Many Hillary bashers think Nader, Kucinich, or Sanders can win. Uh, yeah right.

[RBInMaine]

Anyone whose mind is anywhere near the planet Earth knows that Bernie Sanders, a declared "socialist," has about as much chance of winning the presidency as Donald Trump, Rand Paul, or Ted Cruz over there in TeaPublican Crazyland.

Sanders is a great guy who I really like, and I would welcome him to the race. But he can't win the nomination let alone the presidency, and it is entirely foolish to think he can.

Warren isn't running. It's insane to hold out for that non-existence. When someone repeatedly declares she is not running, and in fact also declares she's supporting someone else (um Hillary), and yet some continue to act like she is, we are seeing the very definition of living in an alternative universe. A psych eval is in order for that crowd.

If not Hillary, who? Answer that. Who? And who can actually WIN? Martin O'Malley may run and would be welcome to the debate. Brian Schweitzer too, but he has really stuck his foot in it badly. Still, I'd welcome them both to the primary. It is clear however that as of now Clinton has the best shot at the nomination.

I will support the eventual nominee. But reality does need to enter into the conversation. Those out there on the Nader, Kucinich, Sanders fringe bashing Hillary can't seem to offer anything but out-of-reality pipe dreams. And that is really sad.

[shenmue]

1. True

[RBInMaine]

3. Yup, DAMN true !

[shenmue]

5. Considering...

that this is DU, I hope you brought your Super Strong Magic Pajamas.

[RBInMaine]

9. Yeah I know.

[TheNutcracker]

2. If not Hillary, why not Martin O'Malley? Why do we have to keep recycling? She won't win either.

[RBInMaine]

6. As said I'd welcome O'Malley to the race. We should have a real primary. However, she has the

best shot, and I think she CAN win. What makes you say she can't? It all depends on a LOT, especially whomever the RePukes put up.

Who are THEY going to nominate?

[Warren Stupidity]

4. I know, lets continue the same failed strategy!

Perhaps after the next 8-12 years of Republican rule people will be so disgusted that once again a caretaker center-right corporate controlled Democratic administration will be put to work to shellac and polish the façade. The last thing we should do is run on real issues with real differences and give people a real choice.

[RBInMaine]

7. Please, offer your candidate. WHO can WIN? And Hillary is progressive. Just not "pure."

[angrychair]

12. a "progressive"?

A progressive what? She is a DLC corporate shill. She has her husband running around advocating for repatriating corporate off-shore money TAX FREE.
On the record in support of cutting the corporate tax rate.
She voted FOR giving bushco the power to wage unlimited war in Iraq.
She was on the record, leading up to the event, being againt PBO taking out OBL (to risky).
Her husband signed DOMA into law.
When you get one you get the other.
I will vote for Sanders if in the primary in my state. I would vote for Jerry Brown as well. There are a lot of people I would vote for before HRC.

[paleotn]

46. not pure????

....she's fucking Bob Dole in a pant suit.

[merrily]

130. I take your point, but....

When not running, Bob Dole could crack some damn funny jokes on the late night TV shows. Gore, too. I always thought that if either of them had shown more of that side of themselves, he would have had a better shot.

I have not seen that side of Hillary yet. And, I don't expect to see Hillary in a Viagra commercial, drooling over Brittany Spears

So, there are some differences

[LawDeeDah]

64. She is not a progressive. Progressives don't jump into wars

feet first and mouth last, without even reading the damn papers. And just believing Bush Jr. because Bill is pals with his pop.

You have to find another adjective because progressive and democratic do not fit Hillary Clinton.

[YoungDemCA]

98. No True Progressive fallacy...

nt

[aspirant]

71. Using the word "pure", doesn't it have a ring of Frank Luntz?

[RBInMaine]

8. Oh, and Nader and Kucinich were so "successful," right?

[VanillaRhapsody]

10. Not ONLY the best shot at the Nomination...the BEST SHOT at winning

Ohio: Christie vs. Clinton FOX News Clinton 46, Christie 39 Clinton +7
Ohio: Paul vs. Clinton FOX News Clinton 49, Paul 40 Clinton +9
Ohio: Bush vs. Clinton FOX News Clinton 48, Bush 38 Clinton +10
Ohio: Perry vs. Clinton FOX News Clinton 49, Perry 39 Clinton +10
Ohio: Kasich vs. Clinton FOX News Clinton 47, Kasich 43 Clinton +4

[Robbins]

18. Get back to me when there is post election poll

And scott walker Is included.

On war and corporate issues there isn't much difference between Hillary and Republicans.

[VanillaRhapsody]

19. Scott Walker????

GMAFB....Hillary polls higher than Jeb Bush...

[Robbins]

41. Walker

Is more likely GOP nominee than Jeb Bush.

Democrats may lose Wis If walker is nominee.

[VanillaRhapsody]

43. No he isn't...

and no they won't...

Huckabee 13, Ryan 9, Paul 8, Bush 8, Christie 7, Santorum 6, Perry 3, Cruz 7, Rubio 5, Walker 5, Jindal 1

[Arkana]

90. This is objectively wrong.

If this was the case, why didn't Democrats lose Massachusetts last time out? Or Wisconsin?

[Robbins]

111. Walker

Keeps winning In Wisconsin.Romney lost In 1994 and didn't run In 2006 because he knew he would lose.

Time to stop underestimating walker In Wisconsin.

[paleotn]

48. 2 years before an election?

...your poll results are utter bullshit.

[stone space]

11. I'll go with Bernie. (nt)

[saltpoint]

30. I'm inclined to join you. eom

[demigoddess]

54. that will get the republican elected

I think if Hillary were on the ticket we might get a lot of republican women voting democratic that year. Every time the democrats have split their votes between two candidates the republicans won.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

128. Hillary's rep with Repubs is still plunging back to earth, now that she's looking like

she'll run again. Depending upon the idea that she'll get any significant number of Republican votes, even from women, is a pipe dream that will, in your words, 'get the republican elected'.

[RBInMaine]

134. The purists will leave Bernie in droves once he declares as a Democrat.

[NorthCarolina]

58. Me too! nt

[silvershadow]

59. Me three. I am paying no attention to the Third Wayer's right now, until I am convinced they are

in the majority. I have a feeling they will be sorely let down to see Bernie only continue to gain steam, not lose it.

[RBInMaine]

74. If he runs, he's switching from Indy to Dem, and he won't win the nomination. What then?

Again, I love Bernie. He is great. He just can't win. He is a declared "socialist" who will have switched to the D party just to try to run for President, so he's DONE before he starts. That act and label paints him as just being too extreme for the ENTIRE nation. Right now he is saying he is very hesitant to even get in the race because he knows how hard it will be to compete nationally. He may get it, but he knows it will mainly be to have an affect on the debate and the party's policy direction. He knows that his chances of winning are minimal.

We ALL need to rally around the eventual nominee. For people to be bashing Hillary in my view is crazy when this is the person who right now seems to have the best shot at the nomination and winning the race. It is also a shot at making history yet again.

I welcome Sanders, O'Malley, Schweitzer, etc. to the race. We SHOULD have a rigorous primary and not a "coronation." That process is good for the eventual nominee because it preps her/him for the general election. But I will strongly support the eventual nominee, and if that is Hillary, great.

[dionysus]

107. Bernie's problem is his "socialist views". nothing he says is exteme, just bold truth. Bernie's

problem is that American voters are shallow. He has no name recognition outside of political junkie circle, and voters are gonna see a scruffy old guy with a weird accent. All of this will make it very hard for him to raise the money needed. Especially if he (and I bet he'd do this) won't accept dark money from outside interests.

sadly for our country, if he looked like JFK or had the style of Obama, he might get far.

As for Hillary, she has the name recognition and money, but she burned her bridges with liberals, and a shallow low information voter might just not vote for her because she's old.

sad state of affairs

EDIT: and even if a Bernie or sanders won, both houses of congress in GOP hands... they'd get less done than even what Obama was able to do in the face of total obstruction.

These days, it seems if you want anything done, you need the presidency, the house, and a filibuster proof majority in the senate.

[Maedhros]

13. Since when is telling the truth about a candidate considered "bashing?"

I have no need to read further nonsense from you.

/ignore list.

[VanillaRhapsody]

20. since some calling easily disputed falsehoods truth...

[LawDeeDah]

65. like? Can you give some examples of falsehoods against Hillary Clinton?

The only ones I have seen here, and I sure don't claim I read everything here, are usually facts of record like her massive blunders that can't help but be repeated for effect - effect being: do you really want this person with this mind to be leader of the country? Iraq war, sniper gate, obliterate iran, dead broke, Obama does stupid things, and on and on and on. Huge blunders that should not be overlooked. Sorry.

[VanillaRhapsody]

79. That list is AWFULLY long....you want me to list every bullshit claim?

but you can go here to find the truth...

http://ontheissues.org/hillary_clinton.htm

[beerandjesus]

82. You're asking the wrong person for details.....

....long posts don't beef up the post count.

[think]

14. Lloyd Blankfein agrees.... /nt

[RedstDem]

15. how about some others, like

Warner, Clark, Webb, Gore, Franken, Warren and others, think of who can beat patreus, it sure ain't hilliary. Probably not Warren or franken either, admittedly, but for Christ give the hilliary pushing a break.

Too much, there's a lot of good people that can run, and win easier than hilliary.

[VanillaRhapsody]

21. She beats freaking JEB!!!

they LOVE Jeb.

[RedstDem]

23. you need to explain "love" jeb??

I'm a little thick sometimes, what does that mean?

[VanillaRhapsody]

24. Bush....

[RedstDem]

28. I figured that part on my own....lol

Its the love part I was wondering about

[VanillaRhapsody]

29. its sad but true...

[RedstDem]

32. what?!

I give up.
Carry on

[VanillaRhapsody]

34. That they love Jeb Bush....

OMG I give up!

He has been staying out of the limelight for a reason....he knows to let the others burn out one by one because they are crazy.

[RedstDem]

37. I misread your post

I thought you said THE love bush, instead of THEY love bush..

Soooo, anyway.

My bad.

Carry on.

[VanillaRhapsody]

40. sorry it was a typo I fixed it....wasn't your bad at all...

[MiniMe]

16. I'm not crazy about Hillary, don't know if I'll vote for her in the primaries

But I sure as hell will vote for the democratic nominee for President.

I agree that Bernie can't win enough votes to be President which is a shame. But if he runs as a dem, he will keep the debates interesting.

[saltpoint]

17. She hasn't earned progressives' votes.

She'll get some of them in the primaries.

Not all of them.

The point is not how electable her possible opponents are nearly so much as how lousy a candidate she really is.

In my opinion, she's pretty damned lousy.

[VanillaRhapsody]

22. Oh fuck yes she has....

Strongly Favors topic 1:
Abortion is a woman's unrestricted right
(+5 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 2:
Legally require hiring women & minorities
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Favors topic 3:
Comfortable with same-sex marriage
(+5 points on Social scale)

No opinion on topic 4:
Keep God in the public sphere
(0 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 5:
Expand ObamaCare
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 6:
Privatize Social Security
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 7:
Vouchers for school choice
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 8:
No 'rights' to clean air and water
(+5 points on Social scale)

Opposes topic 9:
Stricter punishment reduces crime
(+2 points on Social scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 10:
Absolute right to gun ownership
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Favors topic 11:
Higher taxes on the wealthy
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Favors topic 12:
Pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens
(+2 points on Social scale)

Opposes topic 13:
Support & expand free trade
(-3 points on Economic scale)

Opposes topic 14:
Maintain US sovereignty from UN
(-3 points on Economic scale)

No opinion on topic 15:
Expand the military
(0 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 16:
More enforcement of the right to vote
(+5 points on Social scale)

Favors topic 17:
Stay out of Iran
(+2 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 18:
Prioritize green energy
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Opposes topic 19:
Never legalize marijuana
(+2 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 20:
Stimulus better than market-led recovery
(-5 points on Economic scale)

[saltpoint]

26. If Sanders runs as a Democrat,

I think he'll stir the waters. Very likely quite a bit.

At some point, she would have to defend her positions on a stage with Sanders.

In that matchup, I like Sanders' chances of pinning her down on key votes she made as New York Senator.

And you know what? There may be other progressives who like Sanders too.

They could be anywhere!

[VanillaRhapsody]

27. but he won't win....

and I like Sanders...

We cannot afford a long shot...

[saltpoint]

31. Most of us will support the nominee

when the time comes.

I'm not voting for Hillary in the primaries.

I don't buy the inevitable crap or coronation crap either.

[VanillaRhapsody]

33. She is not inevitable...she just is....People want her...poll after poll show it...

and on TOP of that...she kicks Republican ass...in poll after poll...

She's our Star player.....no one else can boast about that...

[saltpoint]

36. She got her ass kicked but good

last time.

She's no more inevitable now than then.

A shift in a few variables and she's no longer frontrunner.

No current polling tells the story of the 2016 primaries until the week or so before the Iowa caucuses. She led big for a year prior to that point and then hobbled in a pathetic third place behind Obama and Edwards in Iowa.

Let's check the polling just before Iowa and see how things feel out there in the snowy fields.

[VanillaRhapsody]

38. that was then this is now.....

she polls ahead of every Republican....THAT is why I want her....

When someone else can say that....I will rethink it...

[saltpoint]

39. If she's as lousy a candidate as then,

Then is Now as well.

She sucked on the campaign trail last go-round. No indication she's improved on those limitations.

[VanillaRhapsody]

44. She wasn't lousy....Bill shot her in the foot in South Carolina...and Barack Obama lightening in a

bottle happened.....but yeah being able to beat every Republican by an average of 8 points each....really sucks...

Get back to me when YOU have a candidate that can say THAT!

[saltpoint]

55. The polls fib this early out. They're vapor.

Including Hillary's lead. If she's no better a candidate now and no more able to run an effective campaign than last time, she's going to lose her big lead.

Again.

And she will have deserved to.

[LawDeeDah]

67. All it took was her book tour and her many interviews after to see how Hillary will campaign.

Not very well. She lacks something basic in communication skills, and sincerity.

[saltpoint]

113. Have to agree. She'll have lots of cash

and an early lead, but may have more cash than a lead after the first few primaries.

She lacks a context for her candidacy.

[brooklynite]

75. ...and by "got her ass kicked" you mean "got nearly as many primary votes"?

[saltpoint]

114. No. By getting her ass kicked I mean

she lost a huge lead because she ran a lousy campaign.

She was out-smarted.

I see no evidence that she's any better now. We'll see.

[LawDeeDah]

116. are you counting Michigan and Florida? Because Hillary would.

It is so much like her to do that.

[LawDeeDah]

66. That's why I dearly hope Sanders runs.

To keep the others honest, especially Hillary. I don't for a moment think he can win the primary (but hey, strange things do happen) but he will weed out the fakes and whoever is left standing is good enough for me . If he is allowed in the debates, that is.

[saltpoint]

115. True. We need his voice on that debate stage.

If he's disallowed to debate, that's one more reason not to vote for Hillary Clinton.

[Reter]

25. What happens if the both candidates are out of the mainstream?

Someone has to win. Ted Cruz vs. Bernie Sanders? I'll got the next step, into the total fringe: Cynthia McKinney vs. David Duke. Who wins?

[Agnosticsherbet]

35. Republicans don't nominate their crazies.

The let them run in the primary because it excites their extremist cadres. Jeb Bush wins the Republican nomination if he runs. He may pull in someone like Rand Paul as a VP pick to keep the TP folk.

[Reter]

123. I know, but that wasn't the question

They haven't nominated somebody their base has loved since Reagan. We haven't nominated anyone close to being a liberal since 1988. But what if we both did again? Would be fun to watch the debates.

[Agnosticsherbet]

124. Whether they are fun or not depends on who writes the questions.

They aren't really debates. They rarely ask dificult questions.

[DonCoquixote]

42. warren isn't running?

"Warren isn't running. It's insane to hold out for that non-existence. When someone repeatedly declares she is not running, and in fact also declares she's supporting someone else (um Hillary), and yet some continue to act like she is, we are seeing the very definition of living in an alternative universe. A psych eval is in order for that crowd. "

Just like neither Obama NOR Hillary admittedly they were running until they absolutly had to.

Look, I get that many Hillary supporters have been waiting the better part of a decade for her to win so that we can say "yay we have a woman president!" even though as our Brtish friends can tell you, having a lady is no guarantee of concern for the working class. The right wing there still worships Thatcher. I also sense that many of you are scared that someone will come and give you a repeat case of 2008, when the inveitabilty Myth was smashed into splinters. I understand many of you either do not care about Hillary's overtures to the right wing, or like her because of them.

Here is some advice, you are hurting Hillary by trying to kneecap the thought of anyone else. If this primary is a cornoation, the GOP will know it, and use it to make her look weak, as if she could only get the nomination by a bunch of people threatening any challengers with the whips of ridicule and the gallows of political arm twisting. They also knwo that Hillary's maoin target is that army of centrist voters who barely hate liberals less than the GOP. After all, they supposedly have the numbers, and will go for Hillary, except of course, when they go for the real Republican, like they always do in the midterms. And of course, provided that the GOP pulls someone that can hide their fascism well, they might go for this mushy middle again.

If Hillary really wanted to shut up talk of Warren, she might actually go left and get some voters that want her. Nothing is stopping her from that; if her huisband complains that he already supported the war in Syria or Keystone, pushing those dog whistles to undermine Obama, like caling him a "wuss", then she can tell him to SHUT UP and help her win!

[RDANGELO]

45. I think Sanders could with the right message.

He is a respected US senator.

[Skeowes28]

47. Vote hillary

Vote hillary or any den on 2016 they will give you two liberal justices

[LiberalElite]

49. Who brought up Nader besides you? nt

[LawDeeDah]

69. I was wondering about that too. Never saw Run! Nadie! Run! here.

I guess a dram of drama for effect was the point but it dilutes the honesty of the whole message.

[arcane1]

106. It's stealth propaganda to equate any non-Clinton with Nader

Minus the "stealth" part.

It's a shame to see that sort of Luntz-style trickery here on DU

[HappyMe]

108. It's just trash talk.

As are the cries of "_____ can't win!!". It's meant to try to demoralize any who aren't on the inevitable band wagon.

[Frances]

50. I was for Hillary in 2008, but totally supported Obama when he was nominated

I will proudly cast my vote for Hillary if she is the nominee this time

I recall all too vividly 2000 when too many Democrats bad mouthed Gore. Gore did win the popular vote (which people forget), but George W Bush got in the White House. If Gore had been in the White House, we would never have invaded Iraq. How many lives would have been saved? How much more stable would the Middle East have been? All because too many Democrats did not like Gore personally. Of course, Bush's Florida governor brother and that dreadful woman who was in charge of voting deserve a lot of the blame as well. And let's not forget the Supreme Court.

[Fearless]

51. A headline worthy of fox news

[Legalequilibrium78]

52. I really won't bother with some of our friends

here on D.U. We just have to accept and respect their stances and views on Hillary Clinton as not "progressive" enough for their taste. So long as they respect those of us that do support the candidacy and election of Hillary Clinton as the next U.S. president. Plus, I really would not take any advice from the super left on how to win elections as they have neither the winning experience nor the candidates to prove their rhetorical points.

[aspirant]

72. How about the 2014 Blue Dogs, How was their winning experience?

[truebluegreen]

109. Too funny: the "super left".

politicalcompass.org take the test, then look at our candidates for the last couple of cycles, then look at history.

"super left"

[Persondem]

53. Nice OP. I would add that the next prez will likely get to appoint 2 judges to SCOTUS.

We really want to have the best candidate possible. The most likely best candidate is HRC, and I could certainly live with another Clinton administration. If there is a better candidate, great, ... but going with a principled uberprogressive who loses in 2016 does the country zero good and will likely set the conservative majority on the court in stone for another decade. I really do not want to see the love-child of Scalia and Thomas on the SCOTUS bench. If the court is allowed to lean left then CU could be zapped and gerrymandering could be eliminated.

[aspirant]

73. Supreme court fear-mongering, promoting a candidate on fear again?

[Persondem]

122. So you are NOT afraid of a SCOTUS packed by Rick Perry, Ted Cruz or Jeb Bush?

If you can come up with a more electable candidate than HRC, please do so.

[aspirant]

125. Fear not brave American

First, Hillary can't win. The Progressives and Millennials won't vote for her and not enough ConservaDems to elect her. (see 2014 election)

Secondly, I refuse to live my life in fear, always looking over my shoulders for the boogieman. If that's your choice go for it but don't try and inflict your fears on me.

Thirdly, The president nominates and the senate confirms. You just watch if Ginsburg leaves and the president picks another Ginsburg-type, the senate repubs will hold his/her nomination up. This unwritten acquiescence to the president will quickly evaporate for this President or anyone following him as long as "The Turtle" and his gang of bandits are running the senate. Also if we can rid ourselves of these right-wing get-a-long dems and retake the senate, the Turtles policy can be implemented against a repub President. This doom and gloom dem behavior is not only embarrassing it puts us in a continuous defensive posture.

[RussBLib]

56. I seem to recall, about 8-9 years ago

Some guy came out of the pack and unseated the overwhelming favorite Hillary Clinton. Named Barack Obama, I think.

You cannot predict the future, nor can I.

Why shut yourself off to a new possibility?

Stranger things have happened in politics before.

You just never know who might actually step up and catch fire with the American people.

Let it play out and quit trying to demoralize people with a different favorite candidate.

[malokvale77]

57. I think you get it. nt

[Odin2005]

60. Fuck this derisive, contemptuous BS.

Fuck all the DLC tools calling us REAL PROGRESSIVES idiots and morons for not accepting Queen $hillary's coronation.

[davidpdx]

68. +1

Frankly I get sick of the OP and the other Hillarites running around telling everyone that says they don't like her are bashing her. Myself and many others have stated differences with her policy stances. The response:

calling people the Teabag left
claiming they aren't "real" Democrats
telling people they have to get behind a candidate NOW
making claims that Hillary Clinton is the only one that can win in 2016

All of this is just childish bullshit. This is the same crap that happened prior to the 2008 primary starting (as in before Iowa).

It is really hard to believe that some people on DU are adults of voting age with the way they act.

[beerandjesus]

83. Yep. And I seem to remember something similar happening with another candidate...

...in the eminently winnable election of 2004. The candidate was Howard Dean. The Democrats undermined him and handed it to John Kerry--whom I like a hell of a lot more than HRC. He ran the same campaign as Al Gore............... and look how that turned out.

[Odin2005]

86. I've noticed that Baby Boomers in particular are OBSESSED with Hillary.

Boomer Repubs despise her, Boomer Dems, on the whole adore her. I think their brains are stuck in the 60s when politically powerful women were a novelty.

[LawDeeDah]

102. Not this one!

I want to go forward, the world has changed very much since my day and Hillary's day so forward and upward, not backward and downward.

[Odin2005]

120. Sorry, I was generalizing!

[LawDeeDah]

121. ha Ha, you got some talkback, hey sonny?

[truebluegreen]

110. Not this one either, sorry to pop that fantasy. nt

[HappyMe]

112. You can add me to the

NOT obssessed with Hillary list.

[bunnies]

61. Stop fucking telling us who isnt running...

In response to being asked if she was going to run for President EW said: "I don't think so," Senator Warren said. "If there's any lesson I've learned in the last five years, it's don't be so sure about what lies ahead. There are amazing doors that could open."

Hillary is your pick. Great. Shitting on those who hold a different view doesnt help your cause. Good thing you third wayers dont need us filthy libs to do your bidding.

[LawDeeDah]

70. ooo, I forgot about that. 'I don't think so'....

O wouldn't that be great to have both Warren and Sanders in the race. The debates would be awesome! Hillary would probably not run if that were the case made before she decided. She isn't too big on courage that one.

[blkmusclmachine]

62. Hillary will run to Obama's right. And lose.

[Old Nick]

63. Kucinich and Nader? HA!

But unlike Ross Perot in, '92, if we work hard enough to get Sanders on the ballot in all 50 states, he won't quit!

[brooklynite]

76. Why would you need to get him on the ballot?

He'd be on the ballot if he was the Democratic nominee. Or are you advocating he run as an independent regardless (violating TOS)?

[beerandjesus]

84. Cheap shot, "violating TOS"

Please, can't you advocate for your candidate without implicitly threatening to ban those who aren't on board for the coronation?

I almost always disagree with your posts, but they're usually very much worth reading, so I can say with confidence: You're much better than that.

[brooklynite]

88. Sorry you're offended, but it's not my website, and it's not yours...

It's Skinner's, and he sets the rules.

It's clear that I think Hillary Clinton is our best option for 2016, but I have no objection to Sanders running in the Primary, and I will happily support the nominee, whomever it is. However I'm here because it's DEMOCRATIC Underground, and advocating for a Third Party/Independent campaign or saying you won't support the Democratic nominee, both of which I've seen here, is, in my opinion, a dangerous philosophy which needs to be challenged.

[aspirant]

91. How many Hillary fans didn't support Obama in 2008? Are they dangerous people?

[brooklynite]

92. How many? Almost none...

PUMA sites were in vogue for awhile, but if you read them, they were almost all conservative fronts. I know of nobody HERE who stated they wouldn't vote for Obama in the General election, and I believe most analysis of the 2008 outcome indicated that Obama drew almost all of the Party back together.

[aspirant]

94. Stop signs mean something

You state " almost all, almost none," this seems a little vague to me. Since I wasn't here in 2008, were there numerous posts saying if you don't vote for Obama your an anti-dem independent and should leave the party immediately? Was it that threatening from the Obama side? This nastiness has got to stop!

"Almost all conservative fronts" Can you give me some non-conservative sites for my perusal?

[brooklynite]

95. I recall no posts saying "I'll never vote for him"

I won't swear that there were absolutely none, but it certainly wasn't something people were throwing around a year before the election.

[aspirant]

96. Were the Obama fans threatening Hillary supporters 2 years before the election?

Also I asked for websites not posts as per your statement. Any websites you can gear me to ?

[liberal N proud]

78. They easily forget how that worked last time

[still_one]

80. Jim Webb has just setup an exploratory committee to look at running. If you have read any of the

threads here, most believe that Bernie will register as a Democrat if he decides to run. He has practically said so in interviews.

What makes Bernie's run so important, isn't so much winning or losing, it is insisting that the real issues affecting the country are discussed. He will also speak directly as he always has to those issues, unlike some of the other candidates who hedge. His involvement in running will force the other candidates to take a position on the issues instead of hedging, and that is good for everyone.

The most frustrating thing is to see someone asked a yes or no question, and beat around the bush. Kerry was notorious for that when he ran. Yes, one good deceipher within his answers what he meant usually, but it wasn't always easy, and most of the time the answers were nuanced.

Jim Webb is also not afraid to answer a question directly without hedging. His position on guns won't make everyone happy for sure, but he won't try to hide it in nuanced answers.

A few days ago criticism was being hurled at Hillary for not having a position on the pipeline. If she plans to run, she really should not try to avoid those questions. In some respects avoiding answering a question is worse than giving an answer that some won't agree with.

[Odin2005]

87. I like Webb.

If Sanders or Warren don't run I'll vote for him over Hillary any day.

His gun stance is a GOOD thing. The fucking gun-grabbers lost the debate, now they are just scaring voters away.

[still_one]

93. We are probably on the same page. I think both Bernie and Webb will run, and that is good for

Everyone

[Prophet 451]

81. I think Sanders *could* win if...

...your public hadn't been so carefully brainwashed to think that allowing even the slightest hint of socialism means you wake up in 1955 Moscow.

[aspirant]

85. Not a peep

Bernie is full of courage. When asked about socialism, he goes into a definition of Democratic Socialism, no avoidance. Hillary and Jeb are hiding under the covers and DUer's are alluding to their wisdom of not saying anything that could be used against them. Silence and more silence until silence is all there is.

[Arkana]

89. If not Hillary, right now, no one.

Hillary's the favorite right now, yes. But I hope to God she's learned the lessons that 2008 tried to teach her:

1) Don't hire assholes like Penn/Wolfson/Davis
2) Don't cater to racists to win votes
3) Don't dismiss states in the primary because they don't vote for Dems in the general

[Nevada Blue]

97. No one thought a one-term Black Senator Could Win Either but

that happened, because of amazing grassroots and boots on the ground work. Not to mention that the President gives great speech.

We were discussing this here the other night when Sanders was on Colbert. We've decided that if he runs, he will have our full support for as long as he can stay in the race. He'll get our money, he'll get our time, he'll get whatever we have to give. We believe in him that much.

There is no rheason to believe that he cannot win, other than the 'Socialist' tag. But let's remember that he's the only one talking about the real issues and everything he says resonates with voters (with the exclusion of the money men). If you took his words, and posted them with a moderate Republican's name on them, even low-income vote-against-their-own-interest Republicans would be cheering.

The message matters. How the message gets out matters. Oh, and a nationwide blackout on 24/7 news channels wouldn't hurt either.

We will vote for whoever gets the Dem nomination. But our support will go to Bernie Sanders until he's no longer in the running. And in my opinion, any true progressive should be supporting him as well. This automatic 'he can't win' is what gets us the candidates we get (with the sole exception of the current President). Let's not make that a historical abberation. Let's do it again.

[RedCappedBandit]

99. Why Hillary?

[LawDeeDah]

100. Because It's Her Turn!!!

*sound of stomping feet.

She's waited so long in line, and now IT'S HER TURN.! It's not fair if someone goes ahead of her!


gawd

[thesquanderer]

101. Warren and others...

Warren has repeatedly said she is not running. She has, to my knowledge, never said there is no chance that she WILL run, and she seems like someone who chooses her words carefully. See this brief article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/07/23/elizabeth-warren-could-end-the-presidential-speculation-today-she-has-chosen-not-to/

Also see this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025701913

She is clearly keeping her options open. And if people here want to hope that she becomes a candidate, I see no purpose in anyone trying to squelch it. (Except, I guess, as a way to further support Hillary.)

As for who else could run, who might similarly be to the left of Hillary, I've seen a number of names mentioned. I don't know if any are seriously considering it, or how good they would be as candidates. But besides Sanders and O'Malley who you mentioned, there's Sherrod Brown, Russ Feingold, Robert Reich. I imagine there are others.

I agree that Sanders would be a long shot, between his age, his religion, his self-identification as a socialist. Maybe he could overcome one of those, but the combination is pretty overwhelming. But Obama had a similar array of obstacles, including skin color, relative inexperience, and a name like Hussein. So I've learned... never say never.

[Man from Pickens]

103. Jim Webb can win

and he would get my vote, unlike Hillary.

I really think "Hillary can win" is a complete myth. The only election she ever won in her life came when she intimidated Nita Lowey out of a primary, then coasted to victory in a heavily Democratic state against the most junior of junior league opponents who only ran against her for the experience and resume building.

When a real competitor came by, she blew a massive lead and went down in flames. Same thing is going to happen this time, and if it doesn't happen in the primary (i.e. she intimidates the competition away from running against her again) it's going to happen in the general.

[DonCoquixote]

105. exactly

"The only election she ever won in her life came when she intimidated Nita Lowey out of a primary"

In other words to intimidate someone before she actually ahd to prove she could win an election.

I would like to think that the one silver lining of the GOP win in 2016 would be that the Clintons and their centre -roght cadre would be shopwn out the door, but sadly, I know that would not work, instead they would probably let Joe Liberman back in the party to run 2020.

[arcane1]

104. Hillary couldn't even beat Obama n/t

[polichick]

117. An inconvenient truth.

[PAProgressive28]

118. "Fall in Line"

This place is really aggravating sometimes. I don't care what Bernie's chances are, he best represents my views among the 2016 candidates. He has my support. And quite frankly it's stuff like this from Hillary and her supporters that made me start looking elsewhere in the first place.

DU is going to get really ugly in the next year....

[Robbins]

119. Your right

Assuming Elizabeth warren doesn't run Bernie is my first choice.He is talking the issues.Hillary after loss on election day can't even
discuss things.

I am for anyone but her amng dems.Bernie or warren would be my perfered candiates.

[merrily]

129. Might I suggest "uglier" instead of "ugly?"

It hasn't been pretty since I joined. DU's left has been starting to push back more, and the reaction has been less pretty than when the center right reigned almost unchallenged, except by polite replies. I think those days may be gone forever.

[merrily]

126. And the universe of potential Democratic candidates consists of Hillary and other non-electibles?

Is that what you are trying to imply?

Because, if Hillary is the Democratic nominee, Democrats are highly likely to lose the general.

Wake up.

[MannyGoldstein]

127. Hillary would be proud of your OP

Realistic and tough. Swatting down the pesky Left.

Face it: a self-avowed Socialist has no more chance of getting elected President than, say, a black guy with the middle name of "Hussein".

[Jester Messiah]

131. Ah, the old "inevitability" saw.

Hillary's way too republican for me. I won't vote for her in the primary, and I may not vote for her in the general. If you think you can get along without me and those like me, go ahead and run her. What happens after that is on you, not me.

[LawDeeDah]

132. Hillary perfume: Inevitable, part deux.

Bet she could make some sales!

[Joe Magarac]

133. Please no more Nader.

Maybe Kucinich or Sanders can't win, but I wouldn't mind them.

[DFW]

135. I haven't seen much talk to support the OP's claim

I get the impression that those who dislike Hillary want the voice of Sanders (not so sure about the other two) heard in the primary debates. Howard Dean didn't win the 2004 primaries either, but his voice was VERY prominent in the early primary debates, and helped shape them. Where would our party be if he hadn't said his piece?

I'm all for Mao's "let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred schools of thought contend." But in the end, when 99 of the 100 are not our nominee, I want that one who DOES become our nominee to become president, period. I refuse to be the kid on the playground who takes the ball home rather than play by rules under which he might lose the game.

I do not want a Republican choosing Ruth Bader Ginsburg's replacement. I want a Democrat choosing Scalia's replacement. This is a question of either overturning the Citizen United decision, or enshrining it in our electoral system for the next half century.

[Douglas Carpenter]

136. Bernie Sanders says out loud what the vast majority of ordinary Americans believe inside

That is the powerful position to start from - If you consider that to be fringe ....