[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Some percentage of the 50% will show up to vote against her. Some percentage of the Democratic base that will vote for the Democratic candidate no matter what will show up. The difference has to be made up (or not lost, if it is in your favor) in the swing voters. The size of the hole/mountain is the question.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
What is baffling is that you are using this fact to arrive at a conclusion so far off from what polls, gambling sites and pundits are saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

^ Read this again

We can ignore the pundits, but perhaps you should consider the polling and prediction markets before continuing any further with the "Hillary can't win because she's too polarizing" argument. Actually, maybe you should have considered polling, prediction markets, obvious fund-raising cues, etc. first, but better late than never, right?

I mean, I get the argument; clearly there exists a meme that Hillary is too polarizing to win in a general election. Okay. Fair enough. Is that narrative true?

Well, what kind of indicators and empirical evidence do we have to suggest this isn't true?

Head to head polling shows her not only competitive with the top GOP candidates but beating them. She's "winning" the fund-raising battle in many of the top industries and special interests who aren't so much ideologically inclined as they are looking to hedge their bets and maintain their influence peddling. And not only that, pretty much eveery [censored] gambling site spreading odds says she's the favorite.

Scientific polling, fundraising evidence, and predictions markets probably trump whatever you or I or some right-wing blowhard has to say on the matter, yes?

So smart money says "Hillary is too polarizing to win" probably isn't a true statement.