Good.

But I fear that is old news for many.

aren't we?

intellectual dishonesty,.

This poll means very little. I am a bit surprised it wasn't 70% or so based on name recognition only. Things swing up and down a lot once the primaries get going.

Might as start planning our Social Security party we'll have so much money, trickling down from the Cayman Islands.

and obviously LOVES corporations. I find it funny watching them hurt the candidate they pretend to support so much with these divisive threads.

from this forum's self-proclaimed one-percenter?

That was a great laugh! I had no idea we had representation! You think he can get us a good job with Goldman Sachs?

That changes after primaries start.

She's lost 9 percent since the polling started, as other possible candidates have emerged, and they haven't even started campaigning.

Happened in 2008. Happened during her relatively recent book tour. And it's happening now. I am almost--but not quite--willing to bet my home that, if nominated, she will lose the election for us.

If she thinks going further and further right is going to win back members of the right that would gladly have tarred and feathered her and her husband and the horses they rode in on she hasn't heard what some of them say about her. In my view, she will not be able to afford to lose even 1% of the left in purple counties, but she will lose at least 1% of the left. They'll write in, vote third party or stay home, no matter how many times someone says "Supreme Court."

IMO, the Party really shot itself in its foot this time.

Wasn't his second (alleged) victory something like 50.2 of the popular vote That's not a lot of wiggle room and he was a war time incumbent, which historically has been a huge advantage in this country. (None has ever failed to get re-elected.) On the electoral vote, though, it looked like a near sweep, chiefly because of all the red states, in the South and also those the non-coastal parts of the country, many of which have small populations of people, but vote red almost as reliably as the deep South.

Democrats depend far more on urban areas, especially those in coastal states. (And I am not using "urban" as code for non-white. Some of the whitest people you will ever met--if you can get near enough to meet them--are in Boston proper, New York City proper, Portland proper, etc.)

And, ultimately, the victory in Presidential elections depends on relatively small number of purple counties, not even states. Losing leftist votes in those counties is not going to be of no concern to any Democratic Presidential nominee.

Can she win the popular vote without liberals? Maybe, maybe not, but that's irrelevant. Can she win the critical counties without liberals? I don't know for sure, but, if she thinks she can, why is she re-tooling?

Every reputable poll shows that she is very well supported by the left. Every one. She is not doing it without the left. The left all across the country is her base.

I referred to "a portion of the left." And liberals.

Don't confuse a tiny loud group as representing liberals. They don't. Not by a long-shot.

You are the party, you can effect change.

the fact that no one is challenging Hillary from the left.

If they are within the realm of possibility for me, physically, financially and in terms of time, I probably have tried them. If not, I promise you I will try them, even though I disagree with you as to my ability to effect change.

Also I'm not you so I can't make a suggestion, I know what I plan to do and that's about all I can speak to.

If you no longer believe you can effect change why are you here... It seems you think you can have some influence?

If you no longer believe you can effect change why are you here...

No one denies that she lost her lead in 2008, but do you know what "happens a lot" means? One is not a lot.

those are the ones I paid attention to. I bet her numbers went down when her husband ran for President and she made that stand by your man remark, couldn't decide if she was Hillary Rodham, Hillary Rodham Clinton or Hillary Clinton, belittled women whose career was homemaker, etc. Bet they also went down after she advocated for the invasion of Iraq and at other junctures. But, as I said, I was paying attention to those polls. I cited the three I know of off the top of my head.

Book tour poll variation? You can't prove that, and which poll data will you post as evidence other than 2008…?

I cited.

As to which three examples I posted, why should I tell you again, when you're being confrontational to me with no provocation from me? If you've forgotten my third example and really care to know, go back up the thread. I'm done with unprovoked crap today. This is just one too many time people think making true statements about Hillary is the equivalent of beating baby seals.

Finally, no idea why you assume the drop in poll numbers during her book tour is not provable. The polls were public info and were commented on at the time by some news people. Google if you want, but I won't do it for you, for the reason stated in the prior paragraph.

Obama has some charisma. I don't think HRC has that at all. I also think there is a huge contingent, a good number of dems, too, who think it's time to get a white man back in charge. It saddens me to say that, but I think it's true.

There are Democratic females in Governors' offices. There are some great Democratic females in the House and Senate. But, I don't want to vote by genitalia, either. I'd love to see a genuine primary, not a dog and pony show with lots of great Democratic men and women.

HRC leads in a poll of people who may or may not run

...even with liberals.

I don't know one liberal who supports her.

no liberals are supporting her.

As in completely and utterly detached from reality.

Unless you want to tell the class why John Lewis is too impure to count as a liberal, to use one example.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/316881-john-lewis-says-he-would-back-hillary-clinton-presidential-bid

Hillary Haters do not own American liberalism.

But you knew that.

than every single one of Clinton's supporters.

That includes John Lewis.

Perhaps you do not realize how incredibly arrogant and judgmental you are being.

To put it more bluntly, your level of discourse is akin to being the Ted Cruz left.

Pulled the " the Ted Cruz left. " card did we. You must be scared geek.

I'm not even a particularly big fan of Hillary Clinton--but the nonstop hate and blind rage directed at her from certain quarters is making me more sympathetic to her.

is made up bullshit that is flung when any other Democrat is hungry for other choices and suggests alternatives.

You seem a bit sensitive to me, I understand. When one has their heart set on what they perceive to be the answer, it is natural to dig in ones heels and flay a bit. It normally does one no good, and in the end they find out their emotional upheavals and rapid heart beats were really irrelevant.

is a government hoax.

I'm not aware. Perhaps you could inform all of DU of your sleuthing and enlighten us all.

"Proceed Governor"

that we need to address, while also not overcommitting ourselves.

My post was addressed to a DUer. Liberal DUers do not support Hillary. If you have a different opinion about liberal DUers actively supporting Hillary for the nom, we'll agree to disagree.

Upthread, when referring the general public, I used the term "portion of the left."

When I used "liberals" in reply to CrispyQ, I was addressing CrispyQ's statement that he or she had been told Hillary could win without the left. Rather than get into defining "left," vs. "liberals, I used the term "liberals," knowing CrispQ would understand what I meant.

I expect Democrats in office to support Hillary because that is clearly the Party's drill.

I may be many things. Delusional is not rarely one of them and it was not in this instance.

Sorry if you disagree.

OP puts up an OP showing Hillary crushing Bernie Sanders in the polls. You put up supplementary info that shows one of the most famous Democrats and liberals supporting Hillary proudly in response to the really unsupported and ridiculous claim that liberals don't support Hillary and because "DU's liberals" aren't supporting her, there is no possible way that she could actually have liberal support.

It is simply astonishing. The amount of weight people put on the folks on this web site, many of which I wouldn't want leading a town march let alone being in any way seen as examples of Democratic or liberal thought, is absolutely hilarious to me. And I think it's a very good thing that most of us recognize that DU does not exemplify either.

It is very likely.and you don't get to decide who is and who is not a liberal.

And I agreed with Fuddnik on that point.

Sorry if you think a Third Wayer is a liberal. I don't know anyone other than DU's right who would agree with you, but you are entitled to your own view, as am I.

Is it ""pretend merrily posted something she never posted day" again so soon?

I'm not pretending anything. Not even pretending Third Wayers are liberals.

BTW, did ProSense return and gift you incessant use of that rofl emoticon? I never thought it improved her posts. I thought it just made them look silly and desperate.

I think not. That was nothing but bashing....sounds very like a Repig to me.

Cause by demanding explanations again and again for something I never posted in the first place, you could come across as a real


poster who is not even attempting to discuss or debate in good faith.

I've already explained that I distinguished on this thread between DU's left and the left in general. What part of that did you not understand?

Is this the John Lewis you suggest I am insulting?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6240795

Please stop pretending you have to defend him against my assaults.

I humbly suggest you get off you stop acting like you're the damn Pope of Liberalism with the power to ex-communicate anyone who supports a candidate you don't like in the primary.

your agreement with that poster's statements.

I humbly suggest you stop trying to apply labels to other DUers and try to exclude them from the community of liberals, as it is not your place to do so.

I humbly suggest you stop trying to apply labels to other DUers and try to exclude them from the community of liberals, as it is not your place to do so.

and no, saying they want Hillary to run and win does not make a person a Third Wayer

And making up stuff about me.

This is beyond boring. Last word is yours.

for Lizzy to get into the race but its not looking good,,,,, Put me down as Ready for Hillary!

And also that polls this far out are as meaningless as they always are and as they were at the beginning of March 2007.

Most people can't name both Senators from their own state, let alone a Senator from another State, let alone a Senator from another state that is not a member of either the Republican Party or the Democratic Party and therefore got next to zero media coverage until he announced he might run for President.

It will tightened more as the race actually takes shape.

won't repeat Mark Penn's disastrous campaign strategy which still got her very close to beating Barack Obama in 2008.

and it was reached. She can only lose support now as the race heats up and there are alternatives.

That is why I have long thought it too risky to go with her. The margin of error is too close. She has to be damn near perfect to win. And she is not that.

And I believe it's much too early to claim that she's reached her ceiling - especially since she hasn't even declared herself as a candidate yet.

But we'll see.

poll. Since Warren has announced that she is NOT running, most of her 14% will probably accrue to Sanders. Since Biden has given no indication of his intentions thus far, a 50-50 split of his support between Clinton and Sanders puts Clinton at 61, Sanders at 23 with 16% undecided.

That's still an imposing lead for Clinton, but not the impending wipeout your OP headline would suggest.

The relevant portion of the headline of the piece you cite is "Clinton Sweeps Dem Field, With Biden In The Wings."

Would go to Sanders? There are certainly some who would prefer Clinton for reasons like the fact that we haven't had a woman president, or electability concerns.

That said polls this far out are fairly useless. Even polls taken at the start of the Republican primary last year when such luminaries as Rick Perry, Herman Cain and Rick Santorum all led polls.

Sanders garners only 4% includes 24% for a person (Warren) who has repeatedly said she is not running and someone (Biden) who has said little or nothing so far about his inetions.. So at least some of Warren's support, one would think, would accrue to Sanders were her name not included. But you're absolutely right that giving all of her 14% to Sanders is not supported by reality either.

IMO, a spirited head-to-head matchup between Clinton and Sanders (assuming he switches his party registration to Dem) would be one of the best possible things for the Democratic Party and for America. I hope Bernie decides to toss his hat into the ring.

presidential hopeful polls that is. I wouldn't be surprised if the person who winds up as the nominee hasn't even been heard from yet concerning a run for the whitehouse.
Personally I think that would be good strategy too. No need to get out there where the pukes can start sharpening their knives. I went from not knowing Obama from a stump to being a big supporter in a few weeks, a month or so at best. No need in painting that bullseye on ones back just yet. When the right time comes and the right person arrives we'll give. Like we did for Obama.
Guess what I still see the few bucks I gave to Obama and remember it as some of, if not the, best money I've spent in my lifetime up to then. Hell even up to now as far as that goes..

There are more Republicans than Democrats and that's contradicted by other pollster's findings.

However, even in a poll that appears to tilt Republican she is doing well.

-- in his last race, he won in a landslide over a man who had BOTH the Democratic and Republican lines.

I doubt he has a chance against Hillary - but he is a pretty incredible leader when people actually meet him.

She's the fave because she pretty much has nothing of significance to say and what she DOES say certainly doesn't amount to much of a critique of "business as usual".

Modern corporate media loves that.

SANDERS... otoh............

That's before the 24/7 Bengazi!!! Committee gets going.

IMO polls are meaningless this far out. I just commented on what struck me as interesting. She does well over an Independent Socialist in the primary but not so well against another name brand in the General.

and I responded back on what I found interesting on the poll numbers in the article posted in the OP? I didn't post the OP, I commented on it and IMO polls this far out are meaningless, a lot can happen.

but then you go on to dismiss the whopping difference between HRC & all her potential Democratic rivals as "too far out". Just sayin'.

something else interesting that you want to comment on if you decide to read the article. Just sayin.

do not think we have ever had a primary like this before. At least there were more than one candidate. I first voted for JFK in the general election. Two young to vote in that primary. I think this is one of the reasons there does not seem to be any enthusiasm for anyone at this point. Not even her.

I support Bernie because I want her to listen to his point of view. I would also like to see her pay more attention the Elizabeth Warren. These people have some important points to be made. She can ignore them if she chooses but we will not.

If you think it is just Hillary - it is not our President is also too close to Wall Street, TPP.

1. You have Jim Webb running.

2. You have Bernie Sanders talking about running.

3. You have Martin O'Malley talking about running.

Now, your complaint would appear to be NOT that there's no opposition to Clinton, but that there's no significant DESIRE for opposition to Clinton: that she's actually popular among Democrats and apparently among a wide range of liberals and centrists.

Out of curiosity, were you as outraged that Al Gore ran with no significant opposition in 2000?

haters if we do not agree with her.

I think Hillary is okay on women's issues and civil rights. My problem is her economic stance when it comes to Wall Street and the TPP. I don't think she has any idea what it is really like down here. That is why I want her to have to listen to Bernie and Elizabeth. At this point I don't know where she stands on another damned war either.

So all those people are running? Am I going to have a chance to vote for them in the primary? I doubt it. Maybe I will do a write-in this time.

As to Al Gore I was not a strong supporter of Al but I did vote for him both in the primary and the general. As to running unopposed - as I remember it Nader was the other option. It was too bad that he did not enter the primary and accept the results.

I HAVE called out people who's hostility to Clinton goes over the edge. Consider the following two posts:

"I'm sure Hillary has threatened Elizabeth Warren often and will continue to. -- I don't blame Warren if she does not run -- She'd probably live a lot longer that way!"

Not surprised. You don't screech your way into the White House; you earn it.

emerges, polls like this one are pretty useless. For example, if Elizabeth Warren isn't on that list, many of her supporters will vote for Sanders, if he is actually on the ballot. Some may even switch their preference to Biden or Clinton, actually.

Sanders has the disadvantage of his age working against him, when it comes to support. He's also not a Democrat, and running in the primary will require him to change his party affiliation. I'm not sure he's inclined to do that.

When there is a list of actual candidates for the Democratic primary, then the polls will be more interesting.

I had forgotten about that..

We'll see who's getting "smoked" then when it actually counts.

Last edited Thu Mar 5, 2015, 07:43 PM - Edit history (1)

I have voted for her enough already, like 4 or 5 times FFS (OK I think it was actually 3 times, I might have voted for Tasini in the Primary) But I shook her hand once!

Nice try. It is a much larger lead than she had over Obama...but don't worry we won't bring that up.