there as an attempt to play the DU gotcha game. They usually have no factual basis and are accompanied with this

Hillary Clinton isn't my preferred Democratic candidate, either, but as a registered and firm Democrat, I'm not going to make her name toxic by criticizing her continuously, thereby aiding and abetting the well-funded GOP machine by demonizing one of our strongest Democratic candidates.

Is Hillary Clinton perfect? HECK NO. But she's FAR better than anyone the GOP is trying to foist on the United States, that's for sure, and as long as we have a Congress with Republicans and "moderate" Dems, I'm not going to demand that the Democrat who runs for the White House is as liberal as one would expect a U.S. Rep from a small district in California or Florida can be. That's just political suicide for our Party and our progress.

... but I don't expect their over reach meter to go off any time soon

All of the criticism of Hillary on du is that she's too conservative/corporate. So if you think that criticism is "conservative tainted", would you mind positing a link to some conservative in big media who says Hillary is too conservative?

Thanks in advance

In the end, too many posters here call themselves "real progressive liberals" when they are simply either ideologues or crap-stirrers looking for a way to bash a possible Democratic nominee or to instigate another round of the circular firing squad.

I am trying very hard not to engage in the circular firing squad.

Some DU'ers LIVE to post that divisive flamebait.

Hillary is qualified to be POTUS, she might be our nominee, I'm not going to throw whatever garbage there is laying around on her just for LOLZ or to get a daily outrage on.

Thanks, I am a bit tired of the anti-Clinton rhetoric here.

She is still at the bottom of my list, but if she wins the primaries, I will be voting for her.

At the moment, I am in the O'Malley camp, since he was my Governor, and wish he were still my governor...
I'm pretty unhappy with my current one.

You can be proud, BLM, because that's Bernie Sanders' formulation as well:

Supreme Court Positions are way too important to mess with.

He appeals to some nontraditional voters like my nephews. It would be a mistake for dems to ignore that appeal.

His earnest approach and his willingness to work tirelessly towards progress should bring out the optimist in all of us - even old cynics like me. ; )

more progressive, more moral, etc than everyone else.

Which means they can't be saying things like "agree to disagree" but rather "if you support Clinton you're either a Turd Way DLC VichyDem or a really naïve fool. You should listen to people like me who know everything. Because, populism."

And that's Hillary.

I've posted several times I support Hillary. But she is not my 1st choice. My other choices aren't running and aren't mentioned in might run. I think she can beat the GOP. I like her position on many issues. I've admired her for decades. There are plenty of things to debate about without sounding like rush or drudge.
I try not to take it personally when another dem calls Hillary supporters naive or Dino's. I didn't play that game in 08 and won't do it now. I'm not going to allow myself to be manipulated by the rightwing and do their job for them
I support Hillary. I would be thrilled to vote for warren or Sanders or O'Malley even Webb who I have concerns about for statements he's made on women's rights if one of them makes it as the dem nominee. Their supporters aren't idiots. These people are striking a cord with dems that are valid. It would not be helpful to dems to ignore their appeal.

As in, Clinton's sudden left turn in rhetoric won't fool anyone, so the shift must not be because she is trying to fool anyone....or somehow she was always like this but never quite got around to saying anything until now....or something.

Clinton has a problem: If she does not shore up her left flank, she will have primary opponents that can make the race competitive. Just like 2008. When she's running on an "inevitable" platform, competitive won't cut it. Just like 2008.

So she's attempting to drain support for anyone running to her left. There is no "fooling" involved. There are no posts here saying "OMG! IT TURNS OUT CLINTON IS SO TOTALLY LIBERAL!!" after her recent statements. She's trying to make it acceptable for more people to her left to agree to vote for her, in order to make it harder for O'Malley, Sanders, Warren or anyone else to her left. Their rhetoric would have to be even further to the left to differentiate from Clinton.

If she secures the nomination, I expect she will pivot to the right and we'll have a Sister Souljah-like moment. In the assumption that "realists" will stay with her due to how bad the Republicans are.

And if she wins the general, she'll govern as the centrist she has always been.

In other words, the standard Third Way-style playbook. What should be concerning us is this was used by Kerry, Gore and a hell of a lot of former Senators. It's only really worked on the national stage for Bill Clinton in 1992, and that only worked due to Perot getting libertarians to abandon HW Bush. Add most of those back to HW Bush (they weren't liberals) and Bill Clinton loses badly.

So we're either going to need a lot of luck, or a lot of train wreck on the Republican side.

If your premise is incorrect it is only logical to disregard any inference made from it. Bill Clinton worked hard to raise himself from the working class to the White House. It assaults my sense of fairness to suggest he got there by serendipity.

Every election is unique.

The remaining 24 percent would have gone somewhere. They bothered to vote for Perot and his lost cause, so it's pretty clear they were motivated enough to get to the polls. And being attracted to Perot means they are more likely to vote for the major candidate running closer to libertarian.

So did lots of people who did not win.

Also, you kinda forgot the examples of Gore, Kerry and lots and lots of former Senators. Which is more likely to be closer to the country's current mood? The victory in 1992, or the loss in 2014?

I am an empiricist. My observations are empirical. My suggestions and of course my opinions are normative.



I would say no two elections are alike and we need to look to the data and not our biases to determine who won and lost and why. There is no one size fits all explanation to explain how every election is decided.

Let's revisit this quote and examine it:

In light of this quote:



And this quote:




The only logical inference to be drawn from the fact that 38% of Perot voters said they would vote for Bush and 38% said they would have voted for Clinton is that the remaining 24% would not have voted at all or would have voted for someone other than Bush or Clinton. If they would have voted for Bush as you suggest those votes would be reflected in the votes from the exit poll. But don't take DemocratSinceBirth's word for it:






In closing, the evidence suggests that Clinton would have beat Bush in 92 with Perot and sans Perot and there is no unitary theory to explain why one candidate wins and another candidate loses. Those facts are ineluctable.

One wag put forth that Hillary is fooling liberals. None of them that I know are fooled. We'll vote for her anyway. OTOH the conservative democrats have actually convinced themselves that she's not wall street friendly. That viewpoint takes some serious mental contortion. When education gets handed over to the profiteers during her term, they will either claim that it's a great thing, or that she was forced into it by the republicans. Once again the liberals won't be fooled.

might have been a bit swept up in Obama's lofty 2008 rhetoric. It was all so abstract and vague enough that everyone could read into it what they wanted, so many here might have hoped that Obama was the progressive champion of their dreams. Reality has proved a little less sterling, and many I think felt betrayed and bamboozled. For me, I didn't really have any lofty expectations, so I'm pretty happy with how things have turned out with the Obama administration. My expectations are similarly tempered for whatever Democratic administration comes next. I think a Sanders or Warren administration would be an improvement over a Clinton one, but the difference would not be night and day like some here believe. The realities of our governmental system and the fact there exists a pretty intransigent opposition pretty much guarantee that.

knowledge of an issue. One can be made to agree with some politicians on a particular argument and then decide whether it meets long time positions associated with historical progressivism or not. Sometimes, one can change from past actions. Sometimes, one be progressive on a lot of issues but not be progressive on a couple of very important ones. Sometimes, one cannot agree with a political position on a critical issue and despite the angst of the supporters of said candidate, it might be impossible. Unless one is all knowing or all trusting, the truth may or may not lie with said candidate no matter how passionate a supporter may feel.