Hillary Crushing Trump In New Poll


I'm wondering how many of these supporters were hard line Bernie before and this is a sign of party unity starting to come together. I was kind of thinking as soon as the D's resolved there candidate problem we'd see Clinton shoot ahead in the polls.
Yes, only one poll, but it certainly is interesting to ponder how Donald Trump would try to reset his campaign, and if he even could, should polls show him consistently trailing by a wide margin.
"Take comfort, Sanders supporters who've insisted that only Bernie can beat Donald. Looks like she can beat him too."
This isn't going to comfort some of those people. The more spiteful ones have demonstrated that they'd rather Trump win (proving them right that Hillary can't beat him) than Hillary win (actually not plunging the nation into an autocratic nightmare).
Looks like she can beat him too.

Let's hope it is true because several head to head polls with Trump didn't look so good for Clinton for many months now. One can only go with existing data to make predictions and data showed that Sanders reliably beat Trump by a wide margin whereas Clinton was statistically tied in many polls. Wishful thinking or crystal ball reading isn't so useful or reliable.
Team Sanders may have a more than abundant lunatic fringe, but it's not built on a lunatic core. And most of that core will turn around when they get out of the lunatic echo chamber and get exposed to more reliable accounts of the real Hillary.
@3: I expect that spiteful holdout group to decline as November approaches and Trump's rabidity escalates.
Many, many Bernie supporters are throwing in with Gary Johnson. He's turning into a serious third party contender, and while I don't see him winning, I see him making this a much closer race than I had hoped for.
If you look at the real clear politics rolling average, Trump is in freefall. Hillary isn't doing so hot either, but at least she has room to grow once Bernie endorses her. Trump's support is cratering.
@7 - I've been pondering the Gary Johnson aspect for a little while now. Has anybody done the math to see which side he'd pull more votes from? It seems like he's the kind of candidate that would be pulling more-or-less equally from both sides, though I do worry that he's taking anti-Trump, anti-Hillary people who would otherwise lean pro-Hillary without a 3rd option.
And take comfort Hillary supporters who said Bernie staying in the race was harming her chances to win the GE. That didn't happen either.
I've never said only Bernie could beat Trump. I've frequently said that Bernie is more likely to beat Trump, is better suited to be President, will draw more voters and thus help out down-ticket Democrats, and that if the GOP is going to hand us the election on a tackily-gilded platter named Trump we should be trying to get the most progressive person into power as possible.

@ 9,

MSNBC posted an analysis with polls including third parties. They found that Clinton still beat Trump, but only within the margin of error.
Fresh polling out today: Bloomberg shows Clinton 49, Trump 37, Johnson 9.
This poll is the definition of an outlier, and the 9% for Gary Johnson raises huge questions about methodology.
Hit Post too soon. Prev MSNBC discussion was on polls 2 wks and 4 wks stale.

@14 - 9% for Johnson is consistent with other results (but not necessarily predictive, as it reflects protest vote intent).
A bag of dirt could beat Donald Trump. He has no chance.
@6 Escalates?!? What's he going to do, start biting people? He's already got the crazy up to 11. All that's left to do is start openly arming his Brownshirts and leading an insurrection.

One thing's for sure, though. He can't stop. He's going to drive his crazytrain to the end of the line, and with any luck for the rest of us, off a cliff.
I agree that the 9% is reflective of the backlash caused by Bernie's loss. But a lot of truly intelligent, highly progressive people I know loathe Hillary with a passion I can't quite explain. They'll turn to Johnson as the lesser of two evils. And he'll appeal to the old white man demographic if it's a choice between Johnson and Trump. I think he's someone to watch, is all I'm saying.
Yeah, can anyone tell me the *name* of the most prominent or highest ranking Sanders supporter who "insisted" that "only" Bernie can beat Trump? As far as I can tell, you're quoting some nobody posting on social media.

I've heard it said many times by credible, prominent Sanders supporters that Sanders has better odds, and that comes from simply quoting the polls: Sanders leads Trump by a greater margin than Clinton. It's a rather banal observation of a simple fact. I guess if you dislike that fact, you have to root around for some internet moron nobody has ever heard of who "insisted that only Bernie can beat Donald". You found some idiot to overstate their case, and that proves you right? Nope, it ain't work like that.

Anyways, she god damn well better win. We tried to tell you to go with the one who has better numbers against that psychopath Trump, and all we got for our trouble was blasts of indignation because some other fucking internet moron nobody has ever heard of posted a bunch of misogynist bullshit. I am sorry about the shit that internet moron nobody has ever heard of pulled, but the misogynist harassment and stalking by some internet moron nobody has ever heard of is *not* a reason to nominate the Democrat with the *smaller* lead over Trump. When shit starts to go sideways and that lead begins to evaporate, we're all going to wish we'd picked a nominee whose lead was larger to begin with. Why do I even need to say this?

Being attacked by some internet moron nobody has ever heard of does not count as a qualification to be President, and adding up how many times Hillary was attacked by some internet moron nobody has ever heard of does not build a case that she can beat Trump.

We should have gone with the guy who beats Trump by more. But oh, no, we couldn't do that. For some reason. Now it's on you, fuckers. She better fucking win.
Mr Lash - That's not the point; it wasn't really supposed to give any real comfort. There's a delicate dance going on - how to get enough Sanders supporters to cast nose-holding Clinton, H votes in November while making the absolute minimum in concessions. The goal is to win the GE and then make the Sanders supporters eat as much of their own bile as the Republicans for the duration of the administration. The tricky part is that Mr Savage probably does have an urge genuinely to reconcile the Sanders supporters - but in general these are not times conducive to reconciliation.
Yeah. Well, Trump is no Giuliani, but Trump is an asshole. Just like Charlie Brown.
Good to see Hillary and Bernie have met.
Bernie also talking of how important it is for his young supporters to stay engaged politically thru all elections.
I know too many people who voted for Ralph Nader as a "protest vote," and we ended up with a President (W Bush) that they absolutely did not want.
Johnson cannot win. But he can change the outcome of the election. If someone is dedicated to his platform, actions, etc., great. But voting for him as a "protest vote" without any real conviction is precious-in-a-bad-way and irresponsible. If you definitely don't want someone in office, vote for the opponent who has a chance to win.
I stand by my statements that the politicians must earn votes, there are no spoilers. As I sit here, drinking coffee out of my "Feel The Bern" coffee mug, I know I'll be voting for Secretary Clinton in November, exactly as I suspected last November. It's been important to have Senator Sanders in the race, engaging new voters, and doing his damnedest to drag the platform to the left. I do not support the hawkish tendencies of Secretary Clinton, but I know who I need appointing justices for the next 4 years, and it isn't the Donald. But if people say they can't support her? I have to accept it when their reasoning is solid. And lots of their reasoning is solid. I'm hoping for GOP voters to draw a line in the sand about their candidate and stay home, or vote for another party's candidate, so I won't pretend that it doesn't go both ways.
So, while I know who I'll be voting for, it will be for the candidate I dislike SIGNIFICANTLY less. Just two weeks ago one of the talking points form Secretary Clinton's campaign was about college tuition. "You don't want to subsidize college for wealthy people, do you?" to which I respond "Yes, I do." That's how we get a shot at the same education. All of our taxes will go up with universal higher education and universal health care. Those with more should pay more, but I want us to have universal access to education and health care. The Clinton Campaign really wants to keep it an "Us vs Them" game, and that's just one thing about the Secretary's campaign I find odious. But here in the general election, I'll keep my real life focus on on women's reproductive health, because that's really all I got.
How can Bernie supporters be in favor of Gary Johnson? He's a libertarian ... it's almost the opposite of democratic socialism. What's that logic like? My guess is something like: "Well, I was in favor of the candidate who supported strong public institutions that protected the more vulnerable members of our population, but then Hilary won the primary and I got mad so fuck the poor I'm voting for Gary."
@19: 80% of the stories here are just pointing out what some nobody said on social media, so it should not be surprising that this bleeds into election coverage as well.
@25 - the most ardent Sandersnistas I know are all former Ron Paul fanatics. i.e. they are not liberals at all. The real mystery is why nominal Libertarians were so into Sanders. I can only speak to the motivations of the ones I know personally but they all have eccentric notions about how politics work in the USA. So maybe the explanation lies there.

The lefties I know who were/are into Sanders are all content voting for Clinton.
I knew lots and lots of people who, back in 2008, during all the primaries and all the different candidates on both parties, said that they'd either want Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich as President. I asked how could they support those two since they were the most diametrically opposed in their platforms. The most common response I got back was that they were "real" and that they felt those two "told the truth" and "spoke to them."

In other words, they had no idea who they were supporting or what their candidates stood for. It was a completely uninformed, emotionally based decision.
Bernie was always showing higher in the polls than Hillary against Trump because the Repubs were aiming all their ammunition on her and totally ignoring him. If Bernie had won the nomination, the Repub attack machine would have soon decimated him with negative ads. He's certainly an easy target for their standard attacks.
Yeah, I can't fathom how/why disenfranchised Sanders folks wouldn't fall in behind Jill Stein. Or if they're really hellbent on a "protest" vote, fucking Vermin Supreme or something.
This is hardly a "crush". Clinton's leading Trump by less than Obama was beating Romney at the same time four years ago. Romney made up the ground and led in the polls until "binders full of women".
@30 - I'm with Clinton, but If I were someone who really couldn't stomach voting for either Trump or Clinton, I'd go with Johnson, even though my political views are closer to Jill Stein. Because unlike Jill Stein, Johnson is not totally, disastrously, and hilariously unqualified to be President of the United States. If I'm going to cast a vote, I should at least feel like I wouldn't be terrified that the person I voted for might win.
@31 - At this time last cycle, Romney was at about 46% in the aggregate polling. McCain was at about 44% in 2008. Trump's at about 39%. Of course, things could always change, but the main-line numbers are pretty encouraging.
I think the very fact that the Green Party recycled Jill Stein - who is something of a scold - shows that they aren't at all serious. That, or they are as bogged down with minutiae and croneyism as the Democratic and Republican parties.

As for the Libertarian party, it's sort of like McDonalds - it sounds good when you are high, but upon closer examination you realize that it's just garbage.