Hillary Clinton has fewer problems with the Democratic base than you might think

[DemocratSinceBirth]

If you're part of the DC establishment, you know that liberals' feelings about Hillary Clinton are nothing if not complicated.

Your average professional liberal here in the nation's capital, whether it's a think-tank wonk, a Capitol Hill staffer, an interest group activist, or a writer like me, has always had and will always have mixed feelings about Clinton. We acknowledge her talent, her smarts, and her tenacity. We recognize how historic it would be if she became president. And sooner or later we find ourselves defending her, if for no reason other than the craziness of her enemies.

...


But if you look at what the polls are telling us so far, Democrats seem quite happy to have Clinton as their presidential nominee. In the latest Pew poll, 77 percent of Democrats see her favorably, and she has strong approval across ages, incomes, and races. (African-Americans, the most important Democratic sub-group, rate her particularly highly, at 87 percent favorable.)

...

Just like any candidate, Clinton has plenty of problems she'll have to overcome if she's going to win the White House. But uniting the Democratic base behind her may be less of an issue than many of us suspect.



http://theweek.com/articles/556175/hillary-clinton-fewer-problems-democratic-base-than-might-think

[djean111]

1. So - does this mean HRC supporters can just relax and ignore the other candidates?

Or does this mean the supporters of other candidates should just shut up and get on the HRC bandwagon now, so as to save money. Whatever. Do the Hispanics know that African-Americans are the most important Democratic sub-group?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. I believe the author was referring to the size of the various Democratic sub groups.

As an empirical observation it is correct.

[djean111]

3. Thanks. It is just that I read somewhere here at DU, this morning, that the Hispanic vote would

decide the election.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. Perhaps they were referring to the general election .

I would say that's a correct impression.

[Autumn]

4. Most likely true. No need to convince me.

She just doesn't get my support. That's no a big deal, I only have one vote so that doesn't matter. Bernie get's my money, my efforts and my support and my vote.

[justiceischeap]

6. I think this is a truth that some progressives and most Republicans don't want to see

People either like or hate HRC, there doesn't seem to be much middle ground there. And, from what I've seen, if you like her, you REALLY like her and if you hate her, you REALLY hate her. I don't think uniting the base will be an issue for her should she win the primaries. I think getting people out to vote will be the issue.

[OilemFirchen]

7. I don't think that's true at all.

I am indifferent toward all of the Democratic candidates (announced and anticipated) and sense that the vast majority of the voting populace shares that indifference.

[justiceischeap]

11. Because, of course, you're the exception to the rule

That's why I didn't say "all." I also think you're wrong when it comes to the indifference of candidates. I don't think there's a whole lot of indifference about HRC, as I said in my previous comment, the people that like her, REALLY like her and talk about her quite often and are excited she's running again. That's not indifference at all.

[OilemFirchen]

14. I may be the exception here...

but I'm not out there.

Nota bene: The passion you sense here is among the acolytes who, I contend, represent a minority. Nonetheless, I'll concede your narrow viewpoint, as it's irrelevant anyway.

[freshwest]

19. I don't fit in your categories there, because I don't REALLY love her, but do love her unappreciated

Wisdom regarding Women.

Women make up over half the population of most nations, states, cities, and many families. I believe that her view of looking to women's rights is necessary to many things that people claim to want:

Peace instead of war
Equality for all
Social mobility
Fair economics
Reducing Overpopulation
Fighting Environmental degradation
Fighting Global warming
Cooperation instead of conflict
Saving children instead of starving them
Lifting up the poor
Social justice by not confining women and girls to religious and ideological enslavement
Ending sexual and child slavery
Ending the abuse of children, the elderly, the vulnerable
Slavery of all kinds that kill men, women and children
Ending the use of women's bodies a concubines for the next generation of warriors
More unlisted that shows she does believe in liberalism

I say these are what lead to world peace, environmantal, social and economic justice. If one is anti-war, the emancipation of women who are used to produce cannon fodder is a must. If you are for the environment, look at those who suffer the most from it, women, children and workers. If you are for science and social improvements, you don't leave half the population in the hands of theocrats and corporations.

But this is a new way to think for most people and they have been schooled to only regard things in what have been designated as male roles. Such as the warrior administering punishment to those who intefere with one group's advancement over another group. The traditional female role is that of making things work for all, as we all come mothers.

I don't believe in those who talk about civil liberties and admire Paul's stances on Constitutional issues enumerated in the BoR, but don't recognize that the rights they say are all important, more than women or minorities rights, are in a case study of willful ignorance and denial. As they did not protect women and minorities.

I have corrected HRC supporters when they make illogical claims about Bernie. But I am finding myself more in the camp that is described in the OP:

And sooner or later we find ourselves defending her, if for no reason other than the craziness of her enemies.

There is a fair amount of RW thinking in the opposition. And a great desire to go along with the crowd. That crowd has been name calling and accusing HRC of the possessing the most dastardly personal traits. They don't know this woman, haven't worked with her, haven't had anything but what they've read that was churned out to divert people off her Ideals, which are good ones, just 'because.'

[LanternWaste]

22. An unsupported hypothesis is not a rule.

An unsupported hypothesis is not a rule.

[Gothmog]

8. These are good polling numbers for the base

[betterdemsonly]

9. I don't think progressives are the democratic base any longer

but it doesn't matter. We can still vote in caucuses and primaries as can independent progressives that register democrat

Blacks may rank her highly. It doesn't mean they will be motivated to go the primaries for her like they did Obama. I am skeptical they will. They sure didn't bother in the offyear general elections. Not even in states where it would have made a huge difference, like North Carolina, and Tennesee. Both of these women candidates were candidates in the Hillary mold, and in both cases the republicans threatened black voting rights and they still didn't show up.

[Beacool]

10. Is this really a news flash to anyone?

This is what I've been saying for ages. Outside the bubble of LW sites like this one, out in the real world, the Clintons are very well liked and popular within the party.

"The Washington liberals themselves and the journalists who know them might both consider their mixed feelings representative of liberals and Democrats more generally. But here's thing: Out there in America, Democrats love Hillary Clinton. They don't just like her, they love her."

That doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a primary. Obviously other candidates should join the fray and make a full throttled effort to win the nomination. Although I got a feeling that, barring any unforeseen eventuality, Hillary will be the Democratic nominee.

[Scurrilous]

12. K & R

[Doctor_J]

13. Few doubt that she will win

Many have grave doubts that she has any intention of governing on behalf of anyone but the BFEE. If you want 8 more years of corporate giveaways, privatization, growing pentagon budgets, fossil fuel and drilling, poverty-level "jobs", pandering to people like Boner, Ryan, and McConnell,and "growth" experienced almost exclusively by the top .01%, she's your gal.

[bluesbassman]

23. That pretty much sums it up. Oh, the Progressives will get a bone or two...

We'll definitely get a SC judge or two that isn't a RW ideologue and that fact alone is enough to vote for her if she's the Democratic nominee.

However, expecting her to be a Liberal/Progressive in terms of wealth inequality and the stranglehold Wall Street and Big Business have on the democratic process is naïve. She will act and govern according to the status quo that she is most comfortable operating in.

[Maedhros]

15. "Democrats seem quite happy to have Clinton as their presidential nominee."

Democrats also seem quite happy with jailing Chelsea Manning and exiling Edward Snowden, with widespread drone warfare and related civilian casualties, with increasing military operations in Africa by 217%, with blanket warrantless surveillance, with bombing Libya into the stone age base upon trumped up charges of 'genocide,' and with granting the President the authority to execute citizens without due process.

I don't really trust what Democrats "seem happy" with.

[Robbins]

16. well

This is more proof the democratic party isn't place for liberals anymore.

In reality differences between the partys is getting to be little.Everything you mention republicans also support.

From 1992 to 2014 I always voted for dems but if bernie sanders loses i am not voting at all In 2016.

[Maedhros]

21. This is why I left the Democratic Party - the things that the rank-and-file will support

became too much for me to bear.

"You will be known by the company you keep. What you sow, is what you reap."

[bunnies]

17. + 1000!!! nt

[hrmjustin]

18. The base will be with Hillary.

[Robbins]

20. and just like obama

she will sell out everyone to corporations