Would be a toss up. I heard Bill Krystal this morning pushing for us to vote for Bernie, I wonder why. We still have to work and run the grass roots campaign, never sit back and think we have it wrapped up.

She gave him a huge rhetorical bear hug at her kickoff event yesterday, and then did it over and over again. In my mind I kept comparing it to the way Al Gore distanced himself from Bill Clinton, which IMO turned out to be a huge blunder.

She knows that Barack Obama supporters are going to be crucial to her victory, both in the primaries and in the general election. She is going to keep giving Obama lots of love, and once we are in general election season (disclaimer: if she wins the primary) Obama is going to give her anything and everything she needs in order to win the general.

This isn't 1992. Hillary is trying to recreate the Obama coalition. She's not trying to recreate the Bill Clinton coalition.

as I watched. I think I even shouted at the television: YES!

I want Hillary and so does this President!



Thanks for all the great pictures. The double rainbow. Powerful.

June 1, 2015

Obama 89% Favorable, Hillary 86% Favorable, Sanders 47% Favorable (the base loves Obama & Hillary)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026764290

be happier!

question their agenda, and I have no doubt that Hillary leads in all the polls

How will she cope?

And it was people running from the 'albatross' Barack Obama that was cited as a reason POC didn't turn out in 2012 / 2012.

HRC has endorsed him since 2008 with disagreements (she's NOT a robot) but embraced him to the crowd's cheers in NYC.

I HATE these biased kinds of polls that say things like that, they are just NASTY. It was hard to keep reading after that statement.

NH looks close. I don't see them as the bellwether they once were.

Despite the greatness of the Northeastern USA, a lot of the population moved south and west. Those areas are important electorally and the NE will lose its electoral college advantage as it has in Congress probably.

That is only a guess, not a slur, don't shoot me!

I can hardly wait for the real voting to start and see numbers that will indicate:

A): Who our candidate will be - by the primary voters.

B): Who wins the prom date with the Koch brothers.

C): Who is ahead in the general election.

Really, what else is there to say?

Looking at DU, minds are made up with no change of opinion. It's either gonna be:

#1: Democrats are useless and evil vs Democrats are good.

#2: I'm voting for HRC vs I'm voting for BS.

#3: If HRC gets the nomination, I'm not going to vote, period.

DU has been reduced to that and no issue will change minds.

One thing that worries me greatly about 2016, regardless of the identity of our nominee, is the electorate's modern tendency to rotate the parties in the White House. The Depression gave the Democrats a period of dominance, winning five elections in a row, but since then neither party has won more than twice in a row except for Reagan-Reagan-Bush 41.

One reason Bush overcame the "let's give the other side a chance" mindset was that Reagan was very popular:

(from this story)

By next year, Obama won't have the bad end-of-term poll numbers that afflicted Nixon and Carter, but he probably won't be in Reagan's territory, either. The Democratic nominee will have to worry about being blamed for everything a voter doesn't like about the preceding eight years, whether or not it was actually Obama's fault.

Fortunately it cuts the other way, too -- but we do have to worry about the "time for a change" attitude.

the President campaigning with her and for our Democracy.

That's why I wrote that a Democrat's incumbency cuts both ways.

I agree with your prediction that the nominee will want Obama on the campaign trail. Nevertheless, I'll add my prediction that the nominee will also try to appeal to the change-for-the-sake-of-change voters by distancing himself or herself from Obama to some extent.

In 1960, Richard Nixon was in the same situation -- the candidate from the incumbent President's party. JFK jokingly characterized Nixon's campaign as saying "Things are wonderful and if something isn't done soon they'll get even worse." The tension between those two themes will appear again in 2016.

Remember that, the last time a party won three in a row, its incumbent (Reagan) had a net favorable rating of more than 40 points.

Obama, in recent polling, has never been higher than plus 8, has been as low as minus 7, and is currently averaging plus 1.2 points (per the aggregation by Real Clear Politics) or plus 1.6 points (per the aggregation by HuffPo).

You appear to say that he'll "be an incredible asset" while denying that there will be any problem for the Democratic nominee arising from Obama's incumbency. Among DUers, that may be true. In the overall electorate, however, the Obama factor is more complicated.

it would concern me greatly that he consistently hovers in the mid to low teens in polls that match him against other Democrats. It's becoming clear that those numbers represent his base, and he isn't breaking out of that bracket even though he's been on media constantly for the last month and should be getting a bump from his status as a shiny new presence.

He doesn't seem to get that he needs women, LGBT's and people of color far, far more than we need him.

From a consulting org that I can't recall having heard of before and it's still really early.