appearing on the ballot in most states, then he will win all the pledged delegates in those states. Period. It can take months to file the paperwork to get your name on a ballot in a state primary or caucus. Most states require this paperwork to be completed by late fall or early winter (registration deadlines and whatnot). So no matter how hard the DNC might want someone else to win against Sanders, the Democratic National Committee doesn't have any authority to tell the state party how to run their primaries.
That's why it was a big deal last Novermber/December. It's why Biden had to make a decision to get in our out like in October (can't remember the exact date). There are filing deadlines, and you need time to get the paperwork filed out, signatures signed, petitions run, etc (varies by state). You can't just drop a candidate in at the last minute. Not if you want to... and this is very very important win pledged delegates.
Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
Um... Whatever. The DNC can't do this. The candidate has to do this.
Paul Ryan would like to have a word with you. Before you say "WTF does that have to do with anything?" With enough pressure of the "survival of the party and nation", a person will crack. People announce early for money and support in order to be competetive. If you go in the race with all of the support and donations, you can afford to enter late.
You don't understand. The only reason people are talking about Paul Ryan, or Mitt Romney, or whoever, is in the event of a contested convention. That's when no candidate gets a majority of delegates. In that case, the delegates can vote for anyone, even someone who never ran in any primary at all. And guess what? The same thing applies to the Democrats. But you have to have a contested convention for that to even be a possibility. If Clinton had been indicted prior to winning any delegates, then all the delegates would have gone to Sanders, and he'd have a majority in the convention, and there would be no contest, and no opportunity for the DNC establishment to parachute in a candidate.
Since Clinton has already won enough delegates to at least make sure Sanders can't win a majority outright (and in the Democrat's case, the super delegates help out here), even if she were to be indicted tomorrow, the convention would be contested, and the DNC could drop in anyone they want to take Clinton's place. Again though, that can only happen because she's already been in the race long enough. If she'd been forced to drop out back in January, it would have been too late for another candidate to get on the ballot in enough states to prevent Sanders from just walking into the nomination by default.
You really should at least try to learn how the primary process works. It's clear you you have no clue. Which explains why it's like talking to a brick wall here. Learn first. Then post.
Clinton should be beating Sanders by massive margins.
And much like "momentum" and "oversampling," it makes great clickbait material.
Except that I'm not basing my argument on speculation or data manipulation. I'm just looking at the results of the votes. You can't seriously argue that Sanders is a strong enough candidate to earn 43% of the delegates this far into the primary season if he were facing a strong candidate. That's just absurd. He's an issues candidate. He's one of a flock of people who run for president, knowing they have zero chance, but do it anyway because they can get time on a national stage to express their opinions and positions.
That he finds himself in the position he's in is probably just as much a shock to him, as it is to everyone else. It's not because he's strong, but because Clinton is weak, and the Democrats deliberately cleared the field of all other serious candidates. There's literally no one else for voters to vote for.
Clinton is "barely winning" the same way that Obama "barely won" re-election (which Gbaji also said).
You're comparing a general election to a primary though.
No, I'm comparing your silly statements where you continually insist that a lead barely counts because you don't like it. You were all in a huff because Romney just got smacked in the general and so were petulantly saying that Obama barely won the election.
Quote:
I get why you'd want to argue otherwise
Because reality? I mean, congratulations on once again trying to turn a line around on me because it got under your skin and all, but I'm saying that Clinton has a solid lead and lock on the nomination because, well, Clinton has a solid lead and lock on the nomination. To quote the husband of a certain Democratic front-runner: that's just math.
Again, the whole "OMG Sanders! Eeeeewwwww cooties!" thing is your own invention. Polling shows that Democrats are pretty satisfied with both of their choices. There's no meat to the idea that Clinton "should" be leading by a million-thousand points because most Democrats aren't really worried about who is leading -- they're happy either way. Sanders doesn't throw them into conniptions and make them run to Clinton as you keep insisting he must, just because he throws you into conniptions. You're projecting, kiddo. Hell, even among the Clinton-leaning people here and in other places I haunt, it's never really about "Sanders sucks!" but rather "Sanders' supporters should probably get ready for him to lose" without spending time attacking Sanders himself. People aren't really turned off by Sanders, they just think some of his supporters are a bit too idealistic about the whole thing.
Except that I'm not basing my argument on speculation or data manipulation. I'm just looking at the results of the votes.
First, calling what you have an "argument" is being highly generous. The results and data show Clinton is winning the nomination. Saying she isn't doing it by a large enough margin is just trying to make the results sound more interesting than they really are.
It's boring bordering on narcoleptic, you want it to be more interesting than it really is. That's by the numbers clickbait.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
