Almalieque wrote:
Yes, the DNC cleared the field because she is the strongest candidate, not because she is weak.
They cleared the field because she was "owed" it by the party. Don't think this was anything more than political payback for her losing to Obama last time around, and being assured that no such thing would happen again this time. Heck. Even her stint as Secretary of State was entirely about a consolation prize from the Obama's in return for her and her husband's support in the general in 2008. It was clearly intended to give her some extra foreign policy experience to make her a stronger candidate along the way, but I think it backfired a bit.
Quote:
That only proves my point that if she were doing worse (for whatever reason), the DNC wouldn't hold back. They would have flooded the field.
So if your first assumption is true then it proves your second? That's not terribly compelling logic.
Quote:
I ask again, if Clinton is "weak", then WTF is Sanders and everyone else, given that she has the most votes?
She should have locked the nomination up like in late February. That an eminently unelectable candidate like Sanders is even remotely in the running is and should be a massive warning sign about Clinton.
Quote:
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. My point is that the Dems held back to let Hillary run. If Hillary were to appear weak, then they wouldn't have held back, regardless of who was on the GOP side.
I'm saying that it only became apparent how weak Clinton was when Sanders started actually polling well against her. When she didn't just automatically dominate all the polls, that was the big sign. Remember that none of the candidates put against her last summer were supposed to be serious. They were there because they were issues candidates who were safe to put on a podium next to Clinton, because they were no threat at all. They got to say their piece in front of a national audience, Clinton got to look really presidential next to them, and the DNC got to not look like they were so obviously gaming the nomination.
It was like late October to mid November when it became apparent that Sanders was not only not dropping out, but was actually picking up momentum on her, as others did drop out. Far far too late at that point to field another candidate. I guess what's surprising to me is that I seem to recall us having this exact conversation back then, complete with you talking about how the DNC could put another establishment candidate in place if needed, and everyone else pointing out to you that it was too late. So why don't you understand this now?
Quote:
Hence, Lefien's insinuation that Sen. Sanders would be winning if it weren't for Trump is false. The establishment would just have supported someone else.
Um... Do you get that both of those assertions could be wrong? The "establishment" isn't going to support anyone else unless Clinton is actually indicted and ineligible for nomination. What Sanders and/or Trump do has no bearing on that. If Trump were not in the race, Clinton might actually be doing better, not worse (no way to be sure though). I honestly think that at least some of the numbers Trump is getting are from Democrats and left leaning moderates realizing that Clinton is a lock for the nomination, also realizing she's weak, and intentionally voting in GOP primaries to try to make the weakest candidate on the other side win so as to give their side the best chance in the general. And the fact that Dem primary participation is down significantly (like 80% of normal), while GOP primary participation is up massively (like 170% of normal) suggests there's at least some truth to this (and a bunch of other folks who don't normally participate at all flocking to vote for Trump).
Not sure how that affects the actual general election, but I'm just pointing out how Trump being in the race could result in
better primary results for Sanders, not worse. And that this could be the result of Clinton being weak, not in spite of it. And again, the establishment could not possibly have known what would happen until it was far too late to put another candidate in the race, so that's not remotely a consideration here.
Edited, Mar 30th 2016 4:53pm by gbaji