Daily teeth gnashing: Hillary Clinton remains comfortably ahead among Democrats for '16

[wyldwolf]

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sweeps the Democratic primary field for the 2016 presidential race, taking 58 percent of the vote, and tops several possible Republican candidates by margins of 7 to 9 percentage points, according to a Quinnipiac University National Poll released today.

There is no front-runner in the Republican presidential primary field, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds.

Secretary Clinton leads the Democratic primary with 58 percent, followed by U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts with 11 percent, Vice President Joseph Biden with 9 percent and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo with 4 percent. No other candidate tops 1 percent and 15 percent are undecided.

The GOP primary shows U.S. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky with 11 percent, New Jersey Gov. Christopher Christie, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush with 10 percent each, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin with 8 percent each, U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio with 6 percent, no other candidate over 3 percent, with 20 percent undecided.

"Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton takes a ton of heat on wealth, book sales and her legacy at the State Department, but she emerges with no serious Democratic challenger, while the Republican field remains clustered and flustered," said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.

In the 2016 presidential race, American voters back Hillary Clinton over leading Republican contenders:
47 - 38 percent over Christie;
49 - 40 percent over Paul;
49 - 40 percent over Huckabee;
48 - 41 percent over former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush;
48 - 41 percent over U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.
In these races, Clinton's lead among women ranges from 16 percentage points to 19 points. The margin among men in each race is too close to call.

By a slim 48 - 43 percent margin, American voters have a favorable opinion of Clinton, but that tops all other contenders who get negative or divided favorability scores or where more than 50 percent of voters don't know enough about them to form an opinion.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2058

[donco]

1. We had better come up with

a plan B (Hint Warren) because I don’t think that Clinton is going to be the candidate.

[wyldwolf]

2. On the topic of Warren...

she's in double digits now. I don't think I've seen that until now.

[MannyGoldstein]

5. Warren's moving up, Clinton and Biden down

It's really cool that Warren's doing even better with men than with women... indicates that she'll have broad appeal.

[Warren DeMontague]

45. It's the name.

"Warren"

It makes people feel like they just took two hits of ecstasy.

[MannyGoldstein]

3. If it's Hillary vs. Christie

Who will the Democratic Party Establishment back?

[wyldwolf]

4. If it's anybody vs. Paul

who will the Democratic left back?

[MannyGoldstein]

6. We've always backed the Democrat.

The Democratic Establishment has not. Christie, Lieberman, ...

[wyldwolf]

7. No you haven't

Bernie Sanders, Ralph Nader, Henry Wallace.

[MannyGoldstein]

9. Ok, you win.

But at those folks espoused Democratic principles.

[wyldwolf]

11. What are "Democratic principles?"

And where are they listed at?

[MannyGoldstein]

30. Here's a few...

http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/archives/address_text.html

[wyldwolf]

31. those are great principles

And since they're FDR's, and he's a Democrat, it certainly makes them 'Democratic principles.' Of course, FDR didn't live up to them all himself. I doubt any Democrat has - which begs the question: What percentage of those, or combination, makes a candidate worthy of support? I mean, FDR himself faced considerable opposition from the left and just 4 years later, Progressive ran a candidate in opposition to Harry Truman.

[MannyGoldstein]

32. Try.

Try.

Not attack.

[wyldwolf]

33. I think they're legitimate questions. And how is that an 'attack.'

Take Hillary Clinton, for example. We constantly read on DU how she isn't a "real Democrat" or she doesn't believe in Democratic principles yet I don't know ANYone with a 'D' after their name who would fit tightly into that list. Certainly not the 4th one which is open to all kinds of interpretation.

[MohRokTah]

36. Where was the attack?

Seriously, you accused the poster of attacking?

Precisely where was the attack?

[MannyGoldstein]

38. Sorry, I was vague. I meant that Democrats

should try to support those ideals, not attack them.

[LondonReign2]

10. Oh for fuck's sake

Now you claim the left backs Rand Paul? Jesus Christ on a trailer hitch, your lies are disgusting

[wyldwolf]

12. Oh for fucks sake, why are you stalking me and calling me a liar?

Ralph Nader wants liberals to back Rand Paul.

http://theweek.com/article/index/260813/ralph-nader-wants-liberals-to-back-rand-paul-dont-do-it

How Did Rand Paul Become a Liberal Hero?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/09/29/how-did-rand-paul-become-a-liberal-hero.html

[LondonReign2]

13. Stalking?? LOL

1) Responding to you in two threads is stalking? I'm sorry, I didn't realize responding to messages on a message board was stalking.
2) I'm calling you a liar because you are lying, first by falsely claiming the left are unreliable voters, and now claiming the left backs Rand Paul over liberal candidates.
3) Who the fuck cares what Ralph Nader wants? He doesn't speak for the left
4) If you read you own fucking article you'd see that see that there are indeed a few specific issues Rand agrees with liberals on, but overall we have a massive problem with him. The headline is bullshit, but that doesn't seem to stop you in your effort to bash the left.

[wyldwolf]

15. yeah... right.

btw, the frothing coming from your mouth is expected.

1) Responding to you in two threads is stalking? I'm sorry, I didn't realize responding to messages on a message board was stalking.

When it's for the purpose of harassment, yeah it is.

2) I'm calling you a liar because you are lying, first by falsely claiming the left are unreliable voters, and now claiming the left backs Rand Paul over liberal candidates.

I proved they were unreliable voters and please quote me where I said the left backs Rand Paul over liberal candidates.

3) Who the fuck cares what Ralph Nader wants? He doesn't speak for the left

But he is a liberal, which was the point of the subthread.

4) If you read you own fucking article you'd see that see that there are indeed a few specific issues Rand agrees with liberals on, but overall we have a massive problem with him. The headline is bullshit, but that doesn't seem to stop you in your effort to bash the left.

Yeah, so? I wouldn't expect you to be completely happy with a candidate.

[LondonReign2]

16. Yeah wrong

1) "For the purpose of harassment". To misquote Truman, I don't harass them. I just tell the truth about them and they think it's harassment.

2) You proved nothing with random anecdotes about the 1930s and 1960s

3) Ah, so Ralph Nader is a liberal, according to you, and therefore is an indicator of all liberals. Good to know.

4) Non-sequitur. It has nothing to do with me being completely happy with a candidate. You posted an article that's title claimed Rand is a hero amongst liberals. A reading of that article showed quite the opposite. But when faced with that fact simply ignored it since he didn't match up with your left bashing.

[wyldwolf]

17. Just because you don't like the facts doesn't mean they're not facts.

[LondonReign2]

18. An anecdote that

in the 1930s some people ran as third party candidates is not a fact that shows the left are the most unreliable block of voters. A headline claiming Paul is liberal hero when the very article tells the opposite story is not a fact that the left backs him.

If you are that desperate to bash the left you might try finding some, you know, actual facts.

[wyldwolf]

20. You don't know the definition of anecdote

These are verifiable facts, points in history that I've given. An anecdote is an account regarded as unreliable or hearsay (which kinda describes your posting pattern.)

[LondonReign2]

22. Your "points in history" have zero relevance

to your assertions. Humphrey lost to Nixon proves the left are unreliable voters? A false headline that Paul is a liberal hero, contradicted by the very same story, proves the left backs Paul? Lying left bashing.

[wyldwolf]

23. they are perfectly relevant

Like I said before, just because you don't like the fact doesn't mean it isn't a fact.

[LondonReign2]

24. They are perfectly pointless

Yup, its a fact that Humphrey lost to Nixon. It is also a fact that Carter lost to Reagan. They also do zero to support your assertion that the left are the most unreliable of voters. So, by the way, is your fact that JFK won. How you imagine this supports your case is hard to fathom. But why let that get in the way of some good hippie punching, eh?

Your fact that the left supports Paul is just more made up lies.

[wyldwolf]

26. to you because you don't like them

[LondonReign2]

27. I don't "like" the fact that Reagan beat Carter?

Yes, that much is true. I certainly don't like that fact. Reagan was an asshole. But you see, your fact has NOTHING to do with your assertion. All it is is unsupported lefty bashing. It has as much relevance to reality as me saying Mondale lost to Reagan, that proves moderate voters are unreliable.

Still lying that Paul is a hero to liberals? And asking if the left backs Paul over "anybody"?

[wyldwolf]

28. You don't like the facts because they contradict your beliefs

You don't like the facts because actions from the left jeopardize several democratic elections.

[LondonReign2]

39. I can play this game too!

Stevenson lost to Eisenhower because the pragmatic centrists abandoned hm. Twice! They are unreliable voters.

McGovern lost to Nixon because a bunch of centrists abandoned him. God knows the left still supported him. The centrists are unreliable voters.

Reagan beat Carter because centrist "Reagan Democrats" abandoned the Democratic party. They are the most unreliable voters.

Reagan beat Mondale because only the lefties stuck with Mondale. The wishy-washy reality-based centrists were unreliable.

Bush beat Dukakis and Bush the Lesser beat Gore because centrists were unreliable voters.

See, isn't this fun when you can take "facts" and make crap up so you shit on people, totally unsupported by reality? It's awesome, isn't it?

Oh, and again, if you want to deal in the reality you are so desperate to ignore, here you go: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/06/1003805/-Did-liberals-really-stay-home-and-cause-the-2010-rout

[wyldwolf]

43. you could if you had facts behind your analysis

For McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis to have lost so badly, they were abandoned by more than just centrists (unless your contention is the 'progressive wing' of the party is really really small.)

Again, a KOS article analyzing the 2010 election to explain decades of the left's inaction.

[LondonReign2]

44. LOL, I give up

As I said before, I learned long ago in arguing with right-wingers that facts do not matter. No matter what reality-based facts are presented, they simply ignore them. In your case you actually use the victories of FDR, Truman, and JFK to "prove" the left are unreliable voters, while ignoring recent election data.

Have fun dragging the party ever rightward while hippie punching.

[wyldwolf]

46. you're only recourse is to throw around insults - so tell us...

... just how small is the "real Democrat base thingy" you have going on?

[noiretextatique]

34. and the left is racist too!

i know because some people at DU post it all the time!

[hrmjustin]

42. Clinton.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. Too bad. I was hoping to have a Democratic candidate to vote for come 11/2/16.

[msongs]

14. 4 years of another democrat acting like republican lite is better than 4 years of a real

republican lol nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. I believe I've heard that tune before.

[LLD]

29. I don't fall for the Hillary is just like Obama bullshit.

She wanted Obama to take out Syria's Assad. Obama of course told her to fuck off. I feel the same.

[Beacool]

49. And things have been going sooo well in Syria ever since.

[StevieM]

50. You won't. The election is on November 8.

And Hillary is a Democrat who I believe will make a great president.

[get the red out]

21. I will vote

I will vote for whoever wins the Democratic primary. I don't plan on getting all caught up in being angry or divisive, my state holds its primary after the decision is done anyway.

I don't want to endure the anger of eight years ago, both within me and from others.

[noiretextatique]

35. i am pretty sure 99.9% of DU will also

but it would be great to have a left-leaning challenger in the primary.

[get the red out]

47. It would certainly make things interesting

I fully support going much farther left than Hillary Clinton ever would. But in our country, it might be impossible without ending up with a Republican in the White House; with horrific results rather than not enough done.

[conservaphobe]

25. And she'll do it with or without the fringe. nt

[noiretextatique]

37. no..she won't, but she said herself

that she is reaching out to republicans. that's a winning strategy!

[LWolf]

40. As far as I know,

there is no Democratic primary field for her to sweep.

[freshwest]

41. FFS, who would even think of voting for her? Maybe this unpopular demographic:

Last edited Tue Jul 8, 2014, 11:55 PM - Edit history (1)

That's right, all you misogynists.

You said women couldn't be trusted, and a lot more.

We'll remember in November.

at the Sexists!

[cali]

48. I find all this deja vu all over again, quite amusing. we'll see what we see, but

we won't see it until sometime in 2015.

[Kingofalldems]

51. I like Democrats and will support the nominee wholeheartedly.

The republicans have big plans for America and I want them stopped.

[longship]

52. Pretty damned good considering that nobody is yet running.

Actually, let me correct myself.


It's meaningless because nobody is yet running and it will be over nearly two years before we find out who the real contenders are.

Waste of time, this post is. (Yoda, why am I posting like?)