it will take a miracle to keep her from winning the nomination.

so yeah, this is me on the keyboards

That's the reality of it.

People like that wouldn't even vote for Bill in the fall.

They're all members of "Adult Children of Democrats For Nixon".

and anything associated with it. Most Americans don't consider what the words liberal & conservative really mean, as evidenced by the fact that everyone still calls the repub party conservative when in reality. they are on the fringe & the baggers are off the fucking edge. The democratic party is now the conservative party & the liberals have no voice at all, because a two bit actor poked fun at the word & the cowardly dems ran from it & eventually turned their backs on liberal policies as well.

The dems have no backbone. They were fearful of the repubs & the media back in the 80s & the repubs & the media knew it. Now, too many members of the dem party are gorging at the same corporate trough as the repubs/baggers. Old time dems like me are tired of voting for the lesser of two evils & ending up with exactly what we were voting against.

What I'm saying is I don't think America is as conservative as everyone (especially the politicians & the media) tries to tell us. I want a political party that says "Fuckin' A I'm a liberal & here's why!" and then read the Joe Conservative essay.

the words liberal and conservative have been so corrupted by propaganda and the media that people no longer even know what they represent.

Dead serious. If that happens and we don't have a primary it will be very very difficult for me to support Clinton. It goes against everything.

let me give you, and mostly the OP, a link... the OP will question it, guaranteed.

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/18/it-begins-claire-mccaskill-to-support-hillary-in-2016/

. . . juries have been allowing these for Hillary-based attacks, though.

Townhall/HotAir Network

HotAir.com is part of the Townhall/HotAir network alongside Townhall.com, Townhall Magazine, FreedomCards.com and Townhall Finance in a network of conservative websites and publications with over four million monthly readers. Jonathan Garthwaite, General Manager @JonGarthwaite on Twitter.

It doesn't need to be verified in print for them.

Bush Bush Clinton Clinton Bush Bush Obama Obama Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton

That should see us through 2060!

that the wife of a former POTUS is best qualified to run the country, you want to penalize a woman because she has the same last name as her husband? Way to respect people on their own merits! Why don't you folks ever name your candidate (someone who hasn't already decided not to run like Elizabeth Warren)? I mean a serious candidate who can actually run a national campaign without the help of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

I'm sick of her pandering. I'm sick of her supporters. I'm sick of reading about their connections to Wall Street. I'm sick of reading about how they struggled financially after leaving the White House. Simply put, I'm sick of both of them.

It's not sexist to want NEW candidates unrelated by marriage to previous presidents. That claim is pure bullshit.

And that Jeb stays home too. And the supporters are not realizing how this is hurting her chances. There is real fatigue earlier than even 2008.

There is an extensive list of people talking now with donors, among them Cuomo and O'Malley. I personally do not like Cuomo, and need to research O'Malley.

They might trot him out to triangulate folks into Hillary or to ride the anti vote to get a worse person to the nomination.

The problem is that nationally the party leadership is quite center right now. Not accidental either

Sid

. . . I think it would be death to a Clinton campaign to even begin to agree with McCaskill.

Consensus comes from the actual vote. Reminds me of the maneuvering at the end of the primary. Ugh.

People don't understand that the DNC votes on the platform and it is often modified right there on the DNC floor by the vote of the delegates. Small changes usually, but still, they are important to represent the ideals of the people.

There are some here who are upset that there exists no 2014 Democratic Party National Platform. It's because no such platform exists! The only platform that exists is the 2012 platform which was voted upon and decided by the DNC. The next platform will be 2016! It's one of those strange aspects of "party politics" but that's how it is, for good reason. The people involved at the political level would understand, forum posters, maybe not so much.

oh fun.

You want the state platforms to be represented by the national platform, but not necessarily the converse. It's why, say, Vermont has things about unions and workers, as does the national platform, but the Vermont platform says nothing about guns (which the national platform says needs to be reigned in). Vermont is gun friendly. The national platform, not so much.

Fun indeed.

You gotta wonder about the kid or young aspiring politician or even elder states-person looking at the national platform and comparing it to the party platform and seeing where things diverge or not. Hell, you gotta wonder about the national platform people who are writing that out. They gotta be reading all 50 platforms and trying to appease each and every one. Fortunately democrats have similar ideals so it's not that bad. But to be in that room? Would be "fun" indeed.

primaries... it was lots of fun.

Some of the caucuses are just nerdy as hell, others not so much. And I learned a lot more about redistricting from party officials who do the numbers than anybody should ever know.

Fun fact, I do not have access to district detailed information, unless you are running you don't. But I learned enough to be able to make very educated guesses... why I know Issa has no danger of losing, even if he is found with a live boy on the bed. But the swing district in my county is razor thin... so outcome will be GOTV, GOTV, GOTV and it would help to get people enthused if the Dem was less of a third way, no labels man. Speaking about an election that is happening in November.

CO Democrats advocated for it in 2012.

Should be awesome.

I'd try to be a delegate but I changed to unaffiliated in 2009-2010 or thereabouts. They tend to be in the know and 2 years is no where enough time for me to do it nor do I desire to be that close knit... would be funny though, thinking about it.

literally sent Brown up a gasket.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/03/10/california_democrats_now_officially_support_legal_marijuana.html

Not sure why I hadn't heard about it.

Bank on it, marijuana legalization in the 2016 platform. Can you imagine? I honestly can say I couldn't 10 years ago. But today? It's so happening.

This sort of thing is why I'm optimistic nadin... shame about that arctic sea ice and its repercussions... signing off, been nice sparring / discussing with you, even with the minor disagreements.

I should do the same... I got a budget to go through tomorrow

but as expected, thank you.

Given you also question Mother Jones (left wing) and Atlantic (mainstream) is there any media you approve off? That is a silly question, so don't bother answering.

Townhall/HotAir Network

HotAir.com is part of the Townhall/HotAir network alongside Townhall.com, Townhall Magazine, FreedomCards.com and Townhall Finance in a network of conservative websites and publications with over four million monthly readers. Jonathan Garthwaite, General Manager @JonGarthwaite on Twitter.

I just watched an amazing video from Fox where Bolton was taken to task (It is Fox Business I get the point) Sometimes even the sources you do not approve off have valuable information.

Like it or not, you do not have the corner on information. Here is the vid in question, posted here on DU. I am still checking my drink.. somebody had to spike it.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=197730

I am not afraid of the designated enemy by the way.

Let's just say this talk of closing the primaries started with McCaskill. but it is not stopping there unless they get pushback. And I do not know about you, but 1968 was not a good Democratic Convention.

Here, a reminder of why they were opened.

http://www.history.com/topics/1960s/videos/violence-batters-1968-democratic-convention

Which is why I am providing push back to every candidate that tries to claim they are pre selected by God or whatever the claim is. They don't want a Primary because that last Primary did not go well for them, in spite of their holding the prepaid 'Get To Be President' card from AmEX.

Are deconstructed by facts, data, etc.

I think my sig line says it all...

Oh it's only 2014.

God, I'm already sick and tired of the pre-primary war and no one has even declared.

And I would like someone more progressive then Hillary.

In December 2016 will vote for the party nominee no mater who they are.

n/t

midterms set records for high turnout. The total number of Democratic votes in Primary 2008 was around 35,000,000. 'Don't show up for Primaries, except for the tens of millions who do'.

That figure varies according to various methods of counting caucs votes, I picked a middle of the pack figure.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/

anyone else this time around.

Not 6 months from now, not a year from now, they need to step forward and start their campaign. It's going to be a $4-8 billion dollar campaign when all is said and done. Citizens United, Oligarchy United, these things are going to be tough to overcome. And I bet that the Republicans will put up someone who can push an agenda shift in the party, because as we've seen with the Libertarians making inroads, they can use that to divide and conquer.

people keep bringing up how she led in the polls for 2008 primary. but things were going on back then with other candidates .Obama was going around the country and world and people were coming out to see him. none of this is happening this time around. people must be really naive or just not informed.

the most i have seen is Sweitzer and there is no way he is going to win the nomination. and the types he is most likely to appeal to are already supporting rand paul.

i can maybe see sanders getting into the race just to have a debate but even that seems less likely as more time passes and i don't think he would care to be out on the campaign trail much .

But I can't see Reich making the right connections to raise $2 billion dollars, minimum, to win the Presidency. The good thing is that at least we won't have to endure a 2 year primary. Mid-2015 to early 2016, sweeping victory for Clinton, perhaps a loss here or there for a Sanders challenge or a Reich challenge, just so the party can express it isn't completely and utterly homogenous behind her.

Or can you point to a shred of evidence that he's thinking of running?

All I see is people asking him to run.

But in 2006 if you asked me about it I would have to google the name.

When the 2004 elections were stolen again, and Kerry conceded to Dumbya again, I had Obama on my "star" list until his campaign in 2008, then I turned my attention to John Edwards. Again another deep disappointment. Sigh. Back to Obama vs Clinton, and Obama was my choice over Hillary.

But here we are again. Prospects looks even grimmer.

That'll change.

"The Family" LOL.

Remember, this is registered Democrats.

My dad is a registered Democrat but his votes bounce all over the place, and he couldn't tell you one of Hillary's stances I bet.

In one of your threads from yesterday, you couldn't come up with anything positive about her, and there are plenty of positive things she has done. One person in the thread supplied a long list. But, you pretended not to know anything about her actions that you consider to be positive. Odd, that, I think.

The majority of voters from both parties vote based on other factors, frankly, that actual positions and votes. That's how it has always been. Most voters pay little attention to details, and never have. However, as I've found while doing canvassing, most voters do have one or two issues they care about quite a bit. Letting them know that a candidate supports their viewpoint on those issues generally works to get them to the polls to vote for that candidate. I've seen it work many, many times over an adult lifetime of election activism.

and was hoping that she's done things that I didn't know about. But no surprises, I didn't see anything really outstanding to offset her odious past (IWR, Walmart, etc).

I agree that only a few issues are important in each election cycle. At this point in time, people are attuned to ending the 30-year bipartisan war against the 99%: which is why, for example, Elizabeth Warren has come so far, so fast - 10 years ago she'd have had trouble getting elected to the state legislature. In this area, Hillary has some big problems, she's basically been a general on the wrong side.

It certainly did not come off that way. And people did post positives, but you don't appear to acknowledge those.

sufficiently offset her IWR vote?

On whole, are things better or worse for the 99% since Hillary's held great power? What battles has she led to improve things?

to the 2016 election in 2014. It is that simple. In my limited time, I'm focusing on 2014. Once November has passed, I'll be turning my attention to the 2016 election. Until then, I believe it is a distraction that could depress turnout in 2014. We have the potential to gain a majority in the House this year. For me, that possibility overrides speculation about presidential candidates in 2016.

Ask me again in the second week in November.

you say you have no interest in x.

What am I missing here?

It's DU. You post; I reply. I post; you reply.

You were playing your usual games. You know it and most people here know it. Please don't insult our intelligence and pretend otherwise.

I think that is the big take away. I don't give a damn about who has brand recognition, there will be plenty experiencing buyer's remorse that now think they are gung ho now but even if not, I don't need 63% to understand that more Turd Way economics and neoliberal interventions aren't what my country needs and I won't sit quiet while we flush our future down the fucking toilet playing an ever downward spiral of failed political philosophy and hack appointments.

The herd is leading us of the cliff, I understand they are running from a lethal predator but the bottom of the gully isn't an answer.

. . . in the electorate; in the primary and the general as well.

consistently demonstrated failure and changing the face selling it from time to time.

The people also know what is offered is what is needed, they know full well we are on the wrong track and so more of the same won't fix shot but are profoundly befuddled on why, who, and who benefits.

. . . that's the rub in the presidential election. Someone has to run and fight, hopefully till the end of the primary. So many good choices fold before then. I'd love to ride my ideals all the way to the general election, but principled candidates are usually swallowed up by one of the consensus candidates in the end.

If someone can figure out how to advance a principled candidate who expresses and holds our progressive views and keep them in the game, I'd really, really appreciate that. But, you know where these contests have led in the past, with many a good and principled candidate dropping by the wayside.

This poll is not determinate of anything much more than the attitude right now of the folks polled. that's it. But it does highlight the need for a candidate to promote progressive issues in a way that interests and appeals to more voters. There's no shortcut for that, and no one can blame a candidate with different views for any failure from a progressive candidate to make that case to voters.

I think this poll highlights the problem we've had in every election. A majority of voters have consistently told pollsters over the years that they want candidates who are decidedly less progressive than the average DUer, myself included.

Candidates are challenged to appeal nationally and voters aren't voting progressive in every part of the country. There's going to be a need for a strong and unyielding candidate. I really don't want to say whether I'm optimistic that will happen. I'll just hope for such a person to enter the race. I'll be the wind under their wings.

to respond to the vacuum
We've played paddy cake with the wealthy, the economic feudalists, and the greedy stakeholders and their various foot pads long enough.

They like hardball, speaking for myself it is past time to play too. Serve up Turds, flush them and failing that beat the shit out of them with no mercy like they whip us to death for their pockets.

Bowing and scraping, going along to get along pays nothing. We are being herded, I ask good Democrats to stand up for our futures and the world's and push relentlessly for what is needed and if we can't do that then to hell with us, we are stupid and dangerous fools.

Last edited Wed Jun 18, 2014, 10:10 PM - Edit history (1)

. . . you make a compelling case, and it would be foolish to disagree with what you've said here. I'll just say that I'm not really certain where all of what you've said is going to manifest itself. Politics is certainly about challenging government to change, but it's also a place where we try and reconcile our myriad of differences from disparate regions around the nation.

Nothing happens, as you've expressed, unless the people demand it from their legislators, in and out of office. Yet, in our legislature there is an impetus to compromise; it's the nature of our democracy. Our legislature provides room to both argue and compromise. There's very little room for legislators to just dictate one pov or the other.

There's a need to form coalitions with folks who may not share every plank of someone's agenda to advance legislation, and there's not always a guarantee that there will be a new legislature in time for you, or us, to force through perfect voting bloc in Congress. The electorate is too diverse.

I don't see a shortcut to generating the needed support among the electorate for whatever ideal or initiative we want to advance first - then comes the voting and the electing, and the pressuring of these pols. The voting is everything, and it's up to the candidate to convince the voters as much as it takes voters to make their demands of the candidates.

Not everything is going to yield to demanding; some politics will need consensus. That means forming coalitions; much like we organize under our Democratic banner. It's a process, more than it's a brawl, and nothing is ever guaranteed in our political system.

Fox and Friends.

I guess the Left Wing Radicals who watch CNN missed the poll.

That's what I was coming here to post - if you think Americans are aware that there is a left of Hillary after RW mainstream media's calling Obama and H. Clinton 'commies' for the last 6 years than you are delusional (not you Ed, lol). Americans don't even understand what 'left' means. Most are terrified that anything to the left of Hillary would be communism.

for the last 20 years.

. . . prefer my guv, O'Malley.

Didn't there used to be a kind of Democratic party in this country?

. . . I might support them.

A non-Hillary option will arise. That's how these things work.

Will definitely win, just like Obama did.

He's lesser of the two evils, but never forget: Clinton voted for the 2003 war of aggression. Unforgivable. The only honorable thing is not to apologize (while supporting new military actions: fuck that) but to withdraw from political life to the favor of people who knew better then and know better now.

. . . the rest about Clinton, I actually agree with (more problem with the dissembling after the vote, than the vote itself).

I'd be satisfied if she would withdraw, but I'm not going to curse her for getting in the race.

I see Obama and Clinton as two sides of the same coin.

That is the real question. Who will decide to run against her? No one has yet begun setting up a campaign organization, as far as I've heard.

to get worked up about what she says, when the fact is that if there is more than one candidate who decides to run, there will be a primary.

McCaskill just thinks it's unlikely HRC, assuming she runs, will have an opponent. But if there is one there will be a primary.

who is acting like we already had a coronation.

Now the Senator acting that way is down right irresponsible.

She has her favorite candidate and is hopeful HRC will be a unanimous choice. Big deal. CM isn't going to stop anyone from running who wants to.

constant attacks on those who do not agree with him, or the fact that is trying to deny a big story of 2008 that is a minor inconvenience right now, will ensure that the atmosphere here will get down right toxic. The primary wars of 2008 will look civil in comparison.

I do political reporting, so I know why I will not vote for HRC, and it is based on her voting record, in the Senate, particular civil rights and war. It is also partly based on the Family and her relationship with it, but the latter one, you have to be a politics nerd anymore. I will vet for myself each of the rest of the candidates. Hagiography is not in my reading list either.

But if the OP is literally blowing a gasket over an old story... that is out there, and has been out there since 2008, I do not want to be around when we have a new skeleton dug out. It is Op Research, it is the nature of politics, and there will be many skeletons dug out by all involved. A full zombie army will be risen between January of 2015 and November of 2016, and that is the truth. Politics is a full contact sport and then some.

Some of these skeletons will be more serious than others, and a few might be figments of collective imaginations. But that is what it is.

Hell, we have been trying to find a few skeletons of our own, and has nothing to do with national politics, rather state politics. Some of the rumors... but for some reason raising them at the State level is a tad harder. The retribution is closer I suppose.

"Interviews with 1,003 adult Americans conducted by telephone by ORC International on May 29-June 1, 2014. The margin of sampling error for results based on the total sample is plus or minus 3 percentage points."

was about her ties with the family, and Coe... we literally had a go at it, and he deleted his thread about it.

Trust me on this, he is.

And it is a problem. I only point this out, not to bring threads in, but as a piece of tactical advise to the OP, not that he cares. He was told bellow that this shit will alienate voters. I agree with that HRC supporter, BT is doing a fine job of alienating potential allies and voters.

I personally do not give a hoot if somebody supports Chuthulu for President (A perennial candidate, and I am using the fictional one because we actually have a bumper sicker somewhere, we also have the Brain for President 2004 somewhere as well), just don't be so hard core that people walk away. It happened in 2008 with many of the Hillary supporters. And when Obama was nominated they were angry, seething inside and felt like people hated them. A lot of that was self inflicted.

And the only reason I am bringing this up is I know DU will become insufferable in 2016. I would like it to be somewhat useful at least until the midterms. We do not even have a presidential race yet. There are midterms that actually matter in 2014, but at this pace, why bother with them either?

. . . it should be out of bounds. I believe it is, a jury might rule otherwise.

I told you then, and I'll tell you now . . . you know absolutely nothing about how I feel about Hillary Clinton as a candidate. I've read all of your characterization of what I believe and it's dead wrong.

I suppose, though, you'll presume to speak for me.


How about sticking to the subject of the op and leave your divisive chatter about my personal belief out of your posts?

by not making blanket statements implying that you won't vote for HRC no matter what.

We don't know that she's running. We don't know who else will be running. But it doesn't help the situation for people to be drawing lines in the sand already, before we even know who the candidates will be.

. . . Hillary Clinton won't be my first choice in this election if she does decide to run. I'll be working for someone else.

I don't even envision Mrs. Clinton as my second choice should my first choice falter. She was my third choice in 2007.

I'd like to know where the article, or I, am 'blowing a gasket over the poll'.

you were told bellow by another poster you are alienating potential voters.

That my friend is a problem.

. . . that's ridiculous.

Do you attack all polls, or just ones that favor Hillary Clinton?

Are you alienating voters with your countless posts in outright opposition to Clinton? You've told me several times that you intend to draw voters away from her.

On the other hand, I haven't even begun to advocate for my candidate of choice, and I've not engaged in ANY attacks on ANY other Democratic choice.