Hillary: how inevitable?

[MannyGoldstein]

39 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	As inevitable as last time.
	24 (62%)
	Even more inevitable than last time.
	10 (26%)
	Other (please explain)
	5 (13%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[99Forever]

1. K&R

[JaneyVee]

2. I would say more inevitable than last time, but...

Not totally inevitable.

[customerserviceguy]

74. The only chance she has of not running

is if something extremely embarassing about her (yeah, way more than what we already know) comes out, and she just says, "I'm simply going to be a grandmother from here on out." as her escape hatch.

I don't see any such thing like that happening in the next month or two, but given all the pies she's had her fingers in, it's not impossible.

[randome]

3. Who is going to run against her? No one is on the horizon right now.

Therefore, as of right now, she is inevitable.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]

[MannyGoldstein]

4. "as of right now, she is inevitable."

Great stuff.

[Thinkingabout]

7. Do you have a candidate who can beat Hillary, bring them on.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

10. Yes, Hillary beats Hillary. That's what scares me about her.

[Thinkingabout]

18. Just rest your weary heart, Hillary has it covered. Don't be afraid.

[moonbeam23]

54. Warren could...and even beat Jeb

As i said before:

She has the best astrological chart, much much better than Hillary...in fact, Obama had a much much better chart than Hillary and most astrologers predicted him as the winner because of that...

Let's all pray that EW sees the light and runs this time...2020 will be too late



But Jeb has a very strong chart and is very dangerous and extremely sneaky...i have been saying for 2 years that he is going to run and everyone laughs....i just hope to be wrong...

[JDPriestly]

58. Astrology aside. (Not a believer.)

Jeb Bush is the most likely Republican candidate. Republicans want more than anything to get elected, and he is the only Republican with the faintest chance of being elected.

Warren is much stronger than Hillary. It's a question of personality. Warren is far more appealing and down-to-earth. Warren is the one of all the candidates on any side that ordinary people can identify with and feel good about. And people vote based on what feels good.

Hillary is an uncomfortable person. Doesn't make ordinary people feel good no matter how hard she tries. There is a hardness about her even though she is probably a very nice person.

[Thinkingabout]

67. If Warren is going to beat Hillary or Jeb she is going to need to launch with a rocket launcher in

The polls.

[randome]

14. Every hour of every day is a potential change in the future.

How hard is that to understand?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[rhett o rick]

9. Yes and the oligarchs are jumping for joy. Goldman-Sachs are beside themselves.

Wall STreet supports the "inevitable" candidate and the conservatives are happy.

[randome]

12. Geeze, will you get off your crying horse?

I've said many, many times that I don't like Hillary. I would rather she not be President. But as of right now, there is no one who can run against her successfully. That's just a recognition of reality.

On edit: sorry, I read your post as 'you and the oligarchs' at first. No offense intended.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]

[rhett o rick]

15. I won't get off my horse and I will cry as loud as I can. "We don't need another Wall Street

candidate." The lower classes are dying and many Democrats are not worried and want to elect HRC. We need real change.

[randome]

16. Agreed. I wish we had more vibrant candidates to choose from.

With the GOP base beginning to die off, now is as good a time as any to 'go for the jugular'. I wish someone would.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[rhett o rick]

19. I agree. I don't mean to aim my frustration at you. Looks like we can't stop

the slide into poverty for the 99%. I volunteer at a foodbank. Need is up and donations are down. Children in this country, and lots of them, go to bed hungry and yet ISIS is our top priority.

[RKP5637]

79. I would love to see Warren as president, she well might be the radical change this country needs.

I just do wonder if her political machine is strong enough for her to win, just don't know, just wondering.

[rhett o rick]

84. She will have an uphill battle. All the big money will be behind H. Clinton. nm

[Thinkingabout]

20. Yep, Wall Street has supported Warren

[rhett o rick]

29. Are you trying to say that Sen Warren is as beholden to Wall Street as the Clintons?

And I thought it was Wall Street that successfully got her eliminated as a candidate for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

I would be surprised if Sen Warren accepts personal payments from Wall Street like HRC.

The Clintons fit nicely into the American Aristocracy.

[Thinkingabout]

36. She has accepted campaign donations from corporations, she has already said she has, don't

Forget they donate to be remembered later, this is the way campaigns operate.

[cascadiance]

45. She's not been a good "investment" if you REALLY think she's beholden to them...

Do you think Clinton would talk about Larry Summers like this?

http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2014/04/29/stunning-quote-larry-summers-to-elizabeth-warren-in-2009-insiders-dont-criticize-other-insiders/

Stunning Quote – Larry Summers to Elizabeth Warren in 2009: “Insiders Don’t Criticize Other Insiders”

Michael Krieger | Posted Tuesday Apr 29, 2014 at 11:52 am

A couple of weeks ago, Princeton and Northwestern released a very important study that proved statistically what many of us already knew about the American political process. It is nothing more than an oligarchy.

It’s one thing to read an academic study showing how cancerous the political system is, it’s quite another to hear a description of how things work from one of the biggest crony weapons of mass societal destruction himself, Mr. Larry Summers.

A recent review in the New York Times of Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren’s new memoir “A Fighting Chance” recalls a stunningly despicable quote by Summers. In the spring of 2009, when the banker handout, I mean bailout, was a heated topic of discussion, Elizabeth Warren attended a dinner with Mr. Summers who at the time was the director of the National Economic Council and a top economic adviser to President Obama. This is what transpired:

After dinner, “Larry leaned back in his chair and offered me some advice,” Ms. Warren writes. “I had a choice. I could be an insider or I could be an outsider. Outsiders can say whatever they want. But people on the inside don’t listen to them. Insiders, however, get lots of access and a chance to push their ideas. People — powerful people — listen to what they have to say. But insiders also understand one unbreakable rule: They don’t criticize other insiders.
...

[rhett o rick]

51. But HRC has accepted money for her personal bank account from Wall Street. There is a difference.

Since you won't tell us your opinion, here is mine. HRC is a very good friend of Wall Street while Sen Warren has been a pain in their side many times.

I guess if you choose Wall Street over the 99%, H. Clinton-Sachs is your candidate.

[Thinkingabout]

81. HRC record does nit agree with you, yes HRC is in demand for speaking engagements and yes she

Gets paid for those engagements, both EW and HRC has campaign donations from Wall Street and they do not mind collecting on those donations. Go check on HRC stand on the issues, I have posted the link several times for you, it is listed.

[rhett o rick]

82. I've seen and commented on that list. Most of it is pure rhetoric and some is pure

nonsense. You don't honestly think she supports the 99% over Wall Street, do you? Have she ever said a bad word about the corruption of Wall Street? She is an American Aristocrat and has been rumored as saying "let them eat cake-ums"

[Thinkingabout]

94. I guess you call votes in Congress nonsense and rhetoric, then proof may not be enough.

I guess you need more so here goes:


Outraged at CEO compensation
[In Bill’s cabinet, Labor Secretary] Robert Reich was gladdened by Hillary’s passionate condemnation of corporate-executive compensation. “These are real issues, Bill,” she said, pointing out that the average CEO of a big company “is now earning 200 times the average hourly wage. Twenty years ago the ratio was about fort times. People all over this country are really upset about this.”
Source: For Love of Politics, by Sally Bedell Smith, p.220 Oct 23, 2007


Stop bankruptcies to get rid of pension responsibilities
The pension system is broken. We’ve got to stop companies going into bankruptcy in order to get rid of their pension responsibilities. We have to have defined benefits pension plans again. When I am president, we’ll have a Department of Labor that actually cares about labor.
Source: 2007 AFL-CIO Democratic primary forum Aug 8, 2007




Enough with corporate welfare; enough with golden parachutes
Let’s finally do something about the growing economic inequality that is tearing our country apart. The top 1% of our households hold 22% of our nation’s wealth. That is the highest concentration of wealth in a very small number of people since 1929. So let’s close that gap. Let’s start holding corporate America responsible, make them pay their fair share again. Enough with the corporate welfare. Enough with the golden parachutes. And enough with the tax incentives for companies to shift jobs overseas.
Source: Take Back America 2007 Conference Jun 20, 2007


Close lobbyists’ revolving door; end no-bid contracts
I believe that the foundation of a strong economy doesn’t begin with giving people who are already privileged and wealthy even more benefits. I think it comes from shared prosperity.
Let’s start by cleaning up the government, replacing this culture of corruption and cronyism with a culture of competence and caring again. Let’s stop outsourcing critical government functions to private companies that overcharge and underperform! Let’s close the revolving door between government and the lobbying shop, and let’s end the no-bid contracts for Halliburton and the other well-connected companies!

And how about the radical idea of appointing people who are actually qualified for the positions that we ask them to hold for us! Well, when I’m president, the entrance to the White House will no longer be a revolving door for the well connected, but a door of opportunity for the well qualified.

Source: Take Back America 2007 Conference Jun 20, 2007


Companies get rewarded with hard-working people left hanging
So many of us grew up with what I call the basic bargain: If you worked hard and if you played by rules you’d be able to build a better life for yourself and your family. Well, I don’t think in the last six years our country has actually been living up to that basic bargain. The leadership here in Washington seems to ignore middle class and hardworking families across our country. Under this president’s leadership household debt has soared, healthcare costs have skyrocketed, assuming that you have it. Wages have remained stagnant. Now corporate profits are up. And productivity is up, which means Americans are working harder than anybody in the world, but we’re not getting rewarded. I’ll tell you who is getting rewarded. Companies like Halliburton are getting rewarded with no-bid contracts, then they move their CEOs across the ocean to another country and leave us hanging right here at home.
Source: 2007 IAFF Presidential Forum in Washington DC Mar 14, 2007

[rhett o rick]

104. While campaigning in 2007 she told the unions that she was "Outraged at CEO compensation."

I am not surprised. I think at the same time Obama said he would close Gitmo and repeal the Patriot Act. It's called campaign rhetoric.

How does H. Clinton feel today? I think it was in Dec 2013, where her and Bill were invited to dine with the banksters. A party held by none other than Goldman-Sachs for the American Aristocracy. HRC gave a short speech.

"What the bankers heard her to say was just what they would hope for from a prospective presidential candidate: Beating up the finance industry isn’t going to improve the economy—it needs to stop. And indeed Goldman’s Tim O’Neill, who heads the bank’s asset management business, introduced Clinton by saying how courageous she was for speaking at the bank. (Brave, perhaps, but also well-compensated: Clinton’s minimum fee for paid remarks is $200,000)."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/12/wall-street-white-house-republicans-lament-of-the-plutocrats-101047.html#ixzz3G2IVyjeX

HRC sure didn't tell the bankers that she was "Outraged at CEO compensation" or any of the other statements mentioned above. Of course, had she, she probably wouldn't have been rewarded with $200,000 for her personal fortune. I think Bill got $200,000 also.

I am disappointed with people that think HRC supports working people. How much more obvious does she have to be?

Maybe some like the idea of being ruled by the American Aristocracy and vote us into an oligarchic run government.

[Thinkingabout]

111. Are you willing to have a candidate run on their record or with things said today?

Future behavior can be determined by past behavior and I don't think you want to go there.

[rhett o rick]

112. What? You want to dismiss what she says she stands for today? She stands with the banksters.

And the schtuff you posted wasn't her record, it was campaign rhetoric.

[Thinkingabout]

117. Are you having a hard time admitting HRC has the best record, has the experience and is qualifird

to run for any office she wants. Your denial of facts does not disqualify any candidate. What good would be to HRC to fabricate her voting record and statements she has made when it could easily be disproved. Rather than saying it is campaign rhetoric, prove them wrong.

[rhett o rick]

121. There is a huge difference between voting record and campaign rhetoric. When you posted the list

with items like, "Outraged at CEO compensation." That is not considered part of her voting record. It's what she told union members during a campaign. It isn't even a direct quote and no link. It would mean more if she said that one of her $200,000 per hour luncheons with Goldman-Sachs (one of the worst of the worse).

[Thinkingabout]

122. Hillary on the issues has the voting record and statements she has made, prove them wrong.

BTW, did you read to the end of each statement, if you had read the complete post you would have found the source. But just to help you again here is the link to Hillary on the issues and the site has further references providing more information. Where are your links proving what you are saying.

[rhett o rick]

154. Tap dance all you want, HRC does not represent the 99%. Why you want so very hard

to believe otherwise is a mystery.

[Thinkingabout]

155. I have not been tap dancing, I have provided you proof but still waiting for you to provide your

proof of your statements. Give me a valid link, if you are right then spit the link. She was an advocate for Civil Rights, do you consider the people she was advocating for to be the 1%? The mystery is in your corner.

[MannyGoldstein]

73. Warren and Hillary: two peas in a pod.

[hrmjustin]

5. I think she will flat out win.

I think a primary is good and should be good for the party. If Hillary does not win i will completely and wholeheartedly support our nominee. While i have doubts another Democratic candidate other than Hillary can win the presidency i think a primary is a good thing.

[rhett o rick]

11. If HRC is inevitable, why would a primary be a good thing? Maybe make Democrats think they actually

get to participate? We need change and HRC will bring less change than Obama. The lower classes can't survive 8 more years of conservative rule. Spending all our money on war and cutting social safety nets.

[hrmjustin]

17. And your opinion is shared by a good number in our party and a primary is a good

way to discuss and hash these ideas out. Nothing is certain here.

[rhett o rick]

22. Don't misunderstand me. I want a lively primary. I wan't Sen Sanders to explain to the country that

the leaders of the Democratic Party have sold-out to Wall Street. We need a populist movement within the Democratic Party and I am hoping Sen Sanders can start it.

[hrmjustin]

23. And if he or Warren I think we as a party will be better served.

I think Brown of OH should run as well.

[rhett o rick]

30. I agree that that would make it lively. nm

[NYC_SKP]

156. They say "a primary is good because it will provoke discussion", or similar. I don't know.

A primary is a chance for candidates to challenge one another, sure.

And Warren or Sanders could challenge Hillary in a debate to take a stand one way or another, but she can craftily dodge the question or, once in office, fail to come through.

People, whomever they are, just don't change because of their opponents in a primary.

About all we get is that the topic "might" be discussed but then with the media and the parties controlling the debate questions, we often never see the hard questions asked.

No, I'm afraid that the good thing about a primary, and it's original intent, is to level the playing field and give voters a chance to select the best candidate.

If that candidate turns out to be the one with the most name recognition, then we are in trouble.

But then that has happened before, Bush II didn't win on his merits.

Primaries, now is the time for all the talent to step up and be counted.

[cantbeserious]

6. Nothing In Politics Is Inevitable

eom

[LawDeeDah]

8. The first inevitable was a beta. This one is for realz: Inevitable 2.0

[SheilaT]

13. Just as inevitable as last time.

That's why we're in the 6th year of a Hillary Clinton Presidency, right? Because she was inevitable in '08, remember?

[Thinkingabout]

25. Where is your candidate who can beat her?

[onehandle]

21. If she runs, she will win the nomination this time.

Last time Obama was a known quantity.

This time there is nobody, absolutely nobody who can beat her.

Elizabeth is not running. Bernie is not a Democrat and could not beat her even if he was.

The best bet to beat her is Biden, and that is highly unlikely.

Note: If. She. Runs.








Yeah, she's running.

[cascadiance]

28. Sounds JUST like the conditions BEFORE Obama announced then!

Everybody THOUGHT they KNEW the future then too! Funny how they tend to forget their lack of omniscient certainty!

And the corporate media also doesn't mind the rumors on Biden too... He helped them pass their bankruptcy bill then, he'll be a good second corporate choice after Hillary.

[onehandle]

38. I see a lot of words there, but no names.

Who can 'stop' Hillary who might run?

Not endorsing anyone, btw. Yet.

[cascadiance]

41. The question isn't if she's inevitable.. But WHY should ANYONE be "inevitable" at this point?

It is not a time to call ANYONE inevitable. It couldn't be done in 2008, and I would submit it can't and shouldn't be done now!

People should realize that whoever keeps making this a meme has a huge financial special interest in her being "inevitable", and THAT is why this whole line of thought gets started.

In the case of the Republicans, they know pretty much all of them are bought and paid for and that we won't get an Eisenhower or Teddy Roosevelt getting nominated in 2016. So they aren't worrying about trying to "rig" (as Elizabeth Warren aptly describes things there) the process to get someone they favor nominated.

They probably don't also mind distracting people from worrying about the election in a few weeks that we need to get people to vote for now. BTW people in Oregon. You have two days until the 14th to get people registered to vote here! DO IT now with those that you know need coaxing to do it.

[SheilaT]

66. Among my several fears about her, is that if

she does get nominated, she will be destroyed in the general election. I don't think the Hillary supporters here understand the depth of the hatred for her out there in the real world. And I've seen the claim that she'll be invulnerable because she's faced just about every possible slam already. Don't fool yourself. The other side will dredge up or make up entirely new stuff, and not a single bit of the old stuff will go away. By the end of the campaign even her own mother wouldn't want to vote for her.

But more to the point, she's not a genuine progressive, she's been inside the power structure for far too long, does not do a good job of standing up for us ordinary people.

Elizabeth Warren would beat her handily. I sincerely hope that Warren decides to run.

Biden isn't going to run. He really is too old.

And back in '08 all of the Hillary supporters were saying over and over again she was the only one who could possibly win. Nothing important has changed since then. Except that she actually has more baggage than she did six years ago.

[onehandle]

72. Do you think they hate her more than a black President?

Nope.

The racist GOP machine went with their hated of ten percent of the population, 95% of which votes Democratic.

It will be harder for the machine to attack 51% of their own base, women.

Oh, they will attack her. But who can beat her?

[SheilaT]

83. They hate her every bit as much.

And don't for one minute assume that all women will automatically vote for her. There are Republican women who aren't convinced that the 19th amendment was a good idea.

A good percentage of them will automatically vote for the Republican, whoever that may be.

Trying to demand who can beat her is stupid and pointless. We are more than two freaking years away from the election. Let's start by electing as many Democrats as possible next month. Then, and only then can we consider turning our attention to the next election.

Hillary Clinton is not the only possible Democratic nominee out there. In 2007 and early 2008 almost all we heard here was how Hillary is Inevitable. Did you not notice that she did not get the nomination that time? Why in the world are you so blithely assuming it will all be different this time? What do you think has happened that makes her a better candidate now?

[GeorgeGist]

24. Double-plus inevitable.

[Fumesucker]

98. ++

[cascadiance]

26. Shame, shame! Manny, you shouldn't be distracting us from 2014 election now!

We need to stay focused on that and not worry now about 2016!

[DontTreadOnMe]

27. This post will look foolish if she does win...

she is not my choice... but she IS AHEAD of everyone else in the polls.

[wyldwolf]

35. It looks pretty silly now.

[Logical]

85. Only for Hillary fans. Nt

[wyldwolf]

86. only for everyone.

[Logical]

89. Hillary managed to lose a 20 point lead in 2008, I am confident....

She can do it again!

[wyldwolf]

90. which would still put her substantially ahead of her closest challenger.

[Logical]

91. LOL, like in 2008? nt

[wyldwolf]

92. LOL, no, like in 2016

[Logical]

93. Explain 2008 please! Nt

[wyldwolf]

95. No!

[Logical]

96. Keep dreaming! Nt

[wyldwolf]

97. dreaming about what?

[Logical]

103. Make believe is FUN! nt

[wyldwolf]

105. your name is quite ironic. LOL.

[Logical]

106. We will see in about a year who looks really clueless! nt

[wyldwolf]

107. yes! we! will!

[JoePhilly]

128. Think she doesn't remember ... think she'll ignore the caucus states?

Think she won't plan past February?

If so, you live in a dream world.

[questionseverything]

133. that will be the big difference

not that she will win in caucus states but that not as many states do caucuses now...probably by design

[JoePhilly]

135. Its unlikely anyone is going to sneak up on her this time around.

[questionseverything]

136. sadly u r probably

correct

[JoePhilly]

138. Folks should have spent more time trying to create alternative candidates.

Its not like we didn't know she'd probably run again back in 2009.

[Logical]

139. LOL, you people crack me up. nt

[LawDeeDah]

60. yes, I did hear she is way ahead of the poles.

[dsc]

31. By any reasonable measure she is in a posiition that she is immensely likely to win

She is, in terms of name recognition, the equivalent of an incumbent. She is not only over 50% but way over 50% in every poll and has a very large lead over her next challenger in those polls. In comparison the last time she was in the high 40's in her best polls and in the low 40's in most polls. She did have a significant lead over her next best challenger but not as big as the one she has now. Last time she kept the people she had and added a very small number but still had less than 50% and thus lost. This time she could lose a significant fraction of those who say they will vote for her and still be over 50%. It is highly unlikely that we will find out something about her now, that we don't know, that would be a deal breaker for enough people to make her lose. That leaves the only option that someone comes out of nowhere and gets not only every single person who isn't thinking of voting for her but about half the people who are thinking of voting for her. I can think of no race in which that has happened or even come close to happening.

[sadoldgirl]

32. The question coming up then

If she gets the nomination and loses to Jebbie will the left be blamed? Or would it be just possible that the party could admit to having chosen the wrong candidate for the present times?

Oh well, I think I know the answer, never mind.

[wyldwolf]

37. Why do you think she loses to Jeb?

[cascadiance]

39. Probably the same reasons you think that Warren would lose to him...

[wyldwolf]

40. There are polls showing Clinton stomps Jeb

How does Warren fare against the GOP field?

[cascadiance]

42. Just the person that the corporate media running those polls want to push!

I'm betting that Warren would stomp Jeb too! But corporate interests aren't going to give us the poll to reinforce that outcome are they?

[wyldwolf]

50. oh, you subscribe to the Mitt Romney school of polling

[cascadiance]

61. So... You think that I follow a belief of Romney that Warren might stomp Jeb Bush?...

... Please explain the logic of your response here.

[wyldwolf]

62. you just professed a belief polls are rigged. Mitt Romney, 2012.

[cascadiance]

64. So... You think that I believe that a "liberal media" has the polls rigged against corporatists?

... like Romney may have? Or are you trying to say that Romney and I both believe that there's a risk of corporate media rigging the polls more and that YOU believe that the media is more liberal and wouldn't allow that to happen? Trying to understand your "logic" here...

[wyldwolf]

65. "corporate media running those polls want to push!" - You believe the polls are rigged. Romney, 2012

[cascadiance]

68. So... Are you saying that Romney believes that the *CORPORATE MEDIA* had the polls rigged?

... against him?

You aren't very clear! And if you are going to make a claim like that, which it is hard to determine from your response, then publish a link to support your notion here (whatever that really might be).

[wyldwolf]

69. Romney and his ilk claimed the 2012 polls were rigged against him. You're denying that happened??

You're denying Romney and his merry band of conservatives floated the meme polls were rigged against him??

[cascadiance]

70. How does that have ANYTHING to do with what I said!?

I said the system was rigged so that the corporate media put polls out that support their candidates. They run a poll on whether people want Hillary as president or not, but not whether they want Warren or not. And they talk a storm up on how Hillary is inevitable, but they hardly mention any kind of notion that Warren might be running, only efforts to say that she isn't running. I didn't say that the poll itself was rigged, as you imply I am saying, but the system that gives publicity to Clinton maybe winning, that could perhaps just as easily be made to work for someone like Warren if a poll was done on her but isn't is rigged. And I claim that is because they are controlled by corporate interests. Please explain how that is like Romney's logic and tell me how he believes the corporate media is controlled by corporate interests and rigged to support their interests.

You make NO sense dude!

[wyldwolf]

71. You said the media is pushing one person in particular. That they're rigging the polls.

Your tap dancing is hysterical.

I said the system was rigged so that the corporate media put polls out that support their candidates.

And Romney's camp claimed the system was rigged so that the corporate media put polls out that supported Obama.

[cascadiance]

76. If they know that real UNRIGGED polls support THEIR candidates (Clinton)...

... then how is that saying that the POLLS ARE RIGGED! If they selectively choose to only run polls on their candidates (Clinton), then that is NOT saying the polls are rigged, but it is saying the system is rigged, if they selectively choose to only do polls on who they want in office.

Romney was claiming the polls were rigged themselves (if I gather your notion that you don't choose to post any links to support). That is NOT the same thing!

[wyldwolf]

77. Simple. The polls are not rigged.

Romney, 2012: Polls are rigged against Romney
cascadiance, 2014: Polls are rigged against everyone but Clinton.

[cascadiance]

123. So, just NOT having a poll on a someone is "rigging that poll"....

Rigging a poll (doctoring results, etc.) is one thing.

Rigging a SYSTEM (NOT a poll... I guess I have to repeat myself in an effort for you to either understand or accept that you've lost this debating point), where you choose to run polls only on certain individuals is rigging the PROCESS for who has polls published about them, NOT who rigging the process of the poll itself to have one person get poll results that aren't accurate.

Romney was complaining about the poll itself being "rigged" (even if he might be wrong). I was complaining about the PROCESS being rigged which has news stories as well as polls focused on Clinton now instead of other potential contenders and trying to make her sound inevitable by what is written in those articles (not what was "doctored" in any poll whether it was on Clinton or someone else, which you are FALSELY implying I'm saying here).

That's enough for me in this BS discussion. It is clear that if you can't understand my response this time, either your brain is missing a few gears, or you are paid to continue to deny anything that in reality rebuts your statements.

[wyldwolf]

124. evidence "the process is rigged"?

[cascadiance]

125. I've always stated that it is my BELIEF that it is rigged...

I don't need to "prove" that to be the case, for me to have a belief that it is. Possible evidence? The process also appeared to be rigged before in 2008 to try and anoint Clinton then as the "inevitable" too, but that didn't quite work out the way they predicted it would now did it! The CORPORATE controlled media continues to be consistent with that strategy. And it's not hard to understand why they might pick someone who's a fan of getting us in to wars, pro H-1B Visas, pro-TPP, and a former board member of WalMart to be a better choice of theirs than Ms. Warren or Bernie Sanders.

[wyldwolf]

132. and that belief isn't based on evidence?

[cascadiance]

141. It's believed on by the FACT that most of our media is owned by a handful of corporations!

And many other things, that if you really do believe in what most Democrats and other progressives like Thom Hartmann are saying, that the media is biased in a CORPORATE direction, and not a "liberal" direction the way the REPUBLICANS keep trying to tell us. You aren't trying to tell us that the mainstream media isn't owned and the message largely friendly towards corporate interests are you? You don't believe in such Republican beliefs do you?

I take that FACT (which in my book is evidence), and the FACTS that Hillary Clinton is more in favor of the corporate stances on issues such as:
1) H-1B Visas
2) TPP, NAFTA and other so-called "free trade" agreements
3) in more support of military action to solve problems (that our corporate military industrial complex loves)
4) has a corporate friendly job in being a board member of WalMart.

I think I mentioned this EVIDENCE that you ignored in a previous post here in this thread. I won't repeat it again!

I think I have plenty of support listed here to justify that *belief* of mine. Can I prove that they are intentionally favoring Clinton in their coverage in a court of law? No. But I have plenty of supporting facts to support my beliefs along with the constant coverages in both 2008 and now trying to anoint Hillary Clinton as the already nominated candidate of the Democrats, that some seem to want to have bypass the democratic process that they find inconvenient for themselves.

[wyldwolf]

143. which doesn't prove polls are being rigged!

What corporation owns the Marist Poll? What corporation owns Pew?

[cascadiance]

145. I DID NOT SAY THE POLLS WERE RIGGED!

Are you REALLY that hard of hearing, or are you so blatantly on the dole for denying someone's arguments that you continue to deny what I'm saying or lying about what I am saying.

Definitions:

1) Rigging a poll -

Doctoring the RESULTS of a poll to have them not reflect real statistics of what they are supposed to represent, on a person, an issue, or whatever. I have NEVER said the polls were rigged in THIS fashion, which most in the world would accept as a definition of "rigging a poll". I challenge you to find a place where I said this. You continue trying to claim that I AM saying they are rigged FALSELY! Stop it!

2) Rigging a SYSTEM! -

SYSTEM != POLL

A system can be many things besides a poll, despite your efforts to equivalence them in an effort to characterize my posts. My contention is that the SYSTEM, the SYSTEM being how our media is owned and controlled by corporate interests, is what is rigged. And as I noted before, that can be in many areas, and there are a lot of arguments that the media being consolidated to only a handful of corporations has us hear a biased message. I'm not about to get in to that epic discussion as that is a separate discussion thread that I don't have time for. If you take the side that the corporate media who determine what content we get, including what polls are run, aren't biased by this corporate control, then YOU are in a minority here on Democratic Underground, and are represent more the interests of corporations and the Republicans. You still try to avoid answering this question, but if you do acknowledge it, then you acknowledge my arguments here in reality, not your distorted unreality!

[wyldwolf]

146. YES YOU DID! lol!

[cascadiance]

147. I guess wyldwolf doesn't understand what constitutes poll rigging! GOT IT!

No need to explain to me any more how corporate media only do polls all day and don't do anything so that poll rigging is the same thing as systemic rigging on their part. You got that misunderstanding down pat! lol!

[wyldwolf]

148. Just referring to your words.

[cascadiance]

149. I am too...

The statement I made at the top that had you going down this useless diatribe conspiracy theory on your part was:

"I'm betting that Warren would stomp Jeb too! But corporate interests aren't going to give us the poll to reinforce that outcome are they?"

How does this NOT conform to my notes that the corporate media would AVOID providing us a poll showing that Warren would beat Jeb Bush? Do you even know how to read? I did NOT say that the corporate media would provide us such a poll and rig it so that she wouldn't be shown to beat him.

My contention was then and has always been that the corporate media AVOIDS TALKING ABOUT Senator Warren in the same way they talk about Clinton, because they favor Clinton.

Now please explain for me any ounce of intelligence you might have that would make the case that them avoiding doing a poll or publishing it about Warren is "rigging that poll". If they rigged that poll, then they'd be more inclined to publish something that would fit their notion that Warren wouldn't beat Bush. And they would air as much information on Warren as being a potential candidate as they would on Hillary.

[wyldwolf]

150. then we agree. You think the polls are rigged for Hillary - the same way Romney whined about polls

[cascadiance]

151. That's it.. Your continued CRAP that you spew about me just earned you an ignore!

I don't usually ignore people on DU, but in your case I'm TIRED of trying to explain to an idiot who does not understand and keeps LYING that I'm claiming that the media is:

MANIPULATING POLL RESULTS TO FAVOR HILLARY CLINTON AND DISFAVOR OTHER CANDIDATES.

That is your claim when say I claim polls are RIGGED and continue to avoid understanding the english language that a poll is something that is done that is a PART of the media. To decide whether to run a poll or not is NOT rigging the poll itself.

There, I'm done with you!

[wyldwolf]

152. I'm only repeating your crap back to you.

[MannyGoldstein]

80. Next time, practice debate with these guys as a warm up

It will be very helpful. I should have done it, myself:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5657113

[sadoldgirl]

46. Don't get me wrong

I would detest Jebbie's win, but there seem to me several reasons for it:

After 8 years of a democratic presidency people might get tired of the party;
He is not the idiotic bungler like his younger brother,
and he is a Bush, yes, but not just a new face, but with a hispanic wife.

Maybe I am wrong, and since neither he nor HRC have declared, we may just have to wait for their reactions to a possible loss of the Senate majority in a few weeks.

[closeupready]

115. Perhaps if Jeb offers to double any tax cuts on the 1% Hillary end up proposing?

Because you know that the Republican is going to push that; Hillary will, too, just not as much.

Meanwhile, Sanders or Warren would not hesitate to push a tax HIKE on the 1%. THAT'S why the 1% is pushing for Hillary.

[MisterP]

56. if Jupiter gets smacked with a comet the left will be blamed

"you wanted butter before guns?! NOW YOU'VE DOOMED US ALL!"

[Andy823]

33. Another stupid poll

Nobody even knows who is running in 2016, yet we keep having these stupid polls about Hilary being "inevitable. All they do is stir things up and keep people fighting with each other. Hell just wait till we know who is running then discuss who is and who isn't "inevitable"! Till then these kind of polls are just useless.

[CK_John]

34. IMO, the outcome of the Senate elections will be a major factor in who runs and who doesn't.

This poll is about 3 weeks too soon. But...it may not be settled until Jan due to runoffs in Louisiana and Georgia.

[RobertEarl]

43. I want a ticket to the coronation ball

Where can I buy a ticket?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

44. These push polls are puerile./NT

[leeroysphitz]

47. I voted other.

Because I can't decide if Hillary is the most inevitable or the most inevitable EVER.

[brooklynite]

48. Once again: only the anti-Hillary people are using the word "inevitable"

[LuvLoogie]

49. Eau Gawd!!

How many of these are there going to be in the next two years? Let's do one on repealing the ACA next.

[orpupilofnature57]

53. Then the NSA .

[orpupilofnature57]

52. Defeat Anyone that can't prove they've put our interest ahead of their own, and

Bernie Sanders is an inevitability .

[Hippo_Tron]

55. Less inevitable if Elizabeth Warren runs

Very very inevitable if she doesn't.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

57. "The best laid schemes o' Mice an' Men, gang aft agley." Robert Burns

I'm hoping this is true of Hillary and Goldman Sachs.

[AnalystInParadise]

59. As inevitable

as the sun rising tomorrow. The decision was made on November 5, 2008

[whereisjustice]

63. The New Democratic Party and 3rd way believe she is Republican enough to win and smart enough

to toss a few meaningless platitudes to liberals to keep them interested in defending her. This will preventing a populist like Warren or Sanders from interfering with corporate influence over our government. The elite in both parties have determined that citizens are not capable of looking after a corporation's best interests. For the right price, $250,000 last count, Hillary is willing to tell liberals to shut the fuck up in that Rahm Emanuel sort of way.

[NaturalHigh]

75. Other: I really don't know.

I don't think she has as much momentum as she did before she got beat in 2008, but she still has the name recognition.

[mojowork_n]

78. voted other.....

....because she doesn't really excite anyone I personally know. No one.

And I know a lot of door-knocking, GOTV-type, true blue, committed, idealistic dems.

The only way I even think about voting for her is if the other side runs Mephistopheles, fresh risen from hell, still reeking of sulphur.(Like that'll never happen.)

[Douglas Carpenter]

87. obviously she is the front runner, of course. A progressive candidate could put up a very serious

and viable challenge. Hillary would still enter the situation well ahead and in the strongest position - But the emergence of a united progressive front which certainly could happen could stir up a lot of excitement and could alter that picture. Of course she is in the strongest position of any current likely candidate. But nothing is inevitable except death and perhaps taxes.

[baldguy]

88. As inevitable as last time.

But I seem to recall the whiny "progressives" were promoting a nobody 1st term Senator as the liberal champion to take her on & bring about The Glorious Leftist Revolution, even though the Democrats among us warned (actually, just noted) that Obama & Clinton really weren't that different.

Now the very same "progressives" are excoriating Obama using the very same language, about the very same issues they used against Clinton in 2008.

[chrisa]

99. She'll run in the primaries, but hopefully Democrats will choose a more suitable candidate.

[Xyzse]

100. I have no idea.

It isn't even after the mid-term elections yet.
Wait till you find the stand outs of this election, then I'll care more.

[JustAnotherGen]

101. [phone]

Adding - we don't even have a field of candidates yet!

[Peacetrain]

102. About as inevitable as one of these threads..

sigh...

[Marr]

108. I think she could be beaten by just about anyone, to be honest.

The economy is still a big problem, and people are as pissed as ever at Wall Street. If there really is another crash/bailout on the horizon, it could easily make HRC simply unelectable. She's the Wall Street candidate, and it would be very easy to frame her as such.

Her popularity is wildly overblown by her corporate/Wall Street funded hype machine, as we saw a couple of cycles back when the 'inevitable' Hillary lost to a relative unknown who had an easy time painting her as the business-as-usual insider, which she is.

[Progressive dog]

109. I used to do this on tea leaves

but for some reason, my predictions don't always come out right.
Anyway, per Yogi "the game isn't over until it's over."

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

110. Goldman Saks made a $400k bet on her chances.

[CoffeeCat]

113. I live in Iowa...

…and I saw how Hillary's inevitability helped her last time. I had front-row seats.

Hillary lacks the ability to truly connect and communicate with people. That doesn't fly in the run-up to the Iowa caucuses. We take our first-in-the-nation status very seriously. Candidates need to speak to small audiences, be authentic, answer questions, be open and appear in forums where Iowans have total access to you. We want to grill you. We want to see the whites of your eyes. We want you in our living rooms.

During the Democratic primary, I attended an Obama event. I was not sure who I was voting for and the organizer of the event listened to my concerns. The next day Barack Obama called me at home, and wanted to discuss why I was undecided. He wanted to know what my primary concerns were. We talked for ten minutes until his phone died (I know, right?!). He then called me back and we wrapped up the conversation. I ended up not only voting for Obama, but becoming a precinct captain for him.

Hillary, on the other hand, failed on all levels when she campaigned in Iowa.

She spoke at large events, rarely took questions and was very impersonal. She did organize a Q&A event, but it was discovered that the questioners were not Iowans, but her staffers asking scripted questions. That did not go over well.

It's why she came in third.

[ieoeja]

140. Everyone seems to forget that SHE CAN NOT WIN IOWA.

Can't happen. She does not connect at that level.

Good surrogates might help. But her surrogates are even worse than her. I'm not from Iowa. Were her caucus supporters as bad as her supporters online and her supporters among the professional are? Were they belittling and condenscending like these guys?

[Raffi Ella]

114. I find it so hilarious that DU who now hate Obama and

can't find one single thing to be happy about his Presidency are now using the fact that he won over Hillary in 2008 against HER. Jesus Christ.

I have all the empathy and patience in the world for The Left - I am a part of that group in my heart, I stand beside you with pride! But my god, if you really feel so strongly about not having Hillary as Our Nominee then you're going to have to do more than sit behind a keyboard and do what ever it is that you think you're doing here.

I believe she will indeed be Our Nominee. What are you guys going to do then? Because you won't be able to do this once she is, you know.

Sorry, I honestly understand where you're coming from but it's frustrating seeing these kinds of posts about Hillary day after day. I remember what the 2008 Primary was like and frankly, as a Hillary Supporter, I remain surprised that I survived them-

And by the way, Hillary Clinton is coming to GA soon to campaign for Michelle Nunn to help Us retain the Senate. THAT is what I'm concentrating on right now. I am just Happy and Grateful that Hillary can make a difference for Ga and for the Democratic Party right now and is trying her hardest to do so.

[JoePhilly]

129. They'll be complaining about President Hillary Clinton for 8 years.

That's what they will be doing.

They spent all of Obama's Presidency complaining about him, and NOT developing "better" candidates for 2016.

And they'll do the same from 2016 - 2024 after she wins.

[Logical]

144. The DU hates Obama? Please provide proof of this silly statement. nt

[AgingAmerican]

116. It's inevitable that she will run

Anything beyond that is speculation.

[woo me with science]

118. If Dems run Hillary,

it will be because the corporate PTB in both parties have decided it's time for a Republican.

[R.Quinn]

119. +1

[Jamastiene]

120. Is Biden going to run?

It would make more sense if he ran. Hillary has too many right wing tendencies, enough so that I went from supporter in 2008 to zOMG, that's awful by the end of her campaign.

[bigwillq]

142. I hope not.

We don't need the GaffMan in the White House for another 4 years.

[Jeff Rosenzweig]

126. "Manny": how repetitive? n/t

[brooklynite]

137. Well, in fairness, blog-posting the same point is a lot easier than actually finding a candidate...

[WinkyDink]

127. Uh..... What? HRC's nomination is a done deal. Period.

[tridim]

130. There is a 100% chance she will lose in November.

Focus, or not, Manny.

[LanternWaste]

131. Clinton, 2-1; Senator Marco Rubio, R-Fla., 6-1; former Flordia Governor Jeb Bush, 9-1

Sportsbook operator William Hill has made the former Secretary of State a 2-to-1 favorite. As of Monday, the odds to win the election were: Clinton, 2-1; Senator Marco Rubio, R-Fla., 6-1; former Flordia Governor Jeb Bush, 9-1; New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, 10-1; New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, 12-1; and Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., 16-1.

[frylock]

134. Seattle Seahawks, 66/1

[Smarmie Doofus]

153. Relentless, yes. Inevitable? About as much as last time. n/t