2016: Hillary Leads Potential GOP Opponents by Double Digits

The latest (PDF) in a string of polls showing Hillary Clinton would defeat all GOP challengers in 2016:

The national survey finds 53 to 56 percent support for Clinton among registered voters against each of these potential Republican candidates, while they get 39 to 41 percent.

One of the most interesting findings is Clinton's performance among white voters:

Each also has the support of half of white voters overall, far fewer than a GOP nominee needs to prevail, given whites’ shrinking share of the country’s population. (Romney won 59 percent of whites and lost the 2012 election nonetheless.)

Clinton also defeats all of the potential GOP challengers by at least 20 points among women.

So Hillary Clinton clearly does not appear to suffer from an "electability" problem and concerns about her holding together the 'Obama Coalition' are overblown at best.

That said, I certainly can respect the efforts to defeat her for the Dem nomination but I think a Plan B is also in order - to wit - don't let a Democratic President be defined as the Left Flank of American politics.

< Wednesday Open Thread | Thursday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Thank you BTD (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 12:43:02 PM EST
    These poll findings in the open thread were ignored in favor of the ongoing crisis due to the air pressure of a football.

    Also enjoyed the links, especially your well written one in Kos. Looking forward to a potential Hillary announcement in the future.

    Maybe because...? (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 01:04:16 PM EST
    While we like talking politics around here, a poll taken almost 22 months before an election regarding people who haven't even committed to running, is more important than discussing the Super Bowl, how?

    I'm glad BTD is back and posting do I font have to go to kos.  But isn't it nice there are many smart people around here who can and love to discuss both?


    Yes... (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 02:45:23 PM EST
    ...can't find any posts related to 'What if She Does Not Run' which right now seems like something people should be discussing at some level.  What is the back plan, Biden, or is just freak out and meltdown.

    It's probably a gimme, but damn, seems like the party is got a whole lot of eggs in one basket, and the worse part, I think there are a lot of people like me that would love someone to left of Obama and Hillary.


    Bernie Sanders (none / 0) (#29)
    by CST on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 02:48:06 PM EST
    Is running I think.

    I dunno if he could beat Biden - but if you're looking for someone to the left of Hillary - he's a good place to start.


    I would love it if Bernie could (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 08:57:14 PM EST
    He will swing the conversation left though.  And will be the first candidate getting my money, take it however far you can Bernie!

    In related news... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 01:05:05 PM EST
    Mittens and Jebediah recently had a pow wow, presumably a brainstorming session on how to best deflate their balls for the big game in 2016.

    Pats should be forfeited! (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 12:44:24 PM EST
    I kid.

    Why is that to kid? (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by Peter G on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 04:16:51 PM EST
    Isn't cheating -- or getting caught cheating -- grounds for forfeiture of the game, regardless of anything else?

    Not even the disclaimer. (none / 0) (#125)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jan 24, 2015 at 11:42:20 AM EST
    "if," in fact, one were "caught cheating?"

    I think you missed my point. (none / 0) (#126)
    by Peter G on Sat Jan 24, 2015 at 12:52:24 PM EST
    I do not assume guilt (that's not my nature!). I asked why BDT felt that a serious sanction for cheating of this sort (assuming, of course, that it were established that cheating occurred) would not result in a serious sanction, and in particular why -- if the team, as such, were implicated and not just an individual or two -- it would not result, at the least, in forfeiture of the victory in that game. Is this an instance of "too big to fail/jail"? I am not a pro sports fan, so maybe I just don't understand how allegations of cheating are treated in that world. (If you see links within this comment, please ignore them. I have some sort of malware infestation at the moment that is creating disguised ad links in websites I visit, and I am seeing links of that sort in the "preview" of this comment.)

    Hers to lose (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Dadler on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 01:06:27 PM EST
    All I care is whomever gets elected is an actual WIN for for the rest of us.

    Even though Warren has "won" to some degree, and I am thrilled she's managed that much, Republican paradigms about the government still dominate the "debate" in very insidious ways on all levels.

    We are still a nation sovereign in its own fiat currency, forcing all citizens to play what is a rigged and inequitable board game with dollars as game pieces, and that fact, and what it really means, is ignored. Economically, in a very weird way, we are like a nation clinging to a belief that the world is flat, or that Santa Claus is a real person we have to beg for presents every year and hope he doesn't leave us with a sock full of coal.

    Go Hawks. (So I guess Tom Terrific is gonna stand up and say he likes to throw nerf balls. That should be fun to watch. Poor Giselle, that's all I can think. Ahem.)

    I can't believe I'm going to be pulling (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by nycstray on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 02:00:36 PM EST
    for the Hawks also! At first I didn't care which team I disliked won . . . .

    I think my personal favorite moment (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by CST on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 01:22:28 PM EST
    of the 2016 campaign so far (and let's face it - it's started) - is Mittens trying to become a populist and talking about economic inequality.

    I look forward to watching the "moocher" video on repeat.

    If Hillary runs it's hers to lose - and I don't think she will lose.  Certainly not the general election, and the only person I can think of who would even shake up a primary is Warren - who has said emphatically that she's not running - and I am not sure she could actually walk away with the  nomination if she did.

    I'm not sure (none / 0) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 01:41:57 PM EST
    Warren would win the primary either if she did run. I got a move on email today about them wanting her to run. What are they going to do when time runs out and she still says she's not running? It seems to me that there has to be candidates that they would back or could back who could carry that same message. How many times do they have to be told no before they believe her? It's getting ridiculous.

    Moveon's candidate choices (none / 0) (#67)
    by sj on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 05:32:50 PM EST
    are ... unreliable.

    As much as I'd like Warren to run... (none / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 01:45:53 PM EST
    I don't think she could win a primary against Clinton.  It's a helluva political machine she'd be up against, and Team Clinton will have learned from their mistakes in 2008.  

    Not to mention the most important thing...money money money.  I thought Clinton was a lock in '08, this time I'm double plus sure she is.

    As for Mittens...I'm dreading it, we used up all the good jokes in 2011-12.  I wanna use/hear new material while mocking the GOP clowns.


    Give Mittens time . . . (none / 0) (#16)
    by nycstray on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 01:58:13 PM EST
    and a moment to open his mouth, you should have all the new material you need ;)

    Before the SOTU I heard one of the talking heads say something about Lindsey Graham running, oy. Lots of material there . . . .


    Yes, Lindsey Graham (none / 0) (#19)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 02:24:05 PM EST
    has thrown his big toe in the ring, having established a "testing the waters" committee.   Maybe, Mrs Clinton will wind up facing a formidable Lindsey Graham/Joni Ernst ticket--the egalitarianism of mint juleps on the veranda and bread bags on the shoes.  2016- Je Suis gentleman du Sud et le pain sac.

    Hmm... (none / 0) (#21)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 02:30:43 PM EST
    My mom used to put bread bags on my feet sometimes before I put my boots on when I was little. We weren't poor, but it seems like a good idea to keep from getting snow in the boots. (It's also inexpensive and is recycling). Why she's being mocked for this is kind of puzzling - especially from people who claim to care about poor and working families.

    Criticize her for her policies, but don't try to Sarah Palin her and make yourself look elitist.


    The problem (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 02:34:24 PM EST
    with the bread bag story is not really the fact that she used bread bags over her shoes more so than can you imagine Michelle Bachmann prattling on about wearing bread bags over her shoes? She offered really no response to what Obama was saying and just sounded crazy.

    But it does relate to her (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 03:10:14 PM EST
    policies, or lack thereof.  The humble bio was a substitute for ideas or a coherent response. Although, she was in common company with Cruz (the guy with Obama's education and Louie Gohmert's thinking)  and  Paul (the Ayn Rand namesake conservative physician who referred to "fly-over, liberal elitists.)

    Senator Ernst's tale of one-time impoverishment or innate austerity as a school-girl or her hard work on the biscuit line at Hardy's disingenuously tugged at the heart strings.  

    Senator Ernst was born in 1970, not 1930. She grew up during Republican Administrations (Nixon, Ford, Reagan).  It was probably during the Democratic Administration of Jimmy Carter that she was able to afford the shoes to which she put the bread bags over.

    And, after all, the president was not proposing new taxes on those who need to make do to keep their feet dry.  No need for anyone to Sarah Palin this Tea Party darling, she does that herself.


    Let's not forget... (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 03:16:53 PM EST
    that her family was hip deep in pig shite and farm subsidies.  Quite a large amount of subsidies.  

    Any farm kid will also tell you that you don't wear your good Sunday shoes to school when the weather is nasty. You wear the boots that you wear to slop the pigs and do everything else around the farm and carry your shoes to change into later.  


    Because her family received over (5.00 / 5) (#45)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 03:24:23 PM EST
    $460,000 in federal subsidies, that's why.

    Despite Sen. Joni Ernst's (R-IA) rhetoric about growing up poor on Tuesday night, her family actually received hundreds of thousands of dollars in government aid between 1995 and 2009, the District Sentinel news co-op reported.

    Farm subsidy records indicate that the freshman senator's father, Richard Culver, has received $38,395 in commodity subsidies and conservation payments, with all but $12 of the money being used for support of his corn crops. Ernst's uncle, Dallas Culver, has reportedly received $250,000 in federal corn subsidies and $117,141 in additional aid. And her paternal grandfather, Harold Culver, got an additional $57,479 in aid between 1995 and 2001.

    Ernst did not mention her family's use of federal programs during her response to the State of the Union. Instead, she said she was raised "simply" and taught to live within her means.

    And like Paul Ryan being opposed to the generosity of the social safety net but being happy to take the Social Security for his own benefit, Joni Ernst is opposed to farm subsidies.

    They sure like getting for themselves, but when it comes to everyone else, it's always time to get out the bootstraps.


    In All Fairness... (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 04:11:33 PM EST
    ...she did not take the subsidies and I am pretty sure most of us could find something politically we disagree with our parent on.

    My dad, the farmer, hated the neighbors taking subsidies to not grow crops.  They basically did nothing and got paid, but the part that really irked him, was that empty fields turn into weed fields, and weed fields spread onto non-weed fields.

    They had a huge farm with huge debts, I am sure they got hundreds of thousands, and they never had two nickels to rub together.  New equipment, state of the art farm, new buildings, but they were in so deep the bank just kept doubling down.  The house and everything that wasn't associated with the farm, was run down and they lived what I would call, poorly.

    I dislike the Ernst, but that doesn't mean she is lying, more than likely she's just another deluded republican that in this case, would literally take the food out off her parents table out of tea party principle.  Not saying it's true, but it could be.

    They need to see what her parents declared as income,  a couple hundred thousand is a combine, that kind of cash does not go far on a big farm.  Find out what the family netted before declaring her a liar.


    Scott, I didn't say that Ernst lied; (5.00 / 4) (#78)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 08:47:47 PM EST
    but she did what a lot of these Republicans do: they create a perception by only telling part of the story, and it's generally some feel-good, look-how-far-I've-come-all-on-my-own-story that makes them "of the people."

    Then, the other shoe drops.

    I know that farming is not an easy life.  I have a client who has farmland worth millions, who drives a school bus to pay the bills, and uses subsidies so he can keep farming.  Farming is what this family does, and he's made a lot of sacrifices to keep doing it.

    What would have been wrong with Joni Ernst telling that story?  Nothing, as near as I can tell.  But the way she told it, it left the door open for her to look like a phony when people dug deeper and found out about the subsidies.

    The breadbags over the shoes made her sound like a poor, depression-era kid who by dint of hard work and perseverance was able to rise above her humble beginnings, all on her own.

    Well, just like Paul Ryan, who used Social Security to help him get an college education, Jone Ernst's family used subsidies to help them keep farming.  The key word here is "help," and the other key is that they both oppose something, or want to weaken it, for others that they took advantage of for themselves.

    It's the same old GOP hypocrisy, and that's what people are having a problem with.


    I have some very well off farmers/ranchers (none / 0) (#79)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 08:52:08 PM EST
    In my family.  God bless those subsidies :)

    My Parents Do Really Good... (none / 0) (#98)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jan 23, 2015 at 12:07:31 PM EST
    ...and not a nickle in subsidies, several times crop insurance saved the year, which is like any other insurance, but no subsidies.

    Farming to my dad is not guaranteed and because he is a cash cropper, he held a regular job until retirement.  Blue collar worker who understood that just because his father was a farmer it doesn't mean it's his right to be one.  But I see farmers who refuse to adapt, who were the impression that they don't have to change.  That doing the things, and growing this or that crop, doesn't need to every change because someone will be happy to cut them a check when their view is proven unprofitable, year after year.

    My dad got rid of the animals, no money in them and a ton of work, and he has switched crops so many times over the years, because the same crop isn't always going to be the best fiscal crop.  Right now he's mostly soybeans, and I asked him a couple of years ago if he ever had edamame, never heard of it, when I explained, he explained that he plants a different type of soybean, not for human consumption.  That 10 years ago, he didn't know a soybean from a magic bean.  But when he saw the yields and prices, he got to know the bean.

    But the point here is my dad would grow weed if that is where the market was headed, whereas the neighbors who were foreclosed, only did the exact same thing their parents did.  They always had the best gear and a state of the art farm, my dad doesn't own a tractor younger than me at 44, and his barn is basically a storage place, and the only animals he has are cats because they like mice.

    My point, subsidies prop up a form of farming that doesn't want to change and adapt.  Not saying they should go, but like any other industry, they do hamper the natural way of things, the market if you will, and for what, because farming is American ?  Otherwise it doesn't make sense to pay people not to grow crops, when they could easily switch to a profitable crop.

    It's not that simplistic, but when you grow up watching some succeed and some fail and you realize that most of the failures were due to people simply uninterested in self sustaining, they just wanted to farm the way they wanted to farm and that is a shame.

    No one should be proud of taking subsidies, it's one thing to need help from time to time, especially in an industry where whether is root of all things, but to run a business that would essentially be a failure, year after year, without financial help, is wrong.  There is no right to farm.

    Subsidies should be a net, not a platform, something that is there when needed, but not part of any businesses regular operating budget, and most certainly should never be a part of well off business budget.


    Subsidies are for transitioning (none / 0) (#122)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 24, 2015 at 07:46:15 AM EST
    In my family.  The crop right now is grass fed beef.

    You do realize, don't you (none / 0) (#86)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 23, 2015 at 07:18:52 AM EST
    That her family got those subsidies when she was around 25, so it's not incongruous with her statement about "growing up poor".


    The site's claims were picked up by a few larger outlets in light of the senator's remarks about self-sufficiency and were soon transformed into the rumor that Sen. Ernst herself had received hundreds of thousands of dollars in welfare. However, the figure in question ($460,000) is an aggregate value of agricultural subsidies granted to various relatives of Ernst (i.e., her father, brother, and great-grandfather) across a span of twenty years, not money Ernst herself received in the form of welfare payments. While agricultural subsidies and public assistance are separately controversial issues for a multitude of reasons, conflating the two is quite misleading.

    Agricultural subsidy programs and public welfare programs operate in vastly different ways; and regardless of how one feels about the issue of federal farm subsidies, their intent differs greatly from the intent of common forms of public assistance such as food stamps or housing assistance.

    The rumor about Ernst and welfare is overreaching for a number of reasons. In addition to the meaningful difference between a farm subsidy and what might be recognized as welfare, there is also a conflation of numbers. Ernst's father (and, it should be noted, not the senator herself) is listed as a recipient of less than ten percent of the $460,000 figure mentioned in the rumor. The balance is attributed to her late great-grandfather and her uncle, Dallas Culver. Sen. Ernst may or may not be close to her uncle, but it's quite a stretch to suggest his agricultural subsidies benefited her in any meaningful way.

    Even then, there's an issue of chronology that cannot be overlooked. Those who cling to the proposition that Ernst was happy to put her hand out when subsidies came her way while looking down upon others' receiving help would have to acknowledge the dollar figures reviewed for the claim come from farm subsidies granted between the years 1995 and 2009. Ernst was born in 1970; and by 1994 she had graduated college, been commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the Army Engineer Corps, gotten married, and moved to Savannah, Georgia. It's safe to say she was no longer a member of her parents' household in 1995 or later and thus was not a direct beneficiary of the referenced federal farm subsidy programs.

    Moreover, Ernst's father received only about $39,000 in farm subsidies across 14 years, or $2,785 per year on the average: a sum of money that would be useful to most Americans, but not enough to make or break a business in one year. More than 90% of the monies cited in the claim went not to any of Ernst's direct relatives, but to an uncle.

    And again - these stories are to tell tales, much like, as I said the whole Obama's mom was so poor she was on food stamps story.  You are correct about calling out hypocrisy, but from what I've read, Ernst hates subsidies but said she would probably vote to keep them.


    First of all, I never accused Ernst of (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Anne on Fri Jan 23, 2015 at 07:54:48 AM EST
    being on welfare.

    Second, the problem people like Ernst have is that if they tell an honest story, it boxes them into a position they don't want to take, and an admission they don't want to make - because both interfere with their political ideology.

    Ernst could tell a compelling and honest story.  She could talk about how hard it is for the small farmer to make a living, and that the subsidies her family was able to take advantage of allowed her to grow up and have a life that wasn't one of deprivation.

    But how do you do that and in the next breath talk about how you hate subsidies - AND say that you'd vote to keep them anyway?

    Have you really looked at the whack-a-doodle things Ernst has said?  She's Sarah Palin on the Prairie, and for the life of me, I have no idea why you feel she needs to be defended for operating straight out of the Big Playbook of GOP Hypocrisy.  This is the kind of BS that should be called out, not defended.

    And yes, I'll be happy to do the same for the Dem politicians that do it, too.


    Yes (none / 0) (#89)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 23, 2015 at 08:45:33 AM EST
    I know you didn't talk about welfare, but the rest of the link I posted to addresses the claims about "Her family took subsidies!!" (I had to leave the welfare part in the quote else other things would be out of context).

    Yes - some RELATIVES of hers got large subsidies.  Her father got a tiny portion - and that was after she was out of the house.  Hey!  I have an aunt and uncle who are pretty well off, but I'm not sure how that benefits me.

    She's been a Senator for 5 minutes. Why many people want to deconstruct her life (somewhat falsely) for a 5 minute speech, but on the other hand, praise Obama for his strength and vision for an empty hour long speech on the same night is beyond me (no, you specifically did not sing his praises). Where's he been with some of these ideas??

    And I think it's fairly easy to see how you can be against something in principle, but vote for it anyways.  Many people do it every election day.

    Engaging in this kind of nonsense is how we got Sarah Palin to stay around for so long.  


    Why the bio anyway? (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jan 23, 2015 at 09:15:00 AM EST
    Why many people want to deconstruct her life

    Why did she feel the need to bring it up anyway?
    I thought the SOTU speech and rebuttal was supposed to be about policy not about personality.
    This whole "I grew up poor so I know what's best for America" meme is total bs from any politician. I guess we are stuck with with it during campaign season, but it should rightly be mocked when it is used in national policy debates.
    Personally I find it hard to believe that Joanie's family were that poor, but the idea that a farm girl growing up with out some weather resistant footwear is kind of ludicrous. Did she do her chores barefoot?

    Maybe because...? (none / 0) (#109)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 23, 2015 at 02:11:17 PM EST
    This was a time to introduce a new Senator to the nation, so a little folksy and personal talk might endear hear to some.  It's not like we haven't heard everyone else's bio on a larger stage than just a campaign.

    I mean, Obama (as does every president) showcases someone, who gets to sit with the First Lady, to "humanize" his speech.  Thus year, he pointed to an "average couple from Minnesota just struggling to get by," [although Reuters learned later that the wife was a former field organizer for Sen. Patty Murray, and not necessarily "just average".].

    But I agree - tell me where we are, how we've done, and what's next.  Like I said elsewhere, I think we should go back to the days where POTUS submits a written report to Congress and we do away with the spectacle.


    Yes, bread bags (none / 0) (#111)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jan 23, 2015 at 02:54:30 PM EST
    were her instruction in the value of woe or the value of parsimony. Values to inform Americans of her vision for a better state of the Union.  A salt-of-the earth patina and heart-wrenching platitudes were put into service as filler and fooler.

    The real lesson she seemed to be selling was for the poor and middle-classes to recognize their ilk, make do and suck it up.  I did it, all of you can, too, if you are not a lay-about.

    The possession of bread bags suggests that she once had bread and probably a lot of it, given the wear and tear of a school-girl on bread bag galoshes.  All things considered, beefing up the social safety net is a better policy than re-purposed bread bags.


    She strikes me as a liar and a phony... (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 09:16:31 PM EST
    Certainly an embarrassment as a native Iowan. A living, breathing antithesis to the values that I grew up with and still hold.

    She was born in 1970, so say she was riding the bus with her "bread wrappers" in 1980.  Combines didn't cost a couple hundred thousand (2012 John Deere's go for around $160,000) and you didn't buy them new if you couldn't avoid/afford it.  When you did buy farm equipment, it was a long term investment and you got to write off the depreciation.  An average acre of Iowa farm land was at a then all-time high of $2,500 and the average farm size was 284 acres - an average value of $710,000 in 1980 dollars.  That gets you a pretty good line of credit - even by today's standards.  Even if her Dad and Uncle split the family farm, I'm willing to bet they were still doing OK.  

    I sincerely doubt that poor Joni ever lacked for much of anything - especially a pair of boots.

    She has stated that she's against farm/government subsidies, but fails to mention that her family received them (We won't even get into the Federal price supports and government subsidized crop insurance). The typical I got mine, screw everyone else attitude so prevalent among her kind.  


    NOt for the reason you suggest.

    So what? (none / 0) (#36)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 02:59:02 PM EST
    I've seen people do that too. There is a picture somewhere in my Dropbox of my aunt, who has plenty of money, wearing plastic shopping bags on her feet after a recent party so she wasn't walking around in her pantyhose.

    Who cares? Do you REALLY care if a freshman Senator wore bags on her feet or not even she was a child??  It's up there with Barack Obama and his PhD studrnt mother struggling to get by on food stamps.


    I've never seen anyone do that (none / 0) (#84)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 10:11:35 PM EST
    But hey, maybe someone did.

    I think Warren's best, and, (none / 0) (#30)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 02:50:11 PM EST
    most effective roll in next year's campaign would be her loud and powerful support for Hillary on the campaign trail. She could emphasize to the voters that she (Elizabeth) has counselled with Hillary, and gotten an assurance that their views vs the middle class are one and the same.  

    So you're saying warren should... (none / 0) (#31)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 02:54:15 PM EST
    go along to get along and lie to the American people for the good of the party?

    Espousing views is one thing, but Clinton has a record, her own in the Senate and (right or wrong) her husband's as President... and I wouldn't exactly call it middle and working class friendly.  Friendlier than her eventual GOP opponent, sure, but that's not saying anything.


    No, kdog (none / 0) (#42)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 03:17:14 PM EST
    I'd like to win for a change. The last time the Dems put up a candidate that met your demands we got George McGovern. A great guy.....that almost lost all 50 states.

    And, who said anything about lying? For cripe's sake, some of you guys absolutely know what the future will bring I don't see why we even need an election.

    We work with what we've got. The other side already has the Court, both houses, and now you want to give them the Presidency.

    No thanks.


    What makes you so convinced... (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 03:43:40 PM EST
    an actual champion of the middle and working classes can't win...we do have the 1% outnumbered last I checked.

    You're selling a self-fulfilling prophecy Shooter...a moderate hack is the best we're ever gonna get so we best support it or the big bad republicans will steal our milk money.  F*ck that.

    I can agree that we probably don't need an election, with the choices we'll have and the "viable options" declared, there really is little point in voting...the only reason I do it in presidential elections is I have an hour to kill on any given Tuesday.


    here's the thign (none / 0) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 03:55:23 PM EST
    though. You can get a moderate Dem to do something for you. You're not going to get everything but you are certainly in the position to demand things if you ask. You are going to get zero from a Republican. Just because Obama did zero for you doesn't mean Hillary will do the same. Heck if you one or two of the things you want you will have hit the jackpot compared to Obama.

    Actually... (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 04:00:32 PM EST
    as far as scraps though I think we got a little more outta Obama than we did Bill Clinton...on non-economical issues dearest to me (criminal justice reform and drug war).

    But I won't vote for scraps...that's a line for me.  But to each their own vote...all I'm saying is Warren is probably one of very very very few people with a D after their name I could vote for.


    Do you really know enough about Warren (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by nycstray on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 04:21:56 PM EST
    to vote for her?

    I dont know enough about her... (none / 0) (#66)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 05:30:05 PM EST
    Which is probably a big part of the reason why I'd be anxious to vote for her...I know too much of Clinton.  Though it's admittedly not fair to her that alotta that negative vibe is due to Bill.

    In 2008, it was Obama's inexperience and unknown qualities that made me prefer him over Clinton, though I could vote for neither, not with a quality candidate like Jill Stein on the ballot.


    Your response seems quite honest ... (none / 0) (#71)
    by christinep on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 07:02:06 PM EST
    as usual.  In saying that you can vote for what you don't know rather than what you do know, well ... first, that is what a lot of people do (only you are being open about the reason) and, second, it does exercise a choice not to look at the similarity of their positions.  kdog: Any analysis would show that both admirable women are closer in political positions than not ... both are what, in today's metrics, would be classified as moderate/liberal.

    I'm sure that you are aware of this, but I'll say it anyway: Today's attraction of a candidate Warren is not only based upon the newness that can be filled out by the listener but by the fact that Elizabeth Warren enjoys the freedom of not having much political track record and, in her chosen area of emphasis, she can say and push for all that she wants without the real constraints associated with one under heavy scrutiny.

      I say: More power to Elizabeth Warren in her powerful US Senate role and in her role as Democratic motivator.  I also say: Kdog--think about what a Hillary Clinton can and will do that is definitely a good/positive/plus for so many Americans--think in that broader way because it is going to be so important.  Every damn vote is going to be important.  This election is going to be as mean as they come; and, a key component will be the future of our legal system via Supreme Court appointments.  That is real; that is not magical thinking.


    Not the Supreme Court again Chris! (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 07:37:15 PM EST
    Obama got 2 appointments, and both have already disappointed my admittedly high standards.  I want Jeralyn...or Ron Kuby.

    But fear not, with the electoral college every vote does not count...my state is a lock for Brand D even if Joe Biden lucked into it somehow.  

    I just don't think Wall St. is paying all that dough for good/positive/plus economic reforms. Foreign policy, surveillance state, prison population, criminal justice?

    But as I've said before, I hope she wins so we can find out once and for all what the score really is. I'd love to be wrong.


    The Supreme Court matters (none / 0) (#77)
    by christinep on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 08:29:24 PM EST
    Look at the ages, to be blunt.  And, yes, I also hope that your perfected cynicism here can be nudged into a growing respect for the day-to-day struggle of governing from left of center. (And, I actually think it will.)

    No doubt it does... (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by kdog on Fri Jan 23, 2015 at 09:13:58 AM EST
    which is why we could really use a president with the courage to nominate a criminal defense attorney to the big bench...that's a perspective sorely lacking on the court whether Brand D or Brand R is doing the nominating.

    In spite of my enforcement/on-the-offense (none / 0) (#100)
    by christinep on Fri Jan 23, 2015 at 12:48:16 PM EST
    background, I'm liking your suggestion more & more, kdog.

    Give Me... (none / 0) (#51)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 04:13:37 PM EST
    ...a Grayson just to tear the mask off and stir it up.

    Well (none / 0) (#53)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 04:17:59 PM EST
    like you said to each his own. We're dealing with downright cruelty here in GA from the GOP. More rural hospitals are slated to close this year. If this keeps up the entire state is going to have to drive hours to Atlanta to get any kind of medical care. Today he announced he wants to take medical insurance away from bus drivers and cafeteria workers.

    Which goes to show... (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 05:25:03 PM EST
    We all pay too much attention to the presidency while state and local elections, as well as US Congress, have a far greater effect on our daily lives.

    Well (none / 0) (#70)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 06:38:40 PM EST
    don't include me in the statement about state and local but yes you are right to a point. I did everything I could to try to boot Deal out of office but apparently the voters like to embrace misery and suffering here in GA. I just don't happen to be one of them.

    Oh I know... (none / 0) (#72)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 07:06:38 PM EST
    you're on top of your local political beat, or should I say local crime beat? ;)

    Them Georgia GOPers could turn a relatively reasonable man such as myself into a Democrat...maybe. Over time...wear me down, break my spirit.


    Kdog (none / 0) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 07:40:48 PM EST
    It wouldn't take long. They'd have you voting D in a NY minute.

    I don't know.... (none / 0) (#75)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 07:57:35 PM EST
    I let G-Dub and y'all scare me into voting for Kerry...I still feel icky.

    Nonsense (2.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Politalkix on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 08:20:05 PM EST

    "I'd like to win for a change. The last time the Dems put up a candidate that met your demands we got George McGovern. A great guy.....that almost lost all 50 states."

    This is the laziest analysis anybody can come up with!

    2016 is not 1972. Any Democrat (however liberal he/she is) that runs now can win the states John Kerry won in 2004. That is the floor for the Democratic candidate in 2016.

    I would like to hear about the states that HRC can win in 2016 which BHO did not win in 2008 and 2012 to be persuaded that she is the most electable Democrat in a GE.

    Given the high floor that exists for Democrats in an electoral map in 2016, Democrats should go for the most progressive candidate (on policy) who also has some charisma to spare. This is my opinion.


    And 2016 is not 2008 (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Yman on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 09:42:40 PM EST
    The Democratic candidate will not have the advantage of running against a deeply unpopular Republican incumbent.  The "states that BHO did not win" is nonsense.

    2012 (none / 0) (#83)
    by Politalkix on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 09:56:48 PM EST

    But if you don't like 2008 for comparison (for irrational reasons), feel free to compare to 2012. Let us know all the states that HRC will win that BHO did not win in 2012.

    Democrats have plenty of margin as far as electoral votes are concerned in 2016. Not using it to nominate the most progressive candidate candidate with charisma will be a wasted opportunity IMO.


    Smaller margins in 2012 - fewer states (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Yman on Fri Jan 23, 2015 at 02:30:14 PM EST
    Tends to happen when you have to ruin on an actual record.

    BTW - Soaking of irrational, who did anything about HRC?

    Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh ...


    Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 23, 2015 at 06:20:05 AM EST
    will probably pick up AR (unless Huckabee is the GOP nominee and then who knows?) and AZ with maybe MO might carry NC if the demographics play out right along with Georgia.

    Indiana (none / 0) (#87)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 23, 2015 at 07:26:15 AM EST
    I think (none / 0) (#118)
    by Politalkix on Fri Jan 23, 2015 at 10:24:06 PM EST
    there is a greater chance that Boehner and McConnell will wake up every morning in the next two years and call BHO to say "Mr. President, what can we do today to put a smile on your face" than there is of HRC winning AZ, AR, NC, IN, etc in a GE.

    None of these things will happen.


    Really? No kidding?!? (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by Yman on Sat Jan 24, 2015 at 07:04:06 AM EST
    Probably because conclusions evidenced only by thoughts in your head - much like the significance of this silly metric of yours - are easy to reach.

    ... and equally as significant.


    BTW - Speaking of "irrational" (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Yman on Sat Jan 24, 2015 at 07:34:29 AM EST
    You gave absolutely no evidence (or even reasons) for your conclusions that HC couldn't win those states in a GE, which made me curious.  About 20 seconds of Googling lead me to poll results for NC and Arkansas 2016 election.  Turns out, she leads every Republican candidate but Huckabee in Arkansas (-3), every Republican but Bush Bush (tied) in NC, everyone but Bush (-1) in Arizona, and everyone but Bush (-1) in NC.

    I guess someone forgot to tell the people who live in those states that it's never gonna happen.


    Like (none / 0) (#123)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 24, 2015 at 08:53:14 AM EST
    BTD says demographics are destiny and if she's getting LBJ's numbers with white voters she's going to do better than Obama in the EC. It's not rocket science and Obama lost GA by 5 points and 7 points. So it's not out of range for Hillary. Locally here they're saying it's not going to flip until 2020 but depending on who the GOP nominates she very well could carry the state in 2016.

    50 years (2.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 04:41:42 PM EST
    ago he did something? That's pretty much it. The guy's become a coward.

    Lordy (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by sj on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 05:39:38 PM EST
    50 years (none / 0) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 03:41:42 PM MDT

    ago he did something? That's pretty much it. The guy's become a coward.

    You're going with "what's he done for me lately"?


    You call him a coward while dishonestly putting Gore's loss on him. If any of the factors that lentinel listed above didn't happen we have President Gore. But some people just must have their scapegoat, I guess.


    No (none / 0) (#69)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 06:10:00 PM EST
    but he refuses to take responsibility for the fact that he was repeating the GOP talking points about Gore and did a lot of things to help Bush. I'm not letting Gore off the hook for the decisions he made so why should Nader be let off the hook for what he did?

    Let's see there have been other third party candidates that did not behave the way Nader did?


    Why (none / 0) (#1)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 12:04:29 PM EST
    Is her popularity among white voters a surprise?

    It would be the highest level of white voters (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 12:09:52 PM EST
    a Dem pres candidate had gotten since LBJ.

    A couple of things (none / 0) (#3)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 12:14:55 PM EST
    1) It's early, and you know how polls are - especially when you put one candidate against a split and crowded field, and 2) she connected well with working class whites in her last run.

    But I wouldn't be surprised if she runs and DOES get that share of the white vote.  Many if them are women, don't forget.


    This Electoral College (none / 0) (#4)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 12:27:23 PM EST
    interactive map is interesting to work with, using the present polling data.   It sure looks pretty good for Mrs. Clinton (270 to win.) Several permeations and combinations will do it.    For example, not Florida, but Ohio and VA.  Or, Florida, and not MN or WI.  

    Let's say that over the next year, (none / 0) (#5)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 12:29:10 PM EST
    Congressional Democrats - and hopefully, Dems at all levels - manage to put together a more organized and more progressive group than we've seen in quite some time, building on the successes from what I think Tom Sullivan at digby's place refers to as the "rebels" - like, for example, getting Antonio Weiss to withdraw his nomination for the deputy post at Treasury.

    Does this put Clinton in the position of having to say "those people aren't me, and I'm not them - I'm much more flexible and moderate?"  And if that's the position it puts her in - of being another Democratic candidate who's willing to throw liberals under the bus - does that hurt her, help her - and more importantly, does it hurt the efforts to build a stronger progressive flank?

    Not imo (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 12:32:08 PM EST
    She has her own personna and history (tied to her husband's) politically, and despite what Fox News thinks, that's going to be pretty hard to shake, for better or worse.

    But this middle class economics thing that Obama talked about is basically Warren winning the debate imo.

    I will note however that in fact Bill Clinton ran a populist economic campaign in 1992.

    I kow what people think about what happened after but the campaign itself was populist.


    I remember that, (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 02:38:45 PM EST
    but, what worries me now is:

    In listening to some pundits, and, some Democratic politicians, regarding the shellacking the Dems took in last November's Mid-Terms, they claimed that a big reason for that was that they let the left wing of the Party have too much control.

    A. I believe they must be living in another universe if that was their take, and,

    B. If the Powers that Be for next year's election buy into that lunacy, I think they'd be guilty of gross malfeasance, if not, political suicide.

    BTW, in those same remarks about why the Dems lost so badly, they , also, admitted that whatever Progressive issues were brought up actually played very well.

    Talk about Cognitive Dissonance!


    Ending "welfare" (none / 0) (#20)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 02:26:18 PM EST
    and giving those lazy good-for-nothings a good, swift, boot in the as* was always a Wallace Republican, Tea Party and Klan-faction species of populism..

    If that's the populism you're referring to..


    Raising (none / 0) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 02:36:23 PM EST
    the minimum wage was one but I guess you've forgotten that.

    What did he want to raise it? (none / 0) (#26)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 02:41:36 PM EST
    Fifty cents?

    Such a humanitarian. A man of conscience.

    Dastardly of me to forget that, I know.

    Also, he knew how to delegate authority to men of vision and a sense of justice like Alan Greenspan and Robert Rubin.


    So nothing (none / 0) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 02:45:09 PM EST
    is ever good enough for you I guess? It went up 90 cents but I guess Obama raising it 30 cents is better?

    Obama is Clinton (none / 0) (#33)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 02:55:17 PM EST
    and they both basically suck (as in off, as in Wall St) but look marvelous juxtaposed to a Bush or Reagan..

    You need to stop living in that 2008 Gnostic universe where people are utterly enthralled by either an Obama or a Clinton. Not to tell anyone what to do..


    Your (none / 0) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 02:58:36 PM EST
    condescending Nader schitck makes all liberals look bad. The big difference being that Bill Clinton you know who were voting for and Obama pretended to be something he wasn't to get votes. And no, they are not the same. Obama has been completely hapless in the face of the GOP thinking he could be their friend. Bill Clinton never was that naive.

    Liberals (so-called) (5.00 / 5) (#38)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 03:08:08 PM EST
    often make themselves look bad without anyone else's help. Especially when they essentially throw in the towel and start kowtowing to the Clintons and Obamas of the world.

    And, when precisely were a bunch of the-money-is-always-right corporate shysters given the exclusive right to redefine the word "liberal" for the rest of the world?


    When (none / 0) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 03:58:16 PM EST
    people like you became smarmy and condescending and ruined the word liberal. So someone else picked up the mantle and ran with it.

    She actually (none / 0) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 01:08:49 PM EST
    could sell that kind of thing easier than Obama because she's already a known quantity. Obama was afraid of being defined as left but I don't think Hillary cares.

    compromise. compromising. compromised. (none / 0) (#18)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 02:09:06 PM EST
    PBS: Clinton's allies guide her toward moderate economic approach - authored by Larry Summers and cronies.

    Well, the (none / 0) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 02:54:40 PM EST
    good news in that is she is going to be to the left of Obama.

    By a good half inch (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 02:56:19 PM EST
    Nobody (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 03:01:07 PM EST
    is going to be Ralph Nader in the primary. Not even Bernie Sanders. Mr. Nader hid out in his CT mansion while we all suffered under George W. Bush. He can pound sand for all i care.

    Yeah, because the Ralph Naders (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 03:10:13 PM EST
    of the world are the real enemy..

    Yikes. Welcome to liberal America.


    The circular firing squad is calibrating (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 05:24:53 PM EST
    its sights.

    No (none / 0) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 03:17:48 PM EST
    because Ralph Nader can't take responsibility for what he did and the lies he told. And then when the going gets tough, he hides out in his mansion.  And then he shows up when things get easier trying to hitch onto somebody else's wagon. Face it. The guy hasn't done anything in around 50 years.

    Who is this I'm talking to? (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 04:34:18 PM EST
    Pat Buchanan or Glenn Beck?

    At least Nader talks about the need for class interest checks and balances in the U.S, and on occasion mentions that there's an actual working class and sizable population of poor people here.

    And as far as I know, he hasn't recently publicly and shamelessly Monica-ed the Board of Goldman Sachs like a certain Democrat frontrunner we all know and adore.


    He talks. (2.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 04:38:29 PM EST
    Big whoop. So does Glenn Beck. So does Pat Buchanan. Pat Buchanan as disgusting as he is at least had the cojones to run in a primary. Nader wants a coronation. He hasn't done what you said because he hasn't done anything. Like I told you he hides out in his mansion where he can yell about Goldman Sachs to the walls I guess.

    Just like Beck (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 04:44:58 PM EST
    you don't know, but keep talking..

    Is that a Southern thing?

    He's pushing eighty and he has money -- hangin's too good for 'em.


    What lies? (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by lentinel on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 04:38:14 PM EST
    Be specific please.

    Gore lost the election on his own.

    He was a terrible candidate.

    He distanced himself from Clinton, who was still very popular.

    He chose Lieberman as his running mate. A man whose primary qualification was denouncing Clinton in the Senate.

    He lost his home State.

    And then there was Katherine Harris in Florida.

    And then there was a corrupt and partisan Supreme Court, voting for Junior. Sandra Day O'Connor admitted as much.

    And you blame Ralph Nader.


    Nader (none / 0) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 04:39:48 PM EST
    saying that there was no difference between Bush and Gore therefore helping Bush look like a "moderate". I'm not excusing Gore. He is responsible for the mistakes he made just like Nader is responsible for his lies about Bush.

    If I recall correctly (none / 0) (#60)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 04:41:16 PM EST
    more registered Democrats in Florida voted for Bush than voted for Nader.

    Of course Florida may be a bad example, considering what a disgraceful sham went on down there..


    You're backing (none / 0) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 04:42:19 PM EST
    up my assertion that Nader helped Bush. Thanks.

    You're (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by lentinel on Sat Jan 24, 2015 at 06:58:57 AM EST
    avoiding the godawful fact that the Democrats could not come up with someone able to defeat Bush - one of the least qualified schmos to ever walk the earth. A junkie. An idiot.

    Bush was a gift to the Dems. He should not have won a single State.

    And the Dems couldn't find anyone.
    They wound up with sighing Gore - self-shackled with Lieberman - the man with the personality of a flat tire. Lieberman couldn't even hold his own against that bs artist Cheney.

    And that goes for Kerry as well.
    After 4 years of Bush. After it was proven that he lied - and all the people killed because of his lies - and the Dems couldn't find anyone to defeat him.

    All Kerry would have had to do was show that video of Bush at that Press banquet where he was making fun of not being about to find WMDs - No not there, no not there... to the joy of the assembled idiots.

    All Kerry would have had to do was show that video. The laughs - and point out all the Americans who had lost their lives and their limbs... But he couldn't. Too much of an elitist. A Party boy. Whatever.

    I blame the Democrats.
    They had become lazy.
    They had become fat and comfortable.
    They could care less.

    They lost the election in 2000 and they did it again in 2004 - against a raving fool.

    And you blame Nader.


    "Lieberman couldn't even hold his own (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jan 24, 2015 at 11:35:25 AM EST
    against that bs artist Cheney."

    "Couldn't even hold his own?"

    For Gawd's sake, he sounded like he had just met up with his long-lost Frat-brother buddy, and was having the time of his life yukking it up over the "good old days."

    Everything about that love-fest, er, I mean, "debate," gave the impression Lieberman wished he was on the other side, instead of supporting Gore.

    I try to stay away from superlatives, but Gore had to run the stupidest campaign in history. Talk about an election that was his to lose! Instead of bragging about how he was right there, helping Clinton manage the country through eight of the most prosperous years in modern history, and, all with the republicans biting and scratching all the way, he should have cruised to victory.

    And, then, of course, the sequel.....Kerry.

    That's why I step back when I hear the apologists talk about the mean and cruel republicans. The Democrats have shown time and again that they're their own worst enemy, not the hideous R's.


    Stop! (none / 0) (#129)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jan 25, 2015 at 12:00:07 PM EST
    You are hurting my heart and making me laugh at the same time.

    I get (none / 0) (#130)
    by lentinel on Sun Jan 25, 2015 at 03:20:40 PM EST
    your point...

    My recollection is that, rather than a"love-fest", the Lieberman-Cheney confrontation was a snivel-fest on the part of Holy Joe.

    I detected only contempt from Dick the vampire.

    One thing I remember also is that Nader, when confronted with the fact that some democrats might vote for him rather than Al, said, simply, that all Gore would have to do was to adopt those positions that he was espousing that were appealing to those dems. Duh.

    Al, of course, couldn't do that. Oh no.

    And, then, as pointed out, there were a lot of conservative dems who chose to vote for W. Nobody talks about that aspect of Florida's legacy of 2000.

    My feeling about the "blame Nader" fellows is that they are really dupes of the right-wing corporate republican machine. Ralph is a progressive - hated and feared by corporate rightwing America. And the right-wingers have managed to get the Democrats to disown him.


    And - needless to say - they thereby can take nothing in about why the dems lost to the entitled fool. Twice.

    And so it goes.


    You know, (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by Zorba on Sun Jan 25, 2015 at 05:03:47 PM EST
    Gore won the actual popular vote, and might well have won Florida if the Supreme Court had not (wrongly) intervened and allowed the recount to continue.
    And, in any case, if Gore had won his own d@mned state of Tennessee, he would have won the Electoral vote and the election, despite Florida.
    Be that as it may, I voted for Nader.  And I don't regret that.
    I voted for Jill Stein of the Green Party in 2012, too, for that matter.
    But then, I am an old lefty-hippie, and will continue to be one.
    I didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me.

    I"m (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by lentinel on Sun Jan 25, 2015 at 07:26:54 PM EST
    with you.

    Vote your heart and mind.

    If the Democratic party wants our votes, they'll have to give us someone we can vote for.


    Not all the dems fault (none / 0) (#128)
    by FlJoe on Sat Jan 24, 2015 at 07:45:23 PM EST
    Bush was just a tool, they lost to a well oiled rat-fkg machine with help from a compliant media.  

    Why (none / 0) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 03:19:38 PM EST
    would you want to associate with someone who's such a coward? You guys tell the Dems to stand up and be brave. Fine. Tell them that but when they don't you run to a coward.

    Interesting article (none / 0) (#90)
    by Slado on Fri Jan 23, 2015 at 09:08:08 AM EST
     Obviously I don't have much to add on the subject because right now Hillary is looking good.

    But this LINK Nof a Clinton advisor saying Obama hasn't gotten #%it done if true would be in bold strategy for her to use in the general election.

    Forget Obama elect me because I can get things done.  

    This may be a powerful message and an easy way for her to distance herself from him if Obama continues down the path he appears to be going which is to do absolutely nothing that the Republican Congress wants to do.

    Just putting it out there.

    Well (none / 0) (#93)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 23, 2015 at 09:59:06 AM EST
    the guy at Hot Air must have been asleep at the wheel back in 2008 if he's having to pick up his jaw off the floor. I swear most Republicans must live in some self induced bubble or something. She said all these same things back in 2008. Hillary understands that you have to crack some heads to get stuff done and Obama does not understand that.  Obama wasted way too much time begging the Republicans to sign onto what he was doing and then now doesn't even try.

    WTF? (none / 0) (#99)
    by sj on Fri Jan 23, 2015 at 12:27:36 PM EST
    This may be a powerful message and an easy way for her to distance herself from him if Obama continues down the path he appears to be going which is to do absolutely nothing that the Republican Congress wants to do.
    First: he spent his entire first term trying to do what the GOP had said they wanted for years, only to have the GOP then refuse to play.

    Second: why should he do what the Republican Congress wants, anyway? He is a Democratic President.

    I just hope our luck holds out and we escape the Grand Bargain.


    WTF? (none / 0) (#107)
    by Slado on Fri Jan 23, 2015 at 01:50:23 PM EST
    He spent his first term passing a stimulus that nobody liked and a healthcare bill that nobody liked.

    Not sure what you're talking about.


    Interesting that (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by sj on Fri Jan 23, 2015 at 02:01:08 PM EST
    bills that "nobody liked" became law.

    Personally, I think that the stimulus bill was weak tea -- a GOP influence -- and that seems to be in alignment with the preponderance of current analysis. I'll grant you that one, even though you mean it in the exact opposite way from the reality.

    And I'll let other commenters here take you to the woodshed for the blatant dishonesty of this statement.

    ...and a healthcare bill that nobody liked.

    Some like it (none / 0) (#115)
    by Slado on Fri Jan 23, 2015 at 04:57:20 PM EST
    Obviously but neither party got what it wanted and to this day it is still under water in the polls.

    He had both houses of congress for half his first term.  Based on that alone i'd argue his first term was pretty weak in terms of accomplishments,

    Ultimately history will be the judge.

    As for his laws being bad because their somehow conservative thst is just excuse making.   The conservative alternative was no stimulus and as I said it was his own party that held him back.


    Actually (none / 0) (#116)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 23, 2015 at 05:43:18 PM EST
    it was his own party that held him back on Obamacare being better. The holding back on the stimulus was done by the GOP.

    pffftt (none / 0) (#133)
    by sj on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 01:07:51 PM EST
    Keep changing the discussion if it helps you find a way to make you "right". Your original comments are what they are. I'm not going off the rails with you to discuss your new direction.

    New GOP poll from Rasmussen (none / 0) (#94)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jan 23, 2015 at 10:58:40 AM EST
    Romney 24
    Bush 13
    Carson 12
    Walker 11
    Christie 7
    Paul 7
    Rubio 5
    Perry 5

    First debate in August

    Carson needs to work on name (none / 0) (#95)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 23, 2015 at 11:11:14 AM EST
    recognition, although maybe the most conservative of the GOP know who he is.

    Dr. Carson... (none / 0) (#97)
    by kdog on Fri Jan 23, 2015 at 11:53:24 AM EST
    is probably the scariest of the bunch...on multiple levels.  Because he's most likely of the clown show to actually make a race of it, and his ideas for America.

    In interviews he creeps me out...something off about that motherf8cker, besides the obvious of wanting to be president in the first place.


    Wait (none / 0) (#96)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 23, 2015 at 11:39:55 AM EST
    I thought Ted Cruz was the bogey-man who was the real threat to come and eat your children when he became the nominee?

    It looks (none / 0) (#101)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 23, 2015 at 12:49:46 PM EST
    like they didn't even put him in the poll though in all honesty after they go through the GOP primary they're all going to be Ted Cruz. Even Jebbie is starting to sound like him.

    I dunno (none / 0) (#102)
    by CST on Fri Jan 23, 2015 at 12:51:07 PM EST
    Mittens is starting to sound like Robin Hood.

    Not that anyone believes a word he has to say at this point.


    LOL. Robin Hood... (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Jan 23, 2015 at 08:00:48 PM EST
    I steal from the rich...
    And give to the richer...

    They seem to have forgotten about (none / 0) (#103)
    by nycstray on Fri Jan 23, 2015 at 01:05:57 PM EST
    Lindsey Graham's toe in the water . . .

    Quick! (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Anne on Fri Jan 23, 2015 at 01:36:11 PM EST
    Someone throw in a hair dryer!

    The Koch boy is positioned well, it seems (none / 0) (#104)
    by christinep on Fri Jan 23, 2015 at 01:34:01 PM EST
    'Thinking for awhile that Scott Walker--he of union-busting infamy and divide & conquer public employees & teachers against the general populace infamy--is one to watch and worry about should that lustful duo, Romney & Bush, implode with the conservative south.  The $$$$ funders for Repubs in 2016 might see that upper-Midwest governor, Walker, as real stalking-horse with his pleasant exterior and charming words and Wisconsin electoral votes (Midwest focus)....

    He has (none / 0) (#106)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 23, 2015 at 01:37:30 PM EST
    a big corruption problem but that might not matter to GOP primary voters. He doesn't carry his own state though in a presidential election and then there's the problem of him cranking up the war on women there in Wisconsin.

    DNC convention 2016 (none / 0) (#112)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 23, 2015 at 02:57:23 PM EST
    Week of July 25th.  Just like the republicans who moved their convention back into mid-July, so the money will free up faster for the eventual nominees.

    Regardless (none / 0) (#113)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 23, 2015 at 03:02:23 PM EST
    of the money part it makes more sense to have these things in July or sometime during the summer. George W. Bush pushing the GOP one into September was beyond stupid and is not something that I hope happens again. This the biggest free advertising either party will have and it gives people to think about what they said for a good while before voting takes place.

    Sure (none / 0) (#114)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 23, 2015 at 03:26:41 PM EST
    And it doesn't interfere with football or the new fall TV season.  But it's also the least likely time people will watch - not that many do anyways.

    I like it because it means no long protracted primary season (since it's too long already anyways).


    inkblot (none / 0) (#127)
    by thomas rogan on Sat Jan 24, 2015 at 05:48:05 PM EST
    Hillary hasn't taken an actual binding position on an issue since 2008 except to support Obama's immigration order; she has not yet said that she'll continue it unchanged and forever if elected.  She isn't in the Senate so she can avoid voting to support Obama's idea to tax 529 college savings programs or any of his other ideas.  She can dodge supporting or opposing increases in gasoline taxes, etc.  All this makes it easy to add ten percent to Obama's baseline 45% support.  At some point she'll have to write an actual presidential platform.