Clinton supporters, are you scared that Hillary will blow it?

[dspNY]

Well now that Trump has confirmed multiple personality disorder, it would take some serious pretzel twisting by American voters to actually vote for him

[Virginiá]

I may be oversceptical (just my nature ), but I just wouldn't bet on anything now.

I am going to be crying come election day if Trump wins, wondering how I could be so wrong. I may or may not have invested too much faith in my own prognostications here, albeit informed predictions, anyhow.

[IceSpear]

I'm somewhat worried the country would be dumb enough to elect Trump regardless of the quality of Hillary's campaign.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I may be oversceptical (just my nature ), but I just wouldn't bet on anything now.

I am going to be crying come election day if Trump wins, wondering how I could be so wrong. I may or may not have invested too much faith in my own prognostications here, albeit informed predictions, anyhow.

Hopefully, it won't come to that.

[IceSpear]

Yes, of course I am concerned.  I would have prefered a stronger candidate, such as, say, Cuomo. The cost of failure is too high in this case.

Damn, they must have some good stuff down in Mexico.

[ag]

Yes, of course I am concerned.  I would have prefered a stronger candidate, such as, say, Cuomo. The cost of failure is too high in this case.

Damn, they must have some good stuff down in Mexico.

I have never ever in my life taken an illegal drug, and I have almost stopped drinking alcohol years ago (haven't been seriously drunk in years, and the last few times that happened I was in the US). So, this is very much a sober opinion.

[IceSpear]

Yes, of course I am concerned.  I would have prefered a stronger candidate, such as, say, Cuomo. The cost of failure is too high in this case.

wat?

Thanks for bolding the part I think is important. Cuomo would have been stronger: he is a better politician.

You mean better in doing politics than Hillary? I agree. However, I can't see him as a stronger nationwide candidate.

Also, the Atlas would have a collective meltdown (and I'm one of those who consider hatred toward Cuomo rather overblown).

Well, the last reason is why I chose Cuomo as an example

Cuomo would have been a far stronger candidate: he is both centrist and a good politician. Radicalism does not make a good general eleciton candidate.

Yeah, he's such a great candidate and politician that he got only 62% against a some chick in the primary...as an incumbent governor. And got an amazing 54% in the general as an incumbent governor...in sapphire blue New York.

[ag]

Yes, of course I am concerned.  I would have prefered a stronger candidate, such as, say, Cuomo. The cost of failure is too high in this case.

wat?

Thanks for bolding the part I think is important. Cuomo would have been stronger: he is a better politician.

You mean better in doing politics than Hillary? I agree. However, I can't see him as a stronger nationwide candidate.

Also, the Atlas would have a collective meltdown (and I'm one of those who consider hatred toward Cuomo rather overblown).

Well, the last reason is why I chose Cuomo as an example

Cuomo would have been a far stronger candidate: he is both centrist and a good politician. Radicalism does not make a good general eleciton candidate.

Yeah, he's such a great candidate and politician that he got only 62% against a some chick in the primary...as an incumbent governor. And got an amazing 54% in the general as an incumbent governor...in sapphire blue New York.

He was assured of victory, so he did not, really, do much to win. It would be different in a nationwide race.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Yes, very worried. But it will be America's fault, not Hillary's. God himself could proclaim that Hillary Clinton is the second coming of Jesus and there'd still be a huge number of people holding her to ridiculous standards and hating her guts.

The scariest part, for me, is how her being a woman will play into the dynamics of the race. For a long time, especially before the rise of Sanders, I really anticipated that Hillary would get Obama treatment and her campaign would end up being a feminist movement with real appeal for its potential to make history. With Sanders and Trump, the movement has been and will continue to be seriously blunted, and I fear Trump will be able to shout her down and use the man card to rip her apart. I guess I fear that the men's rights crowd will win the day. The discussion around sexism is today more nuanced than the discussion about race was in 2008... and when you're explaining, you're losing.

[IceSpear]

If I say yes, will I get relentlessly castigated for it?

Of course. That being said, I don't think the GE begins until the Democratic nomination is decided. There are still two candidates who claim they can win the nomination. One step at a time.

Ron Paul also claimed he could win the nomination until the conventions in 2008/2012. It never stopped the media from crowning McCain/Romney as presumptive nominees even before they clinched a majority of delegates. I find this double standard amusing.

[IceSpear]

Yes, very worried. But it will be America's fault, not Hillary's. God himself could proclaim that Hillary Clinton is the second coming of Jesus and there'd still be a huge number of people holding her to ridiculous standards and hating her guts.

The scariest part, for me, is how her being a woman will play into the dynamics of the race. For a long time, especially before the rise of Sanders, I really anticipated that Hillary would get Obama treatment and her campaign would end up being a feminist movement with real appeal for its potential to make history. With Sanders and Trump, the movement has been and will continue to be seriously blunted, and I fear Trump will be able to shout her down and use the man card to rip her apart. I guess I fear that the men's rights crowd will win the day. The discussion around sexism is today more nuanced than the discussion about race was in 2008... and when you're explaining, you're losing.

You thought the media would give Hillary the rockstar Obama treatment?! Damn dude, you're way too optimistic for your own good.

My BEST CASE SCENARIO in 2013-early 2014 was them at least treating her neutrally. But it was obvious by mid 2014 when she did her round of interviews and the media orgasmed about "dead broke" for 6 months (which would've been a 2 day story for any other politician) that they were going to treat her just as bad at best and most likely way worse than they did in 2007-2008. And they did indeed do much worse. At least 8 years ago they didn't manufacture and spam faux scandals whenever they needed her numbers to fall for the sake of ratings and the horse race.

[Reginald]

I'm a little concerned about the possible "DANGEROUS DONALD is a big old MEANIEHEAD" narrative, but I've seen some evidence that the campaign will be more fleshed out than that. If she prioritizes making herself look like the knowledgeable, credible one in the room above all else, I think she wins easily. I don't think he can get away with vague posturing for a sustained period of time in a general election environment. It's also so easy to argue that Trump is unacceptable without stooping to his level of discourse.

One of the most hilarious things about this to me is that basically any criticism that people deal to Clinton's character--off-putting, shady finances, ethically dubious--works even more obviously against Trump. "But at least he's not a politician!!"

[Deblano]

I'm not a Hillary supporter, but I'm afraid that she will prove to be a weak candidate (She's still fighting against a seventy-something Socialist muppet for Christ Sakes!) and that she will lose in a close election to Donald Trump.

[Ronnie]

Option #1

[Figueira]

I guess I count as a "Clinton supporter" since this poll is about the GE, and I'm only slightly concerned, but I don't see any reason to be extremely concerned.

[RJEvans]

I'm not concerned Clinton will blow it. I'm concerned that the American voters are so stupid they will vote for Trump.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

They'd rather lose with Hillary than win with Bernie.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Everybody know I'm a strong Bernie supporter, but I'm legitimately scared of the possibility of Trump winning this election. I may not be an American, but given all that happened in my backyard since Crimea, I would be very concerned about Trump dealing with Putin. Hillary's record as SoS doesn't impress me, to put it mildly, but come on...

[IceSpear]

They'd rather lose with Hillary than win with Bernie.

Tell you what jfern...prove that Bernie is guaranteed to win and that Hillary is guaranteed to lose and I'll switch to supporting him.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

They'd rather lose with Hillary than win with Bernie.

Tell you what jfern...prove that Bernie is guaranteed to win and that Hillary is guaranteed to lose and I'll switch to supporting him.

Of course there are no guarantees, but all the evidence has Bernie doing much better.

[Frodo]

She'll do just fine. 

[RJEvans]

They'd rather lose with Hillary than win with Bernie.

Tell you what jfern...prove that Bernie is guaranteed to win and that Hillary is guaranteed to lose and I'll switch to supporting him.

Of course there are no guarantees, but all the evidence has Bernie doing much better.

What evidence? There is no evidence. Pointing to a poll is not evidence, especially when Bernie has not gone through media vetting or the GOP attacks that will surely come his way. How does Bernie defend himself against an ad that says "Bernie Sanders, a socialist, want to take away your private health insurance and raise taxes on all Americans," juxtaposed with videos of Bernie says these very things.

Fact is we don't know how Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders will hold up in the general. We can't predict the future. If polls were indicative of who will be President then in 2012 Romney should of been elected, in 2008 McCain should of been elected, in 2004, Dean should of been elected, in 2000 Gore should of been elected, in 1992, Perot should of been elected, in 1988 Hart should of been elected etc etc etc.

[windjammer]

She'll do just fine. 

This.

She's a fine candidate. She proved to be a good campaigner in 2000 and her presidential campaign in 2016 was at least OK, I would even say good.

[Asian Nazi]

I'm more worried about the social fallout from Trump's campaign than the incredibly unlikely prospect of him actually winning.

[RFayette]

They'd rather lose with Hillary than win with Bernie.

Tell you what jfern...prove that Bernie is guaranteed to win and that Hillary is guaranteed to lose and I'll switch to supporting him.

Of course there are no guarantees, but all the evidence has Bernie doing much better.

What evidence? There is no evidence. Pointing to a poll is not evidence, especially when Bernie has not gone through media vetting or the GOP attacks that will surely come his way. How does Bernie defend himself against an ad that says "Bernie Sanders, a socialist, want to take away your private health insurance and raise taxes on all Americans," juxtaposed with videos of Bernie says these very things.

Fact is we don't know how Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders will hold up in the general. We can't predict the future. If polls were indicative of who will be President then in 2012 Romney should of been elected, in 2008 McCain should of been elected, in 2004, Dean should of been elected, in 2000 Gore should of been elected, in 1992, Perot should of been elected, in 1988 Hart should of been elected etc etc etc.

No.