Why is Hillary leading? The Democratic base supports her

[book_worm]

This according to a new LA Times poll released today:

"Among Democrats in those three states (IA, NH, SC), the race is more firmly settled: The poll found that NY Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has consolidated her lead on a sturdy foundation of support among women, blacks and, in some states, labor union households. And while Clinton previously had established leads in NH and SC, she now appears to be gaining momentum in Iowa, long considered friendly territory for former NC Senator John Edwards."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-poll12sep12,0,2018145.story?

Now I haven't decided who to support yet for '08, but I keep hearing that Hillary is a sure loser that the Democratic base doesn't support her, ect. But according to polls women and African-Americans, the two biggest parts of the base do support her and she also gets significant labor support. The part of the "base" which doesn't automatically support her are perhaps left-leaning democrats.

[BridgeTheGap]

1. If she garners more than 50% of the vote in the primaries, I'll believe that

With a plurality, much more difficult to make the case that the Dem base supports her.

[Kelly Rupert]

16. In an three-plus-way-race?

How the standards shift.

[CTyankee]

64. Well, yes and no. It seems to me that a "base" is often an amalgam

after the primaries shake out. There will be folks like me who support John Edwards but will go unhesitating to HC if she wins big. There are those who will go kicking and screaming, but they will go to HC at the end of the day. And all shades in between, and there you have a "base."

[CreekDog]

68. Newsflash: most Hillary supporters call themselves liberals

And think Hillary is liberal too.

DU is a different world.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

2. "Left leaning Democrats..."

I guess we are a minority within what is supposedly our own party now..

The Democratic wing of the Democratic party.

Pathetic..

[book_worm]

3. I would guess that even if self-professed liberals were questioned she would be high on the list

aren't there liberal women or liberal African-Americans?

[redqueen]

5. Most politically aware people don't base their votes on gender or skin color. n/t

[warren pease]

71. As a "self-professed" liberal -- actually a radical leftist, but who's counting...

I'd rather vote for a rusted out rear end from a '58 Dodge truck than waste my vote on her Hilleryness. Same with the rest of these alleged democratic candidate frauds. When you vote for the lesser of two evils, you still lose.

Talk tough, then fund the occupation again and again. Talk tough, then quiver with dread at a raised eyebrow from Overlord Cheney. Talk tough, then play liars dice and have a great old mutual-backslapping time with their GOP dopplegangers at some Georgetown watering hole.

Kucinich is an actual Democrat. Mike Gravel might be one, too. I don't know what the hell the rest of these corporate suck-ups are. They're certainly not democrats in any conventionally understood sense of the word. They're still running on the old, tired platform: Vote democratic because we don't suck quite as bad as the GOP. Sorry, but that's not a good enough reason to support anyone, much less somebody who's an alleged democrat.

wp

[mmonk]

4. Here's the catch.

She can't win the general without "left leaning democrats".

[ConservativeDemocrat]

7. Yup. Neither could Gore.

So go ahead and betray the nation again, like you guys did 7 years ago. We expect nothing less.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[mmonk]

10. Sorry but save your insults for the blind.

I've never voted independent or third party. Just speaking reality.

[KaptBunnyPants]

31. Betray the nation by not supporting your candidate...

Nice. Votes are earned, nobody owes you a damn thing. People are traitors if they don't support Bush, according to Republicans, and traitors if they don't blindly support any Democratic candidate according to you. Well, you know who I think are traitors? How about the sell out conservative Democrats which prove Nader right at every possible turn. You've weakened the Party to the point where it doesn't mean anything. And I voted for Gore - in spite of people like you.

[FiveGoodMen]

70. Murdoch is helping her. If you can't read the writing on THAT wall...

I don't think you are a member of the reality-based community. Let me see you card.

[book_worm]

9. You're right but are they left leaning democrats or not?

or left leaning independents like those who deserted Gore in 2000? I think most democrats will vote for Hillary. In poll after poll of general election matchups she gets an overwhelming number of democratic support. I think the left wingers who may not vote for her will be mainly those types who didn't think Gore was pure enough in 2000.

[KaptBunnyPants]

39. I voted for Gore. I'm not sure if I can vote for the Hydrocarbon Law.

Hillary campaigns as antiwar, but she wants to impose an imperialist law that the entire country of Iraq is violently opposed to. The two are not compatible, and I think I know which position Hillary cares more about. And, actually, I've voted a straight Democratic ticket since 2000, the first year I could vote. But policy trumps loyalty, and there are some lines I just can't cross.

[Kelly Rupert]

18. If the left wing of the party

wants to give us another Republican president, and make itself even more irrelevant than before, it can do so, I suppose.

[mmonk]

20. The rightwing gave us war, Alito and Roberts.

Plenty of blame for what has been done to this country to go around. The Green party is not the democratic party.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. HRC Voted Against Both Of Em

eom

[mmonk]

30. I wasn't addressing the post as being HRC specific

but the post that blames liberals in the party for bush. Alito and Roberts had democratic votes as did this war and the MCA and the dictatorial powers.

[Kelly Rupert]

36. And they should be blamed for their part in that.

If the left wing of the party, though, chooses not to support the Democratic candidate in 2008, they will be responsible for whatever happens in the next four years of Republican rule, much as Nader and his supporters share responsibility for everything Bush has done, from Alito to Iraq.

[mmonk]

42. I will grant you the third party people

share in the blame because of this system where the only serious choices seem to be the two candidates from the two major parties. However, I know they couldn't have foreseen what would happen in 2000. I'm just pointing out that the continued attacks on the "liberal" democrats by the centrists who think they own this party will harm party unity in 08 just as not standing on the right path when confronting the more extreme actions from the republicans has eroded what should be a fired up base.

[Kelly Rupert]

44. The attacks on the liberal democrats only come

when they threaten to repeat the actions of the Greens in 2000 and withhold their vote from the Democratic candidate.

[mmonk]

46. Look at the large picture.

The fastest growing segment of voters are unaffiliated. The centrists or conservative democrats I'm speaking of are the ones that are high up the party ladder and disparage the "liberals" in their party for the world to hear and see. They give them their long awaited chairs when victory comes but will neuter them.

[Kelly Rupert]

47. While those are certainly reprehensible,

that has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said at any point in this conversation.

[mmonk]

55. I believe you imply left leaning democrats are irrelevant

(unless I read wrong). We're not. Run us off and see. As far as Hillary Clinton goes, she is a mixed bag. She certainly votes good in my opinion most of the time. Her problem with some is the company she keeps and it's possible she is somewhat of an nuanced imperialist, but that doesn't mean she isn't better than any republican candidate. What bothers me is I don't see any republicans voting for her in the general election and I don't see independents voting for her either. I also see a problem with a Green resurgence. I could be wrong, but I don't think so. Also, I don't know what this "press" will do either. I think it's more of a gamble than some people think. If she wins the nomination, I hope I'm wrong.

[Kelly Rupert]

56. Oh, not at all.

They currently possess a degree of irrelevance, and by that I mean they are not in sole control of the party's platform. Just with any group, to an extent they may be ignored; in fact, it's necessary to win in some districts. However, a break with the Democratic party in 2008 would not only result in a massive loss for the Democrats in those elections, it would result in that group becoming completely and totally irrelevant.

[mmonk]

58. We're good.

BTW, I'm a former Clinton/Gore volunteer and I've also contributed to Richardson this year. I'm just a frustrated democrat who is a big civil liberties person.

[CreekDog]

69. Most Hillary supporters are left-leaning

Hillary is not a conservative Democrat.

[mmonk]

72. She's left but a little right on foreign affairs at times. But my post

is in a response and not HRC specific.

[CreekDog]

75. I don't disagree with you regarding HRC

I was taking issue with the the norm at DU that considers her a conservative.

[RaleighNCDUer]

59. GREENS ARE NOT DEMOCRATS. nt

[Kelly Rupert]

61. Never claimed they were. n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

63. Then why do you keep bringing them up?

Lefty dems are NOT responsible for what the Greens did in 2000.

[Kelly Rupert]

80. Never claimed they were.

I said that if lefty dems abandoned Hillary in '08, as the poster I was replying to suggested they might, it would be a repeat of what the Greens did in 2000.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

6. Shhhhhh

Don't tell all the anti-Democratic Party DUers that they're not the Democratic Party base.
They don't like that. It hurts their self-denial.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[redqueen]

8. Doesn't "Conservative Democrat" mean republican, nowadays?

Considering how far the party's shifted to the right over the last few decades?

[ConservativeDemocrat]

15. Shifted to the right?

Wow, pal, you must really live on a different planet.

I'm just trying to imagine how much support gay marriage would have gotten in the Democratic party of the 1970s.
5%? 15%? Not saying anything is wrong with it, mind you, but that isn't exactly "conservative".

Now I will admit that we've come a long way in supporting balanced budgets, but the last time I checked, the Party still routinely flirts with protectionism. Free trade agreements, with or without union and environmental protections, are usually only passed with a handful of Democratic votes.

What has changed is that Republicans - before their neocon meltdown - took over most of the levers of government by winning elections. In other words, your problem isn't with the Democratic party, it's with the American people, who have become more conservative over the years. Too conservative for me, quite frankly.

But we're seeing some signs of sanity from the American people, finally. They'll finally start voting for us again.

If only we can keep the people in clown suits off of T.V.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[The Vinyl Ripper]

19. Anyone to the right of you is "wearing a clown suit"? n/t

[redqueen]

25. I think they meant the left. n/t

[ConservativeDemocrat]

27. Code Pink certainly does

Literally.

Oh, and there are plenty of Democratic leftists that deserve respect. We agree on many issues, disagree on
a few. But they don't, like so many DUers do, campaign against Democrats while simultaneously pretending
that they speak for the Democratic Party.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[RaleighNCDUer]

29. We only campaign against democrats who do not speak for the

democratic party. We were accused of 'disloyalty' for speaking against Lieberman, to what result? A "democratic" senator who has abandoned us for the republicans. Doe HE speak for the democratic party?

[ConservativeDemocrat]

41. Boy, you are just like a Republican, aren't you?

Making things up, I mean.

Please, go ahead and give me one single quote of anyone accusing Lamont of disloyalty.
Go ahead. I dare you. Wade through the thousands of "Lieberman disloyalty" quotes
(which, BTW, he deserves) to see if you can find anything.

This is just like the "spit on the Vietnam soldiers" myth that Republicans trot out,
except if anything, I can actually believe some communist Yippee in the country back
then might have done it, somewhere.

That's the trouble with the hard left. You accurately see the self-deception of the
Republican right, but don't see the equivalent things you do in yourself.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[RaleighNCDUer]

Who is making things up?

I never said that Lamont was accused of disloyalty. I said that we leftists were accused of disloyalty to the democrats for pointing out that Lieberman was a turncoat - which was proved when he ran against the democratic nominee.

Despite the propaganda, it is the democratic right that consistantly abandons the party, not the left. The Dixiecrats, the Reagan Democrats, now the DLC. Democrats opposed to the new deal coalition of labor, liberals and minorities. How the fuck did Bush get 89% approval ratings if not for the support of conservative dems? He never had the left. We knew he was a liar and conniver - time and again the left positions have proved to be correct, and the conservatives have been wrong.

So who is making things up?

[ConservativeDemocrat]

57. Really? Then give me a quote. Better yet, a dozen

If this myth you're determined to believe is true, it should be trivial to find quotes using google
to prove what you say is correct.

And insofar as the country is concerned, you are quite correct: many voters who belong to the Democratic
party see themselves as Americans first, partisans second. They rallied, after 9/11, behind the President,
regardless of his party.

I don't need to tell you how badly Bush betrayed them, of course. But again, the hard left's problem isn't
really with conservative Democrats. It's with the American people. And you're determined, in your anger,
to drive them away, just when even Republican leaning independents are turning away from the GOP.

Or, at least that's what it looks like from someone who doesn't have your filters on. If you can come
up with a bunch of "disloyalty for supporting Lamont" quotes, maybe you can prove I'm the one
with the filters. Care to take that challenge?

No? Didn't think so.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[CreekDog]

65. The majority of Democrats voting in that race agreed with you

And the party leadership followed that majority.

It was very mainstream among Democrats to loathe Holy Joe and has been for a long while.

You need a better example of the issue you are trying to highlight.

[mmonk]

74. The big problem with our party is we look at the parts of our coalition

and instead of really gathering them together, we look at the republican coalition and try to appeal with theirs.

[KaptBunnyPants]

32. Code Pink is trying to stop the war. Conservatives are trying to "win it".

Conservatives are villains in every Party.

[redqueen]

22. Didn't Nixon start the EPA?

Didn't Clinton ignore most environmentalists' pleas, until the last few months of his term?

[ConservativeDemocrat]

33. Not really, and no

The EPA was "created" by Nixon, in the same way that the Department of Homeland Security, was "created" by Bush: it was simply a reorganization of preexisting agencies. For example, just as the Immigration and Naturalization Service is now part of the DHS, the Pollution Control Commission became part of the EPA. While Nixon does deserve credit for streamlining the federal bureaucracy, it wasn't as if environmentalism was a huge Republican principal, as many modern day leftists would like to believe.

Clinton, on the other hand, stood up for the Northwest Spotted Owl even before his presidency began, so pretending that he ignored environmentalists is, quite frankly, just another false claim - especially in light of his vetos of various Gingrich-era rollbacks of protections, his land use rules, etc., etc., none of which endeared him to rural voters.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[redqueen]

50. Actually conservation of the environment used to be

one of the main planks of the conservative ideology.

But... anyway...

[KaptBunnyPants]

34. Gore begged Clinton to care about global warming.

Clinton did nothing. Maybe if Clinton hadn't sandbagged Gore, people would have known he wasn't a sell out like his boss was.

[redqueen]

49. Memories can be so selective. n/t

[CreekDog]

67. No and No

Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act, the landmark environmental leglislation was written by Democrats, in fact, wasn't it Ed Muskie that wrote much of that legislation?

Nixon signed it, but now you know who wrote it.

And Clinton protected swaths of the American West back in 1996, long before his term ended, in fact, before his first term ended.

[redqueen]

76. The EPA started before the clean water act, didn't it?

Clinton protected swaths of land... sure... but what else did he do? Why did environmentalists feel betrayed by him, and flock to the Green party?

And there is more to Clinton than just the environment and the economy.

Failure to address the abolishment of the Fairness Doctrine (as he claimed he would during the campaign).
Failure to protect the media by signing the Telecom Act.
Failure to protect low wage mothers by signing a ridiculous version of Welfare Reform.

[CreekDog]

77. You made the arguments and they were easily refuted

But let's keep going since you've brought up more:

Most enviromentalists voted for Gore. They didn't "flock" to the Green Party.

Also, do you keep track of the things you say? You said that Gore "begged" Clinton to do something about global warming and that Clinton did not, so then you argue here that environmentalists deserted Gore because of what Clinton didn't do. Although enviros did not "flock" to the Greens in the numbers you suggest. 2.7% of the vote is not "flocking". The Sierra Club vociferously endorsing Gore is not environmentalists flocking to the Greens.

As for the other issues you bring up, candidates go politically where they can COUNT ON the most votes. No, I didn't support those things, but I still voted because I wasn't going to do better. That's not settling, it's called reality. Thus, if you are fickle in your support unless certain causes are attended to and the candidate finds more votes among centrists, that candidate will likely move rightward to grab more votes.

The only way you get a Democrat to run left is to get a right wing candidate that is not a Republican into the mix. This happened just once, in 1948 when Strom ran and with that pressure on Dewey, Truman saw the most votes to grab to his left and ran leftward. Nader running to the left puts the Democrat in the middle in an untenable situation.

[redqueen]

78. I didn't say that, actually... that was someone else.

Refuted? Hardly. Show me how the Dems are more liberal now... or even JUST AS liberal as they were in the 70's. I'd love to see that.

Why didn't Clinton re-introduce CAFE standards?

Lots of DEMOCRATS voted for Nader... not just Greens. So maybe they didn't change party affiliation, but they voted with their feet, didn't they? Was that cause Clinton was so liberal? Hardly.

All that crap about settling... I don't even know what you're bringing that up for... it wasn't anything I said... so... I'll let whoever you meant to address that to respond to that.


And as for your last point... Ross Perot.

[CreekDog]

79. I'm just trying to explain why you aren't going to get a candidate to run left

If you threaten to bolt and vote for Nader or another farther left 3rd party candidate.

Electoral math precludes you getting your way in that fashion.

The only way you get that is if a right winger runs third party with lots of support, then the percentage of votes required to win is reduced and it becomes more feasible for the Democrat to run left to get those votes.

What I'm not doing is telling you to be happy with the centrism of some of our candidates, I'm just telling you why it's not likely to get any better at this point.

And it won't get better for you if you go 3rd party.

[redqueen]

81. That's not exactly true. It has been done before.

The Democratic party adopted some of the main planks of the Populist Party platform after they started losing voters to the populists.

[mmonk]

37. Say you are a part of the reality based community.

Here's some reality. Our constitution is in shambles and our name is in the cesspool. Never bow down to wrong for political advantage or walk this nation down the wrong path.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

48. And if Naderites hadn't thrown their snit-fit...

...like they're now threatening to do if Hillary wins the nomination, we wouldn't be in this situation, would we?

And <b>that's</b> the real reality.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[RaleighNCDUer]

28. And if the conservative dems had not abandoned the party for Reagan

we would not be in this mess today.

[redqueen]

51. Thank goodness Clinton gave them a reason to come back.

Right?

[mmonk]

60. Heh heh

:rofl:

[Armstead]

11. You can't support what you don't hear about

Based on the MSM which most people rely on for news, the Democratic contest is a two-way race between Hilary and Obama -- with John Edwards occasionally acknowledged.

As far as political coverage, all of the rest of the Democrats might as well not exist.

[lapfog_1]

12. I'm not supporting her in the primaries.

I do not think that we should be Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton for 24 or 28 years of presidential rule.

I do not like some of her positions.

I don't care about "unelectability" or lightning rod status with the reactionary right (which, like her husband before her, I don't get, given that there are more liberal candidates than her running)

I do think she is the candidate that the media and the republicans WANT to run against.

If she is the democratic candidate, I'll vote for her, but not with a lot of enthusiasm.

(Right now, my candidates are Gore, Feingold, Obama... and only Obama is running)

[book_worm]

13. I agree with you about the Bush-Clinton thing

if she is nominated though I will support her.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

26. "I do think she is the candidate that the ...the republicans WANT to run against."

"More tears are shed over answered prayers than unanswered ones"

-St. Teresa of Avila

[lapfog_1]

35. Right not she is the Briar patch they want to be thrown in...

remains to be seen if they are really rabbits.

[mmonk]

14. Party elites.

The base is the rest of which some follow what the elites want and others don't.

[ShortnFiery]

17. OMFG! IMO, that analysis is wrong on many levels.

:grr: :nuke:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. I'll Play

Why don't you provide us with your analysis and evidence to back it up...

That's how us folks in the reality based community usually play...

[book_worm]

21. New FL poll out today

Hillary and Rudy are neck and neck 44-44
Rudy beats Edwards 46-42 and Obama 47-38

Why do people want to make it out that Hillary is a sure loser?

[emilyg]

38. Thank you.

[KaptBunnyPants]

40. She's the only one of the three still campaigning in the state.

Due to the games the state Party is playing, loyal Democrats have already sworn off campaigning there. Nicely done leaving out the relevant details.

[SoCalDem]

45. I don't think Rudy will be their "final answer"

The fetus-worshipers will bail on him
The homophobes won't vote for him
Many in the south consider him a NooooYorkkkk Librul

he hasn't been whacked around much yet..

The one to fear is Thompson..he's a mythical guy to them... a wannabee reagan.. (we know he's a fraud, but then so was reagan..and he got 8 long years to wreck the economy)

[IndianaJones]

43. I support her. I would probably be labeled a conservative Democrat.

She has broad appeal.

[ShortnFiery]

52. Freudian Slip Perhaps?

"... broad appeal." :P :rofl:

It's strange how many liberals, such as myself and conservatives despise HRC. But for different reasons. ;)

[IndianaJones]

54. lol. I think many times its for the same reasons...

and that the politics don't differ that much.

[bigtree]

53. oh . . . THAT base

:crazy:

[Generator]

62. I don't trust these polls

and I will NEVER answer a poll either. I think they manipulate data and we have NO way of ever verifying any of it-kinda just like our elections. I'm so tired of being manipulated. That's all the media is is a shell game to propagandize us into whatever the powers that be have decided we ALREADY think. And they have thought for years that Hillary is our candidate. She is still being shoved down our throats and I even believe she COULD be elected now, however, she will never stop or end any war or ever get anything done. She's beholden to the powers that be. Her constituency, the ones with the cash. Not us wee folks.

However, Hillary Clinton STILL and ALWAYS (until another name is ever elected president) have the best name recognition- period.

That doesn't mean any thinking REAL Democrat would ever choose her unless she was the ONLY choice. Which apparently to our media, she is.

[ecstatic]

66. Not left leaning Dems.... FAR /radical left leaning Dems/greens

Some of them you can't even really consider to be Dems, since they promise they would vote for Ron Paul over Clinton if she got the nom.

[mondo joe]

73. DU doesn't look like the Democratic primary voters, whom I'd consider the "base".

So it's not surprising that their respective choices look different.