[ QUOTE ]
The fact of the matter is that Hillary is way too polarizing of a candidate. By nominating her, it would guarantee a huge Republican turnout. It would not, however, guarantee a huge Democrat turnout.
[/ QUOTE ]
Do you have any evidence to support these claims?
Hillary Clinton is the probably most "professional" of the candidates running on either side, has the most experienced and talented campaign team surrounding her, and won't have any problem securing the support Beltway elite, New York & California money, and various corporate types. There's a reason why she has a campaign war chest the size of some small country's GDPs, and there's a reason why she's winning in the RCP head to head averages with every Republican candidate.
"Political machines" are appropriately named, and it's not because they're powerless in influencing people. And right now, the Clinton machine is just about the tops in the industry. You can poo poo stuff like "is the favored candidate of corporate America and Beltway elites" all you want and stick to right-wing talking points, but take a look back at the last couple of President elections and pretend this stuff doesn't matter. If Clinton were "too polarizing to win", I have a gut feeling
corportate America wouldn't be dumping tens of millions of dollars into her coffers.
To claim that it's a "fact of the matter that Hilary is way too polarizing of a candidate" to win in a general election is ridiculous. Has she had a bad month? Yes. Is she a lock to even win her own nomination at this point? Of course not. Is the smart money still on her to win the election? I'd say so. That's a far cry from "it's a fact she's too polarizing to win". The actual "fact"
is that she's a huge favorite to win the general election and it's really not even close at this point.