General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNewest PPP poll out today has Hillary gaining momentum on all Dem candidates.
-snip-
Bernie Sanders may be gaining momentum in recent New Hampshire polling but Hillary Clinton is more dominant than ever in the national polling. She's at 65% to 9% for Bernie Sanders, 5% for Martin O'Malley, and 4% each for Lincoln Chafee and Jim Webb. Sanders is the most common second choice of Democratic voters at 19% and O'Malley has broken away from Chafee and Webb to become the clear third choice of primary voters at 12%. Overall Clinton is the first or second choice of 73% of Democrats to 28% for Sanders, 17% for O'Malley, 8% for Chafee, and 7% for Webb.
Clinton continues to be dominant nationally with every segment of the Democratic electorate- she's over 60% with liberals, moderates, women, men, Hispanics, whites, and voters in every age group and she's polling at 83% with African Americans. The lack of racial diversity in New Hampshire is one reason Sanders is coming closer to her there given her dominance with black voters nationally.
link: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/06/walker-bush-rubio-lead-gop-field-clinton-still-dominant.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)
calimary
(81,484 posts)That is all.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)The primary is ages away. It's not even the year of the primary, much less the election, yet.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)that shows that. I don't believe it for a minute.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Which has been proven over and over again to be shortsighted. A static snapshot this early cannot predict dynamic changes later. Hillary will not be allowed to question Bush nepotism. His biggest weakness is family connections. Besides that the Clintons have aligned with Bush Sr for decades, this is essentially neutering your biggest campaign advantage. Why would we want to do that and why would Clinton put her own personal, selfish aspirations above that? Whose side is she on?
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)is going to elect someone who is a self described socialist? I would think only someone who doesn't actually live here would believe that. Selfish aspirations? That's the kind of bullshit I hear from the right wing about Hillary - that's the company you're keeping. If you think the fact the Clinton's have been friendly with the Bush family means they've aligned with their political ideology, that's insane. Are you only friends with people who align with you politically on every single subject? How boring that would be. But whatever, I'll vote for whoever has the D behind their name (even if they're not a Democrat officially). Because I know the supreme court is the most important issue out there.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)We need a revolution not DLC party politics. I think we need another candidate. I wouldn't throw my money on Bernie. But you haven't got a clue. If you did you would see that actions matter not words. I don't care what ideology Clinton "claims" to follow because she is untrustworthy. And she is aligned with the Bushes personally and has been since the early 80s. The Clintons are stated as honorary Bush family members since 2000. This is not political nicety or typical elitist hobknobbing. They are in bed with each other. They supported pardoning Bush Sr IranContra crimes and stymied investigations in 93 and have been rewarded for their loyalty. Hillary voted for the Iraq War and should be an outcast on our party for it. They all should.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)But Hillary will appoint someone who supports NSA spying and loss of liberties. And yes she is selfish. It's self-evident c'mon. Warren is the selfless one. Hillary it's all about her own aspirations not helping others. She is 100% pro wall st, pro prisons and pro war.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)pro civil rights, wont privatize social security and will put judges not only on the supreme court but on all federal courts. You want to leave that to a republican? Do you honestly believe Bernie has a change in the general? He has single digit support everywhere except for a couple of small states in the northeast (where he's from).
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)So sit down and shut up. Maybe everyone should be fighting for real change instead. She's ok on safe issues but big ones like wars and foreign policy she is just another neocon. And I'm sorry but mass incarceration and the drug war are civil rights issues. It really doesn't matter if someone supports raising the minimum wage if you're in jail. Time to wake up and realize people are being attacked and oppressed. Hillary is as horrible as Bush. You like how when Ray McGovern stood up at her speech with his back turned to her and she had security detail bloody him? You can support that devil? Not me. And mist people I know are suck of this crap.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)I didn't tell anyone to sit down and shut up so you can stop lying about that. I asked you a simple question. Where is the swelling of support for Sen Sanders that would show me he can pull in independents and moderates - groups we quite simply NEED to get someone into the white house? Where is the support - other than a couple of small states in the northeast. But you know what - I can't converse with someone whose calls any human the devil and thinks she's as horrible as Bush. You simply aren't rational.
That poll must have been done by the corporatists!
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts) 
olegramps
(8,200 posts)The attacks on Hilary Clinton are over the top at times. It seems that it doesn't matter what she says and is disregarded as lies. I can't help from wondering this could actually result in a Republican being elected. While Republicans in contrast remain dedicated to their cause of getting Republicans elected the Democrats seem self destructive at times.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Debating issues is good but some are here to disrupt and it shows.
Historic NY
(37,453 posts)we don't have that here. Ronald "Raygun" certainly championed that "thou shall speak no evil about a fellow Republican"..
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/CampaignsElections/a/11th-Commandment-Definition.htm
calimary
(81,484 posts)The divisiveness I see particularly here is NOT worth it.
But I tell ya - I respect and appreciate Bernie Sanders and all the points he continues to make. So in many ways I can understand AND appreciate the ardor of the Bernie supporters. If Hillary weren't in it, I'd be so deeply dug in as a Bernie supporter you'd have to get industrial-strength drilling equipment to be able to dig down to find me!
I'd LOVE LOVE LOVE to see a Clinton/Sanders ticket. DAYUM! EVERYBODY wins if that happens.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)And I'm currently most heavily weighing voting in the primaries for Sanders or O'Malley.
I think democrats can and should learn from that rule about not attacking other democrats. I mean, within reason is understandable. But incessantly, and over the slightest things - no!
zentrum
(9,865 posts)….many (not all) Hillary supporters seem to resent and want to shut down the primary process. During that time, there's supposed to be debate and critique about various candidates.
But it feels like because she is the Democratic frontrunner at present we are supposed to just line up behind her even though the debates and the primaries are a year away.
Her vote for the Iraq war is incredibly troubling. Her name recognition does not excuse her silence on the TPP.
This resentment of genuine critique is what makes it feel like a coronation instead of the usual messiness that is necessary for a Democracy.
If she can't answer those questions now, God help us in the actual election.
calimary
(81,484 posts)Honest critiquing isn't the problem. I have personally noted multiple times that she's not a perfect candidate. For that matter, neither is Bernie Sanders. It's the slams and the snark and the insults and sometimes utter in-yer-face mean-spiritedness and put-downs and personal attacks that WAY too often seem to come with those critiques. THAT'S what I'm having the most trouble with. Because I DO like Bernie Sanders. It's some within his fanbase who are troublesome. If anything could actively turn me off of supporting him, it would be that.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Where are people trying to shut down the process? Pointing out the reality that she's miles ahead of every other Democrat is not shutting down the process. I have yet to go to any Sen Sanders thread to post crap about him or try and push Hillary. If everyone would just support their candidate without the loathsome behavior some supporters have, DU wouldn't be the cesspool it turns into during the primaries.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)People on DU need no inspiration to vote. We all support who we support because we're well informed of the issues - that's why we post on a political board. All trashing one candidate does is turn people off - that's it. It changes nobodies mind. Talking up your candidate isn't what I'm talking about. I expect that from supporters. Just yesterday I was having a "conversation" with a Sanders supporter who called Hillary the devil - how fucking insane is that kind of talk?
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)There are plenty of good discussions on both sides...right up until the few name callers and disrupters jump in with unfounded claims.
calimary
(81,484 posts)I regret that my favorite riff on the whole false equivalence thing applies here. It's like comparing a brick to a grain of aquarium gravel and saying they're both the same because they both happen to be hard. Some Hillary supporters may have thrown some spitballs against Bernie Sanders, but it hardly compares to the avalanche of brickbats and verbal napalm coming at Hillary from the other camp AND unfortunately the personal attacks that are aimed at some Hillary supporters, as well. I've caught some of it myself.
You're not the only one who's worried about the divisiveness leading us irrevocably toward another CON in the White House, olegramps. Don't know how old you are, but I'm 62 and I still remember when the Gene McCarthy people were RABID against Hubert Humphrey - who wound up being the Dem nominee against Richard Nixon in 1968. They refused to play ball. They refused to compromise. Dumped all over Humphrey - YES he wasn't perfect either and he was too tied to LBJ and Vietnam, as Johnson's Vice President. He WASN'T perfect. I didn't think so either. But even back then when I was so much younger I still understood what was at stake and what we had to do. Seemed like a no-brainer. Like it or not, HE was what we HAD - to go into the final round, and keep the White House in Democratic hands. Unfortunately, the McCarthyites refused to unite and rally behind Humphrey because he wasn't THEIRS. Went home and stayed there and pouted all the way through Election Day.
And guess who won.
I kept wondering - about the McCarthy diehards - WAS IT WORTH IT? SERIOUSLY???????????? Happy NOW?????????
freshwest
(53,661 posts)olegramps
(8,200 posts)Instead concentrating on what could be a disaster if Republicans gain White House the conversation on this board seems to be dominated by ultra-progressives who will not accept any compromise. Yes, this concerns me. Why? Because I have grandchildren who could be seriously affected by this election. I was fortunate in that I worked for a corporation that provided great medical insurance and pensions and a very fair wage that allowed me to save toward a better retirement. I could only wish the same for all Americans. There are key issues that by farout trump the nuances between Sanders and Clinton.
Even people who are successful today often work 50-60 hours a week and are on call at anytime. The nine to five routine has basically disappeared for many professional people who desperately strive to succeed in a highly completive environment. What can we expect if the oligarchs take totally control? These is what I consider as the ultimate challenge. These people who are intent on total domination is fascists. This is not a exaggeration, but the very essence of what they believe in and support.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)drawn together by their admiration of her.
There is also an extremely loud Sanders fan base, drawn together by their hatred of her.
Pay it no heed.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)That isn't true. Stop lying.
Sanders' fan base is drawn together because he is an excellent candidate who actually sounds and acts like a liberal.
Pauldg47
(640 posts)....it will catch up to her.
still_one
(92,403 posts)republicans elected". Really? For instance their position on rape:
"“from what I understand from doctors [pregnancy from rape] is really rare ... If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”
The republicans position on immigration, the environment, woman's rights, worker's rights, civil rights is enough to to upset someone
Response to hrmjustin (Reply #1)
AlbertCat This message was self-deleted by its author.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Besides that polls are meaningless now? The latest article I read said we cannot challenge Bush on nepotism and Hillary won't because she has the same problem. Idiotic to nominate someone where we can't use anti-nepotism to our advantage.
CherokeeDem
(3,709 posts)by some. I'm certain of that....
Great numbers for Hillary!!!
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)A clear indication she's going to lose.
CherokeeDem
(3,709 posts) freshwest
(53,661 posts)And example is that the GOP's SS funding rules change is hinged directly on the last 3 months of next year, dependent on the winner. Obama swore, and has kept his promise, 'SS will not be privatized on my watch.'
But all of the GOP candidates have sworn to privatize it, planning on the biggest theft of tax payer money yet from a program in no danger legally of going broke. They have just played with it to make it look that way, with a complicit billionaire owned MSM making an echo chamber.
Their current plan is to either take 20% off all disabled retired from their benefits permanently by December 2016, which will make some homeless. Or they will do what they wished to do the last time they pushed for default, slashing all SS benefits to 40% of total payout. They have already announced this. SS has said it is not necessary. So they have stopped the printing (but not the manufacture) of GAO reports to be used against them. I guess they'll get drunk reading all the details of who dies.
So many millions of people will be put in chaos that the current unemployment figures look great. Many jobs and businesses depend on people spending that money for healthcare, whatever.
It could end up as the greatest land grab since the Great Depression. People better get it together, not only those on SS will be hurt.
All for the want of a Democratic POTUS with a veto pen, or a way to fight them. All the Democratic candidates have sworn to go the opposite direction. The GOP wants to install their Koch brothers robosigner in office.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,240 posts)
freshwest
(53,661 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Good.
So I'll wait at least until the election is even in sight to take heed of them..... not now.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)I guess we have no choice but surrender.
And yes
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)not bad for the "pro-slaughter candidate".
Sid
LordGlenconner
(1,348 posts)That was my favorite overwrought comment from the Faith Militant last week.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)perfect.
Sid
nc4bo
(17,651 posts)Gonna be a long, long year.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)It's early days, but I remain cautiously optimistic.
BlueMTexpat
(15,373 posts)slog ahead.
And it will be a slog because there'll be TONS of mud thrown at Hillary.
But I think that we and she are up to it!
calimary
(81,484 posts)NOBODY has more knife wounds in the back than Hillary Clinton does. And YES. I say AGAIN - she is NOT PERFECT!!!!
But hey everybody, we don't live in a perfect world. And YES. Sometimes we have to take the good over the perfect if we have any interest in a realistically positive outcome. Hillary Clinton has her faults. Here I am saying so in public! Here I am ALSO saying that if Bernie Sanders manages to beat her to the nomination, count me in as one of HIS supporters, and I'll work hard and eagerly and enthusiastically to make sure he wins, and I will vote for him - with pleasure and no sour grapes whatsoever, even though he wasn't my first choice. MY EYES ARE ON THE PRIZE that we ALL want: Keeping the White House in DEMOCRATIC hands.
THAT is JOB ONE.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Just a flash in the pan I guess.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,240 posts)
But seriously, much like Donald Trump, Bernie's a great novelty candidate. They'll get tons of press because the media loves the whacky shit they say. Flame throwing makes the media's job so much easier. They get to sit around and pontificate about the implications of the last ridiculous statement made by the latest novelty.
I was almost believing it until I saw your smilie!
You never know around here. 
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Yeah.... unlike any of the others, he's an actual liberal! Such a novelty!
Tarheel_Dem
(31,240 posts) AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Yeah....
That doesn't bother me.... if that's what he really is. I mean, it seems to work pretty well in Europe!
Tarheel_Dem
(31,240 posts)
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Denmark is too cold! (so is VT for that matter)
Tarheel_Dem
(31,240 posts) hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Clinton continues to be a far superior general election candidate to any of the other Democratic hopefuls. Scott Walker would lead Martin O'Malley and Bernie Sanders each by 8 at 39/31 and 40/32 respectively, Jim Webb by 11 at 39/28, and Lincoln Chafee by 12 at 39/27.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)BlueMTexpat
(15,373 posts)why any sentient being would consider Scott Walker a good general election candidate!
He's such a nothing. And to have such numbers against the likes of Bernie or Martin - who are both stellar candidates - makes me wonder what American voters are thinking, or IF they're thinking at all.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)His story even if fairy tale will attract some voters. We are too close an electorate to risk Walker. Let's hope trump gets the nomination at least conservatives will stay home and not vote for a three time married guy.
calimary
(81,484 posts)There's no comparison. Our WORST Dem imaginable is lightyears better than that little putz.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Could we be seeing a HRC/O'Malley ticket?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)calimary
(81,484 posts)for the future. GUYS - WE HAVE TO HEAD OFF GEORGE P. BUSH, TOO!!!! DANGER WILL ROBINSON!!!! As well as the pathetic marco rubio. rubio is young enough to come back and try it again, and you can take it to the bank - jebbie's son is being groomed NOW to carry on with the family business. They see him as the heir apparent, and he did make quite a speech yesterday at his dad's nomination announcement. HE'S BEING SHOWCASED AND PREPPED FOR THE FUTURE. We have to set up against him - NOW. The SOONER the BETTER. And it would offset his dad's appeal to Latino voters this round, too.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)But, we have a long primary ahead of us and the trends to watch are the early primary states.
cali
(114,904 posts)Most of us realize that Hillary is the odds on favorite and will almost certainly be the nominee. And most of us will hold our nose and vote for her in the general. As the saying goes... better a corrupt democrat than a batshit crazy republican. So despite thinking she is ethically challenged, I take the SCOTUS threat seriously.
I still think that the odds are that she'll lose the general election and there's still a chance that she'll screw it up as she did in 2008..
peacebird
(14,195 posts)And I don't think Hillary can win the general election.
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)LordGlenconner
(1,348 posts)Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)And is way behind in anything other than a traditional blue state.
If Bernie somehow became the nominee, the GOP candidate would break 350 electoral votes and might approach 400.
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)Will it be enough? I don't know. But I have some hope.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Nobody called a self described socialist is getting elected in the US. Anybody who thinks Americans will make a distinction between a Democratic Socialist and being karl marx's twin brother is only fooling themselves. And I would love to see Bernie win...it will just never happen.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,240 posts)
Something on the scale of an electoral wipeout would be my guess.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)There is no incumbent running, especially a dirty trickster like Richard Nixon who had "plumbers" break into the national headquarters of the Democratic Party. And the people who voted for McGovern were vindicated just 2 years later when it became quite clear just how corrupt Nixon was.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,240 posts)Hubert Humphrey would have at least made the GE competitive. There's no arguing that 1972 was a bloodbath, and all the youthful exuberance in the world couldn't change that. Much like BS.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)Nixon's shameful resignation 2 years later? Yeah, you must have missed that.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,240 posts) OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)Because it's convenient:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025075831
Star Member cali (102,783 posts)
Fine. I'll say it. I won't vote for HIllary if she's the nominee.
and yeah, I'll gladly leave DU for the duration.
I think she's a despicable opportunist, dishonest, a big supporter of the military industrial complex and much more. Almost all of it counter to the democratic ideals I believe in. I couldn't vote for her and remain true to my beliefs. And yes, I do think the Supreme Court is important, but I cannot support Hillary.
End of story.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)I don't get the antipathy for her from some here...Maybe because I consider myself to be in the main stream of my party and many posters here are anything but.
LordGlenconner
(1,348 posts)And I hope Cali keeps her word.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Make up your mind.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)"is one reason Sanders is coming closer to her there given her dominance with black voters nationally."
This issue is going to haunt Bernie throughout the campaign and will likely be his downfall... if nothing else.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)It's easy to look at the adoring throngs clad in LL Bean and Vermont Vines and think he's doing fine, but he needs to work on appealing to a broader demographic.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)like Hillary instead if the other way around.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)Not to mention, it was a big deal a few months ago when Burlington actually got an LL Bean store - the first and only in the entire state. It was a big deal with lots of media coverage. The idea that Vermont is preppy is rather funny.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Note to All (just to, pre-emptively, get it out the way) ... NO. I have not; nor, am I calling Bernie a racist.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)New Hampshire's demographics?
The incredible white maleness of Bernie?
Or the fact that Hillary enjoys substantial black support? Well, she does. Bernie will have to peel some of that away if he is to do well in the primaries. I think that is possible.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,240 posts)for all AA people"? No I don't, but travel to any black barbershop/beauty salon, and it's Hillary in 2016! They don't know who Bernie Sanders is, and don't much care.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)I am not African American but I have lived in the south and deep south and lived in mixed-racial neighborhoods in the DC area. I just know that Bernie will not connect with AA voters. I dont know how to explain it in words but he just wont be trusted or even listened to. Despite what Bill and Hillary did in 2008 campaign I think they have been forgiven.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,240 posts)As an AA, personally, Bernie just doesn't do it for me, and I know I'm in the majority when I say that.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I do have my concerns about Bernie ... But the more he avoids addressing me, the less I will consider him ... unless he wins the Democratic nomination (without me).
Tarheel_Dem
(31,240 posts)posted at 12:00 pm on July 24, 2011 by Jazz Shaw
President Obama is under attack these days from all manner of nasty conservatives who don’t care for his liberal, big spending ways. They seem to have found an unlikely ally, though, in the person of the only officially declared socialist in Congress… Bernie Sanders. (Emphasis in original.)
It’s hard to say how much impact this will have, because traditionally Sanders hasn’t enjoyed a tremendous amount of influence outside his own state. But it is a sign of growing discontent with the political arm of his party. For better or worse, Obama is offering up some spending cuts which will effectively take the legs out from under most of the advertisements congressional Democrats are planning on running next year.
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/07/24/bernie-sanders-lets-primary-obama/
Keep in mind, when he made this statement, he was not even a member of the Democratic Party. He was essentially meddling. Nope. Can't support BS.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Bernie CAN, in fact, connect with AA voters ... He COULD be trusted and listened to; but, just not if he continues his present course. But one thing is for certain ... just like any other group with unique and self-identified issues/concerns ... We won't have the opportunity connect or trust or even listen, if he won't talk WITH us about OUR issues/concerns.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)also many others in deep south and in rural America and regular working class folks who dont really understand politics very much.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But it's not his "style" that is turning me off ... It's his focus (or rather, his ignoring).
DCBob
(24,689 posts)but I think many will be turned off before they even hear much of what he has to say.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I have said before ... one of the huge problems with liberals is our, collective, delusion that arguments and facts will always win the day ... "If we can just get people to sit down and listen; I mean really listen, we will win the day" ... never mind that in the real world, outside of political activism, people really do care about silly stuff like being shouted at (not talked with) ... people really are repulsed by the inference that someone considers them too stupid to discern there own interests ... people really do care about stuff as superficial as hair style.
And the more we act all brand new about that sh!t, the more we reinforce the F' you of those we are talking down to and talking over.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)That is the fatal mistake many in the Bernie camp are making.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,240 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)They are certainly well informed and know the issues but they are blind to the obvious of politics in America. This country has millions of voters who dont follow politics everyday and dont really understand or dont care or dont have the time to understand all the complex issues involved. Hillary appeals to many because they know her story and they like it. Bernie doesn't really have a story... at least one that at all compelling.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,240 posts)newcomer, with a "compelling" backstory who captured the imagination of a nation. It's fair to say, she was blindsided by him. It's also fair to say that she doesn't have that problem this time, and she has put together a team, including some of the best teammates of her former rival. She won't be making the mistakes of 2008, and the passion of the constituency you mentioned will not be able to overcome the sheer numbers.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Yes, they are well "informed" on the issues, even when that informedness, is based on speculation and "what if."
But Bernie's story is compelling ... and so are his "swing for the fences" solutions, even when they all begin with, "All we have to do is {insert series of unlikely events here} ...". That is compelling to folks willing to blind themselves to the obvious politics in America.
I think HRC's appeal to most is that all of her solutions are doable, while not Earth shatteringly grand.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Yes....
And therefore we may have to put up with an inferior candidate like Hillary for reasons that have nothing to do with politics.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Wait ... No I didn't.
Inferior candidate like Hillary?
reasons that have nothing to do with politics?
freshwest
(53,661 posts)people really are repulsed by the inference that someone considers them too stupid to discern there own interests ...
I don't want to be ruled by people like that... feels too much like the way the GOP talks down to so many people!
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)"They don't know who Bernie Sanders is, and don't much care."
And we have months and months and months for them to find out and care.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,240 posts)
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)He isn't doing that now so why would he do such a thing in the future?
U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)Because that what is looks like.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)That's what it looks like ... And I don't know how to make/help people to understand.
Let me try this way ...
If I am addressing a room, giving my thoughts on a variety of topics that are of interest to the room and you say, "what about me? The Police are laying siege to my house and threatening to kill me." And I respond by saying, "Yes, the militarization of the police is a problem for all communities ... we need to demilitarize the police force, everywhere"; or, more accurately, I respond, "Yes, militarization of the police is a problem. If they are allowed to lay siege to your home, it won't be long before they lay siege to my home."
Is that me speaking to your concern? I would say, "Yes" ... I am speaking to your concern" because I believe a demilitarized police force is the problem.
What about after you tell me, "I don't care about police militarization, I care about the police's laying siege to my home, today, and threatening to kill me, today." And I respond, "but you have to understand that a militarized police force is the problem for, and a threat to, all of us!"
And then, I sit mute, as the other people in the room attempt to explain to me, often in very unflattering terms, my ignorance for not seeing/understanding that demilitarization benefits us all.
How many times do you repeat your concern and receive the same response? How long, after receiving that same response, before you tune me out?
freshwest
(53,661 posts)I admit, I did not like her nearly as much as Obama in 2008. He was and is, in a class of his own.
But they've been quietly waiting, knowing they have a friend in her. I respect those who don't feel that way, but was blown away by the totally unsolicited excitement for her. These are the people the media will not report on, anymore than they did the vast numbers that came out for Obama twice.
We may get an upset, barring some awful event (I don't put a thing past the 'October surprise' GOP) that would change the issues close to election time and cause enough to vote GOP in 2016.
What a nightmare it would be, for me personally and others I know. We want to live.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)are so on board with Clinton after the not so veiled racial tones of her 2008 campaign. Yes, I know Bill was often called "The First Black President" pre-Obama, but 2008 was quite a mess for her.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Only very involved political folks like us even remember those times.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,240 posts)
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)And second, Hillary made a lot of racially charged missteps in 2008. One would think Black voters would hold that against her. But, as the other poster inferred, people seem to have no long term memories.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,240 posts)it wasn't so much Hillary we were against, but some of her more rabid supporters. She's got that covered this time. Trust me.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)And you are correct, it was often her proxies that made the worst missteps...yet it was Bill himself in several cases.
But yes, I would have thought the actions and statements of her 2008 campaign would have left a lingering mark, or at least moreso than appears to be the case. Some things you can't unsay.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,240 posts)LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)the least little bit.
But as an Obama supporter in 2008 it pissed me off how low the Clinton campaign stooped with its racial dog whistles. Which said to me that Hillary was willing to say or do anything to get elected, including ignoring her own principles. Which spoke to her trustworthiness, or lack thereof. Which is one reason I don't support her.
YMMV
Tarheel_Dem
(31,240 posts) LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)And one that only Bill Clinton could deliver.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,240 posts) freshwest
(53,661 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,240 posts)to re-explain it to a media weary American public. It was classic Bill Clinton, the Bill Clinton we fell in love with.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)^T^A^R^H^E^E^L ^D^E^M
heaven05
(18,124 posts)do have long and lingering memories, say even back to the mid to late 90's and the "welfare reform" and "prison's for profit" politics of the Clinton type of democrat.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)TM99
(8,352 posts)all of the Clinton baggage and mess when the GOP reminds them. And rest assured, they will do that 24/7 until she is soundly defeated by Walker, Bush, or Rubio.
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Nor, is he listening to us about our impression that he is not speaking to us.
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)With Hillary nothing will change for the better for you or for me.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)And they will stay proposals only.
Contrary to a lot of DUers Hillary is progressive and her ideas will become law.
That is were we all will be better off.
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts) 1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Here's to hoping Bernie, and/or his campaign staff, does more listening and less telling me what is best for me, then his DU representatives.
If not, he may as well gift wrap the Black vote for HRC.
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Furthermore the alternatives are not better. Bernie is a good man with a good message but he just wont connect with AA voters.. imo.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)I think that the progressive wing of the Democratic Party is very white, and they're the most likely to even know who Sanders is, for most of the rest of the Democratic base, Hillary is the only one they know.
And in American politics, that's all you need to get elected.
The progressive wing of the Democratic Party is small, the party as a whole has a ton of moderates and even quite a few self-described conservatives in it, the U.S. Is unfortunately very conservative and so, in a two party system, even the "left" party won't be that left.
Clinton doesn't need to do much to win this, she represents and is the status quo, her opponents in the primary on the other hand have to overcome a lot to win.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,240 posts)
karynnj
(59,504 posts)In fact, I saw mostly white arms raised in the Clinton Roosevelt Island photos. This while there were obviously some minorities who could easily be seen. I concede the percent was likely higher than at Bernie's Burlington event. HOWEVER, given the noise some want to make of this - I wonder why the percent of minorities was so low in NYC, given the overall demographics there. Her % is far lower than the town she was in -- where his likely was close to equal the % in Burlington.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,240 posts) karynnj
(59,504 posts)I get that she is very far ahead. You might consider that it is not a problem of appealing to minorities that could lead to her having 83%. The fact is she has an overwhelming percent of all categories.
My point was JUST that seeing the number of Clinton supporters that thought it reasonable to post that there were not enough minorities in Burlington - thus it was a mistake to have the kick off in a park, he was instrumental in getting in the town where he lives and was mayor -- that it should be noted that the NYC crowd HRC had was pretty white too.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,240 posts)I know a lot of Bernie's supporters had a problem with some of us raising that issue. So in some sort of retaliation, they have picked apart Hillary's audience looking for similarities to Bernie's. There are no similarities.
Hillary's support can be seen in the numbers, she doesn't need to create impressions in the same way that Bernie (as an unknown quantity) does. Her support among AA's & Latinos has been strong from the very start, and regardless of who's jumped in since her announcement, those numbers haven't shifted.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)Even if you look at the photos, you will see there were some minories there.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,240 posts) karynnj
(59,504 posts)It is beyond silly that you are arguing that there weren't when you were not there and I was.
Not to mention, my point was always that it would be strange for Bernie to pick any place other than the town he was mayor in -- and where he did a great job for the people. From the wonderful lakefront park, to more affordable housing to open government beyond anything I ever saw in Indiana or New Jersey (the other places I lived).
While immigration and discrimination against minorities are important, so are the environment, open and transparent government and income inequality. As to minorities, maybe you should consider that since 1989, Burlington has been an official refugee resettlement center. You can go into any public school class here - kindergarten to high school and you will likely have a more diverse population than you could find in your state (except the research triangle). There are 41 primary languages of students that attend the school. Note the mayor when Burlington agreed to this was ... Bernie Sanders.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,240 posts)
yuiyoshida
(41,861 posts)I am not White...but I know where my vote is going.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,240 posts) DCBob
(24,689 posts)I suspect the crowd will still be predominantly white.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)And I suspect you'll be proven wrong.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)What's a problem is the way we currently elect people, it favors corporatists with a recognizable name.
Clinton used racial rhetoric and dog whistles against blacks in the 08 campaign. That's a far more relevant issue, but it won't matter. Now that black demographics favor her, she'll slime Bernie as a racist (her surrogates are already starting that strategy), she's an opportunist. She will likely win on name recognition alone, and she can, the way our democracy is set up.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Bernie simply by his nature wont connect with AA voters.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)I'm sensing the same dog whistles Clinton used.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)probably wont sell well in Georgia and Alabama... imo.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Besides the religion thing, I guess I'm not seeing a huge difference in identity politics. And it's pretty sad if that's what we expect our party base to be making most of their decisions on.
Clinton has incredible name recognition though, and the Republican Party is as crazy as ever, and I think many people will want to go with a name they know what they're getting with as it gives them more confidence she can win against the crazy right.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Bernie hasn't.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Oh, no, she lost in 2008 and used dog whistle politics while losing.
I don't think Clinton has much credibility, people don't think she's honest, because, well, she isn't IMHO, she just has the most name recognition by far.
And honesty doesn't win American elections, triangulating, the right connections, and tons of money do, and Clinton has all three.
Bernie has more "cred" on civil rights than Clinton, by far, having never used dog whistles against a black candidate and supporting the movement since way back, but that doesn't really matter in politics, and voters don't really know or care.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Furthermore she was competing against one of most inspiring and motivating candidates in recent history.
Bernie cannot duplicate what Barrack Obama did in 2008. That's a pipe dream.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,240 posts)Call it what you want, but that fact won't be forgotten in our community, and there are plenty of us to make sure it's not forgotten.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Good thing there is a "hard working whites" candidate to support then
Tarheel_Dem
(31,240 posts)Bernie's failed attempt won't be his last.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)upaloopa
(11,417 posts)Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)With Sanders, you can bet there'll be no snarky "Please continue governor" moments. What you CAN bank on is that one of them will be lying as to how they're a champion of the people.
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Invoking FDR was pretty tacky IMO, considering her politics. But the women's vote and friendly media will carry her to a comfortable win.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)words just hollow sounds and those who support her have no real reason because they are shallow too. It is only Bernie and his supporters who are of substance.
LordGlenconner
(1,348 posts)Everyone else is just pro slaughter.
(as if needed)
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Sore winners?
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)When Bernie drops out I will smile and you won't
Beacool
(30,253 posts)The reality is that Hillary does not have strong opposition, just stating facts, not trying to offend anyone here. There is no Obama this time around. By that I mean a little known candidate who is charismatic, a good speaker and who inspires people. Obama was a Rorschach test. All the candidates in the running now have long records of service, everyone knows who they are and what they stand for. No surprises here.
I believe that, barring an unforeseen circumstance, Hillary will be the Democratic nominee. Will she win in 2016? That will depend on two major factors, the state of the economy right before the election and on who the Republicans choose as their nominee. Keeping the WH for three terms in a row is hard for any party, but the Democrats haven't accomplished it for decades. So, although I think that we have a good chance of winning, it won't be as easy as it was in 2008.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)Beacool
(30,253 posts) The bombardment of negatives which have intensified will escalate to outer limits proportions!
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)These polls are always depressing.
DownriverDem
(6,231 posts)I am a Hillary voter, but will proudly vote for whoever gets the Dem nomination. That is all that matters to me. I hope Bernie supporters feel the same way. We don't want a RWNJ to win.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,240 posts)You're Welcome DU!
This is such great news!
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)The last three presidents have lost the New Hampshire primary while the last six presidents have won the North and South Carolina primaries.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,240 posts)who can actually do it.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)
Tarheel_Dem
(31,240 posts) DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)Those are the demographics from the 012 election...All she has to do is hit Obama's numbers to win...Given the fact that the electorate will be even more heterogeneous she can even afford to lose another percent or two of the white vote, assuming we can turn our voters out.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts) 
Avalux
(35,015 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts) Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)If that's what keeps you going.
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)More power to you!
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts) Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)That may be the only thing we can all agree on! 
Tarheel_Dem
(31,240 posts)the polls that don't include Biden show Hillary's even stronger.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)
zappaman
(20,606 posts)
R B Garr
(16,979 posts)would make sense since she's a slaughterer.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Are DUers who support her "slaughterers"?
R B Garr
(16,979 posts)He actually called her a billionaire, and it was just this weekend in one of the threads after her announcement.
That same poster came as close to calling her supporters murderers as you can get. I was going to respond to both his claims, but passed.
Your post reminded me of it and cracked me up.
R B Garr
(16,979 posts) 1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)She's at sub-zero for the most important demographic ... DUers.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)
Atman
(31,464 posts)What I triumph! Were any of the people polled even aware that she wasn't the only person running?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)that IS pretty much a requirement for comparison polling.
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,790 posts)The same reason that, on the GOP side, Scott Walkers numbers look better than average in Iowa -- the proximity to Wisconsin.
Gamecock Lefty
(700 posts)I thought Hillary peaked in, um, 2008???
Go get 'em, Hill!!!
Pauldg47
(640 posts)....these pollsters are paid millions.
octoberlib
(14,971 posts)Clinton leads the entire GOP field in hypothetical general election match ups but it's all by pretty modest margins- her advantages range from 3 to 7 points. The Republicans who fare best against Clinton are Ben Carson and Marco Rubio, each of whom trail by 3 points at 46/43. Rubio is the only candidate on either side of the aisle who has a positive favorability rating with the overall electorate- 37% of voters see him favorably to 36% with a negative opinion.
Clinton leads Jeb Bush and Chris Christie each by 4 at 45/41, Scott Walker by 4 as well at 46/42, has a 5 point advantage over Mike Huckabee at 47/42, is up 6 on Carly Fiorina and Ted Cruz at 46/40 and 48/42 respectively, and has a 7 point edge over Rand Paul at 47/40. Clinton's 3 to 7 point lead range is comparable to our April poll when she led by 3 to 9 points, but down from February when we found her leading the GOP hopefuls by 7 to 10 points.
Ben Carson and Marco Rubio only trail by 3 points. Is the american electorate really this stupid?
captainarizona
(363 posts)Hillarys overwhelming edge in democratic minority voters decided this along time ago . It has also decided the general election as minority voters laugh at republican attempts to con them into voting republican. Bernie will do ok in small mostly white states with white democratic voters but thats it.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)Just wait for the debates.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)This is unsurprising.
Sanders will make his gains after the debates and it's going to surprise a lot of people.
tarheelsunc
(2,117 posts)CanadaexPat
(496 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)There are no national primaries , of course, but this augurs well for her when the campaign goes to the more heterogeneous states.
Also, from the survey HRC has 90% and 81% favorability ratings among African Americans and Latinos. Since they comprise such a substantial portion of the primary electorate that augurs well for her too...
Sancho
(9,070 posts)What are you thinking????!!!!
And you posted in GD too!
There must be some kind of rule.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)phleshdef
(11,936 posts)I remember a guy named Obama who was in this position once. I didn't think he had a chance in hell, but he was my candidate. I said to myself then what I am saying now... if its Hillary Clinton in the general, then I'm on team Hillary all the way. I am not the biggest fan. I believe wherever there are Clintons, there is unnecessary drama and I don't believe she is entirely honest sometimes. But her against any given Republican, shit, I'll be wearing her face on my chest and putting her signs on my lawn.
Thats what I said in 2008... but then something unexpected happened and Obama became the Democratic nominee. So who knows, maybe Bernie will pull another upset. I've no ill will toward Hillary Clinton and I believe she'd be a decent President... but Bernie is who I support in my heart and I'm voting my heart.
