HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Hillary's electability is...

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:05 AM

 

Hillary's electability is largely political myth at this point

It's the oft repeated theme: Secretary Clinton is the most electable candidate and that is why she warrants our support.

But what is the evidence of this foundational argument for her nomination?

Secretary Clinton has faced three elections. The first two were against Republican nobodies in a fairly liberal state - cakewalks. The third, where she was also "inevitable" and the only Democrat who could face down Republicans, turned into a train wreck of epic proportions. Not only was her candidacy sunk by a political neophyte and relative newcomer, but her internal campaign politics were revealed to be highly disorganized and dysfunctional (read just about any election postmortem book that followed). I'm not exactly assured by the fact that her surrogates are already starting to run their mouths off in a petty, infantile manner (see the DeBlasio incident). It doesn't help that she's not an amazing campaigner. She lacks her husband's gifts to connect with people.

Many would point to current polling, but it is just that: current polling. With the primary landscape still largely unknown 18 months before the election, polls will tend to rely on name recognition. Hillary Clinton is by far the most well-known name in the race, and polling will reflect that. Once the primary begins and we have some names, some debates, some new faces and arguments in the news, we don't know what those polls will look like.

What argument is there for this electability meme other than the fact Secretary Clinton is simply well known? She faced one real national test on the electoral stage, and she failed it. If she couldn't even win a Democratic primary, what evidence do we have that she will fare well against the Republican machine?

She's not my candidate. I have no idea who I will vote for in the primary. It is far too early. But this electability thought is almost asserted to be self-evident, both in the media and on DU.

Based on what, exactly? I see no evidence offered other than very early polls that will change vastly once we're in the thick of things.

211 replies, 14009 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 211 replies Author Time Post
Reply Hillary's electability is largely political myth at this point (Original post)
Prism Apr 2015 OP
hrmjustin Apr 2015 #1
DonCoquixote Apr 2015 #3
hrmjustin Apr 2015 #6
DonCoquixote Apr 2015 #10
hrmjustin Apr 2015 #12
Adrahil Apr 2015 #15
sabrina 1 Apr 2015 #18
Adrahil Apr 2015 #139
DonCoquixote Apr 2015 #134
Adrahil Apr 2015 #140
DonCoquixote Apr 2015 #151
rhett o rick Apr 2015 #177
AlbertCat Apr 2015 #90
hrmjustin Apr 2015 #103
840high Apr 2015 #112
hrmjustin Apr 2015 #115
dsc Apr 2015 #2
Prism Apr 2015 #7
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #14
Geronimoe Apr 2015 #77
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #9
AlbertCat Apr 2015 #92
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #99
sabrina 1 Apr 2015 #21
karynnj Apr 2015 #81
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #4
Prism Apr 2015 #11
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #16
muriel_volestrangler Apr 2015 #50
Prism Apr 2015 #80
muriel_volestrangler Apr 2015 #85
SamKnause Apr 2015 #20
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #22
SamKnause Apr 2015 #46
SamKnause Apr 2015 #169
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #171
SamKnause Apr 2015 #172
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #186
eridani Apr 2015 #182
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #185
840high Apr 2015 #116
Oilwellian Apr 2015 #125
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #127
rury Apr 2015 #193
LovingA2andMI Apr 2015 #198
Autumn Apr 2015 #5
onehandle Apr 2015 #8
Prism Apr 2015 #13
onehandle Apr 2015 #17
bettyellen Apr 2015 #24
onehandle Apr 2015 #69
Prism Apr 2015 #37
jeff47 Apr 2015 #48
onehandle Apr 2015 #52
AlbertCat Apr 2015 #95
phil89 Apr 2015 #60
sabrina 1 Apr 2015 #27
jeff47 Apr 2015 #49
sabrina 1 Apr 2015 #55
LineLineLineLineLineReply .
jeff47 Apr 2015 #58
sabrina 1 Apr 2015 #154
Proud Public Servant Apr 2015 #19
Jester Messiah Apr 2015 #88
Proud Public Servant Apr 2015 #94
Jester Messiah Apr 2015 #120
JaneyVee Apr 2015 #23
still_one Apr 2015 #31
BrainDrain Apr 2015 #109
still_one Apr 2015 #131
jeff47 Apr 2015 #51
still_one Apr 2015 #133
jeff47 Apr 2015 #138
still_one Apr 2015 #146
QuestionAlways Apr 2015 #197
still_one Apr 2015 #208
QuestionAlways Apr 2015 #209
brooklynite Apr 2015 #25
Name removed Apr 2015 #26
sabrina 1 Apr 2015 #29
merrily Apr 2015 #34
Geronimoe Apr 2015 #79
sabrina 1 Apr 2015 #157
brooklynite Apr 2015 #97
sabrina 1 Apr 2015 #161
brooklynite Apr 2015 #164
sabrina 1 Apr 2015 #167
Prism Apr 2015 #38
aikoaiko Apr 2015 #28
jeff47 Apr 2015 #54
aikoaiko Apr 2015 #61
jeff47 Apr 2015 #68
muriel_volestrangler Apr 2015 #98
still_one Apr 2015 #30
merrily Apr 2015 #35
still_one Apr 2015 #39
merrily Apr 2015 #43
still_one Apr 2015 #91
merrily Apr 2015 #183
Prism Apr 2015 #66
still_one Apr 2015 #93
lewebley3 Apr 2015 #32
DCBob Apr 2015 #33
Motown_Johnny Apr 2015 #36
DCBob Apr 2015 #42
merrily Apr 2015 #44
DCBob Apr 2015 #45
merrily Apr 2015 #53
DCBob Apr 2015 #57
merrily Apr 2015 #62
DCBob Apr 2015 #73
merrily Apr 2015 #184
Motown_Johnny Apr 2015 #89
reddread Apr 2015 #40
muriel_volestrangler Apr 2015 #82
reddread Apr 2015 #86
Orsino Apr 2015 #41
Thinkingabout Apr 2015 #47
SheilaT Apr 2015 #56
gwheezie Apr 2015 #59
guillaumeb Apr 2015 #63
Prism Apr 2015 #71
guillaumeb Apr 2015 #75
montex Apr 2015 #64
Prism Apr 2015 #74
ChairmanAgnostic Apr 2015 #199
NCTraveler Apr 2015 #65
upaloopa Apr 2015 #67
Prism Apr 2015 #78
RufusTFirefly Apr 2015 #188
rury Apr 2015 #191
Khaotic Apr 2015 #70
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #76
cascadiance Apr 2015 #87
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #96
cascadiance Apr 2015 #100
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #102
cascadiance Apr 2015 #105
Laughing Mirror Apr 2015 #204
CoffeeCat Apr 2015 #72
pnwmom Apr 2015 #83
BrainDrain Apr 2015 #111
pnwmom Apr 2015 #113
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #136
BrainDrain Apr 2015 #200
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #201
BrainDrain Apr 2015 #206
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #207
LovingA2andMI Apr 2015 #202
BrainDrain Apr 2015 #205
anamnua Apr 2015 #211
Gman Apr 2015 #84
Gamecock Lefty Apr 2015 #101
calimary Apr 2015 #104
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #107
BrainDrain Apr 2015 #118
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #121
closeupready Apr 2015 #156
MineralMan Apr 2015 #106
NYC_SKP Apr 2015 #108
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #117
840high Apr 2015 #119
Major Hogwash Apr 2015 #160
rock Apr 2015 #110
Spitfire of ATJ Apr 2015 #114
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #123
Spitfire of ATJ Apr 2015 #126
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #130
Spitfire of ATJ Apr 2015 #135
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #137
Spitfire of ATJ Apr 2015 #141
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #144
Spitfire of ATJ Apr 2015 #147
cascadiance Apr 2015 #128
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #132
cascadiance Apr 2015 #148
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #149
cascadiance Apr 2015 #150
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #153
elzenmahn Apr 2015 #195
Spitfire of ATJ Apr 2015 #142
NYC_SKP Apr 2015 #124
Spitfire of ATJ Apr 2015 #145
betterdemsonly Apr 2015 #122
Agnosticsherbet Apr 2015 #129
cascadiance Apr 2015 #152
Agnosticsherbet Apr 2015 #155
cascadiance Apr 2015 #159
Agnosticsherbet Apr 2015 #163
cascadiance Apr 2015 #166
Agnosticsherbet Apr 2015 #174
cascadiance Apr 2015 #175
d_legendary1 Apr 2015 #143
DanTex Apr 2015 #158
cascadiance Apr 2015 #162
DanTex Apr 2015 #165
cascadiance Apr 2015 #168
DanTex Apr 2015 #173
Rex Apr 2015 #170
joshcryer Apr 2015 #176
ucrdem Apr 2015 #178
Prism Apr 2015 #194
cantbeserious Apr 2015 #179
workinclasszero Apr 2015 #180
awoke_in_2003 Apr 2015 #181
RufusTFirefly Apr 2015 #187
rury Apr 2015 #189
L0oniX Apr 2015 #190
Yo_Mama Apr 2015 #192
Laser102 Apr 2015 #196
0nirevets Apr 2015 #203
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #210

Response to Prism (Original post)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:09 AM

1. My gut told me.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #1)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:11 AM

3. I thought running based on guts

was the sort of thign we made fun of the GOP for doing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonCoquixote (Reply #3)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:14 AM

6. Well the Holy Ghost had words with me through my stomach.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #6)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:16 AM

10. I hope to be wrong

But frankly, if Hillary cannot pull this off, we will see a lot of smiles turn to frowns. I am trying to see a silver lining in that, but I cannot, as it would mean a) president scott walker and B) The left will get blamed and told "the beatings will continue until morale improves!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonCoquixote (Reply #10)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:18 AM

12. That possibility is with every candidate.

 

If Warren got in and was the nominee she woukd not be a sure thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonCoquixote (Reply #10)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:22 AM

15. Well....

 

The polls certainly seem to support viability, or "electability" if you will. I don't think you can call that myth, though it is a long way out.

But what about alternatives? Have we seen any evidence to support that the alternatives are equally electable?

But no... Unless HRC really turns her coat, i cant see being upset with her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #15)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:29 AM

18. We have only one candidate running so far. Those polls will change as soon as other Candidates

enter the race.

And that candidate has a lot of money to help her get national attention. That is what 'viable' means now, 'who has the most money'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #18)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 02:33 PM

139. I meant against the GOP

 

Although i think she wins the primary, a lot can happen, and i dont think the primary polls indicate the end result.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #15)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 02:20 PM

134. and therein is the problem

namely because Wall Street will turn to her and say "ignore everyone but us."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonCoquixote (Reply #134)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 02:33 PM

140. You think wall street prefers her over a GOP candidate? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #140)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 03:47 PM

151. one feeds them quickly

one slowly, they can manage ether well enough, and therein lies the problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #140)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 07:16 PM

177. Goldman-Sachs and Wall Street are hedging their bets hoping (paying) for a Clinton v Bush race.

 

win-win for the Oligarchs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #1)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 01:11 PM

90. My gut told me.

 

What... you farted?


Didn't Dubya's gut tell him to attack Iraq?


Gut's are not for thinking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlbertCat (Reply #90)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 01:32 PM

103. It's a joke.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #1)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 01:46 PM

112. Remember last time she ran.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 840high (Reply #112)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 01:48 PM

115. Yes very well.

 

But this time there is no one that looks like they can beat her in the primary.

They might but I don't think they will.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prism (Original post)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:10 AM

2. Her election in 2000 was only a cakewalk because she made it one

Her first opponent was Rudy who dropped out after he started getting his clock cleaned in polls. Then Lazio, who far from a nobody, was a Congressman from Long Island who was well known in a vote rich part of New York.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #2)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:15 AM

7. If Guiliani had run, I wouldn't call it a cakewalk

 

That would've been an interesting, hard fought race. I would respect her mightily as a campaigner if he had run and she had beaten him. Fortunately, his messy divorce spared us.

I remember the media coverage at the time, and Lazio was largely laughed at. He certainly didn't have the resources and support Guliani had access to. It was never close. Secretary Clinton won by 13%. I think the only reason Lazio got any traction is because of the novelty of a First Lady running for Senate. It generated a lot of media attention and a lot of outside Republican opposition. But by her second election in 2006, that had dissipated, and she walked into re-election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prism (Reply #7)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:20 AM

14. Ghouliani declined to run because HRC would have whupped him and he wanted ...

Ghouliani declined to run because HRC would have whupped him and he wanted to maintain his political viability which would have been greatly undermined by a loss.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prism (Reply #7)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 12:37 PM

77. Rudy self imploded

 

It came out that he forced his wife to allow his mistress to live with them and that his children hated him. Family values.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #2)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:16 AM

9. Her 2000 Senate race was audacious.

Only a rock star like Hillary and Bobby Kennedy* can move to a state where they never lived, say I want to run for the Senate, and win.








* I believe Bobby lived in NY or went to prep school there as a teenager.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #9)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 01:13 PM

92. Tillis did this in NC

 

And look at the crap we've got representing the state now...two useless corporate tools.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlbertCat (Reply #92)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 01:21 PM

99. I am not familiar with that race so it wouldn't be fair for me to comment.

But if some person just drops in a state and becomes their senator is quite a feat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #2)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:34 AM

21. Rudi's poll ratings were in the low 20s at that time. His political career was over. Which is why he

dropped out of the race. He would have lost against a six year old at that point in time.

Lazio was an idiot, I wondered if Repubs wanted to lose that race when he ended up being the candidate.

Rudi's 'career' was revived by 9/11, well, to anyone who didn't know the man.

When he ran for President, finally the public learned what NYers already knew about him. Which is why I was glad his ego caused him to expose himself nationally as it was painful to watch even some Dems fall for the 'hero'/'America's Mayor' garbage.

I supported Hillary for the Senate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #2)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 12:50 PM

81. Note this was the pre 911 Rudy, who announced his divorce to the media before his wife

He imploded -- and then said he was not running because he was being treated for postrate cancer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prism (Original post)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:12 AM

4. Based on the fact that she is popular among rank and file Democratic voters

-African Americans
-Latinos
-women
-the glbtq community
-forward thinking white voters


She just has to turn em out.

Oh, lots of presidents weren't successful in their first run.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #4)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:17 AM

11. For now

 

It's early polling, and she's been out of the public eye for a few years now. Once the campaign begins in earnest, things will shift.

I just don't think incredibly early polling is a reliable indicator of future performance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prism (Reply #11)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:22 AM

16. It's more than early polling that informs my thinking.

It's the notion that there is real affection for her in those communities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prism (Reply #11)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 12:12 PM

50. For the 2008 primary, her polls ended up slightly higher than they were at this stage

They rose from the high 30s from Jan to July 2007, peaked at about 48% in Oct, and, apart from one blip, stayed in the 40s - even as Obama overtook her in Feb 2008.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_Democratic_Party_2008_presidential_candidates

What happened was that, as other candidates dropped out, Obama picked up nearly all their support.

This time, she's in the 50s or 60s, with no-one anywhere near as close as Obama had become by this stage in 2007.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_Democratic_Party_2016_presidential_primaries

If she holds on to her support, or grows it slightly, as she did last time, she'll win comfortably.

"she's been out of the public eye for a few years now" Your OP said "Hillary Clinton is by far the most well-known name in the race, and polling will reflect that.". You are all over the place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #50)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 12:48 PM

80. They're not contradictory statements

 

One can have name recognition while also not being on your TV every night.

Exposure changes perception.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prism (Reply #80)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 01:01 PM

85. "she's been out of the public eye for a few years now" was laughable even without your OP

She's been in the public eye constantly. Republicans spent their time shouting 'Benghazi!!!' to try to smear her. She has been the favorite for the nomination, and so discussed whenever Democratic politics comes up. She's the first woman with a realistic chance of becoming president, which keeps her in the public eye. She's married to an ex-president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #4)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:34 AM

20. I am white.

I am a woman.

I will definitely be turning out.

I will not be casting my vote for Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SamKnause (Reply #20)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:36 AM

22. If you inferred that I suggested everybody will vote for Hillary

If you inferred that I suggested everybody will vote for Hillary there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #22)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 12:09 PM

46. Inference;

She has to turn em out.

Infers a large majority of the classifications you listed

will vote for Hillary if they show up at the polls.

I agree, you did not state all.

I disagree that the majority of those classifications listed will

vote for Hillary.

I should stipulate; I disagree that the informed individuals in the

classifications that you listed will vote for Hillary.

I am perplexed and disconcerted as to why the Democratic party will not

distant themselves from the 1% politicians.

With the strikes, the increase the minimum wage protest, with the union protest, the Ferguson protest,

the great work that Occupy WallStreet did (and continues to do though rarely reported on) the states

voting for right to work laws, the pushing of the TPP, the cutting of food stamps,

president Obama offering up Social Security cuts, the rampant

police brutality in this country, and the list goes on and on !

The time is right for the Democratic party to take a sharp turn to the left.

Hillary has not driven since 1996. ( Just a little humor)

I don't see her as the candidate to do this.

I don't think this country will survive on the path that it is on.

I don't think Hillary will change the path.

Thanks for the civil conversation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #22)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 05:21 PM

169. I am somewhat

disappointed that you have not replied to my post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SamKnause (Reply #169)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 05:28 PM

171. Well I respect your passion.

To me HRC is liberal enough.

-pro choice
-pro glbtq rights
-pro affirmative action
-pro minimum wage
-pro paid leave
-pro sane foreign policy
-pro civil rights
-pro universal health access

I could probably add more...

But if you oppose her I encourage you to find someone you like in the primaries and vote for him or her and request you vote for the eventual Democratic nominee, whomever he or she might be.

I know my answer probably want satisfy you but that is how I genuinely feel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #171)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 05:45 PM

172. Thanks for your reply

and input.

I posted a video of Bernie Sanders.

In it under General Discussion; titled, 'It Is Well Worth the Time'

It is rather long.

1 hour and 5 minutes.

If you watch it, I would love to hear your thoughts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SamKnause (Reply #172)

Tue Apr 21, 2015, 08:09 AM

186. I have heard Bernie several times and appreciate his voice for the voiceless

I will try to catch the video you posted later.

Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #171)

Tue Apr 21, 2015, 02:27 AM

182. Iraq war is sane foreign policy?

Also, health insurance isn't health care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #182)

Tue Apr 21, 2015, 08:06 AM

185. The MediCal I get as a consequence of the ACA which expanded Medicaid to single indigent adults is.

The Iraq War "was the biggest strategic blunder" in the history of the republic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SamKnause (Reply #20)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 01:48 PM

116. I'm with you. I've had enough.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #4)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 02:00 PM

125. I know several African Americans who do not support her

They remember well, the racist undertones in Hillary's 2008 campaign. There were so many...remember this gem?


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/03/05/469677/-Clinton-campaign-making-Obama-blacker

Third Way candidates always pretend, until they win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Reply #125)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 02:03 PM

127. I guess that's why she is getting >90% of their vote.

NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Reply #125)

Tue Apr 21, 2015, 09:31 AM

193. I am one of those African-Americans who will not

support her for many reasons, ESPECIALLY the racial undertones of her nasty 2008 campaign. She and Bill can go hang out with their favorite people. That would be the neocon Bu$hes, their racist PUMAS from 2008 and Hillary's "hardworking white Americans" she claimed to represent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rury (Reply #193)

Tue Apr 21, 2015, 10:42 AM

198. Speaking of South Carolina in 2008....

First let's review what Bill Clinton said in 2008 during the South Carolina Primaries:

“Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in ’84 and ’88. Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here.” — Jan. 26, 2008, to reporters in Columbia, S.C."


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/80728.html

"Bill Clinton also set off a firestorm of criticism for comments he made that were considered by some to be racially insensitive -- like reminding people that Jesse Jackson won the state's primaries in his unsuccessful runs for the nomination in the 1980s. The remark was widely seen as a suggestion that Obama's success in the state was largely based on his race.

Dick Harpootlian, a former chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party and a supporter of Obama, said some of Clinton's remarks were appeals based on race and gender.

He said the comments were meant to "suppress the vote, demoralize voters and distort the record," and said they were "reminiscent of Lee Atwater." Atwater was a hard-hitting Republican strategist who worked for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and whose tactics were reviled by many Democrats.

Bill Clinton adamantly denied he was playing racial politics. Hillary Clinton later offered regrets for her husband's remarks, saying, "If anyone was offended by anything that was said, whether it was meant or not, whether it was misinterpreted or not, then obviously I regret that."


http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/17/clinton.bill/index.html?iref=newssearch

Despite Democrat Since Birth beliefs, many African-American Democrats and Left-Lending Independents have NOT forgot the Race Card/Dogwhistle Politics Strategy played against Barack Obama in South Carolina by Bill Clinton and by extension Hillary. Also in retrospect, some of those same individuals will NEVER vote for Hillary Clinton. In fact if its' Hillary against whatever Republican, they will NOT vote for anyone, for President.

Don't believe the riff is that deep to one pearl - but the riff is real for some African-Americans against the Clinton's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prism (Original post)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:14 AM

5. She is the most electable candidate. For now.

No one else is running or campaigning against her yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prism (Original post)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:16 AM

8. Attempting to tear down a Democrat is easy at this point.

She's not your candidate?

Who's your candidate?

Please provide detailed information on their issues and their electability.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Reply #8)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:19 AM

13. I'm not tearing her down

 

I don't think questioning an argument being made on her behalf is tearing her down. Furthermore, this electability argument is one being advanced mightily by her supporter. I think that it should be explained and backed by evidence and argument rather than virtue of mere assertion.

I cannot state at this early juncture who I will vote for in the primary. I do not know who is running, and I have not heard their arguments yet. I will say, given Clinton's policy history and past statements, I am not inclined to support her in the primary at this time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prism (Reply #13)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:26 AM

17. So another vote for 'Not Hillary.'

'Not Hillary' has vocal support here at DU. Not so much amongst my liberal Democratic friends in the real world.

I look forward to hearing from 'Not Hillary' once they have their campaign set up.

It must be encouraging for them to have this kind of support, on an online forum, in advance of their existence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Reply #17)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:37 AM

24. Here you go- the not Hillary campaign in all its glory...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #24)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 12:30 PM

69. Hilarious.

This must have made the day of 'Not Hillary,' whoever he or she is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Reply #17)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:53 AM

37. Your antagonism is uncalled for

 

Being undecided over a year before a primary is not a radical, hateful position. I said I was not inclined to support her at this time and I will wait to see who is running before making a decision.

That such a mild statement generates this level of hostility is problematic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prism (Reply #37)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 12:09 PM

48. Bah. That statement is so inflammatory it gets you thrown out of the HRC group

Or at least it got me thrown out of it, about a year ago when there was even less known about the primary field.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prism (Reply #37)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 12:14 PM

52. Ah, projection.

You started a thread designed to create doubt and angst and I'm generating 'hostility?'

Alrighty then...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prism (Reply #37)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 01:16 PM

95. Being undecided over a year before a primary is not a radical, hateful position.

 

Indeed.


Deciding someone deserves to win at this point is close minded and not helpful at all. We need intelligent voters, not fanboys.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Reply #17)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 12:22 PM

60. Not everyone votes

 

Or supports candidates based on electability. That's how we get mediocre, do nothing candidates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Reply #8)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:41 AM

27. She's the only candidate running right now. How can anyone state who their candidates are until

they see what their choices are?

That makes no sense. I am watching O'Malley who may enter the race and want to know more about him. So far if he isn't just talking, I like where he stands on several issues. The TPP eg, raising SS Benefits. Raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour.

I don't know where he stands on a few other issues, important issues, such as our disastrous Foreign Policies.

If he announces, he will be asked those questions, as will Hillary and everyone else who is asking us for the job of working for us in the WH.

I will be 'tearing down' I guess is what you call questioning candidates on their stand on issues, ALL of them. If they don't want any questions, that alone puts them at the bottom of my list.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #27)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 12:11 PM

49. Hey! Chafee's running!!

.....Ok, she's the only candidate running.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #49)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 12:16 PM

55. I haven't seen any announcement from Chafee, can you post a link please?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to jeff47 (Reply #58)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 03:56 PM

154. 'We are still in the exploratory committee phase'. Thanks, that I knew, he has not formally

announced yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prism (Original post)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:29 AM

19. Hillary IS electable

That hardly seems to be debatable. What is debatable is whether she's unbeatable, either in the primary or the general. Personally, I doubt she can be beaten in the primary by any of the likely challengers. I think there are potential candidates who could make the general a tight race, though, particularly (for different reasons) Bush, Walker, and Kasich; but I suspect Dem demographics, her war chest, and the fact that whoever her opponent is will have had to say some truly repulsive stuff to get the nomination will all work just enough in her favor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Proud Public Servant (Reply #19)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 01:08 PM

88. If that's the best argument in her favor, I'd call that a red flag.

 

Personally, the only thing that makes her worth a vote in the general is her lack of religious bigotry. That raises her miles above any Republican. It does not, however, mean that she's the best Democrat for the job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jester Messiah (Reply #88)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 01:15 PM

94. It was not meant to be an argument in her favor

It was just a statement of opinion about how I see the race shaping up. Personally, I'm hoping for other, better choices in the primary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Proud Public Servant (Reply #94)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 01:53 PM

120. Likewise. [nt]

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prism (Original post)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:36 AM

23. Have you seen recent polls? Double digit leads.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #23)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:46 AM

31. and that by itself negates the premise that she is not electable

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #31)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 01:42 PM

109. So what?

 



She had "double digit leads" wayyyy back in 2007, remember? Back in 2007 she was "inevitable", a "powerhouse" "who else but..." till she lost to Obama.

So where does that leave your argument today about double digit leads? I'd say about the same place as 2007.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BrainDrain (Reply #109)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 02:11 PM

131. It was close. It went to the end. Closeness means the

unelectable argument is nonsense. It doesn't mean she will win or lose, but that making assertions of not being electable is an opinion not based on evidence



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #23)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 12:13 PM

51. So, unable to read the OP?

That's kinda sad. It's really not that long. Should've been pretty easy to get to the point where polls are addressed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #51)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 02:16 PM

133. I read it, and it just invalidates polls because it doesn't agree with the OPs

bias. He attributesbutes it to name recognition only, as though people who take part in these polls do not have a perception of what a candidate stands for. I say that is flawed reasoning

Being electable doesn't have anything to do with winning or losing. It is a measure of if she is competitive, and with the list of candidates in the race and the answer is yes. She was competitive against Obama in 2008, but she lost

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #133)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 02:32 PM

138. Really? So Clinton won the 2008 primary by more than 20 points?

'Cause that's what the polls said this far from the 2008 election.

Being electable doesn't have anything to do with winning or losing. It is a measure of if she is competitive, and with the list of candidates in the race and the answer is yes.

The "list of candidates in the race" on the Democratic side are Clinton and Chafee. Give it time, and actual opponents will enter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #138)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 03:06 PM

146. Obviously we don't agree on what electability means

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #133)

Tue Apr 21, 2015, 10:35 AM

197. It is not only name recognition, what about Joe Biden

 

He also has high name recognition, but his poll numbers are nowhere near hers

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to QuestionAlways (Reply #197)

Tue Apr 21, 2015, 01:02 PM

208. Good point, and I agree it is more than name recognition. However, I also think that once a

candidate declares their intention to run or at least consider it, folks take that candidate more seriously than one who has not expressed interest


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #208)

Tue Apr 21, 2015, 08:13 PM

209. I agree, but in any case, Hillary will be difficult to beat

 

Hillary has been running for 9 years, and I would be very surprised if she had not gotten the organizational and establishment support of the democratic party. She is the safest bet there is, and the pro's like safe. The last time she also had these advantages, so she just sat back and waited to be handed the prize. She did not realize Obama was a revolutionary figure, the first black man who had a realistic chance to be POTUS. She learned from the last time and will not make the same mistake again.

This time she is not sitting back, and she is also the revolutionary figure, the first woman who has a realistic chance to be POTUS. And unlike last last time, this time she is calling attention to it. This is why other possible candidates know they really have no realistic chance of winning, so they are avoiding the race

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prism (Original post)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:38 AM

25. Will you concur that the same principle applies to Bernie Sanders?

I still haven't seen anyone explain how he assembles the delegates he needs from states that aren't as liberal as Vermont, many of which will require huge expenditures for campaigning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #25)


Response to brooklynite (Reply #25)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:42 AM

29. So iow, Bernie doesn't have enough money. And that, right there, is the problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #29)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:50 AM

34. POW!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #29)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 12:46 PM

79. Money rasing is a problem for all of us

 

Anyone who can raise $2.5 billion is working for some very special interests.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Geronimoe (Reply #79)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 03:59 PM

157. Dems need to make this a huge issue in this campaign. For two billion, what are they buying?

All Dem candidates should refuse that money and then spend the rest of the campaign season accusing Republicans of taking bribes from the very unpopular Wall St special interests who are buying their elections to work against the Working Class.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #29)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 01:19 PM

97. True -- but those are the rules we have to play by in 2016...

...we're not going to amend the Constitution to overturn CU, and I'm not prepared to disengage from private funding unilaterally, and leave it to the Republicans. So, back to the question: where does Bernie Sanders get the money FIRST to run a national Primary campaign, and THEN to run against the Republicans?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #97)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 04:08 PM

161. Why are you asking that question, you know the answer surely. We the people will give him what we

used to give to the DNC to begin with.. The unions are not too happy with the way they are being treated so I wouldn't be surprised if some of them help him with funding. As a teacher I am disgusted with the Dem Party's adapting the awful Bush 'education' program, the privatization of public funds, and making it even worse, so I image teachers and their unions will be looking for candidates, like Bernie who have supported them all along.

A coalition of Unions, Social Security advocates among other Liberal Organizations was formed before the last presidential election, warning the Dem Party that if they do not start seeing support for their causes, the party should not count on or take for granted their votes after that election.

At a meeting to form the coalition they raised millions of dollars. I am sure all these groups are waiting to see what their choices are. Unions are capable of raising a lot of money, and getting out the vote. Bernie is very popular with Unions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #161)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 04:19 PM

164. Very well, now we wait...

You say there's a groundswell of hidden support (political and financial) that will manifest itself if Bernie runs. I say Hillary Clinton is still popular among a wide swath of Democrats (liberal and centrist), including Unions and advocacy groups.

You say these groups will produce the hundreds of millions of dollars (approaching a billion that will be needed) presumably without tapping into "1%ers", "Wall Street", "lobbyists" or any other groups you don't like. I say, no grass roots campaign (Dean and Kucinich come to mind) have been able to do this in the past.

It'll be fun to see how things turn out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #164)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 04:50 PM

167. People were not aware of the poisonous influence of Special Interest money when Dean

and Kucinich were running for office. But over the past few years awareness has grown, see OWS and the brutal attempt to silence what would have been a few days in one city as planned, but spread like wildfire across the nation.

Young people especially view candidates who funded with obscene amounts of Wall St money with suspicion.

I do not believe the grass roots can raise nearly the amount that the Party/Wall St choices of candidates will raise.

But I do think that more people now than ever, want money out of our political system and it is a major issue for millions of Americans, especially for registered Independents, currently the largest voting bloc.

It won't be fun at all. I consider this to be very serious. Well see if we still live in a democracy or whether as many now are saying, the country is run by a small group of very wealthy people.

I'd like to think the people CAN overcome a few special interests, that would mean we are still a Democracy.

Apparently you're okay with money buying elections?

I am not. Bribes should not be part of our electoral system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #25)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:55 AM

38. Readily, yes.

 

I have seen no evidence of his electability at this time. In the course of the primary, that may change.

At this juncture, any statement of "Only Sanders can beat the Republicans," would be an unsupported assertion.

Just as it is for Secretary Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prism (Original post)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:41 AM

28. I don;t think myth is a good word for what youre trying to describe.


And using it undermines your point.

Polling data are the best data one can have at the current time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #28)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 12:15 PM

54. At this point in the 2008 race, she had a 30 point lead on the rest of the field.

It didn't last. Giuliani was crushing everyone else on the Republican side, and he didn't even make it to the primary.

Polling this early is an exercise in name recognition, as the OP clearly states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #54)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 12:23 PM

61. I don't think anyone has said she can't lose the primary or general.



But polling data is snapshot of current position. It shows that she is a front-runner in terms of electability.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #61)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 12:29 PM

68. No, polling data shows squat, because it's impossible to be accurate this early.

Polling data is completely unreliable this early. You might as well be running a poll for the 2044 election. It will be as accurate.

The campaigns have just barely started or not started yet. The arguments for and against the candidates have yet to be heard. The polls will move, and move radically before we get closer to the nomination.

If this was October, you could barely start making a case based on polling. We're a long way from October.

This early, polls are used as news filler because the media doesn't have anything "real" to talk about yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #54)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 01:20 PM

98. No, she didn't; perhaps you're thinking of 2006, ie the equivalent of 2014?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_Democratic_Party_2008_presidential_candidates

In March 2006, she has a 31 point lead over Al Gore. She never had a 30 point lead over anyone in 2nd place again.

In April 2007, she has a lead over of Obama between 24 points and a dead heat.

And Giuliani made it through to the Florida primary. His April 2007 lead was 3% to 22%.

For reference, in the past month Hillary's lead has been between 40 and 58 points.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prism (Original post)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:45 AM

30. All I know is what the polls are saying now, and your assessment is counter to those polls. So are

you saying all the polls are wrong?


Things can change, including poll numbers, but at this point in time she leads against all the potential republican candidates


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #30)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:50 AM

35. Every bit as right as they were in 2008

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #35)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:55 AM

39. We will see, but the premise of the OP that Hillary is unelectable does NOT correlate with the polls

Will she win or lose in the primaries? Will the Democratic nominee win or lose in the general election? Who knows?

However, to say she is unelectable is hogwash.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #39)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:58 AM

43. Point is, polls this far out are meaningless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #43)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 01:13 PM

91. if that is the case then so is the statement that Hillary is unelectable?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #91)

Tue Apr 21, 2015, 04:39 AM

183. Dodging the point again? The statement that polls this far out are meaningless is not

debatable. It's fact.

And that statement has zero to do with someone's opinion about whether Hillary is electable or not. And someone's opinion about whether Hillary is electable or not had nothing to do with the post of mine to which you are supposedly responding.

Pretending your question relates somehow to my comment is a silly posting game. Posting games are usually geared toward obfuscating the truth, not toward getting the truth. The race for Dem nominee for POTUS is too important for that. And, I find those games boring as well as disingenuous. So, please don't think me rude if I don't reply to the net one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #39)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 12:29 PM

66. I do not believe she is unelectable

 

I am questioning the assertion that her electability is this massive, self-evident strength that she holds over all other candidates.

I see no objective evidence of this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prism (Reply #66)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 01:14 PM

93. That is a valid point, and subject to discussion

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prism (Original post)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:46 AM

32. Everthing about 2016 is mth until We all vote in 2016

 




Hillary is based on a good chance, and her skills, but all is a theory before everyone
votes.

What we known for sure right now she is the only democratic person who has said she
is running for President. Know one has any chance but her, because they are not even
willing to try!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prism (Original post)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:48 AM

33. What nonsense... of course she is electable.

The only reason she lost in 2008 was because she ran into the Obama juggernaut. There is no such candidate this time around and the Republicans don't appear to have anyone at this point to match her. It might be close but clearly she is electable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #33)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:52 AM

36. Juggernaut?

 

It was she who had the huge political machine. She lost because she ran a terrible campaign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #36)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:58 AM

42. It was very close. She could have won but Obama and his campaign were just too good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #42)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 12:02 PM

44. And her campaign was bad enough to blow a 30 point lead, not to mention all the other

advantages she had on Obama at the beginning.

Is she unelectable? I don't know. Is she the sure thing in the general everyone one has been trying to brainwash us to believe? I doubt it.

If she had been that well liked, a 30 point lead would not have vanished, along with all the other advantages she had over Obama going in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #44)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 12:06 PM

45. and yet she still almost won.

It shows she has something that voters want despite the missteps of her campaign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #45)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 12:14 PM

53. Meh. She stayed in the race well beyond the point at which she had any possiblity of winning.

She did not have the primary equivalent of electoral votes and she did not have the super delegate votes. Plus, she lost votes because she tried to end run the agreement the candidates had made with the DNC about staying out of certain states, but the DNC voted against her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #53)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 12:21 PM

57. If I recall correctly the caucus states were the key to Obama's victory.

The Clinton campaign dismissed them which was huge mistake. If they simply would have put more effort in those states there might have been a different result.

This time around she will certainly have better campaign staff that she had in 2008.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #57)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 12:23 PM

62. No, not only the caucus states by any means, though I do recall her saying, to Texans, that

"I am just finding out about this Texas two-step of yours." Geez. Even if that were so, she should have known better than to announce it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #62)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 12:34 PM

73. Actually yes, the caucus states were the main reason for Obama's win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #73)

Tue Apr 21, 2015, 05:05 AM

184. Thanks. Your chart proves what my Reply 53 said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #42)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 01:09 PM

89. or hers was just to bad n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prism (Original post)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:57 AM

40. being the presumed favorite this far in advance is rarely predictive of success

 

but maybe someone has the exact statistic to prove my guess wrong?
the only safe bet you can make today is that the status quo and the money interests
want her to be the candidate.

I guess thats all there is to it.
How that improves her appeal to the 99% whose economic future is going down the toilet in America eludes me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reddread (Reply #40)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 12:53 PM

82. It works pretty well for the Republican primaries; Democratic ones were messier

but big leads were enough even for the Dems.

Average of polls Jan-Jun year before primaries (ie what we're in the middle of now):

Republicans (when not an incumbent):
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/a-brief-history-of-primary-polling-part-i/?_r=0
1980: Reagan +11.8% over Ford
1988: Bush +15.2% over Dole
1996: Dole +38.9% over Gramm
2000: Bush 27.9% over Dole (Elizabeth)
2008: McCain -11.7% 2nd behind Giuliani - the time it doesn't predict the Republican winner.
Article written before 2012, but I suggest from this graph Romney had a lead of about +10 over Gingrich

Democrats:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/04/a-brief-history-of-primary-polling-part-ii/
1972: McGovern -24.3% 5th behind Muskie , who led Humphrey by 10%
1976: Carter -18.7% 12th behind George Wallace (!) who led Humphrey by 4.4%
1984: Mondale +11.2% over Glenn
1988: Dukakis -5.7% behind Hart who led Jackson by 0.1%
1992: Clinton -19% 12th behind Cuomo who led Gore by 11%
2000: Gore +33.1% over Bradley
2004: Kerry -5.9% 2nd behind Lieberman (!)
2008: Obama -15% 2nd behind Clinton

So, the nearest thing to Hillary's current lead of about +50 was 2000 - Gore leading by 33. He won the primary comfortably (and he was a member of the incumbent administration who had lost to them in the primary 8 years earlier, despite having a lead over them about a year before the primaries; pretty similar to Hillary). All other Dem leads were 15% or under (and the one that was 15% went to the wire). In the Republicans, Giuliani blew a 12% lead over McCain; all other early leaders won.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #82)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 01:02 PM

86. one of the problems with looking backwards is you never see whats coming

 

but looking backwards for me means watching the demise of the thin shred of democracy we had,
presidential debates with fair oversight by independant groups like the League of Women Voters.
the deciders have driven out the traditional protections we had against their decisions.
This is a Bush era policy, driven by those who rule us thusly.
playing along as if nothing happened in the last thirty five years to the process is a lot like being culpable.
As confident as i am that Team Hillary has all their friends in all the right places looking out for their interests,
I am concerned about the things that go unmentioned.
We will have exactly what issues to decide upon in 16?


The war criminal on the left, or the war criminal on the right.
That makes everyone an accomplice, and moots the question.
As if we were ever going to reinstate accountability upon the rich.

-and thanks for the numbers!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prism (Original post)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:57 AM

41. "Polls," whispered a voice on the breeze.

Her great success in 2008 and today's poll numbers are what tell us her electability is mu h more than myth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prism (Original post)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 12:09 PM

47. Myths runs wild here, we have to continue to debunked the talking points.

You can not discredit her ability to be president with talking points .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prism (Original post)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 12:18 PM

56. You are right, and I find all those who crow

 

that she *almost* won in 2008 don't seem to understand that she lost. Almost won is still lost.

This far out what most polls really show is name recognition. She has wonderful name recognition. But then, she had that in 2008 also. And she still lost.

Aside from what Prism so clearly describes about her only three campaigns, there's a somewhat naďve belief that women all over America are desperate to elect a woman President. Just because she's a woman. First off, it's obvious women do not cross party lines in droves to vote for another woman, otherwise we'd currently have Governor Wendy Davis and Senator Alison Lundgren Grimes. In addition, there are a lot of women out there who don't really think women belong in elected office of any kind, and really don't have any business as President.

In addition, the notion that because all of her past scandals have been dealt with means she's bullet proof this time around overlook Benghazi, which unfortunately will never die. It also overlooks that every single thing she and Bill ever did in the past will be once again grist for the hate mill, as dumb as that is.

And worst of all, is that if a corporatist Wall Street crony like her becomes President, the stability of Social Security and Medicare will be severely compromised.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prism (Original post)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 12:21 PM

59. I think she has a good chance of being our next pres

But is she inevitable? No. So far she seems to have the best chance of being the nominee. I don't see much of a start from other dems but its still early.
Its a long way off and the unforseen always happens. Whether its good or bad for dems in the GE we will see.
I'm going to vote for her in my primary but that could change depending on how her campaign shapes up. I want a dem in the wh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prism (Original post)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 12:24 PM

63. The same argument was also made about Barack Obama when he ran.

In spite of his very limited political experience, he won. Twice. My feeling is that "electability" is a term that some use to hide the racism or misogyny that motivates the comment. It is more acceptable to say HRC is not electable enough rather than say she is not male enough. Same for Barack Obama. The same GOP shills that talked about Obama's (the black man) lack of experience had no problem defending George W. Bush (the white man) in spite of the fact that Bush had minimal experience in politics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #63)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 12:31 PM

71. I don't believe Secretary Clinton is unelectable

 

But I do believe the idea electability is a massive advantage she has over other candidates is unsupported at this early stage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prism (Reply #71)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 12:37 PM

75. I do not feel your implied anything about her.

Sometimes the media treats electable and inevitable as synonymous. If she cannot frame a convincing message and defend that message she will have a problem. Her money advantage will help in the first step, the primary phase, but the GOP will also be raising an obscene amount of money to tear her down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prism (Original post)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 12:24 PM

64. Don't be stupid

 

Hey guys, let's tear down our best candidate for President because she isn't the perfect match for our wants! Did you catch the sarcasm? If you know of a better candidate, by all means support them and tell us why they are better. But to bitch and moan because you don't "like like" Hillary is bullshit. Attacking Clinton because she is Clinton only damages the party and help the republicans. I don't want to go to war with Iran and lose all the gains of the Obama administration, which will surely happen if Bush is elected, keep up the attacks.

It was people like you who gave the election to George W. and you should be ashamed for the damage he did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to montex (Reply #64)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 12:36 PM

74. I've done none of the things you are accusing me of

 

I neither tore her down nor attacked her for being a Clinton.

I made an argument and asked a question that is highly relevant to the Democratic nomination process.

Your unwarranted hostility is unhelpful to both your candidate and our party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to montex (Reply #64)

Tue Apr 21, 2015, 10:45 AM

199. best candidate? In what universe?

Certainly not this one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prism (Original post)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 12:24 PM

65. I believe your subject line to be correct.

 

but then it immediately goes astray.

"The third, where she was also "inevitable" and the only Democrat who could face down Republicans, turned into a train wreck of epic proportions. Not only was her candidacy sunk by a political neophyte and relative newcomer, but her internal campaign politics were revealed to be highly disorganized and dysfunctional (read just about any election postmortem book that followed)."

Calling Obama a neophyte and relative newcomer is inaccurate. You are obviously not aware of Obama's previous campaigns. He and the team he surrounded himself with could go down as the best. His campaigns are nothing short of relentless. Pretty impressive. Completely against the word neophyte.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prism (Original post)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 12:29 PM

67. With your ability to know the political

future of Hillary maybe you can get a job on FOX. They have about as much incite as you have about it. Also the FOX viewers would appreciate your talent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #67)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 12:38 PM

78. Uncalled for.

 

In fact, I argue the opposite. The point of my OP is that none of us know the future of both the primary and General elections.

This aggressive hostility is unhelpful to your candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #67)

Tue Apr 21, 2015, 09:07 AM

188. If you oppose Hillary, you are a FOX viewer

With that sort of impeccable logic coming from her supporters, how can she lose?
She's got Joe-mentum!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #67)

Tue Apr 21, 2015, 09:24 AM

191. That was a nasty immature response to the poster.

And you used the word "incite" incorrectly.
You should have said "insight."
The dictionary is your friend.
Look up the definition of two words, consider the context in which you used the wrong one and you will see what I mean.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prism (Original post)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 12:31 PM

70. I agree

I don't believe Hillary is electable.

It's about stirring up the base and she has proven she can't do it.

Going into the general election there will be two things that will be stirred up:

- Animosity
- Apathy

Hillary is THE candidate that stirs up the most animosity on the right and at the same time is the precise candidate who will contribute to the most apathy on the left as she simply doesn't invigorate the base.

Warren would've been the right candidate to stir up the base, but she's not running... at least not for POTUS. She could be convinced to run on the under ticket.

I believe Martin O'Malley could emerge as a formidable candidate and do well in the debates. I could see him performing better than Hillary by the time the Iowa caucuses come around in January. The Iowa bounce is real and all will be shocked at how things rearrange if O'Malley takes Iowa and New Hampshire. The vibe will be a repeat of the '08 Democratic Primaries where a little known Illinois senator rolled past Hillary and never looked back.

An O'Malley/Warren ticket could be in the rumblings and all it will take is for a good amount of notable Dems to hold out their endorsements for anyone. Of course the most entrenched Dems will endorse early as they'll feel they owe Hillary their personal nod, but it should be very interesting who the holdouts will be.

Ted Kennedy held out for some time in '08 and it noticeably torked off the Hillary campaign. She was playing defense early and didn't really get traction against Obama. By the time Teddy gave Obama the nod it was all, but over.

I don't see a major shift in Hillary's personality these days, only the text of how she's supposedly running this time.

The PUMAs are already rumbling here on DU as they thought shirley, this time, Hillary will at the very least roll to the Democratic nomination.

She won't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Khaotic (Reply #70)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 12:37 PM

76. That would all make sense if her presumptive Republican posters were crushing her in the polls.

Instead she is crushing them:


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


Your rebuttal will surely be that polls are meaningless at this time but they are mostly all we have to work with and at the moment they trump this or that person's heavily value laden analysis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #76)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 01:06 PM

87. You're quoting a right wing biased site for data here...

 

... as noted by Daily KOS here:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/25/1150097/-As-Obama-lead-solidifies-RealClearPolitics-shows-right-wing-bias

...
But you wouldn’t know it from perusing the narrative-setting RealClearPolitics.com (RCP). Although RCP was founded by conservatives to combat the “liberal” media, RCP became one of the web’s go-to political websites with a reputation for nonpartisanship – aggregating articles and polls favorable to both right and left.

No more. RCP lost its cool after Romney won the first debate, salivating over the prospect of booting Obama from office. So despite mounting evidence that Romney's momentum has evaporated, RCP is still pushing headlines like “Romney erases Obama lead with women” and “Iowa: slipping away from Dems?”


Just because Clinton wins here one on one over Republican isn't showing that other Democratic candidates couldn't do the same thing. With the noted bias of this web site, one has to wonder why the right wants her to win, which would be implied that they are trying to make the case here that she should be the nominee. Or perhaps not so much the right but the corporate backers of this site that want to have corporate money buy the field of candidates the way they've been able to do so so much in recent times.

As noted with polls before the 2008 election, one could attempt to conclude then that she had it sewn up even right up to the Iowa caucuses, but that didn't happen. She was hardly "inevitable" then, as she is hardly "inevitable" now, despite corporate America's attempts to position her that way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cascadiance (Reply #87)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 01:17 PM

96. Here's Huff Po:

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-bush-vs-clinton


I only linked RCP for the polls they cited which includes CNN, WAPO-APC, NBC-WSJ, FOX, Greenberg Quinlan Rosner (D) et cetera in a easy to find, easy to read, and easy to understand format:


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_bush_vs_clinton-3827.html#polls


There's over a dozen polls from a myriad of sources. I don't see much room for chicanery in just citing polls, averaging them, and reporting the polls and averages.

You could do the same thing they do and get the same results. That's the hallmark of the scientific method.

P.S. I know RCP is a right wing site but they are a great source for all polls. Also, articles linked there get freepeed regardless of the content because they are linked there. I just go there because they aren't as easy to find elsewhere...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #96)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 01:25 PM

100. But they have an agenda of trying to amplify the "importance" of polls, when they aren't meaningful

 

... at this point, as so many here have tried to point out!

Whether the polls themselves are unbiased or not, statistically they really don't do much to predict the future in reality, as that graph of polls in the 2008 election shows.

The accuracy of the polls isn't at issue, it is the attempt to amplify the importance of them collectively at this point in my book that reflects an agenda, and as that previous link to Daily KOS notes, Realclearpolitics.com does appear to have an agenda not aligned with most progressive Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cascadiance (Reply #100)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 01:27 PM

102. Actually they buried the current great HRC V R poll

Here's their front page as of 10.27 A M PST


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/


I am watching CNN...They seem to be burying the poll too...


HMMM

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #102)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 01:35 PM

105. As polls should be buried at this point...

 

... but for those looking for them like you, they want to project scenarios so that we can either get a corporate serving Republican, or a corporate serving Clinton being in the general election field so that the corporate lobbyists can buy out our election. That is why you don't see polling data between other Democrats and Republicans much if at all anywhere now. They don't want it acknowledged that you don't have to have Clinton to beat the Republican candidates which might serve Democrats in to thinking they can have other ideas of which Democratic candidate might be viable besides Clinton which threatens their lock of our system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Khaotic (Reply #70)

Tue Apr 21, 2015, 12:21 PM

204. Yes, that's how it may likely play out

Astute analysis. Thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prism (Original post)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 12:33 PM

72. The only thing keeping Hillary afloat...

…is the Democratic party keeping any other viable Democratic candidates from running.

If there was an electable Democratic candidate who just SHOWED UP for the primary--Hillary's candidacy would be in peril.

She came in third in the Iowa caucuses.

Some Democrats are enthusiastic about Hillary; most are not. The Progressive base of the party is most definitely not.

But, alas---It's Hillary's turn. So the party will play nice and let her run without opposition.

It's depressing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prism (Original post)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 12:58 PM

83. She only lost to Obama by a couple percentage points -- NOT a "train wreck."

Your bias is showing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #83)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 01:45 PM

111. her campaign

 

was a train wreck. Like the man said, read any of the post mortems on her presidential campaign and they all say pretty much the same thing.

She may have only lost by a "couple of points", but remember where she started and how "inevitable" she was.

For those of you that understand it, I would call it SSDD.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BrainDrain (Reply #111)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 01:47 PM

113. So? Ever hear of Ronald Reagan? He tried and failed twice. We didn't stop him the 3rd and 4th times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #113)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 02:24 PM

136. Don't forget Nixon lost and then won too.

And Nixon was embarrassed in his own state as well when he lost his 1962 CA gubernatorial campaign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #136)

Tue Apr 21, 2015, 10:45 AM

200. seriously???!!!!

 

you guys wanna user ronny rayguns and the most corrupt president in American history as examples!!??


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BrainDrain (Reply #200)

Tue Apr 21, 2015, 10:53 AM

201. Your logic is flawed

If I said 50,000 Chinese were killed during The Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution does that mean I supported those programs?


Your logic is flawed, seriously???!!!!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #201)

Tue Apr 21, 2015, 12:43 PM

206. Seriously???!!!

 



If you don't get the point of my post, you have neither logic, nor a sense of the absurd.

Seriously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BrainDrain (Reply #206)

Tue Apr 21, 2015, 12:47 PM

207. It was an example of presidential candidates who overcame defeat.

I am not responsible for someone who can not draw a logical inference from a simple premise.


If I wrote Sacramento is the capital of California that doesn't imply I am opposed or in favor of leaving it there or having it moved to Riverside.



Seriously.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BrainDrain (Reply #200)

Tue Apr 21, 2015, 11:04 AM

202. Kinda kills their argument right?

We want to compare Nixon (who was Impeached and Resigned) and Reagan (the President who drove the Middle Class into a ditch) to how Hillary will be the next POTUS.

If these are the comparisons Hillaryists want to use, go right on ahead as it affirms Hillary is a candidate not to be trusted with ultra corporate ties.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LovingA2andMI (Reply #202)

Tue Apr 21, 2015, 12:41 PM

205. You got that right....

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BrainDrain (Reply #205)

Tue Apr 21, 2015, 08:49 PM

211. Nonsequiturs strike again

They are just using the examples of Nixon and Reagan to illustrate a psephological point; this does not imply general approval of Messrs. Nixon and Reagan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prism (Original post)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 12:58 PM

84. Her electability is based on her accomplishments

Rather than who she's run against. It's based on her knowledge and positions on important issues.

And the primary landscape is very clear at this point.

All this obviously doesn't comport to your thinking. But that's the way it really is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prism (Original post)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 01:27 PM

101. H 16!

Oh boy - another article written by someone where "Hillary is not my candidate." Yawn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prism (Original post)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 01:33 PM

104. Actually, if I may, it was NOT a cakewalk for her in New York. NOT IN THE LEAST.

Anybody remember that? She was laughed at, sneered. Cue the eyeball rolling. There was a TON of that - from New Yorkers who were already cynical and distrusting of her and CERTAINLY the media. Yeah, First Lady thinks she can come in here and take over. Yeah, who the hell does she think she is? Yeah, she's a fucking carpetbagger! Doesn't live here! NEVER lived here! Knows nothing about New York. Why is she here? She doesn't belong. Outsider. Not one of us. Just using her big name to pad her ego. Who asked HER? Who the hell invited HER? Nothing but an elitist. She was First Lady so now she thinks she's a Senator???? Just looking for a nice cushy new job... Dilettante of the first order. She's so entitled! She doesn't get it. Not like us. Can't understand New York. Spoiled. Coddled. Out-of-touch. ALL THAT. ALL THAT. AND MORE.

She was badmouthed and scorned and trashed and dismissed and demeaned and laughed at. And she got humble, buckled down, rolled up her sleeves, put on her "traveling pants," and went to work - all over the state on that listening tour, meeting people, hearing them out and taking note of what they said and the issues they spoke about, a huge education she gave herself. Just did nothing but work work work work work. And more work. Studying what the people said, collecting input everywhere she could, trying to learn everything that the people she presumed to represent wanted and needed and were concerned about. She worked like a dog. I don't know where or how she found the energy, especially in that DECIDEDLY uphill battle, with all that derision and doubt and cynicism raining down on her at every step. GOD, the cynicism! As bad as I see now.

And guess what? She won them over. The hard way. YES she lucked out when giuliana bailed and rick "Who?" lazio stepped in, instead. But she did the work. She didn't just slide into that job on some royal litter, like some visiting empress. Nobody handed it to her. She worked for it, and evidently, sufficient numbers of New Yorkers were convinced that she'd earned it.

It was NO cakewalk, my friend. And nobody handed it to her. Hell, nobody WANTED to hand it to her! Don't know if you remember, but I sure do - you could almost literally SEE the eyeballs rolling all over everywhere when she announced. Especially throughout New York State. Everybody from the "Yeah, SUUUUUUURE" Caucus came out and threw stink bombs. And it just didn't phase her - which I found rather remarkable. She worked - and worked HARD - for every bit of it. She deserved to win - because she took it seriously and worked her ass off. The second time around, she got reelected by a lot of the same people who turned their noses up at her the first time. Why? Because the majority opinion was that she'd done a good job in her first term, and earned the right to have her lease renewed. The reviews of her work, some of them begrudging, turned out to be favorable - that she'd done a very good job representing the people of New York.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #104)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 01:39 PM

107. POTY, POTY , I say

Post Of The Year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #107)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 01:49 PM

118. BS, BS I say

 


I am from NY, all of my family is from NY. The general feeling in NY is that she BOUGHT that election, and YES it was a cake walk after Rudy bailed.

She didn't earn crap. She was the lesser of 2 evils.

Get real.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BrainDrain (Reply #118)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 01:54 PM

121. All my family is from New York.

My mom, God Bless her memory's first boyfriend was a socialist who served as a liaison in The Lindsay administration. They were all first generation working class and middle class folks and they all loved our Hillary.

calimary's Post WAS POTY worthy, absolutely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BrainDrain (Reply #118)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 03:59 PM

156. +1 from a fellow New Yorker who's lived here longer than Hillary has.

 

That BS post is more of that historical revisionism the Clinton camp is fond of.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prism (Original post)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 01:37 PM

106. 2008 was very unusual.

It had Barack Obama. A young, black man with an outstanding personality, good ideas, and a campaign organization that did an amazing job. Had he not been in the race, we'd be talking about Hillary Clinton's second term coming to an end. But he was there and a late surge made him the nominee. Now, 7 years later, he's finishing up his second term and Hillary Clinton is currently leading the polls by a wide margin, both for the primary election and for the GE, against every potential Republican. But something's missing for 2016.

There's no Barack Obama in the race. There's nobody who has even mentioned running that has what he brought to the 2008 race. Not even close. There's an outspoken socialist from Vermont who has captured the hearts of some in the Democratic Party, but whose age and lack of familiarity across the entire country work against him. He has great ideas, but his presentation isn't on par with what Obama brought to the primary races. Personally, I think he will choose not to run, in the end. If he does run, he'll be out by Super Tuesday.

You've got O'Malley, who has the benefit of relative youth, but not the national name recognition that would give him a jumpstart. Elizabeth Warren isn't running. Lincoln Chaffee isn't even on most people's horizon and was a Republican for far too long to give him the support of long-time Democrats.

Who else? Biden? He'll be a staunch Clinton supporter and won't run to win the presidency. If he runs in the primaries, he'll take a few percentage points away from the other challengers, but will not really challenge Clinton.

I don't see any challenger capable of erasing Clinton's popularity among rank and file Democrats, women, minorities, and others. I don't see a Barack Obama out there among the potential challengers. That's why I think that Hillary Clinton will take the nomination going away. Frankly, she doesn't really have any challengers.

I'm not seeing DU championing anyone to challenge Clinton, either. Instead, those who don't like her are just repeating the same talking points that have been used for years. In the meantime, Hillary Clinton appears to have learned from 2008, and looks like someone who will not repeat her campaign errors from that year.

An early, even very large lead can be overcome. Obama did it. But Obama's not running, and he'll be endorsing Hillary Clinton quite early, I'm sure. There's no Barack Obama in the 2016 race, not even on the horizon. There's just not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prism (Original post)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 01:39 PM

108. Great Post. Her negatives > reasons to support her. She's the Media Darling, selected FOR us. FTS

 

Fuck
That
Shit...

I am reminded of 2007, when a bunch of delegates were already committed to HER before we even had any debates, before the primary candidates had all announced.

I am against her for precisely this reason: I will not be TOLD who is inevitable.

And, I think she's a tool of the corporate oligarchy who panders to the demographic groups that any good dem should support.

She'll lose the general if we stupidly elect her, but I hope she loses the primary.

To whom, I don't know. I just don't want our country to go to a Republican just because Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #108)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 01:48 PM

117. She has the best Favorability/Unfavorability ratings of all the candidates...

She has the best Favorability/Unfavorability ratings of all the candidates even if you allocate all the undecideds, ergo:







http://election.princeton.edu/2015/04/13/the-real-problem-with-that-chart/#more-12675


Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.

-John Adams,


<pats self on back>

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #108)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 01:51 PM

119. ...^ that

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #108)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 04:04 PM

160. The thing that is important to remember is how it will impact the primaries.

Whenever someone like her comes along, it usually ends in a brawl.
2008 was that way, with both Hillary and Bubba dismissing Senator Obama as a fluke.

Funny how that ended.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prism (Original post)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 01:43 PM

110. Only in the anti-Hillary posts

Do I see the phrase "Hillary's electability" used. I have never seen a supporter say anything remotely like "Hillary's a shoe-in".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prism (Original post)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 01:47 PM

114. The MEDIA wants another Bush vs Clinton battle with Bush winning this time....

 

They don't take ANY of this seriously. To them, it's like a sporting event.

This is the result of media types showing up to work in a suit that costs more than a month's pay for the average American.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #114)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 01:59 PM

123. Agree in the horse race aspect but Hillary is kicking and will kick his candy ass.

It will be as if Seth Rogen got in the Octagon with Ronda Rousey. He has no idea of what is about to hit him.


I almost feel sorry for him, almost...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #123)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 02:03 PM

126. I imagine Jeb will STILL win a majority of the white male vote....

 

And as such, the GOP will claim Hillary didn't actually win.

You know, 'cause wimmin and other minority votes shouldn't be worth as much as the Master Race (and sex).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #126)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 02:09 PM

130. Any R will Probably/ definitely win the white vote.

LBJ was the last Democrat to win a plurality or majority of the white vote though Bill Clinton came close to getting a plurality in 1992.
Of more interest is if Bush wins the white women vote. That is usually much closer... The reason the gender gap exists is because small losses among white women is mitigated by huge wins among women of color...

Nothing is inevitable but death but HRC goes into the race a favorite; how large, too early to tell...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #130)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 02:20 PM

135. Everyone has heard of "Reagan Democrats" but nobody wants to talk about "Clinton Republicans"...

 

In 92 the Republicans held their convention in Houston and ran an extremist platform of making homosexuality illegal and banning abortion. Moderate Republicans were booed off the stage. As a result, there were lifelong Republicans who wanted to send a message to their party to knock off the shit. They voted for Clinton. This is part of why the GOP was in such a panic and went overboard in demonizing Clinton. It was to win their own voters back.

Now we are seeing the GOP claiming they need to go hard right again to win. They really have a problem in their party of believing their own propaganda. The #1 thing they absolutely believe is their own claim that "America is a Center/Right country". It's NOT. America is actually a very Liberal country. The Right in this country USED TO KNOW THAT which is why they spent millions on Right Wing Think Tanks. They were supposed to craft language to SELL unpopular ideas to the public.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #135)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 02:27 PM

137. America isn't a right wing nation and the further right they go the better for us.

I remember 1992 and Pat Buchanan's declaration of a culture war at their convention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #137)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 02:57 PM

141. The funny thing is everyone knew Pappy Bush was too much of a wimp to oppose them.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #141)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 03:03 PM

144. Yeah, he was much more malleable than Bush ll which turned out to be a bad thing for the nation.

The certainty Bush ll had should scare anybody.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #144)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 03:07 PM

147. Pappy Bush was literally "spooky", what with his CIA connections.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #123)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 02:04 PM

128. And AGAIN, Corporate Amerika wins, and we all lose, no matter who wins that "horse race"...

 

... which is why they are pushing that so hard at this point. They're trying to keep out any candidate that actually might work for the people's interests rather than corporate interests. Their "primary battle" is now. The battle of exclusion and inclusion.

And most of us are refusing to play this game o accepting their propaganda. I care far more about working for a better America that works for all of us than I do of "beating Bush". Yes the latter is satisfying, but in the big picture doesn't serve us much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cascadiance (Reply #128)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 02:16 PM

132. At least if HRC wins I will continue to get my Medi Cal

At least if HRC wins I will continue to get my Medi Cal and won't die of a massive heart attack at the ripe old age of 58 like my old man because he hadn't had a physical in twenty years. The Republicans put that in jeopardy...


I have a lot of gay friends. They too will be negatively impacted by a Republican administration.


Many of my relatives are on Medicare or are approaching the age they can get Medicare. The Republicans want to turn it into a voucher program. That threatens them.

The Republicans want to turn Medicaid and Food Stamps into block grants. This puts the working poor and poor at the tender mercies of the state governments, most of which are Republican.


Unless you are rich life is abouting navigating through less than palatable choices and you better navigate right or little becomes nothing. I am comfortable with my choices.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #132)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 03:25 PM

148. And with another Democrat winning, we might get more than Medi Cal (Single Payer!)

 

Medicare for all might have helped him get a lot more health care earlier too. Too bad corporate candidates like Barack Obama didn't put that or even a public option on the negotiating table.

There's no reason to believe another Democrat couldn't beat these Republicans either. Let's select a candidate that will work for US!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cascadiance (Reply #148)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 03:37 PM

149. I support single payer but we couldn't get it when we had the House and sixty Democratic senators.

Without control of either the Senate or House it's even further away now.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #149)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 03:47 PM

150. She's not running to be in office now, but in 2016. Republicans haven't won congress yet then!

 

And as for Obama, Negotiations 101 dictates that you don't start negotiating asking for nothing, but you ask for a lot and you settle for less. He asked for NEITHER when starting negotiations. WHY? Many still say that Obamacare, though taking the good first step of giving people insurance that didn't have it, is still damned expensive with the corporate insurance company cancer still in it and needs that reform to happen for it to survive long term. As long as we have corporate Democrats in the mix, this will continue to be a problem in the coming years.

There was budget reconciliation that was used that would allow a simple majority in the Senate to have passed it. And if we couldn't get a majority of Democrats to support it then, then we had many Democrats that were in office then that were also having a hard time showing that they were real Democrats and not just corporatist Democrats in sheep's clothing. A few come to mind, one who had to get elected as an independent, because he couldn't win the Democratic Party nomination, who also might have had something to do with the lack of enthusiasm many had for Gore's team in 2000 too that didn't get him a bigger victory (YES he won, despite the Republicans corrupting the courts to skew that result otherwise).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cascadiance (Reply #150)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 03:53 PM

153. The way the House is gerrymandered it is going to be some time before we control it again.

I share in your contempt for Mr. Lieberman.


I regret the day Al Gore introduced him to the national stage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #149)

Tue Apr 21, 2015, 10:25 AM

195. You can thank Joementum Lieberman and Blanche Lincoln for that...

I'm convinced that if we really want things like Single Payer, then it's not enough to vote for people who don't have a "R" after their name.

We need true progressives who aren't afraid to stand up to Big Money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cascadiance (Reply #128)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 02:59 PM

142. Really does feel like you have to get Wall Street's blessing all right.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #114)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 02:00 PM

124. Or with Clinton winning, the banksters win either way. This is WHY the media has selected her.

 

don't forget that the media is owned, consolidated, just like the banks that own/manage them.

Study the two graphics below, from this thread:




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #124)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 03:05 PM

145. If the media was really independent the Republicans would get caught in their lies.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prism (Original post)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 01:56 PM

122. It is just spin from the corporatists who want to eliminate all primary candidates

 

in the future. Just decide all elections for themselves and dictate we vote for them. They are rich spoiled brats. Every election is the friggin apocalypse if you vote against the chosen one in a primary. We have no right to expect a selection of candidates because Roe.

No matter Roe hasn't protected abortion rights very well. No matter Roe just protects Gop women in continuing to vote Gop, because Roe will defend them from the stupid GOP candidate they voted for to cut taxes. Wash Rinse Repeat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prism (Original post)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 02:06 PM

129. Polls are a snapshot of what the public thinks, and right now they think she is the most electable.

I say we see the primary through to the end and see how it shakes out when other candidates declare.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #129)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 03:49 PM

152. Where are the polls measuring how someone like Sanders or Warren does against these candidates?

 

They don't exist selectively because the corporate controlled media chooses to focus on Clinton being the object of attention to get two corporate controlled candidates to get nominated in both parties. That IS their agenda along with the corporate elements of both parties. Until America says NO, they're going to continue getting away with screwing the rest of us over like they have this last decade.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cascadiance (Reply #152)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 03:57 PM

155. From Real Clear Politics, Clinton is blowing everybody away by double digits.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html

Huffington's polls also have no one even close.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-democratic-primary

I take Sanders seriously, but Warren is not running. And even when she is in a poll she isn't coming anywhere near.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #155)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 04:03 PM

159. History shows us this is meaningless. You're just sinking in to realclearpolitics RW agenda...

 


I'm surprised that so many here can't understand a very simple and explanatory graph here that explains why this is meaningless...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cascadiance (Reply #159)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 04:16 PM

163. History tells me it is a snap shot of the race now. Assuming it's useless is wishful thinking

for people who support someone else that they want to be a candidate.

I do not engage in wishful think.

When the polls show a difference it will be real.

Until then, I say we talk about policies of the people who have declared that they are running.

So far, Hillary Clinton is better than every Republican.

Now when another Democrat joins the fray, as one will, the polls will change. I suspect they will even be a bit closer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #163)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 04:41 PM

166. Given that it has been shown to be VERY inaccurate in the past as shown by history...

 

... what the media claims now to be "reality" can be dismissed as not having much bearing in fact.

Why worry about who "will win" now, when we simply DON'T KNOW!

Now should be the time that we hear from the various candidates that could run what the ISSUES are facing Americans, HOW they stand on them, and WHAT THEY'VE DONE in their history that make them a good solution for them!

Demand the corporate media that WANTS a horse race because they DON'T WANT candidates running on issues to serve their agenda rather than the people's agenda to measure these issues instead.

If Hillary is truly good on these issues, she'll strengthen her lead that much more. if not, then we should question if she's the right choice or not. Those that are depicted as "anti-Hillary" aren't "anti-Hillary", but are against the corporatist dogma that has dominated our country for so long. There's room for anyone regardless of their race, gender, etc. to be one we'd like to represent us. All they have to do is starting talking on the ISSUES that we are worried about that we've been screwed with for so long, and how they will fix America in these areas.

Focusing just on who will win is only a meaningless distraction by design promoted by the corporate media and corporate interests, and doesn't serve us the people in fixing the many problems in front of us so that we are being served, not just the wealthy elites.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cascadiance (Reply #166)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 06:06 PM

174. Wishing polls were different does 't make them so.

Let's talk about policies.

Do you prefer Hillary Clinton's policies concerning women's rights to be preferable to Rand Paul's?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #174)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 06:37 PM

175. Yep, it is understood that social issues HRC can talk about and not PO the corporate elites...

 

... if she takes the sides of her constituencies. As I've noted in other posts, corporate elites and the media WANT her to focus on these issues to continue to divide the electorate to keep them from unifying on issues that they all are being screwed on by corporate elites.

Do you prefer Elizabeth warren's policies concerning women's rights to be preferable to Rand Paul's?

Do you prefer Bernie Sanders policies concerning women's rights to be preferable to Rand Paul's?

This issue doesn't set HRC aside as being specially the best candidate for Democrats. But the corporate media wants to direct you to issues like this and draw the impression that this is the case and to keep some fringe independents and Republicans who from voting for Democrats that might emphasize populist issues instead that they also might support (which many of them SHOULd since populist positions would benefit them as well instead of penalizing them the way the system does now).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prism (Original post)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 03:01 PM

143. The last time she ran for president it wasn't so good

|







Lost to some nobody named Barrack Obama for all of the above reasons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prism (Original post)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 04:01 PM

158. There is plenty of evidence, you just dismiss it.

The polls, for example, they are one piece evidence. Yes, it's early, but that's still the best measure of public sentiment we have. You say the polls are going to change vastly, but hey, maybe they will change vastly in her direction.

Also, in terms of electability, the important polls are the once showing her ahead of every single Republican in the GE. And being a well-known figure means that these polls are less likely to change drastically against her. People already know the good and the bad about Hillary, with that knowledge, she's ahead. It's going to be difficult for the GOP to try build a new negative image of her ("swift boat" her or "birth certificate" her or whatever), because everyone already knows who she is and has known for a long time.

As far as 2008, yes she lost, but she lost in the primary, not the GE. She also lost a very close race to a very strong politician who went on to win two presidential elections. It's possible that 2008 is an indication that she can be beaten in the primary (though I doubt it, there's no Obama-candidate this time), but it doesn't say much about electability, which means winning the GE.

Another thing Clinton has is massive fundraising ability, something that is regrettably important in general elections.

And she's more centrist than the likes of Sanders or Warren, which also makes for greater electability and appeal among centrist voters. And she has very strong credentials and experience. Nobody can argue that she's not qualified or not ready or anything like that. She's been first lady, senator, and secretary of state, and even people who hate her admit that she's extremely intelligent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #158)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 04:14 PM

162. "Evidence" that doesn't hold up...

 

Polls at this point had her a "lock" for the nomination in 2008, but another candidate won both the primary AND beating the Republicans. What evidence is there that this time the same thing can't happen? I think there's growing dissatisfaction in this election over the last one of the corporate influence over both of our parties, and the lack of delivery of substance for a more nebulous campaign in last election that people "hoped" would work for them but didn't in many cases.

And you are making it sound like candidates have to be "centrist" to win elections now? I think you are swallowing a bit too much of the Korporate Koolaid these days. Americans, when asked to vote on issues tend to have a MAJORITY, even in red states show themselves to be what the corporate media and the corporate elements of both parties to be "far left".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6535192

Too bad in a number of those states, if the Democratic candidates had been more clear on their support of these "far left" issues, they might have won instead of losing to the more "honestly corporatist" siding Republican candidates. Same thing happened in 2010 too in the midterms where Democrats lost the House because so many corporatist Democrats that Rahm Emanuel's DCCC had earlier pushed on to us were the ones primarily flushed from office by so many Democrats who saw no reason to care about many of them any more, and Republicans profited from that, and as a result were able to subsequently gerrymander for the next 10 years so many districts after that census year.

We need someone who's populist who rejects this corporate control as it is killing our party, and it is killing the middle class. Hillary has the opportunity right now to try and show some progressive ACTION and push congress to reject the Fast Track legislation that is coming for a vote soon, and then prove that she's not just all "talk" and no "action", a problem that has afflicted Obama in a number of instances.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cascadiance (Reply #162)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 04:34 PM

165. Of course, nothing is certain. I'm just talking "likely".

Polls at this point had her a "lock" for the nomination in 2008, but another candidate won both the primary AND beating the Republicans. What evidence is there that this time the same thing can't happen?

Of course it can happen, the question is how likely it is to happen. I think it's highly unlikely that another primary candidate will emerge to seriously challenge her. But like I said in my last post, "electability" isn't about winning the primary, it's about winning the GE. And the current polls do show her in a good position for the GE.

And you are making it sound like candidates have to be "centrist" to win elections now? I think you are swallowing a bit too much of the Korporate Koolaid these days. Americans, when asked to vote on issues tend to have a MAJORITY, even in red states show themselves to be what the corporate media and the corporate elements of both parties to be "far left"

I think that centrist candidates appeal to centrist voters. I agree that, on issues, the electorate is further to the left than the government that they elect. But that doesn't mean that a candidate perceived to be too liberal won't have trouble winning states like Florida, Ohio, Colorado, Virginia, which is basically where the presidency is decided. It has nothing to do with Kool-Aid. The fact of the matter is, "Socialist" is a bad word to many American voters, whether or not you or I like it. And the minimum wage (from your link) is not a "far left" issue. Obama supports raising the minimum wage, I'm not sure if Hillary has officially taken that position, but she probably does as well.

Too bad in a number of those states, if the Democratic candidates had been more clear on their support of these "far left" issues, they might have won instead of losing to the more "honestly corporatist" siding Republican candidates. Same thing happened in 2010 too in the midterms where Democrats lost the House because so many corporatist Democrats that Rahm Emanuel's DCCC had earlier pushed on to us were the ones primarily flushed from office by so many Democrats who saw no reason to care about many of them any more, and Republicans profited from that, and as a result were able to subsequently gerrymander for the next 10 years so many districts after that census year.

Well, that's one narrative, and there's probably some truth to it. But Democrats historically don't show up for non-presidential elections. And also, the fact that centrist Dems are the ones that lost is primarily due to the fact that they were from conservative districts and didn't have Obama's coattails to help them the second time around.

If we're looking for actual evidence, I don't see very much that running Warren/Sanders type candidates nationwide would lead to success. A lot of people here on DU complain about Obama, but in polls, liberal Dems are the people who approve of him the most, and his disapproval among liberals is something like 10%. I don't know offhand, but have Dems as liberal as Warren or Sanders actually won state-wide races in swing states like Ohio and Florida and Virginia? Maybe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #165)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 05:19 PM

168. I think more than previous elections, Democrats are increasingly resenting candidates PUSHED on them

 

... which is why I think if people see another contender that speaks more for them, I think there will be MORE likelihood this time around for that candidate to pick up a lot of votes than they might have in the past too. People gravitated to Obama in the last election is that because of the top two candidates, he was the bigger unknown quantity than the other, and people were "hoping" that he might ultimately show himself to serve the people later. Especially voters like Edwards supporters or other lesser candidates that felt towards the end they had to pick one of the two left, which lead to Obama's surge then.

Polls at this point had her a "lock" for the nomination in 2008, but another candidate won both the primary AND beating the Republicans. What evidence is there that this time the same thing can't happen?


Of course it can happen, the question is how likely it is to happen. I think it's highly unlikely that another primary candidate will emerge to seriously challenge her. But like I said in my last post, "electability" isn't about winning the primary, it's about winning the GE. And the current polls do show her in a good position for the GE.


But there are also articles that show that the Republican candidates would likely have problems against ANY Democratic candidate, not just HRC. Trying to just claim that because the media has focused their polls showing HRC winning over all of them as being meaningful, when many other Democrats if they were polled by a more neutral press, would probably show the same thing for other Democrats too, making it a far smaller issue than what the Democrats actually stand for that will help them win a nomination, a choice that corporate interests and the corporate media DON'T want us to emphasize.

And you are making it sound like candidates have to be "centrist" to win elections now? I think you are swallowing a bit too much of the Korporate Koolaid these days. Americans, when asked to vote on issues tend to have a MAJORITY, even in red states show themselves to be what the corporate media and the corporate elements of both parties to be "far left"


I think that centrist candidates appeal to centrist voters. I agree that, on issues, the electorate is further to the left than the government that they elect. But that doesn't mean that a candidate perceived to be too liberal won't have trouble winning states like Florida, Ohio, Colorado, Virginia, which is basically where the presidency is decided. It has nothing to do with Kool-Aid. The fact of the matter is, "Socialist" is a bad word to many American voters, whether or not you or I like it. And the minimum wage (from your link) is not a "far left" issue. Obama supports raising the minimum wage, I'm not sure if Hillary has officially taken that position, but she probably does as well.


What are "centrist" voters? I'd like to think, unless they are part of the 1%, they don't really exist. The implication is that they are "moderate" and "middle of the road" and "flexible" on issue stances to work with "the other side". In reality, they are mostly just flexible on social issues, that their backers don't really have a strong concern about, but with fiscal or other issues that affect their corporate and 1% backers, they are pretty inflexible and NOT moderate, when you are talking about the interests of 1% versus 99% of Americans. Perception is managed by the media, and many people when they start to hear messages less filtered by this media, they start to get truths that have them support things that are depicted by the media as "far left". The media tries to foster division on social issues to keep the public divided, so that elections are decided on these more visible divisive social issues rather than the underlying fiscal and other issues that the "centrist" pols support only a 1% minority of Americans, and a huge majority might throw them out (from both parties as well as independents) if exposed. I noted that prop 90 here in Oregon last election showed that kind of messaging and unity that helped revolt against corporatist takeover of our elections.

Obama might talk about supporting the minimum wage and decent pay for all of us, but in effect his actions are working AGAINST the minimum wage, with his pushing for the passage of TPP, which will allow employers to push wages downward a lot more rather than up. I'm concerned with Hillary's lack of stances on TPP, and her pretty vocal support for H-1B program expansion show her to be in the same boat of her actions working against workers rather than for them.

I think I'm starting to like the term "progressive" to get behind rather than "liberal", "left", "progressive", or "socialist" that we've evolved between as the right has made or has tried to make each of these a "bad word". Progressive doesn't try to advocate a "left" or "right" leaning, and amplifies the notion of the masses versus the controlling elites, which I think has some more potential support for not just "far left" people as we are termed, but from independents as well as many Republicans who are frustrated with these "centrist"corporate serving) issues almost as much as we are. it would be a lot harder for the Third Way to cannibalize the term "populist" like they've been recently trying to do with the term "progressive", as it more directly is aligned against the way Third Way and other corporate serving entities are set up for.

Too bad in a number of those states, if the Democratic candidates had been more clear on their support of these "far left" issues, they might have won instead of losing to the more "honestly corporatist" siding Republican candidates. Same thing happened in 2010 too in the midterms where Democrats lost the House because so many corporatist Democrats that Rahm Emanuel's DCCC had earlier pushed on to us were the ones primarily flushed from office by so many Democrats who saw no reason to care about many of them any more, and Republicans profited from that, and as a result were able to subsequently gerrymander for the next 10 years so many districts after that census year.


Well, that's one narrative, and there's probably some truth to it. But Democrats historically don't show up for non-presidential elections. And also, the fact that centrist Dems are the ones that lost is primarily due to the fact that they were from conservative districts and didn't have Obama's coattails to help them the second time around.

If we're looking for actual evidence, I don't see very much that running Warren/Sanders type candidates nationwide would lead to success. A lot of people here on DU complain about Obama, but in polls, liberal Dems are the people who approve of him the most, and his disapproval among liberals is something like 10%. I don't know offhand, but have Dems as liberal as Warren or Sanders actually won state-wide races in swing states like Ohio and Florida and Virginia? Maybe.


I would argue that part of the reasons Democrats don't show up for non-presidential elections is the narrative of the media that emphasizes them over more local elections as being important, and also the growing problems that Americans have in general these days of finding time to get involved with too many different things besides work and family, and keeping up with a presidential race is perhaps in many instances the most they can keep up with and participate in. That and heavy work schedules that don't even allow them time to vote, even if in many interests many of them might do so. To me this is a sign even more so that the Democrats need to prioritize making life better for the middle class and lower class voters (and even some of the upper middle class voters) so that in coming elections, their work/wealth/free time situations can be made a lot better like they were before Reagan's time, so that they can take more interest in being involved with politics, both voting and campaigning and participating in as well. Another reason why corporatist agenda is a recipe that works against this party.

Bernie Sanders gets a lot of support from Republicans within his own state, who realize that he's working for THEM, and look across party lines as they know him as a man of his word that isn't working for some other special interests against theirs. We need more of that kind of politician, and I think with the internet and other forms of peer-to-peer communication now, we can make a difference in helping getting more of that kind of candidate elected nation-wide. But we need people to not just swallow the corporate media spin and who will be willing to work in new ways to help candidates like him get support that I think so many people want, but they've felt neglected getting.

I do think that the minimum wage votes in very conservative states that passed is a testament if you get down to the level of issues that matter to people, it really doesn't matter what party or what label people hang over your head. They will vote for you if they think you are working for them. That to me is the strength of populist candidates like Bernie and Warren.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cascadiance (Reply #168)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 05:58 PM

173. Maybe. More than in 2000? I'm not sure.

But still, whether Hillary is vulnerable to a primary challenge isn't what "electability" means, at least not to me. I care about GE electability and I care about it a lot because I don't want to see a Republican in the White House. If she loses the primary, I don't really care, as long as the person who beats her wins the GE.

But there are also articles that show that the Republican candidates would likely have problems against ANY Democratic candidate, not just HRC. Trying to just claim that because the media has focused their polls showing HRC winning over all of them as being meaningful, when many other Democrats if they were polled by a more neutral press, would probably show the same thing for other Democrats too, making it a far smaller issue than what the Democrats actually stand for that will help them win a nomination, a choice that corporate interests and the corporate media DON'T want us to emphasize.

The polls I've seen show Hillary doing better against the GOP field than any of the other Dem candidates. I don't buy that the polling is biased ("if they were polled by a more neutral press".

What are "centrist" voters? I'd like to think, unless they are part of the 1%, they don't really exist.

Me too, but they do exist.

The implication is that they are "moderate" and "middle of the road" and "flexible" on issue stances to work with "the other side". In reality, they are mostly just flexible on social issues, that their backers don't really have a strong concern about, but with fiscal or other issues that affect their corporate and 1% backers, they are pretty inflexible and NOT moderate, when you are talking about the interests of 1% versus 99% of Americans.

I don't believe that centrist voters have "backers." They are just ordinary people who don't back one party or one ideology.

Perception is managed by the media, and many people when they start to hear messages less filtered by this media, they start to get truths that have them support things that are depicted by the media as "far left". The media tries to foster division on social issues to keep the public divided, so that elections are decided on these more visible divisive social issues rather than the underlying fiscal and other issues that the "centrist" pols support only a 1% minority of Americans, and a huge majority might throw them out (from both parties as well as independents) if exposed. I noted that prop 90 here in Oregon last election showed that kind of messaging and unity that helped revolt against corporatist takeover of our elections.

Maybe, though outside of the likes of Fox News, I don't think that media is intentionally trying to do any of this. And, in any case, the media isn't going to change dramatically in the next two years, so "electability" in 2016 means the ability to win an election, taking into account effects and distortions that exist from the media, money, or anything else. Winning a presidential election is not the same as winning a ballot measure.

Obama might talk about supporting the minimum wage and decent pay for all of us, but in effect his actions are working AGAINST the minimum wage, with his pushing for the passage of TPP, which will allow employers to push wages downward a lot more rather than up. I'm concerned with Hillary's lack of stances on TPP, and her pretty vocal support for H-1B program expansion show her to be in the same boat of her actions working against workers rather than for them.

This is absurd. His actions as far as minimum wage were to raise it for Federal workers and contractors, which is all he could do. He also proposed a minimum wage hike to congress, which obviously didn't get through with GOP control. Any president is going to be limited by congress, blaming him for what the GOP does is unfair.

Bernie Sanders gets a lot of support from Republicans within his own state, who realize that he's working for THEM, and look across party lines as they know him as a man of his word that isn't working for some other special interests against theirs. We need more of that kind of politician, and I think with the internet and other forms of peer-to-peer communication now, we can make a difference in helping getting more of that kind of candidate elected nation-wide. But we need people to not just swallow the corporate media spin and who will be willing to work in new ways to help candidates like him get support that I think so many people want, but they've felt neglected getting.

Republicans in Vermont are not like Republicans in Red or Purple states. I agree that we need more people like Sanders, but I just don't think he can get elected at the national level right now. I wish that people putting so much effort into opposing Hillary for the nomination would instead put the same effort into getting more Sanders-like people into the Senate, and not just from states like Vermont and Massachusetts. After all, if your theory that large numbers people are ready for real populist liberals is correct, then we ought to see them getting elected to the senate more than they are. It's a lot more plausible, doesn't require the same kind of huge money as the presidency, and yet we don't see it. Why not? And if it doesn't work at the senate level, what makes you think it would work nationally?

I do think that the minimum wage votes in very conservative states that passed is a testament if you get down to the level of issues that matter to people, it really doesn't matter what party or what label people hang over your head. They will vote for you if they think you are working for them. That to me is the strength of populist candidates like Bernie and Warren.

It's not that simple. It's been clear for some time that people's actual views on issues are more liberal than those of the leaders they elect. But translating that into electoral victories for Democrats hasn't been easy. For example, even though most people favor liberal policies, more people label themselves as "conservative" than "liberal".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prism (Original post)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 05:25 PM

170. Electability is largely a myth at this point in the election cycle.

 

If we go by raw date - the poll numbers don't lie - HRC out polls all her GOP rivals combined. She out polls all her potential primary rivals too. Just can't pass up numbers like that and if they stay that way...the outcome is pretty easy to predict.

If those numbers change in a year and a half, we might be having a different conversation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prism (Original post)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 06:50 PM

176. The evidence is rather stark.

The only competition she faces is in the democratic field. That competition is non existent.

A better question is who is her best challenger and why?

I've asked this question for two years and have yet to get a satisfactory answer.

Barring health issues or some insane scandal (we're talking a real scandal ala Nixon, nothing manufactured).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #176)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 07:21 PM

178. And Jeb just leapt on the third rail followed closely by Christie:

"Jeb Bush Backs Hike in Social Security Retirement Age"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1070028

Barring catastrophe she's got it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #176)

Tue Apr 21, 2015, 10:09 AM

194. I come down on the opposite side

 

Maybe I should've made clearer in my OP that my concern is more about the general election. I don't think there's much competition in the Democratic field at all. Right now, I expect her to be our nominee. That may change, but at this point I don't see a challenge like Obama's materializing. (Although I find it interesting many of the replies have been along the lines of, "Well, luckily she's not facing a talented politician this time!" That does not exactly strike me as a ringing endorsement of her campaign skills.)

Given her electoral history and the problems of her only national campaign, what evidence exists that she's the only one who can take on the Republicans, that she's our best shot? This is asserted constantly as a main pillar for why she deserves support.

I don't think she's a great campaigner, and I don't see much in her history to suggest the constant assertion she's going to whoop Republicans in the general. It seems a bit faith-based to me. It's true because we keep saying it's true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prism (Original post)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 07:47 PM

179. I'm Ready For Oligarchy - Are You? - Vote HRC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prism (Original post)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 08:06 PM

180. Of course a guy that's not a Democrat

 

Polling 5% or less would he much better eh?

Or the mythical Sen Warren. Great person, has no interest in the job. Maybe 1 out of 100 voters not in her home state even knows who she is.

Much more electable than Hillary who far far far out polls anyone else in the race, either side, by miles!

Get real.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prism (Original post)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:11 PM

181. In 2008, 18 months out she was to be the anointed one

 

then the primaries happened. The PUMAs will be twice as insufferable this go around

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prism (Original post)

Tue Apr 21, 2015, 09:02 AM

187. But hard-working, flat-broke, sleep-deprived white people support her!

And, more importantly, so do big banks, Big Ag, and Wall Street. You know, regular folk that just pop in for a non-photo-op burrito photo op.

Clinton/Blankfein 2016

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prism (Original post)

Tue Apr 21, 2015, 09:13 AM

189. By far the most sensible OP on Hillary Clinton I have seen

Last edited Tue Apr 21, 2015, 07:08 PM - Edit history (1)

yet.
Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prism (Original post)

Tue Apr 21, 2015, 09:21 AM

190. But but but ...Miss Cleo told us Hillary will win.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prism (Original post)

Tue Apr 21, 2015, 09:24 AM

192. I think O'Malley has a very good chance if he runs.

I haven't understood why she is considered the One True Alternative either, which I had marked up to being a political dunderhead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prism (Original post)

Tue Apr 21, 2015, 10:33 AM

196. President Hillary Clinton

Get used to it!!! I and millions of others will make this happen. I am soooo tired of the Warren and Sanders fantasy. THEY will not win!!! Do you really think people in butt crack, Mississippi know who Warren and Sanders are? Only here on DU. The ones who are anti Hillary shouldn't vote for her. Nobody cares!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prism (Original post)

Tue Apr 21, 2015, 11:04 AM

203. Weak argument at best

Your argument is essentially this: because Hillary lost the Dem nomination once, she'll also lose in the larger election against a Republican. Just down the DU page is an article showing that she's out polling Republicans by double digits. Early results? Perhaps. I'll give you that. Still, Republicans have one advantage in the coming national elections: gerrymandering. That's about it. National elections are mostly about fundraising, and HC has that lead as well, along with women, LGBT, millennial, and substantial non-white demographics in the bag.

When NFL teams lose in the pre-season everyone knows it isn't a real test of what will happen in the regular season, so if you bet like that in Vegas, betting against teams that lost in the pre-season, or betting against teams because of their record last year, you're going to lose your bankroll in a hurry. Good luck with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 0nirevets (Reply #203)

Tue Apr 21, 2015, 08:23 PM

210. It's also the transitive argument which is a fallacy in sports

Because A beat B and B beat C doesn't mean A can beat C and in this instance we don't even have A and C in the race.


I will put names to it...


Muhammad Ali easily dispatched of George Foreman. George Foreman dispatched of Ken Norton and Joe Frazier with ease...Ken Norton and Joe Frazier gave Muhammad Ali hell even though he was 4-2 against them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread