The dismiss from media and ThirdWayers towards any possible HRC 2016 challenger. ..

[mylye2222]

Is nothing but an outrage to the usual Democratic Primary process.

Yes. Anytime a possible runner excepted HRC is seen as a posdible alternative he/she is DISMISSED and even ridiculed .

In upcoming primaries you will have to chose betwenn HRC and......HRC.
Like in an authoritarian regime...

Really. ThirdWayers are a political complete disaster.

[VanillaRhapsody]

1. Who do you have with polls that show that they can beat ALL Republicans....

the way HRC has....

Until you have one...she is our champion!

[jeff47]

11. 2006 polling showed it would be a tight race between Giuliani and Clinton in 2008.

How'd that turn out?

Pretending that polls are at all meaningful this far from election day is dumb.

[VanillaRhapsody]

12. who do you have that can prove that they can beat all potential Republicans in 2016?

who who who who who????

[jeff47]

14. Obama didn't beat "other" in 2006.

And you are demanding I name someone who out-polls Clinton right now.

History. It's actually important to have a clue about it.

Polls this early are about name recognition and that's it. They are a terrible predictor of the final candidates.

[VanillaRhapsody]

15. No one could then.....but we have one NOW don't we?

[jeff47]

18. Again, you are demanding something that failed repeatedly.

Obama didn't register at all in polls 2 years before 2008.
W did terrible in polls 2 years before 2000.
Bill Clinton did terrible in polls 2 years before 1992.
HW Bush actually did well 2 years before 1988 - woot! You got one!
Reagan did terrible in polls 2 years before 1980.
Carter did terrible in polls 2 years before 1976.
Ford - no polling, since he never ran.
Nixon did terrible in polls 2 years before 1968.

How far back you wanna go before you start to clue in that polling 2 years from a presidential election is meaningless? As a result, there is no need to "name" who will win - we have no way of knowing.

In the meantime, you're doing your damnedest to fracture the party 3 months before the 2014 election over your insane insistence that we must conclude the 2016 campaign RIGHT NOW.

Please stop working so hard to hand the Senate to the Republicans.

[VanillaRhapsody]

20. all I am demanding is you admit the truth....

do you or don't you have a candidate that can legitimately claim they can beat ALL Republican contenders with evidence based on MULTIPLE polls....


Well do ya?

[jeff47]

21. And I'm showing you that demanding such demonstrates you

are utterly ignoring history.

I showed you how your test failed for 6 of the last 7 presidents. Yet you keep insisting that your test is meaningful.

Please stop working so hard to hand the Senate to the Republicans.

[VanillaRhapsody]

22. that is history...this is right now....this very minute!!! That was then....this is now....

Do you or don't you? Even SHE couldn't make that claim then...

but she sure can now can't she....

[jeff47]

23. Now is the result of history.

Now does not materialize out of nothing. History is a very useful guide for how people will act in the future. It's not 100% accurate, but 6 out of 7 is a very good indicator.

And your test still utterly failed 6 of the last 7 times.

Please stop working so hard to hand the Senate to the Republicans.

[VanillaRhapsody]

45. I don't care even SHE couldn't make these claims then....until you prove one better

she is the heavy hitter....you don't bench your Micheal Jordan!

Let me tell you why you are failing at this...because NO ONE has ever been able to say this with polls to prove it in recorded history....


there's your history for ya!

[jeff47]

46. Your constant cut-and-paste of the same failed argument isn't "winning"

After all, it's a cut-and-paste from 2008. Clinton was the "heavy hitter". How'd that turn out?

Once again, your test failed the last 6 of 7 presidents. Please stop working so hard to hand the Senate to the Republicans.

[VanillaRhapsody]

47. I didn't copy and paste the facts now did I?

Oh but ONE President does pass....epic fail....thanks for unproving your point! There are always exceptions to rules!

BTW I don't vote for Republicans.....I am a Democrat and the vast majority of Democrats seem to agree with me not YOU!

[muriel_volestrangler]

32. Obama figured strongly as soon as they included him in the polls in Oct 2006

(there was one appearance in a Dec 2005 poll - notice that Hillary did not have anything like the commanding lead she does have now:

NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll Dec 6–8, 2005 Hillary Clinton 26%, John Edwards 12%, Joe Lieberman 10%, John Kerry 9%, Barack Obama 7%, Joe Biden 3%, Wesley Clark 3%, Bill Richardson 3%, Evan Bayh 1%, Tim Kaine 1%, Mark Warner 1% )

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll Oct 27–29, 2006 Hillary Clinton 28%, Barack Obama 17%, John Edwards 13%, Al Gore 13%, John Kerry 12%, Evan Bayh 2%, Joe Biden 2%, Russ Feingold 2%, Bill Richardson 2%, Tom Vilsack 1%

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

Compared with the current results, that was always a tight race. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_Democratic_Party_2016_presidential_primaries

It's reasonable to ask who the alternative to HRC could plausibly be, by now.

[jeff47]

38. Because it's October.

Oh wait.

It's reasonable to ask who the alternative to HRC could plausibly be, by now.

How about not working so hard to hand the Senate to the Republicans instead?

There's an election in 3 months. The only effect of "Who if not Clinton?" at this point is to fracture the party before that election. Because even she isn't running yet.

There is plenty of time for us to decide on a nominee....after all, it's still two years until we do so.

[muriel_volestrangler]

39. Seems to me it's the incessant criticism of HRC that is more likely to fracture the party

She's very popular in the party, and pretty popular in the country too. That's shown by the poll figures. Wouldn't it be better to accept that, and concentrate on winning on Senate seats, rather than posts like the OP complaining that she's so popular? If someone else becomes a realistic contender, fine, there'll be a contest.

[jeff47]

40. And that criticism just "poofs" out of thin air.

Has nothing to do with people pushing her inevitability.

And I'm the tooth fairy.

Wouldn't it be better to accept that, and concentrate on winning on Senate seats, rather than posts like the OP complaining that she's so popular?

No, it would be better to shut the fuck up about 2016. Because you will be pissing off someone no matter which side you come down on.

Instead, you are arguing everyone must get behind Clinton now, and then we worry about 2014.

[muriel_volestrangler]

41. Big clue: 2016 is in the thread title

yet I don't see you telling the thread starter to shut the fuck up.

"Instead, you are arguing everyone must get behind Clinton now, and then we worry about 2014."

No, I'm not arguing that. I'm saying she's already popular, and people should stop obsessing about that.

[jeff47]

42. And this thread poofed out of thin air.

It isn't at all in response to a whole bunch of "inevitable" threads.

And besides being the tooth fairy, I'm also the Easter bunny.

No, I'm not arguing that.

Read your own post:

Wouldn't it be better to accept that, and concentrate on winning on Senate seats, rather than posts like the OP complaining that she's so popular?

Step 1: Accept that Clinton is super popular and bound to win the primary.
Step 2: Concentrate on 2014.

You weren't required to write the sentence in that order. Heck, you weren't required to say anything about having to accept Clinton's inevitability.

The dig in the end that everyone who objects to step 1 is a nice touch.

Please stop working so hard to hand the Senate to the Republicans in 2014.

[muriel_volestrangler]

44. You worry me. You complain about other people liking HRC, ...

...think that saying you should accept that it is true is the equivalent of saying that you should like her too (of course it isn't - better English comprehension needed on your part), and then accuse others of handing the Senate to the Republicans because you're complaining so much. You lack a sense of logic or reality. Get it together. And stop accusing me and others of working for the Republicans, just because I post poll results.

[cherokeeprogressive]

37. Since when are polls "proof" of anything at ALL?

Has every poll you've ever seen been correct? If not, what could they possibly be "proof" of?

[betterdemsonly]

31. Many polls have Rand Paul beating her.

particularly in swing states.

http://news92fm.com/437161/rand-paul-tops-hillary-clinton-in-2016-presidential-poll/

[MohRokTah]

34. A single state poll?

NEw Hampshire is a purple state, you realize that, right?

You've really got this thing for Rand Paul.

[leftynyc]

43. In one state? In one poll?

That's where you get rand can beat Hillary? That's pretty pathetic.

[TransitJohn]

36. What's the point of beating Republicans if you turn around

and implement their policies?

[blkmusclmachine]

2. No Choices For You Little People

Who Don't Matter

[on point]

3. If HRC really cared about the Dems she say now she isn't running

In order to provide air for other dem contenders to run

I think she cares more about her ambition to do this though

Win or lose she is a disaster for the dems

[Cayenne]

4. Contender has to knock the champ out

No challenger will, or should, get the same red carpet treatment the Queen gets.

[JoePhilly]

7. Apparently Hillary needs to provide them

with an alternative.

[demwing]

5. If you expect any different, better change your expectations...

It's not a new thing. Statists have been at it for long and long...

[SidDithers]

19. naturalnews.com...

They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. - Carl Sagan

Sid

[JoePhilly]

6. So Hillary supporters should provide you

with an alternative to your liking?

Find a viable alternative.

The years spent complaint about Obama could have been used to create that alternative.

Thinking ahead is critical.

[conservaphobe]

8. It's not HRC's fault her potential challengers are incompetent.

And her supporters have no responsibility to artificially elevate anyone else to her level.

[VanillaRhapsody]

13. If that is all it was....All the other Dems could show the same results...

got proof of THAT???


Of course you don't.....so you are just pulling that out of where the sun don't shine!

[RufusTFirefly]

9. You're going to vote for Hillary, and you're going to like it!

[VanillaRhapsody]

17. Or you could prove that you have an alternative candidate that is stronger....

[truedelphi]

10. Strange to know she has adopted the same basic strategy as the one used in 2008 n/t

[wyldwolf]

16. show us examples of this dismissal you speak of.

[Baitball Blogger]

24. Thirdwayers, locally, are ethically challenged individuals

who look for ways to benefit from the pack mentality that this political method fosters. In fact, calling it a political method is being kind. It is inducement through government malfeasance.

[sadoldgirl]

25. I was not really wishful to join this discussion,

but the HRC supporters are obviously out in strong force.

Whether it could be O'Malley, Feingold, Warren, Patrick, or anyone else, they would be dismissed as not having the same statistical lead as HRC shows RIGHT NOW.

I would like to point out again: a poll is a snapshot in time and

none of her supporters would like to give the same national name recognition to others. Not very democratic,me thinks.

She has NOT declared yet, she has just put herself into a bad situation for refusing to comment on the Ferguson situation,

she has criticized Obama's policies. Both of these items will not sit well with the black community (and not only those).

What will all her fervant supporters do, if she does not get the nomination, after they have dismissed everyone else?

politics can change due to situations in less than a week.

[BaggersRDumb]

26. But could any of them get Wall Street? Because until we fix campaign finance

If there is a race and only one of the two has Wall Street, the other loses for sure

remember how stupid most americans are, tell them a big enough lie often enough using billions of dollars and they could elect daffy duck

[sadoldgirl]

27. Thanks, at this point I will go for daffy duck! n/t

[Thinkingabout]

28. Hillary is dismissed and ridiculed on regular basis here, all statements are not true and easily

Proven to be false so don't think for a second she is getting a pass, even in this thread.

[mylye2222]

29. No. Its just the Fact That The 2016 campaign

has closed its doors even before opening.

[Thinkingabout]

30. Only in the minds of some people, let the games begin, the training portion has not happened. If

you have a candidate who is willing to run, the primaries are like pre-games, to tune up our candidates for the real show. We do not want the stupid run the GOP had last time, the OOPS moments.

[MohRokTah]

33. There will be several candidates. You can count on that.

You apparently understand little about how the American political process works at the national level. The real test is funding. If a candidate does not have a funding machine, that candidate is not viable.

Let's take Bernie Sanders, for example. Bernie is a great person. He'll have to become a Democrat to seek the nomination, but he can still seek it.

His problem, though, is funding. He has no machine in place, thus he will be incapable of competing with candidates who do have a funding machine in place.

This is why those who are potential candidates are being dismissed. Hillary Clinton is a funding juggernaut. Barack Obama was capable of bringing a funding juggernaut to the table to compete with her in 2008.

I simply do not see anybody with this sort of fund raising chops on the horizon. There will be many candidates, but none that bring the money to the table.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

35. Technically speaking, nobody has announced

however, it's clear that many Democrats consider her likely to run and I get the sense that if she announces, many of the potential contenders will gladly step aside for her. As for Sanders, Warren, etc., neither of them have announced if they are running either. As of right now, HRC is really the only person (so far) that seems likely to run (and win). That perception can change, of course, and Hillary may wind up being as "inevitable" in 2016 as she was in 2008 but it's hard to know unless she announces and somebody is actually going to run against her. I think that it's best to have multiple choices in an election but I get that there is some sense of it being "her turn" after losing in 2008 and, to be fair, it was a VERY CLOSE race. This is also a "historical factor" in that many people want to cast a vote for a woman for POTUS and Hillary is just the most likely woman to run (and win). Things change so fast in politics nowadays though, so who knows? I think that the current perception out there is that Hillary is the most capable candidate and she is sucking up all of the (political) oxygen out there right now. I hope that she (or others) announce soon because 2016 is not too far away- in political terms.