Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

DonViejo

(60,536 posts)
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 01:16 PM Jul 2014

Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Need Liberals

The numbers show black voters defeated her in 2008 and will make her win in 2016.

By Jamelle Bouie


Somehow, six years after a divisive, bitter primary against a liberal challenger, Hillary Clinton has become the darling of the Democratic left. To liberal Democrats, she’s more “tough,” “honest,” and exciting than any figure in the party. As Noam Scheiber writes in an excellent feature on Clinton and the left for the New Republic, “it’s a striking turnaround for a candidate who, when her opponent famously proclaimed her ‘likeable enough’ in 2008, discovered that less than half her party agreed.”

For Scheiber—who pegs the change to partisan solidarity—liberal support is key to Clinton’s presidential ambitions, if she runs. Without dissatisfied liberals to fuel an anti-Clinton insurgency, he argues, the former secretary of state has an easy path to the nomination, even with her liabilities on income inequality and her close relationship to Wall Street and other titans of the 1 percent. “What’s so unusual about Clinton’s standing is that, unlike 2008, it’s almost certain to hold up even against a perfectly positioned challenger—say, Elizabeth Warren, the most beloved economic populist in the country,” writes Scheiber.

At the risk of nitpicking, I think it’s wrong to call Warren “perfectly positioned.” Not because she isn’t talented and popular, but because liberals—or at least, self-identified liberals—aren’t enough to win a Democratic primary.

Key to Scheiber’s case is the idea that liberals killed the Clinton candidacy of 2008 and could do the same in 2016 if they backed Warren or another credible challenger. But while liberals were a necessary part of the Obama insurgency, they weren’t sufficient to stop the Clinton machine. To wit, self-identified liberals were just 39 percent of all Democrats in 2008, followed by moderates (38 percent) and conservatives (21 percent). Or you could just look at Clinton’s record in the primary, where liberal opposition couldn’t block her victories in New Hampshire, California, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Massachusetts, and Arizona.

more
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/07/liberals_support_hillary_clinton_african_american_voters_will_give_her_the.html?
17 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Need Liberals (Original Post) DonViejo Jul 2014 OP
Well, she'll definitely have the support of this African American. My problems, such as they were, Tarheel_Dem Jul 2014 #1
So far I like what I see... BootinUp Jul 2014 #12
And she'll be formidable as long as she's keenly aware of who she takes advice from. I'll happily.. Tarheel_Dem Jul 2014 #13
So, if she loses the primary or the presidency, y'all won't be blamin' liberals? Cool! djean111 Jul 2014 #2
They always blame us black people. Sure they'll blame us. Liberal_Stalwart71 Jul 2014 #8
Then why should I bother to vote? GeorgeGist Jul 2014 #3
So... Hillary's magically become more "likeable" since 2008? winter is coming Jul 2014 #4
Good. I guess I can stay home. Mass Jul 2014 #5
blacks are generally liberal, so this analysis is silly nt geek tragedy Jul 2014 #6
The take-away message I got from the article is that some voters abandoned Hillary when they winter is coming Jul 2014 #11
not sure there is anything of quality being written geek tragedy Jul 2014 #14
Not if she and her husband start up on that racist bullshit as they did in 2008. Hell no! Liberal_Stalwart71 Jul 2014 #7
I hope she's not measuring the drapes already. blkmusclmachine Jul 2014 #9
Obama's pledged delegate advantage was garnered through the caucus states, Beacool Jul 2014 #10
Well, if Obama was the "liberal challanger", we def don't need Hillary. HooptieWagon Jul 2014 #15
Whatever. Hillary will be 100% better than any Republican. apnu Jul 2014 #16
The liberal left who advocates for Warren are apolitical. joshcryer Jul 2014 #17

Tarheel_Dem

(31,207 posts)
1. Well, she'll definitely have the support of this African American. My problems, such as they were,
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 01:28 PM
Jul 2014

with Hillary wasn't so much Hillary, but the people who surrounded her. I mean, Mark Penn? Really? I hope, for her sake, she will dump the entire "machine" from '08 (at least publicly) and bring in younger, fresher faces who represent a cross section of the Democratic Party.

BootinUp

(46,924 posts)
12. So far I like what I see...
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 05:45 PM
Jul 2014

she is building her base talking about womens issues and talking about the younger generations difficulties in the economy. She is taking her time.

Tarheel_Dem

(31,207 posts)
13. And she'll be formidable as long as she's keenly aware of who she takes advice from. I'll happily..
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 06:20 PM
Jul 2014

work for Sec. Clinton.

 

djean111

(14,255 posts)
2. So, if she loses the primary or the presidency, y'all won't be blamin' liberals? Cool!
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 01:41 PM
Jul 2014

Good to know!

winter is coming

(11,785 posts)
4. So... Hillary's magically become more "likeable" since 2008?
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 02:33 PM
Jul 2014

Warren's message appeals only to "liberals"? African Americans aren't concerned about inequality?

winter is coming

(11,785 posts)
11. The take-away message I got from the article is that some voters abandoned Hillary when they
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 05:45 PM
Jul 2014

realized Obama was a viable option. Since the article seems to be a puff piece promoting Hiillary, I'm not sure reminding us about that was a quality strategy.

Beacool

(30,244 posts)
10. Obama's pledged delegate advantage was garnered through the caucus states,
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 04:35 PM
Jul 2014

where activists on the ground played a major part. Hillary won most of the large state primaries, except IL and SC. The popular vote and pledged delegate count was too close to assume that Obama won thanks to the most liberal faction of the party.

I don't think that Hillary will have as much trouble with the liberal faction of the party as some in the media and around here seem to think. In one recent poll, she had more support from self described liberals than she did from moderates and conservatives.

 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
15. Well, if Obama was the "liberal challanger", we def don't need Hillary.
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 08:15 PM
Jul 2014

Perhaps she can take Koch money again, like when she co-founded the DLC.

apnu

(8,722 posts)
16. Whatever. Hillary will be 100% better than any Republican.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 08:12 AM
Jul 2014

No matter which way she leans, or how cozy she is with Wall st.

I was an early Obama supporter, I proudly voted for Obama for Senate, and every cycle after that, I have no problem pulling the lever for Hillary in 2014.

Why will Hillary be 100% better than any Republican? She won't be beholden to the teabagging nutters and thier masters. She drives them crazy because she breaths air.

joshcryer

(62,265 posts)
17. The liberal left who advocates for Warren are apolitical.
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 11:40 PM
Jul 2014

There should be a draft movement already in place with at least a million followers and at least several million in donations. No such movement exists. Therefore there is no reason for Warren to put her hat in the ring, which would marginalize her within the party.

Warrens connections, in fact, were through the Clintons and Obama, she wasn't self made in that vein, she got delegated opportunities as opposed to looking for them.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Hillary Clinton Doesn’t N...