How Can We Explain This?

[KeithE]

[Dave Roberts]

I think this reflects on the poor quality of the candidates of both parties. In a normal field, Kasich might have risen to the top, but he was overshadowed by the noisy candidates (full of sound and fury). Sanders has been the star of the Democratic field, but Hillary has the votes of most super delegates. It is a strange scenario indeed.

[William Thornton]

Kasich has an authenticity in his public persona complete with the bad haircut. Sanders has the same with no hair on top; add the heavy accent and wild arm-flapping. I rather enjoy watching him speak. That neither of these is given much chance to get elected means that people feel comfortable 'liking' them, so long as they don't get elected. I wouldn't vote for Sanders in a millennium. Would easily vote for Kasich.

Hil is unlikable because she is untrustworthy, duplicitous, and a terrible speaker and campaigner. Her rating is well deserved.

Trump is unlikable for a gazillion obvious reasons. I would never vote for him.

Cruz just looks mad and unhappy all the time. His facial features make it hard for him to appear pleasant and likable.

Dave is 80% right...weak field. I rather like Kasich.

[Dave Roberts]

William, we don't always agree, but Kasich has the strongest credentials of anyone in the GOP field, but the field was so crowded with people who muddied the water that the GOP could not coalesce around someone electable.

Hillary should have wrapped up the Democratic nomination in the first two weeks, but she has done such a terrible campaign job that her negatives have continued to surface. Trump is the showman without substance, and Cruz is so doctrinaire and angry all the time that he is difficult to support.

May God help us to get through this election--and the next four years.

[KeithE]

This doesn’t explain it all but I think the amount of TV exposure leads both to votes and dislikes.

Trump gets the most exposure, followed by Hilliary, Kasich the least. Of course Trump is easy to dislike with his shear arrogance.

If Kasich got more exposure, it would mean more reasons to dislike him.

Sanders is remarkable in that he gets a lot of TV exposure (and a lot of attacks from the RW pundits) but still keeps a more favorable rating.

I also think many Americans would like to change their votes. If we did that (with no super delegates or courting of delegates), I think Sanders would be ahead of Clinton and Kasich or Cruz would lead the GOP field.

[Sandy]

[KeithE]

[Tim Bonney]

[KeithE]

[Tim Bonney]

Keith,

I expect that Hillary will follow the Clinton tradition of finding middle ground where she can and pushing the GOP when possible. And when it isn't possible blame the GOP for their obstructionism. But she is too savvy to make a bunch of promises that can't be delivered on. She tried to get us all universal healthcare when she was First Lady and was slapped down by the GOP. I think over the years she has learned some lessons that make her ideas more doable and credible.

I know promising things you can't deliver is a time honored political tradition. But when you are the "outsider" candidate like Bernie trying to oppose "business as usual" one of the things you need to do is to actually be able to deliver where you say the "establishment" isn't delivering. Bernie hasn't convinced me that he has any chance of doing that.

Again, if he gets the nomination I'll vote for him since I can't possibly vote for Trump or Cruz. But I think he will be a single term do get-nothing-done President.

[Sandy]

[KeithE]

[KeithE]

[Sandy]

Seems like the article you referenced, Keith, takes the attitude that the email issue isn't that big of a deal. The right wing radio dee jay pundits have inflated it so far out of proportion, and they keep throwing around words like "indictment" because of the sound, and made the fact that her staff were called as witnesses some big deal like they were going to reveal deep dark secrets about this that would show Hillary, complete with tail and horns, as the incarnation of all evil. Didn't materialize, and it won't. Their campaign is running ads in Pennsylvania that point to Kevin McCarthy's admission that the select Benghazi committee was nothing more than a witch hunt intended to damage her campaign. I don't know if there will be enough time for her to get much mileage out of the "email scandal that wasn't", but compared to the mind boggling, genuine criminal, corrupt mess of Trump, these things are nothing.

[Tim Bonney]

[KeithE]

[KeithE]

[KeithE]

BTW, Sanders is more an insider than Hilliary as far as having time served. Sanders has served in Congress since 1991 (25 years), Clinton served government from 2001 to 2013 (8 years as Senator, 4 years as SoS) as well as being 1st Lady for 8 years (20 years total). Both impressive. If you mean by “insider" a behind-the-scenes compromiser, Hillary is certainly more an insider and there is something to be said for compromise - iff there is a substantial set of GOP willing to compromise.

Personally I believe all the aims of a progressive movement (in Bernie’s, Hilliary’s and Jill Stein’s websites) should be brought up as congressional bills just to get everyone on record. Only Bernie has expressed enough thought into the costing and funding of those aims; that shows his genuineness. If elected he will not be a do-nothing president. Bernie/Hilliary/Jill may all be a get-little done President if elected; unless the makeup of Congress changes radically leftward.

I include Jill Stein since I may just vote for her (on The Green Party ticket) if Hilliary is the Democratic nominee. is very similar to Bernie’s and Hilliary’s; she just isn't given any attention in the Media. Democracy my arse.

Just like I voted for Ralph Nader in 2008 and Rocky Anderson in 2012, I may vote for Jill Stein in 2016. Purity of vote matters to me!

Obama lost me when he changed his view on surveillance when AT&T gave him the Denver Arena for the DNC in 2008 (he was buyable) and his intention to “Surge” in Afghanistan. And he has certainly lost me with his current, very compromised, and quite conservative Presidency. I’m afraid Hillary would be a duplicate.

[KeithE]

[Sandy]

[Tim Bonney]

[KeithE]

[Tim Bonney]

I don't see Hilary that way at all Keith. I've always preferred to support pragmatism over idealism when it comes to politics. You get things done incrementally. However, if both houses of congress are GOP, no Dem President will get all that much done. The Dems really need to find ways to get at least one of the houses of congress back.

Hillary isn't the perfect candidate. But I'd take her over Trump or Cruz in a heartbeat. And I think that is the choice you are going to have to make. You can take a pragmatic middle of the road Democrat or what the GOP is offering. I don't see that as much of a choice to make right now.

I can say that Mitt Romney looks better every day. I never thought the GOP could sink so low honestly for someone like Trump to be treated as anything more than a clown and a side show circus. I've found this political season to be nothing but bizarre!

[Sandy]

The primary in Pennsylvania is tomorrow, and I will vote for Bernie Sanders. Well, I will vote for the delegates who are pledged to vote for Bernie Sanders. On the Democratic side, the ballot at least identifies who these individuals are, and they are assigned based on how the vote comes out, for the most part.

Pennsylvania's Republican primary is mostly a beauty contest. The primary voters get to choose up to three delegates from among the hundreds who are running for about 50 spaces at the national convention. About a third are allocated to the candidates based on the vote total in the congressional districts where they ran. The other two thirds can vote for whoever they want to. So while Trump will probably get as much as 45% of the vote in PA tomorrow, he'll probably only pick up about 10 out of the 50 delegates, because the other two candidates have in-state campaign workers, and the delegates that get elected are either Cruz or Kasich supporters.

It is looking more like Hillary will win the nomination. And honestly, realistically, I don't see any path to a Republican victory in November. Perhaps there's an outside chance, but if one of the three still in the primaries winds up with the nomination, they'll lose a landslide. Hillary will adopt a lot of Sanders' idealism, and some of his agenda, and will, as Obama did in 2008, be able to absorb the majority of his followers. Sanders will triumph with influence, and perhaps with a cabinet post, perhaps Treasury secretary.
If Trump is on the ballot, Hillary will have a mandate, and most likely a two to four seat majority in the senate. That would be a satisfactory ending to all of this.