Still, I must say I'm quite impressed at the 34% for Liz Warren. That's a big chunk of support for someone with much less name recognition than Clinton and who has repeatedly said she won't run. If I was Warren I would find this poll..... tantalizing, to say the least.

For Warren, was actually 51%–17% (the 34% is the differential). But 51% is low if you consider the question of the poll, which was “Could you see yourself supporting this candidate?” Only 51% of Democrats can even see themselves supporting Warren.

But yes, DU is a very small niche, even among liberals. Which is fine — as long as it’s understood. The problem is some people think 90% of the country are “secretly” über liberals.

Well, I’m happy to vote for Warren if she gets the nomination. I support Hillary but I will vote for our nominee either way.

Shortly after 911, George W. Bush had approval ratings of 90%.

Some on DU have been proud to declare that they were part of the 10%.

Is that a good thing, or a bad thing? Oh no, DU is unrepresentative of the country in general.

Of course you are not talking about ALL of DU. Since perhaps 30% of DUers also support the Dauphine. Only those of us in opposition are supposed to now wear the scarlet U.

I suspect Liz Warren would be much higher but she's made it very plain she's NOT running.

an excrement statement

That's because most Democrats are too busy making a living to appoint themselves ersatz philosopher kings and queens.

Big deal.

Of course, the 'support' appears extraordinary. 'Old Hill' is the only Democratic Party 2016 potential candidate the mainstream media has been blabbering about two or three years already.

But the weariness, the sullenness among Democrats over even this relatively minor email story shows just how unenthusiastic a lot of Democrats are about a Hillary nomination.

Just watch.

It will take only a gaffe, a stumble, a bad performance and the Hillary Clinton candidacy will fade fast.
Democrats and most Americans are really ready for change, for progress, for a fresh face.
Once the 'inevitability' sheen is off Clinton, the fall will be fast.
She may not even make it as a serious contender to 2016; if she does because of the big money, then I think she'll be an official "has been" by the third primary.

Keep your eye on O'Malley and Sanders -- the Gene McCarthy's of this cycle.

Hillary Clinton has deep support among working class African Americans, Latinos, and whites and not so called intellectuals who have appointed themselves philosopher kings and queens.


Oh, almost forgot, Eugene McCarthy endorsed Ronald Reagan in 1980.

at large.

Democratic Underground is to the Democratic party as ________________- is to _______________ .

People who oppose the Dauphine are to the Democratic Party as _______ is to _________.

This is one of the things I hated about the Dauphine in 2007, a good part of her campaign was all about "jump on the bandwagon, everybody's doing it".

The Dauphine is 44.

And some people have the temerity to say upward mobility in the Unites States of America is dead.

a 17 point lead? Really?

As I remember it, he was always losing. For example, the SNL debate skit where they had Bush fumbling around trying to make a statement about his plans, and the Dukakis guy says "I can't believe I am losing to this guy".

These days people are pretty set, I don't see things changing that much, that quickly.

Res ipsa loquitur:

By the summer of 1988, after nearly eight years of Ronald Reagan, voters seemed ready for a change. Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis came out of the Democratic Convention with a 17-point lead over Vice President George Bush. But a poorly run Dukakis campaign and a series of highly effective attacks by the Bush team—most notably the famous “Tank Ride” ad—kept Republicans in the White House. Above: President Ronald Reagan endorses Vice President George Bush’s presidential run on May 12, 1988. Reagan waited to endorse Bush until the outcome of the Republican primary had been decided, and his statement was brief and tepid. At one point he mispronounced Bush’s name, calling him “George Bosh.”


http://www.politico.com/magazine/gallery/2013/11/how-bush-beat-dukakis/001418-020013.html#.VP8NBPnF_Xo

so really just an outlier from the convention.

Which was erased when Republicans held their own convention a month later. The polls returned to their pre-convention results http://www.gallup.com/poll/110548/gallup-presidential-election-trialheat-trends-19362004.aspx

George Herbert Walker Bush essentially ran for Reagan's third term and won.

I'm not a multiple tens of thousands DU commenter.

I talk to lots of regular folks in regular life.

In Colorado anyway, I'm not detecting the devotion for Clinton.

Indeed, I do sense a sullenness among nominal Democrats and left-leaning unaffiliateds over the 'inevitable' Hillary.

Furthermore, some candidates do weather setbacks better than others -- Bill Clinton, himself, was such a candidate. And Hill is no Bill.

And someone is missing the point about Gene McCarthy -- he lost to LBJ in New Hampshire in 1968; but, he demonstrated the shift in the Democratic Party that caused Lyndon to decide not to run for re-election. One of these grassroots, populist challengers may very well show that old Hill has feet of clay. Once the 'inevitability' is gone ... watch what happens.

It could finally get real exciting in the Democratic Party and enthusiasm might return.

-Cinderella

I will elaborate, this time...When I see a thread where someone touts a candidate of his or her choice I stay out. The whole " you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all " thing.

I'm already not voting for her, but seeing all these articles about how strong she's running and how she'll trounce all challengers, Primary or GE convinces me that she doesn't need my vote or my money or my legwork anyway.

Good for her. She gets to destroy the competition and I don't have to keep doing the whole lesser of two evils voting.

I also don't think us who are wary of Clinton will have much of an affect if she does win the primaries. I think plenty like me are aware of how the system works and are not suicidal enough to go for a complete GoP takeover. Seems like every week the Republicans do something to ensure I'll support the Democratic candidate regardless of who wins. It'd be nice if more Hillary supporters were willing to actually talk about issues though rather than rely entirely on playing up that fear of the GoP. The lesser of two evils strategy rarely helps.

The demographics alone are not representative
of the general public.

It appears 262 of those surveyed are democrats?
52% women
72% white
45% age 55 or over
36% household income over $75,000
40% 4-year degree or higher
4% unemployedlooking for work

MOST SHOCKING: Q.11
55% favor Someone who supports using American
combat troops to fight ISIS

(sarcasm)