Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Hillary Clinton's suffocating presence/The Economist [View all]Deny and Shred
(1,061 posts)5. Nor do I but
what matters is the opinion of the bulk of the electorate. I do think Obama's youth, energy, fresh message, etc were among the elements that garnered him the Primary in 2008, and got typically tepid voters to the polls.
It is pretty simple. If enough of the 99% go to the polls, the GOP doesn't stand a chance.
Problem is the 99% votes at a 50% clip. The real issue is how to get the more ambivalent 50% to the polls. Obama got them out - twice.
I fear that a Clinton campaign may not inspire typically apathetic citizens to vote. Age had to be a hinderance for Dole and McCain.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
154 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
It's true. The Wall Street Democrats are trying to suck all the oxygen out of the party
Warpy
Feb 2015
#4
I don't think they care if they win or not, just so no liberals are allowed in the contest.
Scuba
Feb 2015
#32
Or they want a "liberal" like Edwards was who they know they can out during the primaries...
cascadiance
Feb 2015
#132
Not to me. Sounds spot on. Plus, there's more in the article if you read beyond the headline. n/t
cui bono
Feb 2015
#7
I doubt voters based their vote/non-vote on Sarah Palin because of her gender.....
George II
Feb 2015
#49
No, I didn't refute my own post's argument, and what was "pointed out" to me was inaccurate...
George II
Feb 2015
#130
"Your claim was women will vote for Clinton primarily because of her gender" Where?
George II
Feb 2015
#141
I do not. I don't think the majority of women support her hawkish, pro-war stances.
rhett o rick
Feb 2015
#110
I think a primary though with Warren would help focus an emphasis on issues...
cascadiance
Feb 2015
#134
All but 1 of the women in my immediate family are strongly anti-Hillary & refuse 2 vote 4 her under any circumstances.
InAbLuEsTaTe
Feb 2015
#152
warren will be 67 in 2016; clinton will be 69. reagan, the oldest president, was 69 (a few weeks
ND-Dem
Feb 2015
#30
Do we have any reason to believe they would have been better Presidents
winter is coming
Feb 2015
#69
you may be right in reagan's case. fact remains, warren and clinton would be significantly older
ND-Dem
Feb 2015
#78
Jerry Brown is 76 (77 in less than 2 months), and just starting his second term as governor.
deurbano
Feb 2015
#104
true. but he didn't have alzheimers. that we know. and i'd guess that the reason whh & zt died
ND-Dem
Feb 2015
#145
If it is the circumstances of the party then we are in a lot of trouble because not only do we have
jwirr
Feb 2015
#10
I'm not in wandering diaspora mode yet. June to Oct is typically the time for announcing
HereSince1628
Feb 2015
#13
If Bernie champions where you think the country should go you should vote for him anyway!
Dustlawyer
Feb 2015
#108
However it has come about, the inability of Dems to field a progressive candidate is bad
HereSince1628
Feb 2015
#142
I would agree with you IF I thought that most peope in America even know what an Oligarchy is.
jwirr
Feb 2015
#11
This nation is learning about "oligarchy" whether people know the word or not.
woo me with science
Feb 2015
#14
I live in a normal community and I come To DU to talk to people who actually understand what we
jwirr
Feb 2015
#88
Nonsense. Of course individual Democrats speak out in favor of liberal policies.
woo me with science
Feb 2015
#92
Nothing you wrote there, including your failed "gotcha" attempt, changes my point.
woo me with science
Feb 2015
#94
Nominatimg Hillary guarantees a Repug win. The Dems can't be that stupid; I refuse to believe that.
InAbLuEsTaTe
Feb 2015
#56
Ask Rahm Emmanuel that when he funded conservative dems in primary battles when heading the DCCC
cascadiance
Feb 2015
#137
Notice that the excerpt (can't be bothered with the rest) doesn't have a scintilla.....
George II
Feb 2015
#24
Physically fragile Clintons are wrapped in protective cocoon of 5 star luxury, 24/7.
Divernan
Feb 2015
#90
Because we think Clinton's too old to be head of state, we have nothing to live for?
ND-Dem
Feb 2015
#79
Won't begin to be able to turn the trend around until '24 if HRC wins in '16.
stillwaiting
Feb 2015
#60
I'm still trying to figure out when it became acceptable for two families to monopolize the presidency
whatchamacallit
Feb 2015
#28
So some nameless guy from Tennessee writes a letter to the editor trying to scare Dems off
pnwmom
Feb 2015
#36
The "prole" in question is a reader of a business magazine -- not your typical prole. n/t
pnwmom
Feb 2015
#81
Conservative and libertarian magazines. Since the magazine openly promotes deregulation and privatization,
pnwmom
Feb 2015
#136
It appears to me that perhaps no Democratic candidate would satisfy many Democrats
olegramps
Feb 2015
#114
Suffocating? AKA Overly Maternal? Sounds sexist to me. No man would be called "suffocating".
libdem4life
Feb 2015
#62
Thanks, but I know the definition. It's a commonly used phrase to refer to a "smother mother" and
libdem4life
Feb 2015
#115
I am trying to imagine for a second that such a thing would be written about a male candidate
dsc
Feb 2015
#65
She lost to Obama. So she gets to run now? Dem's settle for a 2nd place looser as the front runner?
L0oniX
Feb 2015
#83
Bush and Clinton - the rich and corrupt have nothing to fear from either one.
whereisjustice
Feb 2015
#113
Must throw the Economist Under the Bus, to join in all those other dubious sources!
2banon
Feb 2015
#126