General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"16 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Will Win 2016"
16 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Will Win 2016by Myra Adams at the Daily Beast
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/03/16-reasons-why-hillary-clinton-will-win-2016.html
"SNIP...............................
4. Organization the Obama Way
Hillarys campaign-in-waiting, the Ready for Hillary PAC, is readying itself to turn into her official campaign as soon as Madame General signs the battle order.
Some top-notch Obama campaign talent, Jeremy Bird and Mitch Stewart, have already been hired to build an organization similar to President Obamas two nearly flawless, state-of-the-art campaigns. It would be nearly impossible for the Republican presidential candidate to quickly build and match what will then be a huge national campaign organization with a three-year head start. For even the Republican challenger, it would appear as if Hillary were the incumbent.
5. Barrels of Money
For the 2012 presidential campaign, both candidates eventually raised a billion dollars. But Obama had the advantage of early money and put it to great use, negatively defining and attacking Romney throughout the spring of 2012.
Between now and 2016 Hillary could easily raise more than a billion dollars and much of it early. In fact, just this week it was announced that Ready for Hillary had raised over a million dollars in June 2013, without its candidate of course.
.............................SNIP"
Warpy
(111,237 posts)Um thanks but no thanks. I'll be supporting someone else during primary season. S/he will have to present himself/herself and be a little more realistic about what the country needs.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)I don't see her including Republican 'solutions' in everything. That's Obama's way.
Warpy
(111,237 posts)in the 2008 primaries, either.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)...and not the Dems who will not vote for her. Shit can be served and we don't have to eat it or leave a tip. We can join together to come up with a decent and trusted candidate without all the nonsense worship.
Warpy
(111,237 posts)Another Republican presidency is unthinkable. Look at the Supreme Court to figure out why.
brewens
(13,566 posts)The Hillary infatuation was a little hard to take in 2008. I can see voting for her but I hope she doesn't run.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)dying its slow death. Middle-of-the-road fence sitters have proven themselves to be worthless in
the present-day situation. Only a Progressive or Liberal like Warren can save the day.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)"because the rich want her to"
and right there is reasons 1 to 15 billion for me to be against her.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)moderately liberal positrons on socials with lightly sprinkled but disingenuous language of economic populism - along with unconditional subservience to privilege and power reassures the upper classes as well as the military industrial complex and the ever expanding surveillance state that she is on their side - come what may.
applegrove
(118,600 posts)wins they will have had to match and better her "A" game. Either way Democrats are guaranteed someone with gravitas, someone who will interconnect with middleclass and working class voters.
cali
(114,904 posts)here's to hoping that there's more hill fatigue out there than people think
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)widespread popular support before announcing. That her campaign feels a need to push this hard, this soon is a tacit admission that she's far from inevitable.
WCGreen
(45,558 posts)No other candidate will have your infrastructure and donor base and ties in every democratic organization.
msongs
(67,394 posts)DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)We may need to make a group her called "a progessive please 2016!" to counteract all the Hillary is inevitable Psy Ops.
applegrove
(118,600 posts)superstar because it will raise the game for the whole nomination race. And then we'll trounce the GOP. They don't have any superstars.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)while there has to be competition, if Hillary tries to squash someone like an almighty grey eminence, it could hurt. I wouldlove it if Hill could be pulled to the left in the Primary, but Bill will NOT allow that.
Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)N/T
RC
(25,592 posts)No they don't. This is Democratic Underground. You know Center and Left of Center Politically... Right of Center are supposed to be the other guys.
We have already witnessed for 12+ years how Right of center government works, or rather doesn't work. Next time I hope for a better change.
Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)She is no rightie...they loathe her.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)ceonupe
(597 posts)Hillary is herself a neocon
She is pro big bank and business
She is not transparent (she often lies and gets caught in those lies trying to protect the real truth about what's going on as she feels we the people aren't good enough to know the truth see Benghazi (most of us would have accepted the truth that CIA was running weapons and things went bad but no they make up a stright up lie they know is false to tell us all about some stupid anti-Muslim video)
She comes of to me as a person that does not understand the lie delay tatica she and her husband used in the 90s don't work as well in our Internet age)
I could go on and on but my biggest issue with her is the deliberate lying to craft a picture that's not true.
RC
(25,592 posts)She is part of the problem. She is Right of Center. She is a war hawk. She is also a corporate, as Obama is.
AlinPA
(15,071 posts)RC
(25,592 posts)All or nothing. Black or White. 1 or 0. That is the way Conservatives think.
Liberals have shades of grey between the two extremes.
Many Republicans have voted for her simply because she is far enough to the Right to fit their conservative mind set. Many Democrats have voted for her because they are far enough to the Right to fit their mind set also. And of course, the (D) by her name. Very little is as simple as either/or.
CrispyQ
(36,453 posts)We need desperately to fill that available space. Sadly, I no longer have confidence in our electoral process, so I don't know how we're gonna do it.
mattclearing
(10,091 posts)It's not going to happen. Like she didn't have barrels of money and top-tier talent last time.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)As I have said about a hundred times in the last 9 months I don't think either Clinton or Biden will run. Both Clintons, Biden, and Obama will serve as party elders along with Carter.
mattclearing
(10,091 posts)But she'll never be President. America just isn't that into her, and she's not a great campaigner.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)ABC News/Washington Post Poll June 19-23 2013:
Hillary Clinton
Favorable: 61%
Unfavorable: 33%
Gallup June 1-4 2013
Favorable: 58%
Unfavorable: 39%
peacebird
(14,195 posts)She did a good job, but I do not want her to run for President, and I do not feel this burning need to have a woman in the oval office next time out. Let the best person win, and I hope that person is reliable, honest, trustworthy and truly cares about the American public, not the corporations.
antigop
(12,778 posts)Clinton and Biden will not run?
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)and have had very successful careers. IMHO both are going to find that they want to take it easy and have a chance to be a party elder. It certainly isn't because I don't think either of them could win.
antigop
(12,778 posts)customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)and grossly underestimated him. Frankly, I thought he was having one of those "get to know me" campaigns like Edwards did in 2004.
In your estimation, what stops her? The only thing I can think of is if Anthony Weiner actually becomes the mayor of NYC, which will embarass the hell out of her, and she might not run. Those are a couple of real long shots. What do you think will get in the way of her being President if she decides she wants it?
mattclearing
(10,091 posts)My point is that America has taken several long, hard looks at Hillary Clinton, and they are not buying. People better pray she doesn't win the nomination, and if she does, they better pray the Republicans put up a complete dingbat.
RudynJack
(1,044 posts)her to be about as popular as ever. This notion that Americans don't like her is not backed by any real evidence.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)She's managed to stay in the public eye for the last five years, and hasn't faded into the woodwork, like a lot of also-rans. The reich wing hates her, we get that. But they'll go apeshit on anybody we run anyway, so that's not a factor to consider.
mattclearing
(10,091 posts)Once the campaign starts, we can talk again. For now, she lost the Democratic primary to President Obama, who was virtually unknown at the beginning of the campaign. There's no reason to believe that Democratic primary voters will take her over a seemingly more charismatic or progressive option once the rubber hits the road. She's tone-deaf and transparently pandering, and I don't think she is that strong at actual campaigning.
RudynJack
(1,044 posts)about her running and winning. I dispute the claim that "... America has taken several long, hard looks at Hillary Clinton, and they are not buying."
There's absolutely nothing true about that. It's a claim pulled from one's ass.
mattclearing
(10,091 posts)RudynJack
(1,044 posts)You think Americans didn't like her in 2008? It was an incredibly close primary election, and went on much later than most. It was a pretty even split. Obama won, but it's ridiculous to think he ran away with it. If there were only primaries and no caucuses, she probably would have won.
But none of that has to do with your ridiculous claim. She's probably the most popular politician in America today. No other politician who's been on the scene for 20+ years even comes close.
I get that you don't like her. But you're just deceiving yourself if you translate that into "America doesn't like her".
mattclearing
(10,091 posts)RudynJack
(1,044 posts)I've never said a word about 2016. Why not respond to the points I'm making instead of acting like a twerp?
mattclearing
(10,091 posts)I remember 2008 vividly. I remember the put-on southern drawl, I remember the dog-whistle messaging, the 3AM phone, the inevitability, and how it all came crashing down thanks to a candidate whom no one gave a shot a year before.
Say what you like about me, but I don't share the view that Hillary Clinton is some political giant, because she's been beaten, and I don't think she's a very engaging candidate. If not for Giuliani's dropping out for Rick Lazio, she might not even have been a senator.
I understand that she is the most famous Democrat. I don't think that makes her the most electable. If anything, it's a double-edged sword.
RudynJack
(1,044 posts)are freely available, and in fact have even been posted in this thread.
Your claim was that America doesn't like her. You've not provided one single piece of evidence for that. And everytime I remind you exactly WHAT we're arguing about, you act like a little twerp.
mattclearing
(10,091 posts)RudynJack
(1,044 posts)that she is not liked by Americans. Back up YOUR claim.
mattclearing
(10,091 posts)Every time she gets her close-up, people turn away. She couldn't even win a majority of Democrats when it was her turn for the nomination. As I said earlier: Enough.
Response to mattclearing (Reply #124)
Post removed
tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)and I don't like Hillary for my president. Liking and voting for are not the same thing.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)They could pick a moderate, and many of them did in quite a few states, Pennsylvania comes to mind. She didn't do badly in the rest of the South, and it would be good to have a candidate who appeals regionally to them in the general election. I don't see Warren or Cuomo being able to do that, although O'Malley could. But Hillary was the first lady of a Southern state, and that's going to carry her further down there than anybody I can think of who might jump in.
As for the Repukes picking a dingbat, what else do they have? Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and Chris Christie are all going to be a tough sell for that party three years from now. Who's their statesman who would rally not only the troops, but the mushy middle?
This is hers if she wants it.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)Investigation cover up, pointed to the very highest levels they say. Another investigation is going on now, expected to be complete at end of summer.
Sexual Assault and Pedophilia -Covered Up - Can't get any serious than this - this is no fake scandal like the dozens that Obama has been accused of.
See Lawrence O'Donnell's Last Word on this:
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/45755883/ns/msnbc-the_last_word/vp/52173945#52173945
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)But all Rethugs have been able to do with the few "scandals" that have emerged in the last five years is gin up their base. They'll do that with whatever straw they have to cling to.
The lamestream media wants Hillary to have her turn, I don't expect them to do much with the State Department stuff.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Exactly.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)She's not his keeper.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)She can hardly avoid Weiner if he is the mayor of NYC, especially if she ever wants Huma to do a damn thing in her campaign. It would be incredibly uncomfortable for her to avoid both Huma and NYC, and if anyone believes she's on the fence about another run, this would probably push her in the direction of forgetting it.
Like I said, it's a long shot, as I believe she has every intention of grabbing a brass ring that is going to be handed to her, whether or not it runs through Anthony Weiner's nose.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)He's not going to be mayor. It'll probably be Quinn, but I'm hoping for de Blasio.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)He'll probably come in fourth, third if you add the write-in votes for Carlos Danger.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)joshcryer
(62,269 posts)She knew that the MSM would make it a choice about electing a black man or a woman. That's exactly what happened whether anyone agrees or not. Their policy positions were identical except with minor differences in health care (which is why Krugman supported Hillary).
I can't find the story but she personally faced off with him and told him it was a crappy thing to do essentially.
(Everyone knew she was running. She'd started her exploration committee months earlier and was simply waiting for the right time to announce.)
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)She simply didn't believe that someone with so thin a resume had a chance of running, or getting nominated, or getting elected. It taught her the power of the African-American vote, and she's worked hard to court that part of the electorate ever since then.
tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)Nice sense of entitlement.
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)I can't find the article but there was a story about how she personally faced off with Obama, a lot of people thought that was her being entitled, wanting to ride into the nomination and Presidency without a challenge, etc. It motivated a lot of Obama supporters.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)No more Turd Way DINOs. Ever again.
Run Clinton and she WILL lose. Period.
KharmaTrain
(31,706 posts)...they better start gearing up like yesterday. IRC, President Obama began his 2008 campaign in February '07...and already had a ground game set up. Anyone whose going to challenge Mrs. Clinton will have to be as equally adept at organizing and having people on the ground and running next year in the key early primary states. That means raising tons of money...the necessary evil in these days of non-stop campaigns waged on the ground and the air. So, whomever that great hope that some hope will block Hillary better emerge soon...and this person's supporters better be ready to bust major hump to raise the money, get the organization and then attempt to reach out to the primary voters...
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)KharmaTrain
(31,706 posts)...the Elizabeth Warren juggernaut hasn't begun to roll yet? I dare to venture what this place will be like the day she endorses Hillary.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)Ok, where's that flame retardant?
KharmaTrain
(31,706 posts)...gaining Seniority and become chairman of several important committees (banking, of course) and even in a leadership role. I also have a tremendous amount of respect for Sen. Warren and see her contributing best as a leader in the Senate where her impact can grow over a long period of time and hold true to many of our shared goals and principals.
Now I need to find my flame retardant suit...
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)Nay
(12,051 posts)Any younger Democrat who might be interested really has to wait to see if she declares she's running, and by then it will most likely be too late. No possible candidate can afford to challenge her moneywise; he/she would certainly lose, and become 'tainted' with the label 'loser,' so if Clinton decides to run, she'll be it. We won't see any credible challengers.
Then, because of rampant Hillary-hate on the right, all the RW mouth-breathers will hit the polls in the millions. Some dems and most undecided voters may not care who wins and will be dog-tired at the idea of yet another corporate type in office.
One positive thing about Clinton is that she's not scared of Republicans. She hates them as much as they hate her. I doubt she'd bend over for those assholes, but I don't think she has much love for the 99% either.
KharmaTrain
(31,706 posts)...the House and Senate. If the rushpublicans win control of both next year, it'll create a different dynamic going into that election and probably favor Hillary. You are right, she will wait as long as possible to declare her candidacy to "freeze" any other competitors out and make it too late for them to do much if they did want to mount a challenge.
As long as the rushpublicans control the house, no matter whose elected President, they'll face a brick wall in trying to get any legislation passed. The only way is to do that dreaded compromise thing and then no matter who it is from Hillary to Mahatma Ghandi, they'd all be chastised as "selling out".
No matter who the Democrats nominate, the rushpublicans will find garbage to throw and poutrage to mobilize their "base"...the good thing is that base is getting older and smaller by the day. But from my vantage point 2016 is still a long ways out...next year's elections...especially on the state level will be critical...that's where the worst of the right wing abuses are going on right now.
Cheers...
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)of Clinton boosters. I seem to remember the same mindset leading up to 2008.
markiv
(1,489 posts)every steamroller movement uses it
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)Because of their deep hatred for her, she will MOBILIZE the right and progressives will run, not walk, to the nearest third party.
Here's the other problem I'm having with this. The article openly discusses how, basically the Democratic Party Machine is in place for her. I thought the Democrats were supposed to stay neutral throughout the primary process. Isn't ANYONE bothered by this?
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)They'll gin up the fear and anger machine against anyone we pick to be the Democratic standard bearer. Of course, the last two times it was a scary black man, and it didn't do them a lick of good.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)They HATE her. They have a long history of HATING her and they've got YEARS of material from which to draw. Anyone else will face opposition from the Republicans but they won't serve as a lightening rod from which to mobilize. Hillary is their dream candidate.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)what Democratic candidate over the past forty years they didn't hate, when it came down to the last several months before a general election?
Hillary is their nightmare candidate, because they know she's been able to create a glowing patina around her years in the public eye. No one besides Rand Paul hangs the Arab Spring on Hillary, and it looks like he's got a decent chance of being their candidate. The fundies would never trust a libertarian, no matter how many Christian noises he makes.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)If Hillary gets the nomination, the Republicans win back the White House.
Notafraidtoo
(402 posts)I just don't see anyone on their side that would have a chance. I don't see her losing Florida,Ohio or Colorado.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)Historic NY
(37,449 posts)will flee Hillary to give us either of these two.
Okay then they deserve to live in the political "wildrness".
A Democrat defeat means a more aggressive roll up of the Right wing agenda. Its a cake walk now to what it could be.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)If the Democrats want to keep progressives, how about they stop offering us up a choice of Corporate Whore A or Corporate Whore B. The rest of your post is one of many variations of "Shut up and vote." Progressives have been hearing those orders for too long now and it just flat doesn't work. Maybe, just maybe, the Democrats, who have shoved us under the bus since Bill Clinton, could begin to entertain addressing some of our issues instead of taking us for granted. Barring that, the tired old "the other guy is worse!11!11" just doesn't work. STOP putting the onus on progressives and put it where it rightly belongs -- the Democratic Party.
antigop
(12,778 posts)We're supposed to keep moving the party further and further to the right. NO! It's time for the Democrats to move to the left. It's WAAAY overdue.
Thank you for your post.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)against any Republicon in the fall of 2016, because she's not "pure" enough, will be outnumbered 3 to 1 by the mushy middle who might have voted GOP had we nominated an Elizabeth Warren.
Hillary wants this, she's as good as got this. I'm not 100% happy about that, but I do recognize that for twenty years, she's been grooming an image. She thought it would be good enough in 2008, then she went and added Secretary of State to the resume. The only thing she's managed to be tarnished with is Benghazi, and that will be a distant memory three years from now.
antigop
(12,778 posts)Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)without the tired old "purist" meme. It was old in 2008. No one is asking for purity. Progressives are just asking for a seat at the table and to have some of our issues addressed. That's a far cry from "purity." And again, you're pushing the same old false narrative, that the country is in the middle. Poll after poll has affirmed that MOST of the country is actually liberal. But the MSM, the Republicans and yes, the Democrats, have made the word "liberal" a dirty word so even though most of the country has liberal views, they don't identify themselves as liberal.
I really don't care what Hillary "wants." She's not owed anything. Votes are earned, not demanded and it's time The Party Loyal understands that.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,232 posts)"The poll shows that among Democrats nationally, including Democrat-leaning Independents, 63 percent of those polled said they'd like to see Clinton take the nomination.
Vice President Joe Biden is Clinton's closest potential opponent, but she outdistances him almost 5-1, as he took just 13 percent of the vote. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo trails behind Biden at 6 percent, and Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley holds 1 percent. Of all those polled, 18 percent were undecided on a Democratic candidate."
http://www.latinospost.com/articles/24405/20130725/presidential-candidates-2016-poll-hilary-clinton-leads-democratic-nomination-ahead.htm
http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/misc/usapolls/us130715/Campaign%202016/Complete%20July%2024,%202013%20USA%20McClatchy-Marist%20Poll%20Results%20and%20Tables.pdf
"Clinton tops Vice President Joe Biden 60-18, with no one else even approaching 5%. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren each have 3%, Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer and Virginia Sen. Mark Warner are at 1%, and Maryland Gov. Martin OMalley and Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick register almost no support. 14% favor someone else or are not sure.
The GOP contenders are all pretty well-known and well-liked, but beyond Clinton and Biden, there are few recognizable names on the left side of the aisle. The least-known Republican is Walker, of whom 38% surprisingly have no opinion, but 55% of Democrats cannot say how they feel about Cuomo, 60% of Warren, and 80-90% of the others. Then again, few had yet heard of a certain state senator from Illinois at this point in 2004."
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/07/iowa-2016-presidential-preference-poll.html
Hillary beats all comers, in both the primaries and more importantly, the general. I don't have a particular dog in the Dem primary yet, but your presumption that another Barack Obama will emerge to challenge HRC is perhaps the most wishful of thinking. The Nader wing of the party continues to overestimate it's influence, and 2012 should've settled that once and for all.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)It's just that I'm around a lot of progressives, including myself, and I'm just letting you know what most of them are telling me. As for Hillary "beating all comers?" In the primary? Probably because the Party Machine is behind her and I'd like to know why the Party Loyal won't address THAT issue -- that is, why The Party Machine won't stay out of the primaries until the candidate is chosen by the People.
Polls this early out are meaningless.
Sorry, TD, but I have to laugh at your assumption that Barack Obama was somehow different than Hillary Clinton politically. They are politically identical in their love everything corporate and their hatred of the Left.
And you ends with the Nader dog whistle. Certainly you can do better than that.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,232 posts)My point was that PBO was a fresh charasmatic new face on the national political stage. In that sense, he was definitely "different". He captured the imagination of scores of young people of all races and ethnic backgrounds. There's nobody like that who can challenge HRC again.
The rest of your nonsense is just the ususal garden variety Naderesque hyperbole. In case you didn't notice, it was "the Left" who elected him TWICE, and you don't speak for "the Left". Stop trying to apply your personal opinions to a whole segement of the electorate for whom you have not been given permission to speak.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)the "Nader" dog whistle, twice within the same exchange, I'm pretty much done.
Have a nice day.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,232 posts)before you began. Posts like yours are the reason "the Left" is so easily marginalized. "Nice day" to you too.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)with his pro-immigration stance can actually win the Rethuglican nomination, then I'll ask you to pass the bong over this way.
Jebbie would finish no higher than fourth in the first three caucus/primary states. He's anathema to the views of the GOP base, which would quickly label him as being for "amnesty". Also, Chris Christie's abrasive personality is a nonstarter outside of the Northeast, I doubt he'd even place as high as second in New Hampshire. He sure as hell will do poorly in any other areas of the country.
I look for Ron Paul and Ted Cruz to be the number one and two finishers by the time we've gotten through six Repuke contests.
tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)Nay
(12,051 posts)it's all bullshit, of course, but all that will be dragged into the campaign. That's no reason to not nominate/vote for Clinton if you like her, but you will not believe the creatures that will come out of the woodwork to vote against her if she runs.
"Scary black man" didn't work last time because lots of people of color came out for a historic vote, and lots of white Dems were happy about it, too. Plus, of course, he spent his campaign sounding like a real liberal -- how were we to know he wasn't? It didn't hurt that the RW challengers in both elections were so crazy scary.
I don't think there will be quite the 'historic vote' bump for Clinton because she'd be the first woman; there's still quite a bit of misogyny hiding out there, even among women themselves. I could be wrong about that, tho.
My fear is that the Pubs will smarten up and enter a candidate who's NOT a complete moron/scary guy/drooling religious nut. I don't know where they'll find him/her, but I'm not up on Pub up-and-comers.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)but does it resound with the folks who decide the weekend before an election who to vote for? My best guess is that it does not.
The Rethug base will get out the fear-mongering against whoever we run, I can guarantee that. So much of what they have is old news, I can't see the mushy middle giving a tinker's damn about Vince Foster or the Rose Law Firm.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)third party, here I come. Never could vote for another Clinton. 300 million in this country and only 2 families are qualified?
brooklynite
(94,493 posts)from the TOS:
Winning elections is important therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees
Mr. David
(535 posts)It isn't the primaries. Clinton could decide not to run then what? Take the TOS with you and go away
brooklynite
(94,493 posts)The poster doesn't seem prepared to rally to the Party after the Primaries. Their choice, but it's not his/her rules, your rules or mine.
Personally, I don't have a problem...I'll happily support the Democratic nominee. If Hillary runs, I'll support her; if she doesn't, I've already spoken to other candidates. And you?
Mr. David
(535 posts)Who gives a shit?
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)If Hillary runs and the progressive left doesn't vote for her it will mean it's the fault of those who pushed for her candidacy.
Proud Public Servant
(2,097 posts)Just how much of an advantage will the Electoral College offer Hillary in 2016?
Here are some startling facts:
In 2012 the final Electoral College results were 332 for Obama and 206 for Romney. If Romney had won the battleground states of Florida (29 votes), Ohio (18 votes), and Virginia (13 votes), Obama would still have been reelected but by a closer margin of 272 to 266.
Now, just because Obama won well over 300 electoral votes does not mean Hillary will repeat that achievement. However, the path to 270 is much easier for any Democrat candidate given current and future demographic growth and established voting patterns.
And that's the truth. It's damned hard to imaging the GOP wannabee who's going to move Florida, Ohio, Virginia, and a fourth state back to their column. Jeb or Rubio could move Florida, and yeah, Rand Paul could take NH away -- but we're on the cusp of having a long-term structural advantage in the EC.
Nay
(12,051 posts)is incorrect, IMHO. No VA is blue, parts of Norfolk are blue, the rest is solid red.
Proud Public Servant
(2,097 posts)Especially since blue NoVa is growing and growing.
Logical
(22,457 posts)just like I did not support her in 2008.
mick063
(2,424 posts)You have lost complete credibility with me. You have exposed yourself to be a corporate shill.
I will completely disregard all of your future commentary as cheerleading for the corporate wing. Further, to the editors of "The Daily Beast", you approved this article to be placed in your rag. From this point forward, I no longer consider "The Daily Beast" to be a reliable source for progressive information. Starting now, I refuse to add "clicks" to your web site.
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)No thanks.
antigop
(12,778 posts)The "advantages" go to the CEOs, executives, and shareholders, NOT the working stiffs.
I'm still waiting for her to tell us exactly WHAT engineers and IT people are supposed to train for after their jobs are outsourced.
antigop
(12,778 posts)according to Business Week
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1016&pid=67554
Cue the "haters/bashers" posts....countdown....3...2....1
antigop
(12,778 posts)Cue the "haters/bashers" posts....countdown....3....2....1
markiv
(1,489 posts)gotta at least give her credit for truth in packaging in that youtube
tularetom
(23,664 posts)But if she has an opponent with any stature in the primary that opponent will get my vote.
I really don't want Bill Clinton anywhere near the White House.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)I don't know who is writing the narrative, but this doesn't feel authentic to me. At all.
antigop
(12,778 posts)liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)vinny9698
(1,016 posts)GOP women know that a woman president will break the so called glass ceiling, and they will vote thinking of their daughter's or/and granddaughter's future.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)but I think GOP women are far too partisan to think that rationally.
Metric System
(6,048 posts)Last edited Sun Aug 4, 2013, 08:16 PM - Edit history (1)
initially), that soon turns to disappointment and resentment. Elizabeth Warren (or whoever the cause celebre du jour is) would suffer the same fate.
*Edited to correct Warren's name (d'oh).
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)were never happy with Obama for the same reason we don't care for Hillary -- WAAAAAYYYYY too cozy with the corporations while compromising Democratic Ideals for Third-Way sellout. I wasn't disappointed with Obama, I knew EXACTLY who he was. How? I listened. It was all there for anyone who wanted to really listen. I had hoped he would keep at least a few of his promises but nope, he turned into Reagan the second he took the oath of office.
And the name is ELIZABETH WARREN. Now, I've also listened to Elizabeth Warren speak. I listened to her stump speeches, I've watched her take down financial "experts" on CNBC 3 at a time and I watched her wipe the floor with Ben Bernenke. Warren has conviction where Obama and Hillary have corporate greed. Warren has a vast left-wing political machine behind her should she decide to announce and it sure as hell ain't the Democratic Party who will do everything they can to "Dean" her. There are a WHOLE lot of liberal groups who have been waiting, far too long IMO, for a candidate that would come along that they could enthusiastically support. No, Warren is the real deal and we won't be disappointed with her.
Should Warren decide to run, Hillary better be ready because Warren will have a WIDE appeal and it will be across party lines. Hillary's ONLY support is the Democratic Party Establishment. That's it. The Democratic Party will pull out it's bag of dirty tricks and, if Warren can survive, she EASILY wins the General. Hillary? GOP win. GUARANTEED.
Metric System
(6,048 posts)"liberal" media and right-wingers as being far to the left, so I can only imagine how they'd paint Warren. By the time they're done with her, the results would be 1988 or worse (1984). I think the right has done a good job of re-defining the political spectrum over the years, and I don't think the majority of the voting public is actually ready for a truly progressive major presidential candidate. To top it off, I personally don't think Warren has the political skills or the charisma to lead a national ticket by 2016.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)They will, of course, raise her up to a rising superstar status and then when she belches in public or some other idiotic thing, they'll tear her down. That's their job. At the moment she doesn't have name recognition but she has a GREAT advantage in that she's not a politician She speaks plainly and in a straightforward manner that people can understand. She answers questions in a direct manner. Do you know how long people have been waiting for that? Additionally, I believe the majority of people in the US ARE, indeed progressive, they just don't identify themselves as such. But I can see Warren attracting people from across party lines. Easily.
longship
(40,416 posts)Last edited Sun Aug 4, 2013, 12:13 AM - Edit history (1)
If she doesn't run, she will not win.
So kind of pointless to find reasons why she'll win when it's three years before anybody gets the nomination.
In the meantime there's a minor matter called the 2014 midterm elections which some think are pretty damned important.
I will support whoever gets the Dem nomination in 2016, but that's three years from now.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)How about waiting to see if the lady is even interested in running?
One thing though, 2016 is not going to be 2008 where another Obama is going to come out and sell a lot of B.S. to the Left. This time around, if she runs, she wins. Then you can all start your hand wringing and angst ridden posts about a third way, DLC, blah, blah, blah.
markiv
(1,489 posts)and it has nothing to do with her being a woman, so spare me the gender stuff
it's because she's a hard core neoliberal pro outsourcing/free trade
i just dont vote for that
Beacool
(30,247 posts)If that person wins, then you'll really see the difference between the two. Too bad that the rest of us will have to suffer too.
mick063
(2,424 posts)Vote for the most liberal.
I'm sure there will be one on the ballot.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)If it comes down to Hillary, a Bagger and a third party candidate, do you think that the latter has a chance in hell of winning? I would vote for ANY Democrat in 2016. The Baggers are not the "regular" Republicans, they are to the right of Attila and far scarier.
mick063
(2,424 posts)The problem with your extortion is that the ransom never goes away and the price of the ransom always goes up.
I will instead, extort you.
Give me a candidate besides Hillary, a more liberal candidate, or I will work against her and you will receive a GOP President.
In either case of extortion, yours or mine, the price for not paying the ransom is a GOP president. If you fear GOP control with much trepidation, pay heed to my warning.
I prefer my terms, not yours.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)I really couldn't care less who you for.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)More importantly, you think the world is? You think the iranians will go "gee, they just let in a GOp because they wanted to make a point?"
markiv
(1,489 posts)then go ahead and keep it
but there's a lot of people who've been thrown under her bus, and frankly i dont think attacking them is going to win them (us) over
Beacool
(30,247 posts)But do you think that we would have been thrown under the bus any less by McCain or Romney? It would have been far worse. Yes, Hillary is a centrist, but so is most of the country (whether the Left likes it or not). In 2016 I will vote for the Democrat on the ballot, I will be damned if I help a Bagger get the WH by throwing away my vote to a third party candidate. If a Bagger wins the WH, THEN we would be living in a hell that we can't even imagine.
markiv
(1,489 posts)arguement every time a legitimate criticism of a blue colored is raised
Hillary has STOMPED on tech workers ruthlessly, and if the only arguement others can offer me is 'but if you dont vote for her, we'll go under the bus with you;, then that's not my problem
her actions against tech workers have been 100 percent inexcusable and 100 percent inconsistent with the so called vlaues of this party
sorry, i dont vote for fraud
this is a very serious and legitimate concern for many people, and it cant be browbeaten away
Beacool
(30,247 posts)I don't give a flying fig who you vote for. I don't browbeat anyone into voting. I'm just explaining what would be worse for the nation. Do whatever you want.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Geez!!!! Louis!!!!
Beacool
(30,247 posts)The poster was saying that if Hillary is the nominee he won't vote for her. OK, but don't complain if a Bagger gets into the WH just because some of you didn't get the ideal candidate of your choice. That's no threat, as I have said twice already on this thread, I don't give a crap who all of you vote for.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I will vote my conscience.
I am done with the threat of the bagger in the WH. You know why? At the most fundamental of levels, neither the Dems (at that level) or the Rs, work for us. They work for a power elite. The Primaries are a joke, and elections are also a joke. It is not different than when I first voted in Mexico at 18 years of age. We did it, cynics that we were, to keep in practice for when it might matter.
Well, guess what? We are in the same exact place now in the US. Elections really do not matter... in the most fundamental of policy matters, *cough NSA cough* for example.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)hughee99
(16,113 posts)The one that she didn't win.
Response to hughee99 (Reply #115)
ieoeja This message was self-deleted by its author.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)She's too pro-corporation and too conservative for me.
TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)It sucks balls.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)if she's the democratic candidate. I would like to think we could do better than her though!