Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Why is she inevitable? Why didn't she win in 2008?
She's not inevitable. Who said she was? Oh wait, you think news coverage of the early horse race equates to people claiming she's inevitable.
Here's my advice - stop reading/listening/viewing it.
Why didn't she win in 2008?
Most political analysts say it was because she didn't campaign in caucus states. Others say Obama had a better money-raising apparatus. But you forget just how close that race was. Or perhaps you never knew or realized it.
Am I the ONLY person who remembers the PUMAs? Remember them? I'll give a few points to the first person who reminds us what PUMA stood for...
What does PUMAs have to do with the here and now? PUMAs were not a Hillary Clinton organization. If we want to apply PUMA mentality to the here and now, it better applies to the 'progressives' who swear daily around the netroots that they'll never vote for Hillary Clinton - in the primaries or the general.
and then I'll ask, So what exactly makes Hillary the best candidate? Really?
That question calls for opinions. It's been asked before. Many times. And answered. Many times. Just because you didn't like the answer or agree with the answer doesn't mean it wasn't answered. Didn't see the answers? The you should use the DU search function. We're under no obligation to continuously answer the same question over and over. Didn't like the answer? Why ask it again? The answer isn't going to change.
She was an abject failure in 2008.
She lost in 2008 in a very close primary race. It that makes her an "abject failure," what does it say about candidates who've run in primaries and lost by bigger margins like Al Gore, Joe Biden, Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich, Jerry Brown, Ted Kenndedy, etc?
If the Democratic party is dumb enough to nominate her in 2016 that will almost guarantee we'll have a Republican president elected that year.
The overwhelming evidence suggests otherwise. From the very latest polling data:
She beats former Florida Governor Jeb Bush 49% to 36%; Kentucky Senator Rand Paul 50% to 34%; New Jersey Governor Chris Christie 47% to 35%; former Massachusetts Governor and 2012 GOP standard-bearer Mitt Romney 50% to 35%; former Arkansas Governor and Fox News host Mike Huckabee 49% to 33%; and Florida Senator Marco Rubio 51% to 29%. As we can see, she hovers around the 50% mark against each challenger.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnzogby/2014/08/22/hillary-wallops-all-republicans-elizabeth-warren-doesnt/
These are the times that separate political realists from Tiger Beat Progressives who are only looking for a deluxe fold out poster of their latest savior to hang on their wall and kiss goodnight each night.
For all of you who blithely say, Oh, she's been through all that, she's vetted, the old claims against her won't matter, all you have NO idea how the real world works. Everything that was held against her in 2008 will be held against her, and then some, in 2016.
OMG! You're so, like, a genius! Just what makes you think any other potential nominee will be shielded from criticism. It would be easy to pain Elizabeth Warren as a socialist. It would be even easier to paint Bernie Sanders as one because he is. Who else? Biden? He has more oppo research to mine than Hillary does. O'Malley? Let's get real, ok?
More to the point, why the fuck is anyone considering someone from the past????
Because many the fuck like her. Are we never to consider anyone from the past? What exactly does that statement even mean?? Al Gore ran for the Dem nomination and lost (and then 'lost' the presidency.) Biden ran for the Dem nomination and lost several times. I could give countless examples.
Why aren't we looking to the future?
Some of us are.
Why in the world are you thinking that in eight years there has not been anyone new come into the Democratic Party that we should be considering?
Don't be silly. Plenty of Dems are considering other people.
Why are you looking at twenty plus years ago to lead us into the middle of the twenty-first century? Really? Tell me again?
because SOME people like Hillary Clinton.
Hillary Clinton doesn’t have a problem with liberals. Not hardly.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has said repeatedly that she won't run for president in 2016, and yet the idea persists: That Hillary Clinton could find herself vulnerable to a more liberal primary opponent.
The problem? Almost all of the most recent data suggests that Clinton doesn't have any real problems on her left flank. Indeed, she's actually stronger with liberals than she is with more moderate Democrats. And very, very few liberals have anything but nice things to say about her.
To wit:
* A new CNN/Opinion Research poll shows that when voters are asked whether they would prefer Clinton, a more liberal alternative or a more conservative one, about twice as many non-Clinton voters say they prefer the more conservative one (20 percent) to the more liberal one (11 percent).
* A Washington Post/ABC News poll this month showed Clinton taking a bigger share of the vote in the 2016 primary among self-described liberals (72 percent) than among moderate and conservative Democrats (60 percent).
* The same poll shows 18 percent of moderate Democrats don't want Clinton to run. Just 6 percent of liberal Democrats agree.
* The WaPo-ABC poll also shows liberal Democrats approve of Clinton's tenure at the State Department by a margin of 96-1, while moderate Democrats approve of it 84-12. Sixty-seven percent of liberals strongly approve of Clinton's performance, nearly 9 in 10 say she is a strong leader, and only slightly fewer say she's honest and trustworthy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/06/16/hillary-clinton-doesnt-have-a-problem-with-liberals-not-hardly/
She's not inevitable. Who said she was? Oh wait, you think news coverage of the early horse race equates to people claiming she's inevitable.
Here's my advice - stop reading/listening/viewing it.
Why didn't she win in 2008?
Most political analysts say it was because she didn't campaign in caucus states. Others say Obama had a better money-raising apparatus. But you forget just how close that race was. Or perhaps you never knew or realized it.
Am I the ONLY person who remembers the PUMAs? Remember them? I'll give a few points to the first person who reminds us what PUMA stood for...
What does PUMAs have to do with the here and now? PUMAs were not a Hillary Clinton organization. If we want to apply PUMA mentality to the here and now, it better applies to the 'progressives' who swear daily around the netroots that they'll never vote for Hillary Clinton - in the primaries or the general.
and then I'll ask, So what exactly makes Hillary the best candidate? Really?
That question calls for opinions. It's been asked before. Many times. And answered. Many times. Just because you didn't like the answer or agree with the answer doesn't mean it wasn't answered. Didn't see the answers? The you should use the DU search function. We're under no obligation to continuously answer the same question over and over. Didn't like the answer? Why ask it again? The answer isn't going to change.
She was an abject failure in 2008.
She lost in 2008 in a very close primary race. It that makes her an "abject failure," what does it say about candidates who've run in primaries and lost by bigger margins like Al Gore, Joe Biden, Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich, Jerry Brown, Ted Kenndedy, etc?
If the Democratic party is dumb enough to nominate her in 2016 that will almost guarantee we'll have a Republican president elected that year.
The overwhelming evidence suggests otherwise. From the very latest polling data:
She beats former Florida Governor Jeb Bush 49% to 36%; Kentucky Senator Rand Paul 50% to 34%; New Jersey Governor Chris Christie 47% to 35%; former Massachusetts Governor and 2012 GOP standard-bearer Mitt Romney 50% to 35%; former Arkansas Governor and Fox News host Mike Huckabee 49% to 33%; and Florida Senator Marco Rubio 51% to 29%. As we can see, she hovers around the 50% mark against each challenger.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnzogby/2014/08/22/hillary-wallops-all-republicans-elizabeth-warren-doesnt/
These are the times that separate political realists from Tiger Beat Progressives who are only looking for a deluxe fold out poster of their latest savior to hang on their wall and kiss goodnight each night.
For all of you who blithely say, Oh, she's been through all that, she's vetted, the old claims against her won't matter, all you have NO idea how the real world works. Everything that was held against her in 2008 will be held against her, and then some, in 2016.
OMG! You're so, like, a genius! Just what makes you think any other potential nominee will be shielded from criticism. It would be easy to pain Elizabeth Warren as a socialist. It would be even easier to paint Bernie Sanders as one because he is. Who else? Biden? He has more oppo research to mine than Hillary does. O'Malley? Let's get real, ok?
More to the point, why the fuck is anyone considering someone from the past????
Because many the fuck like her. Are we never to consider anyone from the past? What exactly does that statement even mean?? Al Gore ran for the Dem nomination and lost (and then 'lost' the presidency.) Biden ran for the Dem nomination and lost several times. I could give countless examples.
Why aren't we looking to the future?
Some of us are.
Why in the world are you thinking that in eight years there has not been anyone new come into the Democratic Party that we should be considering?
Don't be silly. Plenty of Dems are considering other people.
Why are you looking at twenty plus years ago to lead us into the middle of the twenty-first century? Really? Tell me again?
because SOME people like Hillary Clinton.
Hillary Clinton doesn’t have a problem with liberals. Not hardly.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has said repeatedly that she won't run for president in 2016, and yet the idea persists: That Hillary Clinton could find herself vulnerable to a more liberal primary opponent.
The problem? Almost all of the most recent data suggests that Clinton doesn't have any real problems on her left flank. Indeed, she's actually stronger with liberals than she is with more moderate Democrats. And very, very few liberals have anything but nice things to say about her.
To wit:
* A new CNN/Opinion Research poll shows that when voters are asked whether they would prefer Clinton, a more liberal alternative or a more conservative one, about twice as many non-Clinton voters say they prefer the more conservative one (20 percent) to the more liberal one (11 percent).
* A Washington Post/ABC News poll this month showed Clinton taking a bigger share of the vote in the 2016 primary among self-described liberals (72 percent) than among moderate and conservative Democrats (60 percent).
* The same poll shows 18 percent of moderate Democrats don't want Clinton to run. Just 6 percent of liberal Democrats agree.
* The WaPo-ABC poll also shows liberal Democrats approve of Clinton's tenure at the State Department by a margin of 96-1, while moderate Democrats approve of it 84-12. Sixty-seven percent of liberals strongly approve of Clinton's performance, nearly 9 in 10 say she is a strong leader, and only slightly fewer say she's honest and trustworthy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/06/16/hillary-clinton-doesnt-have-a-problem-with-liberals-not-hardly/
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
256 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read