Hillary Clinton Owns 2016 Dem Nomination: Quinnipiac National Poll
May 2, 2013
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has a huge lead over other potential 2016 candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination, and if she doesn't run Vice President Joseph Biden has almost as large a lead on the rest of the field, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.
Ms. Clinton would get 65 percent of Democratic votes compared to 13 percent for Vice President Joe Biden, 4 percent for New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, and 1 percent or less for Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley and Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds. If Clinton is not in the race, Biden would get 45 percent, with 15 percent for Gov. Cuomo, 6 percent for, Gov. Patrick, 3 percent O'Malley and 2 percent for Warner.
"Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has a rock-solid hold on the hearts of Democratic voters at this point," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. "If she decides not to run, Vice President Joseph Biden does almost as well as she does against the rest of the field. There is a long way to go until 2016, but none of the other younger potential candidates for the Democratic nomination currently has anything approaching widespread support from party voters."
Unless Benghazi, which we know happened a LONG TIME AGO*, blows up.
* Traditional fuse phrase.
Poll Troll! Glad to see you, baby.
It's looking good for Hillary. Fuck Benghazi, they can't touch her.
Who will be her first lady?
She can't win. It would be suicidal for Dems to run her. She's ahead because nobody knows of anyone else.
1) I hope she runs
2) I hope she wins the nomination
3) I hope she wins the Presidency in a landslide
And R4 is clueless.
What a disaster for progressives. Hillary will simply continue the corporate neoliberal policies of her husband and Obama.
R6, can you think of a more progressive candidate that might actually get elected? Really?
r6 because the '90s were so awful right?
I supported HRC in 2008 and I will definitely support her run. I hope she runs.
hahhhaha....let her win the nomination.
John Ellis "Jeb" Bush, Next President of the United States of America.
I love saying that!
I hope she wins and I hope she send a hit team after Nancy Pelosi for throwing her under the bus in '08 and then having the fucking nuts to come out today and say she's "praying" for Hillary to run.
What a fucking nasty piece of work that old bitch is. I "pray" Hillary hates her as much as I do.
Exactly r10. That is exactly what I was thinking when I read the article on HuffPost. Does she think people have amnesia? She hated Hillary. Probably saw Hillary as threat to her own power.
The plain truth is Hillary is an incompetent campaigner, dishonest financially and intellectually, and is not a liberal - has never been a liberal - will never be a liberal. Yet on Datalounge there is more projection of qualities you want in a leader than on any person alive - ten time more than ever happened with Obama. You are literally making her up out of whole cloth to a really dangerous degree.
She did have written an autobiography filled with nonsensical lies, she marry Bill after failing the bar exam showing she has no persistence, she did adopt a conservative persona in Arkansas and a more left but still not liberal one in New York, she does brag about offering a third way between "traditional liberalism" and "conservatism," which is garbage, she did prove incompetent at running her campaign and her Senate office, she did suck up to the Christian right both during Bill's presidency and as Senator, she has accepted millions of dollars in contributions from Saudis and other foreigners, she is a no-good corrupt piece of ambitious garbage.
I find that people who insist they hate Nancy Pelosi tend to be irrational, and not anyone that anyone should listen to.
r13 I don't hate Pelosi. I think she has been a very effective leader. I'm specifically talking about her turnabout from 2008. She did not like HRC. Boxer, another Senator I admire, promised that whoever won the CA primary would get her endorsement. When HRC won CA, she didn't keep that promise.
yes, I hope she runs but life is unpredictable. all it takes is one bad move and it will be all over for her. Just look at the once promising careers of Weiner, Spitzer etc.
She'll run because the military trust only her to keep their crimes against America secret. But she'll lose, and let's hope it's in the primary, and she does not become our standard bearer in the general.
Great, she can destroy what is left of the middle and lower middle class that her husband, Bush and Obama helped decimate.
Free trade forever, bitches!
Hillary would be better than ANY republican nit wit.
I do agree, we need a TRUE liberal to set the USA for a strong 21st century.
Saying she'd be better than any Republican is like saying she'd be better than any psychopath in a federal prison.
We need a real progressive, not a triangulating former Wal-Mart lawyer.
Didn't she "own" the 2008 nomination too?
I thought we lived in a democracy. Why do we want the same families in the white house running this country? We had the Bush crime family in office for 12 years, now we want the Clinton crime family to rule for another eight years? Obama who is a cousin of Dick cheney is just an extension of the Bush and Clinton monopoly. So this acceptable to you? Our we that brainwashed to the point were we actually believe Hillary is the best choice?
r22 - Bless your heart.
[quote]because the '90s were so awful right?
Bill Clinton is responsible for NAFTA, which has been a boon for corporations and has destroyed the middle-class. The Glass-Steagal Act was also repealed under his watch (albeit the GOP lead the charge), which was one of the catalysts for the financial meltdown.
We need a viable third party not beholden to the corporate PTB.
She ran a lousy campaign in '08 and her tenure as Secretary of State was woefully unimpressive. I realize that her fangurls are stubborn men and women of a certain age, but the younger generations crave fresh faces/new ideas. People realize we're allowed to vote for people without the last name Bush / Clinton / Kennedy, right?
WW for R12
R25 = Babs Bush
R12 postures with unsubstantiated claims and opinions and then complains about DLers doing the same thing on the pro side of Hilary Clinton.
This is the sort of thing we can expect, yet again, when Clinton announces in two years that she is running. And it won't work.
What's with the liberal/conservative crap? Clinton will continue the push for equal rights for gay people and others historically denied their rights. She'll continue to push for better health care coverage. And she'll have a realpolitik approach to world affairs, but with a more enlightened focus.
And her election will cut the throat of much of the right-wing intransigence that has frozen much progress for 20 years. It will be a game changer - demographically, it will shake the system in a very positive way. A new coalition is likely.
Now, the last is my analysis. But note I identify it as such. I don't just honk like a goose and then expect people to see a golden egg, rather than just the same old goose shit that R12 is plopping behind her.
So how do we go about finding a progressive candidate to run for President when our current gov't is a plutocratic oligarchy?
Where does a true progressive get the money to run?
Where would a true progressive find support in Congress for getting anything passed?
How could a true progressive be protected from all the factions bought and sold by the oligarchy that would wish to destroy them if they could even manage to get elected?
If we are going to have a credible discussion we need to face the fact that money controls America and what can we do? What are we will to do to get our country back? That is the discussion we need to have going on. Anything else is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. We are still going down.
r28 I agree, but every time there's a thread about HRC, it's almost certain that those with Clinton Derangement Syndrome will come out in force. What are you going to do, right? How can you argue with those people?
If she runs in 2016, the best that we can hope for is thatthose who will vote for her outnumber those afflicted with CDS.
She owned the '08 campaign too until the voting actually started.
I will vote for her.
R12, Speak the truth and shame the devil!
Her nomination will further guarantee a republican victory.
You know when the corporate media is running around non-stop pushing and advocating for a candidate you can bet your last damn dime that that is bad news for average Americans.
The corporate media loves them some Third Way/DLC/Corporate Democrats.
You know the ones that support things like NAFTA, cutting Social Security, and increasing the retirement age, Simpson-Bowles supporters, lowering the corporate tax rates, etc.
They love them some Hillary Clinton because they know she will support most if not all of the agenda items I just listed.
Queen Hillary was amongst the LAST of prominent politicians to come out in support of equal rights for gays. Some of you are no better than Jewish Nazis.
r36, Does it matter when she supported it, she supports it so STFU.
There's no Obama style canidate on the horizon and i doubt Biden or Cuomo get in if she runs. Hopefully she'll pay attention to the caucuses this time.
[quote]can you think of a more progressive candidate that might actually get elected? Really?
The looney leftists are out in full force. They are just as odious as the freepers. Remember 2000 everyone? Remember Nadar and the people who thought there was no difference between Gore and Bush?
The question is what happens if Hillary decides not to run. I don't think Biden will go for it. If you say "it makes no difference" who runs then you are batshit crazy. Jeb? Jindal? Rubio?
Go fuck yourselves.
Despite conventional wisdom in the beltway, Cuomo will be destroyed in the primaries should he enter the race.
Governor Cuomo stated a few years back that he refuses to raise taxes on the wealthy in New York.
Can you imagine at a time with massive excesses by the 1%, a Democrat with that viewpoint winning the nomination in 2016?
I just don't see it.
He is another blatant Wall Street/Corporate Democrat and has been too overtly in that category. Unlike Bill Clinton or Pressident Obama, Cuomo does not appear to be blessed with good oratorical skills.
I don't think Cuomo can talk the blue-collar language and appeal to middle America or minorities the way that Clinton and Obama were able to successfully do.
Progressives are told all the time, you have to do a, b, or c because these Wall Street/Corporate/Third Way Democrats are better than the GOP crazies.
That half-assed thinking has us now listening to President Obama proposing to cut Social Security benefits with chained CPI.
So the choice now is cuts to Social Security benefits (Obama and corporat Democrats position) or privatizing the program (the GOP [position).
Some fucking choice isn't it?
[quote] Who will be her first lady?
Don't even go there, bitches, because you know EXACTLY who it is.
All this tiresome Marxism. Yawn.
Did you know that Cuomo was responsible for getting gay marriage through the NY state legislature? Did you know that independents would favor Christie over Cuomo? Yes. Independents would much prefer someone who weighs 300 pds and is against our community.
Glory be to Marx and down with Wall Street!
I am the worst kind of republican you guys can imagine, well, except for the gay part, and unless our side nominates someone really outstanding, I plan to vote for Hill. So there. Tuck that away because there are a LOT of us.
I'm thinking that regardless. The Democratic party of today isn't liberal; if they were the likes of Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich -- people in their group -- would have been the standard in 2004, 2008, and 2012. Hillary Clinton is not in their group. Mark Warner is not in their group.
In 2009, Bill Maher said that "Democrats are The New Republicans." Well, that's become the case with the party. The moderate Democrats are being passed off as the only ones viable. Which is bullshit. Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich, and others of their ilk would have defeated John McCain in 2008 and won re-election, over Mitt Romney, in 2012.
I am not excited about Hillary Clinton. If the topic was about having a first-ever female president of the United States, a liberal who votes Democratic should not be creaming himself over Hillary but trumpeting a campaign for Elizabeth Warren.
The party prevailing in a presidential election isn't only determined by the individual candidate. The circumstances say a lot.
Do you think, while you are bashing "leftists" (obviously you're not liberal), that the Republican party had a feasible chance to hold the White House with Election 2008?
If your consistent, your answer should be "yes." Otherwise, you are exposed and cannot be trusted.
R46. Why would he have to say yes and what would he be exposed as if he said no?
If a black man runs, she is toast. Again.
Black Dems will vote for the black candidate. Especially now that they know how powerful a block they really are.
Is there a viable black Democrat that can run in 2016? I can't think of anyone.
If she doesn't make it does that mean the biopic is still going ahead?
I would never, ever vote for her. I'll sit 2016 out if she's the nominee.
That's your choice not to exercise your right to vote. It's America. Don't feel special though.
Benghazi is going to haunt her. And there's more to come. The Republicans are going to squeeze that for every morsel they can. And Hillary did make a big mistake there.
In today's political world, the Cuomo's of the world will not get elected. He's very smart, very determined - but he has an air of superiority and pompous ass about him. Blue collar America will not be amused. And the Dems depend on them.
It will have to be another minority or a woman -the ticket should have one of each.
[quote]Is there a viable black Democrat that can run in 2016? I can't think of anyone.
Hillary's chance was 2008. Look what we got instead. She will be too old and irrelevant by 2016
R48, black dems were the last ones to warm to Obama. Early on, Hilary was destroying Obama among black dems. Also, Obama is not the only black dem to have run for president. All of the others never ( never even came close) won the black dem vote. Obama is a once in a lifetime candidate.
R57. 95% of black, racist?, voters went to Obama.
Because black dems were supposed to vote for Romney, right R58? Logic is a rare.
cut off, Logic is a rare ability among humans.
45% of whites voted for Obama. Racism works both ways.
90% of black Democrats voted for Gore and Kerry, racist? What an idiot. Ignore the freeper troll. Back to the original topic!
I agree with R12. This persistent idea that she is some kind of goddess, and not just a very calculating first lady who will sell the U.S. out to the highest bidder is insane.
The same people who scream that Obama is not liberal enough somehow can also insist that Hillary is to the left of Bernie Sanders. Its just nuts. It is totally about it "being her turn" and the desperation for a female president.
Didn't she actually tell someone that she DID believe in white supremacy, but it was hushed up?
Someone told me you're a child molester r64. It must be true because I actually typed it up!
r63 no one. No other First Lady has ever been as demonized as HRC by the rightwing. I don't where you get this idea that people have said she's "a goddess." Maybe you pull that out of your ass.
Give a link or source of anyone saying she was to the left of Bernie Sanders. Any source. You're a strawman.
R65 = Hilary's lesbian lover.
r67 I guess it's an admission that you're liar. Good enough for me.
R62. I didn't say black democrats, I said backs. Try again.
I_ hope so.I miss her and Bill.
R69, you're such a flipping idiot. Politics isn't your thing. If you're so stupid that you don't know that the vast majority (90-97 percent or more) of black registered voters ( because you have to be registered to vote idiot) are Democrats then you need to go sit in a corner, fold your arms, and sing yourself a lullaby because you are a complete dunce. This shit is common knowledge. Move along troll.
But we need someone to the left of Bernie Sanders, you nitwit R66. This isn't about symbolism. We need a genuine progressive.
Besides which, it is never "the turn" of anyone to be president.
You want a woman, fine. Find one progressive. There are thousands who would do a great job.
Hillary Clinton is not one of them. She's dirty, spineless, corrupt, and far to the right of where you think she is.
Cynthia McKinney would make a better president than Hillary, and has about the same chance of winning.
The fact that you are hearing so much noise about Hillary running now, when Republicans control all the major media, should clue you into where this drumbeat started. It started in the brain of Karl Rove and his buddy Richard Mellon Scaife, who has been kissing her ass for a few years now.
^Even her detractors wouldn't say she is dumb. She knows who is kissing her ass for the wrong reasons, Nancy Pelosi for one.
R41 is not a deep thinker, alas.
And R51, if it's even close, and you don't vote for her AGAINST whatever the Republicans put up... then you're an idiot.
It was the same drumbeat that said we had to vote for John Kerry for pres because he was a "war hero" in contrast to Bush.
It was throwing away the Dems biggest advantages in the election: Kerry was even wealthier and more out of touch with average people than Bush; and he voted enthusiastically for a war which was turning into a debacle before our eyes. Nor did he take a progressive line on the faltering economy.
In short, he was NOTHING but an empty slogan, and they tore him apart.
Because the Republicans are the ones who chose him for us. And all the same idiots who are lining behind Hillary C. lined up behind John Kerry, not realizing they were playing to the enemy.
Hillary was unlikeable in 2008. Nothing's changed but she'll get the pity vote in 2016 if an Obama-like figure doesn't come up.
I think Hillary will make a great choice as the Democratic Nominee for the Presidency.
r72 what do you know what I think? My problem is with people like you who are so over-the-top in demonizing her. By the time you're done talking, whatever it is that you ascribe her is just a figment of your delusions. What else is there to say to you? You're not a liberal. You're just oddball.
r73 Cynthia McKinney has the same chance of capturing the WH as HRC? Really? These kinds of comments are just throwaways. They're nonsensical and not rooted in reality. Cynthia McKinney is a kook. She is not the face of liberalism that we want projected. She ran for President in 2012. Do you want to know how many votes she got?
Whether r72 and r73 realize it or not, a viable candidate has to appeal not only to the base, but the majority of voters (duh, right!). You can be a good person. You can be a good progressive. Can you win the majority of people for across the aisle?
R71. And the democrats fancy themselves the enlightened party....
If she runs, she gets it. End of story. The rest is just noise. Hillary is the only choice we have at this point, and she is entitled to it after the shitty way she was treated.
You people complaining about her were the same gullible fools who had stars in your eyes with Obama back in 2008 and failed to see him for the moderate politician he really is and instead treated him like a rock star. Spare us your whining. No one cares.
You don't vote for her, you're a freeper. It's that simple.
R81. You are an idiot. Do you really think there is only on opinion? If so. I would encourage North Korea for you.
Well, we are r80. Compared to the GOP who want to teach creationism in public schools; deny the poor health benefits; think pregnancy doesn't occur with a legitimate rape; try to block voting in minority districts; badgering a President about his birth certificate, denying climate change, and on and on.
So yeah. The Democratic Party is the enlightened party.
[quote]No other First Lady has ever been as demonized as HRC by the rightwing
Cynthia McKinney is not a kook. She was demonized by the media, the same media that will demonize Hillary Clinton, with the same effect.
Read Hillary Clinton's autobiography. Read how Park Ridge, Illinois made her a park supervisor at age 11 (lie). Read how she babysat the children of migrant farm workers while their parents were in the field (lie). Read how she met Martin Luther King (lie). Read how she discovered vote fraud all by herself walking around south side Chicago as a Republican teen in the sixties, unaccompanied by anyone (lie). Her entire fucking life story as related in that book is a series of lies.
To her credit, she admits she didn't write it. Not to her credit, it appears she never read it either.
This is someone who was about to be indicted for campaign finance crimes when she dropped out in 2008.
This is someone who belongs to the female version of the Family, and who attended a weekly prayer circle with Sam Brownback as Senator.
This is someone who advocates Neocon economics and whose husband was complicit in the selling of the economy to the rich.
This is someone who in foreign affairs has been a personal friend and loyalist to the worst mass murderer since Pol Pot (Yoweri Museveni). Who counts as special friends, the medieval murderers who run Saudi Arabia, who have given something like $10 million to the Clinton library.
Don't tell me I'm "demonizing" her.
You haven't seen anything yet because the right is trying to get you to pick her.
She'll probably get the democratic nomination. And then she'll lose the general - as long as the Republicans don't nominate Santorum, or Ted Cruz, or some other fucking nutter. Probably to yet another goddamn Bush.
This is someone who when she was virtually guaranteed the nomination in 2008 hired an incompetent for millions of dollars who ran an entirely unprofessional and incompetent campaign.
This is is someone who continued to defend the economy throughout the primaries in 2008 when even Obama, not quick on the draw, had realized there was a problem.
R82 You're an idiot. If Hillary runs, you vote for her. Otherwise, you're a freeper.
It's that simple.
r85 if you think McKinney is sane, then you don't know much about her. She's conspiracist. She thinks the Boston bombing was an inside job. Obviously she reads Alex Jones. She also a 9-11 truther.
The woman is a loose cannon and says things to keep herself relevant.
I hope that if Hillary runs in 2016, she surrounds herself with a whole different team of advisers and confidants than she did in 2008. But I fear it will be mostly the same old tired faces.
Clinton threads never fail to infuriate me because you assholes claim anyone who doesn't kiss Bill or Hillary's ass is a Freeper...while ignoring the fact that Hillary was a corporate lawyer for Wal-Mart who voted for going to war in Iraq, and was one of the last prominent Democrat to come out in support of gay marriage. Meanwhile, Bill, who certainly oversaw an economic recovery that has yet to be rivaled, signed DADT / DOMA / and welfare reform into law...things Bush would've been raked over the coals for championing.
All I can do is take comfort in the fact that she will never, ever be POTUS.
Then she isn't smart enough to be President, R90.
What I don't get about people like r91 is why they keep harping about her working at Walmart. It was in the mid-80s when Walmart was just a regional store. She was the first woman working at the board of Walmart. During her tenure, she tried to change the culture to include woman.
Why are you not this angry when Michelle Obama worked at a Walmart subsidiary called Treehouse? While the Obama's criticized HRC, they neglected to mention Michelle's association. Michelle resigned from the board of Treehouse soon after.
In any event, so what? Good for Michelle and good HRC for climbing the corporate. Both are accomplished.
She was the also the first First Lady to march in a gay pride parade. As SOS, gay couples were entitled to benefits. This was even before Obama gave federal same-sex employees benefits.
She's done a lot good in the social realm but people like r91 only want to emphasize the negatives and demonize her.
I love you Mrs. Obama and certainly you have received a lot of racist flak but as far as demonization by the right wing, yes, HRC holds that #1 spot.
You're talking about Obama using drones on American soil and proposing to cut SS and you have the gall to criticize HRC for her Iraq vote r93? After he became Senator, he voted time after time to fund the continuing war.
Where's your outrage at that r91?
What the older generation fails to realize is that people no longer feel compelled to settle for crumbs. Go ahead and deify Hillary if you must, but the results of the 2016 election will tell her pathetic defenders all they need to know.
r95 no kidding. Whoever lived through the '90s would know that both Clintons were raked through the coals. I was in high school at the time and I remember watching the news and seeing Newt Gingrich and Republicans accuse the Clintons of one thing after another. HRC was accused of murdering Vince Foster and to this day, they still believe she did it. Has Michelle been accused of murder?
By 2012 all of the sudden the GOP love the Clintons. After what they put them through?
R95 it's the typical Hillary hatred from Obama fangurls. Obama will never fuck them, but they still like to pretend that he's their imaginary boyfriend. They have no clue as to real politics, they voted for someone based on their sex drives.
It's going to be a blast to read the psychotic meltdowns from them within the next year. It's already a blast now.
R83 speaks the truth.
Hillary's a worthless bitch. Sure, she's smart and rather brilliant, but her lack of character makes it hard for me to join in her canonization.
Of course she owns it. I'll be very interested to know how she will handle all this support. People trust her. They have confidence in her. She better not fuck it up. My expectations are low. But I am already sure she will end up disappointing. Expectations are too high for her.
Remember all the flame wars in the 2008 primary season? The PUMAs? The rapid anti-Clinton faction?
Well, everyone is all rested up and ready to go.
But let's cut to the chase.
The nomination is Secretary Clinton's to lose.
The Democrats are not going to make the mistakes of the Republicans in 2012: the primaries were so brutal they destroyed Romney's chances.
I would give the maximum individual contribution to the campaigns of either Kirsten Gillibrand or Elizabeth Warren should they choose to run for POTUS. Both are genuine progressives who don't deserve to be relegated to the shadow of Hillary Clinton.
It could have worked for Romney if he had some halfway decent competition running against him in the primaries a la Obama/Clinton/Edwards.
Romney/Huntsman/Christie (for example, not that HUntsman or Christie could have ever won the nomination might have worked to Romney's advantage as opposed to Romney/Santorum/Gingrich
Kirsten Gilibrand is not a progressive. She was pro death penalty and opposed gun control. She retooled herself as a protégé of Schumer. The word best used to describe her is opportunist.
Gillibrand won her upstate New York district by running to the right: she campaigned against amnesty for illegal immigrants, promised to restore fiscal responsibility to Washington, and pledged to protect gun rights.
She also worked many years for the tobacco lobby. She's come to the "progressive" side fairly late in the game.
She will be president of the US of A!
I just can't wait. The world will be a better place and the repugs will be put in their place at last!
Her presidency will be the introduction of the new America. A better and brighter America.
When her presidency ends America will be standing mighty and powerful.
She only needs to take care of her health between now and 2016. A well rested Hillary will be too big for any opponent.
If she becomes president the economy will pick up by 2018...if not(it will still be a democrat who wins anyway) the economy will take another cycle (4-5 years more) for it to go back (probably even better since will be so much wiser) to what it was in the late 90's.
R88. You are an idiot. I do not vote straight party, only simpletons do.
The economy will not improve if she becomes president because she doesn't understand how to make an improving economy. And America should never aspire to be "mighty and strong." That's how we got into this bullshit position, you comic villain you.
Nobody "forced" Hillary Clinton to make an autobiography peppered with lies.
It's not a result of "demonization."
Not that Obama's was entirely true either. Indonesia is a Muslim country and it is illegal to sell or eat dog meat there, so he was full of shite when he claimed that he did.
Yes,I get annoyed when Bill & Hilary are deified. He destroyed our manufacturing base when he embraced, and insisted the Dems support NAFTA.
When he left the WH, he worked for The Carlyle Group representing the interests of foreign governments as recently as 07 & 08, in trade negotiations with Congress. Pelosi and most Democrats colleagues didn't trust the Clintons.
Bill Clinton once asked Ted Kennedy to go forward with healthcare legislation for children, then left Ted hanging and reneged on his support, and it failed.Teddy never forgot.
And yet, I'll vote for her. Even if the alternative is Christie or Bush. Don't worry about assholes like Santorum, Cruz, Rubio, etc
This is the country and system of government we have. People keep talking about finding a "more liberal" candidate as if one were electable, and if elected, could wave a wand to get things done.
We complain, but has anyone really looked at the playbook for how to win, with the exception of Howard Dean's "50 state strategy" in 2006, as chair of the DNC? 2010's GOP revenge will haunt us for years. It'll take hard work over a sustained period to undo it.
If you really want a "revolution" in terms of corporate interests, and the imbalance in wealth distribution in this country, you better start at the "grassroots" level.
That's what Rove and his minions did, and now they're able to destroy our government without getting anyone elected President. Republicans control state legislatures, state supreme courts, Secretary of State offices, and attorney generals, as well as governors in too many states.
State legislatures draw up new Congressional districts after each Census. State supreme courts have oversight approval.
The Secretary of State handles voter registration and elections. Figure it out. For more than 20 yrs., the Extreme Right and their handlers have been organizing every single elective office, from local school boards, to mayors and village councils.
So, if you want to revolutionize and reform government, you need to get off your ass and get active. Simply pointing at presidential candidates and complaining gets you no where.
Hilary will be the best candidate under our current system and in this governing environment. She's as subject to outside influences as all the other politicians. It's time that outside influence is us.
"Hillary's a worthless bitch. Sure, she's smart and rather brilliant, but her lack of character makes it hard for me to join in her canonization."
How is someone "worthless" and "rather brilliant"?
And you will need to try better than "lack of character."
R41 has a "deeper" way of looking at this topic than you do. You're on Team Blue regardless. You're uninterested in policy.
Nonsense R112. The current system is so bad because of apathy, because we allow liberals to be destroyed. Look how hard Elizabeth Warren had to fight to win in Massachusetts. And yet, there is no question that she'd be tougher and better than Hillary.
I fear history may repeat itself if she continues to believe in her inevitability.
[quote]but as far as demonization by the right wing, yes, HRC holds that #1 spot.
Sorry, but no! It took me for the repubs to start singing Hillary's praises.
If Elizabeth Warren had to fight win an election in Massachusetts (a liberal state) how the hell is she a viable candidate for President. Even a horrible candidate like Romney would defeat her. Someone like Jeb Bush would destroy her.
R117. No sweetie, it took your husband.
Michelle Obama is not really as demonized as HC was because she stays clear of policy. I'm sure if she took a more active role the Repubs would drop a bomb on her if they could.
Obama is bearing the brunt of the attacks. Michelle is a more "traditional" First Lady so she gets less flak.
Elizabeth Warren was a Democratic incumbent. And she unseated a Republican with a 59 percent job approval number. That's usually a high bar that is assured re-election. Scott Brown had that approval number because, in part, he didn't act like an Alabama Republican in Democratic Massachusetts. And Brown managed to carry the male vote. Scott Brown wasn't, politically, the imbecile as this case with his neighboring New Hampshire Republican U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte. (Watch for her to become unseated in 2016.)
Elizabeth Warren being a longshot has to do with this current Democratic Party. She is scary to the "centrists" assholes heading the party. Warren is not a member of their Club.
You're blasting Hillary for Republican esque policies, but then you're throwing Warren's name in as a possible replacement? The same Warren who was a Republican for many years and proudly admits that she still votes Republican from time to time?
Enlighten us on why THAT would be a better choice. But I think you'd have the balls to.
"I do not vote straight party, only simpletons do."
Only a complete moron would vote for Republican on ANYTHING. Sit your fat ass down and shut up.
Hillary Clinton was also a Republican. A very committed one.
Where is that R122? That Elizabeth Warren still votes Republican from time to time.
(Do keep in mind the past: Democrats' base was in the south; Republicans' in the north.... )
R122. Wow, you must have been captain of your debate team in high school.
R124 Elizabeth Warren is a staunch believer in a balanced, centrist government where neither party should dominate. And the woman hasn't even been voting democrat for twenty years.
You endorse the woman, yet you don't even know that?
R115, WTF do you think I meant? Of course it's apathy. We complain but we do nothing to effectively achieve real reform and we have to start doing that at the state level. We keep looking at Presidential candidates, when we need to be looking at the damned Congressional races, both the House & the Senate.
I love Elizabeth Warren. We need a few dozen more Elizabeth Warrens. Can you imagine what more people like that could do to get us back on track? People talk about Presidential candidates as if they are the solution. They are obviously not.
When I hear a coherent, logical analysis of why Elizabeth Warren would be a better presidential candidate, then I would take such a notion seriously.
"But she's just so great!" is not it. And when you don't even know much about the candidate you want for President, you really have no business speaking about her, period.
This is the Presidency we're talking about. Would it kill some of you to be a little more intelligent concerning such matters? No excuses for not being well informed anymore. The braindead cheerleader mentality needs to go.
[quote]It could have worked for Romney if he had some halfway decent competition running against him in the primaries a la Obama/Clinton/Edwards.
Woulda, coulda, shoulda.
The Democrats will do everything in their considerable power to avoid a brutal primary season such as the GOP experienced in 2012.
And if that means strangling the funding of some candidates, so be it.
If the Clinton machine is revved up, it is hers to lose in the 2016 general election.
But the anti-Clinton posters here will be apoplectic by the time she's elected.
And they are dumb enough to sit out the election or vote for a third party candidate without a chance of winning.
These are the same dolts who sat out 2010 in some sort of half-assed protest while the GOP took over the House and, more importantly, a slew of state legislatures and governorships.
But you can talk them until you're blue in the face. They'll never learn.
The best one can hope to do is shoot down the flaws in their logic and listen politely to their rants until their idiocy reaches a point where it cannot be ignored.
Then scream at them.
I will add an addendum. Mark Carr (?) the guy who ran Hillary's campaign was a lobbyist who had business interests with Bill Clinton. He was and is pure slime. We also had the entire Hillaryland Cabal, Carville, Ickes, etc. out there stepping on toes, and offending people with the whole "inevitability" approach.
It's my fervent hope that Hillary learned some hard lessons about herself, about the people she surrounded herself with, and about her management style. She certainly learned a lot about her husband and what not to do.
So maybe, this time, she'll take advantage of the outstanding work of the young people who won the damned election for Obama in 2012, and figure out how to do it again.
And they'll have the kind of get out the vote operation and the software to really do it right. And maybe we can win both Houses, because she'll need every damned vote she can find. Hopefully, Miss Lindsey Graham, Mitch McConnell and John McCain will be gone by then too.
It never happened R129. The progressives came out in 2010. The centrists and Obama machine did not.
Deliberately of course so Republicans could gerrymander to their hearts' content.
You can bloviate until the cows come home but the simple undeniable facts it that Centrists like Obama, Clinton, Emmanuel, and loads of others fear progressives more than they fear any Republicans, no matter how fascistic and right wing.
R130: His name is mark penn and he's indeed vile.
Hear that....? That's the bus revving up. Hillary is getting thrown right underneath it.
She in beneath contempt for her outright bald face lies re: Benghazi. Good Riddance.
[quote]Elizabeth Warren is a staunch believer in a balanced, centrist government where neither party should dominate. And the woman hasn't even been voting democrat for twenty years.
Cited source, please?
Well, well, well...while attempting to make Benghazi Obama's Watergate, it's revealed The State Dept had their hands ALL over those unfortunate talking points. I hope Queen Hillary gets thrown under the bus with as much gusto as Susan Rice (who unfairly had her reputation dragged through the mud).
Republicans do not want to run against Hillary. They've all said it. If she runs, she wins. She's extremely popular with Americans.
As for Republicanism - are you frigging kidding me? Look at Obama!
Hillary beats every Republican 2016 contender by 15 to 20 points.
You have to remember though, maybe she won't run. If she doesn't, Democrats have a chance of losing. When you get relative unknowns running, the media can mold them anyway they want, and then there's the vetting process. With Hillary, she's been vetted twice. There's nothing. You know who she is. You cannot manipulate her image.
The Clinton legacy also helps her. Bill Clinton saved Obama last year, and Republicans were even touting him, trying to win. The Clinton brand is one of economic prosperity in the minds of all Americans.
I loved seeing Republicans trying to take her down with Benghazi. She made fools of them. Fox News of all places even said it. This is why they're back to smearing Obama. They came out of the hearings with her with their tails between their legs. She even made them look un-American. It was hilarious. The Rand Pauls of that party were outed as not knowing the simplest job of the agency. It was frightening to witness.
Hillary has her memoir coming out next year. Free 2016 promotion. They'll have her on every magazine cover, and on every television show.
r135 and r137 stumbled on to Datalounge after visiting newsmax.com.
You are also R81 who signed "THREAD CLOSED."
You apparently have decided you are all in for Hillary Clinton. To tell us, at @ R128, that you want a "logical analysis" is contradictory to essentially trying to shut down the thread with your post @ R81. ("You don't vote for her, you're a freeper. It's that simple.")
Now, if you think there is something wrong with people who do not want a one-party government … you can live in my home state of Michigan, with a Republican governor and same-party majorities of for both state houses. You would understand why there are people who believe it's not good for one party to have what could be too much control.
I looked up Elizabeth Warren, briefly, to verify whether you are accurate. She started voted Democratic more regularly in 1995. At R126 you wrote, "And the woman hasn't even been voting democrat for twenty years."
By the way: Hillary Clinton was a Republican. But many people who are now Democratic voters, and are at age of at least 45, were voting Republican in the past. Some still do now -- depending on the breed of Republican and office. But, in general, those who self-identified with one party and made the switch to self-identify with the other did so mainly over the two parties' brands having flipped. That gradually took place over a few decades and became more realized after the 1980s. (Hillary Clinton was born in 1947. Elizabeth Warren was born in 1949.)
I hope you respond. Because right now, with your statement about Elizabeth Warren, you haven't said anything as to why she shouldn't be appreciated. A lot of people connect with her on economics, with her positions on Wall Street and the banks.
You did not impress me, @ R81, with what you wrote about Hillary Clinton who, as a member of the U.S. Senate, voted to go to war in Iraq. (If she runs, she gets it. End of story. The rest is just noise. Hillary is the only choice we have at this point, and she is entitled to it after the shitty way she was treated.)
We do have choices. Along with Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren, there is Martin O'Malley, the governor of Maryland who was an earlier endorsement of same-sex couples being able to legally get married. There is Deval Patrick, from Warren's home state of Massachusetts, who is a popular governor. There is Julian Castro, the mayor of San Antonio, Texas. A part of the concern, and I think it's a problem, is that numerous being trumpeted for Democratic nomination are on board with corporate interests and banks and pharmaceuticals. I'm not enthused by the potential of New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo or, for anyone thinking of him because he's so charming, Newark, New Jersey's mayor Cory Booker. (I believe the Mitt Romney/Bain Capital defender will replace Frank Lautenberg as its next U.S. Senator.)
What I also disagree with, as you wrote @ R81, "Hillary is the only choice we have at this point," is that I believe the presidential election of 2008 marked a realigning presidential period where Democrats will be winning the overwhelming majority of presidential elections over a 30- to 40-year period. Past realigning periods frequently boasted 32-year periods of nine election cycles with one party winning seven while the fallen party won two of those cycles. This was the case with 1860 to 1892 (Rs won seven; Ds won two); 1896 to 1928 (Rs won seven; Ds won two); 1932 to 1964 (Ds won seven; Rs won two); and, though its a period of ten cycles, 1968 to 2004 (Rs won seven; Ds won three). You can look into that if you'd like. But your statement @ R81, which tries to paint a feeling of desperation, is misguiding. And, if it turns out that 2008 has indeed realigned to the Democrats (what with those changing demographics, with minorities increasing and whites, who nationally vote Republican, decreasing), you should calm yourself down.
R122: There are people who don't like Hillary Clinton. There are people who don't like the [italic]policies[/italic] of Hillary Clinton. And there are people in between. So, clearly, what you wrote @ R81 is not the "end of story."
Also notable is that we have a racist Freeper Troll beginning @ R34.
"Now, if you think there is something wrong with people who do not want a one-party government."
In theory, there is nothing wrong with it. In reality, how far has the balanced approach really gotten us? How many times has Obama tried to push "Compromise" and "Balance" only to have it ripped apart by Republicans? The Republicans in the House and Senate do not want compromise. They want their agenda and they rarely settle for anything less.
So, yes, I want a government where the democrats have more of a say, because the Republicans have shown time and time again to not care about working together and making sure everyone gets a fair say.
"I looked up Elizabeth Warren, briefly, to verify whether you are accurate. She started voted Democratic more regularly in 1995. At R126 you wrote, "And the woman hasn't even been voting democrat for twenty years."
Because "more regularly" sounds so much better?
"Hillary Clinton was a Republican."
In college, in the late sixties. Certainly different from being a Republican during the Reagan and Bush years.
"You did not impress me, @ R81, with what you wrote about Hillary Clinton who, as a member of the U.S. Senate, voted to go to war in Iraq."
As did most democrats at that time. Did you vote for Obama/Biden? Because Biden voted to go to war in Iraq.
"Because right now, with your statement about Elizabeth Warren, you haven't said anything as to why she shouldn't be appreciated"
Because that's not my job. If you want Warren in the White House, it's your place to provide solid reasons as to why she would be the best candidate. And when I read statements like: (She is scary to the "centrists" assholes heading the party. Warren is not a member of their Club.) I'm just curious as to how someone who believes in both parties having an equal say is really THAT threatening? Sounds like she IS a centrist to me.
Don't get me wrong, I'd vote for her if she was the choice. But R138 nailed it in terms of Clinton being the frontrunner as of now. If she gets the nomination, it is hers to win. Why constantly try and divide the party because of someone you clearly don't like?
Not to mention trying to push someone whose resume you admit you glanced at "Briefly"?
[bold]In theory, there is nothing wrong with [one-party government]. In reality, how far has the balanced approach really gotten us? How many times has Obama tried to push "Compromise" and "Balance" only to have it ripped apart by Republicans? The Republicans in the House and Senate do not want compromise. They want their agenda and they rarely settle for anything less.[/bold]
I'm with Glenn Greenwald on President Obama's "compromises" -- that it was fake party shit, disguising that the Democrats weren't going to implement liberal policies despite the fact they have to have liberals to win elections. In other words, the Democrats had a supermajority of 60 in the Senate and a 3-to-2 majority of the House. Obama's pushes for compromises with the Republicans were a fraud.
The problem people have with one-party government isn't "in theory," it's in reality. But it's not necessarily speaking to the three levels of government nationally but locally (statewide and though state districts). It speaks to corruption. To having as much as access at a level where the voting electorate just keep rubber-stamping based on preferred team color. That's a problem not only in Michigan, which was won by the Rs in a Republican midterm wave (would the governorships be as majority Republican if they were all held coinciding in presidential election years?), but also in Texas.
The Democrats, and their compromise, have to do with the fact they also take campaign contributions from wealth and from corporations. That is why we don't have a public option, along with drugs re-importation, in the healthcare bill from 2010. And that is also why the president leading his party was perfectly willing to lose their House majority with the midterms of 2010.
[bold]So, yes, I want a government where the democrats have more of a say…[/bold]
They had their say especially going into 2009. They had more numbers in the Senate and House than the Republicans, at their high mark after 2004, under Republican president George W. Bush. They had, for example, 55 in the Republican Senate.
[bold]…, because the Republicans have shown time and time again to not care about working together and making sure everyone gets a fair say.[/bold]
The Republicans totally whore themselves for money for the purpose of attaining and retaining electoral power. (No argument from me.)
[bold]Because "more regularly" sounds so much better? [/bold]
No, because the northeast region of Republicans are not the same breed typically from the south or in regions like those repped by Iowa's Steve King.
[bold]In college, in the late sixties. Certainly different from being a Republican during the Reagan and Bush years.[/bold]
Hillary was a Barry Goldwater Republican. She was also on the board at Walmart. She's also been a corporatist well before Barack Obama.
[bold]Did you vote for Obama/Biden? Because Biden voted to go to war in Iraq.[/bold]
Yes. I also have David Plouffe's book on who the Obama campaign considered for the vice-presidential slot: Indiana's Evan Bayh and Virginia's Tim Kaine. Kaine would have been the cleanest selection. And it's offensive Bayh was even in the running given he is of the Joe Lieberman ilk. Kaine didn't get the slot because, with the war in Iraq still going, he didn't have foreign policy credentials that are Biden's.
[bold]Because that's not my job. If you want Warren in the White House, it's your place to provide solid reasons as to why she would be the best candidate....[/bold]
It would be my place to vote the nomination not to Hillary Clinton but to Elizabeth Warren. I don't think, in all seriousness, that Warren needs to be explained with "solid reasons." What I'm telling you is that I believe, when considering who I want representing the party for the presidency, Warren is better than Clinton.
[bold]Why constantly try and divide the party because of someone you clearly don't like?[/bold]
The individual representing at the top [italic]matters[/italic].
"I don't think, in all seriousness, that Warren needs to be explained with "solid reasons."
My dear, if you think she is the better choice to run for President, you most certainly need to explain WHY she is the better choice. It's cute that you think someone should just take your word for it, but in reality, that doesn't work.
I agree that the person at the top matters. So why is it so hard to explain why Warren deserves to be there over everyone else?
Making vague statements, while amusing, doesn't hold much water.
Susan Rice ought to run for POTUS in 2016, bwhahahaha. If anyone brings up the Benghazi talking points, she can use Hillary to break her fall.
R144 all that can easily be explained: the DLC was implemented by Republicans to take over the Democratic party by controlling their primaries. Emmanuel is a key player: in 2006 he ran a bunch of unqualified vets for Congressional seats. Why? To take liberalism out of the party. He also scotched the public option, probably with help from Michelle Obama (who, don't forget, had a $315K a year job as a hospital "community liaison.") Since he became mayor of Chicago he has been nothing but a mouthpiece for Republican causes like charter schools, union busting, and destructive foreign trade.
The Benghazi quagmire will sink Hillary's campaign if she runs.
The pronunciation guide in Original Post is incorrect. The school says the name kwin-uh-PEE-ack.
r148, sure it will, you freeper.
Queen Hillary will twist the balls of the GOP until they fall.
"Oh my God. I'm back. I'm home. All the time, it was... We finally really did it ... You Maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!"
We are switching to the new platform for The DataLounge this weekend. All of our mobile users have been using it for over a week and all first time users have been using it for about a month - which adds up to well over one million users. So we're ready to end this phase of the testing and move everybody to the new site. (more)
And yes, we've changed the look and some of how it operates.
Yes, we know you just *hate* it in well in advance.
Yes, we know we suck.
Yes, we are the biggest suckers that ever sucked.
But it was time for a change and with the huge shift to mobile it was long overdue. We've taken this opportunity not only to update the look but also make major changes under the hood (or "bonnet" if you're either British or pretentious or both). And we have to prepare for 2016 - a presidential election year where we can normally expect to see a 60% jump in traffic (yes, we've seen 5 presidential elections so far…Christ we're old).
The site has a bunch - nay, plethora - of new features which will make the site more usable: better search, the ability to ignore posters and threads, see link previews, to pick up a thread where you left off, spam and malware filtering and more.
If you want you can go explore and see for yourself, Click here.
And while running the tests we've noticed two interesting reactions to the new system - people are spending more time on the site and more people that come stay around longer and look at more stuff. Both good things. Yay!
Possibly we've not slain all the dragons and there will be issues that come up during the switchover. There's a help button in the lower right hand corner of the page which you can use to send us bug reports.
Please include as much information about the hardware (PC, Mac, Tablet, Phone etc), operating system (Windows, Mac OS, Android, iOS etc) and browser (Chrome, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer etc) that you are using as possible to help us replicate and fix the problem.
Please note that complaints about colors, fonts, icons and the like are not "bugs" - they are design choices that we've made and we expect one or two cases of world-class bitching. But they won't actually cause headaches, scurvy, heart attacks, Restless Leg Syndrome, Morgellon's Disease or the vapors (but have your smelling salts at hand just in case).
Talking to DataLounge servers. Please wait a moment...