Never mind Bernie Bros finger-pointing populism. Here Come the Swing Voters in battleground states.

Trump’s solid majorities mean that GOP voters, in their inscrutable wisdom, have spoken, choosing a political neophyte who’s never held any public office, has no discernable governing philosophy, and whose campaign consists mainly of bigoted outbursts and vicious personal attacks on anyone who gets in his way.

In contrast, the Democratic center seems to have held. Bernie Sanders’s call for an anti-capitalist “revolution” enthralled millenials, but his dream of turning America into a European-style welfare state—a colossal Denmark—struck out with black and Latino voters, and with women, who preferred the pragmatic Clinton.

A new PPI poll provides fresh evidence that the pragmatic center’s demise has been greatly exaggerated. Swing voters still exist, and they likely will play a decisive role in determining which party wins control of the White House and Senate in November.
Conducted by veteran Democratic pollster Peter Brodnitz, the PPI survey examined four presidential battleground states that also feature competitive Senate and House races this year: Florida, Ohio, Colorado, and Nevada. We found that just over 20 percent of electorate in these swing states is made up of voters who lend their support equally to Democrats and Republicans, do not strongly identify with either party, and did not vote for the same party in the last two elections.

Who are the swing voters in 2016? Most describe themselves as Independent (84%) and moderate (56%). In political outlook they lie between the two parties: Just 11% are liberals, compared to 49% of Democrats; 24% are conservatives, compared to 69% of Republicans. They are slightly more female than male and a little less likely to have a college degree than voters overall. Nearly a third of them are non-white.

Our survey indicates that to win them, Democrats must move beyond the finger-pointing populism that’s dominated their primary campaign. Swing voters aren’t drawn to an angry narrative of economic grievance and victimhood. Most don’t believe the economic deck is stacked against them (only 39% say it is, compared to 47% of Democrats).

Swing voters are worried about the economy, but they have little interest in a “revolution” to fetter corporations or trade wars with China and Mexico. Instead, they seem eager for a hopeful account of how to make America a stronger competitor in the global economy. They reject Donald Trump’s overblown claims that the U.S. economy is in shambles. Nor do they share the populist left’s hostility toward American business.

On the contrary, they favor policies that help entrepreneurs and businesses succeed as the best way to get wages rising again and help U.S. workers get ahead. For example, they support dramatically lowering the corporate income tax—to 15%—to put U.S. companies on an even competitive footing and prevent more jobs from going overseas.

Here’s the message that comes through loud and clear in this poll:

In the general election, Democrats can’t afford to cede the high ground of economic growth and competitiveness.

While they see reducing inequality as important, swing voters show less intensity on this score than Democrats. Like Republicans, they give higher priority to stimulating growth than to fairness.

On trade, the PPI poll found a striking incongruity between the fiercely protectionist rhetoric that has pervaded the primary season and the attitudes of voters in the four battleground states. Fully three-fourths of all voters believe that, to have a strong economy the United States must rely on trade. Strikingly, Democrats are the most likely to agree (82%). They also strongly support new trade agreements.

Strong majorities of voters reject the Trump-Sanders diagnosis that bad trade agreements are to blame for U.S. jobs going abroad; they say cheaper labor is the main reason. And more say they want to train U.S. workers for new jobs in high-tech manufacturing than to bring back manufacturing jobs that don’t require advanced skills, like textiles or automobiles.

Swing voters are interested in new and pragmatic ways to stimulate economic growth and opportunity. For example, they were more likely than Democrats to favor reducing regulatory burdens on U.S. businesses (70-57%).

They strongly endorsed (78%) a regulatory improvement commission to prune old rules that have accumulated over decades. They also backed a two-year limit on environmental reviews of new infrastructure projects, as well as reining in the proliferation of state and local occupational licensing requirements, which make it especially difficult for low-income people to market their skills.

Swing voters and Democrats strongly believe that higher levels of skill and education are the key to boosting U.S. competitiveness. They favor creation of a robust system of “career pathways” that combines classroom instruction with on-the-job training, and offers credentials to certify the technical skills workers need to land middle-income jobs.

In general, the swing voters are more fiscally conservative and mistrustful of government than Democrats. To take one example, Democrats by 52-39 favor Sanders’ call for “free college.” Swing voters instead endorsed (60-36) the idea of allowing students to get college degrees after three years, thereby shaving a year off tuition costs.

Democrats and swing voters enthusiastically endorsed “universal pensions” to help all workers save for retirement from their very first job, as well as “HomeK” plans that also allow them to put aside money tax-free for a down payment on a home. There was also strong support for a carbon tax to slow climate change, and swing voters agreed with Democrats that the bigger danger is that America will move away from fossil fuels too slowly rather than too fast.

All in all, our survey of swing voters in swing states illuminates the key task facing Democrats as they pivot from the primaries to the general election: Fashioning a forward-looking message that unites the interests of swing voters and the party’s core partisans.

That means offering a progressive alternative to an angry and polarizing populism—a hopeful vision for reviving economic growth that works for everyone, not just the fortunate few.

May 1st - /r/HillaryClinton featured as subreddit of the day.[ SRoTD Town Hall ]

An interview with the moderators discussing the reasons to support former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's presidential bid
Hillary Clinton has lead of 333 pledged delegates. Given the proportional way that delegates are assigned in the Democratic nominating process, do you see any way where Sec. Clinton does not win the nomination?

The pledged delegate lead is only expected to grow but even if it doesn’t, Clinton is too far ahead at this point to matter. Since delegates are awarded on a proportional basis, huge blowouts in all of the remaining primaries would be required to even come close. Being Hillary is favored in almost all of the remaining contests, this scenario is extremely unlikely. Clinton is just too far ahead.

The Sanders campaign has also suggested flipping super delegates that now heavily favor Clinton. Earlier in the campaign he suggested these delegates in each state should go to whichever candidate won that state. Even if this were to occur, Hillary would still win. The fact is no matter how you look at it, Clinton will still win:

Clinton wins with the super delegates
Clinton wins without the super delegates
Clinton wins with the popular vote
No matter how you look at it, there is no real path for Sanders to catch up.

Let's talk about super delegates. The Sanders people despise them and feel like they're stealing democracy. The GOP seems like they wish they had them. What is the role of the super delegate, and why do you think they're needed? Or maybe you don't think that. If not, just tells us your feelings on that.

Super delegates are state and federal representatives, senators, presidents and vice presidents, most of who are elected by the people to represent their state. They were created to allow party leaders to prevent selecting a completely unelectable nominee such as George McGovern, who lost to Nixon in 1972 by a landslide. Even so, super delegates have never over-ruled the will of the voters. NEVER!!! And they will not do so this time.
Still the Sanders campaign deemed them undemocratic. He was adamant they should go to the candidate with the most votes in their respective states. But now that this scenario no longer favors him, he feels the super delegates should support him anyway. Regardless, these are the rules set out from the beginning. You do not change the rules of a game at half-time. And even if you did, Clinton still wins no matter how you change the rules or calculate the delegates.

https://www.reddit.com/r/subredditoftheday/comments/4h94od/may_1st_2016_rhillaryclinton_srotd_town_hall_an/

Sanders campaign only raised $26 mill in April, $ 20 mill Down from March

NBC/WSJ/Marist poll of Indiana : Clinton 50 % - Sanders 46

61% of likely voters age 18-29 say they would vote for Clinton, while just 25% Trump

Closed vs. Open Primaries: Final Attempt to Delegitimize Hillary’s Victory Is Discredited

Utah would vote for a Democrat for president over Trump - First time in more than 50 years.

Overall popular vote: Hillary + 2.2 Million over Trump, + 3,16 Million over Sanders

Once Again, Hillary received more votes than Trump in ALL FIVE states last night

Maryland: 533K to 237K

Pennsylvania: 918K to 892K

Delaware: 55K to 42K

Connecticut: 170K to 122K

Rhode Island: 52K to 39K

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_vote_count.html

Sanders Surrenders Nomination Fight While Congratulating Clinton on Primary Wins

We are ready for a final margin call in CT. Clinton 51%- Sanders 48%