Skip to main content

This weekend, the same WaPo-ABC News pollsters who noted in late January that Hillary Clinton had the biggest lead, ever, of any Democratic frontrunner for the Presidency, have published the results of a poll that notes that 55% of all Dems/Leaning Dems want HRC to face primary opposition.


Democrats don’t want a free pass for Clinton
By Aaron Blake
Washington Post
June 8 at 11:23 am

A majority of Democrats say they would rather that Hillary Clinton face a competitive primary in 2016. But even in that case, they're prepared to give her a landslide win.

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows 55 percent of Democratic-leaning respondents think that other Democrats should run, while 28 percent think Clinton should be unopposed and 13 percent say she shouldn't run, period.

The numbers are all the more interesting because, even as Democrats say they want a competitive primary, they really don't see anybody actually competing with Clinton right now…

…The data suggest that Clinton's "inevitability" in the Democratic primary is as much about the lack of viable options — or, at least, the lack of viable options people actually know about…

As Mother Jones recently noted, Clinton has a Wall Street "problem." Of course, there are many people within our own party that regularly explain to us that this a feature, not a bug. IMHO, if anyone thinks that any Republican opponent against HRC in the 2016 general election will not use that vulnerability to drive home a resonating, Mack truckload full of propaganda to Main Street, they're kidding themselves. Of course, if the GOP nominee is Jeb, Mitt, or a Romney-like retread, the GOP will be looking at a wash in the propaganda department as far as that topic's messaging is concerned. Meantime, right now, HRC still romps in the general, as well, according to this weekend's poll.

Then again, polls 2-1/2 years out from an election are rather meaningless, despite all the contrarian hullabaloo regarding same emanating from some corners of the Democratic Party. Of course, those continuing to tout the former Secretary of State's inevitabie-ness as our Party's nominee in 2016 may soon realize the inconvenient truth that, every so often, this type of messaging creates its own voter backlash, too.

Meanwhile, in directly-related news at the WaPo this weekend, there's a great piece on new scientific discoveries regarding the study of the brain as it relates to learned helplessness.


#            #            #

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  She Did Vote For Iraq..... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Silencio, Kevskos, ps2os2

    which was one of the reasons I voted for Barack Obama in 2008.  But, I think she can win....and I wouldn't hesitate to vote for
    her in 2016.  

    My other objection to Hillary is that she put up w/ Bill's cheating for all these years.  Even in the most politically advantageous relationships, accepting your husband's lies
    & serial cheating really makes me scratch my head.  Come
    on, Hillary.  Really?  Seriously?  

    •  Frankly, I think any discussion of ANY... (33+ / 0-)

      ...election's "inevitable" outcome, 2-1/2 years before the election, itself, is either an exercise in propaganda, or it's being led by someone with eighth-grade understanding of U.S. politics. But, that's just my opinion (albeit educated), and I'm entitled to it.

      "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

      by bobswern on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 12:24:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  IF HRC does run... (9+ / 0-)

        ... she will owe a huge debt of gratitude (and/or money) to little Georgie Snuffaluvapugalus for mentioning "Hillary for Prez" virtually EVERY week since the late 1990s (Bill Clinton was still in office!) when he took over the ABC Sunday Yak Show (This Week).  Georgie has faithfully pushed and pulled that 'Hillary for Prez' meme train so often it was one reason I looked for something else to watch..., then I gave up watching ALL the Sunday shows for lack of a Democratic point of view.  Specifically, a progressive Democratic point of view, not warmed over uber-conservative Gooper Spittle masking as "conservative" Democratic-in-Name-Only rhetoric.

        I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

        by NonnyO on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 02:15:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The race is on starting now or very soon (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          NonnyO

          for jobs in a Clinton administration. It's all about jobs, money, power.

          Ask any of these Village courtiers what they want to do FOR the country and they're stunned silent for the moments it takes them to retch up the appropriate boilerplate... That includes Clinton II.

          If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers. - Thomas Pynchon

          by chuckvw on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 10:32:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Stephanopolis? (0+ / 0-)

          He still has a show? I stopped watching the Sunday morning talk shows a few years ago. Some MSNBC hosts have been serving as part of the Clinton campaign, so I stopped watching them a while back as well. Every time they wave the banner for the Clintons, it's like a slap in the face to those who voted for Obama/Biden. The only good thing is that is prompts viewers to take a closer look at just how far to the right MSNBC has been getting pulled.

          •  Temporarily... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jbsoul

            ... Christian Amanpour took over Georgie's show a very few weeks a few years ago.  I feel like I'm the only one who watched one or two of her first shows, but in one of those she was talking to a military or pentagon head honcho and she asked how many AQ members were still alive after so many #2 were killed or captured, and she finally got an answer: "fewer than 100."  That tells me the original number had to be fewer than 500 around the time 9/11 occurred.  I noticed way back then, right after 9/11 when the push for "going after OBL" was highest, that no one ever mentioned how many AQ members there were.

            I'll be darned if I can find the video on YouTube where Amanpour was interviewing that fellow whose name I always forget.  I suspect someone who doesn't want to admit how FEW Al Qaida ever existed made sure the show didn't get put on YouTube because they didn't want to have the numbers known to see how little the threat level was from them since their little gang of international criminals were the only ones the hundreds of thousands of US military went after in the mountains between Afghanistan & Pakistan (we did not, remember, go to war with anyone in those two countries - just the little gang of criminals who were elevated to the status of "ter'rists" and treated like they were somehow ten feet tall with super powers).  Talk about "over-kill."

            Of the few shows I saw with Amanpour, she was good..., so I suspect since she didn't ask softball questions she was removed and Georgie went back to his post to perform his function as a cheering section for HRC.  At least I think he's still there.  I'd given up on watching his one-man HRC parade years before that, saw a few shows with Amanpour, and then stopped when I heard he was coming back.  I turned my TV off a few months ago (maybe it's closer to a year ago now), and of the very few TV shows I watch I do so on Hulu - Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are online by 3-5 a.m. after their shows air.  Summer schedule now applies so it will be Rookie Blue and I think Royal Pains has a new summer season coming up and I'll watch them on Hulu.  For two summers in a row I only watched Rookie Blue (one hour of TV per week), and this year I understand over 20 Rookie Blue episodes have been made and Idiotic ABC schedulers are only going with half the programs (13, I think?) - not sure when they'll air the rest of the episodes of the Canadian-produced show.

            US TV networks could do us all a favor if they replaced one of the Idiotic "Reality" TV shows with something good produced in another country; heaven knows, the US certainly isn't making that many good shows - too many sports things have been put on regular network channels instead of left to sport channels, and too many schlocky "reality" shows are on every network.  Because of that I wasn't watching enough TV to justify the cost of the electricity to turn the TV on since I loathe both sports and reality shows, and most national and local "news" is softball infotainment featuring "news" about celebrities who should have been out of the spotlight years ago, not real news, certainly nothing remotely "controversial" (except sometimes mentioned in passing, nothing in-depth).

            So, I guess Georgie is still around.  I see his picture on my Yahoo "news" feed now and then, altho I couldn't really tell you why, just that I recognize him - and his religious sidekick who came out as a lesbian after her mother died (I saw those news blurb headlines on the Yahoo "news" feed, didn't read the stories).

            I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

            by NonnyO on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 07:20:45 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Even sillier, (19+ / 0-)

        given the fact that this was all said 8 years ago---and she was declared the obvious victor---until the voters got involved and rejected her right-wing campaign.

        Seen this movie before. She's not that good a candidate, not against would-be primary opponents and not against Rand Paul or Ted Cruz in a general.

        She doesn't 'connect' w/folks and she's yet to describe the movitation for her candidacy beyond 'breaking the glass ceiling.'
        That's not a campaign platform.

        •  If her victory is so assured (4+ / 0-)

          How was it that she lost the primary in 2008?

          We're 2-1/2 years out from the election.  How many people had even heard of Obama in the summer of 2005?

          "It's not surveillance, it's data collection to keep you safe"

          by blackhand on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 06:03:31 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's kind of a shallow comment. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Dr Swig Mcjigger

            There was a phenomenon called Barack Obama who just had a whole new campaign machine. Remember? I know it's difficult, but try to cast your mind back 6-7 years. Obama just had a whole ground game and fundraising network that laid waste to the old style of political campaigning. It caught Republicans by surprise too. The Obama campaign changed the practice of politics in important ways, but I would suggest that some of the credit has to go to people like Markos.

            Voting is the means by which the public is distracted from the realities of power and its exercise.

            by Anne Elk on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 10:17:09 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Lots of people had heard of Obama in summer 05 (0+ / 0-)

            Summer of 04 put him on the national radar in a big way. he got a ton of press after his convention speech and many people thought he'd be on a ticket someday. Perhaps not in 08, but someday relatively soon. There's really no one out there like that now.

          •  It's not (0+ / 0-)

            This is just Dems maintaining their tradition of defeating themselves.  But it does prompt us to take a closer look at the media marketed to today's libs. Why are so many working so hard to push aside VP Biden to get a right-winger elected?

        •  "Right-wing"? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dr Swig Mcjigger, ps2os2

          Conservative, yes. Right-wing, not even close. Binary thinking sucks, even when we do it.

          "The great lie of democracy, its essential paradox, is that democracy is the first to be sacrificed when its security is at risk. Every state is totalitarian at heart; there are no ends to the cruelty it will go to to protect itself." -- Ian McDonald

          by Geenius at Wrok on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 07:06:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Of course it's propaganda (14+ / 0-)

        2016 is way too far in the future to have any real picture of the presidential race now.  Democrats favor Hillary because of name recognition, and because of the constant drumbeat of "inevitability."  Most voters have forgotten what a crappy campaign she ran in 2008, and probably don't recall what a creature of Wall Street she's always been.  There's no real opposition visible at this point, either within the party or on the other side.  Of course Democrats are going to favor her, in the absence of any developments to consider other alternatives.  The management of this site is dumb -- or cynical -- enough to play along with this.

        The campaign hasn't even gotten started yet.  Hillary's best play at this point is to try to clear the field.  Once she faced real competition last time, she didn't prove as inevitable as advertised.  We'd do well to remember that.

        We have always been at war with al Qaeda.

        by Dallasdoc on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 06:36:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I'm willing to bet (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Wolf10, bobswern, JVolvo, Johnny Q, Roger Fox

        that if I looked for it, I could find articles about Hillary being "inevitable" in 2007.

         Hillary may be the best candidate the Dems can field, but that merely shows the weakness of the Dems.

        "The oppressors most powerful weapon is the mind of the oppressed." - Stephen Biko

        by gjohnsit on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 08:02:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Hey, let's invade the privacy of a woman's (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Gertie Green, JamieG from Md

      marriage! You have no idea what their relationship is all about. And "cheating"? How are things down there in Harper Valley, anyway?

      Voting is the means by which the public is distracted from the realities of power and its exercise.

      by Anne Elk on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 10:12:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Ah (0+ / 0-)

      What does her husband's cheating have to do with anything other than showing H. Clinton's poor judgement? It is FAR more important that she has consistently supported the right wing/corporate agenda. Our better-off seem oblivious to the degree of antipathy the Clintons have earned from the poor/working class masses. Regardless, VP Joe Biden will be the Dem candidate in 2016.

    •  Funny... (0+ / 0-)

      I'm betting a whole lot of people will have a problem with HRC "looking the other way" throughout her husband's episodes of serial cheating".  But, I have to wonder, how many of those same people have cast their ballots, time and again, for men who have been serial philanderers?  And, what makes any of us so certain that (1) HRC accepted her husband's lies, or (2) that she stayed with him for "politically advantageous" reasons?  I am no fan of HRC' s, politically, believing her to be too cozy with Wall Street to ever look out for us.  And, I do believe that a politician's private life can be relevant with regards to their fitness to serve.  However, nothing you mentioned is.

    •  Word on the Clintons is... (0+ / 0-)

      ...they were swingers from the get-go, so if she knew and approved of his assignations, and vice-versa, it becomes a non-issue.

      Besides,it ain't none of our business.

    •  If not Hillary... (0+ / 0-)

      ...then Elizabeth Warren...

      Imagine this: Hillary/Elizabeth for 8 years; then Elizabeth/Hillary for the next 8... It boggles the mind how much good they could do for 16 years!!

    •  I think she would be harder on the Repubs than (0+ / 0-)

      Obama has been.  But the big thing is whether she can be elected.  Right now she looks far stronger than any other candidate for the Dems.  Hope and pray that she does not get murdered.  
      I still remember going door to door for McCarthy until Bobby Kennedy was murdered.  Then all us left wingers who thought Bobby was too far right realized that we had been counting on him all along.  
      Imagine how you would feel if Hillary was murdered?  

  •  This is a bit too fatalistic for me... (26+ / 0-)
    A majority of Democrats say they would rather that Hillary Clinton face a competitive primary in 2016. But even in that case, they're prepared to give her a landslide win.
    I don't want Clinton to face a token challenger for the nomination. I want a fighter with core liberal values who will [if not win] force her to the left on just about every issue.

    Why in the hell are they asking this question now anyway?

    It's a waste of time and only serves to scare off any potential opponents worth a damn.

    "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged." - 17th-century French clergyman and statesman Cardinal Richelieu.

    by markthshark on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 12:22:47 AM PDT

  •  55% of Democratics won't even bother... (8+ / 0-)

    to show up and VOTE to save their country from the tea klux klan.

    •  As I noted in a topic in an unrelated post here... (11+ / 0-)

      ...on Sunday, this country's economy, politics and media operate based upon fear as the overwhelming driver of public sentiment.

      Despite all-too-frequent propaganda commentary to the contrary at DKos, the truth is that people vote their pocketbooks, unless they're scared to death of terrorist attacks; at that point voters are more concerned about their security than they are about their income.

      "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

      by bobswern on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 12:34:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I highly suspect... (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LI Mike, bobswern, lotlizard, Roger Fox

        ... based on the number of TV shows showing fictitious "terror-related" plots that the only ones intimidated by fear of "ter'rists" are media types..., and politicians (who, based on their own bloody fears, have taken away the rights of We The People!!!).

        I don't know anyone personally, nor do I know of anyone who knows someone, who is intimidated by common criminals (which is all the 'ter'rists' are).

        As I've said before, common criminals don't scare me.  Drunk drivers and texting drivers do, however, scare the bejeebers out of me because they are the real threats around where I live out here in the dingtoolies.

        I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

        by NonnyO on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 02:24:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I think there is going to be a very (11+ / 0-)

    real primary, and there should be.

    There are no rules, only the illusion of rules.

    by Drewid on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 12:32:58 AM PDT

  •  Total asdf (8+ / 0-)

    "You cannot win improv." Stephen Colbert (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6tiaooiIo0 at 16:24).

    by Publius2008 on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 12:40:09 AM PDT

    •  Heh...I've been writing about Tice... (10+ / 0-)

      ...and Binney, and about 10-12 other, HIGHLY-CREDIBLE folks that have ALL told us that NSA/gov't surveillance is far more damning than anything we've learned from the Snowden document leaks, to date. There are MANY links to those posts--quite a few of them before we even knew of the name Edward Snowden, too--right HERE.

      By the way, George Washington's blog permits ANYONE to reproduce their posts in their entirety, as long as they provide proper links and attribution!!! (I've reproduced a few of them at DKos, too.)

      I believe the Woodruff/PBS interview was at the beginning of August of 2013, if my memory serves me correctly. There was significant coverage of this story at Daily Kos, at the time. Shortly thereafter, the AT&T Hemisphere story broke, too. Both aspects of this overarching NSA/surveillance state story need to be told again and again, until it really sinks in to the America public just how nefarious this situation really is.

      Just sayin'....

      "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

      by bobswern on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 12:51:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  A token challenge is worse than no challenge. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cybrestrike, Portlaw

    If it's not going to be real then it's worse than useless.  I'll take the honesty of an unvarnished coronation over a bullshit simulation of democratic process designed to make gullible liberals feel like they have some voice in this corrupt conservative party.   Just give Hillary a crown and a sceptre and a throne if you're not going to give us an authentic alternative.

  •  But they're prepared to give her a landslide win. (5+ / 0-)

    Why doesn't that fact appear in the diary title?

    •  Ummm, because it's not in the WaPo title... (8+ / 0-)

      ...and it's NOT a "landslide," unless you consider 10 pts. over Rand Paul to be a landslide. (Which most folks would agree is NOT a landslide.) I call it a "romp" in my post.

      So, it is mentioned in my post and in the WaPo story, too. But, thanks for your advice and valued input.

      Last but not least, prognosticating on ANY national election--and declaring its "inevitability"--2-1/2 years out, is a game for chumps, IMHO. That's my opinion. And, I'm sticking to it.

      Don't get me wrong, Hillary could very well win the primaries in a romp, too. However, the over-arching point is: In politics, a couple of years is an ETERNITY. And, that IS somewhat of "a golden rule." Anyone who pretends otherwise is either propagandizing or they're not really that well-versed in U.S. politics.

      "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

      by bobswern on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 01:53:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The article states that Democratic voters are (7+ / 0-)

        prepared to give her a landslide win. In fact, the article states this plainly.

        Your arguments would be more compelling if they were more nuanced. If instead of glossing over a salient fact your diary attempted to consider the reason for this fact in the context of these poll numbers, your argument would be more credible.

        But when you cherry pick a poll to suggest that Clinton is not inevitable when in fact she may still be, your argument falls flat.

        Cherry picking one poll to suggest that she is not inevitable is just as inane as cherry picking a poll to say she is. Perhaps the next time you write about this you could include more data points and give us a sense of a polling trend. That would be more meaningful.

      •  Anything 60 days before election day (8+ / 0-)

        ... is invalid, as far as I'm concerned.

        After the DNC selects the candidate, then I can pay attention.

        Until then, it's just so much stuff and nonsense about idiocies like wearing or not wearing flag lapel pins, who has which feelings hurt or feels insulted, and other assorted inanities over which people get their knickers in a knot.

        You are quite correct: Two and a half years ahead of election day is an ETERNITY in electoral politics.

        I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

        by NonnyO on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 02:41:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I suspect (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          NonnyO, bobswern

          That a lot of the Hillary Rah Rah we're seeing now is a disguised attempt to judge the public view of her as a candidate.  I mean the real view, not the one that is determined through political phone poling.

          "It's not surveillance, it's data collection to keep you safe"

          by blackhand on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 06:15:41 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Most candidates leading 60 days before election (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          virginislandsguy

          win actually.

          •  Perhaps... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bobswern

            Doesn't that make it all seem like it's a fatalistic inevitability to have the election results "predicted" months to years in advance?

            Why bother to even vote if the election is a foregone conclusion based on media hype and push polling?

            The elections for the last fifteen years have been statistical dead heats for two years leading up to election day and not much moves in polls before then.  Voter turnout is low..., because no one feels like their votes even count..., and 2000 in Florida proved they didn't when SCOTUS stopped the recount, and then '04 in OH there couldn't be a recount because the e-voting machines didn't spit out receipts or copies that could be recounted by hand (and no one was ever very sure the machines were not rigged).

            The inevitability of it all, plus the polls that never move from statistical dead heats for two years and more fill me with dread..., and the idiotic fake controversies bore me senseless.  I'd rather sleep through election day than go to the polls bright and early like I have been doing.

            I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

            by NonnyO on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 07:53:09 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Ten points would definitely be a landslide. (6+ / 0-)

        Only Ronald Reagan has won by more than 10 percent in the last 40 years.

        Winning by 10% would be a significant improvement over Obama's and even Bill Clinton's margins of victory.

      •  Based on that, would seem WAPO poll pointless (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bobswern

        Political egos being what they are, somebody will come out of the woodwork to challenge her, and it will be a good exercise. Either we get somebody more populist ant to the left, or HRC is reminded that she needs them to win, and thus commits to certain policies.  With a bit of hard work she/ whomever will have a D senate and D house, and maybe get a few things done.

    •  On landslides: (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bobswern, lotlizard, Roger Fox

      Early polling before the 1980 primaries had Teddy Kennedy easily beating Reagan. They also had Carter beating Reagan and Muskie polling even.

      One step at a time...all I'm sayin'...

      Adequate health care should be a LEGAL RIGHT in the U.S without begging or bankruptcy. Until it is, we should not dare call our society civilized.

      by Love Me Slender on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 05:58:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Link? (0+ / 0-)

        New Republic: So are the left-wing blogs as bad as the Tea Party ones in this case? -------------------------Chuck Schumer: Left-wing blogs are the mirror image. They just have less credibility and less clout.

        by AlexDrew on Tue Jun 10, 2014 at 02:28:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  this is just fluff and counterfluff (9+ / 0-)

    The media needs something to talk about, so they're going to talk us to death about Hillary's inevitability. Then to keep things interesting and create a sense of conflict, they're going to suddenly discover that she's not so inevitable after all. Then there will be counter-articles denying her non-inevitability and presenting fresh "evidence" that she is, in fact, inevitable. And then counter-counter-articles insisting that the fresh evidence of inevitability is wrong and that she really isn't inevitable...

    And back and forth the artificial "debate" will rage, forcing us all to take sides in the silly thing and ensuring eyeballs glued to screens and page clicks, making the media tons of money.

    They'd much rather talk about personalities than about issues. Talking about issues, however superficially, might remind people how shitty things are, and that might make them angry and lead to another outbreak of #Occupy, which they really don't want to have to deal with, at least not until they've finished setting up the security apparatus they've prepared for when the shit really hits the fan and people realize en masse that the 1% are playing for all the marbles and do not intend to leave them even the crumbs of the crumbs of the pie.

    But who wants to talk about that when you can debate "Yay Hillary!" vs. "I hate Hillary!"

    "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

    by limpidglass on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 02:19:27 AM PDT

  •  More Republican hackery from ABC and WaPo (5+ / 0-)

    Where's the similarly themed Jeb Bush push-poll?

    As if any Democrat is gonna say, "No way! Hillary should sail to the nomination, no questions asked." Actually, I'm a little surprised that 55% isn't higher.

    This is ABC and the Washington Post conducting a poll justifying their inevitable dirty work on behalf of the GOP. By having polls like this out there, the media can say Democrats want her to be scrutinized. To them, that doesn't mean examining her deep ties to Wall Street, her hawkishness, unpopular votes, etc. It's that other stuff, the bullshit about her age, health, Benghazi, Monica Lewinsky, Vince Foster...

    They need a horse race in 2016, and the only way to get that is by dragging Hillary's numbers down.

    And I'm a Schweitzer '16 guy.

  •  I was waiting for a diary on this. (8+ / 0-)

    The ABC story talks about her huge lead in the primary, her sky-high popularity among all voters, her candid talk about her Iraq vote ("I got it wrong. Plain and simple."), her encouragement of other Democrats to run for the nomination if they want to and not wait around for her to make a decision, and her commitment to campaign for Democrats in this fall's midterm elections.  Throw in the interview where she destroys the arguments against her age and her health, and makes the best defense for Obama's POW decision that anyone's made publicly, and there is so much to praise.

    I thought to myself, "She's clearly knocking down every bad faith argument made against her around here.  I can't wait to see her critics give her some credit for this."

    Instead, we get a diary cherry-picking one data piece to suggest that her support is only because of lack of available options, then proceeds to regurgitate every anti-HRC talking point there is.

    It's depressing.

    •  Cherry-picking? These are the same people... (9+ / 0-)

      ...and entities (ABC-WaPo) that started the inevitability meme at the end of January! When all the "serious people" concur on anything, that's usually an obvious "alert," in and of itself.

      "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

      by bobswern on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 05:35:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  What's depressing is our annointed candidate's... (8+ / 0-)

      ...cozy relationship with Goldman Sachs and Wall Street.

      Adequate health care should be a LEGAL RIGHT in the U.S without begging or bankruptcy. Until it is, we should not dare call our society civilized.

      by Love Me Slender on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 05:59:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Wait a minute. (0+ / 0-)

      She said, "I got it wrong?" I've been looking for such an admission from her now for 12 years and I've never seen that. Please tell me when she said it. Also, it ain't plain and simple. There's more to it then that. Millions of people all around the world saw through Bush's deceptive BS. And there's a reason for that. Look back at him on youtube when he was trying to sell the war and the need to go to the dark side. His lying was all over his face. Any 9th grader could have seen it. But Hillary didn't. It's not for nothing he was called the smirking chimp. He was laughing at the idea he could get grown people in congress to vote his way. She voted "wrong" because she's in bed with Wall street.

  •  No Money (10+ / 0-)

    There is no money out there really for anyone to mount a primary challenge to Hillary even if they wanted to.

    She has completely frozen the field, and with no ability to raise more than meager donations there is no way to mount a successful primary challenge to her.

    There is no Barack Obama waiting in the wings to bludgeon her with the Iraq war and hope offered as being the 1st minority president in history like in 2007. That was a unique set of circumstances that can't be replicated again.

    This is HIllary's last shot, and I think the desire to have a woman head the ticket is so strong from a historical perspective that I don't see how anyone could gain any traction as she has all the experience, name recognition, funding a candidate could ever want.

    Not to mention she brings the Big Dog with her, and that is a net positive.

    Anyone who thinks this time around will be anything like 2008 is just not looking at the situation realistically.

    If Hillary wants it it should be hers. Don't waste money on a go through the motions primary. Just let her set her sites on the Republican clown show from the very beginning.

  •  I welcome a primary, (13+ / 0-)

    I want a robust debate over the direx of the party, not a coronation.

    Even more so in light of Hillary's sabrerattling on Syria(and her undermining of the Iranian peace deal), her 2nd guessing in re Bergdahl, her austerity, her coziness with bankers, her support for Keystone XL, her opposition to decriminalization of marijuana, her fulsome support of NSA's unfettered spying on Americans, etc, etc

    In spite of this long list of grievances, I expect someone to troll along shortly to dismiss both this diary and my comment as sexism or fringey hateration.

    Le sigh,

  •  If you can find somone stupid/suicidal (3+ / 0-)

    enough to primary Hillary, by all means go to.

    All I want is when she wins the nomination (not if, when) is for the circular firing squad to stop and all guns to be focused on the real enemies of the people/progress in this country- Republicans.

    "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

    by Whimsical on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 04:08:58 AM PDT

  •  Most significant statement here is (5+ / 0-)
    polls 2-1/2 years out from an election are rather meaningless
    And so is the speculation . . .
  •  Some liberals seem to believe Rand Paul.... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Deep Texan, virginislandsguy

    ....would really give Hillary a run for her money because she's establishment and he, allegedly, is not.

    I'd like to see that theory put to the test.

    •  The thought of Rand Paul receiving the GOP... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cybrestrike, Johnny Q, lostinamerica

      ...nomination would certainly fit the bill as a typical example of "the fear factor," in terms of pushing people to vote for Hillary in a general election, IMHO. But, even now, 2-1/2 years out, for Paul to be only 10 points behind HRC in a national poll runs quite contrary to the "inevitability" meme.

      "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

      by bobswern on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 05:40:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Then again, the "polls this far out are... (4+ / 0-)

        ...meaningless" meme still applies, IMHO.

        "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

        by bobswern on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 05:41:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  People really need to review the 1980... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bobswern, gulfgal98, cybrestrike

          ...election polls this far out.

          Heck, even as the primaries drew near, Reagan was polling well behind both Kennedy and Carter. He would win a 44 state landslide several months later.

          Right now, the public knows relatively little about Hillary Clinton...especially young voters. If a serious candidate exposed her and offered terrific ideas as to how we can move this country forward (particularly for the working class), I can see her losing..again.

          Adequate health care should be a LEGAL RIGHT in the U.S without begging or bankruptcy. Until it is, we should not dare call our society civilized.

          by Love Me Slender on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 06:03:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  On the other hand (0+ / 0-)

            Polling this far out in the 00 cycle had W strongly favored to win the GOP nomination and running ahead of Gore. So it's not exactly meaningless.

            •  This far out, it is meaningless... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bobswern

              That is an outlier example, as that 2000 GOP field was so weak that Homer Simpson could have earned delegates.

              We also know the reasons Al Gore lost to Bush in the general. This isn't that election. Once a dissection of Hillary's positions happens in front of the viewing public, watch what happens to her numbers...especially if viable alternatives are available on the ballot.

              Adequate health care should be a LEGAL RIGHT in the U.S without begging or bankruptcy. Until it is, we should not dare call our society civilized.

              by Love Me Slender on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 08:52:45 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  The best illustration for folks on the left (7+ / 0-)

    is what happenednin New York with Cuomo. Which basically comes down to the old political adage "you cant beat somethin' with nothin'."

    Without a candidate, its a pointless exercise.

    Schweitzer has been making noise, saying stuff people want to hear John Edwards style. I'm not seeing a national candidate in him, but I wouldn't oppose a contest.

    •  Let's get real here, BBB... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cybrestrike, karma13612

      At this point, the one candidate who could take out the Clintons and win a convincing general election is saying she will not run.

      But...

      This is 2014. If things get worse - particularly where the economy is concerned - I could see Warren jumping into the race. After all, this is the same person who had been a consumer advocate and protector for as long as I can remember.

      Perhaps she will ultimately make the decision to protect the public in a grander sense. It's too early to tell right now, regardless of what she is saying.

      Adequate health care should be a LEGAL RIGHT in the U.S without begging or bankruptcy. Until it is, we should not dare call our society civilized.

      by Love Me Slender on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 06:23:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I think this MSM meme that no one can compete (4+ / 0-)

    with Clinton is ridiculous.  What kind of world do we live in where we can think, because they tell us, that there is only one person who can win an election for a party of 75 million. It's not even logical. It shows how easily humans are conditioned to believe just about anything.
    Clinton is a war criminal.  Do not elect another war criminal.

    "Fragmented and confused, we have no plan to combat any of this, but are looking to be saved by the very architects of our ruination."

    by BigAlinWashSt on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 05:54:03 AM PDT

  •  Wall Street = status quo = climate change. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bobswern, chuck utzman

    We will have two candidates, one from each party, who are allied with climate change.  

    I'm in agreement with whoever said Obama's emission bill will be looked back upon as ridiculously inadequate.

    Clinton will be as bad.

    Maybe we should start putting the planet before our party.

  •  I had to laugh at the title (9+ / 0-)

    We're Democrats.  We'd run a candidate against the resurrected FDR.  And if the poll had truly been correct, it would have pointed out that 55% of Democrats is the minority position on the issue.  I'm pretty sure 67% of Democrats want Hillary to run against herself.

    "Moon landing was real. Evolution exists. Tax cuts lose revenue. The research has shown this a thousand times. Enough already." - Austan Goolsbee

    by anonevent on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 06:04:20 AM PDT

    •  So, why don't we just save the money that... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cybrestrike, Johnny Q, Portlaw

      ...would be spent in a primary campaign, and the resulting discussion that would ensue from engaging in that exercise, and just have a coronation (as someone else used the same word), today?

      "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

      by bobswern on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 06:14:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  nana-nana-nana-nana, strawman! (4+ / 0-)

        Literally no one is suggesting that the Democrats don't have a primary. No one thinks that Hillary Clinton will run unopposed.

        Joe Biden, for one, is definitely going to run for President. He has no choice.

        But Hillary Clinton is going to win the primary because she is incredibly popular. If she wins 70% of the vote in the Democratic primary would you consider that a "coronation"?

        •  I don't see Biden running (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          virginislandsguy

          if HRC does.  He clearly wants to run and is running out of time, but I doubt he wants to be crushed like that in his final campaign. And he would get crushed. HRC can be beaten in theory, but not by Biden.

        •  I thought I saw an article (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dr Swig Mcjigger, Lying eyes

          where Biden said he'd step aside if Hillary entered the race.

          But I don't really care enough to go look it up.

          All I care about is that when (not if, when) Hillary wins the nomination, the guns of the circular firing squad stop firing on her and fire on the real enemy -Republicans!

          That's my sole condition for endorsing a primary- if you can find someone willing to lose- and lose badly- go to- but when they lose I expect you to get behind the winner and work like hell to defeat the Republican.

          (And yes, before someone attempts to troll me- in the extremely unlikely event that Hillary loses, I will of course support the winner. Unlike "progressives", I know who the real enemy is.)

          "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

          by Whimsical on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 07:26:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  He said recently that he would not (2+ / 0-)

            Which was weird.

            I think it was 2 or 3 months ago.

            -You want to change the system, run for office.

            by Deep Texan on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 08:09:21 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Prepare to be disappointed (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Johnny Q, Portlaw, lostinamerica

            Just because Clinton gets a challenge doesn't mean I'm ok with her as the candidate if she wins. I'm just not, under any circumstances, ok with her. So if the only condition under which you'll endorse a primary is if its preordained that you get what you want, well... I have no interest in that, and I suppose the primary will have to unfold without your 'endorsement'.

            •  Ladies and gentlemen the problem with (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              AlexDrew

              "progressives" in a nutshell- they're so wrapped up in their purity that they are willing to damage the country.

              For the record, I don't give two shits about how you "feel"- Hillary will be better than the Republican- so once she wins the nomination, the best thing for the county is to support her.

              But you'd rather let the country go to hell than damage your purity by helping someone you don't like win the Presidency.

              Grow the hell up. There's way more at stake here than your feelings.

              And for the record, I'm going to laugh when Hillary crushes every person you're "ok" with.  And that will still make me more mature than you, because Im  putting my country ahead of myself.

              "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

              by Whimsical on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 05:42:18 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I don't believe Clinton is good for the country (0+ / 0-)

                Period. I will not support her. I will not vote for her. I don't care who she "crushes". You can profess your matureness as much as you'd like. I vote for people who support my interests. I don't vote for people who don't. Clinton doesn't.

                •  Horseshit (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  AlexDrew

                  Fact: No matter what you think of Clinton, she will be better for the country than her Republican opponent.

                  Fact: Her Republican opponent will run counter to your interests.

                  Fact: Anything other than full throated support for Hillary is support for her Republican opponent- who will run completely counter to your interests.

                  Those facts tell me that you don't actually give a shit about these "interests" you claim to care about- or you wouldn't be helping people that will retard them into office. The only thing that matters to you is that you don't get your feelings hurt by voting for someone you don't like.

                  I've said it before and I'll say it again: grow the hell up.  There's more at stake here than your little feelings. At a bare minimum, if you can't mature enough to do the right thing for the country, at least shut the hell up, get the hell out of the way, and let those of us who actually give a damn about the country do the right thing.

                  "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

                  by Whimsical on Tue Jun 10, 2014 at 08:06:10 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Fact: Both are counter to my interests (0+ / 0-)

                    Your first fact is highly questionable.
                    Your second fact is absolutely true.
                    Your third fact is nothing but a ridiculous opinion.

                    You've been telling me to shutup for years here now. It isn't happening. And I don't just talk here, I talk to my friends, family, and neighbors.

                    Maybe once you get out of your self absorbed bubble, you'll realize that you aren't getting me (and lots of others) to vote for a wall-street-friendly third-way hawk. And you sure as hell aren't going to get me to shut up about it.

                    Clinton is everything that is wrong with this party.

        •  biden is too old and a terrible candidate to boot (0+ / 0-)

          no way he runs.

      •  My point was that this was not surprising (0+ / 0-)

        the fact that a majority of us want someone to run against Clinton should be expected.  We're Democrats, it's what we do.  I wouldn't be a Democrat if I thought this was a bad thing; we have a party that appoints people.

        "Moon landing was real. Evolution exists. Tax cuts lose revenue. The research has shown this a thousand times. Enough already." - Austan Goolsbee

        by anonevent on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 07:00:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Actually I'm becoming fond of Elizabeth II (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cybrestrike, Johnny Q, Portlaw

        why don't we just petition to rejoin the kingdom?  I'd take William and Kate over Chelsea and whatever his name is any day.  

  •  Surprised it's only 55%, 2.5 years out. Nt (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bobswern

    While you dream of Utopia, we're here on Earth, getting things done.

    by GoGoGoEverton on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 06:09:57 AM PDT

  •  get over it (0+ / 0-)

    -You want to change the system, run for office.

    by Deep Texan on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 06:11:39 AM PDT

  •  There are a lot of reasons to want a good primary (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bobswern, gulfgal98, sweatyb

    My primary one is not about HRC.  

    I want future candidates to get exposure and experience.

    But make it all positive. Who will implement the priorities of the Democratic party best? And say what those are over an over again.

    So I see only tatters of clearness through a pervading obscurity - Annie Dillard

    by illinifan17 on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 06:14:16 AM PDT

    •  How much exposure could a future candidate get? (0+ / 0-)

      And would it be good exposure. A likely scenario is a relative unknown like O'Mally or Schweitzer gets in doesn't fare well in the polls, doesn't raise much case and has to drop out after Iowa or NH. That won't be too helpful.

  •  I am more in the mainstream than many on this (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bobswern, lostinamerica

    site, lol, part of the 55% that doesn't think we should be All in for Hillary before she's announced or stated policy positions, which we all know float in the wind.  Thanks for the stats bobswern.

    "A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves." Edward R. Murrow

    by temptxan on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 06:18:15 AM PDT

  •  this place is lousy with that type of propaganda (6+ / 0-)

    love

    another neoliberal is not what this country needs

    .

    Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

    by greenbastard on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 06:21:11 AM PDT

  •  Wow, all of those potential voters... (4+ / 0-)

    ...and not one actual candidate to vote for!  

    It's not the side effects of the cocaine/I'm thinking that it must be love

    by Rich in PA on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 06:35:06 AM PDT

  •  Primaries Are Power (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wu ming

    The only way to force a politician to take some position publicly that they can be pressured to keep once elected is in a primary election. Once in the general they have already taken whatever positions they're either going to keep or have calculated they can discard once elected. Given the partisan rigidity of the people and especially the parties, and the (one sided) corporate estate that sponsors them, the primaries are the only way for the people to develop a politician within the rigid choices presented by the parties.

    Of course, money can change anything at any time. But we're talking about our democratic republic, not our argentocracy. And the only way the people have to make people rule beat money rule is in primaries.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 06:42:08 AM PDT

  •  I'm an HRC supporter (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CanyonWren, bobswern

    but I don't want her to be nominated unopposed. That just isn't good for democracy.

    Besides, we want our candidate (whoever it is) going into the election battle hardened and tested. Even if I do get my way (with my candidate of choice), I wouldn't want her to run against an opponent whose campaign machine has been running full tilt for months, while hers is only just up and running.

    Not good for democracy, not good for the candidate.

    Rick Perry - the greatest scientist since Galileo!

    by Bobs Telecaster on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 06:43:53 AM PDT

  •  I find it difficult to believe... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bobswern

    that at least some of the people who are considering running -- O'Malley, Cuomo, Schweitzer, Gillibrand, etc. -- won't end up running.

    If they don't run in 2016, and Hillary ends up as our next president, they won't be able to run until 2024 or, more realistically, ever, because there's always a new face, and those folks will likely be considered yesterday's news.

    I want to see Hillary fight for the nomination. If she wins it, fine. But a coronation won't do us any good.

    How about I believe in the unlucky ones?

    by BenderRodriguez on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 07:00:48 AM PDT

  •  She is far more progressive than the folks on this (3+ / 0-)

    site would lead one to believe.

    Global Shakedown - Alternative rock with something to say. Check out their latest release, "A Time to Recognize": Available on iTunes, Amazon, Google Play, Spotify and other major online music sites. Visit http://www.globalshakedown.com.

    by khyber900 on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 07:10:21 AM PDT

  •  Hold Your Horses (0+ / 0-)

    Let's not greedy.  Remember we also need a candidate that will beat a Republican in the fall, not just a candidate that we are most comfortable with.    Hillary is that candidate.  As much as I love Bernie and Joe, I think they would have a much tougher time beating the GOP.  

  •  That's Rich: (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bobswern, Johnny Q, aliasalias

    Let me translate:

    "Clinton won't get a Free Pass but when it comes time to vote, no matter what, she'll have my Vote."

    Now that's the kind of Accountability that will definitely lead to some Change You Can Believe In.

    Well.  It will.  Instead of a man advancing the interests of the Predator Elite, it will be a female.  The same working class will get crushed, but hey!  This Is What Progress Looks Like.  /sarcasm

    The 1% are Purists: They only support Candidates that Deliver Results They Can Bank On. Don't they know they should compromise? /sarcasm

    by Johnathan Ivan on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 09:08:19 AM PDT

  •  That's surprisingly a small number, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    virginislandsguy

    especially when the nature of the question is considered. If I were on Hillary's staff I would feel pretty good about such numbers. I would also think that HRC never has and never will expect a free pass. That expectation kind of requires a Y chromosome to hold its hand.

    Voting is the means by which the public is distracted from the realities of power and its exercise.

    by Anne Elk on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 10:10:41 AM PDT

  •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)

    Free pass?  Did anyone tell VP Joe Biden that some Dems (presumably, the Clinton Dems who are still in Congress) intend to toss him out to run the right-wing Clinton?  No question, since the 1980s the Democrats have gone to some extraordinary lengths to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, but this crosses over into looney-tunes territory. Even if Biden weren't the VP and the candidate of choice, H. Clinton's long record of support for the right-wing agenda (solid war hawk, anti-New Deal, pro-NAFTA... until just recently) makes her unelectable.

  •  Enough, already (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    karma13612

    I don't want to live the whole Clinton thing all over again. I want to be free of them and their personal history.

    Nominating Hillary will galvanize the opposition and decrease our chances of winning.

    Please, let's have ELIZABETH WARREN!

    I'd much rather vote for Bernie Sanders, Independent, than for Hillary.

    Let's leave the past in the past and move-the-heck-on!

    Maybe she's served well, maybe she hasn't, but we don't owe anyone the presidency.  We DO owe ourselves the best choice possible.

    Let's dump the past, take a deep breathe, and leap into the future.

    C'mon, everyone. Let's move forward!

    Stop looking backward for answers.

  •  Sanders in 2016 (0+ / 0-)

    I do not accept the common belief that you need a huge war chest to win. If you don't have a lot of money you may not be able to buy a lot of those inane campaign TV ads but Sen Sanders has something else going on. It's called the ability to articulate how Wall street, the oil companies and the military industrial complex (DO NOT ROLL YOUR EYES!) are selling this country out. Hillary can't do that. Can't and won't. She won't even mention it. If Bernie runs as a Democrat she'll have to debate him. My second choice is Elizabeth Warren for her willingness to ask why nobody from Wall street went to jail after 2008 except that I think she's naive about Israel which is neither our friend nor our ally (I'm sick of hearing that one).

    Get ready for my third choice. It's Jesse Ventura way before Hillary Clinton. That's how little regard I have for her as a so called Democrat. Of course Jesse won't run as a Democrat and the Dems are the only chance we have of defeating the Teapublicans. The Democrats MUST get rid of the blue dogs in their own party or they will be hobbled just as Obama has been.

  •  being broke (0+ / 0-)

    HRC releases a book, and goes on TV talking about being "broke" and in debt. The problem in 2008 is that many voters felt she didn't connect with them. She was out of touch. Talking about being broke like she and Bill were Dan and Roseanne Conner from the old TV show isn't going to fly anymore. It did 22 years ago! It's insulting to people who actually do live paycheck by paycheck and end up being laid off with less money coming in and relying on food stamps.
    That's going to be the problem for her if she does indeed run in 16.

  •  I would rather... (0+ / 0-)

    Speculate on someone who has chosen to run.  Until the first of the year, who knows whether she will run or not.

    Elizabeth Warren would be my first choice because she also has a tangible record that reflects my values and for what I want for our country.

    The age-ist thing makes me throw up a little in my mouth. Didn't slow down the voters for Reagan who was 3 years older when he ran and nearly 70 when he took office.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site