Alright- this is SERIOUSLY not flamebait. I'm dead serious,

[Guaranteed]

I'm not trying to piss anyone off, here.

But I was just looking at the poll in LBN that shows Sen. Clinton leading everyone in the early polls for the 2008 presidency. Of course, it's the name recognition, at this point- maybe a yearning for the Clinton years.

But I was reminded of those who just refused to vote against Joe Lieberman. I'm not even talking about DUers who support Sen. Clinton- DUers are clearly more informed than the average voter- but, do you think it's the same "type" of people who supported Joe Lieberman that support Sen. Clinton for President in that poll? Using my imagination, it seems like the support is coming from that same, shallow place....

Am I overgeneralizing/being a jerk?

[xchrom]

1. i don't know.

what i do think is that like environmentalsim -- corporatism is going to become an ever increasing influence at what happens in the voting booth.

how this will play out -- who gets identified with it -- in the coming years remains to be seen.

[GreenZoneLT]

2. Lieberman?

I don't see Hillary supporters as Lieberman supporters (aka Republicans). I think Hillary's poll numbers are mostly name-recognition among anti-Bush voters (aka everyone else).

She's trailing "Don't Know" in the AP poll, fwiw.

If by "that type," you mean Blue Dogs, they're more likely to go for Edwards than Hillary. Personally, I'm really pissed that Mark Warner isn't running. He'd win the general election in a walk, and he's not a polarizing presence; we've had enough of that for awhile.

[Guaranteed]

3. I think I'm just stereotyping her support (not on DU) as the

"don't know shit about politics" type. As related to the "I haven't paid attention to what's actually going on in this country for years now, but you can damned well bet I'm voting for Joe Lieberman again" crowd.

Again, I'm not trying to be offensive, and I'm not even referring to DUers.

[wyldwolf]

6. it is a stereotype

The people I hang out with offline - members of the PAC I'm a part of - are extremely well informed and they've never darkened the doors of DU, KOS, anything else like it.

Many are old time Democrats, could care less about the "netroots," get their news from magazines, newspapers, and TV, and were active in the party while most of us were still in diapers.

[Clark2008]

32. Then they're NOT well-informed or they'd seek their news from

sources other than corporate media. Old-time Democrats need to step outta da way, if that's what they're like because they're helping to harm the country by continuing to vote for corporate pansies.

Corporate media is the bane of our democracy.

[wyldwolf]

42. Then they ARE well informed.

Your Sirota-style Marxist rhetoric aside.

[ixion]

4. we have a randy group of DLC'ers on the board

who are always quick to support candidates who have the favored ear of the DLC.

The DLC, of course, being no real friend of the Democratic Party.

Just my two cents. ;-)

[wyldwolf]

8. and we, of course, have a randy group of anti-DLCers on the board

who are always quick to condemn candidates who have the favored ear of the DLC.

The DLC, of course, salvaging the party from the ashes of the Reagan years - by winning the Senate back in 1986 and the presidency in 1992.

Just my two cents. ;-)

[ixion]

9. sure... I'm not trying to hide my contempt for the DLC

point taken. :-)

[PVnRT]

13. ...and subsequently lost Congress in 1994

And it's a little interesting that the DLC "saved" the party from Reagan by...moving it ideologically toward Reagan.

[wyldwolf]

15. standard challenge to all who pass along that myth

Historians, strategists, and writers attribute the loss in '94 to other factors.

If you have some statistical evidence that it was the DLC, I challenge you to present it. I'm anxiously awaiting it.

[PVnRT]

18. Then where is your evidence

regarding 1986 and 1992? Since you are making the claim, surely you have statistical evidence to back your argument up.

[wyldwolf]

19. I asked you first

c'mon! Be the first to step up the plate for your team!

[PVnRT]

20. Wrong

YOU made the claim first that the DLC is responsible for victories in 1986 and 1992. Present evidence showing that this is the case.

Or do you not have any, and are just parroting the same old DLC line?

[wyldwolf]

22. No, NOT wrong. I issued the challenge in post 15 BEFORE you asked for "my evidence."

It's right there for everyone to see.

In post 13, you stated the DLC lost congress in 1994. You DID NOT ask for any evidence of my prior claims.

In post 15, I issued you the challenge to prove your assertion from post 13.

So c'mon! Go where no other "progressive" has gone before. Actually put some meat on that claim.

[PVnRT]

23. I see

You can make statements without evidence, but no one can challenge you without it. How very Fox News of you.

But, let's see, in 1994:

DLC Chair Representative Dave McCurdy (OK) gained only 40% of the vote running for Senate
DLC Member Senator Jim Sasser (TN) won only 42% of the vote in trying to get re-elected
DLC Member Representative Jim Cooper (TN) got about 39% of the vote during re-election.

Polls done by CNN and USA Today both showed that more Republicans turned out than in 1992. Why wasn't the DLC able to fire people up and get them to vote that year?

The Democrats lost seats across the South and Midwest, areas where this triangulation strategy was supposed to pick up new voters.

That's a start. So, let's hear how the DLC won it all in 1992 and 1986. Since you guys post this constantly, it's about time you back it up.

[wyldwolf]

24. I'll be happy to give you mine after you give me yours

You can make statements without evidence, but no one can challenge you without it. How very Fox News of you.

Hey, all you had to do was ask for the evidence from the start instead of ducking my request for it. Typical and predicted.

DLC Chair Representative Dave McCurdy (OK) gained only 40% of the vote running for Senate
DLC Member Senator Jim Sasser (TN) won only 42% of the vote in trying to get re-elected
DLC Member Representative Jim Cooper (TN) got about 39% of the vote during re-election.

Everyone knows the Democrats lost big in the South - a region, along with the West, that has been trending GOP since the 1960s (and targeted by the GOP since Nixon's Southern Strategy.)

I'll direct you to the book, "The Emerging Republican Majority" that predicted a Republican takeover by the 80s because of the country's political realignment:

http://www.amazon.com/emerging-Republican-majority-Kevin-Phillips/dp/B0006C2U7S/sr=1-2/qid=1165435964/ref=sr_1_2/105-2376879-3198016?ie=UTF8&s=books

The GOP picked up 47 House seats and 3 Senate seats in 1966 and 33 House and 12 Senate seats in 1980. The greater percentage of these were in the South. (Sources: Congressional Quarterly, The Washington Post)

But there is simply no evidence to even suggest the the losses in 1994 were because of the DLC. What is your excuse for the losses cited above in 1966 and 1980 when Congress was controlled by New Deal Dems (1966) and McGovern era liberals (1980)?

Polls done by CNN and USA Today both showed that more Republicans turned out than in 1992. Why wasn't the DLC able to fire people up and get them to vote that year?

I'll overlook the fact you've not linked to the polls - but why would it be up to the DLC to "fire up people and get them to vote that year?" The DLC is, and always has been, a minority presence in the House and Senate and nothing more than a centrist think tank.

The Democrats lost seats across the South and Midwest, areas where this triangulation strategy was supposed to pick up new voters.

Wrong. "Triangulation" was not used until the campaign of 1996. The first two years of Clinton's first term - leading up to the '94 election, was marked by inherently liberal policies - most dominant among them health care and gun control.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangulation_%28politics%29

That's a start.

Easily dismantled.

So, let's hear how the DLC won it all in 1992 and 1986. Since you guys post this constantly, it's about time you back it up.

1986: The Republicans won control of the Senate in 1981 and retained it for six years - until the midterm elections of 1986 when the Democratic party picked up 5 seats in the House and eight seats in the Senate to regain power. The DLC recruited the candidates and/or endorsed and heavily campaigned for 6 of the 8 Democratic Senators elected and who gave the Senate back to the Democrats. They included moderates Barbara Mikulski (a participant in the DLC’s National Service Tour), Harry Reid (who recently said Democrats have to “swallow their pride” and move toward the middle), Conservative Democrat Richard Shelby, DLCer Bob Graham, DLCer Kent Conrad, and DLCer Tom Daschle.

http://www.amazon.com/Reinventing-Democrats-Kenneth-S-Baer/dp/070061009X/sr=1-1/qid=1165435079/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-2376879-3198016?ie=UTF8&s=books

Pgs. 243-244

Al From and the DLC actively reccruited Bill Clinton to run in 1992 and he campaigned on a DLC platform.

In 1985, I got involved in the newly formed Democratic Leadership Council, a group dedicated to forging a winning message for the Democrats based on fiscal responsibility, creative new ideas on social policy, and a commitment to a strong national defense... I thought the DLC was the only group committed to developing the new ideas Democrats needed both to win elections and do right by the country... I was trying to develop a national message for the Democrats, and the effort fueled speculation that I might enter the presidential race in 1992. I spent the next few months  traveling the country for the DLC. Because I was out there making the case for how we could regain "mainstream, middle-class" voters who "have left the party in droves for twenty years," the press continued to speculate that I might run in 1992...

MY LIFE
by Bill Clinton

Excerpt:

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=173&contentid=252794

[Clark2008]

33. WRONG.

The South had NOT been "trending" GOP since the 1960s. We had, maybe one Republican senator, from the time I was born in 1970 untiil 1994.

I didn't read the rest of your post - I saw that and thought, "Hmmm... not in my Southern state."

[SaveElmer]

35. Trending Conservative may have been a better term...

The remnants of the southern racist wing of the Democratic Party took their time moving to the party of Lincoln...but idealogically speaking they were already there...and once Nixon and subsequent Republicans began courting them...they moved over with glee!!!

[wyldwolf]

40. no, actually, trending Republican is very accurate

Since 1968, 7 of 10 Presidential election went GOP in the last poster's state of Tenn. His claims of (maybe) one GOP Senator since he was born is wrong, there have been several GOP governors since the 60s.

[SaveElmer]

43. You are right of course...

I read through the post rather quickly...and was focused on the time up to about 1970...

Still alot of southern conservative Democrats who just couldn't bring themselves to make the switch yet...hard to believe Phil Gramm was ever a Democrat!!!

[wyldwolf]

39. No, YOU'RE wrong, and it is obvious you didn't read the rest of my post

LOL! And you used to be a reporter?

Even after my sources that PROVE the South has been trending GOP, you stick your fingers in your ears and go "la la la la!"

We had, maybe one Republican senator, from the time I was born in 1970 untiil 1994.

That would be Tenn. How could you forget William E. Brock III, elected in '71, and three term Senator Howard H. Baker Jr., elected in '71?

Governors Winfield Dunn and Lamar Alexander?

Tenn. went Republican 7 of the last 10 Presidential elections... for Nixon in 1968, Nixon in 1972, Reagan in 1980, Reagan in 1984, Bush in 1988, Bush in 2000, and Bush in 2004.

And, finally, today - try to get a Democratic Senator elected.

[SaveElmer]

27. And we have a group of folks who consider themselves "the base"

Which is mostly characterized by threats to leave the party or abandon its candidates whenever they do not adhere to liberal orthodoxy!!!


Just my 2 cents

[PassingFair]

29. LOL! Define "liberal orthodoxy" please.

Inquiring minds NEED to know!

[SaveElmer]

34. It's easy to spot...at least around here...

When 90% of this board starts wailing about some Democrat because of a vote they did not like...the position opposite the one that Democrat took, is it...

Happens all the time...

[PassingFair]

44. Hmmmm. You can't define it, but you know it when you see it?

Waiting for "liberal orthodoxy", please.

Please.

What is "liberal orthodoxy"?

[ixion]

38. yeah, but that wouldn't be me

considering I'm an independent. I just call'em as I see'em. ;-)

[wyldwolf]

5. I'll do a deadly serious reply

And I'll preface it with the obligatory "Hillary isn't my first choice" statement.

I don't believe it is name recognition alone.

Al Gore has name recognition. John Kerry has name recognition. John Edwards has name recognition. And because of the current media blitz, so does Barrack Obama.

A yearning for the Clinton years? Perhaps. There does seem to be some fond Clinton nostalgia. But there also seems to be a feeling among many people that Hillary was a part of the policy making decisions during the Clinton years. Ironically, whether this is true or not, that notion was created by the GOP during the Clinton years as a way to make Clinton seem less of a man (he has his wife whispering in his ear! The horror!)

But now with the Clinton years being yearned for, that works to her advantage.

But don't discount the average voter - I certainly don't believe the average DUer is "clearly more informed than the average voter." But the average DUer is clearly more pastisan.

Finally, it has been made clear by that the Senate respects the job Clinton is doing. She had become her own person. She may not have reached her status without the name "Clinton," but let's be honest - Al Gore would just be another former Senator without his Clinton association.

[JeffR]

16. Good Lord, wyldwolf

That's a very insightful post. I agree with about 90% of it. I have to go and lie down now...

[KoKo]

21. True.....I'm fainting

from the insightfulness of it, too....the 90% I agree with. There's always that 10%... but for now.....it was nice to hear something from Wyldwolf that this Progressive Lefty can agree with. :thumbsup: Wyld.

[SaveElmer]

28. And Gore may not have been a Senator..

Had it not been for his father being a former Senator from Tennesee, and near Vice-Presidential candidate.

[Hippo_Tron]

31. Al Gore may have been the nominee in 1992 had he run

Clinton was an attractive southern moderate which is what a lot of people were looking for at the time. Gore was the same thing but without the associated sex scandals.

I'm not bashing Clinton or suggesting that he couldn't have beaten Gore in the '92 primaries, but it would be interesting to see how he would've done had his son not had that car wreck and he would've been able to enter the race. Both Clinton and Gore were huge figures in the moderate faction of the party at the time and I think that their struggle for control over that faction would've been similar to that of the one between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown that took place in the early 90's.

[Zhade]

37. You really don't believe that? Wow.

People here spend their time GETTING informed, yet those who spend, oh, an hour a day using strictly conservative-leaning mass media are as informed?

The fact that we knew the lies about Iraq waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay before they did pretty much gives lie to your belief.

[wyldwolf]

41. Of course I believe it

And speaking of "pretty much gives lie to your belief," did anyone every believe yours about Clinton claiming to be a Republican and PNAC & the DLC sharing the same address and phone number? Talk about being informed.. :rofl:

[hlthe2b]

7. For heaven's sakes: HRC is no Lieberman...

She annoys me sometimes on her far too centrist positions, especially as an early war hawk, but like Diane Feinstein, HRC has her moments, too.

To equate her to Lieberman is excessive, IMO. I'm not pushing for her by any means, but I could certainly live with HRC as the nominee against ANY RW candidate that I can even imagine...

Perhaps, just perhaps, those who took that poll voted for her not only because of name recognition, but because they believe she could win? :shrug: I'm not sure I would agree with that, but I could not fault some for that stance.

[Guaranteed]

11. Not saying she's Lieberman. She's far closer to Lieberman than

she should be, but that's not what I'm saying. I'm talking about their support from their respective constituents.

[Brazenly Liberal]

10. I think a lot of it is about Bill

There are a whole lot of folks out there who would love to vote for Bill Clinton again and this is the closest they can get. Whether you love Bill, hate him, or just don't care about him, there's no denying the loyalty he has inspired in many millions of people. Add to that the stark contrast between the nation as he left it and the nation as W is leaving it and if he could run again, he'd be elected again.

Which is not to take away from Hillary's own personal appeal. She's not my candidate, but I recognize that there are quite a few people who do want her to run.

[sendero]

12. The difference is..

... that the Republicans will "support" HRC only until she is nominated and then the vast Noise Machine will go into overdrive to rehash every nonsense allegation ever made against her.

Contrast that to Joe who got Republican support and money from the get go until the election.

See the difference?

[Norquist Nemesis]

14. Bingo!

Cons will cross over in droves to have the opportunity to put her on the political cross.

[windbreeze]

17. There you go....

that's it in a nutshell...Remember too, our convention is before theirs...so whomever we pick...they will respond accordingly....They DO have the advantage there....It's pretty obvious they want her to be our nominee so bad they can taste it...(even Rupert Murdock got involved)...naturally, I wonder why...
wb

[Infinite Hope]

25. May be some overlap, but support is based upon the candidate. There's nothing to see here. n/t

[election_2004]

26. Yes, I do believe there is some overlap

I think many of the people who are polled are "casual voters" who also happen to be self-identified Democrats. Since very few candidates have announced yet, they are unfamiliar with a lot of the choices when polled. They don't have a well-defined field of options to focus on yet.

I think many DUers are giving way too much credit to these voters who've been polled.

The difference between HRC and Joementum, of course, is that Hillary Clinton is merely disgustingly opportunistic (yet loyal to her party), whereas Joe Lieberman is a sanctimonious sell-out whose loyalty is up for grabs. Different evils, same result.

[RiverStone]

30. Remember, these polls are being pumped up by the MSM

Corporate connected with an agenda.

There have been many threads questioning the validity of said polls, none of which ever reflect the (non-scientific) results of the zillion straw polls on Pres preference on DU.

Who knows who these folks are that support Hillary? On the west coast anyway, which includes all the DEM friends I know, she is no where near the top of the list. I've yet to see a clear explanation of who and where are all these HRC supporters???

[snowbear]

36. Remember Goose.. there's a lot of FR types that hang out in the lounge...

A LOT...

Easy, fast way for them to quickly pad their stats so that when they visit other sections of the board, they don't stand out like a sore thumb.

From what I can tell by getting to know most "frequent DU'ers" on this DU-Politics section (and others here will have different opinions I'm sure)... I'd guess that we have somewhere around 6 to 11 "Hillary in '08" supporters here.

Six for SURE because I think I could name off all 6 of them!!

Others here may have different figures.. but that's my guess --- six for sure.

I admire the tenacity of the "Hillaryites" that we have here have at DU-Politics because there's just not all that many of them (as compared to Clarkies, etc.)

But yup. I'll betcha anything our own DU polls at the lounge are being freeped.

You know the guys:

I think the authentic Hillary supporters we do have here are awesome.. But I don't think you're hallucinating. I honestly don't think there's enuf of them to win a (real) poll... :shrug:

[JeremyWestenn]

45. "Same shallow place..."

That's just nasty.

When she get the nomination, I hate to say it, I will LAWL for you guys.

<_^

[NoPasaran]

46. Whether or not most DUers want to admit it

Our 2008 nominee, if not Hillary Clinton, is still likely to be a DLC member. Or if not an actual fire-breathing, card-carrying DLCer, someone often painted as a "corporatist stooge" based on some hot--button vote they either have or will make.

And in the end, after a huge amount of flaming about it, most everyone here will work their asses off to elect our candidate (as we should).