I said "built in advantage" only because there was a strong preference by minorities shown for her during the primaries and I have no reason to believe that will somehow disappear in November, two-way or three-way race notwithstanding. I alluded to it only in an effort to partially explain how I think a three-way race might turn out.

It's not important why that preference exists in the context of what I was talking about. I've posted here before that I cannot understand that preference. It is illogical in the extreme. But if you won't stand for me not speculating about it, all I can say is I suppose it is familiarity. She has an edge with that from her long years in the public eye and in no small measure by her bitch Wasserman's effort to make sure as few people knew who Bernie was as possible. In Bam-Bam's endorsement speech, I don't know if you noticed, but he said, in part, that he knew she was qualified because he'd, "had to debate her more than 20 times." How many debates did Hillary agree to? Six. When? During SEC football championships and on Saturday nights when no one was looking *and* she backed out of California's debate. All of that was done because the Clinton Campaign has long known that the more people get to see of Hillary, the less they like her and the more people get to see of Bernie, the more they like him. I don't blame her for backing out of the agreed-to debate in California. She might have lost California if she'd come through on her promise.

I was answering a direct question as best I could. I don't know what warped brand of logic leads to a conclusion that such an effort is "triangulation."

I found this to be an interesting aside. In another thread on this board, I explained that I'd written my county board of elections to see if I could "un-register" and she quickly replied that I could by just mailing in a signed letter requesting such. I thanked her in my reply and said that should I ultimately come to that decision, I'd write her in the manner she specified. I told her I didn't think it was smart for me to do that at this point; that I was still very angry about how the primaries turned out. Her reply I found interesting, given her job. She said, "I completely understand. This is a highly unusual year and likely changes are coming. [I] just hope the US can survive and prosper."

One of Colbert's first guests was Donald Trump, whom he introduced as, "The last President of the United States." That was supposed to be a joke, but it might not be.

I said, "I've no reason to think that given their preference for Hillary over Bernie in the Democratic Primary, they'd change their voting pattern if Trump was added to the mix." There's a pretty big difference between those statements.

Context:

rcareaga:
But seriously: If Clinton has some kind of leg up with minorities, why do you suppose that might be? ... But you allude in passing to her support from the "minority" populace, which has certainly worked to Sanders' disadvantage during the primaries, and it seems odd that you would not address the reasons for their apparent unresponsiveness to Sanders' message.

Me:
I said "built in advantage" only because there was a strong preference by minorities shown for her during the primaries and I have no reason to believe that will somehow disappear in November, two-way or three-way race notwithstanding. ... But if you won't stand for me not speculating about it, all I can say is I suppose it is familiarity.

And then there's this from you:

My point is you admit you have no idea why minorities vote the way you do, yet you base your analysis on your absolute confidence in how these other groups will vote.

I "admit I have no idea why minorities vote the way I do"? This is pointless.