and public support a mile wide and an inch deep.

Yeah, I think he's taken the measure of the situation.

Nobody is Passionate about Hillary. Not even the Fangrrls.

but everybody else is looking at them like they're nuts. The consensus seems to be "I'll vote for her but I hope I don't have to."

They have explicitly said so. I expect there are plenty more who feel the same way.

Partisan Republicans obviously loathe her. She has intense detractors from the left. But I believe there are millions of ordinary Americans who respect her and admire her. I think she'd be a formidable Democratic candidate.

and that Clinton has not declared herself to be a candidate. That's the reason for the conditional form "would vote" rather than the simple future form "will vote".

She may or may not run. I certainly don't know if she will or won't and she may not know herself. It's obviously a huge decision.

I'm way, way to the left of Hillary Clinton. I'm merely way to the left of Elizabeth Warren. I think Elizabeth Warren would be trounced in a national election against a Republican. If Hillary doesn't run, I expect that we'll have a Republican president. I'm in a deep red state so my vote counts for little. Maybe I'll vote Justice Party again and see if they can improve from their 0.03% showing last election.

there were a number of indications in my last post from which you could reasonably infer where I might stand regarding the desirability of a "corporatist war hawk leading our country".

1. "I'm way, way to the left of Hillary Clinton"
2. "I'm...way to the left of Elizabeth Warren"
3. "Maybe I'll vote Justice Party again"

In case you still need confirmation, the answer is no, I don't think we need a "corporatist war hawk leading our country".

My agenda for the country would include abolishing private ownership of land, rescinding most corporate charters, reducing the size of the military by around 90%, an immediate and permanent ban on the use of chemical pesticides and herbicides, freezing the construction or expansion of all new concrete roadways, complete nationwide decriminalization of marijuana, and a constitutional amendment enshrining the protection of the living environment and the principle of sustainability as part of our most important national purpose.

It's extremely unlikely that my ideal candidate will appear in this lifetime. Meanwhile, I'll vote to elect the candidate who will do the least harm.

or in 1972, Edmond Muskie. Establishment candidate. She even, allegedly, still uses Mark Penn. Yeesh.
OTOH, I will vote for whoever gets put up. There is simply no underestimating the bottomless cruelty of the Republican Party at this point. So, put in a Dem, and then prepare to fight for what you want. As always.

He was so much more than that. I think your analogy is spot on, unfortunately, but I just wish we'd remember HHH for more than failing to get elected as the incumbent's stand-in in the middle of a massively unpopular war.

Kennedy was seen as a risk because he was Catholic. He won the nomination and then the general election.
Humphrey was, lost the general.
McGovern wasn't, lost the general.
Carter wasn't, and won the general.
Dukakis kind of was, lost the general.
Mondale was, lost the general.
Clinton wasn't, and won, twice.
Gore was, and lost.
Kerry was, and lost. (Of course, whether either of these two really lost is disputed.)
Obama wasn't, and won, twice.

Establishment candidates don't have a good history.

Board of Directors... And the whole $Money$ thing not very helpful when a populist movement is forming... Elizabeth Warren is the ONLY choice IF you actually want to change the direction of this country. Just a thought. Like say regulate Wall Street... restore Glass Steagal and repeal the Commodities Futures Modernization Act. BOTH of which Bill was responsible for signing into law... Repealed Glass Steagal and signed the CFMA.. Together this combined legislation opened the door to the Wild West CDO's and Credit Default Swaps. Warren has the Knowledge, Integrity and Courage to put this "horse" back in the barn where it belongs. She has no "obligations" to Wall Street unlike the Clinton(s).

Her health declines or she's assassinated (a very definite possibility), she's the next president.

That should really be at the top of the list.

Warren is supporting Hilary enthusiastically

I think the characterization of her statement as "almost an endorsement" is fairly accurate.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/2014/0428/Elizabeth-Warren-Almost-an-endorsement-of-Hillary-Clinton-2016-video

That's how I read her comments. I believe she also signed the letter from the female Democratic Senators encouraging Hillary to run.

A few have coyly implied they aren't running, but that should be taken with a grain or two of salt.

... just as they've been trained to do since 1988.

Democratic turnout for her will be poor, as many Dems see her for what she really is - a neo-con pretending to be a Democrat.

Then there's the gaffs, a long list that seemingly grows longer every day.


She can't win. If she runs, she will lose, and it won't be close.

Why would they have it together against Hillary?

1.) Obama is a vastly better candidate than HRC.

2.) People like Obama...a lot more than Hillary. One gets the impression that electoral campaigns are something she simply hates doing...and it shows on her face and in her demeanor. She's better one-on-one...but she doesn't have the energy to dominate a room the way Obama does either; nobody does. He's JFK-like. It would probably help Clinton if she actually wasn't so prepared and composed...it comes across flat. One gets the impression that her main hobby is planning to run for President. Go skiing. Invite the media. Go out to dinner. Invite the media...be a person. People like people, they don't necessarily like candidates. Hillary won't beat a Republican that comes across as more human in a long campaign.

3.) Party in power...party of blame. The GOP fucked it up, the GOP keeps it fucked up, the longer it remains fucked up, the more of the blame and anger will shift to Democrats for failing to fix it.

4.) I think the GOP couldn't possibly fall into another candidate as bad as Mitt. Let's be honest too...we've lucked into them choosing grenades as running mates. I'm surprised Paul Ryan is still electable and Sarah Palin is...um...well...Sarah Palin.

And the biggest one I'm scared of is #3. In my lifetime , I've only seen the party in the WH 8 yrs win again once with George HW . Prior to that it was Truman in a situation similar to LBJ except JFK was there less than 4 yrs.

I guess we shall see.

and a respected U.S. Secretary of State. Millions of ordinary Americans respect her and view her favorably. What some of her detractors call her "baggage" is dismissed as noise or mean-spirited foolishness by a lot of people who aren't wrapped up in the 24-hour political news cycle -- which is a LOT of people.

As the Republicans "understand the 'banksters' are the real problem" ?!?

Serious question: have you ever met a real live Republican in your life? Ever? Or do you just read about them on the D.U?

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

http://www.thenation.com/blog/180189/eric-cantor-defeated-conservative-who-rips-crony-capitalism#





Now doesn't “I am running against Cantor because he does not represent the citizens of the 7th District, but rather large corporations seeking insider deals, crony bailouts and a constant supply of low-wage workers,” sound like the message that should be coming from a Democrat?

You can hardly talk to the other side of your own party. I seriously doubt you have any Republican you speak to on a regular basis.

Brat won due to one issue and one issue alone: illegal immigration. It splits the Republican party in exactly the same way as it splits Democrats (for different reasons: the GOPs concerns are largely racial, they are not at all worked up about illegal Russian immigration, for instance). However, Elizabeth Warren is on the side of the Dream Act, which puts her squarely against all the Brat voters. So there is no pickup for Warren advocates there - and she knows it too.

If you imagine that Republican tea-party types are just far lefties itching for a "real" Democrat, you're dreaming. I can tell you that from direct experience (from where I'm from, I'm considered damned near socialist).

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/26/section-3-fairness-of-the-economic-system-views-of-the-poor-and-the-social-safety-net/

...then we'll talk. But so far, even though Tea Party members think fairness is a serious issue, the ones I know think of it in terms of East coast liberal elites denigrating flyover country, letting illegals into the country, dedicating massive amounts of their tax dollars to welfare cheats and illegals (*), corporations that are immoral because they're godless, and complaining about onerous environmental regulations that keep small businesses down.

Which is why a pro-environment, nonsectarian, Democrat who is in favor of the Dream act won't ever get their vote. Period.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

(*) Yes, I'm aware that this isn't actually true.

That's what happened in 2006. Her current pseduo-campaign appears to be following the same inevitability playbook, just pushing inevitability even harder.

Clinton's favorbles in polling were quite nice. Then she started her current not-declared-yet campaign. Her favorables went from 70-something to 40-something.

That should be EXTREMELY troubling.

But she isn't being aggressive for whatever reason. She's at her best when she's aggressive. Her testimony before that committee on Benghazi, and the way she handled herself sent her numbers up. I think it's a balancing act right now. She hasn't announced and won't for another 6 months. Once she does she'll be different , the Hillary we know.

I don't see a reason to expect a different outcome from the exact same strategy.

She lost the nomination because she got out-organized. Obama had the better organization. But both primary campaigns were exemplary. I supported Hillary but was just as happy with Obama.

Now if you're referring to the utter disdain the far left that supported Obama has for her, it really doesn't matter. She can win with them and without them. They are not as important to success as they think they are. They didn't like her then and don't like her now.

And the GOP has nobody. Literally nobody. They'll have a candidate on the ballot but she's probably looking at 400+ electoral votes. People may not like her, but the GOP scares the hell outa people.

Obama "out-organized" because of better favorability. People liked him better, so they worked for him instead of Clinton.

Why's inevitability bad?
1) She lost.

If she was inevitable, that wouldn't happen. So you can explode her entire campaign with a casual reference to 6 years ago.

An "inevitability" strategy didn't work last time, and was an especially bad choice after losing Iowa. Running on inevitability again in 2016 is even dumber because she lost in 2008. She needs a new strategy. Hopefully, she'll have one after she announces and it's just her proxies that are running with the 2008 strategy.

B) This:

An inevitability strategy means fewer votes. If she's going to win no matter what, why should I bother voting? That question gets asked by lots and lots of voters. The result is something resembling Eric Cantor's loss - everyone was sure he would win, so lots of people who would vote for him stayed home.

Clinton, like all Democrats, needs high turnout. "I'll win even if you stay home" does not generate high turnout.

3) "I'll win no matter what" doesn't give a reason to vote for her.

Most Republicans are motivated by voting against something. They're conservative, so they feel like they're holding back a flood of changes. So voting against something fits very nicely with their beliefs.

Most Democrats are motivated by voting for something. They want that flood of changes. They want something to happen, not prevent something from happening.

Inevitability does not serve that. That is why Clinton lost in 2008. All the excuses about "better organization" or "better speeches" come down to Obama gave Democrats a reason to vote for him So they organized for him. They worked very hard in order to get him elected. Clinton did not give Democrats a reason to vote for her. Instead, her strategy was she would win anyway, so voters might as well come along.

You have to give Democrats a reason to vote for you in order to win. Otherwise, you're basically going to tie the Republican, and you've left the election to a coin-flip by a tiny sliver of voters. And the Republican might win that coin flip. For an example, take a look at 2000.


And in 2006, Giuliani was the inevitable Republican candidate. How'd that turn out again?

The fact that she does not have a serious Republican threat right now is due to it being very far from the election. She will have a formidable Republican candidate. And "I'm going to win anyway" is not a strategy that can beat him, only tie him. Leaving the election down to the coin flip of that tiny sliver of voters. Repeating 2000 should be very troubling for any Democrat.

I really wish you were right, but that is not really true or we would be looking at gaining seats in the Senate and not HOPING to keep the Senate with a tie or one vote. Seriously, I don't see people being afraid of individual Republicans, but Republicans as a whole are not popular.

The ones calling her inevitable then and now were the media.

but, assuming she runs, to whom? I have a feeling that if she announces, she will immediately take the winds out of the sails of any prospective Democratic challenger. Many Democrats have essentially communicated to her that the nomination is basically hers if she wants it. Then, it's just a matter of finding out who the GOP decides to run against her. After 2000 or, heck, even 2008, NOTHING should be automatically assumed but I have a hard time- short of her being knocked out of race or her not running at all- envisioning a scenario where she loses to a Republican candidate unless they run somebody superior to her but I have no idea who that person is at this point. She's got a strong and formidible personality, her husband and her both have a good political legacy established, and she is on the right side of most major political issues of the day and Republicans have none of those. I do wonder though- if she runs- if she will try to limit herself to a single term and run with somebody who she wants to help prepare for having the party put up in 2020 to succeed her? That way, she gets her wish of running for POTUS again and potentially serving in the WH without committing herself to a full 8 years.

No woman or African American male can win 2016 unless the pukes nominate a complete and utter asshole. Obama represents a huge change and most voters will need the time to analyze that change. People will need to take some time to realize that he didn’t drive the nation over a cliff.
Hillary on the other hand, carries extra baggage. Even though it really wasn’t the fault of the Clinton's, those of us who are old enough to remember the 90’s remember all the strife and anger that they aroused and do not want a repeat of it, especially after all the strife and anger directed at Obama. Most low information voters just want a little peace and are not astute enough to lay blame where it actually belongs

Hillary running, the republicans will lay down and smoke some dope while democrats take it again. They are ruthless, and, frankly, I want somebody that can deal with them effectively. That spells "Clintons" to me, whatever anyone says to the contrary.

Hillary has very high negatives, she's too cosy with Wall St for my liking and some people have never forgiven her for her IWR vote. But she's also got a hell of a lot of very passionate fans, had a decent stint as SoS and, barring a Warren run, the nomination is probably hers for teh taking.

because she was out of political office. This typically happens to nearly all politicians once they leave office; their favorables increase! Hell, even George Dumbya Bush's numbers increased after he left office.

But for some reason, people tend to forget how much this country hated the Clintons. The ReThugs only pretend to like them now because of Obama. To divide the Democrats, especially along racial lines.

Bush? Cruz? Paul? Perry? Against the gop idiot machine she has an excellent chance.

So could anybody else the Democrats nominate and most of them by a wider margin.

The Obama campaign showed she was a weak campaigner and couldn't excite any segment of the party. That would be worrisome against the republican onslaught in a presidential campaign.

On the other hand, most voters would see her as being a candidate who would bring stability to the office - a known quantity associated with a very successful prior president. She'll run as she is, slightly right of center. A majority of voters may find that much preferable to a republican bomb thrower or deja bush.

I like her chances to win unless circumstances change significantly.

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2014/06/05/poll-hillary-clinton-leading-all-republican-contenders-in-2016-presidential-race/

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html

have given her some special status as though she doesn't even have to work for it and it's automatically hers.

People don't like to be told who to vote for who who's inevitable. That creates resentment. And worse, it could backfire because unenthusiastic voters, especially ones in Blue States could choose to stay home if they think Hillary is going to win anyway. Cantor is an important case study.

Be mindful of hubris, Democrats! It can bite you in the ass!

Kinda a big clue that it won't be a cakewalk if she is the candidate.

A lot depends on the VP selection as McCain soon found, I think the DNC candidate has a very good chance unless the GOP pulls a new rabbit out of the bag. DNC doesn't have a perfect candidate but we have a much better pool. Those who thinks their candidate is perfect, got news, no such creature.

This is not about whether you like Hillary. This is about keeping your healthcare, your voting rights, protecting the environment, educating our children, and jobs. It's that simple.

And given shifting demographics and electoral math on the national level, a GOP candidate is all-but-unelectable. For the fringe candidates such as Ted Cruz it would be a total wipeout.

here on DU -- and lots of other places also -- who were totally convinced of The Inevitability of Hillary. It was her time, they said. She was far and away the best candidate, they said. The challengers were pesky little gnats with little experience and no ideas, they said.

The Hillary supporters were often quite vicious to anyone who dared question her, and especially her inevitability. A vocal minority even said they wouldn't vote if she weren't the nominee.

Hillary ran a terrible campaign in many ways. She fell flat in many debates, alienated potential supporters, had a tough time with many of her campaign staff.

And now a lot of people think that none of that ever happened. That maybe she didn't really run back then and do such a bad job of it. Or that it just doesn't matter what happened then, because This Time It's Different.

Wait, wait. Is she even running? No? Why do you not believe her when she says she's not, but you totally believe Elizabeth Warren when she says she's not running?

Followed in short order by Nancy Pelosi and Elizabeth Warren. The nomination could be hers if she wants it! She has middle class roots and was born in the midwest (Chicago). She needs to start voicing those middle class values. I want to be energized to vote for Hillary she is so qualified. I don't want to feel its my duty to vote for her.

For example this week somebody asked her what her favorite book was and she said the bible. I find it hard to believe that the bible is her favorite book and she could have said anything else. I remember when they asked Bill that question back in the 90's he said some book by Walter Mosley but the jist of it was that he liked mysteries.

Plain and simple. No matter what she picked.

And unlike Obama, who at least they used some code words and phrasing early on, the Republicans will be even more vicious this time around because we've seen how they treat women in the political sphere these last few years, heavily enabled by talk radio and their base/pundits.

the truth if you like mysteries or trashy novels just say it nobody cares. All I'm saying is be real when you can not everything requires a measured response and in truth I think Obama falls into that trap alot too.

If she does nothing more than fix the mistakes she made tactically against Obama, she wins the nomination easily and there is no Repug who can touch her in the general.

the GOP is going to nominate. I think 2016 will be a very strong year for democrats and we should take advantage of it and nominate a real progressive instead of someone who is part of the Washington establishment machine

One has to wonder then, why would she run if you know this shit storm is coming from the right? Lots to go on. History?

We need to pull another Barack Obama election. Someone new without a lot of background for the right to spew around. And someone that knows how to talk the talk, and walk the walk. Based on information obtained from the right in the past 6 years, it could never be a black person, or a woman. And definitely someone with a birth certificate.

Never been excited about Hilary as president. Didn't vote for her before and if someone else runs, I will probably vote for someone else. To me she is a corporatist and a hawk and that is someone I don't want for my President.

We all know that anything can happen in an election year. What bothers me most, is the loss of good candidates, who might not want to run because of the money spent denigrating them and tearing their families down, and the utter futility as they watch their own party piling on.

I realize that some people have an honest antagonistic view of Hillary Clinton; however, a lot have their own agenda, preventing an excellent democratic candidate from occupying the white house again,

By all means, contribute to the maelstrom knocking at the democratic gates, and throw in a bunch of possible candidates, who cannot raise money, have questionable experience, and who, for the most part, support Hillary all the way; exactly what the opposition wants you to do; that is, tear down what they fear the most, so they don't have to lift a finger.

There is a place for debate among democrats who want someone else; but, please do not throw candidates in the mix who have expressed no desire to challenge her, and who have constantly stated their support for her.

I believe it was China who said they could conquer us from within, without firing a shot.

Purchased anything lately without a "Made in China" label?

She can totally win.

It's up to the American people to make that decision. It will be interesting to see what happens in 2016, either way, whether she runs or not.

Rand Paul? Ted Cruz?? Romney again? or Chris Christie??

forgive me if I don't see that as happening yet. OTOH, I thought Reagan was too extreme to get elected and I underestimated how badly Jimmy Carter had messed things up.

I think the more fundamental question is, who cares? The candidates usually offered by the two major parties are almost exclusively corporate State fascists who kowtow to the financial establishment and the military industrial complex. I boggles the mind why ANY sane person could support Hilary Clinton in 2014. Not that the Republican candidates would be any better. However, shouldn't the current state of affairs at the very least make people averse to political dynasties? Do we really need another Clinton or another Bush in the White House? Clinton, who voted for the Iraq War, whose husband presided over the repeal of Glass Steagle, the institution of NAFTA, the sanctions against Iraq and many other atrocities.

People look back fondly on the Clinton Administration, but he set the stage for so many of the repercussions that followed in the fourteen years since. He has a lot of culpability in our downfall as a nation and that should not be forgotten.

So any sane leftist should reject Hilary Clinton without a second thought.

Yeah, there's no difference whatsoever between a Democratic president and a Republican.

respective parties. I feel the country has had enough of the two families.

Having said that, I also believe if HRC is our nominee, Jeb will be the GOP's. It's not going to be pretty.
I honestly feel, if that happens, a third party candidate could swoop in and make history.

She lost to Obama.


I think if the GOP runs a populist campaign against her and her Wall Street ties.

without getting laughed off the stage? Hillary is vulnerable to a populist campaign, but I see that as being more of a threat during the primaries than during general election season.

She was a sure bet last time till Obama showed up. Warren could do the same thing to her.

Hillary will lock up the nomination before Easter, and win 320+ electoral votes against whatever challenger the Republicretins put up.

And I no longer like his satire -- much too sour for my taste.

Hekate
*No, my 2016 ballot is not filled in yet

But I think we'll still win on a technicality - the Latino vote. Until Congress changes discourse on immigration, the Latino vote is way too big to ignore and they hate the republicans.

I am not sure why Maher thinks that Hillary would be embarrassed to have her husband campaign for her. It makes sense for a VP to want to prove that he is his own man. But a couple is a package deal. Hillary does not become less of a woman for being married to Bill any more than Bill becomes less of a man for being married to Hillary. Each of them is enhanced by the other.

Would Obama keep Michelle in the background? No way. So, why should Hillary keep Bill at home?

Should be fun.

punditry is saying, my interactions with people face to face in my daily life are saying differently. I'm thinking it's not different across the nation. Democrats want less Wall Street and Washington insider in their next candidate. I wish someone would do a real poll and find out what the majority of Dems really think of Hillary.

She has had experience working with Republicans. She have fought for civil rights, against violence against women, equal pay, increasing the minimum wage and many other accomplishments.

If they had a credible candidate, it would be one thing. But they don't. They've got a shit sandwich at most.

What is with the nonsense that if Hillary doesn't run that Ted Cruz or Rand Paul becomes inevitable?

It is a bunch of nonsense, anyone we nominate has at least a fair chance of winning.

We can run who we want, including Sanders who would rip those clowns apart and would make them show their colors rather than fake movement to the middle while creating common sense not nutty contrast.

But it seems the PTB have decided we are in for Groundhog Day over 'n' over 'n' over...

The majority of Democrats want Hillary to run. Some of you may prefer Sanders or Warren, but not most Democrats.

she gets my vote.