Winning, and then getting more of the same, is losing.

The only "folks" who would disagree are 3rd-Wayers

Or is this sarcasm as I dont know you.

Thank you, ALL.

Dictatorship that was just focused into power will never ever allow someone as pure as her to win the highest office in the land. Now that republicans have taken over, voting rights and suppression of voters will be multiplied ten times over by 2016. Republicans will make it so hard to vote that millions will just give up. No she can notpossibly win.

In the time-honored tradition of blind squirrels and nuts, I think David Brooks is right. Anger at taxpayers being on the hook for the excesses of a bunch of casino gamblers is widespread, and crosses party lines. Third Wayers think Clinton has broad appeal but I doubt if there is a single conservative who would cross over to vote for her, and she certainly fails to inspire the left.

....and I'll add something else: I think Rick Santorum, if he plays his cards right and doesn't do anything majorly stupid, could beat Hillary.

He's been cultivating his populist image for the last couple years, and god damn if a lot of the time he isn't the only one out there in the country who sounds like he's actually standing up for the little guy against the corruption of big business. The social issues that the Democratic Party trades in are nice, and are well-suited for making San Francisco liberals like me feel good, but Santorum could attract a hell of a lot of independents, and probably a lot of Democrats, who feel the position of the 99% is a more urgent concern than this or that "minor" abortion restriction--and Hillary would have no credible counter to that, given her long and illustrious history.

That's my concern. Hillary's appeal is broad but shallow. I don't think she has much going for than name recognition, the fact that a lot of us would like to see a woman president in our lifetimes, and ephemeral fantasies about the prosperity of the 90s.

He is on record saying too many crazy inflammatory things to be a viable candidate.

compare that with the other 'possible' candidates.

Are you certain you're at the right site? Your post is so full of praise for a right-wing nutcase Republican over a 100% Democrat like SoS Hillary Clinton that I thought I'd landed on the wrong site. That kind of overt shilling for a Republican on DU is, um, unusual to say the very least.

This is the sort of thing the DNC considers, I would imagine. Every possible opponent needs to be taken seriously and considered in detail. Just saying Hillary is awesome and Santorum is horrible is pretty much campaign blather and hype. Now is the time to really evaluate what GOP possibles have been doing. Has nothing to do with overt shilling. Nothing.
And, to think - there is an OP right here on DU with the headline "Elizabeth Warren is a Lying Sack of Shit". Who is giving the GOP more ammo, really?

perceived by the voters. "Hilary is the bestest! and the other guy is a POS" is not a very good campaign strategy. Not at this point.
Saying what Santorum SOUNDS LIKE, to me, is saying what the Dems had better take into consideration. Kissing Jamie Dimon's ass and letting Jamie Dimon personally whip votes send a very bad message, you know. Not a "we care about the ordinary people" message.

Oh, and maybe you can edit the WIKI age here - they still think the DNC is alive and well and Wasserman is in charge -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_National_Committee

like I said, you and I read that post differently. That poster wasn't "assessing" Rick "blah people" Santorum's strengths. S/He was outright praising that religious nut-job.

Never thought I would have said this about the guy 10 years ago, but: He's doing some really smart things. He's laying solid populist groundwork, and re-shaping his image from religious nut-job into crusader for the long-forgotten steel workers in the heart of Pennsylvania. As far as I can see, Hillary is hoping, as Democrats have for the past 20-odd years, that they can coast by on who-would-appoint-better-SCOTUS-justices and not-quite-as-bad-as-a-Republican. Santorum's got a long way to go, but if there's one Republican out there who can beat the Democrats at their own game, it's Santorum.

Here's the real question: Do you really need me to explain to you what's *wrong* with Santorum? Do you not already know that? Can you not stop for a moment and ponder the potential strengths of a long-shot candidate without a condescending assurance that, no, I don't plan to vote for him myself? Sheesh, I thought this forum was for grown-ups!

You obviously didn't read my post, but you're completely satisfied with yourself.... and of course, that's what's important.

too pissed off at the Democratic Party because I didn't get my pony to vote. I vote Democratic in each and every election, down to a new board member of a local community college even if that's the only election on the ballot.

I keep focused on the real prize (which isn't my ego): SCOTUS, judges, social safety net strengthening legislation, civil rights, women's rights, voting rights, good=paying jobs, affordable and accessible higher education, and all those trivial things. So, as expected, you're wrong. I'm FAR from arrogant. But I'm a staunch Democrat. I would never, EVER, post an article by some right-wing numbskull who is handsomely paid to fool the masses with pretty words and I don't read posts by people who agree with them.

But never mind.

Since you just said you didn't read my post, there isn't much point in replying to you.

But that's ok, other posters got my point, and I stand by it.

stand by it. The question is, why.

And over an analysis that you obviously didn't bother to read--you even said so point blank, even though you change your tune now.

Have a nice life.

to you. I generally get testy when I'm accused of being arrogant. But please accept my apologies because they're genuine.

That said, I did read your post - a couple of times, actually. I'm referring to the original one - the one analyzing a potential benefit of a Santorum run. I said so in my initial response to your post up-thread, so there's no tune-changing here. Other posts that come afterward are generally glossed over because I know what's usually coming and I don't want to waste time with them.

... but I have to admit, it's a bit hard after you've called me a right-wing shill half a dozen times in this thread.

I deliberately didn't say you hadn't *understood* my post, because I thought it would be too rudely dismissive. I actually thought I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by saying you hadn't *read* it.

Speaking of "benefits", I never spoke of any "benefit" resulting from a Santorum campaign. I actually think there could be a lot of benefit, IF it forces Democrats back to their populist roots, but I didn't say so earlier. What I did say is that Santorum is speaking up for the "little guy" out in the hinterlands. I think that's obviously true, because he's the only Republican doing it, and Democrats rarely go out to the hinterlands at all.

Santorum, being a moron, is likely to screw this up. If he doesn't, however, this is a serious threat to Hillary, because if the Republicans manage to claim economic populism as their own issue--which is well-known to be the most important issue to the electorate today--she will have nothing to counter with.

The other thing I asked in the post you skipped was this, and I apologize for the copy/paste:

"Do you really need me to explain to you what's *wrong* with Santorum? Do you not already know that? Can you not stop for a moment and ponder the potential strengths of a long-shot candidate without a condescending assurance that, no, I don't plan to vote for him myself?"

Ok, I was mad when I typed that, but as you can see, I would have thought it insulting to your intelligence to have to reassure you that I wasn't, in fact, advocating for a nutcase like Santorum. As grown-ups, it seems to me we ought to be able to discuss the relative strengths of specific Republicans without having to fall all over ourselves swearing fealty to the Democratic Party. Maybe if we acted like we're all Democrats on here (especially since almost all of us ARE), rather than hunting for secret freeper cabals, we could raise the level of our discourse just a bit!

Nowhere did I see "praise" for Santorum,
only and update to what he is doing,
and speculation about 2016.

The BEST Strategists consider all possibilities.





Good Post.

Note for the comprehension-challenged: I am NOT NOT NOT praising Rand Paul, but I fear that he could win over young, anti-war voters if he ran against Clinton.

It's also his open advocacy of drug law reform, and even more interestingly, some of the noises he's made about prison sentencing reforms. I actually think he'd have more of an uphill battle to build credibility in some of these areas than Santorum would on the economic populism, cuz Santorum's been working the populist angle for a few years now, but he could definitely be a threat.... and quite honestly, if it's a choice between a Democrat and war and a Republican and peace...... well, I don't think I'll be the only Democrat doing some serious, serious soul searching. GOD, I hope it doesn't come to that!

With Democrats, you might have a war. With Republicans, you will have a war. Rand Paul or not.

The Fascists see this greatest military force of all time and they are drooling to put it to use. And not in some limited Middle East kind of way. They want big war, huge war. And the profit that comes with it.

But just for fun, imagine a scenario where you have a campaign where Hillary is loudly beating the drums to bomb, say, Iran, and Rand Paul is pledging to stay the hell away.

I'm not a Hillary fan anyway, but I know I would have a really, really hard time voting for her under those circumstances, and would want to vote for Paul, in spite of everything, to stop the war. Of course, it would be really, really hard for me to vote for a Republican under pretty much any circumstances, but still, the level of faith I'd have to put in the (correct) proposition you just made, that Republicans are invariably worse, regardless of what they say (which they are), enough faith to actually vote for the ostensible war monger as the lesser of two evils..... well, it would be tough. Instead, I said imagine it "just for fun", but it's not fun at all, haha!

And that's me speaking about myself, hugely anti-Republican as I am. The original question I was considering is which Republican(s) could be a threat to Hillary... and I think under that scenario (and possibly some less extreme ones), Paul would have a very good shot at beating her.

The "broad appeal" is not among republicans; but rather, among Democrats.

When I think of the religion and gun zealots in our party, right HERE on DU, I fear for our future.

I can see many of them doing a terrible thing on election day.

Hope I am wrong.

I think there is a huge contingent of people, mostly repubs, but many dems, too, that want to see a white man back in the White House.

Senator Warren is a scrappy fighter for us, the wee people.
She's no saint, nor pure, nor the anointed one.
She's just Elizabeth Warren, fighting the good fight.
THAT alone makes her a worthy contender,
as opposed to those who are waiting their "turn".

If most of the elected Democrats were such firebrands,
warts and all, this would be a very different country.

Warren is the only one I see out there. She HAS to run.

The sad thing about Bernie is the people who will claim he is a socialist.

Problem is, we are all socialists, all of us, including the one percent, would be in huge trouble if we werent.

What we need is more of it, of course.

...like Bernie Sanders.

Rest up.

I think she can win, too. Once righties get beyond the hate industrial complex and hear what she's saying, they agree with her.

"Once righties get beyond the hate industrial complex and hear what she's saying, they agree with her."

You have got to be kidding.

quick.

If righty ever actually figured out who is literally fucking killing him and her, well yes, they would then all vote Democratic, but there isnt a 50 billion dollar propaganda machine all over the world designed to lie to them for nothing.

but I think she can win without the righties.

Maybe Jamie Dimon will get his own corner office in the White House, save on gas, all those meetings with a prez.

Warren has my vote.

Warren gives the keynote speech at the convention in 2016 and goes on to become Senate Majority Leader.

THAT would be nigh impossible for ANY Democratic President to ignore.

There are "progressives" all over this board who will NOT vote for HRC, even if she is the nominee. Do you think they, along with a whole bunch of right wingers who hate Hilary are going to bring you a sweep into power in the Senate?

I find that highly unlikely.

When he campaigns for a candidate, that candidate will win despite the tantrums by the extreme Left. Latinos and Blacks will support his choice. by at least 65% If it's SoS Clinton, you can be certain that we will not only recapture the Senate, we're guaranteed the White House, as well.

But no matter who the nominee is, we will take back the Senate in 2016. BIGGER voter turnout means Dems win and the numbers are in our favor. And there will be a huge turnout.

As an aside, I would take those "progressives'" credentials with a pound of salt. When there are some who actually praise none other than Rick "blah people" Santorum on a clearly Democratic Party supporting board, I call into question their motive when they vilify SoS Clinton while they praise other candidates - such as a Right-wing religious nut-case like Santorum.

--especially when the word "tantrums" is thrown in--it leads me to question that person's acuity and judgment. Thinking anything beerandjesus said about Santorum was an endorsement just emphasizes those doubts. There is no "extreme left" on this board--I doubt if there are 30 communists in this country--but such is the current political framing some think that anything left of center is "extreme."

Not all Democrats are good, hello. Some vote with Republicans like HRC. She betrayed our party in 2002.

As for people "all over this board," they do not set the agenda. DU is just a couple of hundred people. Had it been up to us, the November mid-terms would have turned out rather differently. It wasn't and they didn't.

If the White House remains in Democratic hands, yes, I think the next president will indeed have the coattails to bring the Senate back. We need to find serious, inspiring candidates to run for the Senate (calling Howard!) and a presidential candidate who will have broad enough appeal to create those necessary coattails.

As for progressives, anyone whose vote (or refusal to do so) will put more Scalias on the Supreme Court needs to question their clam to the title. Given the ages of Steve Breyer and RBG, a Republican President with a Republican Senate could set the Supreme Court in right wing concrete for the next 20 years. I wouldn't bet on the longevity of what is left of our civil rights if that happens.

I think Barney Frank nailed it: "Understand that the more deeply you hold your ideals, the more you are morally obligated to be pragmatic...Idealism without pragmatism is just a way to flatter your ego."

Plenty of Democrats retired too early this time, and some cost us seats we will bitterly miss (Tom Harkin, for example).

hopes so. In his mind she would be the weaker candidate.
True or not, I suspect his motives for writing this OP-ed.

And seeing Progressive policies enacted is not it.

Warren love certainly makes for strange bed fellows. Huh?

On another point ... remind me again how "progressives" always hold their noses and vote. I've never seen so many stating just the opposite.

Sure, here you go:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/06/1003805/-Did-liberals-really-stay-home-and-cause-the-2010-rout
“So I went back to the exit polls and the picture I see shows nothing like that. If you are a proponent of this claim, I challenge you for empirical proof that some set of activist liberals "took their ball and went home" or whatever metaphor you prefer to make Obama's leftward critics appear childish and immature. Inside, the evidence I found that shows this just ain't so.”

http://blogforarizona.net/do-progressives-even-sit-out-elections-the-numbers-say-no/
“As you can see, Democrats did slightly better with liberals in 2010 than in 2006. Had there really been a collective we’re-sitting-out-the-election-to-spite-Obama pout going on, then there should have been a sharp drop in the liberal participation percentage. Yet notice the 9% in moderate voter participation and the concomitant 10% increase in conservative turnout. Republicans were pumped for that election but their turnout tends to be higher in midterms anyway. Millions of moderate voters either flipped to conservative or stayed home in 2010.”

“As you can see, all the Democratic groups dropped, but the liberal Democrats dropped least of all”

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/progressive-movement/news/2012/11/08/44348/the-return-of-the-obama-coalition/
Ideology. Liberals were 25 percent of voters in 2012, up from 22 percent in 2008. Since 1992 the percent of liberals among presidential voters has varied in a narrow band between 20 percent and 22 percent, so the figure for this year is quite unusual. Conservatives, at 35 percent, were up one point from the 2008 level, but down a massive 7 points since 2010.
Ideology. Obama received less support in 2012 from all ideology groups, though the drop-offs were not particularly sharp in any group. He received 86 percent support from liberals (89 percent in 2008), 56 percent from moderates (60 percent in 2008), and 17 percent from conservatives (20 percent in 2008).

http://graphics.wsj.com/exit-polls-2014/
Ideology: Liberals were 23% of the vote in 2014, up from 20% in 2010.

http://www.thirdway.org/third-ways-take/the-impact-of-moderate-voters-on-the-2014-midterms
There is no doubt that moderate voters were crucial to the outcome in 2014, and though Democrats won them 53% to 44% overall, it wasn’t sufficient (in fact, they did 2 points worse with moderates than in the 2010 wave).

You're welcome

statistics terms, pointing to TWO INDIVIDUALS are refutations of FIVE SURVEYS is beyond hilarious.

the results of FIVE exit polls!

All because we don't want a centrist as POTUS. Her faithful sure are upset about it too!

Here we have a candidate who is not going to run, backed by a conservative and they are touting the words of that conservative as if he is the Oracle of Delphi.

It is bizzaroworld

Let's see something more recent like this abomination from last month

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/18/opinion/david-brooks-obama-in-winter.html?ref=todayspaper

-------------

David Brooks is a conservative opinion columnist. His opinions are worth less than most, at least they should be by any thinking progressive.

Santorum, as well. (http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5966712 )

Hm. What would be their motive? Hm.

It appears that the (always wrong) Right is terrified of a Hillary Clinton candidacy. That's the message I'm getting lately from all sources as the attacks on her are escalating while praise of Senator Warren rises and is getting lots of attention - even from unapologetic ultra-Cons like David Brooks. They want to run John Ellis Bush - no more Bushs! - in 2016, but they know that should SoS Clinton enters the race, he will lose against her no matter how many voter suppression laws they pull out of their nether regions.

Not a bad thing to convert rethugs into dems. And EW's message hits home for many because she speaks to truth.

cleaning up, there is NO WAY they'll be "won over". And you can forget about any "converts" from their side, especially not with Liberal Elizabeth Warren on the ticket. By the time Wall Street and Koch Bros are through with her with hundreds of millions of negative advertising, making her out to be anti-jobs because she's against Wall Street (that's how they'll spin it) - and understanding the low-informed sheep on their side who'll believe that tripe - she'll be made toxic, just as they did with President Obama. Were it not for the Black, Asian, and Latino vote, he would've not won a second term since he lost the White vote in nearly every State - including so-called blue California! - to Mitt "47%" Romney.

What chance does Elizabeth Warren have against another Bush who speaks Spanish? Latinos, however, love Bill Clinton, and they will vote, en masse, for SoS Hillary Clinton.

And it takes a majority to win an election.

There's just no explanation why anyone would vote Republican after Bush and twelve years of a Republican fiasco that nearly destroyed this country, and what caused an economic collapse around the globe. But guess what? They still do. So I seriously doubt they'll actually come out to vote for a Liberal like Senator Warren. Just like that Kentucky woman who was jubilant that she finally got health insurance, but after she was informed that Kynect is actually ObamaCare, and that Mitch McConnell wanted to repeal ObamaCare, they asked her if she would vote for Lungergan-Grimes instead. Guess what that thankless woman said? You guessed it. She was going to vote straight Republican. There are more of those types of Republican voters than the more sensible ones...but then that begs the question, are there any sensible Republicans left in the GOP? I have a very hard time seeing them.

She is, however, most definitely a populist, and IMO that can play across the electorate quite differently.

Praise for Charles Krauthammer? Can't believe what I'm reading here.

about support for Liz rising and that could very well be a problem with the safe option for them, Hillary Clinton.

and calling it "NYT Op-ed" strikes me as deceptive.

upthread! Uneffingbelievable.

With all your links to it, I'll soon be a bigger DU celebrity than Manny!

"... 58 percent of Democrats said they believed that the economic and political systems were stacked against them."

Are the majority of these people succeeding despite their beliefs or have the majority thrown up their hands and given up?

Numerous groups are using her as a means to fund raise. Her words are getting play. Name recognition, recently hovering at just above zero, is increasing daily, and people wonder why she isn't being more succinct. She is a politician and this is one of the most simple and basic parts of the game. Money coming in and huge benefits are being gained while she does very little. I am impressed at her start here. I am thinking more and more that she has plans on running. It is becoming pretty clear that she has politics running through her veins.

Brooks is not advocating for EW. He is just telling the Cons: Get your guns out

against her, just in case she may become too popular. In other words, look

for anything you can find to attack her. That I think is his agenda. And I think

his followers will do that very quickly.

Didn't we say that about Wellstone?

Wonderful.

DUers actually jumping for joy at this article. No doubt, they have recommended it, too. Did we become Republican Underground overnight or something?

Combative.

The nicknames are always familiar on these kinds of shit articles by conservatives bashing other Democrats.

all - in favor of Jebbie, who, if we believe all the polls, can only be beaten by HRC. Yes, Jebbie is certain to run.

Brooks is keenly starting a "Nader" effect using Senator Warren this time. Thank GOD Sen. Warren is not bribable and she'll see them coming miles away.

Republican operatives know Scalia, Kennedy, and Bader-Ginsberg are set to leave SCOTUS in the next decade and they don't want another Democrat in the WH who will choose a Bader-Ginsberg or Steven Breyer (Clinton appointees) to replace them. That's what they're looking at because they already have the power in Congress, especially the House, for the foreseeable future. The presidency is only relevant to them in order to sign all horrible Republican bills into law and to appoint new justices for the Supreme Court in order to overturn everything Democrats and Liberals have fought so hard for in the past fifty years.

Just go to Google News and type Warren Clinton. Then look at the sources. The biggest one that seems to be pushing all of these articles out today is the Fox News OP ed. I was going to start an OP about this but I don't have the patience to get into an argument with posters today.

Yep. Faux News is the main source for all propaganda in this country, and they're terrified of Hillary because even their polls are showing that Jeb will lose from her - and he's gearing up to run.

Senator Warren is an excellent Progressive and she's actually what this country needs. I wish Americans were informed enough to see her worth and how good she would be for this country, but with so much propaganda and so many lies being perpetrated on the American people, a true Liberal who would work hard for all of the people doesn't stand a chance in a national election that will be inundated with lying political ads. The trick - in their thinking, that is - is propagating the myth that Senator Warren is a viable threat just as they did with Nader in 2000 (Bush supporters even donated to his campaign!) only to weaken support for SoS Clinton and define her as early as possible so they can crush her early on.

No way in Hades should Jebbie be president - not now our country is finally bouncing back from his older brother's fiascoes. We just can't afford another Bush or another Republican in the WH in the coming twenty years. That's what I'm terrified of.

In case you don't understand how things work around here, reccing an OP does not mean that you agree with everything in the OP. It just means you think it is worth reading and/or discussing.

Yeah, I got that. Been here long enough to. But reccing an OP posted that's written by a Conservative is beyond my sensibilities - especially when I see perfectly informative OPs drop like stones when it's about racial injustice or when President Obama does something good for the country. However, posts rise and stay on the top when it's about castigating President Obama for everything under the sun - a DU favorite pastime. Blows my mind.

And although I've been a member since 2004, I wasn't around in 2008 - more important things to do than sniping at that Black man who wanted to be president - this place would've never recced a RW Republican's article or denigrated a Democratic pol because they didn't pass some idiotic purity test. In fact, Purists who don't appear to have an understanding of political realities and who don't care whether or not a candidate can win a national election in a left-of-center country - aka Nader - were firmly corrected and then ignored. Now, apparently, they're coddled.