Hillary Clinton *drops* to a 49-point lead for the Democrats’ 2016 nomination
Source: W Post
By Scott Clement
The year 2014 brought a mixed bag for Hillary Clinton's presidential hopes. Her popularity continued to decline, her book tour drew mixed reviews (along with her book), and some in the liberal wing of the part are urging Elizabeth Warren to challenge her for the Democratic presidential nomination.
But her status as most prohibitive Democratic front-runner in history has not changed. She remains the overwhelming favorite against both Warren and Vice President Joe Biden.
Sixty-three percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say they'd vote for her if their state's primary (or caucus) were held today, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. Biden garners 14 percent, Warren wins 11 and three other candidates get less than 5 percent each, including Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, former Virginia senator Jim Webb and Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley.
Clinton's 49-point lead is actually her worst performance of the year in Post-ABC polls, with her support slipping 10 points over the course of four surveys this year (the first of which only listed three candidates).
FULL story at link.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), left, and Hillary Clinton attend then-Sen. John Kerry's confirmation hearing to replace Clinton as secretary of state in January 2013 on Capitol Hill. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/12/21/hillary-clinton-drops-to-a-49-point-lead-for-the-democrats-2016-nomination/
FarPoint
(12,209 posts)She has yet to even declare her campaign... I'm in when she throws her hat on the podium.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)The extreme left wing wants a feel good candidacy of Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, both of whom are unelectable. They won't believe it just as baggers won't believe that Ted Cruz or Sarah Palin are unelectable. They collectively believe that only if the nation got to know Sanders/Warren/Cruz/Palin a bit more, they will suddenly embrace their candidacies.
thesquanderer
(11,955 posts)One's opponent can also influence one's electability. You say that Sanders and Warren are both unelectable, as are Cruz and Palin. But what happens if, say, unelectable Warren runs against unelectable Cruz? One of them gets elected...
Just for Fun
(149 posts)Hillary Clinton is Also unelectable.
I support left plaform and progressives. Thats Sanders or Warren.
And you failed to notice that in 2014 elections, progressive issues won, so people doesnt want to choose the lesser of the two evils anymore. I think the country is ready for progressives.
Z_California
(650 posts)What happened when "unelectable" Barack Hussein Obama, the black guy with the middle eastern sounding name, ran against Hillary?
If Elizabeth Warren is "extreme left wing" then you woulda been a Republican 20 years ago.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)and exploited one of Hillary's weaknesses that she had overlooked due to overconfidence. Hillary took the small red state caucuses/primaries for granted and Obama's people won the delegates there overwhelmingly. Hillary won all the big state primaries such as CA, NJ, MI, OH, PA, TX, FL etc. except IL.
Hillary won't make the same mistake again.
Jeb Bush will be the Republican nominee and neither Sanders (a socialist) nor Warren (labeled liberal) stand a chance against him.
Z_California
(650 posts)You seem pretty sure of yourself. Sorry to tell you this but people are tired of politics as usual.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)She will be making history as the first ever female nominee of a major party. It should be exciting for women and liberals.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)HRC will keep us in the Middle East wars for her entire tenure in office, and the expense of that will make anything progressive or humane impossible.
A HRC presidency means the cuts in the social wage will never stop.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)JonLP24
(29,322 posts)Hillary Clinton is a gaffe machine that will look like a phony trying to appeal to the unelectable liberals. I doubt she'd energize new & young voters much like Obama did that someone like Warren certainly will. She often talks about student loans for example.
Response to Ken Burch (Reply #49)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Anybody who did could pm me and clue me in. Just wondering what sort of a nastygram I got there.
PassingFair
(22,434 posts)Hillary doesn't excite me.
As soon as ANY progressive throws her/his hat in the ring
she will drop like a stone.
Just for Fun
(149 posts)Hillary favors the 1% and itll be same as usual in other words, the 99% gets screwed based on her policies.
brooklynite
(93,873 posts)Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)What's your point?
brooklynite
(93,873 posts)DonCoquixote
(13,615 posts)The UK is still recovering from her legacy...we do not need the American version of Maggie Thatcher.
Z_California
(650 posts)Then unelectable Barack Hussein Obama won the general election. Remember?
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)and people's distaste of GWB. In 2008, pretty much any democrat -- even McGovern would have won.
Stellar
(5,644 posts)nt
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)Reter
(2,188 posts)While there are a lot of us here who don't like Clinton, Republicans hate Jeb with a passion.
thesquanderer
(11,955 posts)...doesn't that show that circumstances are unpredictable, and that therefore another "unelectable" (according to conventional wisdom) candidate can also win, if things fall the right way? And a lot can happen in two years...
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)Nothing economically catastrophic is going to happen to make Warren or Sanders electable in 2016.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)cosmicone
(11,014 posts)In any event, I wouldn't support a candidate whose electability depends upon some catastrophic event changing the dynamics of the electorate.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)thesquanderer
(11,955 posts)re: "Nothing economically catastrophic is going to happen to make Warren or Sanders electable in 2016."
I was replying to your post 23 (that "unelelctable" Obama was helped by Hillary fumbles) rather than your post 27 (that "unelectable" Obama was helped by economic disaster). But that only reinforces the point, there is more than one way that an "unelectable" candidate can ultimately win. And if I remember correctly, early on, nobody thought Carter or Bill Clinton had a chance. Things change...
At any rate, if an economic catastrophe DID happen before the 2016 election, it would probably favor the Republican, since the incumbent is a Democrat. So for many reasons, let's hope that such a thing doesn't happen!
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The GOP Congress is going to force through a lot of economic deregulation in the next two years, everytime a shutdown sitch occurs.
You don't think that will push us towards 1929 conditions?
The voters are not going to want a centrist, status quo, pro-military intervention candidate from us in 2016. They are sick of war and sick of surveillance and sick of the national security state paranoia.
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)cosmicone
(11,014 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)(Oh, wait...did you mean in American politics?)
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)"Hindu nationalist" is a derogatory term started to be used by pro-terrorist Islamic cells.
For your information, I am not a supporter of Hindu nationalist movements but a supporter of secularism. I vehemently oppose doctrines like "Islam will dominate the world" which are also opposed by Christians, Jews, Buddhists and Sikhs.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Support for the fantasy of a "caliphate" is a distinctly minority position among Muslims, most of whom are just quiet, ordinary people trying to make it through the day, like anyone else.
And you support the current governing party of India that wants that country to be Hindu-supremacist and claims, contrary to reality, that Indian Muslims get special privileges that are denied to Hindus.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)Indian Muslims do get special treatment. You need to live in India for a few years like I did.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)And you're putting Warren next to Palin?
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)Palin is an extreme right example of a popular person in a small segment which thinks she is electable.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)You'd at least have to concede that both of them, as opposed to Palin, would actually be competent in the job.
No one on the progressive side of the political spectrum ever deserves to be compared to Sarah Palin.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)This was not a comparison of competence but obvioulsy, I was comparing the popularity in the extreme wings and unelectability.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Palin isn't extreme right, either. She's just dumb.
demigoddess
(6,640 posts)But get Hillary elected and Warren would be a great ally.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)No mountain climbable until someone climbs it. No nominee is electable until they are elected.
Additionally, I think that ascribing "feel-good" motives to voters who are simply following the strength of their own convictions illustrates more about the shallowness of the speaker than it does his targets.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)Ideally, I'd like all militaries to be disbanded and all hungry children fed. Ideally, I'd like a cure for every disease and ailment. Ideally, everyone would have a satisfying job that pays well. Ideally, I'd want everyone's old age to be fulfilling and with adequate resources from pensions. Ideally, I'd like no racism and hatred to exist.
The strength of those convictions won't take me far. The world belongs to pragmatic people who cut deals and settle for an attainable 85% rather than an unattainable 100%.
We have tried the candidacy of a pure liberal -- George McGovern. Everyone knows how it worked.
For me, I prefer to keep my feet on solid ground.
reddread
(6,896 posts)do you believe in evolution?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)ffr
(22,649 posts)FarPoint
(12,209 posts)Senator Sherrod Brown (D, Ohio).....
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)I know, we can't stand him on DU, but he gets the job done when it comes to foreign policy, and according to the Constitution, that's job 1 of a US president.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)IMO.
FarPoint
(12,209 posts)Feel free to review world history regarding age of powerful and influencial women...The seasoning of life can garner great rewards for humanity from such learned wisdom.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)I believe nobody has yet announced. I'd support Kristen Gillibrand (yes, I know she's endorsed a potential Hillary run, I don't care about that).
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Hillary is not too old imo.
NYC Liberal
(20,132 posts)Biden is 5 years older.
FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)However, she would be an effective president and much productive getting legislation passed than most.
It would be wonderful to have Warren as president, but I'll happily vote for Hillary if she is the nominee.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Glad she is inevitable, I don't have to do anything to help. Contribute, campaign, vote.
It like removing all the effort I put in for Obama campaigns this time. Very freeing.
Thanks Hillary! GO HILLARY!
Who is the Republican president going to be? Thought I would get used to the idea early.
pocoloco
(3,180 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)eyes. Like Hillary in that regard.
GO HILLARY! WE LOVE YOU HILLARY!
nichomachus
(12,754 posts)The last thing Hillary needs or wants is to be inevitable. It's the last thing her money men want. If she is inevitable, campaign contributions will dry up. That's why elections are always too close to call, with results being "within the margin of error." When the time is closer, Hillary will be neck and neck with someone, the doom-and-gloom emails will be flooding your inbox, and your phone will be ringing off the hook. (I guess that's another expression that we need to retire, since a lot of young people don't know what it means.)
""We need to raise another $2 million by midnight or the earth will stop spinning. Help!"
karynnj
(59,475 posts)did in her much longer time in the Senate, I think Warren is at least competitive. Parts of the bill that Warren pushed on student loans actually was implemented by an Obama executive action - and he called on Congress to finish the parts not completed. There is nothing I can think of that were comparable for HRC in her Senate years. (Yes I remember the long list of all the bills on which she was a cosponsor) Before she was Senator, she was - per Dodd and Frank - the architect and leading force behind the consumer bureau - in addition to helping them put teeth in the bill.
However, I do think HRC will be our nominee. As President, there is no way to know who would be better getting out legislation. It will actually depend more on the dynamics in the Congress. What is good is that BOTH have experience with the Congress. I suspect that if the Clintons would have had more experience with the Congress before 1992, they would have known that they should have included key Congressmen and Senators into the design of the healthcare bill. This would have gained their experience and actually coopted them into selling it to their peers. At this point, both have experience with how the Congress works and THAT is the real asset both have from their time in the Senate.
On legislation, it is both finding a candidate that has the same goals you have and who has that ability to know how to deal with the legislature. I remember in 2007, when pressured to speak about the Democrats in the race, Kerry listed the key issues and pointed out that EVERY Democrat running was better than EVERY Republican running. That is very likely to be even more so this time -- because the two parties are very very different, unlike in the 1970s or 1980s when there were conservatives, moderates and liberals in both parties.
In addition, Hillary Clinton did gain from having been Secretary of State. In that position, her job revolved around our interaction with the rest of the world. Just being in that position, has to give one a different perspective on the role of the US and the role of our President in the world. That 4 year experience, rather than a list of things accomplished by her as SoS, may be the real value of her being in that job. First and foremost, it should not rest on having to prove how successful she was compared to other Secretaries of State - be they Kissinger or Kerry.
.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)I think I'd agree though from the left coast it's hard to see the Warren appeal. Lining her up against Clinton makes Clinton the better Dem candidate, more electable and more predictable. Warren writes a mean fundraising letter but apart from relentless self-promotion and a rather unpleasant habit of showboating it's hard to know exactly where she stands on anything. Anyway she doesn't look very happy in that Kerry confirmation photo and she recently issued a Daryl Issa style letter demanding info on TPP, which is in Kerry's bailiwick, so I'm wondering if she has a contentious relationship with Kerry?
p.s. Kerry doesn't look particularly pleased either
karynnj
(59,475 posts)and she was one of the people who spoke for him when he was nominated for SoS. If you look at the full video of the hearing, they seemed friendly. Kerry did campaign for her in 2012.
I went to a Faneuil Hall good bye that Kerry, the culmination of a day when he said good bye to MA. (I went with a few other DU JK people) Most of the MA political world (Democratic) was there. He joked that Warren was becoming the Senior Senator only 2 months into being elected herself. She congratulated him warmly and wished him well as SoS, noting that he had been very helpful in the few months since she won election and that she would have hoped to have his guidance for a longer time, but then expressed her opinion that he would be a great SoS. (This is all from memory and this was, of course, 2 politicians of the same party speaking at a public event that was a celebration for Kerry.)
I do know that one key person in Warren's campaign ran Kerry's 2008 campaign in MA and was fiercely loyal to Kerry and was working for Kerry in his Boston office afterwards. He took a leave to work the Warren campaign and now is, working in Warren's office.
I don't think that her letter was "Issa like" - and the committee she is on should get information on TPP, his Clinton was a key person on when she was SoS. Her action here was most certainly not anti- Kerry, anti- Obama or anti- anybody --- just diligent oversight.
Did you have a problem with letters Kerry and Lugar wrote on several State issues asking for more information on things like the various aid programs were an indication that Kerry was against Clinton or Obama?
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)And frankly the Jan. 6 deadline seems a little tight considering the season. I never got the impression that Kerry was publicly challenging Clinton or Obama, but I regularly get that impression from Warren. Her Nov. 7 op-ed in the not-exactly-Obama-friendly Wash Post is a good example, and she does explicitly mention the president, as she did in her budget speech that for all the world came off as a Cruz-like effort to shut down the government. From WaPo:
Nasty and unwarranted, pardon the pun. Anyway that's my impression of Warren and so far it isn't particularly favorable.
karynnj
(59,475 posts)Kerry's letters were always polite, straightforward and not overtly confrontational. That does not mean that he does not ask the tough questions. More than almost anyone else he always did - even when it was to Hillary.
Warren is not rude, nor is she just playing to the left. It is frustrating that even the Senators do not have the real current text of the TPP. It is also true that it is still be negotiated with other countries. I don't know at what stage other trade treaties were disclosed to Congress. IF this is being hidden more than usual, they should reveal it -- or if this is typical, explain that and the reason for it.
I am impressed by what she did on Dodd/Frank -- and impressed that Frank was impressed. I also think it is great that she is focusing on student loans.
That said, the person I was most impressed with over a long history of voting since 1972and wanting to vote in 1968 was Kerry. He was also the only one I thought was "undersold" - because in 2004 the more I read of his history, the more impressed I became. In the 10 years since, he has shown that he really was the real deal. Only recently have I seen that having him as SoS and Obama coming in with the Congress firmly in Democratic hands, may have been the best for the country.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)We are not immune to the shiny-of-the-month fads.
Clinton will be our nominee if she wamts it, and her inevitability will engender resentment. Her numbers will ebb and flow, whether or not she gets primaried.
Response to FLPanhandle (Reply #2)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)A bad position to be in. She has what is needed to go against the GOP candidates, I am looking to a strong primary run and on to the general election.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)reddread
(6,896 posts)her flameout will be the biggest problem the third way has ever had.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)They need a horse race.
paleotn
(17,781 posts)...like we had in 2008. What we don't need is a single candidate coronation where we're all supposed to shut the hell up, bow and kiss her damn ring.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)groundloop
(11,488 posts)So many people (and it seems like liberals especially) get into the mindset that they'll never vote for this or that candidate if nominated because they don't have the proper views on a handful of topics. We always need to remember that elections are about making a choice between X and Y (and sometimes Z), which one of those choices comes closest to my views. No candidate is going to exactly match my viewpoint 100% of the time, I have to choose the candidate that matches my views more often than the other candidate. I'd strongly support Elizabeth Warren over Hillary in the primary because Warren is closer to my fundamental views. When we get to the general election, if Hillary ends up being the nominee, I'll strongly support her over ANY candidate the GOPers put up because having a President that I agree with 70% of the time is far better than one whom I agree with only 20% of the time.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)Which is why Warren won't play along.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)In the 2008 election there were so many great candidates to choose from and I got behind Obama the year before and stuck with him all the way.
This time I might well just sit on my hands the entire election (at least when it comes to the presidential candidates). Having voted in six presidential elections, it would be a shame if it came down to that.
Omaha Steve
(99,073 posts)joshcryer
(62,265 posts)One turned into a pathetic "cat fight." All so the media can get views.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)If HRC is nominated, it's conservatism and militarism no matter who wins.
And it means Wall Street controls our party just as much as it controls the GOP.
Principles matter.
"Winning" isn't worth causing more inequality at home and more war abroad.
The voters aren't demanding that the president be a warmonger abroad and a miser to workers and the poor.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)2016 only matters if our nomination contest is competitive and involves real debate.
A coronation will make the convention useless and drain any enthusiasm out of the party for the fall.
Why are you so thrilled about the candidacy of the most right-wing person we could possibly nominate?
HRC is an unquestioning supporter of the post-1945 foreign policy status quo, and that guarantees that she is incapable of doing anything creative or progressive in our approach to the rest of the world. She will continue to back globalization(economic imperialism), will continue to push for corporate dominance of all aspects of life, and will continue to keep activists, labor, and the poor totally out in the cold as Bill did in the Nineties.
Yes, she might "win", but so what? Is flipping the Supreme Court WORTH never ever getting U.S. troops out of the Middle East?
WhoWoodaKnew
(847 posts)Hate to say it but I wouldn't be surprised at all.
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)Jeb or Hillary?
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)The Dems can crow about having a "Dem" in the Oval Office and the Rethugs can take heart that the path to their goals will be easy - and they won't even have to be totally obstructionist with their two thirds of governing.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)Nailed it....good one
RedstDem
(1,239 posts)The closer the election, the more it will drop.
That's just the way it goes when you start on the top.
liberal N proud
(60,302 posts)A 49 points not a 49%
WillTwain
(1,489 posts)At this point, she polls well ahead of both of George Bush's daughters.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)d_b
(7,451 posts)We can work together to bring it down to 39
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)and I seriously doubt she will in the future.
Just for Fun
(149 posts)And she will not get the nomination again. Inevitablity doesnt work. Never will. See also: 2008 elections.
Texx
(3 posts)He is progressive and could potentially carry all of the blue major cities in the primaries. Thoughts?
marble falls
(56,359 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)brooklynite
(93,873 posts)reddread
(6,896 posts)feel free to list them all.
or just one.
marble falls
(56,359 posts)How many Sectry's of State have run for President?
reddread
(6,896 posts)a woman in a blue dress making cookies, singing "Stand by your Man"
fade to black
"HILLARY 2016"
this message brought to you by The Open Marriage Council.
marble falls
(56,359 posts)so much as turn the conversation.
reddread
(6,896 posts)there are certainly a number of genuine, fundamental issues the GOP would not take HRC to task over (if only in practice).
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)brooklynite
(93,873 posts)How does he win the suburbs and rural areas?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Those places are automatically going to vote against her just because she's pro-choice and a woman who was alive in the 1960's. It's not like they'd say "that doesn't matter 'cause she's also pro-war and pro-Wall Street". And rural areas don't like "free trade", because they've been screwed by it.
olddots
(10,237 posts)Getting To Know You ......getting to know all about you .........
fbc
(1,668 posts)KinMd
(966 posts)Hillary's been in a debate or two, plus I believe a debate between then wouldn't be all that contentious. They'd agree on most issues.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)If she wins the nomination, we will have a repeat of the last election.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)yellowcanine
(35,692 posts)"Fluffy news."
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)The OP and article make "news" from a biased
and relatively uniforming poll.
Why doesn't the polling company ask about NAME RECOGNITION?
Are the respondents even familiar with the other candidates?
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/politics/washington-post-abc-news-poll-december-11-14-2014/1516/
As to the relative usefulness of this survey:
Dec. 11 - 14, 2014, among a random national sample of 1,000 adults, including landline
and cell phone-only respondents. Overall results have margin of sampling error of 3.5 percentage points. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by Abt-SRBI of New York. Additional methodological information available at "Data: Complete trends over time" link.
So in essence, 1000 people were surveyed.
75% of the respondents were male
(if I read the appendix correctly)
The statistics were "weighted" to reflect the
general population distribution.
It is NOT the ACTUAL % of respondents replies, it's "weighted".
Of the 1000 people surveyed it's unclear how many
were Democratic voters? Let's assume 50%.
Soooo, of 500 people who "lean Democrat" 315
would vote for Hillary!
315 people!
(hypothetically of course since we don't have the actual numbers)
What a load of CRAP intended to mislead readers
into believing Hillary has wide and deep support
amongst Democratic voters... 63% = 300 people pfft
Not to mention there is NO real data on
race/ethnicity, economics, education, geography, etc.
Polls like this one cited serve no purpose but to mislead.