eom

Besides, that's what primaries are for.

It is time that all states held their primaries on the same day.

Up to this point, at least, the nomination has been Hillary's for the taking. The general election, not so much. There are many variables, not the least of which is who the Republicans nominate. Also, I think that there is a great chance that Mrs. Clinton will decide not to run. Then, all bets are off.

Which is another way of saying, "the media of the rent-seeking corporations will pick our candidates for us."

Alongside Presidents Ted Kennedy and Al Gore.

be a bust, be a bust in the Hall of Fame.

(Sorry. I watched the Wizard of Oz last night.)

Take it somewhere else, buster.

Ted Kennedy actully lost NH to Carter.Gore just barely beat Bradley In primary there.

This number means nothing compared to history.

Paul Tsongas - a real Democrat.

I was deeply involved in Paul's presidential campaign, in the national organization (not in the fundraising group that robbed the campaign). A life-changing experience for me, although not in a good way - not Paul's fault. I saw first-hand how campaigns function (or don't), and I got very familiar with how the Clintons do business.

every primary and the popular vote and Florida under any recount scenario.

The science of statistics are probabilities, guesses at best

Even close to the primaries they should be taken as a guess.

Don't fall for this.....Hillary is not going to win. Repubs don't want her, nor do they really want another Bush. They also want a real alternative to vote for, and a Clinton is not an alternative for them. Liz, Bernie, Martin, Amy....so many others can be an alternative and win.

Down boy.

Shit, no one has even announced and she's ahead at this point.

It's still a long way out. Polls a year from now won't even be wholly representative. We'll see how it goes.

in Iowa. I'd take her over Bush or Romney but I'm still waiting to see what Bernie will do. He speaks for us - "us" being the non 1%.

Hallelujah. Take me to the river.

Chips in the brains of rank and file Democrats???? I'm baffled. What did the DLC do that caused this?? How is it rigged???

There is no conspiracy. The Democratic Party doesn't have anyone who mainstream voters take seriously other than Hillary at this time. The activist wing of the party are hepped up over Warren and Sanders; meanwhile, the rest of the nation hears their names as Presidential candidates and laughs hysterically.

You write:

Would the label Democratic Socialist be more damaging than Barack Hussein Obama a black muslim, anti-American( pastor Wright),terrorist (Bill Ayers) that was born in Kenya?

The attacks on Obama that you mention were accepted primarily by people who were hostile to him anyway. My guess is that all that stuff didn't sway many votes. By contrast, Sanders has for years formally identified himself as a Socialist.

The label will be a negative for some voters. As against that, at a time of declining major-party enrollment and a widespread lack of confidence in government, someone who can embody that kind of dissatisfaction might get an advantage from being perceived as outside the current mainstream.

Are you saying being black isn't true? Wasn't this "negative for some voters"? You say Bernie is "someone who can embody that kind of dissatisfaction," what specific type of dissatisfaction are you referring to? If Obama was able to prove the attacks on him were wrong, why won't Bernie be able to educate the dem uninformed of what a dem socialist means and it's not a communist? The Millennials aren't swayed by this communist nonsense because they didn't live thru it. Can you please tell me how the principles of a dem socialist " might be more damaging" to this country than corp worship? Also, you previously stated that Bernie could be considered a "dangerous radical:. Why are you still pushing this communist crap?

"Are you saying being black isn't true?" No, being a Black Muslim is the part that wasn't true.

"Wasn't this 'negative for some voters'? Absolutely. One thing that mitigated the harm, though, is that we lost most of the white racist vote years ago anyway. The people who wouldn't vote for a black wouldn't have voted for Joe Biden, either. My concern is that the "Socialist" label might cost some votes from people who would vote for Biden.

"You say Bernie is 'someone who can embody that kind of dissatisfaction,' what specific type of dissatisfaction are you referring to?" What I alluded to in my post -- the feeling that the country is on the wrong track, that government isn't on the people's side, and that traditional politicians of the Democratic and Republican Parties are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Sanders would be starkly unlike any other major-party nominee of the modern era, a fact that would be a negative for some voters (see preceding paragraph) but a selling point for others.

"If Obama was able to prove the attacks on him were wrong, why won't Bernie be able to educate the dem uninformed of what a dem socialist means and it's not a communist?" I didn't mention the word "Communist". My concern is that even the word "Socialist" has a negative connotation with millions of swing voters. He could educate some but it's an illustration of an axiom attributed to Reagan -- "If you're explaining, you're losing." This is why the Republicans shamelessly resort to negative campaigning, whether it's true or not. (The bright side is that this is one respect in which Sanders might lose the nomination but still have an overall win. His candidacy would serve to educate at least some people about these points, and thus make it easier for a progressive to be nominated in a future cycle.)

"The Millennials aren't swayed by this communist nonsense because they didn't live thru it." As noted above, I'm talking about the "Socialist" label. Even as to that, you're probably right that it's less of a negative with Millennials than with older voters. That's nice, but we can't win an election on Millennials alone.

"Can you please tell me how the principles of a dem socialist 'might be more damaging' to this country than corp worship?" I thought it was clear from my post (#103) that I was talking about what would be damaging to Sanders's electoral prospects, not to the country. In fact, I was responding to your post #102, in which you used the word "damaging" in the electoral sense.

"Also, you previously stated that Bernie could be considered a 'dangerous radical'. Why are you still pushing this communist crap?" I did not opine that Sanders is a dangerous radical. I did not opine that there's even a legitimate argument that he's a dangerous radical. My exact statement, again (as I thought was obvious) in the context of electoral prospects, was: "Will (people) hear his policy ideas, coupled with his former Socialist affiliation, and see him as a dangerous radical?" Given the preconceptions that millions of people already have, and given how those will be played upon and augmented by the corporate media if Sanders runs, I continue to believe that that's a real concern.

On the merits, I love the guy. I may well vote for him in the primary, depending on what the lineup is, just as I voted for Kucinich in 2004 without deluding myself that he had much chance of becoming President.

My oversight black,,Muslim

"who wouldn't vote for a black wouldn't have voted for Joe Biden either" validate that opinion

"dissatisfaction"=majority of Americans, do you agree?

Why does Democratic Socialist" have a negative connotation? To you is it socialist= Russia=communist and why do you always leave off the word DEMOCRATIC when using socialism. Bernie repeatedly uses Democratic socialism.

If your defining and educating the uninformed public, are you still losing? "Educate some" could that be millions of swing voters too?

Did the 2014 midterms show Millennials have great value on deciding elections.Remind of the youth vote for the Obama elections.

Are you saying dem socialism principles are good for the country but terrible for Bernie? Will the corp media be lovey-dovey with everyone except Bernie? "Preconceptions that millions of people already have" please validate that or start using "in my opinion'.

Then socialist= dangerous radical unless his policies are heard. Name any candidate that could win without their policies being heard

I'm happy you voted your conscience with Kucinich but your posts are theoretical and unsubstantiated. Anyone can win, and no one can prove the future.

You write, among other things: "Why does 'Democratic Socialist' have a negative connotation? To you is it socialist= Russia=communist...." This is utterly absurd. To repeat, you introduced the word "communist" into this discussion, but now you decide that I'm equating socialism with communism.

Sorry, but when you give that little evidence of paying attention to what I actually write, I'm not going to put in the effort I did last time of responding to each of your comments in detail.

Well, except I can't resist that last one. "Anyone can win, and no one can prove the future." Correct, no one can prove it. In 2012, Jill Stein on the Green Party line came in fourth but she might win in 2016. No one can prove otherwise.

Still, as Damon Runyon said, "The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet."

Socialism having a negative connotation;Specifically, why does the word socialism have a negative connotation to you and others? We who lived during the cold war know exactly what connotation the word socialism has. Your denial is amazing and totally absurd.

So is the teacher/lecturer frustrated because the students aren't "paying attention"? Oh those darn lowly students, don't question your wisdom, the students know little.

Bernie says he will probably run as a dem so comparing him to the Green Party is laughable at best.

Remember the "Turtle and the Hare" and visit Las Vegas to ask if the underdogs ever win. Couldn't resist.

Evade and deny, I've experienced this before and the student has learned.

Last edited Mon Nov 24, 2014, 11:14 AM - Edit history (1)

Yeah, that's some formidable candidacy.

But let's talk about what this poll really means, as evidenced by that Clinton-Romney matchup:

1) Polling at this point measures name-recognition, period.

2) The fact that Hilary has so much more name recognition than any other potential Dem candidate is actually a problem for the long-term health of the party. The Republicans have a deep bench of 40- and 50-somethings; these people are admittedly crazy and repulsive, but they appeal to the party faithful and can raise serious money. We, meanwhile have apparently been so bad at showcasing our up-and-coming leaders that we're coalescing around the oldest candidate our party will ever have run, and are only seriously talking about her senior-citizen peers as alternatives. We're like the Ottoman Empire of parties.

Want something to chew on??
Consider how flimsy the poll sampling appears to be.

PLEASE READ THE SURVEY RESULTS
http://www.businessweek.com/pdfs/bloomberg-saint-anselm-purple-NH-survey-Q1-to-Q9-11-2014.pdf

Yes, Hillary does have a lead AMONG 989,
people surveyed with a margin of error (MoE) of 4.9%.
"if" the election was held today.

The Margin of Error is 4.9%
Is a margin of error of of 4.9% statistically significant?
Are these result repeatable?
WE need to get educated about stats and polls going into 2016!

The poll is questionable for a many more reasons...
What are the age demographics?
What are the race demographics?
What is the economic Demographic?
What is the level of education of the demographic?
How were respondents sampled, random, haphazard?

Hillary's favorable/unfavorable 51/45 are comparable to...
Mitt Romney!? 47/48
Kelly Ayotte 47/27
With a MoE of 4.9% Hillary has as much statistical "support"
in the general election as Mittens and Ayotte!
Ayotte has a MUCH lower UNFAVORABLE.
Chew on that!

According to the Survey (question 6) if the 2016 election
were held today Hillary is in a dead heat with Mitt Romney!
46% Hillary and 45% Romney!
AND
IS beatable by Rand Paul (question 8) with 4.9% MoE.
Hillary 48% Rand 41%
So Romney or Rand could beat Hillary!

On question 9, asking about which party "likely Voters"
trust on issues of governing, REPUBLICANS WIN
on 4 out of 5 questions!

Overall, New Hampshire PREFERS REPUBLICAN candidates.
Chew on that!

How about we stop cherry picking
statistically insignificant poll results
in lame attempts at cheer leading, 'mkay?

I know Clinton is inevitable, but the OP is ridiculous.

I called Purple Insights, the propaganda polling company and talked to a Doug Usher(703-548-7877 ext 3) who was rather abrupt. I asked for specific demographics and he referred me to Bloomberg where I was unable to find these stats prior to the call. I informed him of this and he said that they MAY be releasing some more info in a few days. I asked if the demos would be included and he said they will be having a meeting soon to determine what they will release. Extremely evasive and gave the impression that they will release what they want to and screw everyone else. Sounds like a wonderful,unbiased, transparent company

Polling companies are in BUSINESS to MAKE MONEY.

I'm sure Purple Insights hope to get into Hillary's
campaign spending stream for 2016.
If they released more demographic info
it could de-legitimize their polling sample.
Hence, their reluctance to be transparent.
Better to pander to Hillary and curry favor.

BTW, Hillary's BIG primary lead is based
on the responses of....246 people
404 democratic voters with 61% preferring Hillary.

Tried to find the Federal agency that oversees all these polling companies. Called the FEC (NOPE) the Election Assistance Commission (NOPE) and then found an article criticizing the NYT polls. The article referred to the American Assoc. of Public Opinion Research(AAPOR) in Illinois. Called them, they said their is no Federal oversight of these polling companies and as an assoc. they are trying to get these polling cos. to sign a code of ethics. I asked if Purple Insights had signed and they said no. Asked, how do we know if they even contacted 404 people or if they just made them up out of thin air, no answer. So it looks like the corrupt media,who paid for the polls are "We The People's" only watchdog. Wonderful set-up. When does the time come when we flush all these polls down the toilet?

As soon as we wake people up
to this type of media manipulation!

The OP is intended to create a false impression
among DU members as to the INEVITABILITY
of Queen Hillary's coronation.

Expose the false premise, the failure of
the statistical significance, and the paltry
and misleading sample,
and the intellectually dishonest purpose.

After all, the poll cited puts REPUBLICANS AHEAD
of Hillary...given the MoE.
In essence, a Hillary for president campaign
would be a Democratic defeat, in New Hampshire.

numbers in say, May, 2016.

On primary election days, either their candidates will win or the will not. Time will provide the test, hope all will be standing on two legs.

No, it is still more than a year away.

Sorry, but this doesn't mean much of anything.

At this point, I almost hope she doesn't so as to take the wind out of the sails of her haters, both on the Republican side and ours. At this point, I prefer she would not run, but won't work myself into a rage if she does. It'll be what it'll be. I'll choose among the declared candidates, not among who Fox Noise tells me my choices are. Come November 2016, I'll vote for the Democratic candidate, whether my first choice or not, because it's a lock that the Republican candidate will be worse than the worst of ours.

"There is no difference between the parties/candidates."

Ralph Nader was full of it in 2000 (the ghosts of 100,000 dead Iraqis will agree) and he's full of it now if he says the same thing.

And please point out where I called someone a hater. I just think a lot of people are expending a lot of emotional energy on a worthless pursuit at the moment.

Agreed on the primaries--anyone who enters them had better be prepared to state to the nation where they stand on any issue put to them. Anyone who dodges a question on a major position they hold does not deserve the nomination. The primary debates are our only Q&A. This goes for all candidates who have declared an intention to enter the Democratic primaries. Losing sleep over anyone who hasn't is a worthless expenditure of energy, and so far I don't know anyone who has declared for the Democratic nomination.

Anything else is reacting to hype put out by blogs, the media or speculation. I realize "get a life" can't be enforced in a court of law, but there are a few people to whom I'd give that advice, all the same. Save your adrenalin for next year. We'll all need it.

self delete.

I wondered if that might not be the case.

It happens, no sweat. I'm rarely in attack mode.

Uh, nope.

the more it shows that Hillary can't do it so has she has people spinning useless crap to hopefully intimidate any contenders.
It's not going to work, this just reveals how completely out of touch with reality she is and the more of this that goes on the more irritating it gets and the more questions arise as to her character and management skills.

Is beneath anyone who calls themselves a liberal.

She is a good woman who has given her life to public service and it says more about the character of the person attacking her than it does her.

Some types of "disrespect" may be inappropriate.

But anone who chooses politics as a career
or way to generate an income does not automatically
equate to "public service".

Can we say that ANY right-winger who has
pursued a life long political career is doing it
purely for "public service"?

How does your premise jive in the context
of the Corporate-Dee Cee revolving door?

Refusing to demonize people for having different policy positions puts me on the moral high ground.

In essence, YOU ARE DEMONIZING critics of Hillary
by conflating the terms.

Your refusal to clarify or "defend" what is ostensibly
a smear against critics makes your position hypocritical.

"public servants"?

That seems messed up to me. Definitely not "moral high ground". Just the opposite.

The Children's Health Insurance Program was a lifesaver for my family.

I'm sorry but I don't agree at all. She and Bill are in it for the power and money. How did Bill serve the public with NAFTA, and Welfare Reform that hurt so many poor people, with Glass Steagal and with DOMA, the Telecommunications Act, and etc., He was serving the very rich, not the public.

I would consider someone who is genuinely in public service more like a Bernie Sanders, or Doctors Without Borders. Or the President. People who take their jobs seriously and want to do for others, not themselves.

If that rubs people the wrong way, so be it.

It is not demonizing to show the factual record. What is demonic is doing those things.

It's simply an attempt to de-legitimize critics

Using terms such as "demonic" is a typical
3rd Way tactic of discrediting or undermining
the credibility of critical voices.

Her awful behaviour in 2008 were desperate measures. The shock of not just falling into the win made the camp go crazy and careless. That Michigan and Florida havoc is really, really disturbing. How cheaty can you get! - this is the kind of thing one would expect a raving nutter bagger to do. Yet people include those Michigan and Florida numbers for the votes she got to convince themselves it was So Close and Obama just won by a hair.

There is a lot of shame she has to face going into 2016. They burned a shit load of bridges thinking their risky business would earn the nom, and people will not forget. Hmm, actually yeah, a lot of people have amnesia when it comes to the Clintons.

Her campagin may be responable for spreading those obama is secret muslim emails.

They just got nuttier.

That want us to take a blood oath to vote for Hillary if she is the Nominee?

Here's some pretzel logic defending the Clintons' behavior re: Florida and Michigan. Yikes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5802267

But she's probably going to be the nominee. And the schadenfreude of watching those so emotionally invested in her failure go off the rails during the primaries will be a thing to behold.

Can't wait.

"While she leads in the primary, the results harbor dangerous signals for Democrats. When asked which party's nominee is more likely to “care about people like you,” a trait traditionally associated with Clinton's party, voters were almost equally divided, with 40 percent saying Democrats and 39 percent picking Republicans."

Effectively giving the presidency to Jeb? THAT is my real fear, and why I think nominating her would be so disastrous, to say nothing of the long-term prospects.

And deserve every damn think the rest of us must suffer through.

People who don't show up and vote, just don't give a damn.

if you will, that every single candidate for whom she stumped LOST.

Further, this is the second time she's been the "inevitable" candidate - and she couldn't seal the deal the first time. She sure as heck hasn't gotten better at it.

In 2008 liberals were motivated to support OBama on Iraq and feeling he would be change from Bush.Now history may say we were
somewhat foolish

Now what does Hillary motivate.She is further right on war.Another corporate dem who is republican lite on Economy.

And if she runs on policy to be Bill Clinton redux that won't excite some liberals.

And she was disaster as surgate for Dems.

Plus she doesn't have what Bill had In his prime.

You want Jeb to nominate. Don't vote.

By the way, these are the four oldest members.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, DC 1993– — N.Y. 1933 — Jewish
Antonin Scalia, DC 1986– — N.J. 1936 — Roman Catholic
Anthony M. Kennedy, Calif. 1988– — Calif. 1936 — Roman Catholic
Stephen G. Breyer, Mass. 1994– — Calif. 1938 — Jewish

I would be please to see Scalia replaced. Bryer or Ginsburg or even Kennedy (who often votes with the more liberal side) would push the court father to the right.

I don't need a candidate to motivate me to vote. Motivation comes from inside not from some superstar candidate.

I look at those running and decide who will come the closest to running the government as want them to. I vote for the best choice between the Candidates that can win.

At this time in our history, it is a fucking no-brainer.

In my opinion, the complaint that people aren't motivated, is just hiding, they don't give a damn.

The parties are different. They will legislate in different ways. Democrats will not do everything I want them to do, but they will do a lot more than Republicans.

Most all of us here on DU are going to vote, and are going to vote for whoever is nominated as the Democratic Party's candidate. THAT is a no-brainer.

No ... what is truly puzzling here is figuring out you seem to think that the disenfranchised are going to turn out to support someone whose campaign appearances on behalf of how many Democratic candidates failed to do just that. lol

or whichever Republicans sinks to the bottom and is chosen.

That is all there is to it.

Want Republican, don't vote or vote for a Republican.

Don't like what they are doing, you have vote actively for a Democrat, because in this lousy system that is what we have.

People who don't vote don't give a damn or want Republicans to win and are just too lazy to get to the polls.

There are huge issues at stake. People who care take a stand.

Motivation is a red hearing, because motivation to do anything comes from inside not from someone out there making promises or wielding a whip.

I don't expect to win the primary. I think this will be Clinton's year.
But I will support him because I think he has important things to say and will bring up issues that should championed and should come out in the Primary.

by Hillary earlier this month.

Or you're being deliberately obtuse. I know enough about you to realize it's likely the latter.

Well, play your game without me, hon. Bye!

Good job

He didn't win the nomination in the end (sadly). Hopefully Hillary won't either.