HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Only 11% of Democrats pol...

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 12:11 AM

 

Only 11% of Democrats polled want a more liberal presidential nominee than Hillary Clinton


_____ Many political commentators have written that Hillary Clinton could face a challenge from the left in 2016. For instance, Noam Scheiber wrote at TNR last year that "the debate over the power of America's wealthiest" would "cut to the very core of the party," and that "judging from recent events, the populists are likely to win." But last week, Matt Yglesias argued that the Democrats aren't really all that split on those issues, writing, "It is impossible to mount a coherent anti-Clinton campaign because there is no issue that divides the mass of Democrats."

Now, a new poll from CNN and ORC International shows us how many Democrats are yearning for a progressive candidate to save them from Hillary 2016 — very few:





Since every poll of the Democratic presidential race shows an overwhelming Clinton lead, the CNN-ORC poll doesn't ask about specific alternatives to Clinton. Instead, Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents are asked about generic, ideologically-different possibilities. Even then, a large majority of Democrats think she should be the party's standard-bearer. And of those who'd prefer an alternative, nearly twice as many want someone more conservative.

This is not a promising situation for a prospective progressive challenger. In contrast, back in early 2007, though Clinton was the front-runner, she reached only 30 to 40 percent in polls of Democratic voters. Her lead now is much more imposing.


read: http://www.vox.com/2014/6/17/5816676/hillary-clinton-primary-challenge-poll


224 replies, 11380 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 224 replies Author Time Post
Reply Only 11% of Democrats polled want a more liberal presidential nominee than Hillary Clinton (Original post)
bigtree Jun 2014 OP
hfojvt Jun 2014 #1
Gman Jun 2014 #2
Ken Burch Jun 2014 #21
doxydad Jun 2014 #99
nomorenomore08 Jun 2014 #195
VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #76
CrispyQ Jun 2014 #79
bbgrunt Jun 2014 #163
nadinbrzezinski Jun 2014 #3
joshcryer Jun 2014 #10
nadinbrzezinski Jun 2014 #12
bigtree Jun 2014 #17
joshcryer Jun 2014 #19
nadinbrzezinski Jun 2014 #23
pnwmom Jun 2014 #33
Walk away Jun 2014 #90
bobduca Jun 2014 #92
Walk away Jun 2014 #94
bobduca Jun 2014 #95
Walk away Jun 2014 #104
bobduca Jun 2014 #106
nadinbrzezinski Jun 2014 #160
TheKentuckian Jun 2014 #200
nadinbrzezinski Jun 2014 #204
SidDithers Jun 2014 #116
bigtree Jun 2014 #25
bigtree Jun 2014 #28
joshcryer Jun 2014 #30
nadinbrzezinski Jun 2014 #34
joshcryer Jun 2014 #37
nadinbrzezinski Jun 2014 #40
joshcryer Jun 2014 #44
nadinbrzezinski Jun 2014 #46
joshcryer Jun 2014 #47
nadinbrzezinski Jun 2014 #48
nadinbrzezinski Jun 2014 #22
bigtree Jun 2014 #26
nadinbrzezinski Jun 2014 #27
Bluenorthwest Jun 2014 #73
LordGlenconner Jun 2014 #126
zappaman Jun 2014 #168
LordGlenconner Jun 2014 #181
neverforget Jun 2014 #4
Nobel_Twaddle_III Jun 2014 #7
DJ13 Jun 2014 #20
Nobel_Twaddle_III Jun 2014 #31
betterdemsonly Jun 2014 #5
Bluenorthwest Jun 2014 #75
davidn3600 Jun 2014 #6
JI7 Jun 2014 #8
joshcryer Jun 2014 #9
JI7 Jun 2014 #14
joshcryer Jun 2014 #16
brooklynite Jun 2014 #67
joshcryer Jun 2014 #218
brooklynite Jun 2014 #222
joshcryer Jun 2014 #223
2banon Jun 2014 #119
nadinbrzezinski Jun 2014 #125
2banon Jun 2014 #175
MohRokTah Jun 2014 #11
Algernon Moncrieff Jun 2014 #13
MannyGoldstein Jun 2014 #15
BootinUp Jun 2014 #80
Lee-Lee Jun 2014 #83
MineralMan Jun 2014 #102
MannyGoldstein Jun 2014 #112
MineralMan Jun 2014 #113
MannyGoldstein Jun 2014 #118
MineralMan Jun 2014 #120
MannyGoldstein Jun 2014 #136
MineralMan Jun 2014 #137
Beacool Jun 2014 #145
TheKentuckian Jun 2014 #18
bigtree Jun 2014 #24
TheKentuckian Jun 2014 #60
bigtree Jun 2014 #89
TheKentuckian Jun 2014 #220
bigtree Jun 2014 #221
Ed Suspicious Jun 2014 #29
Walk away Jun 2014 #96
bobduca Jun 2014 #98
laundry_queen Jun 2014 #108
Crunchy Frog Jun 2014 #159
blkmusclmachine Jun 2014 #32
bigtree Jun 2014 #36
JackRiddler Jun 2014 #62
bigtree Jun 2014 #85
JackRiddler Jun 2014 #162
bigtree Jun 2014 #166
pnwmom Jun 2014 #35
nadinbrzezinski Jun 2014 #38
pnwmom Jun 2014 #39
nadinbrzezinski Jun 2014 #41
pnwmom Jun 2014 #43
nadinbrzezinski Jun 2014 #45
pnwmom Jun 2014 #52
nadinbrzezinski Jun 2014 #53
bigtree Jun 2014 #56
pnwmom Jun 2014 #59
bigtree Jun 2014 #54
nadinbrzezinski Jun 2014 #55
bigtree Jun 2014 #58
nadinbrzezinski Jun 2014 #129
bigtree Jun 2014 #140
nadinbrzezinski Jun 2014 #143
Tarheel_Dem Jun 2014 #154
zappaman Jun 2014 #170
bigtree Jun 2014 #184
pnwmom Jun 2014 #172
nadinbrzezinski Jun 2014 #188
pnwmom Jun 2014 #191
nadinbrzezinski Jun 2014 #192
bigtree Jun 2014 #193
nadinbrzezinski Jun 2014 #194
pnwmom Jun 2014 #197
nadinbrzezinski Jun 2014 #199
pnwmom Jun 2014 #202
nadinbrzezinski Jun 2014 #203
bigtree Jun 2014 #205
nadinbrzezinski Jun 2014 #206
bigtree Jun 2014 #207
nadinbrzezinski Jun 2014 #210
bigtree Jun 2014 #211
nadinbrzezinski Jun 2014 #212
bigtree Jun 2014 #213
nadinbrzezinski Jun 2014 #214
bigtree Jun 2014 #215
nadinbrzezinski Jun 2014 #216
sufrommich Jun 2014 #70
Bobbie Jo Jun 2014 #72
pnwmom Jun 2014 #171
brooklynite Jun 2014 #68
nadinbrzezinski Jun 2014 #122
bigtree Jun 2014 #128
nadinbrzezinski Jun 2014 #135
bigtree Jun 2014 #146
nadinbrzezinski Jun 2014 #149
bigtree Jun 2014 #150
nadinbrzezinski Jun 2014 #152
brooklynite Jun 2014 #138
nadinbrzezinski Jun 2014 #142
moriah Jun 2014 #144
nadinbrzezinski Jun 2014 #148
moriah Jun 2014 #164
nadinbrzezinski Jun 2014 #167
pnwmom Jun 2014 #176
nadinbrzezinski Jun 2014 #189
pnwmom Jun 2014 #174
zappaman Jun 2014 #183
nadinbrzezinski Jun 2014 #190
stevenleser Jun 2014 #147
grahamhgreen Jun 2014 #42
Quixote1818 Jun 2014 #49
bigtree Jun 2014 #51
Quixote1818 Jun 2014 #64
Bluenorthwest Jun 2014 #78
bigtree Jun 2014 #84
BootinUp Jun 2014 #86
bigtree Jun 2014 #91
Chathamization Jun 2014 #93
bigtree Jun 2014 #101
Chathamization Jun 2014 #110
Cali_Democrat Jun 2014 #50
mattclearing Jun 2014 #57
Quixote1818 Jun 2014 #63
mattclearing Jun 2014 #65
bobduca Jun 2014 #109
Chathamization Jun 2014 #69
mattclearing Jun 2014 #224
JackRiddler Jun 2014 #61
hobbit709 Jun 2014 #66
nadinbrzezinski Jun 2014 #130
krawhitham Jun 2014 #71
Capt. Obvious Jun 2014 #74
bigtree Jun 2014 #81
Capt. Obvious Jun 2014 #87
BootinUp Jun 2014 #77
Bluenorthwest Jun 2014 #82
whatchamacallit Jun 2014 #88
hollowdweller Jun 2014 #97
PowerToThePeople Jun 2014 #100
bigwillq Jun 2014 #103
bowens43 Jun 2014 #105
Exposethefrauds Jun 2014 #107
stillwaiting Jun 2014 #111
2banon Jun 2014 #114
pnwmom Jun 2014 #178
SidDithers Jun 2014 #115
2banon Jun 2014 #117
L0oniX Jun 2014 #121
bigtree Jun 2014 #131
yurbud Jun 2014 #123
pnwmom Jun 2014 #179
Karma13612 Jun 2014 #217
pnwmom Jun 2014 #219
NCTraveler Jun 2014 #124
bigtree Jun 2014 #132
RedFury Jun 2014 #127
bigtree Jun 2014 #134
yurbud Jun 2014 #133
Beacool Jun 2014 #139
Zorra Jun 2014 #141
stevenleser Jun 2014 #151
bigtree Jun 2014 #156
stevenleser Jun 2014 #157
SomethingFishy Jun 2014 #169
stevenleser Jun 2014 #173
Crunchy Frog Jun 2014 #153
vi5 Jun 2014 #155
bigtree Jun 2014 #161
vi5 Jun 2014 #177
bigtree Jun 2014 #180
JEB Jun 2014 #158
SomethingFishy Jun 2014 #165
1StrongBlackMan Jun 2014 #182
Vinca Jun 2014 #185
Doctor_J Jun 2014 #186
Marr Jun 2014 #187
nomorenomore08 Jun 2014 #196
woo me with science Jun 2014 #198
Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2014 #201
bigtree Jun 2014 #208
colsohlibgal Jun 2014 #209

Response to bigtree (Original post)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 12:30 AM

1. yes, yes, I know

it will take a miracle to keep her from winning the nomination.

so yeah, this is me on the keyboards

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 12:30 AM

2. A full 20% want someone more conservative than Hillary

That's the reality of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gman (Reply #2)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 01:20 AM

21. Nobody in that 20% ever votes for the Democratic presidential ticket

 

People like that wouldn't even vote for Bill in the fall.

They're all members of "Adult Children of Democrats For Nixon".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #21)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 10:22 AM

99. Could not have said it better!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #21)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 04:50 PM

195. +2

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gman (Reply #2)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 09:23 AM

76. yeah the fair weather so called dems that hate HRC and want to help get another Rep elected

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gman (Reply #2)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 09:37 AM

79. I think the reality is that since Reagan, America has been brainwashed to fear the word liberal

and anything associated with it. Most Americans don't consider what the words liberal & conservative really mean, as evidenced by the fact that everyone still calls the repub party conservative when in reality. they are on the fringe & the baggers are off the fucking edge. The democratic party is now the conservative party & the liberals have no voice at all, because a two bit actor poked fun at the word & the cowardly dems ran from it & eventually turned their backs on liberal policies as well.

The dems have no backbone. They were fearful of the repubs & the media back in the 80s & the repubs & the media knew it. Now, too many members of the dem party are gorging at the same corporate trough as the repubs/baggers. Old time dems like me are tired of voting for the lesser of two evils & ending up with exactly what we were voting against.

What I'm saying is I don't think America is as conservative as everyone (especially the politicians & the media) tries to tell us. I want a political party that says "Fuckin' A I'm a liberal & here's why!" and then read the Joe Conservative essay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrispyQ (Reply #79)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 02:08 PM

163. good point. Such a survey is meaningless because

the words liberal and conservative have been so corrupted by propaganda and the media that people no longer even know what they represent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 12:31 AM

3. Let's cancel the primaries, and go back to the pre-1968 smoke filled rooms!!!!!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #3)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 12:58 AM

10. That's what Mccaskill wants to do.

Dead serious. If that happens and we don't have a primary it will be very very difficult for me to support Clinton. It goes against everything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #10)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 01:04 AM

12. I know, I have been making these statements with that knowlege

 

let me give you, and mostly the OP, a link... the OP will question it, guaranteed.

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/18/it-begins-claire-mccaskill-to-support-hillary-in-2016/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #12)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 01:15 AM

17. sure, I question using a conservative site to criticize Democrats here

 

. . . juries have been allowing these for Hillary-based attacks, though.

Townhall/HotAir Network

HotAir.com is part of the Townhall/HotAir network alongside Townhall.com, Townhall Magazine, FreedomCards.com and Townhall Finance in a network of conservative websites and publications with over four million monthly readers. Jonathan Garthwaite, General Manager @JonGarthwaite on Twitter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #17)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 01:19 AM

19. Here's a better link:

"You’re not going to have as much action" in 2016,” she said.

That’s because as unusual as it is, the Democratic Party, she believes, already has found a nominee: Hillary Clinton.

"When she announces, for the first time I can remember when we have an open seat for the presidency, we won’t have a primary and she will be the consensus choice,” McCaskill said.

McCaskill predicted she would be "the first of many to come to you and say to you, 'You rose to the occasion in 2008 and nominated Barack Obama’ and in 2016 you will rise to the occasion and nominate Hillary Clinton.”

http://wcfcourier.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/democrats-already-have-chosen-clinton-as-nomine-mccaskill/article_d39b2d68-4f3a-11e3-946e-001a4bcf887a.html


If this happens, if the superdelates choose, what of the platform? The primary elects delegates who in turn vote on the platform (from their various districts representing their various constituents).

This is really a bad idea bigtree and I hope you agree. McCaskill is just wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #23)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 01:40 AM

33. Where in this link does it say there won't be a primary? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #33)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 10:11 AM

90. I believe that is tattooed on the asses of every knee jerk Clinton hater here at DU!

It doesn't need to be verified in print for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Walk away (Reply #90)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 10:14 AM

92. Stay classy!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobduca (Reply #92)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 10:16 AM

94. Check your 3 way mirror

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Walk away (Reply #94)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 10:19 AM

95. I see inevitability!

Bush Bush Clinton Clinton Bush Bush Obama Obama Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton

That should see us through 2060!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobduca (Reply #95)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 10:42 AM

104. That's is your objection? Because the overwhelming number of Democrats believe...

that the wife of a former POTUS is best qualified to run the country, you want to penalize a woman because she has the same last name as her husband? Way to respect people on their own merits! Why don't you folks ever name your candidate (someone who hasn't already decided not to run like Elizabeth Warren)? I mean a serious candidate who can actually run a national campaign without the help of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Walk away (Reply #104)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 10:45 AM

106. I'm sick of the Clintons

I'm sick of her pandering. I'm sick of her supporters. I'm sick of reading about their connections to Wall Street. I'm sick of reading about how they struggled financially after leaving the White House. Simply put, I'm sick of both of them.

It's not sexist to want NEW candidates unrelated by marriage to previous presidents. That claim is pure bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobduca (Reply #106)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 01:35 PM

160. I hope she decides to become a dotting grandmother

 

And that Jeb stays home too. And the supporters are not realizing how this is hurting her chances. There is real fatigue earlier than even 2008.

There is an extensive list of people talking now with donors, among them Cuomo and O'Malley. I personally do not like Cuomo, and need to research O'Malley.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #160)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 05:00 PM

200. Cuomo is even worse but I don't think there is an effective ism to bash folks with so there is that.

They might trot him out to triangulate folks into Hillary or to ride the anti vote to get a worse person to the nomination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #200)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 05:06 PM

204. That is why I need to look into O'Malley

 

The problem is that nationally the party leadership is quite center right now. Not accidental either

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Walk away (Reply #90)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 11:51 AM

116. Nailed it...nt

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #19)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 01:23 AM

25. thanks

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #19)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 01:30 AM

28. it's a terrible idea

 

. . . I think it would be death to a Clinton campaign to even begin to agree with McCaskill.

Consensus comes from the actual vote. Reminds me of the maneuvering at the end of the primary. Ugh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #28)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 01:35 AM

30. Thanks for understanding.

People don't understand that the DNC votes on the platform and it is often modified right there on the DNC floor by the vote of the delegates. Small changes usually, but still, they are important to represent the ideals of the people.

There are some here who are upset that there exists no 2014 Democratic Party National Platform. It's because no such platform exists! The only platform that exists is the 2012 platform which was voted upon and decided by the DNC. The next platform will be 2016! It's one of those strange aspects of "party politics" but that's how it is, for good reason. The people involved at the political level would understand, forum posters, maybe not so much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #30)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 01:42 AM

34. And do not forget the 50 party platforms

 

oh fun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #34)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 01:53 AM

37. That's another reason for the delegates!

You want the state platforms to be represented by the national platform, but not necessarily the converse. It's why, say, Vermont has things about unions and workers, as does the national platform, but the Vermont platform says nothing about guns (which the national platform says needs to be reigned in). Vermont is gun friendly. The national platform, not so much.

Fun indeed.

You gotta wonder about the kid or young aspiring politician or even elder states-person looking at the national platform and comparing it to the party platform and seeing where things diverge or not. Hell, you gotta wonder about the national platform people who are writing that out. They gotta be reading all 50 platforms and trying to appease each and every one. Fortunately democrats have similar ideals so it's not that bad. But to be in that room? Would be "fun" indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #37)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 02:00 AM

40. I covered the Party Convention in San Diego before the 2012

 

primaries... it was lots of fun.

Some of the caucuses are just nerdy as hell, others not so much. And I learned a lot more about redistricting from party officials who do the numbers than anybody should ever know.

Fun fact, I do not have access to district detailed information, unless you are running you don't. But I learned enough to be able to make very educated guesses... why I know Issa has no danger of losing, even if he is found with a live boy on the bed. But the swing district in my county is razor thin... so outcome will be GOTV, GOTV, GOTV and it would help to get people enthused if the Dem was less of a third way, no labels man. Speaking about an election that is happening in November.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #40)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 02:05 AM

44. Can't wait until CO and WA delegates insist on marijuana in the platform.

CO Democrats advocated for it in 2012.

Should be awesome.

I'd try to be a delegate but I changed to unaffiliated in 2009-2010 or thereabouts. They tend to be in the know and 2 years is no where enough time for me to do it nor do I desire to be that close knit... would be funny though, thinking about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #44)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 02:15 AM

46. The CA convention did that recently

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #46)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 02:21 AM

47. Oh man, that just made my night.

Not sure why I hadn't heard about it.

Bank on it, marijuana legalization in the 2016 platform. Can you imagine? I honestly can say I couldn't 10 years ago. But today? It's so happening.

This sort of thing is why I'm optimistic nadin... shame about that arctic sea ice and its repercussions... signing off, been nice sparring / discussing with you, even with the minor disagreements.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #47)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 02:21 AM

48. They are pretty much academic

 

I should do the same... I got a budget to go through tomorrow

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #17)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 01:20 AM

22. Dear, not the only source

 

but as expected, thank you.

Given you also question Mother Jones (left wing) and Atlantic (mainstream) is there any media you approve off? That is a silly question, so don't bother answering.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #22)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 01:24 AM

26. I'm objecting to the use of this one - in violation of the tos, I think, not my personal rule

 

Townhall/HotAir Network

HotAir.com is part of the Townhall/HotAir network alongside Townhall.com, Townhall Magazine, FreedomCards.com and Townhall Finance in a network of conservative websites and publications with over four million monthly readers. Jonathan Garthwaite, General Manager @JonGarthwaite on Twitter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #26)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 01:29 AM

27. You question any source that puts any shadow on her, which is a problem

 

I just watched an amazing video from Fox where Bolton was taken to task (It is Fox Business I get the point) Sometimes even the sources you do not approve off have valuable information.

Like it or not, you do not have the corner on information. Here is the vid in question, posted here on DU. I am still checking my drink.. somebody had to spike it.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=197730

I am not afraid of the designated enemy by the way.

Let's just say this talk of closing the primaries started with McCaskill. but it is not stopping there unless they get pushback. And I do not know about you, but 1968 was not a good Democratic Convention.

Here, a reminder of why they were opened.

http://www.history.com/topics/1960s/videos/violence-batters-1968-democratic-convention

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #10)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 09:09 AM

73. That's what many on DU are attempting to push as well

 

Which is why I am providing push back to every candidate that tries to claim they are pre selected by God or whatever the claim is. They don't want a Primary because that last Primary did not go well for them, in spite of their holding the prepaid 'Get To Be President' card from AmEX.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #3)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 12:37 PM

126. I always enjoy it when your bizarre and usually off-base constructs

 

Are deconstructed by facts, data, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LordGlenconner (Reply #126)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 02:17 PM

168. Right?

I think my sig line says it all...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #168)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 02:52 PM

181. It's spot on.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 12:38 AM

4. Did I miss the 2016 primary? Who else is running? When did Hillary declare?

Oh it's only 2014.

God, I'm already sick and tired of the pre-primary war and no one has even declared.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to neverforget (Reply #4)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 12:49 AM

7. Agreed !

And I would like someone more progressive then Hillary.

In December 2016 will vote for the party nominee no mater who they are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nobel_Twaddle_III (Reply #7)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 01:20 AM

20. I dont think voting in December is a good idea

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DJ13 (Reply #20)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 01:37 AM

31. yah that might be about a month too late huh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 12:41 AM

5. Most democrats don't show up at primaries and caucuses.

 

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to betterdemsonly (Reply #5)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 09:18 AM

75. The 2008 Primary saw a huge increase in Democratic registration and voting in my State and 2010

 

midterms set records for high turnout. The total number of Democratic votes in Primary 2008 was around 35,000,000. 'Don't show up for Primaries, except for the tens of millions who do'.

That figure varies according to various methods of counting caucs votes, I picked a middle of the pack figure.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 12:45 AM

6. How many Democrats wanted Obama in 2006?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidn3600 (Reply #6)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 12:49 AM

8. a good number, he had support groups around the country, you don't see that with

 

anyone else this time around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #8)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 12:56 AM

9. Importantly, a challenger needs to step forward, now.

Not 6 months from now, not a year from now, they need to step forward and start their campaign. It's going to be a $4-8 billion dollar campaign when all is said and done. Citizens United, Oligarchy United, these things are going to be tough to overcome. And I bet that the Republicans will put up someone who can push an agenda shift in the party, because as we've seen with the Libertarians making inroads, they can use that to divide and conquer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #9)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 01:11 AM

14. this is why i'm pretty sure there wont be a serious challenger

 

people keep bringing up how she led in the polls for 2008 primary. but things were going on back then with other candidates .Obama was going around the country and world and people were coming out to see him. none of this is happening this time around. people must be really naive or just not informed.

the most i have seen is Sweitzer and there is no way he is going to win the nomination. and the types he is most likely to appeal to are already supporting rand paul.

i can maybe see sanders getting into the race just to have a debate but even that seems less likely as more time passes and i don't think he would care to be out on the campaign trail much .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #14)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 01:15 AM

16. Reich will run if Sanders doesn't.

But I can't see Reich making the right connections to raise $2 billion dollars, minimum, to win the Presidency. The good thing is that at least we won't have to endure a 2 year primary. Mid-2015 to early 2016, sweeping victory for Clinton, perhaps a loss here or there for a Sanders challenge or a Reich challenge, just so the party can express it isn't completely and utterly homogenous behind her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #16)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 07:08 AM

67. A new fantasy candidate?

Or can you point to a shred of evidence that he's thinking of running?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #67)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 06:49 PM

218. He said it on Facebook.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #218)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 11:32 PM

222. Care to provide a cite?

All I see is people asking him to run.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #222)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 11:44 PM

223. Sure.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024698525

Mind you, he's talking more about whether the candidate will put poverty at the center of their platform, which people argue Clinton won't do. I don't think Clinton will, either, no one would believe her on that anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidn3600 (Reply #6)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 12:09 PM

119. Me. I fell for him hook, line, and sinker in the 2004 DNC convention, I'm embarrassed to admit.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2banon (Reply #119)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 12:34 PM

125. I remember the speech

 

But in 2006 if you asked me about it I would have to google the name.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #125)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 02:34 PM

175. Not me. I remember wishing Obama was the Candidate and not Kerry.

 

When the 2004 elections were stolen again, and Kerry conceded to Dumbya again, I had Obama on my "star" list until his campaign in 2008, then I turned my attention to John Edwards. Again another deep disappointment. Sigh. Back to Obama vs Clinton, and Obama was my choice over Hillary.

But here we are again. Prospects looks even grimmer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 01:01 AM

11. I am a proud part of the 63% eom

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MohRokTah (Reply #11)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 01:05 AM

13. I stand with MohRokTah, and I stand with Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 01:11 AM

15. I'l bet they can't name her positions or votes

 

That'll change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #15)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 09:37 AM

80. They know more about that then they do about

"The Family" LOL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #15)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 09:43 AM

83. Pretty much this

 

Remember, this is registered Democrats.

My dad is a registered Democrat but his votes bounce all over the place, and he couldn't tell you one of Hillary's stances I bet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #15)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 10:37 AM

102. You're right. On the other hand, neither can you.

In one of your threads from yesterday, you couldn't come up with anything positive about her, and there are plenty of positive things she has done. One person in the thread supplied a long list. But, you pretended not to know anything about her actions that you consider to be positive. Odd, that, I think.

The majority of voters from both parties vote based on other factors, frankly, that actual positions and votes. That's how it has always been. Most voters pay little attention to details, and never have. However, as I've found while doing canvassing, most voters do have one or two issues they care about quite a bit. Letting them know that a candidate supports their viewpoint on those issues generally works to get them to the polls to vote for that candidate. I've seen it work many, many times over an adult lifetime of election activism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #102)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 11:23 AM

112. I was looking for what set her apart in a positive way.

 

and was hoping that she's done things that I didn't know about. But no surprises, I didn't see anything really outstanding to offset her odious past (IWR, Walmart, etc).

I agree that only a few issues are important in each election cycle. At this point in time, people are attuned to ending the 30-year bipartisan war against the 99%: which is why, for example, Elizabeth Warren has come so far, so fast - 10 years ago she'd have had trouble getting elected to the state legislature. In this area, Hillary has some big problems, she's basically been a general on the wrong side.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #112)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 11:37 AM

113. Were you? Really?

It certainly did not come off that way. And people did post positives, but you don't appear to acknowledge those.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #113)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 12:03 PM

118. What positive(s) in your opinion

 

sufficiently offset her IWR vote?

On whole, are things better or worse for the 99% since Hillary's held great power? What battles has she led to improve things?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #118)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 12:09 PM

120. I'm not stumping for Hillary. Nor am I paying any attention

to the 2016 election in 2014. It is that simple. In my limited time, I'm focusing on 2014. Once November has passed, I'll be turning my attention to the 2016 election. Until then, I believe it is a distraction that could depress turnout in 2014. We have the potential to gain a majority in the House this year. For me, that possibility overrides speculation about presidential candidates in 2016.

Ask me again in the second week in November.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #120)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 12:48 PM

136. So you attck me about x, then when I respond

 

you say you have no interest in x.

What am I missing here?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #136)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 12:49 PM

137. There is no attack.

It's DU. You post; I reply. I post; you reply.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #112)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 01:06 PM

145. No, you weren't.

You were playing your usual games. You know it and most people here know it. Please don't insult our intelligence and pretend otherwise.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 01:17 AM

18. A full 20% of the party are temporarily embarrassed Republicans, is this the Huntsman fan club?

I think that is the big take away. I don't give a damn about who has brand recognition, there will be plenty experiencing buyer's remorse that now think they are gung ho now but even if not, I don't need 63% to understand that more Turd Way economics and neoliberal interventions aren't what my country needs and I won't sit quiet while we flush our future down the fucking toilet playing an ever downward spiral of failed political philosophy and hack appointments.

The herd is leading us of the cliff, I understand they are running from a lethal predator but the bottom of the gully isn't an answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #18)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 01:22 AM

24. well, to a site that is obviously more liberal than Hillary, it represents a challenge

 

. . . in the electorate; in the primary and the general as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #24)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 03:11 AM

60. The site has little to do with it, it is reality that dictates actual solutions rather than diluting

consistently demonstrated failure and changing the face selling it from time to time.

The people also know what is offered is what is needed, they know full well we are on the wrong track and so more of the same won't fix shot but are profoundly befuddled on why, who, and who benefits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #60)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 10:09 AM

89. you still need a candidate to express that

 

. . . that's the rub in the presidential election. Someone has to run and fight, hopefully till the end of the primary. So many good choices fold before then. I'd love to ride my ideals all the way to the general election, but principled candidates are usually swallowed up by one of the consensus candidates in the end.

If someone can figure out how to advance a principled candidate who expresses and holds our progressive views and keep them in the game, I'd really, really appreciate that. But, you know where these contests have led in the past, with many a good and principled candidate dropping by the wayside.

This poll is not determinate of anything much more than the attitude right now of the folks polled. that's it. But it does highlight the need for a candidate to promote progressive issues in a way that interests and appeals to more voters. There's no shortcut for that, and no one can blame a candidate with different views for any failure from a progressive candidate to make that case to voters.

I think this poll highlights the problem we've had in every election. A majority of voters have consistently told pollsters over the years that they want candidates who are decidedly less progressive than the average DUer, myself included.

Candidates are challenged to appeal nationally and voters aren't voting progressive in every part of the country. There's going to be a need for a strong and unyielding candidate. I really don't want to say whether I'm optimistic that will happen. I'll just hope for such a person to enter the race. I'll be the wind under their wings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #89)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 07:42 PM

220. Build it and they will come, destroy the viability of the Turd Way at every turn and someone will be

to respond to the vacuum
We've played paddy cake with the wealthy, the economic feudalists, and the greedy stakeholders and their various foot pads long enough.

They like hardball, speaking for myself it is past time to play too. Serve up Turds, flush them and failing that beat the shit out of them with no mercy like they whip us to death for their pockets.

Bowing and scraping, going along to get along pays nothing. We are being herded, I ask good Democrats to stand up for our futures and the world's and push relentlessly for what is needed and if we can't do that then to hell with us, we are stupid and dangerous fools.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #220)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 08:59 PM

221. I'll consider that

 

Last edited Wed Jun 18, 2014, 10:10 PM - Edit history (1)

. . . you make a compelling case, and it would be foolish to disagree with what you've said here. I'll just say that I'm not really certain where all of what you've said is going to manifest itself. Politics is certainly about challenging government to change, but it's also a place where we try and reconcile our myriad of differences from disparate regions around the nation.

Nothing happens, as you've expressed, unless the people demand it from their legislators, in and out of office. Yet, in our legislature there is an impetus to compromise; it's the nature of our democracy. Our legislature provides room to both argue and compromise. There's very little room for legislators to just dictate one pov or the other.

There's a need to form coalitions with folks who may not share every plank of someone's agenda to advance legislation, and there's not always a guarantee that there will be a new legislature in time for you, or us, to force through perfect voting bloc in Congress. The electorate is too diverse.

I don't see a shortcut to generating the needed support among the electorate for whatever ideal or initiative we want to advance first - then comes the voting and the electing, and the pressuring of these pols. The voting is everything, and it's up to the candidate to convince the voters as much as it takes voters to make their demands of the candidates.

Not everything is going to yield to demanding; some politics will need consensus. That means forming coalitions; much like we organize under our Democratic banner. It's a process, more than it's a brawl, and nothing is ever guaranteed in our political system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 01:32 AM

29. Most people polled don't know what fucking liberal means except by what they get from

Fox and Friends.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ed Suspicious (Reply #29)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 10:19 AM

96. This is a poll of Democrats. Do you think that most Democrats get thier news from FOX?

I guess the Left Wing Radicals who watch CNN missed the poll.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Ed Suspicious (Reply #29)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 10:56 AM

108. Exactly.

That's what I was coming here to post - if you think Americans are aware that there is a left of Hillary after RW mainstream media's calling Obama and H. Clinton 'commies' for the last 6 years than you are delusional (not you Ed, lol). Americans don't even understand what 'left' means. Most are terrified that anything to the left of Hillary would be communism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laundry_queen (Reply #108)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 01:34 PM

159. Hillary has been a "commie"

for the last 20 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 01:40 AM

32. Clinton/Cuomo 2016:

 

"You don't need no stinkin' choices"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blkmusclmachine (Reply #32)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 01:42 AM

36. not a Cuomo fan

 

. . . prefer my guv, O'Malley.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #36)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 03:25 AM

62. Tommy Carcetti! Such a difference!

 

Didn't there used to be a kind of Democratic party in this country?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #62)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 09:51 AM

85. show me your candidate, Jack

 

. . . I might support them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #85)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 02:03 PM

162. Don't need a candidate.

 

A non-Hillary option will arise. That's how these things work.

Will definitely win, just like Obama did.

He's lesser of the two evils, but never forget: Clinton voted for the 2003 war of aggression. Unforgivable. The only honorable thing is not to apologize (while supporting new military actions: fuck that) but to withdraw from political life to the favor of people who knew better then and know better now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #162)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 02:12 PM

166. I'd like to see that

 

. . . the rest about Clinton, I actually agree with (more problem with the dissembling after the vote, than the vote itself).

I'd be satisfied if she would withdraw, but I'm not going to curse her for getting in the race.

I see Obama and Clinton as two sides of the same coin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 01:42 AM

35. There WILL be a primary as long as there is someone willing to oppose her.

That is the real question. Who will decide to run against her? No one has yet begun setting up a campaign organization, as far as I've heard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #35)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 01:55 AM

38. Here is the list

 

http://www.politics1.com/p2016.htm

And you have not heard any of them for a very simple reason, they are all shopping and doing prelims with donors and all that junk. None will declare until AFTER the General Elections, kind of an unwritten rule of politics. At the earliest that will be January 2015. Again, another unwritten rule.

Just because Tweety is pushing her on Hardball, like he did in 2006 as the inevitable one, does not mean she is the ONLY possible candidate. By the way, I missed this, when did Hillary Clinton throw her hat in the ring? Tweety saying so does not count. The only thing HRC has said is that she is waiting until after Chelsea delivers, and that... I fully respect her for.

Speaking of 2006, how well did the coronation work? I suppose in an alternate reality Barack Obama is getting ready to run after serving a few years as Secretary of State for President Clinton, but in this reality that is not the case. And I do agree with analysists who are now talking of how being a grandma will help to humanize her to the voters.

Oh and before you say it, this is the closest she has come

Hillary Clinton again hinted that she may run for president in 2016 on Saturday night, telling an audience in Arizona she was "very much concerned" about the direction of the country and was considering “all kinds of decisions” about her future.


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/23/hillary-clinton-hints-presidential-run-2016

May in the English language, perhaps the rule does not apply in American, does not mean WILL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #38)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 01:57 AM

39. Then there will be a primary, no matter what Claire says. It seems silly

to get worked up about what she says, when the fact is that if there is more than one candidate who decides to run, there will be a primary.

McCaskill just thinks it's unlikely HRC, assuming she runs, will have an opponent. But if there is one there will be a primary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #39)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 02:01 AM

41. It was about the OP originally, not Claire

 

who is acting like we already had a coronation.

Now the Senator acting that way is down right irresponsible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #41)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 02:04 AM

43. What difference does it make what CM says about this?

She has her favorite candidate and is hopeful HRC will be a unanimous choice. Big deal. CM isn't going to stop anyone from running who wants to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #43)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 02:14 AM

45. One rule of supporting a candidate is not alienating potential voters

 

constant attacks on those who do not agree with him, or the fact that is trying to deny a big story of 2008 that is a minor inconvenience right now, will ensure that the atmosphere here will get down right toxic. The primary wars of 2008 will look civil in comparison.

I do political reporting, so I know why I will not vote for HRC, and it is based on her voting record, in the Senate, particular civil rights and war. It is also partly based on the Family and her relationship with it, but the latter one, you have to be a politics nerd anymore. I will vet for myself each of the rest of the candidates. Hagiography is not in my reading list either.

But if the OP is literally blowing a gasket over an old story... that is out there, and has been out there since 2008, I do not want to be around when we have a new skeleton dug out. It is Op Research, it is the nature of politics, and there will be many skeletons dug out by all involved. A full zombie army will be risen between January of 2015 and November of 2016, and that is the truth. Politics is a full contact sport and then some.

Some of these skeletons will be more serious than others, and a few might be figments of collective imaginations. But that is what it is.

Hell, we have been trying to find a few skeletons of our own, and has nothing to do with national politics, rather state politics. Some of the rumors... but for some reason raising them at the State level is a tad harder. The retribution is closer I suppose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #45)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 02:30 AM

52. The OP isn't "blowing a gasket" over an old story. The poll was just taken a few weeks ago.

"Interviews with 1,003 adult Americans conducted by telephone by ORC International on May 29-June 1, 2014. The margin of sampling error for results based on the total sample is plus or minus 3 percentage points."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #52)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 02:39 AM

53. Yes he is, you see, the story during the day

 

was about her ties with the family, and Coe... we literally had a go at it, and he deleted his thread about it.

Trust me on this, he is.

And it is a problem. I only point this out, not to bring threads in, but as a piece of tactical advise to the OP, not that he cares. He was told bellow that this shit will alienate voters. I agree with that HRC supporter, BT is doing a fine job of alienating potential allies and voters.

I personally do not give a hoot if somebody supports Chuthulu for President (A perennial candidate, and I am using the fictional one because we actually have a bumper sicker somewhere, we also have the Brain for President 2004 somewhere as well), just don't be so hard core that people walk away. It happened in 2008 with many of the Hillary supporters. And when Obama was nominated they were angry, seething inside and felt like people hated them. A lot of that was self inflicted.

And the only reason I am bringing this up is I know DU will become insufferable in 2016. I would like it to be somewhat useful at least until the midterms. We do not even have a presidential race yet. There are midterms that actually matter in 2014, but at this pace, why bother with them either?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #53)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 02:49 AM

56. it's bad form for you to come on this thread and start a fight over another thread's nonsense

 

. . . it should be out of bounds. I believe it is, a jury might rule otherwise.

I told you then, and I'll tell you now . . . you know absolutely nothing about how I feel about Hillary Clinton as a candidate. I've read all of your characterization of what I believe and it's dead wrong.

I suppose, though, you'll presume to speak for me.


How about sticking to the subject of the op and leave your divisive chatter about my personal belief out of your posts?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #53)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 02:58 AM

59. If you want DU to be useful, you could start

by not making blanket statements implying that you won't vote for HRC no matter what.

We don't know that she's running. We don't know who else will be running. But it doesn't help the situation for people to be drawing lines in the sand already, before we even know who the candidates will be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #45)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 02:42 AM

54. just so you can stop this nonsense

 

. . . Hillary Clinton won't be my first choice in this election if she does decide to run. I'll be working for someone else.

I don't even envision Mrs. Clinton as my second choice should my first choice falter. She was my third choice in 2007.

I'd like to know where the article, or I, am 'blowing a gasket over the poll'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #54)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 02:43 AM

55. So you can stop this nonesense

 

you were told bellow by another poster you are alienating potential voters.

That my friend is a problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #55)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 02:50 AM

58. by posting an article about a poll?

 

. . . that's ridiculous.

Do you attack all polls, or just ones that favor Hillary Clinton?

Are you alienating voters with your countless posts in outright opposition to Clinton? You've told me several times that you intend to draw voters away from her.

On the other hand, I haven't even begun to advocate for my candidate of choice, and I've not engaged in ANY attacks on ANY other Democratic choice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #58)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 12:41 PM

129. Here is a really basic rule of marketing

 

We know of at least three people that are annoyed by this extremely early boosterism. That translates to thirty.

You can look it up..but a complaint to marketers usually translates to 10 people who agree. Those who like the product is usually seven silent supporters.

Don't take this, way too entertaining. But what you are doing is straight from what my local tea party does ok. Next in the playbook, victimhood. It did not work in 2006 either, by the time the Primaries came people were looking for somebody fresh. I know I tuned out the Hillary talk back then as well, not because it was Hillary, it could have been a Martian for all I care...it's called saturation.

I don't expect you to listen, so tally ho for the entertainment.

Looking at the thread up to six

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #129)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 12:55 PM

140. do you worry that your attacks on anyone voicing any approval or defense of Clinton is 'annoying'

 

. . . not to mention, alienating and divisive?

I haven't attacked ANY Democrat under consideration. Yet, you seem to feel that what you're doing by attacking Hillary Clinton, her supporters, and everyone you can reach who DARES to post ANYTHING which might seem to be favorable to the woman is some sort of virtue.

I feel very comfortable standing up alongside those posters who express agreement, support, or post favorable things about Mrs. Clinton because I absolutely hate bullies.

What you're doing here is nothing more than bullying. What you are doing in your posts in which you characterize Clinton posters in derogatory and negative ways is bullying. There is no other word for it.

It's not campaigning, it's not a defense of anything substantive, it's just pure bullying, and it shouldn't be allowed to continue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #140)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 01:02 PM

143. Again, talking negatives is not an attack

 

And with people who get politics, this is standard. People who are sophisticated enough talk both negatives and positives. Before you scream too much, among civil libertarians her voting record is a much greater liability than the Family and Coe...the former is well known and easily gettable, the latter is what politics nerds talk about at yes, party conventions over dinner.

Please do proceed, this will be entertaining to watch....the implosion that is. I am amazed you are making the same exact misstep.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #140)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 01:18 PM

154. Thank You!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #140)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 02:21 PM

170. Obviously you don't "get politics"

like our number one DU journo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #170)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 03:27 PM

184. that's probably true

 

. . . but I do know what journalism is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #129)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 02:25 PM

172. Does this apply to all the "boosterism" of supporters of Elizabeth Warren,

Bernie Sanders, and anyone else?

Or just Hillary Clinton?

Have you warned the "boosters" of other candidates as well?

Link please.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #172)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 04:12 PM

188. Given Elizabeth Warren has repeatedly told us

 

She is not running, yes absolutely, the same goes for any other candidate who is not running in the November election. I am quite consistent on this. Way too early and there is a general election in November. Am afraid this might even suppress that turnout and lord knows in off years that is hardly a luxury we can take.

Regardless, there is already a detectable fatigue and the calendar does not even read 2015. That is a problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #188)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 04:35 PM

191. But I haven't seen you criticize the supporters of Warren for boosting her candidacy,

as they frequently do. Nobody is officially running yet and, as you say, we have the 2014 elections to take priority.

Why aren't you more even-handed about this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #191)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 04:39 PM

192. I have been consistent on that point

 

November matters.

You have not seen it, but I have been critical of this ignoring of November. I even had my shadow take me to task for saying in one OP six months, in other January at the earliest for actual declarations. That was two days ago. That is funny. I wonder if my shadow has access to a calendar?

And the problem with the OP came out of his viscous personal attacks. At this point he will get pushback, period.

And IMO he has zero clue how this works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #192)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 04:45 PM

193. again, you're continuing a fight from another thread

 

. . . it's clear as day who is attacking who here.

You don't deserve to call yourself a victim of my personal attacks. You've made more than a handful on this thread against me with impunity.

And you have NOT bothered to say ONE word to ANY other supporter than folks who dare discuss Hillary in a favorable light. You've been hypocritical on that point. Two posters have challenged you on this thread to produce ONE post where you castigate ANY other candidate supporter as 'boosters'. 'alienating', tea party' and the rest of the invectives you've used to dismiss and disparage folks who post anything favorable to Mrs. Clinton.

It's transparently hypocritical and it's almost impossible for me to believe you aren't doing it deliberately and knowingly. That's why you haven't produced ONE post of yours where you criticize ANY other candidate's supporter; just folks who post anything favorable to Hillary.

EVERYONE can see this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #193)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 04:47 PM

194. I am pushing back on your boosterism

 

And I will continue to push back. That is a promise.

And I cannot wait for a fresh skeleton either. Oh the entertainment value on that one will be great.

If you consider pushback an attack, well so be it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #194)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 04:56 PM

197. But where is your pushback on the "boosterism" of supporters of other candidates?

Specifically of those of Warren, since I think they're more frequent than those of HRC.

If we're all supposed to only focus on 2014, then why doesn't that apply equally to all the unannounced candidates?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #197)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 04:58 PM

199. Three people are doing it

 

One person to be specific.

And telling people to concentrate on November is pushback. in fact, it is collective pushback.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #199)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 05:02 PM

202. It's not collective pushback if you only direct it at HRC supporters or posts about her. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #202)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 05:04 PM

203. Give me original material

 

And by the way that Warren supporter yesterday did something that I have yet to see you guys do. He started a thread on the positives...not for Warren, but HRC. That was humorous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #194)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 05:10 PM

205. there it is again - 'boosterism'

 

. . . and the promise that you'll continue to stalk my threads with similar personal attacks.

You're no victim from me. I haven't popped up on your threads, for instance, and accused you of being a biased and untrustworthy journalist. It's never happened.

You got what you deserved when you jumped on a post of mine to someone other than you and proceeded to tell me what you thought of me; in much similar terms that you've used here. I don't know why you thought I wouldn't respond in kind. I don't stand still and let bullies intimidate me.

Now NOTHING compelled you to come on this thread. You chose to come here and went right to work insulting me to other posters, and then directly to me. I've asked you repeatedly to stop calling me out and trying to bully me.

What you said here, and let me post your words:

"I am pushing back on your boosterism
And I will continue to push back."

I'm not engaging in any more advocacy than you are, so it's sophistry and self-serving to call my posts that are favorable to Clinton, 'boosterism'. You're bragging about being a journo? It doesn't appear that you're concerned at the least with the truth behind what you write about me. I imagine that's reflected in everything you write.

You've been told, I don't intend to support Hillary Clinton as my first or even second choice if she decides to run. That's should be enough for someone who brags about a writing career to understand that I'm not 'boosting' ANY candidate. Posting an article favorable to Clinton doesn't make someone who doesn't intend to support her a 'booster', or any other of the bullying rhetoric you've used.

Why you saw a need to 'push back' - your term for your stalking and bullying tactics on this thread - is mystifying. NONE of this thread was directed toward you.

Nothing in the op should have provoked you to stalk, bully, and bait me on this thread. That was your choice, not some imagined battle you believe you're having with a Clinton supporter.

Your excuses are pathetic. Nothing I've done or said to you in that earlier argument deserves you stalking and badgering me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #205)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 05:17 PM

206. I am not going to stalk you

 

But inevitable meme will get a pushback it is about November of 2014.

After you viscously attacked me and what I do, you are now playing victim. Classic.

But the inevitable meme will get pushback because I hate coronations. This is not conservative underground, but so you know some on the other side of the aisle are indeed looking forwards to a Bush Clinton contest. I don't think Jeb will get it either, for similar reasons actually.

But after you viscously attack this is a promise. I will push back on boosterism. It is the principle of it.

Though you not using the original link for another story was and still is puzzling. I tend to open threads not names, that one caught my attention and source was even more odd. It is what it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #206)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 05:25 PM

207. you mean not going to stalk me ANY MORE? This is the second thread you've tried to bully me in

 

. . . and MORE threats?

How dense can you be? I'm not a booster for ANY candidate. Whatever crusade you're waging against me, it's all in your biased mind. It's all part of your anti-Hillary campaign that you admit to here (several times) and has nothing at all to do with the actions of anyone else on this board. That's your choice and you're making a mess of it.

Did you not get that I closed the contentious thread of mine where we argued to END the fight? Did you not get that?? Now you want me to return to that argument??

We were done talking. I had left the thread, and several hours later, there you are trying to bait me again; much like you've done on this thread with your remarks about me to other posters. You don't know when to quit.

I've asked you to stop speaking to me and about me about what you think I believe, who I support, and to stop stalking and threatening me with more of your abuse. Is that beyond your capability? Are you not able to control yourself?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #207)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 05:42 PM

210. Yup, now you have gone fully to victim mode

 

Please proceed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #210)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 05:45 PM

211. more baiting from you

 

. . . you really can't control yourself, can you?

You need help.

I've asked you to stop . . . repeatedly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #211)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 05:47 PM

212. Ah more personal attacks yeepers.

 

I used to put folks like you on ignore. Not anymore. Ignore does not work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #212)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 05:50 PM

213. leave me alone

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #213)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 05:53 PM

214. Will you publicly apologize for calling me a fraud

 

And a few other names? I will offer one for calling you a fanatic.

And I will continue to point to the critical importance of the 2014 elections and the mechanics of this. That is on principle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #214)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 05:58 PM

215. yes. I apologize for calling you a fraud.

 

. . . and will refrain from ANY personal characterization of you, IF you stop the nonsense now. No more remarks about what I believe, who I support, or whatever else you think of me personally and I will do the same.

I never have any problem with you when you're discussing issues other than my character or opinion, and I think you know that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #215)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 05:59 PM

216. Very well then

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #55)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 07:40 AM

70. Good God,anyone who's actually alienated by

anonymous posters on an internet board and basing their vote on it, is most likely too stupid to vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sufrommich (Reply #70)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 08:27 AM

72. +1

Seriously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #55)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 02:23 PM

171. I still don't understand what that even means.

How would that post alienate potential voters?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #38)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 07:15 AM

68. Actually, I -have- heard of most of them...

...because I'm one of the donors who gets involved in "all that junk".

Biden, Schweitzer and O'Malley are the only ones seriously thinking of running. Cuomo probably want to -be- President but hasn't committed other than trying to pull a Christie and winning his Governor's re-elect by as large a margin as possible to be in a better position.

Dean isn't running and has said he's supporting Hillary.

Gillibrand probably wants to run some day, but isn't laying the groundwork now and definitely won't run against Hillary.

Klobuchar raised some eyebrows with an early trip to Iowa, but has stopped any Presidential organizing.

Sanders MIGHT run, but do you really believe that he'll get a majority of votes in the national Democratic Party electorate?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #68)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 12:26 PM

122. Since you are one if the donors

 

You know why this inevitability talk is not just way early and burns voters...but it is stupid.

Unlike the OP you understand this. Most forum residents do not. Try to educate them. I am just a reporter viscously personally attacked by the OP because I get this. I also happen to know, like many old residents, one of Hillary's negatives, that at this point is a minor one. I really want the entertainment of the inevitable fresh skeleton.

By the way, I used not to get it, but covering primaries and political conventions is a hell of a very fast education. And by the way, you know this, directed at those who don't...one reason the Tea Parties annoy their party poobahs is for exactly shit like this. Now, if BT, or others want to pull tea party tactics, which I don't think will work in general elections with voters, by all means, please do. It will make my job far more entertaining.

Just let me know and damn it, I will get out of the way. The implosion will be fun to watch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #122)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 12:40 PM

128. I'd think that spending time attacking a Democrat who hasn't even declared yet 'burns voters'

 

If you bother to take notice, I haven't spent one post attacking ANY potential Democratic candidate.

Claiming that I'm engaging in 'tea party tactics' for posting a poll is over-the-top and is typical of the rhetoric used by more than a few posters on this board against anyone who dares post anything favorable about Hillary Clinton.

Advocating for Hillary Clinton's candidacy isn't a divisive act. Disparaging someone for posting something favorable about Hillary Clinton is divisive

Posting something favorable about Hillary Clinton isn't the same as supporting her for President. I'd expect you to understand that, but you insist on conflating favorable articles and defenses against rumor and falsehoods directed at her as support for the woman as President.

You need to listen to what I've told you several times. Hillary Clinton will NOT be my first choice in the primary if she decides to run. I will spend my time working for someone else. She will likely not even be my second choice if my first one fails.

That said, it's you're own badgering of Clinton supporters that's divisive, not their expressions of support.

It's your badgering of me in this thread which is alienating and divisive, not my posting of a poll.

I want ALL of the insults and chatter about who I support and what you think I believe ended NOW. Right now.

Stick to debating issues and stop deriding supporters of Hillary Clinton and anyone who dares post something favorable about her. Criticize the material and info and leave all of the snide and uninformed commentary about the poster to yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #128)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 12:47 PM

135. Please proceed Sir

 

You have already been compared to Lozoloco, you were around, don't play coy.

And as far as I know pointing potential negatives for any candidate before they declare, among people who are sophisticated in these matters, obviously not you, is not an attack.

And if you think these conversations on what positives and negatives each candidate has are not happening among money donors you are down right delusional. These conversations happen regularly as candidates are recruited, from a city council on up, and the interviews between donors and candidates are quite adversarial.

You really are clueless on how any of this shit works.

But please proceed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #135)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 01:08 PM

146. more bullying

 

. . . pathetic

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #146)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 01:12 PM

149. Pointing out how the real world works is not bullying

 

It's reality

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #149)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 01:14 PM

150. reminds me of how victimizers talk

 

. . . they also claim to be victims and doing it for our own good, as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #150)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 01:15 PM

152. Yup, I expected this from you

 

Thank you for not disappointing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #122)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 12:50 PM

138. Sorry, but I have to disagree...

The only people I've seen using the word "inevitability"are the anti-Hillary folks complaining that somehow they're being denied a choice. The pro-Hillary folks are discussing her popularity and her ability to win the election as well as their comfort level with her ability to govern, but they've never criticized Warren, Sanders, O'Malley et al on their policies, morals, honesty etc., nor have they said that there shouldn't be a Primary or that any of the alternatives shouldn't run.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #138)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 12:57 PM

142. We are reading two different boards

 

And watching a different media. (Yes tweety I am looking at you)

Many of us would prefer to wait until after the non important midterms.

And by the way, some of us have decided to not vote for her in the primaries not just based on shit like her voting record, this talk is down right insulting and an echo of the coronation of 2006. That is what I am reading, but there is a chance we are reading a very different board and watching a different media.

But if this is the way you want it, please proceed, will get out of the way and enjoy the implosion, who am I to argue with a big party donor?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #142)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 01:02 PM

144. Nadine, I agree with you on paying attention to midterms....

... and I can't wait until DU starts rallying around our nominee, whoever that ends up being.

But please tell me where on this discussion forum you have seen attacks against Elizabeth Warren or any other potential candidate other than HRC, because maybe you *are* reading a different discussion forum than I am. I'm not seeing them.

Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moriah (Reply #144)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 01:10 PM

148. You have not seen them for one simple reason

 

Nobody is talking of them, and Warren has said I don't know how many times, I am not running.

On the other hand we have this inevitable talk, not just here but the media. This is why I am saying they are making that mistake again.

And while HRC has not declared she is the only one with an exploratory committee, and people have stickers, "ready for Hillary" and "Hillary 2016" already. I have not seen any of this with even Cuomo, who has the next well organized campaign. And the way he is running NYC, no thank you either.

There are rumors Rahm is considering it. Just wait. This place will explode if he throws that hat in the proverbial ring.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #148)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 02:08 PM

164. So you admit that they haven't been attacked here. Thanks. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moriah (Reply #164)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 02:14 PM

167. It is difficult to talk negatives

 

when all people hear in the media is Hillary now and all the time.

Perhaps I am daft though, but Rahm is hardly popular on DU.

And if talking negatives is seen as an attack, it shows the naïveté of board regulars. Not surprising any longer, but do tell me who was the MSNBC host talking about last hour? HRC it was not Warren, not Sanders or Cuomo or O'Malley.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #148)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 02:38 PM

176. I have seen many, many posters "boost" Elizabeth Warren, and they don't bother me

because I happen to like her a lot, too.

Those posters completely discount the fact that she says she's not running because she could always change her mind.

She is as real a candidate as any of the others -- who are all apparently lacking expiatory committees -- and yet I don't see you worrying that her supporters are alienating people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #176)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 04:14 PM

189. The quite a few is actually counted in the fingers of one hand

 

Not even reaching three.

And they are just as wrong, but like the draft Gore it will go nowhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #122)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 02:29 PM

174. I thought you said you were an EMT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #174)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 03:19 PM

183. And soooooo much more.

Do try and keep up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #174)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 04:21 PM

190. Yes, that is one of the things I was

 

Training officer for the Red Cross in Tijuana.

These days I work as a reporter. People do not stay in one career. Politics, mostly local, is my beat, that and wild fires. I also hold a masters in history and my BA included a minor in poli sci, which is highly useful when covering politics.

And I am not a blogger, but part of the local credentialed media.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #35)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 01:08 PM

147. There is always a primary. There are always no-name folks on the ballot. Obama had em in 2012

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 02:02 AM

42. What kind of a question is that? Ask them if they want to ship more jobs overseas with the TPP, ask

 

if we want more war, ask if we want Medicare for All, ask if we want to tax the rich, then we see that peoples positions are to the left of Hill.

That includes conservatives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 02:22 AM

49. I have been fine with Hillary as the nominee, but this kind of thing is a turn off


You want to kill support for Hillary on DU, continue to post stuff like this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Reply #49)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 02:28 AM

51. oh, c'mon

 

I don't give a damn if you support her or not. She certainly won't be the first candidate I work for (or likely, not even the second), so . . . see how that works?

Now, about those polls . . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #51)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 03:41 AM

64. See my other post below

But just so you know, I will support Hillary 100% because I think she can get "liberal" stuff done. This time around I suspect she will get the nomination and I predicted Obama to win last time very early on. I also predicted McCain would get the nomination when he was in like fifth place and people on DU called me an idiot. Predicted Romney as well but knew he would lose to Obama.

Hearing people reject liberal policies, for whatever reason just irritates me and I don't really believe it. I explain that in my other post.

By the way. I found that post on McCain that I did: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1988803

Just found my prediction on Obama too http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Quixote1818/6

So if Hillary wins I can make it three for three.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #51)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 09:36 AM

78. I have to agree. The tactics being used are what has set me off. I want a Primary, I want candidates

 

to come win votes from my fellow citizens, to motivate them and to make more Democrats. This attempt to have no primary, which you seem to be on board with, is a huge turnoff. Huge.

If you are not attempting to kill the Primary, please say so. I am and have been assuming that is your goal, and I consider that to be hugely detrimental to our Party, my State and this nation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #78)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 09:48 AM

84. posting a poll means I want to kill the primary?

 

. . .we walk into some crazy shit on DU, but that's as ripe as anything.

It's a fricking snapshot poll with god knows what bias . . . why am I thinking that if the results had gone the other way that it would be celebrated on these pages?

Maybe I feel that way because the ONLY candidate that's being attacked now on these pages is our former Democratic candidate.

I'm working for someone other than Hillary in that election, at least initially. I don't even anticipate she will be my second choice, so you have to imagine what it's like to decide to defend Hillary, as I would other Democrats if I thought my opinion had merit.

I don't know if you've noticed, but I'm not attacking ANY Democrat who might run for president. I haven't made ONE move to attack ANYONE elses choice. I haven't excluded ANY candidate from my consideration.

I think that says all I need to about whether I want a primary or not. it's amazing that you could glean the absolute worst from the posting of a poll. I'll be watching with interest for your reaction when other, contradicting polls are posted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #84)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 09:53 AM

86. Its just that the poll offers a glimpse of reality and has jolted

those that oppose Hillary with every fiber of their being. lol.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BootinUp (Reply #86)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 10:12 AM

91. it's a contrary view

 

. . . that's heresy, ya know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #84)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 10:14 AM

93. You volunteering for O’Malley?

I have a generally favorable impression of him. Think he’ll run a real campaign if Clinton gets in, or he’ll run for second place (which I imagine Biden is going to do)?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chathamization (Reply #93)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 10:28 AM

101. that's possible

 

. . . but, I'm a sucker for populists and unapologetic progressives. I want an anti-war, social justice candidate; someone who reflects the issues and concerns that I'm fighting for right now.

I'll admit, though, I close ranks when the primary is over. The Democratic party is an important and vital vehicle for our interests and concerns, imo. Candidates who win the most delegates will always get my support in the end.

That said, O'Malley is an establishment choice, although I'm hoping he'll display the same populism he has on many issues in our state. Don't get me wrong, he's held some positions which have kept me at a respectable distance from considering him as my primary choice, but I'd say he's a good bet to gain my support and election effort at some point in the race.

He doesn't have that support automatically, though. He'll need to put himself forward and tell us where he stands before that point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #101)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 10:58 AM

110. Yeah. I’m kind of hoping Reich runs, even if I don’t expect him to get too far.

Dean was able to get a good deal of momentum, but a lot of that was anger over the Iraq war vote/frustration that other candidates weren’t embracing the Democratic brand. I don’t see the same level of frustration at the moment.

Still, it’s always good when progressive populist types make a strong showing (more politicians will pander to progressives in the future, progressive ideas get more air time, connections are made among activists, etc.).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 02:23 AM

50. Now you've done it, bigtree. You're trying to burst the DU bubble!

 

Did you see this?

Pew Research: "an overwhelming share of liberals (87%) want to see Hillary Clinton run"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024861256

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 02:49 AM

57. Didn't they say the same thing in 2006? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mattclearing (Reply #57)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 03:28 AM

63. Yep. Thats why this feels a bit insulting and I like Hillary.

This is a name recognition poll right now. Polls this early mean nothing. As far as more liberal vs conservative? What does that even mean? Most people poll high on liking very liberal policies. Some of my most conservative friends post stuff from Bernie Sanders on Facebook all the time, not realizing he is a flaming liberal. They see "independent" and think it's okay to like what he is saying. As Howard Dean use to say we have to reach out to conservatives and court them, not just try and be like them. That being said, what I like about Hillary is that I think she will be a stronger politician than Obama. More likely to use the bully pulpit and political savvy to get more liberal stuff through. I don't want to keep hearing how conservative she is and have people think that is going to get me to like her more. It's a turn off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Reply #63)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 06:19 AM

65. Agreed on all counts.

I also question the logic of sucking what air remains for domestic politics out during the run-up to crucial midterms that will make or break the current Administration for a personal PR blitz.

It's selfish, premature, and unnecessary. She needs to campaign for people or go away until Winter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Reply #63)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 10:57 AM

109. Yep the time when the polls will matter is the primary

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Chathamization (Reply #69)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 11:44 PM

224. But in 2006 there wasn't a Democratic president.

I suspect this is less a matter of personal popularity than it is a lack of premature contenders while the party has 2.5 years left in the White House.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 03:24 AM

61. How about fuck CNN and let the voters decide?

 

Also, no matter how many people you claim are drinking the kool-aid, some of us will never forget those who in 2003 collaborated in starting the genocidal war of aggression on the people of Iraq. And whose support in measures such as the Patriot Act etc. was otherwise indispensable to the Bush regime. (Which of course is currently making a comeback and demanding a new war of aggression.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 06:21 AM

66. Another LoZo style post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hobbit709 (Reply #66)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 12:42 PM

130. Worst than that

 

But thanks for the memories

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 08:24 AM

71. push poll

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 09:12 AM

74. Does this signal the end

of the Lozo inspired "88% of liberal Democrats approve of Obama" threads?

It's kind of early for lame duck status around here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Capt. Obvious (Reply #74)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 09:39 AM

81. if it went the other way, it would go viral on this site

 

. . . don't kid yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #81)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 10:05 AM

87. Like the vitriol in this thread

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 09:27 AM

77. Read em and weep!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 09:39 AM

82. This thread makes me think of Oasis

 

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 10:08 AM

88. Americans are fools

Haven't you noticed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 10:21 AM

97. Which SHOWS

 

That although the media keeps repeating how the parties are becoming more polarized, it is clear from both the poll above and the recent Pew Poll that 75% of the distance between the parties is the GOP moving farther to the RIGHT not dems moving farther to the LEFT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 10:24 AM

100. A full 63% of polls are bogus.

 

(Disclaimer - numbers from this stat are bogus)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 10:39 AM

103. Time and time again, the American people prove how dumb they are.

 

Two Bushes, Bill Clinton, Obama, Hillary.

These people are not working for us. They throw us a bone every once and awhile, enough to make us think they care about us, but they are only working for themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 10:44 AM

105. never underestimate the ignorance of the american voter

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 10:54 AM

107. Well if this poll is true my days as a party member will soon come to an end

 

With her nomination, will be the last straw for me and the ever rightward shift of the party.

Oh well it will be sad to leave a group that I have been with for over 35 years but life will go on...for some, many will suffer but most will thump their chest an bleat how they won, yet once they figure it out, they really have lost, then it will be to late.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 11:10 AM

111. If true, then this nation is well and truly fucked.

The middle class will be withered a decade from now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 11:46 AM

114. Oh, wait. This is a CNN poll from totally discredited "news" organization.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2banon (Reply #114)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 02:40 PM

178. Opinion Research Org is a reputable independent pollster that hasn't been discredited.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 11:48 AM

115. And they all post at DU...nt

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 11:58 AM

117. You know, the party had better have someone else lined up to substitute Hillary's coronation

 

for any unexpected emergencies.

Personally I will not ever vote for Hillary, but I'm in California so it's a given that the state will elect her, so no one will give a damn if I vote for Wonder Woman instead.

But that said, I don't have a sense the party leadership is preparing for fall back contingency plan in the event of an unexpected emergency. OTOH, I suppose Biden will be the party's pick for second in line. But I don't have the sense that Biden will generate the required level of "excitement" to get out the vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 12:12 PM

121. You'll get the wars you want.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #121)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 12:43 PM

131. the wars I want

 

. . .the crap people say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 12:29 PM

123. do they poll people with cell phones yet? If not, this would be biased toward old farts and

low information voters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Reply #123)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 02:44 PM

179. Yes they do. Even though "old farts" are more likely to vote than "young farts."

Thirty percent of the interviews were conducted using cell phones.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2014/images/06/15/cnn.poll.hillary.democrats.pdf

Interviews with 1,003 adult Americans conducted by telephone by ORC International on May 29-June 1, 2014. The margin of sampling error for results based on the total sample is plus or minus 3 percentage points.
The sample also includes 894 interviews among registered voters (plus or minus 3.5 percentage points)
The sample includes 702 interviews among landline respondents and 301 interviews among cell phone respondents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #179)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 06:27 PM

217. 1003 americans?

I don't hold much faith in such a small sample.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Karma13612 (Reply #217)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 07:37 PM

219. Then you don't know much about random statistical sampling. 1000 adults is not a small sample.

A random sample of 1000 people can give accurate results within a few percent, at a 95% confidence rate.

ORC is a reputable firm that pays a lot of attention to making sure that their samples are random and reflective of the whole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 12:30 PM

124. Love that picture of her.

 

Thanks for sharing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #124)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 12:44 PM

132. it's awesome

 

. . . you're welcome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 12:38 PM

127. Hardly a surprise

There are Dems and Reps by name, but the bottom line is that the US, under either Party, remains as one of the last world bastions in Conservatism what if only of degrees betwen Parties.

More Equality? Homey please, don't go there. I've got mine, fuck yours. Rep/Dem

Just the way it is

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RedFury (Reply #127)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 12:46 PM

134. right

 

. . . and that's been the case in all of these elections. Political expediency ranks high on the list. I guess most folks, though, can be excused for being frightened out of voting republican in the end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 12:44 PM

133. I wonder if they would get the same results if they used specific issues:

Should corporations be held accountable for criminal actions, pay closer to full restitution and their executives sent to prison?

Should those very wealthy individuals who live primarily on investment income have a separate, lower tax rate than most middle and working class people?

Should workers get to keep a greater share of the wealth they create for their employers?

Should public education be privatized, turning our tax dollars and children's education over to the same Wall Street scammers who outsourced your job, gambled with your mortgage then foreclosed you, and got trillions in bailout dollars that they didn't use to help the economy?

Should we continue overthrow foreign governments, by covert means or overt wars, when those governments are not compliant enough to oil companies, plantation and sweatshop corporations, and international bankers?

Should we have trade deals that enrich transnational corporations but impoverish average Americans AND average people on the other end of the trade deals?

Should there be cuts to social programs in the name of balanced budgets while the budget for a military as big as that of the rest of the world combined is uncut and the many of the most profitable corporations in human history not only pay no taxes but GET subsidies from the federal and state governments?

Should all policy decisions of our government be for sale to the highest bidder, and the role of average Americans be restricted to being sold on what has already been decided behind closed doors?

Should the differences between our major political parties be limited exclusively to abortion, gay rights, gun control, immigration, and the role of religion in public life?

If you asked questions like this, not only would most Democrats be progressives, but so would a lot of Republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 12:52 PM

139. I seemed to have missed all the fun.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 12:56 PM

141. Here's a graphic that explains the precise reason for this phenomenon:



I am right now, sincerely totally embarrassed to be a Democrat, and an American.


We're fucked. Totally fucked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 01:14 PM

151. If reality causes your head to explode, as it has some here, you need a plan of action.

 

It is rapidly approaching too late to do anything about 2016 if Hillary is not your preferred candidate (and I might be being too generous with that, it likely is too late already). This poll shows that if you think Hillary is not Liberal enough, 83% of Democrats disagree with you with 20% out of that thinking she is TOO liberal. There is no room for a challenger from the left to pull enough votes in that scenario.

Those who disagree and/or dislike Hillary for not being Liberal enough need to work to change those perceptions for 2020 or 2024 and here is a hint, you don't do that by insulting Hillary or her supporters. You need to change the perception of what is Liberal enough. That takes a lot more work and effort than insulting Hillary or her supporters.

If you don't do that, you will be in the same place in 2024 that you are now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #151)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 01:21 PM

156. omg, you hit the nail right on the head

 

. . . you'd think folks could handle looking at the political landscape outside of this bubble, if only to prepare them and motivate them for the years ahead. This isn't a new reflection of public attitude. It's right in line with practically all of the surveys over the past presidential elections which show a more conservative nation than we'd like.

The key is conquering the regional barriers to the vote. No one should be complacent believing that all Americans share our progressive views. The challenge is to work harder to impart all of that to potential voters. That number isn't going to change much unless we do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #156)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 01:28 PM

157. Thank you. I will even offer one piece of advice as part of a plan of action for those folks.

 

And that is, sign up for Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) http://www.pdamerica.org/ and do ask much as you can to volunteer for them. Sign up for your local chapter. Etc.

I am going to bet that most folks on DU who think Hillary isn't progressive enough aren't working for the one organization seeking to make the party more progressive from within.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #151)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 02:19 PM

169. So we need to change the perceptions of what is "liberal enough"?

Seriously? I may be misunderstanding you, but the Democratic party is not "liberal" anymore. Hasn't been for years. I have no desire to insult Hillary or her supporters, but don't expect me to get "in line" with what you think is "liberal enough".

Maybe you get insulted because people are tired of you telling them about "reality". We know what the reality is. The country has been slowly moving to the right for years. To the point where we have a right wing party and a centrist party, and the rest of us, you know, liberals, feel kind of unrepresented. And our level of frustration is increased by the arrogance of the "reality" crowd that seems to think we are blind or stupid to the fact that liberals are being belittled.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SomethingFishy (Reply #169)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 02:26 PM

173. Based on the poll, in your opinion, is the perception of Democrats of what is "liberal enough"

 

correct?

If not, and the consequences of that bothers you, you need to work to change that perception. There is already a group doing that, PDA. You could join them. I highly recommend it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 01:17 PM

153. Did the poll even bother to define the terms

"liberal"and "conservative"? If it didn't ask about specific issues, then the results would be pretty much meaningless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 01:19 PM

155. Well I guess I better shut up and get in line, right? (N/T)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vi5 (Reply #155)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 01:38 PM

161. why would you do that?

 

. . . did it not occur that promoting a progressive agenda or candidate has always been an uphill battle?

I assume that's why so many folks gather here to organize and fight. This poll is just a snapshot; a reflection of whoever they polled. But, it's well in line with the attitudes which have been registered over the years in these polls; and I think, at the ballot box, in presidential contests.

It's a challenge, for sure, but we shouldn't regard the challenge as insurmountable. Despite the poll claiming to represent other choices, there is still the prospect of someone rising up and taking it to them. But, we should recognize that we're facing an uphill battle to advance many of our progressive ideals into effective political action or law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #161)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 02:38 PM

177. Here is my issue

 

One of the reasons we are facing an uphill battle is because our leaders in the Democratic party sometimes seem to fight us (us meaning anyone left of center) and make our jobs harder, by not making the case for progressive ideals.

Look at education. People hate common core/no child left behind/reliance on testing, etc. All reliable data shows that states with powerful teachers unions have good educational systems with better results, and those without strong union protections for teachers have bad school systems with horrible results. All relevent data shows that charter schools perform at or worse than their public school counterparts, despite being freed from whatever shackles public schools are perceived to have. This should be a no question about it, Democratic party slam dunk to take the highly progressive position of fighting for public education and teachers protections and all of it. But what do we have? A president whose approach to education is far to the right of center, focusing on testing, charter schools, not fighting hard for teachers unions. Not only is he not making the case loudly and vigorously, he's actively making the case AGAINST the progressive position despite it being the popular one. This should not be an uphill battle for us, but it is and the main reason it is, is not because of popular opinion but because we have a leader and his appointees fighting AGAINST the progressive, liberal position.

There are others as well. My point is, the reason we have an uphill battle to fight is because we have a Democratic party and Democratic leaders that want to take the safe, cowardly position on almost everything, and who don't make the case for progressive, liberal ideas and who don't want to take the time and energy to sell those ideas. They want to sit on the sidelines, consistently take the safe approach, and either 1) wait for the other side to do or say something idiotic and hope they implode, or 2) wait until everyone else does the hard work and then jump out and take victory laps and credit (gay rights is the most obvious example of this).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vi5 (Reply #177)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 02:45 PM

180. mostly agree, especially on education

 

. . . the President has been promoting, enacting, and boasting about Bush's priorities for education. There's almost nothing in his education effort that should be any part of any Democratic agenda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 01:31 PM

158. Well, they didn't ask me.

 

Not too hot on another corporate, war hawk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 02:10 PM

165. On what planet has the Democratic Party been the party of Liberals for the past 20 years?

When you ask a bunch of centrists if they want a "more liberal candidate" of course they are going to say no.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 03:10 PM

182. Shhhh ...

 

Don't tell DU!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 03:34 PM

185. My dream team is Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, but . . .

I'm resigned to the fact I'll have to settle for whichever candidate will piss off Republicans more and at this point it's Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 03:53 PM

186. I guess that means 89% of Dems want more TPP, union-busting, corporate schools and healthcare,

 

oil pipelines, privatization of essentials, and so forth.

The party that made the 20th Century into the American Century is now officially dead, replaced by the ideological heirs to Nixon, Reagan, the Bush's, and the neocons.

I will remember the real party fondly. Hopefully the "new Dems" won't write FDR, JFK, RFK, and LBJ out of the history books.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 03:58 PM

187. She lost the last nomination to a guy running to her left.

 

Sorry. I know the political and business establishment really want Hillary for their next shill, but she's a loser.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 04:51 PM

196. Then maybe Dems should aim a little higher...

And I still plan to vote for HRC if she's the nominee. Just for the record.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 04:58 PM

198. Typical MSM corporate propaganda poll that relies entirely

on personalities and labels, rather than asking about a single important issue to lend meaning to the word, "liberal."

This vapid horse race is what our elections have been perverted into, deliberately, by oligarchs who don't want the public to discuss actual issues or even to be aware of them. Politics is presented to the country as a team sport, where you root for your team or your favorite celebrity, and nothing more.

This is why the official Democratic Party survey of voters for 2014 lacked questions about most of the major issues of the day, and why we can get through an entire election season on this board with incessant posts by the corporate crew here in defense of their candidates, an infinitesimal percentage of which actually contain any reference to policy.

The corporatists know that when voters are polled on policy, they choose policy on the left. That is why the elections have been deliberately dumbed down to this level, and why we are presented with this incessant, meaningless propaganda of labels rather than actual issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 05:01 PM

201. The good news is that the left won't be blamed if she loses.

 

Seeing as we're only a negligible 11% and it won't matter how we vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #201)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 05:29 PM

208. I assume you'd want to better that margin

 

. . . I dunno.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 05:33 PM

209. That's A Little Disturbing

She seems inevitable but that was true in 2008 too. I think she'll win if she runs but I just hope she moves left herself. I doubt though she moves far enough left for a lot of us, who see third way democrats as what the republican used to be as the republicans move just left of Mussolini - maybe.

I do know this, she has a lot to atone for and at the top of the list is her voting for Dubya's "Shock and Awe".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread