"16 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Will Win 2016"

[applegrove]

16 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Will Win 2016

by Myra Adams at the Daily Beast

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/03/16-reasons-why-hillary-clinton-will-win-2016.html

"SNIP...............................

4. Organization the Obama Way

Hillary’s campaign-in-waiting, the Ready for Hillary PAC, is readying itself to turn into her official campaign as soon as Madame General signs the battle order.

Some top-notch Obama campaign talent, Jeremy Bird and Mitch Stewart, have already been hired to build an organization similar to President Obama’s two nearly flawless, state-of-the-art campaigns. It would be nearly impossible for the Republican presidential candidate to quickly build and match what will then be a huge national campaign organization with a three-year head start. For even the Republican challenger, it would appear as if Hillary were the incumbent.


5. Barrels of Money

For the 2012 presidential campaign, both candidates eventually raised a billion dollars. But Obama had the advantage of early money and put it to great use, negatively defining and attacking Romney throughout the spring of 2012.

Between now and 2016 Hillary could easily raise more than a billion dollars and much of it early. In fact, just this week it was announced that Ready for Hillary had raised over a million dollars in June 2013, without its candidate of course.




.............................SNIP"

[Warpy]

1. Plus, she's reliably a Third Way/Wall Street CONSERVATIVE

Um thanks but no thanks. I'll be supporting someone else during primary season. S/he will have to present himself/herself and be a little more realistic about what the country needs.

[AgingAmerican]

3. Third way is "Half Republican and Half Democrat"

I don't see her including Republican 'solutions' in everything. That's Obama's way.

[Warpy]

4. sure is, and that's why I didn't support him

in the 2008 primaries, either.

[L0oniX]

109. If a repuke wins it will be the fault of those who pushed for her candidacy...

...and not the Dems who will not vote for her. Shit can be served and we don't have to eat it or leave a tip. We can join together to come up with a decent and trusted candidate without all the nonsense worship.

[Warpy]

113. Well, let's hope the primary season produces one.

Another Republican presidency is unthinkable. Look at the Supreme Court to figure out why.

[brewens]

127. How excruciating will Chris Matthews be, starting pretty soon?

The Hillary infatuation was a little hard to take in 2008. I can see voting for her but I hope she doesn't run.

[Cal33]

137. And the rich will get richer, and the poor will get poorer, and democracy in America will continue

dying its slow death. Middle-of-the-road fence sitters have proven themselves to be worthless in
the present-day situation. Only a Progressive or Liberal like Warren can save the day.

[hfojvt]

2. translation of number 5

"because the rich want her to"

and right there is reasons 1 to 15 billion for me to be against her.

[Douglas Carpenter]

5. 1. a popular nostalgic figure who reminds people of the "good times" whose mixture of

moderately liberal positrons on socials with lightly sprinkled but disingenuous language of economic populism - along with unconditional subservience to privilege and power reassures the upper classes as well as the military industrial complex and the ever expanding surveillance state that she is on their side - come what may.

[applegrove]

6. Hillary is a superstar. If somebody else

wins they will have had to match and better her "A" game. Either way Democrats are guaranteed someone with gravitas, someone who will interconnect with middleclass and working class voters.

[cali]

11. someone who will blithely screw working class voters.

here's to hoping that there's more hill fatigue out there than people think

[winter is coming]

41. All these "it's inevitable" declarations make me think she wants to be sure she has

widespread popular support before announcing. That her campaign feels a need to push this hard, this soon is a tacit admission that she's far from inevitable.

[WCGreen]

76. They are doing it now because they can...

No other candidate will have your infrastructure and donor base and ties in every democratic organization.

[msongs]

7. campaign as a democrat, govern as a "moderate republican" where have we heard that one before? nt

[DonCoquixote]

8. UGH

We may need to make a group her called "a progessive please 2016!" to counteract all the Hillary is inevitable Psy Ops.

[applegrove]

9. Not psy ops. I am thrilled Hillary is a

superstar because it will raise the game for the whole nomination race. And then we'll trounce the GOP. They don't have any superstars.

[DonCoquixote]

10. I hope so, but

while there has to be competition, if Hillary tries to squash someone like an almighty grey eminence, it could hurt. I wouldlove it if Hill could be pulled to the left in the Primary, but Bill will NOT allow that.

[Niceguy1]

12. cause she rocks!!!!!!!!

N/T

[RC]

13. 3rd Way DINO's rock?

No they don't. This is Democratic Underground. You know Center and Left of Center Politically... Right of Center are supposed to be the other guys.


We have already witnessed for 12+ years how Right of center government works, or rather doesn't work. Next time I hope for a better change.

[Niceguy1]

15. she is a dem....one of us

She is no rightie...they loathe her.

[Scuba]

17. She's way too far right for me. Another DINO.

[ceonupe]

27. You belive that?

Hillary is herself a neocon

She is pro big bank and business

She is not transparent (she often lies and gets caught in those lies trying to protect the real truth about what's going on as she feels we the people aren't good enough to know the truth see Benghazi (most of us would have accepted the truth that CIA was running weapons and things went bad but no they make up a stright up lie they know is false to tell us all about some stupid anti-Muslim video)
She comes of to me as a person that does not understand the lie delay tatica she and her husband used in the 90s don't work as well in our Internet age)

I could go on and on but my biggest issue with her is the deliberate lying to craft a picture that's not true.

[RC]

29. She may be a "Dem", but that does not make her one of us.

She is part of the problem. She is Right of Center. She is a war hawk. She is also a corporate, as Obama is.

[AlinPA]

68. So all the republicans will vote for her?

[RC]

77. That's binary thinking.

All or nothing. Black or White. 1 or 0. That is the way Conservatives think.
Liberals have shades of grey between the two extremes.
Many Republicans have voted for her simply because she is far enough to the Right to fit their conservative mind set. Many Democrats have voted for her because they are far enough to the Right to fit their mind set also. And of course, the (D) by her name. Very little is as simple as either/or.

[CrispyQ]

47. I love that graphic.

We need desperately to fill that available space. Sadly, I no longer have confidence in our electoral process, so I don't know how we're gonna do it.

[mattclearing]

14. Enough already.

It's not going to happen. Like she didn't have barrels of money and top-tier talent last time.

[davidpdx]

16. I agree

As I have said about a hundred times in the last 9 months I don't think either Clinton or Biden will run. Both Clintons, Biden, and Obama will serve as party elders along with Carter.

[mattclearing]

28. i won't surprised if she runs.

But she'll never be President. America just isn't that into her, and she's not a great campaigner.

[stevenleser]

44. Re: "America just isn't that into her" we have these things called polls...

http://www.pollingreport.com/C2.htm#Hillary

ABC News/Washington Post Poll June 19-23 2013:
Hillary Clinton
Favorable: 61%
Unfavorable: 33%

Gallup June 1-4 2013
Favorable: 58%
Unfavorable: 39%

[peacebird]

102. Favorable impression does not neccesarily translate to "I want her for Pres"

She did a good job, but I do not want her to run for President, and I do not feel this burning need to have a woman in the oval office next time out. Let the best person win, and I hope that person is reliable, honest, trustworthy and truly cares about the American public, not the corporations.

[antigop]

51. david, I know you have said this repeatedly. I'm curious...why do you think

Clinton and Biden will not run?

[davidpdx]

67. I think age and the fact that both have been involved in politics for so long

and have had very successful careers. IMHO both are going to find that they want to take it easy and have a chance to be a party elder. It certainly isn't because I don't think either of them could win.

[antigop]

70. ok, thanks. nt

[customerserviceguy]

30. She also didn't think Obama would run

and grossly underestimated him. Frankly, I thought he was having one of those "get to know me" campaigns like Edwards did in 2004.

In your estimation, what stops her? The only thing I can think of is if Anthony Weiner actually becomes the mayor of NYC, which will embarass the hell out of her, and she might not run. Those are a couple of real long shots. What do you think will get in the way of her being President if she decides she wants it?

[mattclearing]

35. It's too early to speculate.

My point is that America has taken several long, hard looks at Hillary Clinton, and they are not buying. People better pray she doesn't win the nomination, and if she does, they better pray the Republicans put up a complete dingbat.

[RudynJack]

56. And yet the polls show

her to be about as popular as ever. This notion that Americans don't like her is not backed by any real evidence.

[customerserviceguy]

60. Agreed

She's managed to stay in the public eye for the last five years, and hasn't faded into the woodwork, like a lot of also-rans. The reich wing hates her, we get that. But they'll go apeshit on anybody we run anyway, so that's not a factor to consider.

[mattclearing]

71. You know as well as I do that polls three years out are meaningless.

Once the campaign starts, we can talk again. For now, she lost the Democratic primary to President Obama, who was virtually unknown at the beginning of the campaign. There's no reason to believe that Democratic primary voters will take her over a seemingly more charismatic or progressive option once the rubber hits the road. She's tone-deaf and transparently pandering, and I don't think she is that strong at actual campaigning.

[RudynJack]

72. I never said anything

about her running and winning. I dispute the claim that "... America has taken several long, hard looks at Hillary Clinton, and they are not buying."

There's absolutely nothing true about that. It's a claim pulled from one's ass.

[mattclearing]

87. Except the 2008 election. n/t

[RudynJack]

88. Really?

You think Americans didn't like her in 2008? It was an incredibly close primary election, and went on much later than most. It was a pretty even split. Obama won, but it's ridiculous to think he ran away with it. If there were only primaries and no caucuses, she probably would have won.

But none of that has to do with your ridiculous claim. She's probably the most popular politician in America today. No other politician who's been on the scene for 20+ years even comes close.

I get that you don't like her. But you're just deceiving yourself if you translate that into "America doesn't like her".

[mattclearing]

90. Have fun at the Inauguration, then. n/t

[RudynJack]

93. Great snotty response

I've never said a word about 2016. Why not respond to the points I'm making instead of acting like a twerp?

[mattclearing]

94. You haven't backed up anything you've said.

I remember 2008 vividly. I remember the put-on southern drawl, I remember the dog-whistle messaging, the 3AM phone, the inevitability, and how it all came crashing down thanks to a candidate whom no one gave a shot a year before.

Say what you like about me, but I don't share the view that Hillary Clinton is some political giant, because she's been beaten, and I don't think she's a very engaging candidate. If not for Giuliani's dropping out for Rick Lazio, she might not even have been a senator.

I understand that she is the most famous Democrat. I don't think that makes her the most electable. If anything, it's a double-edged sword.

[RudynJack]

96. The polls regarding Hillary

are freely available, and in fact have even been posted in this thread.

Your claim was that America doesn't like her. You've not provided one single piece of evidence for that. And everytime I remind you exactly WHAT we're arguing about, you act like a little twerp.

[mattclearing]

97. Again, you've responded with nothing. n/t

[RudynJack]

106. You made the idiotic claim

that she is not liked by Americans. Back up YOUR claim.

[mattclearing]

124. Already did.

Every time she gets her close-up, people turn away. She couldn't even win a majority of Democrats when it was her turn for the nomination. As I said earlier: Enough.

[tazkcmo]

128. I'm an American

and I don't like Hillary for my president. Liking and voting for are not the same thing.

[customerserviceguy]

59. They've only had one shot with her

They could pick a moderate, and many of them did in quite a few states, Pennsylvania comes to mind. She didn't do badly in the rest of the South, and it would be good to have a candidate who appeals regionally to them in the general election. I don't see Warren or Cuomo being able to do that, although O'Malley could. But Hillary was the first lady of a Southern state, and that's going to carry her further down there than anybody I can think of who might jump in.

As for the Repukes picking a dingbat, what else do they have? Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and Chris Christie are all going to be a tough sell for that party three years from now. Who's their statesman who would rally not only the troops, but the mushy middle?

This is hers if she wants it.

[Whisp]

58. what might stop her is the investigation of the State Dept (under Hillary)

Investigation cover up, pointed to the very highest levels they say. Another investigation is going on now, expected to be complete at end of summer.

Sexual Assault and Pedophilia -Covered Up - Can't get any serious than this - this is no fake scandal like the dozens that Obama has been accused of.

See Lawrence O'Donnell's Last Word on this:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/45755883/ns/msnbc-the_last_word/vp/52173945#52173945

[customerserviceguy]

61. Could be

But all Rethugs have been able to do with the few "scandals" that have emerged in the last five years is gin up their base. They'll do that with whatever straw they have to cling to.

The lamestream media wants Hillary to have her turn, I don't expect them to do much with the State Department stuff.

[AtomicKitten]

73. this was interesting

Triumph came later when “Hillary the team player” became the globe-trotting secretary of State and despite a lack of any real accomplishment, eventually earned international respect and higher approval ratings than the team leader himself.

Exactly.

[Beacool]

80. Why would she be embarrassed about Weiner????

She's not his keeper.

[customerserviceguy]

122. Her power base became NY after Bill's presidency

She can hardly avoid Weiner if he is the mayor of NYC, especially if she ever wants Huma to do a damn thing in her campaign. It would be incredibly uncomfortable for her to avoid both Huma and NYC, and if anyone believes she's on the fence about another run, this would probably push her in the direction of forgetting it.

Like I said, it's a long shot, as I believe she has every intention of grabbing a brass ring that is going to be handed to her, whether or not it runs through Anthony Weiner's nose.

[Beacool]

133. Weiner is a cooked, well, weiner.

He's not going to be mayor. It'll probably be Quinn, but I'm hoping for de Blasio.

[customerserviceguy]

135. Agreed

He'll probably come in fourth, third if you add the write-in votes for Carlos Danger.

[Beacool]

140. You're bad.........

[joshcryer]

92. She was super angry at him for running.

She knew that the MSM would make it a choice about electing a black man or a woman. That's exactly what happened whether anyone agrees or not. Their policy positions were identical except with minor differences in health care (which is why Krugman supported Hillary).

I can't find the story but she personally faced off with him and told him it was a crappy thing to do essentially.

(Everyone knew she was running. She'd started her exploration committee months earlier and was simply waiting for the right time to announce.)

[customerserviceguy]

123. I agree with everything you said

She simply didn't believe that someone with so thin a resume had a chance of running, or getting nominated, or getting elected. It taught her the power of the African-American vote, and she's worked hard to court that part of the electorate ever since then.

[tazkcmo]

129. A reason to not vote for her

Nice sense of entitlement.

[joshcryer]

130. Indeed, that was noted at the time.

I can't find the article but there was a story about how she personally faced off with Obama, a lot of people thought that was her being entitled, wanting to ride into the nomination and Presidency without a challenge, etc. It motivated a lot of Obama supporters.

[99Forever]

18. Wrong.

No more Turd Way DINOs. Ever again.

Run Clinton and she WILL lose. Period.

[KharmaTrain]

19. If Someone's Gonna Stop Her...

...they better start gearing up like yesterday. IRC, President Obama began his 2008 campaign in February '07...and already had a ground game set up. Anyone whose going to challenge Mrs. Clinton will have to be as equally adept at organizing and having people on the ground and running next year in the key early primary states. That means raising tons of money...the necessary evil in these days of non-stop campaigns waged on the ground and the air. So, whomever that great hope that some hope will block Hillary better emerge soon...and this person's supporters better be ready to bust major hump to raise the money, get the organization and then attempt to reach out to the primary voters...

[MoonRiver]

20. Yes, and the only Dem who is even making squeaks about running against her is Biden.

[KharmaTrain]

21. Ya Mean...

...the Elizabeth Warren juggernaut hasn't begun to roll yet? I dare to venture what this place will be like the day she endorses Hillary.

[MoonRiver]

24. I love Elizabeth, and hope Hillary chooses her as VP!

Ok, where's that flame retardant?

[KharmaTrain]

25. I Kinda Like Her Where She Is...

...gaining Seniority and become chairman of several important committees (banking, of course) and even in a leadership role. I also have a tremendous amount of respect for Sen. Warren and see her contributing best as a leader in the Senate where her impact can grow over a long period of time and hold true to many of our shared goals and principals.

Now I need to find my flame retardant suit...

[MoonRiver]

26. That works for me too!

[Nay]

38. Well, that's the thing. Who is gearing up right now to challenge her? No one.

Any younger Democrat who might be interested really has to wait to see if she declares she's running, and by then it will most likely be too late. No possible candidate can afford to challenge her moneywise; he/she would certainly lose, and become 'tainted' with the label 'loser,' so if Clinton decides to run, she'll be it. We won't see any credible challengers.

Then, because of rampant Hillary-hate on the right, all the RW mouth-breathers will hit the polls in the millions. Some dems and most undecided voters may not care who wins and will be dog-tired at the idea of yet another corporate type in office.

One positive thing about Clinton is that she's not scared of Republicans. She hates them as much as they hate her. I doubt she'd bend over for those assholes, but I don't think she has much love for the 99% either.

[KharmaTrain]

43. A Lot Depends On Who Controls...

...the House and Senate. If the rushpublicans win control of both next year, it'll create a different dynamic going into that election and probably favor Hillary. You are right, she will wait as long as possible to declare her candidacy to "freeze" any other competitors out and make it too late for them to do much if they did want to mount a challenge.

As long as the rushpublicans control the house, no matter whose elected President, they'll face a brick wall in trying to get any legislation passed. The only way is to do that dreaded compromise thing and then no matter who it is from Hillary to Mahatma Ghandi, they'd all be chastised as "selling out".

No matter who the Democrats nominate, the rushpublicans will find garbage to throw and poutrage to mobilize their "base"...the good thing is that base is getting older and smaller by the day. But from my vantage point 2016 is still a long ways out...next year's elections...especially on the state level will be critical...that's where the worst of the right wing abuses are going on right now.

Cheers...

[Union Scribe]

22. I love this 'all of you better start accepting the inevitable' movement

of Clinton boosters. I seem to remember the same mindset leading up to 2008.

[markiv]

85. it's called the bandwagon fallacy

every steamroller movement uses it

[Le Taz Hot]

23. I love the way her negatives are just sort of not mentioned here.

Because of their deep hatred for her, she will MOBILIZE the right and progressives will run, not walk, to the nearest third party.

Here's the other problem I'm having with this. The article openly discusses how, basically the Democratic Party Machine is in place for her. I thought the Democrats were supposed to stay neutral throughout the primary process. Isn't ANYONE bothered by this?

[customerserviceguy]

31. And the Repukes won't feel that way about any of our other nominees?

They'll gin up the fear and anger machine against anyone we pick to be the Democratic standard bearer. Of course, the last two times it was a scary black man, and it didn't do them a lick of good.

[Le Taz Hot]

34. No, they won't.

They HATE her. They have a long history of HATING her and they've got YEARS of material from which to draw. Anyone else will face opposition from the Republicans but they won't serve as a lightening rod from which to mobilize. Hillary is their dream candidate.

[customerserviceguy]

63. Tell me

what Democratic candidate over the past forty years they didn't hate, when it came down to the last several months before a general election?

Hillary is their nightmare candidate, because they know she's been able to create a glowing patina around her years in the public eye. No one besides Rand Paul hangs the Arab Spring on Hillary, and it looks like he's got a decent chance of being their candidate. The fundies would never trust a libertarian, no matter how many Christian noises he makes.

[Le Taz Hot]

74. Please feel free to bookmark this thread.

If Hillary gets the nomination, the Republicans win back the White House.

[Notafraidtoo]

78. Who do you think can beat her?

I just don't see anyone on their side that would have a chance. I don't see her losing Florida,Ohio or Colorado.

[Le Taz Hot]

81. Jeb Bush or Chris Christie.

[Historic NY]

103. So what your saying so-called progressives...

will flee Hillary to give us either of these two.

Okay then they deserve to live in the political "wildrness".

A Democrat defeat means a more aggressive roll up of the Right wing agenda. Its a cake walk now to what it could be.

[Le Taz Hot]

105. Here's a thought.

If the Democrats want to keep progressives, how about they stop offering us up a choice of Corporate Whore A or Corporate Whore B. The rest of your post is one of many variations of "Shut up and vote." Progressives have been hearing those orders for too long now and it just flat doesn't work. Maybe, just maybe, the Democrats, who have shoved us under the bus since Bill Clinton, could begin to entertain addressing some of our issues instead of taking us for granted. Barring that, the tired old "the other guy is worse!11!11" just doesn't work. STOP putting the onus on progressives and put it where it rightly belongs -- the Democratic Party.

[antigop]

114. standing ovation for your post, Le Taz. You are correct.

We're supposed to keep moving the party further and further to the right. NO! It's time for the Democrats to move to the left. It's WAAAY overdue.

Thank you for your post.

[customerserviceguy]

121. Anyone who would not vote for Hillary

against any Republicon in the fall of 2016, because she's not "pure" enough, will be outnumbered 3 to 1 by the mushy middle who might have voted GOP had we nominated an Elizabeth Warren.

Hillary wants this, she's as good as got this. I'm not 100% happy about that, but I do recognize that for twenty years, she's been grooming an image. She thought it would be good enough in 2008, then she went and added Secretary of State to the resume. The only thing she's managed to be tarnished with is Benghazi, and that will be a distant memory three years from now.

[antigop]

125. " +1" to the "inevitability"meme counter. nt

[Le Taz Hot]

138. You guys need to learn how to debate

without the tired old "purist" meme. It was old in 2008. No one is asking for purity. Progressives are just asking for a seat at the table and to have some of our issues addressed. That's a far cry from "purity." And again, you're pushing the same old false narrative, that the country is in the middle. Poll after poll has affirmed that MOST of the country is actually liberal. But the MSM, the Republicans and yes, the Democrats, have made the word "liberal" a dirty word so even though most of the country has liberal views, they don't identify themselves as liberal.

I really don't care what Hillary "wants." She's not owed anything. Votes are earned, not demanded and it's time The Party Loyal understands that.

[Tarheel_Dem]

132. I love the way you presume to speak for "progressives".

"The poll shows that among Democrats nationally, including Democrat-leaning Independents, 63 percent of those polled said they'd like to see Clinton take the nomination.

Vice President Joe Biden is Clinton's closest potential opponent, but she outdistances him almost 5-1, as he took just 13 percent of the vote. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo trails behind Biden at 6 percent, and Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley holds 1 percent. Of all those polled, 18 percent were undecided on a Democratic candidate."

http://www.latinospost.com/articles/24405/20130725/presidential-candidates-2016-poll-hilary-clinton-leads-democratic-nomination-ahead.htm

http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/misc/usapolls/us130715/Campaign%202016/Complete%20July%2024,%202013%20USA%20McClatchy-Marist%20Poll%20Results%20and%20Tables.pdf

"Clinton tops Vice President Joe Biden 60-18, with no one else even approaching 5%. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren each have 3%, Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer and Virginia Sen. Mark Warner are at 1%, and Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley and Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick register almost no support. 14% favor someone else or are not sure.

The GOP contenders are all pretty well-known and well-liked, but beyond Clinton and Biden, there are few recognizable names on the left side of the aisle. The least-known Republican is Walker, of whom 38% surprisingly have no opinion, but 55% of Democrats cannot say how they feel about Cuomo, 60% of Warren, and 80-90% of the others. Then again, few had yet heard of a certain state senator from Illinois at this point in 2004."

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/07/iowa-2016-presidential-preference-poll.html

Hillary beats all comers, in both the primaries and more importantly, the general. I don't have a particular dog in the Dem primary yet, but your presumption that another Barack Obama will emerge to challenge HRC is perhaps the most wishful of thinking. The Nader wing of the party continues to overestimate it's influence, and 2012 should've settled that once and for all.

[Le Taz Hot]

139. I never claimed to speak for anyone.

It's just that I'm around a lot of progressives, including myself, and I'm just letting you know what most of them are telling me. As for Hillary "beating all comers?" In the primary? Probably because the Party Machine is behind her and I'd like to know why the Party Loyal won't address THAT issue -- that is, why The Party Machine won't stay out of the primaries until the candidate is chosen by the People.

Polls this early out are meaningless.

Sorry, TD, but I have to laugh at your assumption that Barack Obama was somehow different than Hillary Clinton politically. They are politically identical in their love everything corporate and their hatred of the Left.

And you ends with the Nader dog whistle. Certainly you can do better than that.

[Tarheel_Dem]

141. Can you please point out in my post where I claimed BHO was "somehow different" than HRC?

My point was that PBO was a fresh charasmatic new face on the national political stage. In that sense, he was definitely "different". He captured the imagination of scores of young people of all races and ethnic backgrounds. There's nobody like that who can challenge HRC again.

The rest of your nonsense is just the ususal garden variety Naderesque hyperbole. In case you didn't notice, it was "the Left" who elected him TWICE, and you don't speak for "the Left". Stop trying to apply your personal opinions to a whole segement of the electorate for whom you have not been given permission to speak.

[Le Taz Hot]

145. You know, when someone uses

the "Nader" dog whistle, twice within the same exchange, I'm pretty much done.

Have a nice day.

[Tarheel_Dem]

146. Having read the extreme rhetoric contained in your initial post, I think you were pretty much done..

before you began. Posts like yours are the reason "the Left" is so easily marginalized. "Nice day" to you too.

[customerserviceguy]

119. If you actually believe that Jeb Bush

with his pro-immigration stance can actually win the Rethuglican nomination, then I'll ask you to pass the bong over this way.

Jebbie would finish no higher than fourth in the first three caucus/primary states. He's anathema to the views of the GOP base, which would quickly label him as being for "amnesty". Also, Chris Christie's abrasive personality is a nonstarter outside of the Northeast, I doubt he'd even place as high as second in New Hampshire. He sure as hell will do poorly in any other areas of the country.

I look for Ron Paul and Ted Cruz to be the number one and two finishers by the time we've gotten through six Repuke contests.

[tazkcmo]

131. I don't believe it but I'll pass anyway.

[Nay]

39. Oh, no, csg. There's a LOOOONG history of Hillary hate in the RW. Vince Foster, travelgate, etc.,

it's all bullshit, of course, but all that will be dragged into the campaign. That's no reason to not nominate/vote for Clinton if you like her, but you will not believe the creatures that will come out of the woodwork to vote against her if she runs.

"Scary black man" didn't work last time because lots of people of color came out for a historic vote, and lots of white Dems were happy about it, too. Plus, of course, he spent his campaign sounding like a real liberal -- how were we to know he wasn't? It didn't hurt that the RW challengers in both elections were so crazy scary.

I don't think there will be quite the 'historic vote' bump for Clinton because she'd be the first woman; there's still quite a bit of misogyny hiding out there, even among women themselves. I could be wrong about that, tho.

My fear is that the Pubs will smarten up and enter a candidate who's NOT a complete moron/scary guy/drooling religious nut. I don't know where they'll find him/her, but I'm not up on Pub up-and-comers.

[customerserviceguy]

64. It motivates the reich wing

but does it resound with the folks who decide the weekend before an election who to vote for? My best guess is that it does not.

The Rethug base will get out the fear-mongering against whoever we run, I can guarantee that. So much of what they have is old news, I can't see the mushy middle giving a tinker's damn about Vince Foster or the Rose Law Firm.

[Duckhunter935]

32. Nope

third party, here I come. Never could vote for another Clinton. 300 million in this country and only 2 families are qualified?

[brooklynite]

36. Careful...

from the TOS:

Vote for Democrats

Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees

[Mr. David]

45. fuck off then

It isn't the primaries. Clinton could decide not to run then what? Take the TOS with you and go away

[brooklynite]

49. "Third Party Here I Come"

The poster doesn't seem prepared to rally to the Party after the Primaries. Their choice, but it's not his/her rules, your rules or mine.

Personally, I don't have a problem...I'll happily support the Democratic nominee. If Hillary runs, I'll support her; if she doesn't, I've already spoken to other candidates. And you?

[Mr. David]

50. In the meantime

Who gives a shit?

[L0oniX]

108. "When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism"

If Hillary runs and the progressive left doesn't vote for her it will mean it's the fault of those who pushed for her candidacy.

[Proud Public Servant]

33. It's reason #6 than matters most

6. The Electoral College is Slanted Toward Hillary and the Democrats

Just how much of an advantage will the Electoral College offer Hillary in 2016?

Here are some startling facts:

In 2012 the final Electoral College results were 332 for Obama and 206 for Romney. If Romney had won the battleground states of Florida (29 votes), Ohio (18 votes), and Virginia (13 votes), Obama would still have been reelected but by a closer margin of 272 to 266.

Now, just because Obama won well over 300 electoral votes does not mean Hillary will repeat that achievement. However, the path to 270 is much easier for any Democrat candidate given current and future demographic growth and established voting patterns.

And that's the truth. It's damned hard to imaging the GOP wannabee who's going to move Florida, Ohio, Virginia, and a fourth state back to their column. Jeb or Rubio could move Florida, and yeah, Rand Paul could take NH away -- but we're on the cusp of having a long-term structural advantage in the EC.

[Nay]

40. Jeb or Rubio could move VA, too. I live here, and the idea that this is a purple state

is incorrect, IMHO. No VA is blue, parts of Norfolk are blue, the rest is solid red.

[Proud Public Servant]

55. I agree, but that's what makes it purple

Especially since blue NoVa is growing and growing.

[Logical]

37. I will not support her.....

just like I did not support her in 2008.

[mick063]

42. Listen up Myra Adams of "The Daily Beast"

You have lost complete credibility with me. You have exposed yourself to be a corporate shill.

I will completely disregard all of your future commentary as cheerleading for the corporate wing. Further, to the editors of "The Daily Beast", you approved this article to be placed in your rag. From this point forward, I no longer consider "The Daily Beast" to be a reliable source for progressive information. Starting now, I refuse to add "clicks" to your web site.

[Scurrilous]

46. Go Hillary!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

48. Is this the same Hillary that backed Bush's wars and Obama's drones?

No thanks.

[antigop]

52. the same Hillary who said there are "advantages" to outsourcing US jobs to India

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/ndtv-exclusive-hillary-clinton-on-fdi-mamata-outsourcing-and-hafiz-saeed-full-transcript-207593

Hillary Clinton: So you are talking about the outsourcing of US jobs to India. We know it's been going on for many years now and it's part of our economic relationship with India and I think there are advantages with it that have certainly benefitted many parts of our country and there are disadvantages that go to the need to improve the job fields of our own people and create a better economic environment so it's like anything like the pluses and minuses.

The "advantages" go to the CEOs, executives, and shareholders, NOT the working stiffs.

I'm still waiting for her to tell us exactly WHAT engineers and IT people are supposed to train for after their jobs are outsourced.

[antigop]

53. the same Hillary who played a leading part in drafting the TPP

according to Business Week
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1016&pid=67554


Cue the "haters/bashers" posts....countdown....3...2....1

[antigop]

54. the same Hillary who threw US tech workers under the bus

Cue the "haters/bashers" posts....countdown....3....2....1

[markiv]

86. sitting alone in the dark, selling out citizens

gotta at least give her credit for truth in packaging in that youtube

[tularetom]

57. I can't say I won't vote for her in the general election

But if she has an opponent with any stature in the primary that opponent will get my vote.

I really don't want Bill Clinton anywhere near the White House.

[LiberalAndProud]

62. Manipulation. I'm feeling it. I wonder if Hillary is as well.

I don't know who is writing the narrative, but this doesn't feel authentic to me. At all.

[antigop]

83. it's called the "inevitability" meme. nt

[liberal_at_heart]

65. she won't get my vote.

[vinny9698]

66. 17th Reason GOP women will vote for her, but not tell

GOP women know that a woman president will break the so called glass ceiling, and they will vote thinking of their daughter's or/and granddaughter's future.

[MoonRiver]

69. I really hope your prediction is correct,

but I think GOP women are far too partisan to think that rationally.

[Metric System]

75. There is NO candidate the far left will be happy with. Even when they think they're happy (Obama,

Last edited Sun Aug 4, 2013, 08:16 PM - Edit history (1)

initially), that soon turns to disappointment and resentment. Elizabeth Warren (or whoever the cause celebre du jour is) would suffer the same fate.

*Edited to correct Warren's name (d'oh).

[Le Taz Hot]

95. The far left (that would be me)

were never happy with Obama for the same reason we don't care for Hillary -- WAAAAAYYYYY too cozy with the corporations while compromising Democratic Ideals for Third-Way sellout. I wasn't disappointed with Obama, I knew EXACTLY who he was. How? I listened. It was all there for anyone who wanted to really listen. I had hoped he would keep at least a few of his promises but nope, he turned into Reagan the second he took the oath of office.

And the name is ELIZABETH WARREN. Now, I've also listened to Elizabeth Warren speak. I listened to her stump speeches, I've watched her take down financial "experts" on CNBC 3 at a time and I watched her wipe the floor with Ben Bernenke. Warren has conviction where Obama and Hillary have corporate greed. Warren has a vast left-wing political machine behind her should she decide to announce and it sure as hell ain't the Democratic Party who will do everything they can to "Dean" her. There are a WHOLE lot of liberal groups who have been waiting, far too long IMO, for a candidate that would come along that they could enthusiastically support. No, Warren is the real deal and we won't be disappointed with her.

Should Warren decide to run, Hillary better be ready because Warren will have a WIDE appeal and it will be across party lines. Hillary's ONLY support is the Democratic Party Establishment. That's it. The Democratic Party will pull out it's bag of dirty tricks and, if Warren can survive, she EASILY wins the General. Hillary? GOP win. GUARANTEED.

[Metric System]

117. I can't conceive of Warren easily winning the general election. Obama is already portrayed by the

"liberal" media and right-wingers as being far to the left, so I can only imagine how they'd paint Warren. By the time they're done with her, the results would be 1988 or worse (1984). I think the right has done a good job of re-defining the political spectrum over the years, and I don't think the majority of the voting public is actually ready for a truly progressive major presidential candidate. To top it off, I personally don't think Warren has the political skills or the charisma to lead a national ticket by 2016.

[Le Taz Hot]

118. How the media treats her will be pretty much predestined.

They will, of course, raise her up to a rising superstar status and then when she belches in public or some other idiotic thing, they'll tear her down. That's their job. At the moment she doesn't have name recognition but she has a GREAT advantage in that she's not a politician She speaks plainly and in a straightforward manner that people can understand. She answers questions in a direct manner. Do you know how long people have been waiting for that? Additionally, I believe the majority of people in the US ARE, indeed progressive, they just don't identify themselves as such. But I can see Warren attracting people from across party lines. Easily.

[longship]

79. And one possible reason why she won't win.

Last edited Sun Aug 4, 2013, 12:13 AM - Edit history (1)

If she doesn't run, she will not win.

So kind of pointless to find reasons why she'll win when it's three years before anybody gets the nomination.

In the meantime there's a minor matter called the 2014 midterm elections which some think are pretty damned important.

I will support whoever gets the Dem nomination in 2016, but that's three years from now.

[Beacool]

82. Ahhh, all the hand wringing.

How about waiting to see if the lady is even interested in running?

One thing though, 2016 is not going to be 2008 where another Obama is going to come out and sell a lot of B.S. to the Left. This time around, if she runs, she wins. Then you can all start your hand wringing and angst ridden posts about a third way, DLC, blah, blah, blah.

[markiv]

84. she may win, but i wont vote for her, period

and it has nothing to do with her being a woman, so spare me the gender stuff

it's because she's a hard core neoliberal pro outsourcing/free trade

i just dont vote for that

[Beacool]

89. Then vote for whichever Bagger is the Republican nominee.

If that person wins, then you'll really see the difference between the two. Too bad that the rest of us will have to suffer too.

[mick063]

91. No Bagger.

Vote for the most liberal.

I'm sure there will be one on the ballot.

[Beacool]

99. In the general election?

If it comes down to Hillary, a Bagger and a third party candidate, do you think that the latter has a chance in hell of winning? I would vote for ANY Democrat in 2016. The Baggers are not the "regular" Republicans, they are to the right of Attila and far scarier.

[mick063]

104. I will not be extorted from threat of GOP victory.

The problem with your extortion is that the ransom never goes away and the price of the ransom always goes up.

I will instead, extort you.

Give me a candidate besides Hillary, a more liberal candidate, or I will work against her and you will receive a GOP President.

In either case of extortion, yours or mine, the price for not paying the ransom is a GOP president. If you fear GOP control with much trepidation, pay heed to my warning.

I prefer my terms, not yours.

[Beacool]

111. I'm not extorting you.

I really couldn't care less who you for.

[DonCoquixote]

134. any you are comfy with a GOP president

More importantly, you think the world is? You think the iranians will go "gee, they just let in a GOp because they wanted to make a point?"

[markiv]

98. if you think that attitude wins support

then go ahead and keep it

but there's a lot of people who've been thrown under her bus, and frankly i dont think attacking them is going to win them (us) over

[Beacool]

100. Hey, you're talking to someone who's no fan of Obama.

But do you think that we would have been thrown under the bus any less by McCain or Romney? It would have been far worse. Yes, Hillary is a centrist, but so is most of the country (whether the Left likes it or not). In 2016 I will vote for the Democrat on the ballot, I will be damned if I help a Bagger get the WH by throwing away my vote to a third party candidate. If a Bagger wins the WH, THEN we would be living in a hell that we can't even imagine.

[markiv]

101. you know, i'm getting sick and tired of the 'BUT THE REPUBLICANS!!!!!'

arguement every time a legitimate criticism of a blue colored is raised

Hillary has STOMPED on tech workers ruthlessly, and if the only arguement others can offer me is 'but if you dont vote for her, we'll go under the bus with you;, then that's not my problem


her actions against tech workers have been 100 percent inexcusable and 100 percent inconsistent with the so called vlaues of this party

sorry, i dont vote for fraud

this is a very serious and legitimate concern for many people, and it cant be browbeaten away

[Beacool]

112. The same goes for you as for the other poster.

I don't give a flying fig who you vote for. I don't browbeat anyone into voting. I'm just explaining what would be worse for the nation. Do whatever you want.

[nadinbrzezinski]

142. You think that this is a threat that will work any longer?

Geez!!!! Louis!!!!

[Beacool]

143. What threat?

The poster was saying that if Hillary is the nominee he won't vote for her. OK, but don't complain if a Bagger gets into the WH just because some of you didn't get the ideal candidate of your choice. That's no threat, as I have said twice already on this thread, I don't give a crap who all of you vote for.

[nadinbrzezinski]

144. I won't vote for her either

I will vote my conscience.

I am done with the threat of the bagger in the WH. You know why? At the most fundamental of levels, neither the Dems (at that level) or the Rs, work for us. They work for a power elite. The Primaries are a joke, and elections are also a joke. It is not different than when I first voted in Mexico at 18 years of age. We did it, cynics that we were, to keep in practice for when it might matter.

Well, guess what? We are in the same exact place now in the US. Elections really do not matter... in the most fundamental of policy matters, *cough NSA cough* for example.

[L0oniX]

107. The banksters want to make sure they will remain in control. Rah rah ...go Hillary!

[Scurrilous]

110. Boink.

[hughee99]

115. Wasn't most of this said of her 3 years before the 2008 primary?

The one that she didn't win.

[Vashta Nerada]

116. I really hope she doesn't win.

She's too pro-corporation and too conservative for me.

[TransitJohn]

120. I can't believe the DLC/Third Way apparatchiks are gearing up so fucking early

It sucks balls.

[B Calm]

136. The only way I'd vote for Hillary is

if she's the democratic candidate. I would like to think we could do better than her though!