as most Democrats DO support Hillary Clinton....by a large margin....you always fail to take that into consideration...you call it things like a coronation...but the truth of the matter is...MOST Democrats DO support her....

Which is fine by me. I think people should support who they want to. I just wish those who like to bash the Clintons felt the same way.


On edit, let me also say that I know of at least 15 staunch Republicans here in my community that will support Hillary as well. Not because thy love her, but because they hate the rethug pool.

they will cozy up to Jeb, happy to have him arrive and offer a
"dignified, experienced" candidate.
I suppose you are playing fast and loose to work a point,
but your subject header discredits anything you have to say.

I realize you probably support Warren. I think that is wonderful. But it doesn't change the fact that Hillary is extremely popular among most Dems outside of DU. You do realize that DU is representative of about 000000.1% of Dems in this country?

voting for Hillary too....

You failed to take how powerful the "woman" vote will be into consideration...

For one thing, she will also lose Democrats on her right flank (remember, 20% of Democrats self-identify as "conservative&quot .

Even the GOP women I know say they will vote for Hillary. The majority of GOP females in this country are not Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin (thank the goddess). They very much understand female issues which is one of Hillary's strongest areas. She will get their vote, even if their dumbs husbands don't like it.

someone different. Me, many of my friends, family members would support Hillary if she were the candidate. But essentially all of us would prefer Warren or Sanders or whoever would help bring the party more left-ward. Support - prefer - two very different words.

what part of 65% tells you this? Ridic!

I admire your perseverance, anyway.

Clinton is all name recognition. No one has announced yet. By this time next year there will be a handful of dems in the race. Hillary will no longer have the place to herself.

Clinton supporters should enjoy this lead now, it won't last long.

wishful thinking?

There will be a primary race in 2016. It may be short, but it could be long, like in 2008. But Clinton will absolutely not go into the first contests with a lead anything close to that. It just won't happen.

The picture in 2016 is different. Over the past six months, Clinton has had double the support in Iowa than she did in 2008. She’s at 61 percent in the polling average. That matches her strong standing nationally. Warren, on the other hand, is at 12 percent in Iowa. For Warren to win, she’ll have to overcome a 49 percentage-point deficit, compared with the 12-point difference between Clinton and Obama at this point in the 2008 cycle.

As mentioned up top, Warren would need Clinton to lose support. Even if Warren faced Clinton in a one-on-one race (and that is unlikely), Warren’s ceiling would be 39 percent without Clinton faltering.

This isn’t to say that Warren or another Democrat couldn’t beat Clinton in Iowa, but it would require an effort far beyond what occurred in 2008. Clinton’s a heavy favorite in the state that launched Obama.

We have a long year ahead of us, I hope you have mentally prepared yourself. Clinton very well may win nomination. She may even likely win. But it will not be a coronation. She is not entitled to the nomination. There will be a primary.

like I said...it is NOT as simple as YOU laid out or would like to think...and that article explains why...

NATE SILVER
EDITOR IN CHIEF

Who's the simpleton here? By the way, lead are in points, not percentages.

Harry Enten certainly does not suggest that is going to happen. He'd be a dumbass to do so. What he is saying is that Clinton holds a significant lead right now in Iowa which she did not in 2008. He says it would be hard to overcome it. He acknowledges that anything is possible and that others will get in the race. Again, Clinton simply will not have a 55 point lead in January 2016.

also shallow. I think that many people are so emotionally invested in Hillary that a decision by Elizabeth Warren to run will endanger that investment. They may support Mrs. Clinton very strongly, but fear that others do not. This is almost certainly Hillary's last shot at the prize, so they fear anything that might trip her up, such as opposition from her Left. So, for whatever it is worth, that is my little bit of psychoanalysis of the voting public.

she leads by 55 points! And this includes Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders as well as Elizabeth Warren.

If Hillary wants to be president, she needs to affirmatively prove why she is the bnest we have, and if we do not have a primary, she will be easier for someone to atack. Simply put, if she cannot prove in a primary why she should win, she will not prove it in the general.

The person asked "One could also ask why some people are so eager to claim she will run."

TH asked about Warren and you answered about Hillary.

there are at least a couple of major camps. Obviously, the pro-Hillary folks really don't want HRC to face any serious challenges from populist candidates. They, like the supporters of any specific candidate, want their preferred candidate to safely cruise to victory, and don't want to take any chances that another 'Obama upset' might be waiting in the wings. Another possible group are those who simply disagree with Warren on policy, who actually prefer pro-business, pro-capitalism candidates who don't 'make waves' and go around proclaiming that the party needs to move back to supporting workers again. I think they're around, but fewer in numbers.

There are some people whose reasons might be genuine, but there is a sense I feel that the third way wants RID of the left.

I'd switch my allegiance from Hillary to Warren in a heartbeat if she ran.

She's not doing speeches in New Hampshire or Iowa, so she's not running.

Still, Hillary will need to prve herself, and yes, the years she has been around are good, but also baggage.

One simply does not state that emphatically in December of 2014 if one is planning to run in 2016.

People who don't visit political message boards are going to be WAY more likely to know the Clinton name vs any other.

I do have a couple of questions for anyone who does make it.
Will they be doing any of these meetings in Cedar Rapids or Iowa City?
I do not remember the rules for getting on the ballot in Iowa. Do we need to start petitioning soon?
Iowa is as good a place as any to get this started.
Feel free to message me if you have any answers to my questions or find something out at the meeting.
Thank you.

Democratic Senators to support her cause. If you can't as part of the club I doubt you can as President. Also only 2 years as Senator. She should run for Governor first.

Your current argument is not very convincing.

To say that the jury is still out on EW being able to convince fellow senators to follow her is overly generous at this point.

by much.

it's one thing to say you want warren to run but it gets kind of crazy when it starts to be claims about how hse will run and and how she did not really mean what she said .

It threatens the Hillary cornation.Some here are just like the democratic establishment.

Do I need to use an exclamation point?

Who you gonna believe about whether she's running for President? Her? Or some anonymous posters on an internet board?

Seems to me the only one trying to kill that idea is Senator Warren herself.

I can understand self deflection, but this takes the cake!

Liz and Hillary are opposites. Neither are running at this time, but if posters can stop the discussion they don't have to discuss the very different values and priorities and stands that both women have taken.

opposite. This is a myth, they stand together on many issues, this does not make them opposite.

will see a chart, they are in the same place.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton.htm

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Elizabeth_Warren.htm

They are both Democrats, they should be together on the issues, opposite, no.

She said she's not running for President but she didn't say she was never running for President... this gets old (same with the HRC people that do it too).

Secondly, we have a long enough political season when it comes to electing a President--do we really need OP after OP opining that EW didn't say never?

I get that people are excited about her and they want her to run but would she better as a senator or President... where would she do the Democratic party the most good?

Lately we have too many "flavors" of the month when a politician says something remotely progressive. When Sanders was taking people to the woodshed recently, it was all "Run Bernie Run!" and now that Warren took Wall St. to the woodshed it's all, "Run Warren Run!" Who will be in favor next week or month?

She has even supported Hillary Clinton running.

I see no reason in putting any energy behind a Warren Candidacy.

If she openly changes her mind, I will give her a look.

But I am not big on running on hope.

and qualifies has an opening to do so. If Hillary is not strong enough to run in a primary then she will not be able to run in the general election. This myth of coronation of Hillary is in the minds of those who want to trash her, why can't we say we have possible Democrats ready for our needs, there are lots of positions which needs to be filled, we us go about filling those positions, put our energy into getting the Congress back in the Democrat side, it our future.

But, she keeps saying no. So for now I take her word for it. I won't press the issue. I don't think she should be pressured to run. There are plenty of other people. Sanders is my favorite so far. Gov. Malloy I think would be great. He isn't very well known, but has experience now. And he is likable.

I have not heard many saying she shouldn't run, and she certainly would be a strong voice for the citizens of this Nation.
Unfortunately she has soundly stated several times that she is not interested in the Office of President.
Perhaps she sees herself in a greater place of power someday, like a cabinet member or such.

It is E Warren herself that has been most certain as to killing the idea of a Warren Presidential candidate.
Sadly, she does not want the job.

Care to remind us how many people voted for Hillary in 2018? Just a round number will do...

More people voted for Obama (an AA man) and Hillary (a woman), than voted for any candidate in a primary season in the history of the country. There was tremendous interest on both people. The pity is that they both ran against each other. I'll go to my grave believing that Obama should have waited until 2016. Sixteen years of Democrats in the WH would have been sweet.

I think if Hillary runs we will get that 16 years. It won't be perfect but it will be a damn site better than with the GOP.

2008 is a hard cold fact. People did nto want her, because she showed that even with a lead, she could still blow it, or at least allow mark penn and Hubby Bill to do it for her. Classic Tortoise and Hare.

Is that if she does not run, all this anticipation and excitement that has built up will lead to quite a deflation. So many stating they won't vote for Hillary,no matter what, I think makes the 2016 GE a toss up at this point.

Many are taking strident opinion positions now. And I suspect those strident opinions are flexible in the face of reality. We have to support the ticket or we will end up supporting much that we do not want. President Cruz? Really? Can you accept that??????

This has nothing to do with Hillary. Warren has said repeatedly that she's not running and practically endorsed Hillary. Some people fail to accept that.

I take her at her word.

That's really all this is...you're not asking a question, you're just telling Hilary supporters how thin skinned they are and how awful Hilary...worthless post...unrec

Last edited Tue Dec 16, 2014, 11:19 PM - Edit history (1)

I don't care one fig whether she runs or not. What I find highly amusing is the way her supporters parse her every word and don't seem to believe her when she repeatedly insists that she will not run for president.

As for Hillary, it's her choice. If she runs, I'll support her with everything I have. If she doesn't, I'll show up on election day and vote for whichever Democrat gets the nomination.

All these constant vile posts directed at the Clintons are a turn-off for a good many Democrats. In case some of you hadn't noticed, the Clintons are very popular within the party.

They're invested in HRC and they see Warren as a legitimate threat.

...but she would hold a mirror up to the worst parts of our nominee-apparent. That's a threat to those here who want/need to love the next leader of our party.

I was sort of on the fence, but after Greenwald started bashing Warren on Twitter, she now has my universal support...

twice in a year (or maybe at all) because she is a poor campaigner that surrounds herself with hacks and is fueled by name recognition, riding on her husband's coattails with a heaping side of 90's nostalgia and insistent amnesia about the blowback from his terms.

She is all name and brand recognition along with piles of corporate cash that will have to be paid back in our blood, sweat, and tears.

If she was Hillary Jones, we probably would have never heard of her save as a corporate mouthpiece for some scumbags screwing over the people.

If Hillary's name was Jones, she would have ran on her own right many years ago. She was the star at Yale, the one who's undergrad commencement speech had been printed on Life magazine. She had a choice of jobs after she graduated, but she fell in love with Bill and followed him to Arkansas.

Hillary is a brilliant woman, your derision of her accomplishments is just risible. Keep believing your own spiel.

Her senate race was so brutal that she had to beat not one but 2 opponents for the same race.

haters got to hate.

Or do you think she is just a liar?

Then they have the audacity to try and spin that as a good thing!

My question is: How could they support the candidacy of someone like Warren who they don't respect and who they don't believe is telling the truth?

I mean, there's no actual evidence that they're real, but it would be really great IF it they were.

a Liz Warren run can be. Even if she herself says she does not want to run, she can be convinced, just like Hillary can be convinced not to run. It's not like that HRC has even said she was running, so at this point, the HRC in 2016 campaign is no more or les unicorn than Liz in 2016.

...the demand for her to run has been percolating for months. What sign do you have that, with two months to go before candidates start announcing (which requires having political and financial support lined up by them) Warren has moved an iota from her previous statements that 1) she's really not going to run and 2) she's encouraging Hillary to run.

the debates would be delightful

though if I wanted GOOD TV, I would have Hillary debate Sanders. Sanders, a true FDR liberal, would rip her to shreds.

Last edited Tue Dec 16, 2014, 10:49 PM - Edit history (1)

tag-team debating the field .... I'd trade my spleen to see that. It's a conversation that would be cathartic for America.

to a lot of America.

New England Democrats don't do well nationally, as popular as they are with us here.

there's an intangible atmosphere currently that favors a populist candidate.

It's not a position. It's a style of resentment-based politics that has done a lot of damage in the past (as well as some good). I'm wary of it, because the other side does it better than we do. It's an attempt to harness the resentment of "ordinary everyday folks" against the "other" that are allegedly keeping them down, be they blacks, "international Jews", long-haired draft-dodging bra-burners, or in our liberal iteration of it "Wall Street banksters". But it's always always bitten us in the ass when we've tried it on the left (see Huey P. Long's and Coughlin's populist opposition to FDR).

As another poster pointed out, if all of nonwhite America disappeared tomorrow, you'd see the remaining white population adopt European-style social democracy virtually overnight. I'd add to that that if all of white America disappeared tomorrow, you'd see roughly the same thing. But American populism has always faltered on the spillover of class resentment into racial resentment. Every. Single. Time. And I don't trust that leopard to change its spots any time soon.

He's also a racist POS. On policy, it's easy to spot the loons.

I'm thinking more like the Reform Party movement that latched on to Perot 20 years ago. Outright explicit libertarianism usually doesn't resonate as well.

Not sure it ended up being cathartic. More like fruitless. Though Warren blows all of them away.

With good reason, the "inevitable" HRC isn't really inevitable at all.

to be President of the United States.

We also think she has the right experience and progressive ideas to do the job better than anyone else.

The idea that abortion should be legal is not "progessive" it is mandatory, introductory LIBERALISM that ANY DEMOCRAT should give an affrimative YES to. Calling someone prgressive for that is like giving a Ph.d in Mathematics for someone who admits two plus two equals four.

Same with LGBT rights.

But the bit where she chided Obama for not going to war in Syria, aka getting us even more entangled with the Mid east, especially after Libya just resulted in yet another mess, is not Prgressive by any stretch. If that is "experience" than she affirmatively fails that part of the test.

is that she advocates a cautious approach. I don't read her statements as anything close to a desire to go to war. More like she has a very thorough understanding of the issues and wants to US to play a role where it can based on an overarching strategy of "containment, deterrence, and defeat" of Jihadist groups.

JG: Have you been able to embed your women’s agenda at the core of what the federal government does?

HRC: Yes, we did. We had the first-ever ambassador for global women’s issues. That’s permanent now, and that’s a big deal because that is the beachhead.

Secretary Kerry to his credit has issued directions to embassies and diplomats about this continuing to be a priority for our government. There is also a much greater basis in research now that proves you cannot have peace and security without the participation of women. You can’t grow your GDP without opening the doors to full participation of women and girls in the formal economy.

JG: There’s a link between misogyny and stagnation in the Middle East, which in many ways is the world’s most dysfunctional region.

HRC: It’s now very provable, when you look at the data from the IMF and the World Bank and what opening the formal economy would mean to a country’s GDP. You have Prime Minister [Shinzo] Abe in Japan who was elected to fix the economy after so many years of dysfunction in Japan, and one of the major elements in his plan is to get women into the workforce. If you do that, if I remember correctly, the GDP for Japan would go up nine percent. Well, it would go up 34 percent in Egypt. So it’s self-evident and provable.

Before Clinton's triangulation, we lost 5 out of 6 Presidential elections (and the one that we won was Carter, the proto-triangulator). After Clinton's tack to the right, we won 5 out of 6 Presidential elections (counting 2000).

But, the current higher-ups in the Democratic party remember every one of those elections with a large amount of sting, and don't want to be the ones who pushed the next Mondale or McGovern into the nomination.

It doesn't matter who wins.

As disabled american on SSI,Medicaid and food stamps why should it matter to me when both party's want to cut people like me benefits to give more to wall street and banks.Dems already went along with cut of 8 billion In food stamps in name of Bi-partisan
and since they will never make wall street,banks,corporations,and Billionaires pay guess who is being screwed to pay for endless war.
Bernie Sanders knows this but of course Hillary doesn't care if people starve as long as wall street is happy and we are in endless war.

n/t

She's clearly sending a signal.....

Probably a little less than that.

I'm coming to the conclusion that it's the Warren supporters who are in truth afraid of a Hillary run.

Thou doth protest too much.............

Maybe because her junior Senate partner from the Commonwealth, Senator Ed Markey, is taking her at her word?

Maybe because no really does mean no?

http://www.commonwealthmagazine.org/News-and-Features/Online-exclusives/2014/Fall/061-Budget-pot-opioids-top-Baker-priorities.aspx#.VJEhuCvF-So

The same went for 2008 until a senator from Illinois who was an underdog got in the race.