General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIt's getting harder to post about current news...
because I can's stand to watch it anymore because Hillary Clinton or her supporters are always on telling me how much everyone loves her and what a great job she did as S of S.
I think Kerry is doing better, really trying to make peace, and I like him more every day.
The election isn't till 2016 and we already are being told that the Dems don't want a crowded nomination process to have more money for the election, and, of course, that means for Clinton.
I don't hate her, but I can't stand too much of her...
defacto7
(13,485 posts)Status quo always has a weakness that can be manipulated when necessary and it's probably structured that way. Keeps the Bull Moose away.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Oops!
Whisp
(24,096 posts)That was NOT hide worthy
For cripes sakes I see Impeach Obama ads here and this kind of mild whatever is ....
nevermind.
nutz .
and I know Pretz is a Hill fan, but that hide was a Disgrace.
REALLY bad hide.
I'm neither here ---> <--- nor there on his posts,
but that was a lame hide.
sheshe2
(83,927 posts)defacto7
(13,485 posts)I don't like to see mud slinging at someone who has an opinion to express especially when it is done as respectfully as the fadedrose expressed it. But the Pretz hide is too much. Better someone take on Prez's less than reasonable remark.
If being a Debbie Downer is a bannable offense, I should just go ahead and delete my account.
Seriously, how could a well-informed person be anything but that these days?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)probably got the thing hid. The hidden post was calling someone else a Debbie Downer and offered absolutely no content other than the personal attack. If everyone on DU did nothing but call each other names.....
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)You can't choose your juries.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)A juror can vote to hide for any (or no) reason. They can vote to leave a post the same way. It is totally arbitrary and at the whim of the random jury of the moment.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)But also just hiding posts they don't necessarily agree with.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)It has to do with how much of a disruptor he is. That probably wasn't hideworthy for your average good faith posting DUer. But, that poster has engaged in so many personal attacks and flame bait that he doesn't enjoy the benefit of the doubt. I'm glad to see him blocked for another bit. Nothing of value, nothing of substance.
To be clear. I did not alert nor was I a juror.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)but I don't read everything either.
he/she is opinionated, so is practically everyone else here.
I still say it was a bogus and cheap hide and now it sounds like he/she has a crew waiting in the wings to jury him/her unfavourably. Which makes it double disgraceful.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)But, when someone has such a history and has already been (one of the very few) temporarily banned under the new system, you would think they would try to adhere to community standards. At a minimum not insult posters. He's dug his own grave and I have no sympathy for him.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)into the judgement at all, but I know it does. Doesn't make it right.
That post, on it's own merit, was not hideable, imo. You can't hide a post becuase you remember something else the poster said somehwere else that you didn't like. Our memories aren't as good as we think.
We will have to disagree.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)It's a breeding ground for cliques and gang ups.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Drew Richards
(1,558 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)I'll let you think about why I'm laughing.
Logical
(22,457 posts)truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Pretzel Warrior, it will be REALLY difficult to post latest breaking news!
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Well deserved.
Response to fadedrose (Original post)
Post removed
southerncrone
(5,506 posts)and don't like being told what I "should" believe or do. I have a fairly decent-functioning brain, thank you. I personally like to have more than a few choices. Eating vanilla ice cream all the time makes for a boring life. I do hope others will not be dissuaded from running because the MSM tells us all that she is the only candidate who need apply from the blue side of the isle & has the nomination sewn up. It feels to me like that is the current strategy. That also pisses me off. The close associations the Clintons maintain w/the BFEE I find suspect.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)Here are the people that didn't believe that stupid inevitability shit then either.
southerncrone
(5,506 posts)I would certainly support her!
Whisp
(24,096 posts)The Clinton people are good at putting out messages for their own needs.
Fact is, Hillary would be shitting her pants if she had to head to head with Elizabeth in debates.
southerncrone
(5,506 posts)Would prefer to hear she IS!
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)but I don't mind people cheering for the person they like. Some like HC. Cool. You like JK. Cool. Some like Schweitzer. Cool. Some like Sanders. Cool.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)catalog their posts to try to hit them...is just not COOL. We aren't on DU Dem Lockdown because it's an Open Field as to who will run in 2016 and there's no reason why Dems can't express their opinion about the Candidates at this point in the process.
But, if there are folks here cataloging every post I make and interpreting to their own uses it's not COOL either! It's like those who might have differing opinions are being "WATCHED."
Not good to see this on a Democratic Declared Web Site.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Drew Richards
(1,558 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Yep ...looks like some members are doing that ...and it will only help destroy this site ...which may be their plan or what they are being paid to do.
MADem
(135,425 posts)You can also hide by keyword. If you don't like Clinton, "ban" her from your sight with the keyword trash utility.
Much better than starting a thread about what you don't like, and what you are "being told," when the solution to your problem is within your grasp.
Use the force....
Or the tools the admins have provided to you.
Beats starting a meta thread to whine about DU.
You have the power.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)None of that stuff works on news programs.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)MADem probably misread. Slightly touchy on this issue, I think.
Don't watch cable news so don't know how much Clinton is being mentioned, I do know that I haven't seen any mention of her on the national news in weeks if not months. Last time was Benghazi.
MADem
(135,425 posts)There's some history with this individual--all you have to do is run a quick search and you'll see page after page of anti-HRC commentary from this individual. She's a machine on that score. If she doesn't start threads that denigrate the former SecState, she's participating in them. Go on, do the search; you'll see I'm not inventing the assertion.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)Who are you to be going around snooping and judging and asking us to go and Search Fellow DU'ers?
If MIRT has evidence this Poster is a Troll then let them deal with it. Who appointed you as the DU Police?
Let me be straight here..MADem..I have many DU Posters on Ignore these days. But, you are not on that list because although I rarely agree with you on anything...I've never found you as offensive as those on my IGNORE LIST...and enjoyed some of your reflective posts....UNTIL this attack on this poster and talk about "keeping lists" and asking people to search ...like some kind of authoritarian sounding Gestapo Advocate.
I thought better of you than this.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I've been IN many of those "Shit On Clinton" threads--it's not "snooping and judging" when one has been on the receiving end of some of the scathing commentary-and I've got some more news for you, Google isn't a "secret weapon"--everyone has it.
Where did I ever, once, say "This poster is a troll?"
Please point that out. Oh, wait--you can't...because you made that up. You leapt to an unfounded conclusion. You shouldn't do that.
All I'm saying is that this person despises Hillary Clinton, and her remarks need to be taken in that context. I proved what I asserted with LINKS--that is how most people do it, you know--or do you prefer that people make insinuations, or suggestions...and NOT back up what they're saying?
She's not a neutral "honest broker." Her vague little thread starting pot-stirring post would make one think otherwise, had they not encountered her many times before, as I have.
Right now, there's no "rule" that stops her from "Hillary Hating." If HRC is the nominee, though, she'll have to curb her enthusiasm.
You can take this factual information, and you can ignore it if that is your preference. I do suspect, though, that there are people here who support HRC who will find this information of use, even if you don't.
MADem
(135,425 posts)because I can's stand to watch it anymore because Hillary Clinton or her supporters are always on telling me how much everyone loves her and what a great job she did as S of S.
Even though "Hillary" is NEVER "on"--either DU or the TV, but never mind, let's not let facts interfere with a full-on anti-Clinton rant!
If it were the television (and I've seen very little on TV about 2016, and I pay attention) there's always the quaint notion of picking up the remote and pushing the button...but I guess that is a challenge, too...?
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Reading really is fundamental.
MADem
(135,425 posts)This poster doesn't like HRC, and likes to let everyone know it. Repeatedly. And then tell everyone how "aggrieved" she is that anyone would mention HRC. Even though she starts thread after thread griping about her.
Lather, rinse, repeat. Not even subtle--we get it. This poster doesn't like HRC.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2841191
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023729092
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024379232
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=345241
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022285231
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1110319
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024043091
That's just the tip of a very deep iceberg. There are dozens more posts by this poster within threads started by others who like to bash Clinton for sport.
BainsBane
(53,072 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)subject lines that are trying to misdirect the reader that the OP is about something else when it is really an opportunity to lobby against Hillary.
I know there are people here who may want someone else for 2016 - but it strikes me that those people are forthright with this - like - "I wish Elizabeth Warren could be our nominee".
MADem
(135,425 posts)It's a rather visceral "hate" thing--it's like an unrelenting heat from an overly-warm wood stove. Years and years of ceaseless acrimony, like she ran over the poster's puppy, or something. Way past time to just get over it, I'd say! I have an acquaintance who lives in Tom Delay's old district who talks the same negative and nasty way--he has an excuse, though, he voted for twerpy Tom.
A slice of the past, and a few more recent entries...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7902858
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x774876
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3222273
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024048088
http://election.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3729092
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4004192
That very last one was from back in the old "mod lock" days...!
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)i see what you are saying and i agree. even though i do not like hillary i certainly wouldn't rant about her if she is the candidate.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I enjoy The Magistrate's posts--always something interesting!
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)visceral. Almost like a disgruntled employee - or - perhaps a mistress ? Maybe she is really
Monica?
MADem
(135,425 posts)KoKo
(84,711 posts)Insinuation and doing a list.
Why are you doing this? Just put this poster on Ignore...if you don't wish to read what they say.
Are you keeping tabs on others? Why would you do this?
Whatever...just put the person on ignore and you won't have to deal with whatever you find offensive. Just saying..........
MADem
(135,425 posts)feels compelled to shit on Clinton. Not just a little--a LOT. I'm simply pointing out a pattern, that I have noticed down the years, because it is a pattern that is so repetitive and obvious--and it seems more "personality based" than anything else.
It's not a question of "keeping tabs." When people say outrageous things, we notice, and we remember. You have Google, too--you can do what I just did in five minutes or less. It's not difficult at all.
I don't have a need to "ignore" anyone, but I can and will point out what they're doing. DU, after all, is all about TRANSPARENCY. It's transparently clear that this poster is incapable of saying anything positive about HRC, and it is transparently clear that she will regularly create posts to denigrate this politician. On a Democratic website where plenty of people do support HRC, this is salient information. With it, one can "consider the source," and not naively assume that the poster is coming from a neutral perspective, when she plainly is not.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)You seem to be saying that those who express opinions that are not favorable about Hillary Clinton have some sinister reasons. 2016 is ways off. We should be free to express our opinions about Candidates until after the Primary.
Just put the person on Ignore or Report to MIRT. But, don't expect everyone else to fall in line with your opinion and you digging into their posts to go after them. I would have alerted on you if I didn't respect you more and figure maybe you are having a bad patch in your life, or something. But...this is not right to do here and I think you've been a Host and or Moderator here on DU before. So you would understand how stalking someone and urging people to do the same is just not what DU is about ...even DU-3!
defacto7
(13,485 posts)others like to control it even if it means digging up shit to degrade people. Stalking??? Maybe, or just controlling the board.
But count me among those who appreciate information and can decide for themselves who is reputable or not. I also don't need MD to decide what I read or how to interpret it.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Where -- and there you go AGAIN--am I demanding that "everyone else...fall in line?" I am not doing that at all, and your repeated and false characterization of me in that regard is what is disruptive about this thread.
I'm imparting transparent information. You are free to take your own advice and IGNORE it if it upsets you.
Nothing wrong with expressing an opinion, but couching it in a disinterested and neutral fashion, when that's not the actual case, is disingenuous. I'm simply noting that. If you can't deal, hit the button.
That's transparency. If people don't want to be known by what they write--over and over and over again--perhaps they shouldn't write those things. Because eventually, people will notice.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)wtf...
I am not neutral on Hillary, you know that. And for my own good reasons, not yours.
wtf...
MADem
(135,425 posts)I am simply pointing out a few facts, here.
What I find odd is that you are objecting so vociferously.
See, if there's nothing "wrong" with holding those views, why are you angry that I am noting that they are held? So yeah, "wtf" indeed.
If you started a thread that came off like you were neutral on HRC, I'd probably mention that I didn't think you were, either. I haven't seen you playing those kinds of games, though. You don't hide your light under a bushel.
PassingFair
(22,434 posts)Get. A. Life.
MADem
(135,425 posts)LuvNewcastle
(16,858 posts)"watch" the news. Sounds like tv to me. Maybe she needs to clarify?
Beacool
(30,253 posts)BainsBane
(53,072 posts)and not those who feel entitled to denounce members who post about trivial issues, like half of the human race, compared to the far more consequential matter of fantasy presidential politics and which faction of Wall Street interest will come out on top over the others.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)if this is an example of what goes on here from someone who is a long time DU'er who is keeping Lists of Posts and digging into DU'ers posting history.
Leave it up to the MIRT and let them decide. I would not have expected to see something like this kind of witch hunting here when we have resources. But...I guess those resources are just for the rabble of us.
I would not have expected this from MADem even though I 've had disagreements I've never gone and searched out their posts. I take them for what they say and try to figure out what I ignore and what I thought was worth a read. I'll definitely reconsider that after this.
BainsBane
(53,072 posts)Last edited Mon Jan 27, 2014, 05:32 AM - Edit history (1)
For some reason I can't comprehend, some feel entitled to issue pronouncements on what they consider acceptable thoughts and posts on this site. The odd thing about this case in particular is that the majority of DUers seem to dislike Secretary Clinton. It must have taken a lot of effort to single out one poster from the rest. But then again that fits into the idea that some people are more equal than others. What is acceptable for dozens of DUers is for some reason an outrage when posted by this OP.
MADem
(135,425 posts)defacto7
(13,485 posts)about who is for whom and why. There are a lot of decisions to make coming up concerning candidates. I don't need "filtering" by any other poster as to what I need to see or not. I don't care about anyone's repetitious posts, or whether one person thinks another poster is reputable or not. That's for me to decide.
I want every opinion. I need no thread police.
MADem
(135,425 posts)defacto7
(13,485 posts)but it seems my opinion is among rather good company in this thread.
Be well.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Pushing Hillary on the public as if she was somehow entitled and no one else has a right to run, is having the exact opposite effect. If her campaign people had any sense, they would just stop. She supports wars and she supports the TPP and anyone who supports either of those grotesque policies does not support WOMEN. She claims to support women but the world knows that those who support wars simply cannot claim to support women. So don't won't fly. See Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq all of which she was so enthusiastic about. And then talk to those women ...
MADem
(135,425 posts)You can examine the links I provided, or not. I really don't care.
And since the overwhelming majority of Democratic voters--and by that I mean people who actually are registered Democrats, and who are regular and reliable voters--support HRC's candidacy, I rather doubt anyone is "pushing" her on the electorate...unless you count all those "We The People" that support her.
Even the right leaning POLITICO acknowledges she's pulled ahead of Bridgegate Chris in a hypothetical matchup. She's finally edged ahead on independents, and she's always had the bulk--like it, or not--of the D vote.
So...whatever.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)policies who have consciences and who will never, and did not last time, vote for anyone who voted for his lying wars which killed untold numbers of human beings including thousands of our own troops.
Latest polls show that only a little over 30% of Americans now identify as Dems, fewer as Republicans. As more and more people become disillusioned with the whole process, saying that 'dems' or 'repubs' support this or that, means very little.
I do not support Republican policies or anyone who supports them no matter what letter they have after their names. Anyone who made the fatal decision to support Bush's lies when all intelligent people KNEW he was lying, is not presidential material imo.
But Hillary is not the nominee, thankfully, and we have three years to go before that race. I will be focusing on 2014 and on getting Progressive, not Corporate Dems elected and then more of them in Congress in 2016.
There is a huge Independent vote now, many who used to be registered Dems that the Dem party is going to have to think about and a majority of them want new people in politics as they associate all the failures of the past years, the destruction of the Working class with the old politicians. You do what you want to, but a whole new generation suffering as a result of the decisions of the old politicians, are increasingly demanding that THEY be represented by people who understand their issues.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Some 33 billions of dollars for the war on the people of Afghanistan, and she came on the TV and she was absolutely orgasmic over how much that money would be appreciated.
Meanwhile, back at home, the rest of us Americans were watching our neighborhoods being boarded up, and foreclosed, as the rest of the economy was in the toilet. Yet YEAH And Yippee Skippy, Hillary, there is always enough money for more death and destruction.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)was not a moral issue, a matter of conscience, the decision to pour money into those cruel, brutal wars which took so many human lives and destroyed so many others (how do they sleep at night?) was disastrous for this country in every way. As you pointed out, with the obscene amounts of money going to pay for them, most of it corrupt, going into the hands of corrupt military contractors, there was no money to pay for what the American people really need, jobs, homes, medical care, education, and most cruel of all, for the Veterans they use to do the dirty work.
But we have also lost our status in the world. America has no moral authority anymore. Anyone who cared about this country would never, ever have supported those travesties. And they didn't. Only the Corporate Warmongers and the blindly partisan Bush supporters, many of whom have finally woken up now, too late, were supporters of those terrible wars.
I am being threatened in this thread for not supporting Hillary, can you believe that? She is not even the nominee but we are being bullied into supporting her. Nice tactics from her supporters, guaranteed to fail. But instructive as to who supports her and even more reason not to.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)scam that almost made the whole system crumble.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)To boot.
It is very much like they not so subtly are poking us in the eye.
"We are for the middle class, Social Security protections, seeing to it that there are funds for our young people to go to college" Yada Yada Yada.
Of course right, now loans for college students are the new "sub prime mortgages." You have to wonder how many trillions are being bet on those loans failing. That activity is probably keeping a lot of current day hedge fund managers very busy.
But at least this Administration can point to the fact that the Dow went above 16,000.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)Absolutely correct. If only this One Point were repeated enough, maybe some would finally, actually get it.
Drew Richards
(1,558 posts)Lists? Bring out the lists you are an undesirable because you do not agree with me...i fear for the future of DU.
MADem
(135,425 posts)what I have to say. Spare yourself the pain!
See how that works?
This isn't about "lists." This is about a long history of interactions down the past decade--ones you weren't here to see, now...were you?
And do tamp down the drama--you FEAR for the future of DU? It did fine before Sat Dec 18, 2010, and it will do fine in the future as well. Save your "fears" for real problems, like children's health issues, or homelessness--not the future of a website that seems to be getting better each and every day, from my POV.
LuvNewcastle
(16,858 posts)I know that those bastards on tv take themselves very seriously when they're reporting the 'news,' but that doesn't mean we have to. It's political TMZ. Microwave some popcorn and have a good laugh.
BainsBane
(53,072 posts)Just like the guy you so admire.
otohara
(24,135 posts)there I said it.
Wasn't in 08 - but am now.
It's time for a woman POTUS, she's the most qualified who will run.
MADem
(135,425 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Sad that politics can come down to what gender the candidate is over who has the peoples best interests at heart.
"It's time for a woman POTUS, she's the most qualified who will run."
frwrfpos
(517 posts)she supports republican policies and ideology. i dont think we can take much more movement to the right before a backlash occurs
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)I keep thinking of the movie, "Primary Colors"
when the Kathy Bates character reminds Bill and Hill about the persons they were GOING to be, before they sold out... then seeing the rationalization of bullshit.
This explains NAFTA, caving to the Republicans by destroying the dignity of those on relief (welfare reform, what an insult to those who were told needed a "leg up" , and finally Hill in the Senate, in full bullshit mode, believing the lies of the Bush administration. Not too promising for a brilliant Democrat, if you ask me.
No, we can't take much more, frwrfpos
not much more.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)o yeh, I'm going to get blasted for this. Probably juried.
But it's the dang truth, just like it is for Republicans that send others kids to die in their wars for profit.
rufus dog
(8,419 posts)First person to responds can bookmark for later reference. It is not that I am overly confident that she won't win, it is just another year plus off and a lot can happen.
Oh and one other reason for the bet, regardless of her stances, a lot of liberals HATE being told what to do and to get in line. That mentality could get her upset by some newcomer.
Loudly
(2,436 posts)I would welcome seeing the "bench" as it were.
(I truly would.)
rufus dog
(8,419 posts)As for capable democrats there are quite a few, who will chose to jump in, I don't know. At this point I would assume Biden would be the only one who might dare. But again a future year of events may change a lot.
Again assuming she is the heir apparent to the job is extremely likely to blow up in the face of any Democrat.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)If I recall, most don't declare until a year before, so anyone is on the table, anything is on the table.
The reason Clinton is gettng so much press is because.... she's a Clinton.
And pray to Dog she will be defeated yet again regardless of the illusion factors.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)I also hope that someone gets Elizabeth Warren to change her mind.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)They will make sure there isn't anyone else to choose from or give us the ol' "lessor of 2 evils" shit again. Sad ...very sad and pathetic for a group that can and does boast of being more informed and more intelligent.
struggle4progress
(118,356 posts)spin
(17,493 posts)The media and Hillary will push too hard and the public will grow tired of hearing about her.
Like you, I keep hearing that she was a great Secretary of State. She was adequate to good but not great in my opinion.
I think the political theory here is that if you say something often enough, people will believe it. That might be true but if you say it too often people may get tired of listening to how fantastic she was.
I often see a unique commercial on TV and enjoy watching it for a while. I am totally disgusted with it after seeing it a thousand times.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)Most of this pro Hillary talk is hatched by her surrogates for the Illusion Effect.
When the real runners hit the trail, she will show up to be who she is. Like last time.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)effect. Anyhow I won't be supporting her no matter what. If she is the nominee then write ins will probably become very popular.
War supporters don't appeal to me.
totodeinhere
(13,059 posts)Democrats for the nomination. So given that I don't think that advocating for her is "pushing" her on the voters since most of the voters already favor her. Yes there is a lot of opposition to her at DU but DU is not representative of Democrats as a whole.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)now. That is simply Dems saying they will support the Dem nominee, means nothing. Talk to ordinary people and ask them how they feel about all the wars she supported and how they feel about her support for the TPP.
Go to any Democratic gathering online and she is very unpopular, Warren and Sanders beat her by huge majorities.
No way will I be supporting her and this time it won't be business as usual for voters. IF she is the nominee, a whole lot of Dems will focus on Congress and write in their own choice. No more 'the kinder war supporter' nonsense.
She voted for the Iraq War, a horrendous decision, that she claims to have believed BUSH, makes her and anyone else who made such a terrible life and death decision unqualified for the office of president and the reason many people did not support her the last time.
No more dynasties! We need new people in politics with NEW ideas, not the same old corporate candidates being recycled over and over again with everything getting worse for the average worker. Enough already.
totodeinhere
(13,059 posts)They merely ask for a preference for the 2016 nomination.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/democratic-presidential-primary-2016/
The RCP average has Clinton with 66%. Her nearest competitor is Biden with 10.5%.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html
Your anecdotal evidence that you don't know any Democrat who supports Clinton is not a scientific result as these poll results are. And mind you I am not personally advocating for Clinton. IMO the grievances that you list about her are legitimate. I am only objecting to your assertion that she is being "pushed" on the voters. She is not being pushed on them because most of them support her already.
But of course it is early and these results could change. At this point in the 2008 election cycle polls also showed Clinton to be the overwhelming favorite and we know how that turned out.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)No mention of Barack Obama which tells us the value of such polling, but on the other hand Hillary got worse numbers then than she does now.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/19/poll.presidential/
totodeinhere
(13,059 posts)But I was responding to the assertion by another poster that she doesn't know any Democrat who supports Clinton. But at the very least what the polls I cited show is that at this point in time there are a lot of Democrats who support Clinton whether that poster knows any of them or not.
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)Hell, a lot of the fervent actual support seems heavily based on name recognition and some form of calculation of a sure thing factor again seemingly heavily leaning on recognition to fuel it's fire.
Nobody is arguing her positions, they are arguing name and to a lesser and more focused extent, personality.
Hell, there is plenty of actual running away from her positions with lots of "you'll be surprised" and "good soldier" throw ins. No promises, lots of winks and nods. It's silly and dishonest.
Beacool
(30,253 posts)DU is not the real world.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)this early in the game is great news. New faces and names will be a delight to have and hear.
The more people hear about what a wonderful SoS she was, the more time there is to Google and find out there isn't much there at all. Diplomacy, that is one bullet point. Yeh, diplomacy in the State Dept, so unique of her to do that thing there. lol.
And you know what else comes up in the top 5 accomplishments of Hillary Clinton as SoS? Those texts that were going around, where Hillary says something funny or snarky to various foes and friends. Can you believe that?
Apparently these texts make her an accomplished SoS. oh myyyyyyyyyy.
totodeinhere
(13,059 posts)for the 2016 nomination. I am not one of them but that's why we have the nominating process in order to sort all of this out. What I don't want is a coronation of Clinton or anyone else. I do hope that we have multiple major candidates running for the nomination and then let the best woman or man win.
Beacool
(30,253 posts)I'm a Hillary supporter and I don't give a flying fig who you, and the rest of the posters here who form the anti-Hillary crowd, vote for in the primaries. Heck, I don't even care if you vote for her in the general election. They'll be enough of us who will have her back.
But, this is still a Democratic site. Therefore, those of us who do support Hillary have as much right as anyone else here to post threads in support of her potential candidacy. If she chooses not to run, then we'll cross that bridge when the moment comes.
As for the two super Pacs who support her, they are operating on their own.
totodeinhere
(13,059 posts)vote for her in the general if she is the nominee are violating DU rules as far as I know.
Beacool
(30,253 posts)As far as I'm concerned, they can support anyone they want. By the same token, so can we who support Hillary.
No one even knows whether she's running, so all these constant battles are a waste of time.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)you are promoting that Corporate America, which has been so wonderful for the American people as we all know, are the ONLY ones to have a say in who runs for office in this country? For many, many people now, let me put this as kindly as I can, this COUNTRY takes precedence over the internet.
We will be letting the party know that they need to start listening to the voters. There is not just one person in this country how has the 'right' to run for the WH. There are, just fyi, millions of people more than qualified for that job. It is ludicrous to suggest that only one person has that right. Absolutely ludicrous. I remember when we were told before that Hillary was inevitable so I'm not worried. The Dem Party wants to win, and I'm sure they are smart enough to know the voters do have a say in who they want for these powerful positions.
Ron Wyden, I would support him if he were willing to run eg. And I can name 20 other Dems who are more than qualified for the job.
You are free to support whoever you wish, you are not free to bully others with threats into supporting your choices.
totodeinhere
(13,059 posts)nomination myself although I will vote for her in the general if she gets the nomination. But if she gets the nomination then saying you will not vote for her would be in violation of DU rules as I read them. That's not a threat, just an observation.
But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice
But you said upthread:
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)try to bully people here with threats of being banned from this forum. I will not be on this forum or any other that insists people go against their consciences IF she is the nominee. But I doubt she will be. As I pointed out elsewhere in this thread, and Dems everywhere need to pay attention to this, more and more people who were registered Dems and Repubs, are dropping out of their parties, ACCORDING to RECENT POLLS.
So any rules made a decade ago were made when we Dems had HOPE. So many now are disillusioned that it has created a HUGE Independent voting bloc, larger than either Republcians or Democrats. THAT is who will decide the next election and they DON'T want Hillary or any other Corporate candidates. I USED to be a super partisan Dem but watching MY Party support Bush policies has been shocking to me and to millions of others.
If you think that membership on a relatively remote internet forum has ANY relevance to those of us who deeply care about the future of this country, all I can say is you don't understand the importance of priorities and any forum that requires loyalty to party when the party has so often betrayed the voters, will most likely see a huge exodus IF the Dems insist on pushing yet another Corporate candidate.
I intend to focus on getting PROGRESSIVE DEMS elected to Congress in 2014. I don't even know why we are being bothered with an election that is three years away right now. Hillary should respect the candidates who are trying to run in 2014 and remain out of the media until we win back Congress with PROGRESSIVES in 2014.
Drew Richards
(1,558 posts)totodeinhere
(13,059 posts)reactionaries in the GOP retain control of the House and many statehouses in 2014 as they do now then any Democrat elected to the White House in 2016 will have a built-in disadvantage. But I am not the one who started this thread and I merely responded to comments made by others. While it's not a thread I would have started if comments are made that pique my interest then I will respond.
And to make it clear, I personally am not threatening to ban anyone from this forum. After all, I don't have the power to do that even if I wanted to which I don't. But I do think that violating the forum's rules or at least my interpretation of the rules is relevant to the discussion.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)speaking of 'rules'. There is some kind of disconnect when it's okay for the Dem Party to not only support a Republican, despite the warnings that he was no 'moderate', and that his handling of Sandy was already creating anger in his own state, not to mention some of the other issues that were ignored, but not okay for people to refuse to support other Corporate Candidates like Christie in their own party.
Not the first time either that the little people are told 'you either for the Dem or else', while the party leadership supports the Republican. So it's all become so meaningless, these 'rules' that they would like to apply only to the 'people' now. Which is why rules on a forum are meaningless also, and not at all relevant to the real life issues facing the working class.
Beacool
(30,253 posts)Ditto for Bill. So don't blame her if the media has created this buzz about her so early on.
As who you vote for in 2016? I don't care. If she happens to be the nominee and she doesn't meet your purity test requirements, then vote for someone who does.
On the other hand, if a Republican gets in, please spare us your bellyaching because you would have contributed to that person's win. There were quite a few of us who didn't want Obama in 2008, but he was the nominee and that was that. Life goes on.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)So, if she is the nominee and I decide not to vote or if I decide to vote for someone else how about if I just don't tell you about it? Will that be okay?
totodeinhere
(13,059 posts)in mind that this is "Democratic Underground" not "Progressive Underground." I happen to be a progressive myself. Or at least that is the label that I would apply to my political views. But first and foremost our main goal for 2016 should be to keep a Republican out of the White House at all costs and before that we need to concentrate on making Democratic gains in the 2014 midterms.
It seems rather odd to me that this forum is "Democratic Underground" yet I seem to be raising the ire of some posters by advocating voting for Democrats.
Beacool
(30,253 posts)They seem to live in a parallel world. No one can start a positive thread about certain Democrats that will not be immediately trashed by some folks.
This place always reminds me of the Freepers. They despise Christie so much that many of them proclaimed that they wouldn't vote for him if he became their party's nominee. Ditto for Jeb Bush. They would cut their nose to spite themselves. I see the same mindset here with some people. It's just crazy!!! I would vote for ANY Democrat over the Republican candidate in 2016. We will not have the majority in the House (that's a pipe dream) and we will be lucky if we don't lose seats in the Senate. It is extremely important that we try to keep the WH in Democratic hands. Since 2010, with the advent of the Tea Party, the Republican party has moved to the extreme Right. I cringe to think what will become of the nation if they hold Congress and the WH.
To have to hear the constant moaning about the Clintons, instead of looking at the long game, is frustrating. At this point, we don't even know whether she will run.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Only I get to do that, and I will only vote for progressives. If that means I don't get to vote because there are no progressive democrats nominated then so be it.
Beacool
(30,253 posts)It's a free country. Don't think that you're all so important that anyone will try to "intimidate and bully" you.
trublu992
(489 posts)effective S of S. I wish he had been S of S state during the first administration.
Drew Richards
(1,558 posts)Last edited Sun Jan 26, 2014, 03:42 AM - Edit history (1)
Enough with this bullshit that someone is inevitable or deserving of the White House. Its her turn HORSESHIT...
She's got more baggage than a pulman car...
You're deserving of the Democratic Nomination if you're a fucking Democrat with Democratic views opinion and beliefs...and fucking stand up for those beliefs...
Clinton? She's just another DINO climbing the corporate political ladder. Two faced in her beliefs and what she stands for just like her husband.
If Warren doesn't get pushed into running for the good of the country I will vote how I see fit when the time comes.
Clinton...i haven't met more than 6 Democrats at our GOTV Meetings that claim she is their first choice...most have said in this order..Warren Biden Sanders then Clinton.
So you gonna start researching me for your little enemies list now?
totodeinhere
(13,059 posts)such as those you listed in this forum. Vince Foster? Are you kidding me? Those things are straight out of freeperland.
Beacool
(30,253 posts)if they are spewing RW bullshit!!!
Amazing the CRAP one has to read in a supposed Democratic board. One might as well be on Hot Air, Free Republic, Newsmax, etc.
Response to Beacool (Reply #104)
Post removed
Beacool
(30,253 posts)totodeinhere
(13,059 posts)Drew Richards
(1,558 posts)Skittles
(153,193 posts)you need training on how to determine if you are reading or hearing about rightwing garbage
Drew Richards
(1,558 posts)Pointed out what will obviously used again against her...perhaps you owe me an apology instead of an attack.
Drew Richards
(1,558 posts)Skittles
(153,193 posts)Drew Richards
(1,558 posts)Beacool
(30,253 posts)You forgot to add "Benghazi" to your list of RW talking points.
Drew Richards
(1,558 posts)You don't think all of this will tarnish her and muddy the water...
Do you believe in fucking unicorns farting rainbows in your direction..just because you love HRC?
Talk about politically clueless..
totodeinhere
(13,059 posts)her for the nomination although I will vote for her if she gets the nomination. The tired right wing talking points that you listed have been around for a long time and have been totally discredited. That's why there is no reason to bring them up here unless you have your own anti-Clinton agenda and you are grasping at straws in order to try to discredit the person who may well be our 2016 nominee.
And make no mistake about it. No matter whom we nominate, Clinton or someone else, the right wing will come up a hit job against them.
Drew Richards
(1,558 posts)You too young to remember 2008.
Since when has something being proven not true ever stop Republicans from using it to smear Democrats?
donco
(1,548 posts)of Clinton's and NAFTA.Time for someone with a name like Warren or an independent Senator from Vermont.
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)I haven't got a dog in this, seeing I'm not an American, but there's lots of politicians I don't like. My dislike of them doesn't stop me watching the news or posting about the news, so I'm not sure why it affects you like that.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)...and we talk about repukes voting against themselves ....jeeze. There are obviously not enough peace loving, anti greed members in the Dem party.