It's her corporate policies.

1) who gives a fuck - those people are dumb cluckers
2) Hillary is likeable
3) She can win those states

Quit being a downer!

The OP is essentially stating the republicans have lots of contempt for Hillary.

1-Doesn't even have his own party backing.
2-Why should the next Democratic candidate be forced to defend socialism, which will lead to decades of election crisis for Democrats.

none of the republican candidates have even a fraction of the charm that Reagan had. Charm is a highly powerful and highly dangerous thing in politics.

1. Million+ donors...73% from people donating $200 or less. Has the same amount of money in quarterly fillings (within margin of error)as HRC by without the SuperPAC money. Largest campaign events this cycle, without using Katy Perry to do it. The "Party" is the people, not some group of rich elitists or corporate mouthpieces.

2. Must be getting closer to Halloween, you are trying to red scare me. Boo! Someone get McCarthy on the phone!
Pull up the roads and sidewalks! Close all public schools! Sell all public lands to developers and heavy industry, they will treat it fairly...beside public land is commie talk.

because he was seen as more electable. It was true that he WAS more electable than the others running, but it also was true that FACE TO FACE he was the best candidate -- and that was seen first in Iowa and NH.

The entire meme that Kerry was "just not Bush" was pushed by many who feared the liberal Kennedy wing of the party gaining the Presidency.

In 2004, one thing that likely hurt Kerry was that 2 of the most prominent Democrats on TV BOTH referred to Kerry as anybody but Bush repeatedly and NEVER bothered to look at his record to find anything they could get behind. Instead, they just attacked Bush -- in attacks that mostly appealed to everyone already 100% unlikely to vote for Bush! I am referring to Begala and Carville.

Anybody but X was before that always something spoken of in the primaries -- when several alternative candidates who were somewhat in the same political space were losing to a frontrunner who represented a different part of the party. Two examples - anybody but Carter and anybody but Clinton. In both cases, the dominant part of the party never coalesced behind one candidate to challenge the frontrunner. In the general election, it makes no sense. All of us here-- including people I know who looked for Kerry to run for President for decades -- are very partisan Democrats - thus from the moment Bush was sworn in - against Bush.

Imagine if instead of signalling that Kerry was really not special -- unlike Bill Clinton -- they bothered to look at his record. One interesting thing they could have found is that Ted Kennedy in Iowa and elsewhere spoke of working with Kerry on the precursor bill to Children's health insurance which was labeled Kerry/Kennedy by them and that he continued to work very hard as a co sponsor once Kennedy was able to get Hatch on board. SCHIP was Ted Kennedy's baby, but he himself spoke of Kerry's major role in writing the legislation. Note that in 2008, both of these men spent hours lauding this program as one of the very top accomplishments of HRC. In 2008, they saw this as - what it was - a huge accomplishment. I don't want to argue the relative merit of Kerry's vs HRC's credit on this --- but in 2004, even as KENNEDY spoke of Kerry's work on this -- they didn't.

In retrospect, I look back to 1992. Bill Clinton, with his appalling environmental record, and his already obvious ability to lie easily changing his stories many times before, only as a last resort, admitting the truth, was nowhere near my favorite. Yet, when he won the nomination -- far less overwhelmingly than Kerry did in 2004 -- I read his book, identified what I could use to persuade others that he was a good alternative to GHWB. I did what I could, which was not all that much as a working mom with three little girls under 7 years old. What I didn't realize then was the alternative to simply pout and say that -- yeah - I'm voting for Clinton, but just because I'm for Anybody but Bush ... you know Iran/Contra etc. Given the fact that Bill Clinton did not hit the number of delegates needed until June -- that I was not alone in having preferred someone else. (In fact, before the primaries, had Cuomo entered, he might have been as dominant as Clinton is now. )

If you looked at political models which include GDP growth, disposable income, approval rating of the incumbent, et cetera, those models predicted a Bush* and Obama re-election and Bush* and Obama likely would have won, regardless of their opponents...

I had a link to a graph on VOX that showed that Kerry actually overperformed. You can probably find it.

I am sorry that I misinterpreted your point. (In fact, Kerry's over performance based on the models is even more impressive as one variable not considered was that the media condoned a character assassination and made it difficult for people to know him for what he is -- note that other than a PBS joint Bush/Kerry biography, there were NO media puff piece bios that come out on the networks every single election -- and his biography would have made it easy. )

The Swift Boat attacks didn't help but imho it was background noise.



But the fundamentals favored Bush in 04 and Obama in 012. Also, keep in mind that Iraq wasn't perceived as the hopeless cause in 2004 as it is now. If the original poster believes someone would have a done a better job than Kerry and Romney and would have beat Bush and Obama he should say who and why...


It becomes somewhat of a circular argument but I am more of a Marxist than Hegelian when looking at history; economics shape history more than great men.

I had no compunctions at all supporting Senator Kerry and I thought most of his alleged likeability deficit was nonsense...Johnson and Nixon weren't lifes of the party and they own two of the biggest landslides of the 20th century...Likeability is really what a bunch of journalists talking around a water cooler think it is.

__________________




The model:


http://tinyurl.com/pnlba69






http://www.vox.com/2015/4/24/8489825/john-kerry-fundamentals

You forgot to mention the one where Bernie's followers have pledged to not vote if she's the nominee. That's a good one, and should change a lot of minds around here.

Domestic economic issues are vitally important to these people. Some of these people believe Bernie would fight for them and Hillary would not.

I agree with you that there definitely seems to be more people saying they won't vote for Hillary if Bernie doesn't get the nomination. I have seen 1 Hillary supporter say the same.

So, Bernie, it seems, would get more Democrats to the polls to vote for him than Hillary would since her voters would more likely go vote for Bernie.

Bernie would also get A LOT of votes from the completely politically disenfranchised that have never voted (or haven't voted in a long time). These people WILL go to vote for Bernie. They will not go to the polls to vote for Hillary.

Bernie does better with independents than Hillary based on NUMEROUS polls. Trustworthiness, likability, who they would vote for, etc. ALL favor Bernie with independents.

And, Bernie even has some Republican support. More than Hillary for sure. Hillary will galvanize Republican voters to go vote against her. Guarantee! This would make down ticket races much harder to win.

So, Bernie does better with Democrats, independents, Republicans, and the politically disenfranchised that don't vote/haven't voted in a long time. And, he won't galvanize the Republicans to go to the polls the way Hillary would.

WHY are we even considering nominating Hillary?!?!

… are a true representation of Democrats in general, or of the nation as a whole.

Were you just throwing shade?

For my part, I DO know some Bernie supporters that identify as Democrats that will not vote for Hillary.

And, the parts of my post relating to Independents, Republicans, and the politically apathetic/tuned out that support Bernie (and won't vote for Hillary) still stand.

And, she WILL galvanize Republicans to go to the polls. I don't believe that anyone that's being honest with themselves would deny this. There is a LONG and BITTER history with the Clintons and Republicans.

It looks like Bernie's followers have a lot of work to do if they want him to be the nominee.

I don't think a single one of us would dispute that. We have the entire Establishment working against us. This fact SHOULD rally people to support Bernie, but the Establishment is very good at getting what they want so we shall see. After what has happened in our country over the last 4 decades I have no idea why we would nominate the Establishment candidate. It seems Republican voters might be more willing to buck the Establishment than Democratic voters and that is something I did not believe would be possible until this primary.

"Throwing shade" means trash talking or disrespecting others. I still don't understand why you would make the comment about Bernie supporters (in a disparaging manner) and then say that DU is not like the real world. Either Bernie supporters are not going to vote for Hillary (I believe that will happen, but it will be a small percentage of Democrats) or they are going to vote for Hillary. If you believe they are going to vote for Hillary then stop throwing shade on Bernie supporters on DU.

I wrote that as a tongue-in-cheek way to illustrate how absurd it is for (some) Bernie followers to continually broadcast their intention to not vote if Hillary is the nominee. It's because this website does not represent the real world, such a threat is not going to convince anyone to change their vote. And it's also because this website does not represent the real world, such a threat will be meaningless in the election outcome. So why do they bother with meaningless gestures like that? How does that benefit their preferred candidate?

I assume you are referring to COMMENTS - not pledges - by some individuals -- NOT ALL --- supporting Bernie Sanders who say they won't vote for Clinton if she wins the nomination. In fact, I have seen a few Clinton people saying they won't vote for Bernie, some noting that is because he is a SOCIALIST.

In fact, I assume that the vast majority of people here will vote for either one of these two if they are the nominee. DU is an activist forum -- no one uninterested in politics -- would linger here long. In addition, I would make the conjecture that there are very few here who are in the more conservative half of the Democratic party. This means there is likely no one who would honestly say that they are undecided between (any of the Democrats) vs (any of the Republicans). The level of interest and commitment also mean that it would be extremely unlikely that many do not vote at all.

The problem is that for more than a year already, many Clinton supporters have been demanding that people not supporting her pledge to support her as the nominee. Given that the primaries were then far off, this greatly irritated many who really really do not relish HRC being the nominee. It was rubbing people's noses into the fact this was very likely to occur. It often was done in a way that could be best described as bullying. I suspect that bullying led to many of the posts that you now call Bernie supporters "pledging" not to vote for her.

It really is empty rhetoric. I doubt that there will be any Democrats that look at the ballot and think about skipping out on angry principle. The people that are politically active will still show up and vote though they will not be as excited about the prospect. The casual voters and the disenfranchised are who we have to worry about.

The job of the candidate for president is to get people to the polls to vote. Sad, but true. Hillary's negative numbers make this a little harder. I think Hillary will have an easier time in the primary but a harder time in the general election. Bernie will be about the opposite. He is having a much harder time trying to lock down the nomination but would be easier to elect as president due to his message.

If Hillary could believably take up Bernie's banner and run on his issues then maybe, but she would still have all the Hillary-hate. It just seems to be a difficult road after the nomination.

Yup, same here.

People may not be concerned about Republican voters but they should be. Hillary isn't energizing anybody to get out there and vote (minis of course the exception below). Her rallies, even with Katie Perry doing a concert are the same size as Bernie's who has basically nobody singing. The times have changed and it seems some aren't realizing this. Hillary and the positions which she has taken in the past have severely tarnished her image.

However, one thing hasn't changed. The right's absolute hate and disdain for her. Her favorability numbers are far underwater and that is NOT a good thing. She would energize the GOP base and many indy voters to get out and vote, ya vote against her.

Sanders does better in a general election match up against a Republican opponent than Hillary. We can say all we want how great Hillary is however in the end, the race will be very nail biting or lost if she's the Dem candidate.

Is she an ideal candidate? No. If there were another Obama, that would be my first choice. But there isn't one.

O'Malley hasn't shown the ability to get any traction at all. Bernie will get destroyed by negative ads about socialism, and he won't have the funds to fire back.

Hillary has broad appeal, lots of fundraising capacity, and can consolidate core Democratic constituencies as well as getting independent votes.

And by the way, if you're looking for any halfway reality-based assessment of the primary race, you should avoid HA Goodman. Before he was for Bernie, he was for Rand Paul.

As I demonstrated in Post #5

... make her the favorite of the rest of us.

One thing everyone believes about her is that she hates Republicans. She won't play nice like Obama did. Americans don't care about a uniter like they did 8 or 12 years ago.

If she can show, like she is on gun control now, that she will not let the Republicans control the agenda in America, she can really boost her likability and actually rebrand herself as a fighter for Democratic principles. She can even become a hero for women in America, as her resiliency in the Benghazi interrogation hinted. This might be her strategy, and if it is, she's more likely to win.

Another question then is in the swing states: Iowa, Ohio, Virginia, and Florida, are there more Democrats than Republicans in these states?

How'd that work out again?

Registered Democrats will vote for her. Registered Democrats are about 30% of the electorate. You don't win with 30%.

So you need Democratic-leaning independents to vote for her. They do not respond at all to "Republicans bad". That's why they stayed home in 2010 and 2014 - we gave them very few people to vote for.

In contrast, Republican-leaning independents can be motivated by voting against Democrats.

A strategy based around "Republican hate" will utterly fail to get Democratic-leaning independents. Meanwhile, Republican-leaning independents will be energized by it.

... "make Democratic voters less enthusiastic about Hillary."

In politics in general your goal is to turn out your base. The last thing you really want to do is do that work for your opposition.

I will add a bonus bit

4)
If the race is Trump versus Clinton you will have a situation where infrequent undecided voters might actually foolishly consider Trump as an outsider. I still think he would lose against any Democrat but it would be a slight risk.

The real danger would be Bush versus Clinton which will diminish voter turn out as people will begin to question the point of voting for one dynasty or another. Worse yet it invites third and fourth party spoilers into the mix which will inevitably throw the election.


Any other candidate will be handidly trounced by any Democrat without much risk.


But if we really want to make our victory count for a bit more I think we should be putting our best and most progressive foot forward on this and support Bernie Sanders.

… and stand upright, slouching and droopy shoulders doesn't look very presidential to me.

And, who picks out his clothes? A polyester wash-and-wear suit with brown shoes may be practical for the busy traveling man, but on the world-stage, it's not really a "look" that commands respect. His suits don't have to be tailor-made, off-the-rack is perfectly fine, as long as it fits, and as long as it's not from 1985, and not from a thrift store.

And I just wish he could tone it down with the abrupt Regis Philbin style of talking. Nobody wants to be barked at. Nobody likes to be startled.

</wink>

" A frumpy coot who talks like a Jesuit priest with a mouthful of marbles with a Sesame Street name"

Superficial much? Hillary's $1500.00 pantsuits are lovely so you guess you'll vote for her? Wow..that says alot about her supporters..way to go there jackie..I am sure Hillary just loves this kind of support

I admire Bernie's frugality

I'm sure that there's a stylist somewhere would even do it for free. I've seen better flow-bee haircuts! He shouldn't be getting haircuts from Mrs. Sanders in his kitchen. </wink>

yes..very superficial..as long as we all know where you are coming from..it's all good