General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHere are my concerns about a HRC candidacy ...
I'm posting this because I am really undecided between Bernie, HRC and O'Malley. To this point, I have not heard any convincing arguments to satisfy/address/remove my concerns. I'm hoping that someone can address them.
Of paramount concern, for 2016, I want a Democrat (or, someone that caucuses with Democrats) to win the White House, so:
1) A HRC candidacy will, likely, energize the gop base in ways that no other Democratic candidate would, or any of the current gop crop has. Let's face it ... the gop hates anything with the name Clinton attached to it.
2) How will HRC convince a critical mass of the activist left that she is sincere in her recently discovered populist voice? Democrats win, when we produce big turn out ... that big turn-out will likely be off set by the HRC-hating gop base and this will be doubly threatening should she fail to be convincing to the activist left ... and do so early enough that the activist left's criticisms fade to a point of not influencing the less politically engaged.
3) How will her pro-free trade and less than dovish foreign policy stance play with the non-politically engaged?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)except for the Rug Doctor. 
Grilled Charlie
(57 posts)Doesn't it bother you that anything she says now will be irrelevant if her investors don't find it profitable after she's elected?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #5)
Grilled Charlie This message was self-deleted by its author.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)But whomever you decide to vote on, vote!
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I will not only vote, I will put in work to get the Democratic nominee elected.
dsc
(52,166 posts)On point 1 it matters not who we nominate the GOP base will come out and vote. If nothing else, SCOTUS will assure us of that. On point 2, if we don't have a Democratic Congress nothing at all will be done. If we do, then we will have to work to get things done. Specific to turn out, Clinton will energize women, especially single working women, of whom there are many. I also think her record on gay rights will energize LGBT voters and donors. Her positions on point three are not any different than Obama's and he won two elections rather handedly.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)On point 1, I know the gop base will turn out ... but, I meant that segment of the base that wanted cruz or santorium but got Ohio Bob. They might sit that out because Ohio Bob is nowhere near as crazy as the other two; but for, "what you say?!? Hillary?!? Sh!!!!!!!T!"
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)About which of our candidates motivates the GOP to come out against them, the antidote, so far, is O'Malley. And I say that as a Hillary supporter. Problem is, I am sure the GOP would manufacture plenty of outrage against O'Malley if nominated.
Lonusca
(202 posts)I don't think there is any candidate around, including Sanders (the average GOP voter would see it as 1972), who could possibly energize their base more. This is a potential fatal flaw in her candidacy.
I don't think Hillary is "as exciting" to Dems (compared to Obama) as she is despised by the right. The GOP is a machine (not necessarily a legal one) when it comes to GOTV
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)But, on point one it isn't an energized GOP base I am worried about, there simply aren't enough of them to overcome everyone who would likely vote for a Democrat if they bothered to register to vote and become politically active. What I would worry about more is that a Hillary nomination would fail to rally people to register to vote and become politically active another words I am worried about the potential voters who would stay home.
On point two she can't convince me end of story. That will not keep me from supporting the Democrat candidates or from voting, but it sure takes the wind out of my sails not having a Presidential candidate to be excited about voting for.
On the trade issue she admits the TPP is a lemon. She wants to give us a lemon to make lemonade no sugar and please return that lemon when you are done. I don't believe she is a war monger, but I sure don't believe she won't ramp up a war to please the PTB.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)I am not concerned because I am not campaigning for her. And the 2nd point I think is totally and completely valid in that Hillary will energize Republicans, plus keep potential new voters from registering and getting involved in the political process. I don't think we can afford that.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)There are concerns for every candidate. I think Hillary represents a strong, experienced leader. And the differences between her and Bernie are largely a matter of degree, rather than direction. And I think most progressive activists will understand that having a D win is more important than have their particular favorite D win.
1939
(1,683 posts)If HRC trashes President Obama too much on TPP and runs away from him, what will that do to GOTV enthusiasm in the African-American community?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)and avoid even the possibility of impropriety instead of "the lawyers signed off on it?"
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
pscot
(21,024 posts)Excellent framing. The response so far is not too constructive.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)The Republican base would crawl naked through poison ivy to vote against Hillary, they loathe her with a passion impossible to describe in a human tongue.
On the other hand I don't see Hillary as being particularly engaging for the young and traditional non-voters, she has been a fixture in politics since well before younger voters were born and is considered a known quantity. Name recognition works both for and against her and most people have made up their minds a long time ago.
brooklynite
(94,708 posts)...that more Republicans would vote against Clinton than voted against Obama?
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)They bring it out to gloat over on special occasions, they still won't watch a Jane Fonda movie, even ones that weren't born at the time.
Hillary has a special place in what passes for their hearts.
The problem for Hillary Clinton is that she isn't Barack Obama, she might be as smart but Barack has Bill's ease with people and Hillary bless her heart is not her husband's equal as a politician.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
Stellar
(5,644 posts)You got everything covered that were my concerns.
Gothmog
(145,489 posts)The tea party types in particular are motivated by emotion such hatred
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)that didn't vote for Obama.
I think the Hillary Hate on the right has gotten stale.
Your description of the Republican base was hilarious!
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)our candidate instead of for theirs but when that is suggested for us to vote against the repub as a reason to vote it is poo pooed.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)Full disclosure, I also don't support her as a candidate. I think she's pretty much the poster child of the corporate Democrat.
BUT, putting that aside and just talking about elections-- I honestly don't think she can win a national election unless the Republican candidate is truly batshit, and alienates everyone to the left of Sean Hannity. I don't think she could beat anyone who could even convincingly pretend to be a somewhat reasonable person. I don't think she could beat a 2000 GW Bush, for instance, or a Romney, or a Jon Huntsman.
Even someone like Walker would beat her, imho-- because he'd energize the right-wing base in a huge way (especially when squaring off against HRC), while Hillary would have the opposite effect with the left-wing.
I think your second point is a good one as well. I really don't think she can pull off a populist message like Obama could for two reasons. First, she has a long record that simply contradicts such rhetoric, while Obama did not, and second, she just isn't a very good politician. Whatever else I may think of Obama, there's no denying he's an incredible politician and rhetorician.
How will her stance on free trade play? I could not begin to guess. I know how it'll play with the left, but the country as a whole often surprises me with their positions (or lack of same) on issues like trade.
seveneyes
(4,631 posts)Rilgin
(787 posts)I think you have identified a number of salient points. They all roughly address electability which is what is put forth as Hillary's strong point and the reason for her being the front runner.
The reason I think your points are valid is not just because they are valid but they are also within the traditional definitions of what electability involves ... turnout
Hillary will have a big bankroll. She has name recognition and she will have party support amongst the political class. These traditionally help with electability. Bernie if he wins it is because new systems (in other words social media) offset the traditional factors. It is not clear that they will which is why Bernie is something new. Peoples movements have been happening throughout the world. Why not in the US. Further, the good news is that if he wins we will have a president that is not beholden to the interests and will actually support real changes to the status quo.
Turning back to your OP. The specific factors you raise, are rarely mentioned or discussed by HRC supporters because they are not good for Hillary. It should be clear that she will mobilize the right wing Republican base to turn out and somewhat depress the left wing democratic base. It is unclear as to the amount by which this will affect the election but they are clearly a factor. Frankly, I am very worried about your specific points. I think it is very possible that they alone might cause her to lose.
Bernie has some of those factors (that raise and lower turnout) as well and again its not clear how they factor. He can be labeled a socialist. He is older and from Vermont. The media will always address him as fringe. Again, for him to win he has to change the game but if he does win, we actually get someone in office who is willing to change the status quo.
There are other factors that I would add that are unfavorable for HRC but unclear as to how much they will affect the outcome. She is not a great or charismatic speaker and has a long history of gaffes that go to her truthtelling (we will see many repeats of the video claiming she landed under fire). If she runs against any one but Bush (like walker or rubio), she will be a defined target and the republicans can project anything they want on the unknown younger republican. People like new if they are not happy with the status quo and Hillary can not represent the new. This also greatly concerns me.
On the whole, its hard to actually calculate all the factors, but I am actually fairly skeptical that HRC can win given your factors and the other factors. This leads me to my support of Bernie or maybe O Malley if he gains some traction. I ultimately am pessimistic that her money and the tribal loyalty of the American People to their party will be enough to offset the factors that argue against her winning.
uponit7771
(90,359 posts)... to fall in deep loyal love like we did with Obama who now is a POS used car salesman to some on the left
and...
Just like Bernie has to comes to grips for his 2A votes that will IN NOW WAY play well in POC demographics Hillary will have to come to grips with what she'll do with income inequality....
None of the current candidates have the purity the POS used car salesman Obama had during his run
brooklynite
(94,708 posts)Too many people associate all Republicans with the worst Tea Party/Bible Thumpers they read about. It's not true. There are indeed plenty of those kooks, but they're largely in Red States that aren't part of the Democratic Equation. There are plenty of people in the Battleground States )especially suburban women) who vote Republican out of a generic preference for smaller, less expensive Government, but are comfortable with a mainstream Democrat (but probably not an avowed Socialist) compared to a fringe Republican. The people who would "never vote for Clinton" (on the Republican side...) aren't likely to vote for Sanders instead.
Point 2:
This will probably not go over well with some, but the "activist left" isn't that active. There are certainly people on the left of the Party who feel distanced from Clinton and "mainstream" Democrats (Dinos! DLC! Third Way!), but there really aren't that many, and despite the chest thumping you'll hear on DU, almost none will sit out the GE (just as the PUMA movement never really materialized in 2008). And polling indicates that Clinton remains highly popular with liberals.
Point 3:
The average voter doesn't feel that trade is significant issue, and whatever the outcome of TPP, it's not likely to be approved soon and certainly won't take effect before the Election. As for Foreign Policy, voters are concerned about the outcome of foreign policy decisions (ISIS) but they don't express concern about Obama or Clinton's Foreign Policy decisions with respect to Syria, Iraq, Iran or Egypt. Nobody except for some of the harsher anti-Clinton people really believe Clinton wants to or would start a war with Iran or launch a solo invasion of ISIS territory.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)This is not really my concern; rather, I'm concerned that that segment of the base that wanted cruz or santorium but got Ohio Bob. They might sit that out because Ohio Bob is nowhere near as crazy as the other two; but for, "what you say?!? Hillary?!? Sh!!!!!!!T!"
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)Thank you.
JI7
(89,262 posts)And she will do better among white women.
goldent
(1,582 posts)The reality for me is that I don't really have to decide until next spring or summer, whenever the primary is for me. And the decision might already be made by that time. So for now I am just watching and listening.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the decision will be long made. However, I am committed to clarifying my thoughts regarding the candidates. It comes in handy in working campaigns.
Splatterpunk
(19 posts)that's Obama the candidate, bullshits the true progressives to grab their votes, and then abandons them almost immediately to govern to the right, favoring GOP policies over progressive policies.
In 2012 we were forced to choose the lesser of the two corporate evils, Obama or Romney.
This election, even before the primaries gets underway, we are afforded a rare opportunity to select a true progressive or a corporatist Third Wayer. The clowns on the other side of the spectrum has absolutely zero chance of winning, so the focus is who's the right choice for the Democratic Party?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
okasha
(11,573 posts)1. The GOP base was energized against Barack Obama well beyond the point of barking madness. "He's a Kenyan, not an American! He's a secret Muslim.! He's a Communist/gonna take our gunz/give our hard-earned money to welfare queens!". And here we are, seven years later, with President Obama coming into the home stretch of his second term, the GOP still unhappy and still twice-defeated.
They may hate Hillary as bad as they hate Obama, but I don't see how they could possibly hate her worse.
2. The activist left is a small fraction of the Democratic Party, and has proven itself undependable in previous elections. (Yes, Nader.). We will need to work for record turnouts in the actual base--people of color, lgbt's, women--and in red/purple states that can be flipped.
3. I'm not sure a pure white dove is who we want as CnC when Putin's threatening to restart the cold war.
,
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Cosmocat
(14,568 posts)I thought like this 6 years ago, and part of my support for BHO was this very thing.
While I expected them to be assholes, I figured, he was a fairly likable person, had a very calm temperament and didn't throw bombs.
So, I figured that they were go ginned up for Hill that it probably would not be as bad with him.
Well, they have been just a big assholes with him as Bill and Hill.
It does not matter WHO the democrat is, they will be jackasses, and have mutated to this form now where not only will they consolidate around a few centralized themes and hammer the shit out of whoever it is, they will be absolutely, 100 percent lock step in opposition.
JustAnotherGen
(31,869 posts)If they win - the Republicans will be jackasses.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)#1. I think you are correct that she will energize the GOP base but I also think there will be many more Republican women voting for Hillary than will admit it. I know that you also know that the GOP can not win with out the AA vote, the Latino vote and the female vote. And I think that no matter how many voters that can muster up, they won't be able to overcome that.
#2. I think Hillary has always been pretty liberal on many issues. I don't want to see her go too far to the left, lest she turn off more moderate Democrats and Independents. I think there are many more moderate democratic voters than extreme left voters.
$3. All Democratic Presidents have been pro free trade and I think Hillary will do what she can to see that Americans don't lose jobs over a trade deal. She is a bit more hawkish than the other candidates that is true. But I also don't think she will send us into a war based on lies and half truths like Bush did.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)leftofcool
(19,460 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)they can beat him.
Number 2 it is clear from the polls that Democrats will support the nominee. When the general election heats up people will go out and vote.
3 Hillary will made clear she stood with Pelosi on TTP and has admitted Iraq was a mistake. She knows we can't afford another war.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The GOP is going to hate her, and the activist left is going to be lukewarm towards her. I would argue that the GOP base learns to hate pretty quickly (e.g. Kerry, Obama), but in terms of firing up the activist bases on either side, Hillary is probably at a disadvantage here. As for (3), free trade and semi-hawkishness both poll pretty well. I don't see free trade as a big issue for non-politically-engaged people, and on foreign policy, Hillary's level of hawkishness is probably an asset politically.
To balance this out, I'd say a few things. First, there is another big part of the base that will be fired up about Hillary. She's very popular with women and minorities. And this is arguably more important than the activist base, first because there are more of them, and second because the activists are probably going to end up voting for her anyway. If you look at polls, Hillary does very well among liberal Dems (as does Obama), which raises real questions about just how big the activist "won't vote for Hillary" base really is.
Hillary also has more appeal with independents and non-teabagging Republicans than any other Dem in the field. This is for a few reasons. First of all, even though DU considers her to be basically a Republican, the country just isn't as far left as we might wish, so being more centrist than Bernie and O'Malley is helpful here. And, people still like Bill Clinton's presidency, which, fairly or unfairly, she will be associated with. Hillary has unquestionable credentials and experience. Also, I think she will do well with independent women.
And finally, Hillary has the ability to raise large amounts of money, something that is unfortunately important.
Overall, I think she's the most likely candidate to be able to win a GE, by a comfortable margin.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
BainsBane
(53,056 posts)but I'll give it a shot.
1) The reason HRC has thus far energized the GOP is because they see her as the hardest to beat. Her favorability ratings are higher than the other Democrats and higher than all the Republicans. She performs the best of all the candidates in polling. They are mobilizing their arsenal, planting opp stories in "leftist" media that her detractors on the left pick up and repeat. The GOP does this precisely because they fear her. No doubt Clinton derangement syndrome is great, but the GOP manages to whip itself into a frenzy regarding any candidate, as we saw with Obama and have continued to see throughout his presidency.
If Sanders were to win the nomination, the GOP would present him as Joseph Stalin. That you can count on. They would reignite the Cold War rhetoric all over again, and the current tensions with Russia would play into that.
That is not to say people should fail to support Sanders because of the GOP. Rather that they will find a way to mobilize against any Democrat. Clinton is their current target because they think she is likely to win the nomination, and they fear they can't beat her.
2) The Clinton-hating left will not mobilize to support Clinton. The traditional Democratic base that does the leg work in every single election will. I've canvassed in that past several elections, and the people who organize are the loyal Democratic voters, people supporting local initiatives supported by the Democratic Party, and regular liberals and leftists that are not the type that devote themselves to destroying Democrats.
3) I could be wrong, but I don't think less engaged voters are going to vote based on TPP. Less engaged voters don't tend to vote in primaries anyway, so when it comes to the general election the issues that are central to many of what you call activists are not the same that will move less engaged voters. Those folks, like most Americans, are concerned about issues having to do with their daily lives: jobs, their kids education, etc...
I am not sure how foreign policy will play out in the election. I think it's safe to say that Americans across the political spectrum are tired of war and endless interventions abroad. Still, ISIS is growing stronger and acquiring more territory all the time, and NATO is insisting the US make its presence felt in Eastern Europe. I don't know how to answer that question other than to say that less engaged voters are more likely to wait until the general election, when Clinton's record would contrast with her GOP opponent. In that sense, her experience as a diplomat will be a positive. Despite the fact she is on the hawkish side, the GOP is sure to out hawk her. They always do. How that will play out with a war fatigued public, I don't know.
Gothmog
(145,489 posts)The extreme conservatives on DI are actually trying to figure out how to support Sanders because they are worried about Clinton. It is really sad and funny http://www.discussionist.com/1015472960
Gothmog
(145,489 posts)Let me respond to your concerns.
1. GOP Turnout-(a)The GOP turnout will not be affected by the identity of the Democratic nominee. There is a running joke by my county party chairman that republicans drive by their polling location every day hoping that there is an election and we Democrats have to work hard to get our voters to the polls. I expect that the GOP turnout will be a higher percentage of their base than democratic turnout as a percentage of our base simply because the GOP base votes in every election. The GOP is going to turnout in all cases at a higher rate no matter who our candidate is.
(b) The GOP hated President Obama and turned out like crazy in 2008 and 2012 and still loss. Yes, the GOP hate the Clintons but the GOP also hated President Obama and he still won. Heck, in my part of the country, many religions think that Romney was not a christian and yet the GOP base turned out to vote against an African American candidate.
(c) The fact that the GOP hate and fear Hillary Clinton may also motivate our base to get out to vote.
(d) There will be some GOP crossover for Clinton among women voters. This is going to be the best chance to elect a female POTUS for a generation. It is far more likely that Hillary Clinton will get some cross over vote compared to the other democratic possibilities.
2. (a),The activist base will support Hillary Clinton in large part because all of the possible GOP candidates are really not appealing choices. Not one of the GOP candidates have anything to offer the activist base of the Democratic party and each stand for principles that are repugnant to the Democratic activist base.
(b) There is some polling on this board that show that 92% of Democrats are comfortable in supporting Hillary Clinton http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026890917 I suspect that this number understates the support because Clinton is far better than any GOP nominee.
(c) The SCOTUS will be an important issue in this race and the activist base will turnout to keep control of the SCOTUS.
3. HRC's pro trade policies and other faults will pale in comparison when she is compared to the eventual GOP nominee. There are no GOP nominees who would not scare a member of the Democratic base.
While I have some concerns about Hillary Clinton, right now I am comfortable in supporting her.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)In your Bernie thread you twice mentioned how disappointed you were that Bernie supporters weren't answering your concerns - both times within the first hour of your OP. You mostly deflect and challenge the attempts to answer your questions in that thread.
Here on your Hillary concerns thread you have far fewer direct responses yet nary a word about any disappointment about their lack of response more than 15 hours later. You also aren't expending nearly the bandwidth to have any conversations about your Hillary concerns as you have about your Bernie concerns.
Sorry but you come across as already 100% decided for Hillary. The differences in your responses are fairly stark. I'll be generous and give you the benefit of the doubt that you haven't really decided but your "tells" here on these threads make it obvious you have already eliminated Bernie from your list at the least.
I suspect it will be the same with your O'Malley thread but I'll reserve judgement until I see that one play out.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)BainsBane
(53,056 posts)Clearly we lack the charm of our betters.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)I think all these scenarios are fantasies
Hillary is not a newly minted progressive.
What is said about her in DU does not reflect the world outside of our little on line bubble.
She will be our next President and hopefully if we win back the Senate we will see a brighter future.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Republicans tend to nominate a candidate they perceive as appealing to the center. Their radicalized base who sit out for lack of Santorum in their diet, or their preferred kielbasa equivalent, would be wooed with "OH MY GOD THE SOCIALISTS CLINTONS ARE COMING." Some of them will vote and some won't.
Essentially the same argument will be used to get their base off their couches. Clinton and Sanders are the easiest targets for this type of attack, but it will work on any Democrat. They have to do that because the far right of their party does not like their typical candidate.
People believed Candidate Obama because they thought he was different, even if it was clear that he and Candidate Clinton disagreed on small details rather than substance. Because belief is involved rather than rational decision, Clinton is not going to convince the activist base. Some of them will sit out the election and blame Clinton for getting a Republican elected. Some will vote for Clinton rather than risk putting Republicans in control of all branches of government.
Pro free trade and foreign policy are not arguments that will be made to the non-politically engaged. Those I know care far more about bread and butter issues because the tend to live at the lower end of the poverty scale.
One critical point. Foreign policy and Free Trade from administration to administration is remarkably consistent. I think it will continue that way as long as we act like an empire.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)1) The GOP hate toward Clinton is a huge positive for me. They have simply gone too far in their Clinton hate and it is having the opposite effect they want it to these days. Gowdy, without his knowledge, is one of her biggest supporters. People are sick of seeing such a strong woman being attacked relentlessly and frivolously. It simply gains her favor and that is borne out in poll after poll.
I also believe being anti-progressive and anti-liberal is their mission. They use the Clinton name as they are great progressives and have been fighting for progressive values for decades. Their attacks will be just as relentless on other candidates. They will not use soft gloves on O'Malley or Sanders. With Clinton, you have decades of her and her advisors learning how to deal with the hate. Something none of our other contenders have had. That is a plus for her, not a negative.
2) Throughout the campaign, videos of Clinton speaking a populist message for decades will come out. This is actually a Primary meme in my opinion. It is a good message and excellent campaigning on the part of Sanders. I also think it has been excellent on Clintons part to not get into that and to just keep marching forward and delivering her populist message. Because of this issue, there have been hundreds of articles written about Clintons populist message. There are twenty year old speeches, and many of them, where she is speaking a populist message. One thing this drawn out process does is give people time to learn. It is clear that many even have to learn about Hillary.
3) I think her stance on trade issues will be a positive for her. Remember, du is at the micro level. People can't figure out what the machine that took their assembly line job had to do with NAFTA. Yet they are repeatedly told they lost their job because of it. Many simply don't buy into the evilness of it. I am a human. I want someone willing to elevate the world population. I am blessed to be an American. We should be willing to share. This would be an easier argument if there were fundamental changes in our economy over the last decades. There haven't been. Without fundamental changes, we better keep looking at different markets and how to be a part of those markets while elevating working standards and protections.
As for the hawk aspect there is simply no excusing some of her comments and I would never try to. Nor would I try to do anything but condemn her for her IWR vote. I don't think she is the hawk she is made out to be. Some are invested in relieving Bush of his responsibility in that fuck up. It is his and we own it.
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)1) Their anti-Clinton screed is a spent force. They've already tried everything to attack her for 20+ years. These clowns have no concept of "keeping their powder dry" so we already have the same crap recycled and digested. Yes they will bring it all back up again, but this is why her negatives are already high. Anyone stupid enough to believe that crap already hates her.
2) DU magnifies this bloc logarithmically. DU is not the Democratic party let alone the nation. 92% of Dems are willing to vote for her (the other 8 are just as likely to be Kentucky-style conservative "Democrats" as Dem. Socialists or Green-leaners) and she is more popular among liberal Dems than other sections. Remember a tiny tiny portion of the US believes Obama is not liberal enough. It is the majority opinion by far here. Simply put there is no mass leftist defection in the offing beyond the usual percent or two that goes Green/Dem Soc etc every time.
3) Frankly, very well. Jingoism and euphemisms always do.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)1) I doubt that anything we do will prevent the Repub base from turning out. That said, there's "the base" and "the base base". There are a lot of gop women who will pull the lever for Hillary because she's a woman.
2) Recently made promises are still promises. I think even a Clinton feels some obligation to follow through on them. The contrast between Clinton and Jeb... and support from Sanders and O'Malley will be enough to inspire people to pull the correct lever in November.
3) "I don't have to run faster than the bear, I just have to run faster than you" If she's the nominee, Hillary is going to look good compared to her competition.
If I must be honest, with the huge money at her disposal, I concede that Clinton has better odds in the general than Bernie. But I've been through that rationalization too many times. I think Bernie embodies the best that our political system has to offer.
ismnotwasm
(41,999 posts)1) I agree hate for Hillary is strangely visceral. On the other hand, if Republicans can't come up with better then they have, I doubt they'll be energized enough. I never say never though. I think O'Mallery would be easier for the republicans to take. I think they'd hate Sanders, but feel less threatened. This is a concern for her campaign indeed
2) She is already working on it, her work with women and girls world-wide is a big plus, and she it addressing concerns in a number of progressive areas in her campaign. She will never convince hard line progressives. They also hate President Obama; we will have to see how successful she is. She convinced me, and I voted Socialist until that asshole George Bush actually made it to the primary.
3) This is a even dicier one, the TPP has been in the works since the Bush presidency, the (keeping it simple here) argument is that the U.S. Needs to make trade agreements we can have better control over. This is one of Obama's arguments.
One thing I appreciate about her is she was against CAFTA, I despise CAFTA. She has been supportive of NAFTA, although has criticized its implementation saying it hurt American workers.
She is Hawkish is crisis situations. I don't see her that way when diplomacy will work. Having been America's top Diplomat, I think she can sell her foreign policy positions, such as a two state solution for Isreal and Palestine.
Not to set a bar using RWers, but they hated her foreign policy, as did certain progressives-often for the opposite reasons. The response in general to her time as SOS can best be described as "lukewarm" (I read an article that said she'll never go down in history as a brilliant diplomat unlike Henry Kissinger. Good Gravy Marie.)
Off topic, but President Obama also has this problem with oppisite criticism from the left and the right which leaves me shaking my head
These are very legitimate concerns
LWolf
(46,179 posts)Okay, I agree, although I'm sure the gop also hates anything with the word "socialist" attached to it.
2) How will HRC convince a critical mass of the activist left that she is sincere in her recently discovered populist voice? Democrats win, when we produce big turn out ... that big turn-out will likely be off set by the HRC-hating gop base and this will be doubly threatening should she fail to be convincing to the activist left ... and do so early enough that the activist left's criticisms fade to a point of not influencing the less politically engaged.
This is a valid concern. She's way beyond being able to convince this particular "activist left" voter of anything.
3) How will her pro-free trade and less than dovish foreign policy stance play with the non-politically engaged?
I'd like to say that they will be turned off and away from her, as they should be, but I can't. The very non-engagement means they are likely to overlook those distinct flaws.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)I enjoy good discussion and enjoyed the thread on Sanders last night.
Okay, here's my quick take.
1) True. But Hillary may be somewhat like Teflon. The more vicious the attacks the more it bounces back to the attackers. I think President Obama is like this, and so was Bill Clinton for that matter. Also, purely anecdotal, I know a traditional self-described moderate republican woman who voted for Romney (yuck) who told me she'd vote for Hillary. There may be many women in the republican party who would do that but wouldn't vote for Bernie.
2) I think she can go pretty darn far left and still win in the general election. Unlike Romney, who went too far right and lost big, I think the mood of the country has shifted toward a more populist perspective in the past four years. I think to seal the deal she has to pledge specific populist proposals, the kind that are accountable like 'My first day in office I will urge Congress to raise the federal minimum wage.' Specific things like a five point plan that she promises. Day care leaves, student loan reductions or forgiveness, doubling the capital gains tax (or 'restoring it to Bill Clinton levels'). She has to say 'Give me the Congress that I need and we'll do it day one. That could get her a victory and the Congress she needs. Interestingly though, Bernie can do the same and get a strong turnout. I agree with you that when democrats vote democrats win. From a leftist perspective some may feel she'd fight harder and more effectively against an intransigent Congress than Bernie. Tough to say at this point.
3) It doesn't play well with the non-politically engaged nor with the strong contingent of democratic voters who still don't trust her because of her Iraq War Resolution vote or her less than dovish stances. It's always a bit tough to predict how someone may respond once their in the Presidency and faced with crises. I do think her first inclination is toward diplomacy, which she carried out pretty effectively as Secretary of State. There's still a contingent of democrats, myself among them, that would like to see a strong move toward decreasing spending on the military-industrial complex. I don't know think that's within the power of a President to accomplish without a massive shift in public consciousness on this issue, and a defeat of nearly all conservatives in Congress.
Question for you. How much do you think endorsements matter? I think Hillary will get a lot of them because of favors she has done over the years, and the expectation that the endorsers will get something in return. Also, I wonder whether organized labor will endorse Bernie (I think they will) and how effective that endorsement may be. Just not sure and would appreciate yours or anyone else's thoughts.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I think endorsements count for a lot ... (enthusiastic) endorsements of politicians, move their supporters; endorsement of organizations, move their members; endorsements of the media, move their audience ... because the reality is, people largely don't have the time, energy, and/or inclination to decide for themselves.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)And an entire generation has been taught to see her as all things perfidious, which is not true, but it is what it is. The GOP campaigned against her since Bill got in office it's an industry like the anti-Obama one.
There is a part of the electorate that will never vote for her, they'd vote for Stalin first. This has also affected the media driven left, as well.
#2: This is a big deal. But none of the candidates have the power of Obama to energize the electorate. This isn't France where they have reasoned, respectful debate between the candidates. It's all mud and lies here, and paid propaganda. We don't get enough information to make a decision, we just react to the latest spew. And it's all a controlled message. Americans don't vote like other countries, it's all a commercial.
#3: They won't care. It's only the politically engaged, whether they are brainwashed or not well informed of any stripe, that focus on this stuff.
Now, my addendum, but to be fair, it applies to all of the people running for POTUS in 2016:
All the Democratic candidates are from blue states in the Northeast or New England. Many parts of the USA don't want that, they regard it as either elitist or not mordern enough.
In contrast, the GOP is running candidates from red states and the South. A great deal of the population has moved to the South since the seventies, as things began to rust and close down up north. They believe they live in the best area and have good lives under the GOP. Including former Democrats.
That's a factor I've seen no one discuss on DU.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)First off, as a long long time Obama supporter since 2007 (against the Kucinich supporters in the DU, and the Clinton supporters everywhere else), I distinctly remember this being said about him. It didn't work out that way.
Second, let's look at where we are right now:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/
Rubio +16
Christie +16
Walker +17
Trump +24
This leaves me none too worried. Hillary Clinton has very strong support among moderate Republican women.
2) How will HRC convince a critical mass of the activist left that she is sincere in her recently discovered populist voice?
Well, I don't think she's really didn't have that voice. It's just that there are leftists who are always dissatisfied with anyone whose positions don't make them outright unelectable. However, unlike the GOP base, they really don't make up anywhere near as much of the Democratic party as the hard (teabagger) right does for Republicans.
Again, does anyone seriously believe that leftists are going to be Naderites again, given what they did to Gore in the 2000 elections? We learned that lesson (everywhere but here).
3) How will her pro-free trade and less than dovish foreign policy stance play with the non-politically engaged?
It will help her tremendously, of course. The United States isn't the Democratic Underground. For everyone who hates Capitalism/Free-Trade here, there are hundreds of people who simply won't vote for anyone who doesn't support businesses and the resulting jobs. In terms of foreign policy, being slightly more hawkish is exactly what she needs in the general elections to stave off the idea that a woman won't adequately defend the nation's natural security interests.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
mmonk
(52,589 posts)where you are going with this and what results you come up with.