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

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Looking at the GE, and at Clinton's handling of Trump and her campaign so far, I'm finding myself more than a little nervous that she's going to win the nomination but stumble and stagger her way into a loss in November, mostly of her own accord. Which is terrifying, because I really think Trump would make a terrible President.

(The poll is assuming that Trump doesn't change between now and November. He doesn't re-invent himself and surge, but doesn't totally destroy his own campaign either.)

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

I'm both terrified of a Trump presidency and terrified that Hillary Clinton - a polarizing candidate with terrible charisma - will get pushed around and shouted down by Trump's short sentences and small, loud words, every time she goes into policy-wonk mode.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Yeah, I'm concerned. Trump surprised a lot of people in the primaries and could do so again.

[°Leprechaun]

They should be and probably are based on their angry posts.

[RFayette]

I'm both terrified of a Trump presidency and terrified that Hillary Clinton - a polarizing candidate with terrible charisma - will get pushed around and shouted down by Trump's short sentences and small, loud words, every time she goes into policy-wonk mode.

I think wonkiness plays a lot better in a one-on-one debate than it does in big debates, and Clinton doesn't strike me as one who will get "pushed around."  I think Trump's potential downside in the debates is a lot bigger than Hillary's, so I wouldn't be worried if I were you.

[TDAS04]

A little bit.  I'm at least 70% sure Trump will lose to Hillary, but if that doesn't happen, it would be pretty awful.  It is concerning that Hillary doesn't generate much excitement compared to the cult following Trump has among his supporters.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

I think wonkiness plays a lot better in a one-on-one debate than it does in big debates, and Clinton doesn't strike me as one who will get "pushed around."  I think Trump's potential downside in the debates is a lot bigger than Hillary's, so I wouldn't be worried if I were you.

"EXCUSE me.  EXCUSE me.  We're going to BEAT China.  We're going to STOP the flow of immigrants into this country, and the flow of jobs out.  Tell me how you're going to beat China?  You still haven't told me that.  I'm the one who can do that.  You had 24 years to get this done.  Your husband as President, you as Senator, you and Obama.  We're done with failure.  It's time to start winning."

Check and mate.

[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.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

As a reluctant Clinton supporter in GE yes, I'm concerned about this possibility, which many Democrats seem to foolishly disregard. Not that it's the first time they do.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

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?

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

No longer, as she already has.

RIP America : (  

Why, Hillary, why?

[ProgressiveCanadian]

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?

[Virginiá]

Based on the current environment, I'm still confident she will win. What worries me is that we may be blowing a rare opportunity to score a landslide win and make major gains in both Congress and state legislatures across the country. Democrats need to recover, and this is a golden opportunity that may be wasted by a polarizing and generally unliked candidate. I support her, and really don't buy into a lot of the tripe thrown at her, but she is not even close to my first choice.

But, I suppose she could end up winning big anyway, but that idea seems tenuous at best.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Based on the current environment, I'm still confident she will win. What worries me is that we may be blowing a rare opportunity to score a landslide win and make major gains in both Congress and state legislatures across the country. Democrats need to recover, and this is a golden opportunity that may be wasted by a polarizing and generally unliked candidate. I support her, and really don't buy into a lot of the tripe thrown at her, but she is not even close to my first choice.

But, I suppose she could end up winning big anyway, but that idea seems tenuous at best.

I'm sceptical about any candidate winning "big", at least in terms of popular vote. The country is polarized politically and, let's be honest, both Hillary and Trump are polarizing figures on their own. Right now a narrow PV victory (possibly with Obamaeqsue EV victory) for Clinton is the most likely possibility.

But, again, there's so much time till November. She can screw up big time like Dukakis in 1988.

[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.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

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).

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Hillary has working class appeal and can appeal to blue collar whites like Biden can. That's why she doesnt need Kaine, she can drive up her base in CO and NV and Pa and win in a landslide. She would blow it if she upsets Trumka and SEIU by picking Kaine who supports TPP.

[Mallow]

A little bit.  I'm at least 70% sure Trump will lose to Hillary, but if that doesn't happen, it would be pretty awful.  It is concerning that Hillary doesn't generate much excitement compared to the cult following Trump has among his supporters.

This.

[Joe Biden is your president. Deal with it.]

Not at all. Because Trump is a racist blowhard who only appeals to young angry white men. There's more sane voters to outnumber Trump voters.

[Virginiá]

I'm sceptical about any candidate winning "big", at least in terms of popular vote. The country is polarized politically and, let's be honest, both Hillary and Trump are polarizing figures on their own. Right now a narrow PV victory (possibly with Obamaeqsue EV victory) for Clinton is the most likely possibility.

But, again, there's so much time till November. She can screw up big time like Dukakis in 1988.

You are right that we are hyper-polarized right now, but that doesn't exclude the possibility of a landslide. It may minimize the size of one, though. I think a 10pt win by any measure today would be a landslide, especially since Libertarians will take even more points from Trump.

The way I see it is, Trump is going to lose non-white voters by even larger margins than Romney's 17%. I don't believe he will get Romney numbers among whites, either. Not based on how terrible his behavior and image is right now, or the fact that he is now flip flopping on a daily basis. Those two factors, to me, make a close election impossible. If Hillary were to get Obama's vote shares from 2008 (an actual possibility), it would be a >55% win. That's how badly demographics are hurting Republicans.

[Beet]

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.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

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

Well, Beet, you do have a record of hysterical predictions

[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.

[ag]

A little bit.  I'm at least 70% sure Trump will lose to Hillary, but if that doesn't happen, it would be pretty awful.  It is concerning that Hillary doesn't generate much excitement compared to the cult following Trump has among his supporters.

Thinking there is a 30% chance you may have an incurable cancer is far too high a probability to be saying that you are "only concerned a little bit".

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I'm sceptical about any candidate winning "big", at least in terms of popular vote. The country is polarized politically and, let's be honest, both Hillary and Trump are polarizing figures on their own. Right now a narrow PV victory (possibly with Obamaeqsue EV victory) for Clinton is the most likely possibility.

But, again, there's so much time till November. She can screw up big time like Dukakis in 1988.

You are right that we are hyper-polarized right now, but that doesn't exclude the possibility of a landslide. It may minimize the size of one, though. I think a 10pt win by any measure today would be a landslide, especially since Libertarians will take even more points from Trump.

The way I see it is, Trump is going to lose non-white voters by even larger margins than Romney's 17%. I don't believe he will get Romney numbers among whites, either. Not based on how terrible his behavior and image is right now, or the fact that he is now flip flopping on a daily basis. Those two factors, to me, make a close election impossible. If Hillary were to get Obama's vote shares from 2008 (an actual possibility), it would be a >55% win. That's how badly demographics are hurting Republicans.

This is, of course, good point, but Republican successes in midterm years of 2010 and 2014 shows things may go differently. Of course, these were not presidential years, but all depends on turnout, especially among specific groups. There is a possibility of Hillary screwing things badly and, well, suffering from this. And, since it comes down to a couple of key swing states, even when demographics heavily favored Republicans, Kerry would have been President with a little just swing in Ohio. Too many wild cards here.

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