= new reply since forum marked as read
was the sort of thign we made fun of the GOP for doing 
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.
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. 
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.
No one else is running or campaigning against her yet.
Response to brooklynite (Reply #25)
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.
... 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.
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.
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.
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
-John Adams,
<pats self on back>
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:
I'm surprised that so many here can't understand a very simple and explanatory graph here that explains why this is meaningless...
|
Lost to some nobody named Barrack Obama for all of the above reasons.
... 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"
.
Me too, but they do exist.
I don't believe that centrist voters have "backers." They are just ordinary people who don't back one party or one ideology.
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.
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.
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?
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".
"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.
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.
Last edited Tue Apr 21, 2015, 07:08 PM - Edit history (1)
yet.
Thank you.
