The demands for Hillary loyalty are loud and clear on DU.

[JDPriestly]

And many of them are accompanied by confessions that the demander is really wanting a more progressive candidate but has resigned him/herself to supporting Hillary out of fear that the only alternative to supporting Hillary is a Republican president.

Not so.

First. The nation will not become more progressive unless those of us who are progressive get our message out and struggle to make our message understood and accepted.

It took years of failure by the progressive movement of the late 19th century to finally result in the election of a couple of presidents who, for a short time, realized progressive policies. And then, the presidents who put those policies into action were not the most progressive possible. They were converts who became emboldened to progressive action by the pressure of the many, many Americans who demanded it.


But, the assumption that at this point, a year before the primaries, that we should all support the candidacy in the primaries of Hillary Clinton, perhaps one of the most right-wing among our potential candidates (if her donor base reflects her convictions), is based on what I believe to be a false assumption: that Hillary is the only potential candidate we have who can win in the general election.

That, may I say, is THE FALLACY OF THE INEVITABLE HILLARY.

First, although she is doing well in the polls, we have no assurance, no proof, not even much evidence that Hillary will survive the primary, much less win in the general election.

I was a child when Adlai Stevenson ran and ran again for president. He was a nice person running on a good platform, but he did not have the personality or charisma to win.

Later, in his first race for the presidency, Nixon lost. When he ran in 1968, Nixon played every dirty trick in the book to win against a candidate who would have made a far better president than Nixon did.

Nixon was viewed by many as inevitable. And the country was deeply divided and depressed by the Viet Nam fiasco.

Then, Democrats succumbed to the temptation of offering what they thought was the most electable candidate: a great guy and the heir apparent, former Vice President Hubert Humphrey.

Humphrey was a great guy, but he was the wrong candidate for the time. He could not separate himself from the establishment types running the Democratic Party.

In addition, the Democratic Party made a demon of itself with the treatment of demonstrators and war protestors at the Party's convention in Chicago. Voices that needed to be heard within the convention hall were excluded. And Democrats lost to a weak candidate, Nixon, in the general election.

We should not repeat those mistakes. We should allow all voices to be heard in the convention hall in 2016. And we should not mindlessly, emotionally nominate the inevitable heir apparent without a primary process that tests him/her.

We should not, at this point, assume that Hillary will be our candidate or that she will win.

We should be encouraging other candidates to stand up and run in the primaries. Primaries are not just popularity contests. They train and test the candidates. They help them hone their messages. They put candidates in the limelight and submit their personalities, their character, their ideas and their purposes to criticism and public appraisal. They help us choose our best candidate, put our best foot forward. Primaries are an essential part of the democratic process.

The assumption that Hillary will be our candidate may prove true. It may not. It is far too early to tell.

Hillary has a huge campaign fund. That is an advantage if you look at it from a superficial point of view.

But a huge campaign fund has to have come from somewhere. And that can be a trap for well funded candidates. Hillary is no exception. Her biggest donors include people who work for large financial institutions and major law firms as well as big corporations. Those donors will be scrutinized and examined inside and out. Their relationships with the Clintons will be analyzed and publicized. Their relationships with foreign countries and foreign interests will be analyzed and publicized. And their relationships with people who have sought or received favors or advantages from the Clintons will be analyzed and publicized. And what is discovered may be very unpleasant for Hillary Clinton. Maybe not. Maybe. It's one of the big unknowns in this election cycle.

Don't count your chickens before they hatch. We do not know who our candidate will be. It is too soon to start marching in goosestep with the brass Hillary band. She has a long trek to complete before she is nominated, much less elected.

So relax. Anything can happen between now and November 2016. Give all the primary candidates a good listen to and a good look at. 2016 is an important year. We don't want to mess it up. The future of the earth depends on our care in selecting our candidate.

[hrmjustin]

1. Demands? I don't see demands here.

I see debate.

[KamaAina]

4. Best. H Logo. Ever!

[hrmjustin]

9. Thanks.

[NYC_SKP]

68. Ooh. Your H> Doesn't know where that elephant has been!

I hope it's wearing protection!

[hrmjustin]

70. lmfao!

[leftofcool]

131. DUZY award right here folks!

Good one!

[merrily]

204. We got so much flack about laughing at the original logo's

looking as though Hillary was heading rightward, Sorry but this one looks as though she's headed into the elephant's butt.

[NYC_SKP]

208. you mean....

like head up butt?

Not hillary's head, mind you, it's just a possible interpretation.

I didn't make the graphic.

[merrily]

210. Well, if you assume the H is Hillary and the arrow is meant to show where she is heading......

I know you didn't make it.

P.S. How are you feeling/healing?

[NYC_SKP]

73. LOL how the elephant's rear feet are clean off the ground!

Now THAT's puttin' it to them!

[Beowulf42]

92. Ah, I remember.

I had a girlfriend like that once.

[Thor_MN]

147. It's just helping the elephant over the fence. Honest!

[truebrit71]

234. I think mine is better...

...but hey...maybe that's just me....

[KamaAina]

238. Nice!

Now if we could only get her to point to the left.

[truebrit71]

239. Indeed...

[lovemydog]

12. I see debate, demands, insults and dismissive rudeness

coming from all sides within the debates here. On the 'demands' part, well maybe it's not exactly demands, but there seems to be a lot of people sort of saying Hillary Clinton is the only chance the democratic party has to keep the White House. I won't decide fully on that until the primaries are over - and that's more than a year from now! So to me it seems pretty demanding for some to be dismissive of alternatives, over a year away from the party's nomination.

There's a lot of dismissiveness toward people like me who will vote for the democratic nominee for President, but who also have strong legitimate reasons for believing our country will benefit greatly by moving our economic policies further left, and for reducing military spending.

In all fairness though, there's a lot of dismissiveness coming from those further left as well, who just put down Hillary Clinton without even bothering to listen to her speak now, or who have the patience to wait and see what she proposes down the road.

I think it's an inherent tension in the democratic party, and I think it's a good kind of tension.

I just don't think people should be so rude and personally insulting toward one another here.

I guess it's just how a lot of people are, or how they choose to express themselves on the net.

Hope you see sort of what I'm trying to say. Have a good day!

[hrmjustin]

14. I understand what you are saying.

I notice myself that I have gotten more testy and need to dial it back.

[lovemydog]

20. Heheh, me too.

^T ^H ^A ^N ^K ^S

[hrmjustin]

21. .i love it.

[Rex]

45. Don't get too overworked so early on imo. Just think, this is the first week!

You will unravel yourself in a few months at this pace. I just decided to keep out of it, with maybe a little snark thrown in every few days.

There is just too much chum out there right now, gonna let the little sharks have at it. Wait for that one tasty whale to come along!

And you know it is coming...the closer we get to election zero hour, the closer a sleeper or newbie will show up to make us all remember why we all vote the same way.

[lovemydog]

57. I was just thinking about that too Rex.

With the general election a year and half away, it's amazing thinking of all the crazy things that can happen between now and then. Even though it looks today like Hillary Clinton is the inevitable democratic party nominee and I wish her well if she is (I wish her well if she isn't too) so many things can happen that we can't foresee.

At this time in 2007, I think most were saying it would pretty surely be Clinton versus Giulliani, if I'm not mistaken.

If Barbara Lee entered the race I'd jump on board that train. Much like I jumped on board the Barack Obama train as soon as I heard him speak.

We might as well relax and have fun here. Heck, I'm under no illusion that I'm going to change most anyone's mind, except maybe by being friendly toward most all here.

[hrmjustin]

71. Well said.

[leftofcool]

132. Or a troll from Free Republic.

You know they will be here. Good thing they are so obvious.

[Rex]

160. Probably will be a troll from the RWing blogosphere.

There is no way they will be able to stay away from HRC.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

53. Yes, but myself and I think you would never get testy or angry with someone who said

"I will work myself practically to a nervous breakdown to nominate and elect Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren"
















But, if neither are nominated I will support whoever the Democratic candidate is.

[1StrongBlackMan]

29. Well said. n/t

[H2O Man]

40. Right.

[QuestionAlways]

67. This is more fun then debating who my team should take

in the upcoming NFL draft.

[treestar]

103. I'd like the policies to go further left but the President does not do it alone

As usual people are blissfully unaware of who is even running for Congress.

[JaneyVee]

56. Me neither. OP needs to show evidence or admit lying.

[DesertDiamond]

196. That's sarcasm, yes? Bkz calling anyone with concerns about Hillary a "basher" is NOT a debate.

[hrmjustin]

199. That is one view.

You can also say that when someone posts something positive about Hillary they get stomped on.

[LordGlenconner]

201. Shhhhh...Don't ruin their persecution fantasy.

[hrmjustin]

212. lol.

[Jim Lane]

205. I see demands couched as false framing of the choices.

Criticism of Clinton is all too often met by comparing her to Republicans. Some Clinton supporters imply that if you're not for Clinton, right now, you must be for Cruz, Paul, or Rubio.

Yes, at the moment, the only declared major candidates are Clinton and three right-wingers. That's at the moment -- several months before the Iowa caucuses, even. It's patently absurd for Clinton supporters to say or imply that there are only four choices for President.

There are at least four other Democrats who've won statewide office (usually a prerequisite to being a serious Presidential candidate) and who've indicated serious interest in running. It's virtually certain (IMO) that at least one of them will run.

The time to compare Clinton to Cruz et al. is if and when Clinton is the Democratic nominee, or has commitments from more than 50% of the delegates. Right now she's a wee bit short of that figure.

[hrmjustin]

214. I have no doubt you can point to individual examples of what you said but...

... if you make a negative comment about Clinton you shoukd expect to be challenged.

When i post about Hillary in GD I expect to be challenged.

But sometimes people on both sides get defensive and testy.

I am guilty of this.

[Jim Lane]

232. I have no problem with that, but such challenges are not what the OP is about.

BTW, is there anyone who expects that a negative comment about Clinton in GD would go unchallenged? If so, I have some swampland in Florida I'd like to sell them.

You really don't need to expend much energy in warning people that there are DUers who support Clinton. Those of us who ever post negative comments about Clinton are perfectly well aware of that -- trust me.

My point is to disparage the all-too-common exchanges along these lines:
Comment - "Clinton shouldn't be our nominee because she's too hawkish on foreign policy."
Response - "It's vitally important that we elect Clinton because a Republican President would make horrible Supreme Court appointments."

See, that's not a challenge of the type you defend. It's a non sequitur. It's an implicit demand for loyalty pre-nomination based on the straw man that opposition to Clinton equates to support for a Republican. To me, that kind of logical flaw is a much worse problem than the occasional testiness (which, I agree, occurs on both sides).

[hrmjustin]

233. I expect to be challenged in GD.

That is why I post OPs in the HRC room.

[Martin Eden]

219. If you don't see what the OP is about, you are being willfully blind

The OP explained that real change won't come about unless the voting public demands it.

That is a vitally important concept about politics in this country that many don't seem to grasp or appreciate.

It really needed to be stated clearly, and getting that point across does not require a list of specific demands.

The OP goes on to make a very compelling case that a well contested primary is essential to success in the general election.

[hrmjustin]

224. I never said i was against a primary.

I invited said I don't see demands.

[Martin Eden]

226. Nor did I say you said that

The content of your post was a criticism of the OP based on its lack of specific "demands."

Given that, it was apparent to me you needed the concept of "demands" and the meaning of the OP explained to you.

[hrmjustin]

227. Lol.

You have a great day.

[Martin Eden]

229. You too!

[trumad]

2. Yawn

[bluesbassman]

24. We there you have it.

Pretty much a textbook example of the dismissive attidude shown by Hillary supporters such as yourself.

[CreekDog]

66. HA! 0-7 Jury vote to leave your post alone trumad

alerter is now forbidding from alerting for a period of time, thanks to that whiff.

[trumad]

82. alerted for the word yawn.

That made my night.

my alert stalker istill off his meds.

[XemaSab]

122. AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

On Wed Apr 15, 2015, 07:06 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

alerted for the word yawn.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6514049

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Sure, the alert on post #2 by Trumad was weak, but implying that someone must be mentally ill and off their meds is rude and disrespectful to the mentally ill. He won the jury alert easily with a 0-7 leave. There is no need to insult the alerter or slur the mentally ill.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Apr 15, 2015, 07:23 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Perhaps there needs to be enough emotional smarts not to rub salt into wounds on DU, if people want to be perceived as taking a higher road?
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: QED.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Sorry, I think this alert is just silly. Yes, it's rude to say "someone is off his meds", but since no one is named, and no one knows who the 'alert stalker' is, I don't think it needs to be hidden. I think it's fine for Trumad to reveal his own character for all to see.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: god, these flame wars have gone from annoying to sickening

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[trumad]

140. poor little alert stalker...

Can't win for nothin.

[Jim Lane]

207. Props to Juror #5 -- very good explanation! (n/t)

[NYC_SKP]

133. "his" meds???

now wait just a minute!!!

[fadedrose]

79. Jury results

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I'm ready to alert the admins that someone's attempting to harass trumad with this type of alert.

Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The OP is interesting and informative, well-written. The 'Yawn" should be left as it reveals more about HC's supporters not caring about facts or anyone else's opinions

Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Sorry, not going to hide a one word post that says "yawn". we have a yawning smiley ferchrissakes! Lame alert.

Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: you're kidding, right?

Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE Explanation: Yawn ! zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE

Explanation: No explanation given

[Martin Eden]

222. Wake up!

[lovemydog]

3. I gave you a big long reply in another thread.

I like your post.

It's kind of funny. The louder the demands from either side within our party, the more it turns me off.

Meanwhile, I just keep being myself. I believe in listening to all sides within our party. Especially the progressive side, which is the heart and soul of the democratic party. That includes democratic socialists like myself.

[JDPriestly]

52. Very wise. I am strongly on one side of the dispute about Hillary.

But the best strategy is to listen to everyone and stay calm. Thanks.

[Darb]

188. WARREN'S NOT RUNNING.

Did you hear that?

[Vincardog]

5. Well said and too true.

[Kingofalldems]

6. Get somebody to run.

I like both Hillary and Elizabeth but Elizabeth says she is not running.

So right now I am with Hillary all the way.

[hardcover]

129. Will you give Sanders a chance?

I'm for Sanders. He's in it for the people not for himself. We'll get truth from him. He could turn everything around for us. He's honest and independent, doesn't have to answer to the good old boys.

[VanillaRhapsody]

151. Perhaps if he had one...

[VanillaRhapsody]

7. Its not a demand...its just facts...

75% of Democrats support Hillary Clinton....like it or not.

[AtomicKitten]

22. 57% in polling two days ago

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7058088

[VanillaRhapsody]

23. In ONE poll....I can show you multiples....and consistency...

sorry!

Here is how she polls against all Democratic potentials...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html

[AtomicKitten]

26. LOL

I could show you other polling as well supporting the fact that her approval is in a downward trajectory trend, but I'm holding out for you to claim she has a 124% approval rating. Come on now, you know you want to say it.

[VanillaRhapsody]

28. I could also show YOU how she polls against the Republicans now...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/


Better put something stronger in that drink!

[AtomicKitten]

33. LOL

You are an endless font of entertainment.

[VanillaRhapsody]

34. yeah...LOL indeed I AM!

and you don't read...at least not polls that show your narrative is misplaced.

[onenote]

112. That poll raises more questions than it answers

First, the poll indicates that 57 percent of Democrats and "Independents that lean Democratic" would prefer for HRC to be the Democratic nominee. Only 25 percent of the combined group would prefer someone else.

Only 2 percent of Democrats and 3 percent of independents leaning Democratic say they'd be upset if HRC got the nomination, but a higher percentage of Independent leaning Democratic voters say they wouldn't be upset than Democrats (92 v. 87).

But what raises red flags about this poll are the answers to the question about who the respondents supported in the Democratic primaries in 2008. Although the popular vote in the Democratic primaries split very closely between Obama and Clinton (49-48 roughly), those polled clearly underrepresented those who supported HRC in 2008. One third say they didn't vote in the 2008 primaries at all, 49 percent say they voted for Obama, but only 11 percent said they voted for HRC. That simply doesn't make sense.

[AtomicKitten]

115. What is not disputable is the trending downward trajectory of her approval rating among Dems

Starting with her book tour which pretty much fell flat to today. She's more popular when she's out of the limelight as if people like the idea of her. It's when she gets out there and opens her mouth that her approval rating heads south. That's a huge problem for a political campaign. And she will go from zero to ugly at the first sign of competition, and we know how that kitchen sink strategy against a fellow Democrat went for her last time. That's why her advocates are trying to put the kibosh on the primary process.

[onenote]

116. I don't see that many people trying to put the kibosh on the primary process

What I see is no other candidate with a solid enough base of support to jump in the race at this point. Maybe they will. And maybe they'll overtake HRC. But it's hardly her fault, or that of those who support her, that no one else has declared yet.

For the record, I supported Obama in 2008. If there are other candidates that get into the race I will consider them. But the moment, since she's the only candidate, if asked what I would do in the 2016 election, my answer is simple -- vote for her (just as I would have voted for her if she, rather than my preferred candidate, had won the nomination in 2008).

But back to my post -- any thoughts on why the Huff poll is so clearly out of whack when it comes to the group polled -- how did they manage to get an almost exactly representative number of Obama 2008 primary supporters but fall more than 35 points shy on Clinton 2008 primary supporters?

[AtomicKitten]

117. I'm pretty useless when it comes to dissecting polls.

Standing alone, it is a single snapshot within the parameters set by polling policy. What does matter and what I follow is the trajectory of a trend over a given period of time. That is infinitely more reliable than a single poll. Hillary's numbers have been artificially inflated by name recognition, but as candidates declare and a field assembles, that's when rubber meets the road. That is almost certainly why Clinton advocates are suggesting she pass go and go straight to the general election. That privilege is for sitting presidents, not an open field. I guess they don't think she can stand the heat, but that's not how democracy works.

[VanillaRhapsody]

154. You are right and that is why I gave you the link to RealClearPolitics

It does the dissecting for you....

And you threw up ONE poll...that is not a trend. If you want trends....got to
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

[AtomicKitten]

161. here's the trend you are in denial about

[VanillaRhapsody]

162. That is ONLY Gallup polls my friend...

that is ONLY a trend in THEIRS



Here is the one of theirs YOU should be interested in...



now THAT's what is called a trend...

[MADem]

166. Ahhhh, yes, GALLUP!!!

Gallup is to Fairness Towards Democrats

like

Snowflakes are to Feces!

It's Romney over Obama in a walk!!!!



Generally speaking, Gallup always operates with a robust margin of error, and they offer up best-case scenarios for the GOP, and worst-case ones for the Dems. It's what they do!

[AtomicKitten]

170. Riiiiight. Your knuckleheaded kneejerk denial is impressive.

[MADem]

175. Your snarling resort to personal invective is, certainly!

Touchy, touchy!

[JDPriestly]

247. True, and people need to understand that.

A lot of Democrats don't get polled.

[AtomicKitten]

168. Why don't you do a teensy bit of research about assessing trends.

You are so predictable when it comes to data and evidence. No matter what is put in front of you, you stick your fingers in your ears and chant lslalalala. You are wrong, again.

[VanillaRhapsody]

169. No why don't YOU....I have done my homework...

and apparently it is YOU that sticks their fingers in their ears in the face of data. You seem to think one Gallup poll of ALL voters is a trend. However....right now we are working on the primary...and I showed you the polls (from Gallup mind you...YOUR source) that proves you wrong when it comes to favorablity among DEMOCRATS!!!

[AtomicKitten]

171. You are simply flat out incorrect.

[VanillaRhapsody]

172. No I am not....here you go...look again..

See that pale green (or yellow) line.....it proves you wrong!

And for good measure...lets look at why you are...

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/04/why-hillary-clinton-is-probably-going-to-win.html

[MADem]

178. The poster with whom you 'argue' (I use the word loosely, it's not a fair fight, you are winning in

a walk) apparently doesn't know the history or reputation of GALLUP at all. I can't imagine an informed Democrat using them to pull down a Democrat--it's like using the plantation owner's logic to justify slavery! OTOH, if GALLUP puts a Democrat in the catbird seat, as your graph does, that really means, given their bias, that he or she is King/Queen of the World!

It's kind of amusing. Surprising, really--I mean, who doesn't know how GALLUP leans?

I also got a dose of uninformed invective from that very individual!

[DrKZ]

194. incorrect

Actually that is NOT a trend since it is over a year old (note the date in 2014). And, it is before so much is going to be coming out about Secretary of State Clinton, her relationships to capital, her positions etc. A poll is ONLY a snapshot of a period of time. Given the fact that people tend to be party loyalists and the growing influence of independents in deciding an election (a general not the primary) even that year old polling data does not seem to be on a good trajectory.

[VanillaRhapsody]

197. its a trend showing historical data that contradicts

This persons belief that a single Gallup poll shows a trend....you might want to read the entire conversation before offering 2 cents...

[DrKZ]

252. I did read the entire thread ... I could go into detail but here is a response to your poll data

Actually I have read the entire post and you are still not showing trends even in the Real Clear Politics poll there are all sorts of statistically trends that would counter what you are implying. First and foremost http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2014/Info/polling-faq.html This means that the people who are being called are older (that means something) ... secondly you ought to be looking at 538 for a meta analysis even at this early date http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-begins-the-2016-campaign-and-its-a-toss-up/ and if you even look at the PPP analysis for their latest poll they do say she has had and I quote "On the Democratic side Hillary Clinton has one of her weaker recent polling performances, getting 45% to 23% for Elizabeth Warren, 12% for Bernie Sanders" as other candidates announce and as the campaigns will begin in earnest the polls will change ... The polls mean not much right now ... I recall in 2007 in April (and I did check the data) "All opinion polls in April 2007 showed Clinton as the Democratic frontrunner, however with different margins: Obama was listed in third place nationwide with 17% and John Edwards in second place with 19% behind Clinton with 41%" that seems to be very similar to right now. Well, except that Elizabeth Warren is not campaigning and Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat (he caucuses with Democrats).
As problematic as her candidacy was for the 2008 election it is even more problematic now ttp://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/20/1372118/-Democratic-Support-For-Hillary-Clinton-Drops-15-Points-Poll-Shows ...

[VanillaRhapsody]

152. One poll does not a trend make....but you know that

Now the link I showed....DOES show trends...

[AtomicKitten]

165. here's a trend for you

Read it. It rebuts almost everything you claim about approval ratings and support.

Hillary is More Vulnerable in 2016 Than You Think
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/10/upshot/hillary-clinton-is-more-vulnerable-in-2016-than-you-think.html?referrer=&_r=0

[VanillaRhapsody]

174. And here is one for you...

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/04/why-hillary-clinton-is-probably-going-to-win.html



and this..

http://www.predictwise.com/politics/2016DemNomination

[DrKZ]

198. Once again you need to look at the studies (not polls not the misinformation highway)

What you are showing is trends for different age cohorts. If, you look at academic studies surrounding these different age cohorts you will notice a leftward shift ... indeed, there is a continued leftward movement towards socialism (finding that capitalism is incompatible with democracy). So by saying young people lean democratic does not mean they lean towards Hilary Clinton.
There are other profound questions given the changing demographics (not in terms of age) but in terms of ethnicity, and race. That is going to be very problematic for her.

[Sheepshank]

186. I think you are trying to represent that a graphed line for a trend...regardless of that direction

continues on that trajectory ad infinitum. Do you realize how silly that comes across?

[AtomicKitten]

200. the line graph represents the trend of numerical data over time

nothing silly about it

[DarknessFalls]

37. Her voice is uninspiring

[VanillaRhapsody]

39. Her voice now?

Seems to be inspiring enough with 75% support of the Party...yes?

[DarknessFalls]

55. No, not now, always.

[JDPriestly]

135. Unfortunately, you re right. And voices matter.

It isn't that she is a woman and has a high voice. The problem with Hillary is that her voice sounds like it is overly controlled, not spontaneous or heartfelt, and she often has rather a monotone or a voice that stays within just a small scale of what a voice might cover. It sounds therefore dull and unemotional, unengaged. And her laugh has been a problem in the past especially when it becomes a sarcastic laugh.

Th voice matters in the subconscious of the voter.

Obama's voice is warm and reassuring.

[VanillaRhapsody]

167. All women have high voices....WTF are you trying to say?

[DrKZ]

253. The Kathleen Turner effect

Not all women have high voices. I know my voice is deeper than either of my son's or my husband's ... It is not her voice that makes me feel caught between a rock and a hard place if she is the nominee ... because it is her right wing policies that are terrifying. I would think after all this time of neo-conservatives and neo-liberals we would actually nominate someone who stands for democratic values.

[VanillaRhapsody]

255. Kathleen Turner and you if what you are describing is true...is the anomaly not the norm

Hillary's voice is the norm...and THAT is why I called him on that....Thanks for distracting from my point. Its frankly a sexist thing for a man to say....

[Sheepshank]

187. you know who's voice really super sucks...Cruz n/t

I wonder if votes are swayed by voice?

[Sheepshank]

223. Damn, I missed the response...bet it was a good one lol n/t

[The Green Manalishi]

228. They very much are.

I don't find her voice irritating at all, but neither is it one her strong points; I think it's more rhythm than pitch.

With Bill, and President Obama the rhythm, the length of pauses, the inflection is perfect; with Biden, Hillary and Gore it's just slightly off, like a musician playing a song that you know and love and it's recognizable, you can dance to it, sing along with it and you're glad they are playing it, but it isn't original and something subtle is 'off'. And the irony is that Biden in particular but also Hillary and Gore give GREAT speeches when you read the transcripts.

Just the observation of a musician and Toastmaster who has worked political campaigns for decades.

[bowens43]

65. They support who they are told to support. Heard mentality. too lazy to think for themselves.

[seabeyond]

69. bullshit. nt

[sufrommich]

74. Wow, too lazy to think for

themselves? Supporting who they're told to support? Whoever you're backing in the primary,I hope they don't let you go door to door. I imagine you screaming "sheeple!!" at anyone who disagrees with you.

[VanillaRhapsody]

176. And insulting the vast majority of Democrats who support Clinton in the Democratic Party

by suggesting they are all sheep...

For shame!

[DrDan]

8. the only "demands" I see are that we all vote for a/the D

[zeemike]

89. All demands are counterproductive including that one.

It reminds people of authoritarianism. And many people rebell when someone demands they do things.
My advice would be that you stop demanding anything and start showing why doing that is a good thing.

[DrDan]

141. I should stop demanding?????????????? What have I demanded?

I think it has to do with being a DUer and how you should cast a vote. Vote for whomever you choose. If you vote for someone other than a Dem, you probably should be sharing your insightful thoughts elsewhere.

Your advice? Who asked?

[zeemike]

149. You are not going to pick a fight with me.

Insults just roll off my back.

[DrDan]

183. I am picking a fight???? too rich

you accuse me of making demands - yet cannot show ONE demand I have made?

[zeemike]

185. See your post I replied to.n/t

[VanillaRhapsody]

180. the demand on "Democratic Underground" to vote for a Democrat....is "counterproductive"??

No I would say quite the opposite.....the suggestion that one might NOT vote Democrat....is the counterproductive stance!

[Sheepshank]

221. I admit that I may have demanded that no one vote "R"

you see that as a problem here on DU?

[zeemike]

225. No I see demand as a problem.

It makes people want to defy you when you do it...that is human nature and we are all human

[Sheepshank]

242. yeah, appearing to demand, or assuming so many demand that people stop demanding is a total turn off

[zeemike]

244. I make no demands that you stop anything.

That is entirely up to you, and you can take what I say or you can ignore it, but I will not try to keep you from saying it with social pressure.
It is my observation based on my experiences and you can take it for what it is worth.

[randome]

10. Not much interested in examples from last century.

As things look now, here, at this specific moment in Time, there is no one on the horizon who will credibly challenge Hillary. That's not a demand that you 'fall in line' or whatever. It's a simple statement of fact.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

[VanillaRhapsody]

13. Who thinks they could win against the woman with 75% party support?

[randome]

16. If someone else shows up who can, I'd welcome them.

But you're right, as of right now that person does not exist.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

[VanillaRhapsody]

19. it is what it is...

[JDPriestly]

25. Your question is based on assumptions that, as I point out, are not yet proven to be true.

Hillary has 75% party support now. But what will happen over the next year or so before the primaries are over? And then what happens during the election cycle when Republicans start the most vicious part of their predictable attacks?

We have a long way to go, and we need to make sure that all voices are heard. That is my point. I've been observing campaigns and participating in campaigns for many years now. And we should not take anything for granted at this point. We should not assume anything. We have lots of good possible candidates.

I am reading a lot of posts from people who feel that Hillary is the only possible choice. Too soon to say that. Far too soon.

She is going to have to run the gauntlet of criticism. Already Chris Christie has attacked her for claiming to oppose Citizens United while gathering up a huge cache of campaign funds taking advantage of the largesse of super-rich donors that Citizens United has enabled.

I remember McGovern and the Eagleton factor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Eagleton

I remember Dukakis in a tank.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2008/01/17/the-photo-op-that-tanked

I remember Carter and something about a gun. Was he holding it? Or was he fishing? It was a trivial photo shot that became the subject of ridicule. Maybe someone else remembers it.

All of those Republican negative campaigns were very effective. Hillary will be subjected to horrible attacks. The Republicans have been attacking her for years and are not going to stop. She will need to be a Buddhist monk and practice meditation for hours a day to deal with it without losing her temper.

Hillary's campaign will be long and arduous. Don't take anything for granted.

[VanillaRhapsody]

41. Name another Democrat with 75% support...this far out

ever...


You cannot...

[JDPriestly]

46. Again, while the 75% approval rate is not to be ignored or laughed at,

many on DU are assuming that that fact is more relevant and more important than it is.

There is simply too much time between now and April much less November 2016 for people to be frantically worrying about voting for Hillary lest a Republican win the election. We should all vote in the primaries for the candidates that we like and let Hillary win votes if she can.

Hillary's 75% could disappear in a matter of days or months. We do not know. It is unlikely, but let's don't assume that the 75% approval will still be the measure of her popularity a year or a year and a half from now. We do not know. Meanwhile, a lot of people will have a lot to say during our primaries, I hope. One candidate is not enough to insure the winning of a national election.

[VanillaRhapsody]

47. Its VERY important....but not AS important as the FACT that she also polls

in double digit leads against ALL Republicans...consistently...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/

[JDPriestly]

50. As a supporter of Hillary, I hope you are doing what you can to insure that differential lasts

through November 2016.

From my point of view, anything can happen. Anything. I would not count on a lead that high this early.

[VanillaRhapsody]

97. Yeah a warning from the guy with the Warren logo in his sig line...

"from my point of view"

[JDPriestly]

108. Not so much a warning as the voice of experience. I've watched a lot of election cycles.

You never know. People thought that Hillary would surely get the nomination in 2008. She didn't.

[VanillaRhapsody]

146. actually you said "warning"

[HereSince1628]

76. The thing about such a poll number is Americans do enjoy seeing people fail

Small people, big people, the loudmouth in the office, the quiet person who dresses peculiarly

It doesn't matter. People love it as spectacle, just as much as a crash in NASCAR.

There's a lot more room to go down than up from 75%. I would expect that the media will be looking to give the American people a thrill, because an uncontested primary is going to be a hard way to sell soap.

It might be easier with primary competitors, than to have the hyenas in the press looking to tear at her ankles hoping for a showy stumble.

[VanillaRhapsody]

98. riiiiiiioght...yeah that is the perfect answer!

You complain that Hillary is called "inevitalble" and then say something like this....and see no hypocrisy in it at all!

[HereSince1628]

109. Where did I call her quote inevitable unquote??

I'm just suggesting the media won't have others to watch fail/fallout. She's way up and that puts all the scrutiny on her.

[VanillaRhapsody]

110. Oh I get you now...her 75% polling numbers is all because of media....

We Democrats are all just lemmings for the media right??? Your position is you just don't believe that 75% of Democrats like her because they already KNOW her!!!!

[HereSince1628]

111. You don't do angry very well

[VanillaRhapsody]

145. Probably because I am not angry...

[semanticwikiian]

80. To all those yapping about 75% approval ratings:

Your are promoting what is known as the "bandwagon" effect.
Get on the Hillary Bandwagon -- everyone else is there, c'mon!
Don't ask questions or think for yourself -- see everyone supporting Hillary!

So enjoy the phantom 75% number while you can -- it won't hold up for a dozen reasons.
I mean, remember, she's ALREADY lost once to an unknown-first-term-senator, right?
... of course it will be different this time -- see the 75% approvals she has!

[RufusTFirefly]

85. Yes. Not only the bandwagon fallacy but also the phenomenon of peaking too soon.

It's a long election season. Too long.

[VanillaRhapsody]

100. Yeah enjoy it while you can....its been such for oh over a year now....

how about her polls consistently....just a flash in the pan...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/


Whatever gets ya through the night I suppose!

[Stuart G]

62. This one paragraph is totally correct:

"All of those Republican negative campaigns were very effective. Hillary will be subjected to horrible attacks. The Republicans have been attacking her for years and are not going to stop. She will need to be a Buddhist monk and practice meditation for hours a day to deal with it without losing her temper."

The Republicans will be thinking they are "entitled" to run things. Their "turn" ...Hillary will see the very worst attacks imaginable. The worst of the worst, along with unlimited money against her. ..In my opinion it will be totally unlimited. It will be ugly no matter who we nominate, and I am not siding with anyone here, but against Hillary it will be as bad or worse than we can imagine. We need to unite with whoever is the candidate. I don't know what else to say..

[VanillaRhapsody]

101. Hillary has survived their attacks for how long now?

She is a pro at it.....there is no one with the gravitas she has when it comes to standing up to their bullshit attacks!

This is how desperate you've become.....you are praying that the Republicans can Faux Outrage her out of the job!!!!

[Art_from_Ark]

127. You're thinking of the "killer rabbit" incident

When Carter was fishing back in Plains, a "swamp rabbit" swam toward and tried to climb into his boat. That particular rabbit was not your typical cute bunny but supposedly had a menacing look (perhaps rabid?), and Carter shooed it off with his paddle. While the White House tried to portray this as simply a humorous event, the right-wing turned it against him.

[JDPriestly]

130. Yes. I was not living in the US at the time but still read about it in a foreign newspaper.

Thanks. That's the story.

[sufrommich]

11. Nobody on an internet forum can demand anything from you.

Pure,simplistic hyperbole.

[Cha]

17. If you like to play the victim.. it's a "demand".

[sufrommich]

30. Man that bugs me.It's like people

defending someone's "freedom of speech" when they say dumbass things on the internet and get called on it. I don't know how many times I've seen that.

[treestar]

104. I was just thinking that

Even if there were demands, they can be ignored.

[LWolf]

150. That's not true.

DU is a censored forum. Censoring demands loyalty and/or silence.

[sufrommich]

153. All forums have moderation.It's not censoring,it's

a term you agree to when you post on this forum. Your choice of forums is entirely up to you.

[LWolf]

155. Yes.

That doesn't take away from the fact that participation demands compliance...which is a demand, which you said did not exist. That's my point.

[sufrommich]

156. The OP is stating that Hillary supporters have the

power to "make demands" here,that's quite a bit different than following the rules of this forum. Unless you think Skinner is in on it too, it's hyperbolic nonsense.

[LWolf]

157. That's not what I read in the OP.

As far as Skinner goes? I won't speculate, but his new avatar does say something.

[MADem]

163. No--compliance is the currency YOU spend to enter the venue. No one "demands" that you willingly

enter here. No one "demands" that you stay either. That's your CHOICE.

If you don't like the heat, leave the kitchen. No one has you chained to the stove. Go take your views to a forum that is more to your liking, if this one doesn't suit.

[LWolf]

256. .

You go right ahead telling yourself that.

[MADem]

257. It's not ME telling myself--or you. It's in the TOS.

As long as you've been here, you haven't read it? You AGREE to this "Code of Conduct" as a condition for participating at this PRIVATE site on the internet.

Here, let me make it easy for you and not make you click a link:

Terms of Service
By registering a Democratic Underground account, you agree to abide by these terms. A single violation of any of these terms could result in your posting privileges being revoked without warning.

The Democratic Underground Administrators have a great deal of confidence in our system of citizen jurors and software tools, but we are well aware that trolls are constantly on the lookout for new ways to cause trouble and therefore on rare occasions it may necessary for us to revoke a member's posting privileges for reasons that are not covered by these Terms of Service. Because of this necessity, we retain the right to revoke any member's posting privileges at any time for any reason.

Don't be a wingnut (right-wing or extreme-fringe).
Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office. Teabaggers, Neo-cons, Dittoheads, Paulites, Freepers, Birthers, and right-wingers in general are not welcome here. Neither are certain extreme-fringe left-wingers, including advocates of violent political/social change, hard-line communists, terrorist-apologists, America-haters, kooks, crackpots, LaRouchies, and the like.

Vote for Democrats.
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 (EXCEPT in rare cases where a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

No bigoted hate speech.
Do not post bigotry based on someone's race or ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion or lack thereof, disability, or other comparable personal characteristic. To be clear: This includes any post which states opposition to full equal rights for gays and lesbians; it also includes any post asserting disloyalty by Jewish Americans, claiming nefarious influence by Jews/Zionists/Israel, advocating the destruction of the state of Israel, or arguing that Holocaust deniers are just misunderstood. In determining what constitutes bigotry, please be aware that we cannot know what is in anyone's heart, and we will give members the benefit of the doubt, when — and only when — such doubt exists.

Don't go overboard with the crazy talk.
Democratic Underground is not intended to be a platform for kooks and crackpots peddling paranoid fantasies with little or no basis in fact. To accommodate our more imaginative members we tolerate some limited discussion of so-called "conspiracy theories" under the following circumstances: First, those discussions are not permitted in our heavily-trafficked Main forums; and second, those discussions cannot stray too far into Crazyland (eg: chemtrails, black helicopters, 9/11 death rays or holograms, the "New World Order," the Bilderbergers, the Illuminati, the Trilateral Commission, the Freemasons, alien abduction, Bigfoot, and the like). In addition, please be aware that many conspiracy theories have roots in racism and anti-semitism, and Democratic Underground has zero tolerance for bigoted hate speech. In short, you take your chances.

Don't willfully and habitually infringe on others' copyrights.
To simplify compliance and enforcement of copyrights here on Democratic Underground, we ask that excerpts from other sources posted on Democratic Underground be limited to a maximum of four paragraphs, and we ask that the source of the content be clearly identified. Those who make a good-faith effort to respect the rights of copyright holders are unlikely to have any problems. But individuals who willfully and habitually infringe on others' copyrights risk being in violation of our Terms of Service.

Don't threaten anyone (including yourself).
Do not post anything which could be construed as a threat toward any person, on DU or elsewhere. Do not post messages threatening to harm yourself. (If you are having a personal crisis, call a crisis hotline for help. DU members are not qualified to give you the help you need.)

Respect people's privacy.
Do not post or link to any private/personal information about any person, even if it is publicly available elsewhere on the Internet.

Don't post "shock content" or porn.
Do not post or link to extreme images of violence, gore, bodily functions, pain, or human suffering for no purpose other than to shock and disgust. Do not post or link to pornography.

No spammers.
Do not spam Democratic Underground with commercial advertising or promotions.

Don't do anything illegal.
Do not post messages which violate any U.S. laws (eg. linking to illegally-shared files, attempting to organize hacking or DOS attacks, libel/slander, etc.). Organizing civil disobedience with a legitimate political purpose is permitted.

Don't post malicious code or mess with the software.
Do not attempt to intentionally interfere with or exploit the operation of the Democratic Underground website or discussion forums (eg. by "post bombing" or using any other flooding techniques, by attempting to circumvent any restrictions placed on your account by the forum software, etc.) Do not post messages that contain software viruses, Trojan horses, worms, or any malware or computer code designed to disrupt, damage, or limit the functioning of any software or hardware.

Don't do anything else which is similarly disruptive.
Just because it isn't listed here, doesn't mean it's ok. If you post anything which is obviously disruptive, malicious, or repugnant to this community, its members, or its values, you risk being in violation of these Terms of Service.

One more thing: Don't push your luck.
The DU Community Standards state: "It is the responsibility of all DU members to participate in a manner that promotes a positive atmosphere and encourages good discussions among a diverse community of people holding a broad range of center-to-left viewpoints." Members who demonstrate a pattern of disruptive behavior over time and end up getting too many of their posts hidden by the jury (measured by raw number or percentage) may be found to be in violation of our Terms of Service. If you seem to be ruining this website for a large proportion of our visitors, if we think the community as a whole would be better off without you here, if you are constantly wasting the DU Administrators' time, if you seem to oppose the mission of DU, or if the DU Administrators just don't like you, we will revoke your posting privileges. Remember: DU is supposed to be fun — don't make it suck.

[LWolf]

259. OMG...THANK YOU.

After 13.5 years, I finally realized there are terms of service and read them. I never would have known about this without you pointing it out!!!! Whatever would I do without you?

Of course, this is a complete surprise and has no connection to what I was referring to.

[MADem]

260. So pleased I was able to help.

It certainly did seem, based on your behavior, like this information was a complete surprise to you, which is why I thought it important that you be availed of this information. I hope you are able to utilize it.

[seabeyond]

15. i make no assumptions. i am excited ot listen to others that jump in. demand? what?

to not insult others that support her? well, ok. whatever.

[AtomicKitten]

18. Thoughtful post. Thanks.

[Enthusiast]

27. Kicked and recommended a whole bunch!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. Please don't spit on me and tell me it's raining...

At 3:17 P.M. PST I counted the positive and negative Hillary Clinton threads and the negative threads outnumber the positive ones 3-2.



This faux martyrdom is really unbecoming and an insult to those who truly sacrifice for what they believe.

[alcibiades_mystery]

32. The Martyr...

Oooooooof!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

38. The safest place to be on a liberal or conservative board is to stake out...

The safest place to be on a liberal or conservative board is to stake out the most ideologically pure position as possible.

That's the opposite of courage.

[VanillaRhapsody]

42. and means no one expects you to DO shit....

[BainsBane]

35. No, you don't know who the candidate will be

I wrote this earlier that expresses my views about this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6512306

We don't have to resolve the primary today. The election is still a long way off.


You see demands for loyalty. What I see is exasperation that people seem to care only about defeating Clinton and don't propose anything except that. You insist your goal is progressivism. I don't know what that means to you, particularly since there are so few posts about issues. Instead I see a lot of anger at other DUers, nonsense about logos, dishonest posts comparing campaign contributions from a third-party, small state senate race with a presidential campaign, and a lot of sexist tripe. I see hand wringing that Democrats seek to appeal to women and "minorities" and dismissal of rights and concerns of the majority of Americans as "social issues." You may think saying the word progressive over and over again as though its meaning were self-evident, but it is not. Moreover, most Americans don't care about the lables; they care about what candidates are going to do to improve their lives.
Those basic issues of daily life that determine most Americans experiences and voting behavior don't even make an appearnace in most of the posts staking out opposition to Clinton. In fact, many of those concerns are openly dismissed by some as "issues that don't count."
.
I would like to know what issues you all care about and how you would like to see them advanced. Because opposition to a political candidate is not an issue, and it isn't progressive. It's no better than a campaign ad, and some of the stuff I've seen hear is fouler than any Republican would put on the air.

Then I have to wonder if you are even thinking about the country or if you think DU is its own world unto itself.

We should be encouraging other candidates to stand up and run in the primaries.

Nothing you or anyone else posts on DU encourages anyone to run. That you think it does shows a strangely inflated sense of self- importance. I'm all for people doing what they can to influence the party in the direction they would like to see it go, but that isn't accomplished by posting online about how you want a more "progressive" candidate. It's most effectively done at the local level, which then filters up to the national. That is how the Tea Party influenced the GOP. They didn't delude themselves into thinking that arguing with 100 or so people online influenced the direction of their party. If you want to change the party, that takes hard work at the local level, something that I have seen people here give a million excuses for why they shouldn't have to do. That is of course their call, but then one shouldn't be suprised when the results are more of the same.

[JDPriestly]

43. A couple of issues that are important to me are TPP and other trade agreements, charter

schools, constant testing in schools, excessive privatization, making sure that big corporations pay a fair share of taxes, taxing large inheritances and certain money that escapes taxation under capital gains tax rules, breaking up too big to fail banks, reducing to the bank rate the interest former and current students are charged on their student loans and many other progressive issues including those on which Clinton is strong: women's rights.

I would also like to see universal kindergarten in the US.

Apparently in a recent speech, Clinton said she would defend the good provisions in the ACA, Obamacare. I want to know which parts of Obamacare she would not defend.

Don't put all your eggs in one basket. It is too soon to be as enthusiastic about Hillary Clinton as many DUers are. She is going to face a lot of difficulty before the primaries are over. Please do not assume that she is the only Democrat who can win in November 2016. I've lived through a lot of elections. Don't make assumptions.

That is what I am saying. We should be looking at all of the candidates. Let them all speak. Listen to them all. A lot of water will flow under the bridge before April, much less November 2016.

A lot of DUers are talking like thinking about other possible candidates is some horrible betrayal of the Democratic Party and as though Hillary is the only hope for 2016. Not true. Just not true.

[BainsBane]

51. I'm not putting my eggs anywhere

I haven't committed to any candidate yet, though I don't share the contempt for Clinton many here do. I'd describe myself as leaning Clinton, but I have to see who else runs and what issues emerge through the course of the campaign.

The principle problem for the Clinton detractors is that we don't yet have any other declared candidates. It looks likely O'Malley will run, but I don't know of anyone else at this point. So we are faced with a series of posts that are anti-Clinton, and that, I think, is what pisses people off. Plus we have some claiming they won't vote for Clinton under any circumstances. Not many, but some.

[MADem]

173. Who are "all these candidates" of which you speak?

You keep whining that we're not hearing from them, when the real problem is they DON'T EXIST.

Warren is not running. She has said so fifty times. Once or twice, sure, one can change one's mind without looking like an idiot--fifty times, though? She means it. BELIEVE her.

Sanders has made noise, and nothing else. "I won't run if I can't win" he said. Well, he can read the handwriting on the wall, I'd say, otherwise his hat would be in the ring. If he wanted the Democratic nomination, he'd at least have switched parties by now, but he hasn't done that, either.

Webb has fired up an "exploratory committee." Zzzzzzzzzz. No campaign stops, no policy speeches...no NOTHING. And it's been months.

So, where are all these candidates? Hmmm? The Rent is Too Damn High guy last registered as a Republican!

I'm looking...and I don't see any of these candidates you insist "we should be looking at." Where are they? Who are they? And are they so stupid that they don't understand how to file with the federal election commission to participate in the process?

[DrKZ]

203. I couldn't agree with you more and would add

I cannot support someone who is both a neo-conservative and a neo-liberal. And, Secretary Clinton is BOTH. What made her a terrible candidate in 2008 still persists. Hilary Clinton has continually supported the privatization of schools, I have no ideas which parts of the ACA she wants to keep. What she did in Honduras was a frightening travesty reminding me of what happened during when the Chicago boys brought fascist dictatorships to the southern cone of our hemisphere. What she did in Colombia as Secretary of State still gives me nightmares. HENRY KISSINGER is a fan. Her position on women's rights sadly extends only to bourgeois white women I am terrified about the environment and she does support fracking and although has said nothing about the Keystone pipeline (her actions as secretary of state also make me feel very leery). She did not want to even try to talk to and with Iran.
I hope she does have some really good strong primary challengers! I also would ask everyone to read several articles posted this week to help us remember http://www.racismreview.com/blog/2015/04/12/hillary-clinton-good-for-white-feminism/
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/03/hillary-clinton-womens-rights-feminism/
http://www.telesurtv.net/english/analysis/Hillary-Clintons-Dubious-Views-on-Latin-America-20150412-0022.html
Kristal Ball who apparently worked for her in 2008 asked her not to run http://www.nbcnews.com/video/the-cycle/54349831#54349831 There was a wonderful discussion on democracy now this past week I have only posted one part of the discussion

I can continue to post articles all day but the very fact that Hilary Rosen (a close Hilary Clinton operative) put up a nasty tweet about Mayor DeBlasio not endorsing Clinton yet is very telling ...

[Bobbie Jo]

64. Excellent post. nt

[Bonobo]

114. "Nothing you or anyone else posts on DU encourages anyone to run."

Quite true. But also completely contradictory to your (apparent) view that negativity aimed at Ms. Clinton on DU can have some kind of real-life influence on the elections.

I don't care which side you come out on wrt the "influence of DU", BB, but you cannot have it BOTH ways.

[Faux pas]

36. Kickin'

[MannyGoldstein]

44. How could I *not* rec a JDPriestly post?

Particularly when it's spot-on.

[JaneyVee]

59. Since OP isn't around, perhaps you can give links and evidence?

This place is easily 80% anti-Hillary threads.

[JDPriestly]

54. And I, for one, will be voting for all Democrats except Hillary.

I've seen Bill's record, and I do not think we need a Clinton dynasty in the White House.

[seabeyond]

58. this is the number 1 reason i am not a clinton supporter and yet, if she gets the nod, you can damn

well bet i will be putting a check by her name.

regardless of my personal want

[Skittles]

72. that's because you're not hysterical, seabeyond

the folk who claim they won't vote for Hillary, period, not even while "holding their nose" - give themselves away entirely. F*** THEM too.

[seabeyond]

77. i really. gotta wonder.

ah... you instill kicking ass, which i can so appreciate, whenever i see your name. you know this, right? all across the board, to each and every one of us. me? the b word. but you? ass kicker. but...


i am so mellow and feeling good, spring is here nad son on the way home. i still get a chuckle with a message from you, cause i always go to the ass kickin'

[Oilwellian]

49. K&R n/t

[rhett o rick]

60. Great post. I appreciate the fact that you stay on issue while others seem to

want to actually avoid issues. Like fracking and the TPP.

[MissDeeds]

61. Great post JD

Thanks for saying what needed to be said.

K&R

[DeSwiss]

63. Very. Well. Put.

K&R

[zeemike]

93. Well you just attacked him.

And as a self identified victim anyone who takes issue with it will be seen as an attack am I right?

But welcome to DU...I am all for freedom to speak your mind and hope you allow others to speak theirs without taking it personally.

[zeemike]

96. My "agency"..WTF is that a new buzz word I have not yet seen?.

And me and my ilk?

I hope you don't think you are helping Hillary by this kind of rhetoric.

[dbackjon]

78. The only thing close to demands are to vote for the Democratic nominee

Whomever that is.

[rury]

81. The demands can grow as loud and clear as they want to

I will ignore them and ignore Hillary until she becomes the Democratic nominee.
IF she becomes the nominee.
Then I will hold my nose and vote, not for her, but AGAINST the Republikkkan nominee.

[RiverLover]

83. Outstanding post

So so many good points wrapped up in one post. Thank you JD!!

[Unexploded Scotsman]

84. "The Inevitable Hillary"

Seems I've heard that one before!

[NaturalHigh]

86. "The demands for Hillary loyalty are loud and clear "

Seriously? They certainly don't compare to the demands for loyalty to President Obama, even to the point that criticism of him is seen as a near-treasonous offense.

If Secretary Clinton wins the nomination (a good bet), I wonder if he will get the same treatment that then-Senator Obama got here. Criticism was not allowed, and the admins pushed a "You're going to vote for Obama and you'll damn well like it or else" approach. Somehow I doubt that Clinton will be afforded the same courtesy.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

87. A valiant try, my friend.

Sadly, your efforts are going to get a lot harder -- I just noticed the first wave of shiny-faced noobs that show up here every primary season with their pom-poms in hand and talking points memorized.

It's gonna be a l-o-n-g primary.

[whatchamacallit]

88. Her supporters wanna skip the primary because she'll be laid bare

and they know it. We've reached a truly pathetic moment for the party.

[hrmjustin]

90. I am all for a primary.

[whatchamacallit]

95. Glad to hear it

[leftofcool]

136. I want a primary.

Let's have a bunch of Dems running, I say.

[whatchamacallit]

138. Yay!

I wish not only for more dems running, but more female and minority dems especially.

[Beowulf42]

91. Huh?

They can demand all they want, whoever "they" are, but I'm waiting to see who else is running and who has the best platform for me. It will be great if it is Hillary, but if there is a better candidate, so be it.

[marym625]

99. K&R

As I have said repeatedly, the idea that no one else is to be allowed in the primary, or that we shouldn't question the things that are just wrong with the HC platform, etc, helps no one but the Republicans. We keep moving right and it's because of things like those.

Great post. Thank you

[treestar]

102. What demands?

You're still here and this is your at least 3rd anti-Hillary thread.

[H2O Man]

105. In many cases,

yes; in many others, no.

There are plenty of rational, good people here who are supporting Hillary Clinton. They add intelligence and common decency to the conversations.

And, of course, there are some aggressively dehydrated ones, of the type you mention in the OP.

[mother earth]

106. TY, JD, I wholeheartedly agree. K & R

[L0oniX]

107. I will vote according to my conscience ...and I ain't selling my soul to the 1% to win.

[RandySF]

113. I'm only asking for party loyalty in November, 2016.

[lonestarnot]

118. I refuse to just fall in to be falling in because someone says so.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

119. Update

At 8:09 P.M. PST I counted the positive and negative Hillary Clinton threads and the negative threads outnumber the positive ones 5 -3.

This faux martyrdom is really unbecoming and an insult to those who truly sacrifice for what they believe...

[morningfog]

121. To be fair, you should count the dismissive or insulting

replies to the "negative" posts. That goes more to the point of the OP.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

124. People are just fighting fire with fire.../NT

[morningfog]

125. No. Responding to criticisms of a candidate with personal insults directed at a DUer is not

fire with fire.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

128. The constant barrage of hate, invective, and criticism is bound to result in pushback.../NT

[morningfog]

139. Personal attack is not pushback. Even characterizing

criticisms of a national candidate as "hate" and "invective" is off-base. Those are also characterizations against the posters, making personal what should not be.

Pushback through support of your preferred candidate, rather than with personal attacks of the poster is a meaningful difference.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

142. I get to decide what is hurtful and offensive...

I get to decide what is hurtful and offensive to me and how I should respond not you or anybody, as long as I am willing to live with the consequences of my response. That really shouldn't be hard to understand.


But i will never deign to making "woe is me" posts or basking in faux martyrdom, never !!! It's so unbecoming and unattractive.

[morningfog]

143. I will never understand how criticism of a national figure's

policy or strategy is personally offensive to anyone. Regardless, that does not give anyone the right to belittle or insult another person.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

144. When the criticism is often baseless, slanted, and repetitive folks are going to respond...

When the criticism is often baseless, slanted, and repetitive folks are going to respond and like in all attacks, the person initiating the attack doesn't get to calibrate the response.

I don't know what kind of rarefied environment you were raised in or the environment you find yourself in now but that's why in real life folks don't usually try to upset one another.

[morningfog]

148. And there you go to the personal attack.

Every time.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

184. What is insulting about suggesting that when a person upsets another person

What is insulting about suggesting that when a person upsets another person he or she doesn't get to calibrate their response and that is why most sane folks refrain from upsetting one another in real life?

[morningfog]

189. This:

"I don't know what kind of rarefied environment you were raised in or the environment you find yourself in now..."

is an insult. If you'd stick to the issue and your points without making it personal, DU would suck much less.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

190. If posters weren't calling out other posters , implicitly or explicitly, DU would suck much less.

If posters weren't calling out other posters , implicitly or explicitly and implicitly calling them NAZIS , DU would suck much less.

Your pal in his or her OP called Hillary's supporters " goose steppers ''

It is too soon to start marching in goosestep with the brass Hillary band.

.My old man got blinded in one eye and contacted malaria fighting the AXIS in North Africa during WW ll. In his memory I am offended... When I was a kid my parents had friends who were Holocaust survivors... I noticed the numbers tattooed on their forearms...On their behalf and in their memory I am offended too...

[morningfog]

120. Good post. It's gonna be a fun ride.

[pinto]

126. You and we all are voters, not victims. It's called an election for a reason.

GOTV may seem trite or pointless to some, but it is what it is. Our vote is one voice in the public discourse. GOTV!

[one_voice]

134. I didn't realize saying...

'f Clinton' (the f word spelled out) was part of the loyalty demand. Imagine my surprise to see that on a board--a democratic one at that-- that you continually insist is demanding that all fall in line behind Hillary.

fyi, it's not hidden and the poster isn't banned. That's a new kinda loyalty.

At this point I don't know who I like; as Hillary is the only that has announced. One thing is for sure though, if she's the nominee, she will get my vote.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

137. Who said "F--k Clinton'' on this board, not that it surprises me ?

As I said, ad nauseum and ad infinitum, the posters who are sympathetic to Clinton are vastly outnumbered on this board by those are hostile to her.

[Thinkingabout]

158. Funny the only ones I read proclaiming Hillary is inevitable are not her supporters.

[MADem]

179. +1,000,000.

Those that can, do.

Those that can't (or won't, or expect unnamed "others" to get out there and do the work for them) post whines on DU about "inevitability."

[MADem]

159. SUPPORT whosoever you'd like.

But if you can't support my candidate, spare me the mindless shit-flinging.

Disparaging, childishly piqued comments about age, appearance, and who someone stoood next to at an awards ceremony are beneath thinking Democrats, yet I've seen those remarks all over this supposedly progressive (yet apparently intolerant) board.

And when you start in with the Nazi references, (and in your own OP, why lookie there you did JUST that --you made a NAZI reference!!! Goose stepping, eh? Real nice) there's just no point in thinking you have anything worthwhile to say.

Adlai Stevenson didn't have a prayer, so your comparisons are not apt. He was bald (but not cute-baby bald, like Ike...he was bony-head bald), he was DIVORCED (and that wasn't done back then), and he Was Not A War Hero. You're comparing someone that the party threw up in desperation (twice--because Ike was a juggernaut) to someone in this century who does have a deep, entrenched following. You may not recall, but this is fact--the DEMOCRATS also wooed Ike because they wanted him on their ticket. The personality outweighed the party in that contest.

It's up to you to "change the tone" and tell people what's great about your choice, instead of trying to tear mine down --I won't hold my breath, though. Also, it helps if your "choice" has chosen to run. I like Elizabeth Warren just fine, but unlike way too many here, I believe her when she says--and she has said, over fifty times--that she is not running. Why is it that this woman isn't allowed to know her own mind, I wonder? If she were a man, I think people would have believed that "No means no" long before now...

Anyway, I think people who are advocating the nomination of HRC are entirely relaxed -- just not impressed with some of the threads seen here on DU of late. They aren't DU's finest hour.

[nolabels]

192. I glad to see you have such contempt for us people who don't have mops on top of our heads

My favorite pet peeve is people who accept money from others with only a wink and a nod

[MADem]

193. Huh?

[Thinkingabout]

216. Then you are saying there will not be a candidate you can vote?

[nolabels]

235. No, not at all, the problem i have with the 'wink and nod' is the ploy of it.

If the tip (or bribe, if you must) is not big enough then the 'wink and nod' is given by the receiver to imply to the giver that ' you only are renting me and ownership would need a much bigger payment'.

Remember deception is often like a mirror, what you see is often what you put into it. Method actors are often engulfed into the character they were only trying to play. Lets say if you had a choice on the things you were going to hear. Would you rather hear things you want to hear or would you want to hear the truth? Also how do you know which story would be the one to listen to if you will have a choice in it?

Testing and questioning is important with anything, making a 'wink and nod' antithetical to any of it.

And if you accept the way to do business as a 'no answer' as a way to do business then curiosity asks me to ask you "what heck are the are you doing here at DU?".

Limiting ones choices to a self limiting set of criteria is a road-map to failure

[Dustlawyer]

164. All candidates need to be asked, "What do you have to do for all of that money?"

John Roberts may say there is no Quid Pro Quo, but we all know that there is!

[still_one]

177. Support whatever candidate you want in the primaries, and advocate for that candidate. Because

someone expresses a view that you don't share, does not mean they are "demanding" you share that view

[WillyT]

181. + 1,000,000,000 What You Said !!!

& Rec !!!

[Cryptoad]

182. Is this Satire , too?

[DesertDiamond]

195. Thanks for writing what I was trying to formulate in my head. Well said!

[stonecutter357]

202. hyperbolic nonsense.

[MoonRiver]

206. Whatever. I don't give a damn who you vote for

or whether you vote at all. Grandiosity at it's worst.

[LynneSin]

209. I've yet to sign up for Team Hillary and no one is pressuring me

Not sure what DU where you are posting.

[onehandle]

237. Sign Up Now!

Or else there will be a guacamole oyster ginger bacon mocha pesto porter with your name on it!

[LynneSin]

249. Not there yet

Still on Team Biden and I really like Martin O'Malley

[Lunabell]

211. Not until she is the official nominee

Until then...

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

213. We went through this in 2007 and 2008. No thanks. Hillary has to earn my vote. Period!

[Martin Eden]

217. K and R times a MILLION !!!

JDP, in very clear and compelling terms you have explained the importance of primary elections in general and the need for a well contested primary in 2016.

[MoonRiver]

218. So, now let the primary contesters announce!

waiting, waiting...

[Martin Eden]

220. Lincoln Chafee just did ...

... and I'm looking forward to more candidates doing the same.

[MADem]

258. And his assistant retracted.

He may yet run, if I were to guess I'd say he's probably going to, but he's not there quite yet.

He may have messed up with the FEC, too:

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-16/lincoln-chafee-accidentally-declared-that-he-s-running-for-president

Debbie Rich, Chafee spokesperson, later contacted CNN to clarify that no, actually, he's not running. "We are still in the exploratory committee phase," Rich told CNN. "We will file the proper papers to be an official candidate, but that has not happened yet."

Chafee announced his exploratory committee in a video last week, in which he criticized Republicans and praised President Obama.

The distinction is important—individuals who are exploring a presidential run and people who call themselves candidates are subject to different FEC rules. Last months two groups filed FEC complaints against Jeb Bush, Martin O'Malley, Rick Santorum and Scott Walker for violating campaign registration and donation disclosure rules.

During the interview, Chafee hit Clinton on her vote for the Iraq war and some of her gaffes as secretary of state. When the U.S. and Russia reset their relationship, he argued that her mispronunciation of a Russian word hurt the move. "It was the right move to restart, but you gotta get the word right," Chafee said. "They insulted the Russians right off the bat."

[McCamy Taylor]

230. Dude, you are NOT a persecuted minority at DU, so don't try to guilt anyone.

[MisterP]

231. calling her inevitable is to preempt any challenge

[JDPriestly]

243. Precisely. And it weakens our party because the primary is the period in which we get to

think about and hear new leaders and new ideas and at the national level.

We do need a discussion in our Democratic Party about how we respond to the Republican greed and angry, selfixh nonsense especially to the absurd libertarian challenges to American values.

But we will not have that if our primary is merely a coronation and not an opportunity to hear a number of voices.

The problem is, as Bernie Sanders and others have pointed out: it takes so much money to get TV access, to buy ads, to get media attention, to organize, to rent a headquarters, etc. That is the problem for candidates with new and progressive views that should get attention from voters. Same for candidates who might be better alternatives to the appointed and anointed (sp? OK per spellcheck) like Hillary. (Not just talking about Hillary here. Progressives need to organize at the state and local levels first where are many similar candidates who are viewed as inevitable and aren't necessarily the strongest candidates. It isn't their fault that they rise to the top. Sometimes no one else steps up who can do the work required to get elected. I explain this below.)

Working in the Democratic Party at the local level (with always, always wonderful people, I must add), I have observed that, usually, appointing and anointing candidates is a process carried out by party activists who have a lot of other things on their minds. Some are thinking about their own chances at re-election, their jobs or some specific community project or problem or maybe not offending someone in their social group or the Party. Some are just social butterflies who love to be in on the action.

Many, many of the party activists are worried about how the Party is going to pay for the campaign. All of them are dedicated to getting Democrats into office. That is the priority, and while the specific ideas of the candidate are important when there is a choice, that is not always the first concern of those who decide which potential candidate the Party will back.

People at the local level have to get along so there is always some concern about personality clashes. Who is a team player? Who is reliable? Who will work well with others? Who has that smile on his/her face? Who is good with numbers? Who can type? Who has the ability to connect on the phone? These are just some of the important questions that must be dealt with when organizing a campaign. You cannot have a successful campaign if the volunteers are a ll a bunch of egotistical individualists who can't work with others. A brilliant person with great ideas who can't get along with others is pretty useless in a campaign. Sorry, but that is just the fact.

Then a big question is which candidate will draw the most financial support? There is no campaign unless you have that wonderful and self-sacrificing accountant somewhere at the level of your county party or campaign who crunches the numbers and stretches the resources so that Democrats can afford some sort of candidate, some sort of campaign. And remember, there is not much money in doing the thankless job of an accountant for progressive candidates.

The legal compliance reporting can also be a time-consuming and thankless job. But it too has to be done. So the people who volunteer to do those jobs or who are paid very little to do them deserve to be rewarded with as much love as everyone can give them.

Think of the costs. You have to rent a headquarters. The phone bill will be huge. You need banks of phones if you are in a big city. You have to pay for the hand-outs. Somebody has to run a voter registration drive which means traveling around with a table and reaching out to voters. Takes a patient personality, people who don't get riled by smart alecs who disagree with them. People who can be very kind to the confused and ignorant. People who are gentle and persuasive but down-to-earth and capable of getting the job done.

Someone else has to do the secretarial work, generate computer lists, coordinate with the local voter registrar to get lists that identify specifically voters you want to target -- let's say voters who are registered as Democrats and vote regularly. Then there is organizing and feeding volunteers. Getting folks to walk precincts especially in the get-out-the-vote days right before the election. The workload is huge. And the rewards don't feel like glory.

So the party leadership naturally wants a candidate who brings understanding of and facility in dealing with the organization and funding of a campaign. The candidate has to charm volunteers. Patience can be more important to those who work with a candidate at nitty-gritty time than ideological purity.

We Progressives often eliminate ourselves from the selection process because we can't be bothered to volunteer at the campaign level during and before campaigns and do the work that is required to run a campaign.

If we Progressives want attention and respect for our ideas, we have to get organized. I reiterate that while marching and carrying signs are manifestations and the results of a certain kind of organization, they will not get our candidates elected or our ideas adopted. They may draw attention and attract people who are unhappy with the status quo, people like us, but they will not change much if they are not backed up with the kind of work I am describing here.

We have to do the tedious and less exciting job of getting our candidates nominated and elected. And if we don't want corporate money to dominate our elections, then we have to put our money and most of all our time, effort and focus on winning elections.

It's time for Progressives to work and not just kind of gather and march and feel good together. Our planet needs us. Our children need us. Our country needs us.

So pick your candidate and your agenda and volunteer. It's the only way we can change anything. And remember, the first person you need to change is yourself.

So far, I have volunteered to help Bernie Sanders. As everyone knows, I like both Bernie and Elizabeth Warren. But Bernie seems more likely to run than Warren. We shall see whether we Progressives can grow up enough to get a candidate who speaks for us.

[DrKZ]

254. I agree with you completely

[B Calm]

236. The only demand I see is to stop using right wing propaganda!

[Phlem]

240. Excellent post bud.

Agreed.

[Politicub]

241. Yet to see a single demand

But then again, I'm not on the lookout for every pro- or anti-Hillary post in order to muster outrage.

Many of us truly like Hillary, and take her as a complete package of accomplishments, set backs, flaws and strengths. No one I know thinks she is perfect, but even people who don't like her have a hard time arguing that she's unqualified for office.

[wolfie001]

245. Boo fricken hoo!

[George II]

246. As of now, Clinton is the only declared candidate. Where should our loyalties lie?

[blkmusclmachine]

248. Can't wait til we see the first use of Hillbots.

[sulphurdunn]

250. Hillary Clinton is no spring chicken.

If elected she would be the same age Ronald Reagan was when elected. If she survived 2 terms she would be 77 years old. What would happen were she not to wake up some morning during the primaries and there was no #2 democratic contender? Were she the candidate, who would be her running mate? Any democratic strategy that does plan for Hillary not winning the primaries or not surviving two terms if elected is a recipe for political catastrophe.

[JDPriestly]

251. Absolutely. Thanks.