General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf no one runs in '16 but HRC and Biden, we'll stand for nothing, and we'll lose.
HRC and Biden both stand solely for what the Wall Street wing of the party wants...i.e., corporate control of the economy and a big war budget. The differences they have with the Right and the rich are only on side issues that don't affect anyone.
Progressives will still do all we can to stop a right-wing victory, but it will be all but impossible to convince people in a union hall or an inner-city neighborhood or the poorest parts of Appalachia or Mississippi that they mean anything to the two establishment candidates...as it will be to convince feminists who remember what Bella Abzug or Shirley Chisholm fought for that HRC and her fiscal conservative, anti-activist, anti-protest sensibility has anything to do with actual feminism.
Only candidacies by Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders or other fighting people's candidates can make sure that the party listens to workers, the poor, the victims of the banks and those forced out of their homes. HRC and Biden don't care about those people...they don't remember any of the past struggles for justice and they never gave a damn about what OWS and the more recent battles have been about-their unquestioning support for right-wing trade deals proves that.
We can only win as a fighting people's party...we can't win as a party of bland centrist "safety". Safety is death for us in 2016. Being "pro-business" is death. We have got to accept, once and for all, that blurring the differences doesn't work anymore.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)If the field looks that sparse, I'd be pretty sure Bernie would run, at least. I fully expect you'll end up with somewhere between half-a-dozen and a dozen candidates of varying degrees of seriousness and electability.
brooklynite
(94,513 posts)...and what have you done to get a progressive to run? Because so far, except for avatars on their DU posts, I haven't seen anyone unhappy with a Hillary candidacy do anything.
snot
(10,520 posts)brooklynite
(94,513 posts)...in her support of Hillary Clinton.
ldiv class="excerpt"]"All of the women — Democratic women I should say — of the Senate urged Hillary Clinton to run, and I hope she does. Hillary is terrific."
Whisp
(24,096 posts)In fact, she won't be running at all. There is just too much bad rattling skeletons for her and she pretty well burned the bridges in '08 with some of her false, idiotic stories to puff herself up. Tuzla, I saved Ireland... lol. o man.
GeorgeGist
(25,320 posts)We had our chance.
Demeter
(85,373 posts)1946-1954
1955-1966
And it's a shame to think that there's no accumulated wisdom in a population cohort that are the Boomers (approximately 25% of the total U.S. population of 311,591,917. (as of July 2011))
http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/06/us/baby-boomer-generation-fast-facts/
Armstead
(47,803 posts)We Boomers collectively screwed things up pretty good. But one could say the same about the generations before and after.
I think any population and generation is a mix of wisdom and stupidity, both on a macro and individual basis. Alas, the balance seems to tip to stupidity throughout history.
Demeter
(85,373 posts)not the Boomers.
The not-so-invisible hand of the Corporation has strangled the US political body. A small cadre of psychopathic billionaires has staged a coup, effectively buying the government out from under us. That they did it during the Boomers lifespan is the direct result of the successful Boomer-driven Peace Movement, Civil Rights Movement, and Women's Rights Movement, which scared the fundamentally fascist-Corporate movement into clamping down really hard and really fast, before they lost complete ability to control events.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Votes are no longer earned, they are harvested.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)I was born in the mid-60s and consider myself an old Gen Xer.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)I'm not dead yet and there are a WHOLE lot of us out here who have been active in progressive causes for 45+ years. You want to sit in a rocking chair somewhere, you head on. Me? I'll be a progressive activist until the day I die.
starroute
(12,977 posts)As a result, the Boomers have been represented politically by the Bushes and the Romneys who were busy dodging military service in the late 60s rather than taking to the streets with the lefties. They're the ones who have screwed things up, not "us."
Bill Clinton and John Kerry are the only veterans of the antiwar movement who made it through to national political prominence -- and Kerry isn't a Boomer (he's older) and Clinton had to twist himself into a pretzel to do it.
this is true
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)there is anything wrong with that, but it's atypical and limits the field quite a bit.
snot
(10,520 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)because as depressed as we are with our candidates, the Repukes are even more depressed with theirs. They're so factionalized that no one among them is able to unite the main three branches of GOP voters, namely, the fundies, the tea partiers, and the banker establishment Republicons.
Even the latter group knows that 2016 is a throwaway, and they're starting to see it as a means of putting the 'loser' label on one of the factions, probably the tea party. Having Rand Paul get the nomination and go down in the same flames that consumed McCain and Romney would really help them get back control of the party, and that's the long term goal. It doesn't hurt them that Hillary will not stand in their way of what they want.
randome
(34,845 posts)I'd rather we had more candidates to choose from, though.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
The Roux Comes First
(1,299 posts)As those elephants, remarkably every one of 'em, are doing more and more of a doofus-dance every time they encounter a camera. I guess this is what happens when you arm a small posse of idiots with an ideology that rarely comports with reality and encourage them to shoot at the feet of anyone who exhibits an inclination to find a compromise.
But could we not look for something more like a Muffeletta? I want a candidate that is not fully corporatized and already manicled to K Street.
So while I tend to agree, I am in no way feeling good about the prospects, this year or 2016.
randome
(34,845 posts)I want someone more dynamic. Obama is good but I think we need someone more fiery and hands-on.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)are doing everything they can to minimize the number of debates. They know that their candidates are their own worst enemies, and the best thing any of them can do is simply to keep as quiet as possible.
djean111
(14,255 posts)the Dem candidate/deeds. To the GOP, whoever they run will be the lesser evil.
Bwah! That may be the theme, as it were, of 2016!
Corporatists jousting with Tea Baggers!
tabbycat31
(6,336 posts)I see a progressive candidate in the general (Sanders, Warren, etc) putting up Walter Mondale or George McGovern type numbers. Will they put states like North Carolina in play? HELL NO (IMO).
My parents, who have voted straight Democrat for my entire lifetime, have both told me that Elizabeth Warren is way too liberal and would vote GOP if she were the nominee. When a Democrat has a problem carrying my parents, then they won't win a general period.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Do they think she's wrong for wanting more accountability from Wall St. and Big Banks? Would they prefer we continue the policies that led to the Crash of 08?
or are they just buying into a vague stereotype of what a "liberal" is?
Maybe if they understood what she actually stands for, they might change their minds.
tabbycat31
(6,336 posts)(FTR they feel the same way about NYC mayor Bill DeBlasio and are fans of Bloomberg--- my mom particularly likes his stance on soda). They live in the NYC suburbs, in a town which has become a Wall Street bedroom community (Hillary Clinton's adopted NY town is very close), especially since after I graduated HS.
They'd vote Republican before they'd vote for her. And most of the people I work with (who are on the Democratic Party payroll in a southern state) would not vote for her in a primary and would not be excited about her in a general. There's no way in hell she expands the electoral map (she may kiss reliably blue New York goodbye due to Wall Street being a big employer there)
I've got no dog in this fight (I'm focusing on winning a race in 2014 right now) but in the primary I will vote for the most electable candidate, not the one that is the most liberal. I don't want to see a GOP victory because we nominate the wrong person. But IMO she does not fit that description. Also as a person who's job description is to look at past election results, the fact that her race (in a VERY blue state) was closer than Claire McCaskill's does not scream national candidate to me.
(In 2008 I might have voted for her in the primary, I was a John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich supporter, but both dropped out before my state voted in the primary). This was before I worked in politics and understood (and sat behind the scenes) of the political process.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Candidates and positions that once would have been considered garden-variety mainstream liberalism are now considered "too far let" or too populist or not acceptable because so many people have been brainwashed to think that moderate liberalism is something Karl Marx invented.
Heck if Hubert Humphrey were around today, he'd probably be considered a raging socialist. And LBJ (other than that war thing) would be considered to the left of Bernie Sanders. FDR? Forgetabout it.
It's sad that we've come to the sorry state where a candidate is considered too populist simply for wanting the Wealthy and Powerful to be somewhat accountable to the larger public interest.
tabbycat31
(6,336 posts)The country took a sharp right turn in 1980 with the election of Reagan and has not recovered. (I was born that year so I don't know life before then unless I read it in a book). We're just NOT READY to elect a fiery progressive as president. Sure, at the state level in some New England states, but that is about it.
Show me a fiery progressive who can win a recent (last 5 years) statewide election in a southern or midwestern state and then talk to me. Don't talk up someone who underperformed the president in one of THE most liberal states in the union by double digits.
IMO Warren's better off in the Senate. Senators can make their career revolve around a single issue, and IMO we need her where she is.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)If politics from 1930-1975 were like they are now, we'd have never had environmental protection, Social Security Medicare, Medicaid, consumer protection laws, a minimum wage, and on and on....We'd all be owned totally by One Big Corporation...African Americans would still be fighting for the basic right to vote and eat at the same lunch counters as whites. (Women might be too.)
It's sad that we look at things in terms of winning and losing, with no thought for the results.
tabbycat31
(6,336 posts)When I see Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders being nominated by the party for President, I see the end result as a 3rd President Bush. I think you and I both don't want that.
Keep in mind that people born in 1975 are going to be 40 next year. You have a huge portion of the electorate (and more than a generation) that has no concept of what life was like from 1930-1975 (in 1972, I recall the Democratic candidate getting his ass kicked) and they are going to be an increasing share of the electorate as the older generation dies off. The youngest voters this year are born in 1996. Do you think they're going to be concerned about politics when their parents were small children?
Looking at elections in terms of winning and losing is in my job description.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Just sayinbg tat if the your generator has no desire to learn from history, then history will repeat itself and we'll find ourselves back in the Gilded Age -- complete with Monopolistic Barons who own everything, sweatshops, poverty that is more widespread, a miniscule middle class, no restraints on poisonous food, smoke belching from stacks, poisoned rivers, etc.
I'm old enough to remember life from about 1960 onwards. I can remember when African Americans were really cionsiderd second class citizens. I can remember the fight to put environmental protections in place, etc.
But I wasn't alive during the New Deal and the fight to unionize, Women's Sufferagem etc. -- but I sure as heck learned what they ere about too, and I appreciate what as done to advance social and economic justice during those earlier eras.
I hate to see us backsliding from the progress of the last century, instead of making progress and I especially ate to see widespread endorsement of that.
snot
(10,520 posts)The Clintons are very smart, and I can believe they're well-intentioned; but on their watch, the larger game was won by the opposition. If they have a plan to recoup what we've lost, I'm happy to scrutinize A LOT more details, fast. Starting with Bill's signature on the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which enabled the looting of my and millions of others' life savings . . . .
Armstead
(47,803 posts)"on their watch, the larger game was won by the opposition. .......Starting with Bill's signature on the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which enabled the looting of my and millions of others' life savings."
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Other than reproductive rights(barely) and environmentalism(also barely)there's nothing that happened under GWB that Bill Clinton wouldn't have been just fine with if he'd had a third term. Bill's destruction of our social service system(a destruction only straight-ticket GOP voters wanted) and his cheerleading for Glass-Steagall repeal proves that.
tabbycat31
(6,336 posts)And people wonder why Democrats don't win when they should....
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)He just started acting like one after the people elected him to be progressive...nobody thought he'd make Rahm "Fucking R______d" Emmanuel as his main legislative strategist. And Obama has got some stuff done...but he didn't have to distance himself from the Left after the election to do that. The Left wasn't overwhelmingly hated in this country in 2008...and the support OWS got showed that the public isn't demanding lesser evil politics from Dems now.
Why do you insider types think we can ONLY win by putting "looking safe" before working for change.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)A choice that means DLC/Third Way/corporate types will control the party forever? That means the Democratic base will always be just as far out in the cold as it was in the dead zone of the Nineties?
If we pick her, whenever she finishes up the same people who pushed for her will say "now we have to go with ANOTHER cinter-right free trade hawk...no one else can 'win'". It'll just go on and on like that forever...and "winning" will always be meaningless
and the "centrists" will always put Wall Street and the Pentagon first.
That's the only thing a HRC nomination or a Biden nomination can mean...the death of the Democratic party's soul.
And if this drives progressives, labor, and the poor away(as we all know it will at some point)no one in this party will have any right to condemn them if they build another party.
It comes down to two very simple question:
1)Do you want this party to be about anything BESIDES winning elections fiir thew sake of winning elections?
2)Does a party that settles for winning for winning's sake have any real reason to exist?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)is going to do anything to move the country left later.
And you're forgetting that OWS and other anti-corporate protests have begun to open people's minds already. It serves no purpose to run to the right of not only the base but the public.
BTW, if your parents think Warren is "too populist" they aren't voters even HRC could get. And I doubt they'd even back El Perro Grande.
Cosmocat
(14,564 posts)Even on the Rs side, while Bush was a stupid ass, arrogant moron, he ran as a moderate.
They republican's had lunatic fringe extremist tripping over themselves in 08 and 12, and they put up milk toast McCain and Romney.
BOTH parties aren't electing a hard left/right candidate.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)We've lost every election since 1980.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)Frankly, the "Hillary inevitability" meme will be used to scare Republicon voters to the polls, certainly in 2016, if not this year. She's been disliked and distrusted by the reich wing for over two decades, and that's a deep well of fear and loathing to tap for the manipulators of the low-information voters of the GOP.
I doubt that Hillary will have coattails in 2016, I expect the Rethug money and enthusiasm will flow to keeping the House and putting up better numbers in the Senate. I just can't see any presidential candidate being able to motivate the folks who vote Repuke any better than McCain or Romney did, there will always be some faction that will simply not vote for whoever gets the nomination.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Republicans tap a deep well of fear and loathing of potential Democratic candidates to motivate their base.
Democrats tap a deep well of fear and loathing of potential Republican candidates to motivate THEIR base.
Actually moving the country forward is not considered.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)The reason is that the millennials / gen Yers like myself won't stand for social conservatism and we will make up the biggest percentage of the voters in 2016.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)when eighteen year olds got the vote in 1972.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Im more concerned about the mid-terms. If they take the Senate and keep the House and gain Governors there is no telling what those maniacs might do.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)Paul, Rubio, Perry, Bush, and Cruz are all going to beat up on each other, if all of them get into the race. It's going to do some damage by the time of the general election, and at least one faction of the GOP will decide it's not going to come out for the nominee.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Clinton will clear the field if she runs.
From the beginning of the discussions on DU about 2016 I've said that I will wait until candidates start announcing before deciding who I want and that I have already decided I will not vote for Clinton in the primary.
Some have already declared the coronation, but it certainly didn't work that way in 2008 and I hope it doesn't in 2016
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)By "unopposed" he means by someone who's far left. Biden wouldn't qualify as "opposition."
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)That's generally a pejorative term, implying that those who it is applied to are kinda "craycray".
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)I don't consider it a pejorative term. Biden is not that progressive, in fact on drugs he's worse than Obama and probably Clinton.
I was just clarifying Reich's position that he will run if Clinton doesn't have a challenger from the left.
https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/posts/764361606909771
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)joshcryer
(62,270 posts)But I think he should still run if Bernie Sanders runs, because we need as many as possible sharing that viewpoint.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It'd be fine if they were contested the same caucuses-that way, they could work out viability arrangements to keep their collective strength undiluted (that's where you work out an arrangement that if one candidates strength is near or above the threshhold needed to stay in the fan-out process, the supporters of the candidate who fell below that threshhold threw their support to the other) but in primary states, it'd be better to have only one "left" candidate-Bernie in a Vermont primary, for example, Warren in Massachusetts, Reich in California.
If Dean, Kucinich and Sharpton had worked something like that out in 2004, progressives would have had much more influence against the "My God...we can't actually STAND FOR THINGS" crowd, the people whose insistence on watering the platform down to nothing caused our defeat that year.
WhiteTara
(29,704 posts)My question...are you a working member of your local party? Are you working to GOTV? How many people have you registered this year?
Until you (we) do something, all this is sound and fury with no meaning.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,943 posts)
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I'm not sure why you are objecting to someone expressing a website whose purpose is to provide a forum for people to express themselves and discuss things.
Stating an opinion here has no relationship to what people do or don't do about their opinions in the rest of their lives.
randome
(34,845 posts)The more time spent talking about 2016, the less time is available for the much more important elections of 2014.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
WhiteTara
(29,704 posts)It just seems so silly and worthless to sit around and speculate without working for the outcome. I forget this is just an armchair warrior board. Kevetch and speculate always trump actual political work.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)My point was that just because someone complains here on a Discussion Board, it has no bearing on how active or inactive they are in the 3D world.
tabbycat31
(6,336 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I'm as entitled to speak as you are.
WhiteTara
(29,704 posts)So much of your writing is against. I'd love to see your ideas for the betterment of things to come. 
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)To that end, I oppose those who don't care about those things and aren't working for them...especially those who seek the nomination of the Party of the People and don't put people first.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)In ABSOLUTE agreement.
ctsnowman
(1,903 posts)with most of your post but HRC will win. Just wait until the public sees the GOP clown car roll out.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)And win.
Republicans do not care about the presidents position at this time. They lock-up your neighborhood local 'Gov', your local counties 'Gov' and your States Govs. They write the state laws, they write the neighborhood association 'laws' to keep the barriers up high.
Try their harde$$$$t to own Congress and the Senate, get laws in to benefit them not 'the people'. We will never get republicans off our backs if we don't all vote like our 'free-future' depends on it for these midterms.
FSogol
(45,481 posts)He's running. I expect 2-3 others to run.
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)always been a strong supporter of labor, and civil rights which include women's right.
For your argument that it will be impossible to convince people in a union hall or inner-city neighborhood, I would like to remind you, it was those demographics that voted for Reagan, and union power has been diminishing since.
Yes, Democrats have not always done the right thing by labor, and there was much anger with Jimmy Carter when he deregulated the airline industry, and frankly started the whole down turn. However, voting in reagan was jumping from the frying pan into the fire. I believe Carter back then, and specifically Democrats, are more apt to support labor policies than republicans, and history sure has demonstrated that.
Elizabeth Warren has already said she is not running, so as much as you would like that , it isn't going to happen this time.
Bernie Sanders may run, but if he does he isn't a Democrat, and he will run as an independent. If Bernie runs, and unless he runs as a Democrat the best he can hope for is a spoiler.
If Bernie runs as a Democrat, it will be very hard for him to get the nomination due to the party machinery.
Unless and until we start electing enough progressives into the Senate and House, along with the state legislatures, it will be very difficult to expect the change you are looking for in the near term.
The biggest problem we have is the red and purple states. In a way that may be starting to change now with the ACA. The states that refused to expand Medicaid have hurt a lot of people, and those people might be starting to be aware.
All I am saying it is going to take time, and I doubt it will happen by the next election
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)I think Ted Kennedy just rolled over in his grave.
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)winter is coming
(11,785 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)They get rewards even if they lose. I mean, how much did Sen Feinstein get for hand chosing the two gubanatorial candidates that lost to Schwartzennegger?
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I think I'll simply wait to see who the Democratic candidates are before I give consideration to anyone telling me who I shouldn't be voting for rather than who I should be voting for.
Rex
(65,616 posts)I think the GOP is so scared of HRC running and winning, that they are already in panic mode 2 years out.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)I still hope that a revival and a return to the Traditional Democratic Party Values of the New Deal & The Great Society is possible,
but this hope diminishes with each passing day and with each betrayal of America's Working Class.
Does anyone else think that Alan Grayson resembles Huey Long,
and favors him in affect?
Instead of demands to Share the Wealth,
we get "We can't begrudge them their Wealth"
from our Party leadership.
Among these are:
*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
*The right of every family to a decent home;
*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
*The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
[font size=3]America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.[/font]
--FDR, 1944, State of the Union Address
Please note that the above are stipulated as Basic Human RIGHTS to be protected by our government,
and NOT as COMMODITIES to be SOLD to Americans by For Profit Corporations.
Gawd but I MISS that Democratic Party.
There was a time in my living memory when voting FOR The Democrat
was voting FOR that above Traditional Democratic Party Values.
Sadly, this is no longer true.
Why do we need 3rd Way Democrats and New Democrats?
What good are they?
I was happy with the OLD Democrats.
These 3rd Way Democrats are nothing but the OLD Republicans I spent most of my life fighting AGAINST,
and Hillary is no different.
[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center] [center]
[/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)
Mc Mike
(9,114 posts)snot
(10,520 posts)snot
(10,520 posts)He, at least, might make a last-ditch-effort to help us working stiffs.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
Yay, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders!
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)I refuse to vote for another corporate lackey, and will never do so again. Ever.
840high
(17,196 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)And lose badly because we cut ourselves off from all electoral hope for short term euphoria of false victory.
Auntie Bush
(17,528 posts)If we lose the election then it's far left Dems own fault. We had it in the bag till left wingers started bashing Hillary just like the ReThugs do.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Every election, lefties are blamed for losses.
Here's a hint. Politicians lose elections when they fail to represent enough people to get more of them to vote than the other person.
When a politician loses, it's not the voter's fault. It's the politician's, for misreading the electorate.
If Hillary runs and loses, it's her own fault, not that of anyone on the left 'bashing her'.
Heck, we'd have had President Gore for 8 years if he'd simply have offered voters on the left something, anything. But he chased the 'mythical middle', and that was a poor strategy.
Auntie Bush
(17,528 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)If they didn't, we wouldn't ever see 'purpling' states. They'd always be red or blue, and stay there.
The country has been getting bluer. Gore had a bluer country to work with even than Clinton. The fact that he managed to blow that advantage speaks volumes about how poorly his campaign was run. So yeah, back in the past, with a redder country, Dukakis and McGovern didn't do as well. Clinton did well with a centrist message. Gore, blessed with a bluer country, tried to be the third Clinton term and blew it. Obama came in with lots of liberal rhetoric, and won handily, then barely managed to scrape by in term two, once people realized he wasn't actually living up to that liberal rhetoric.
So already we see Hillary trying to ride the populist and liberal rhetoric wave. Will enough people actually be fooled long enough to get her in office? We'll see.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)but she has what it takes to be president. Furthermore, I think that she would be a good president.
If we lose, it would be due to people who demand purity and would rather sit on their hands than vote for Hillary.
What does Liz Warren have to do for some of you to believe her when she repeatedly says that she's not running in 2016?
As for Sanders, to think that he could win the nomination (let alone the GE), is just an unrealistic pipe dream.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)HRC would gain huge numbers of votes from embracing chunks of Bernie's agenda. There isn't anybody in the bland center anymore, and there are no longer any significant numbers of people who have progressive ideas but want a hawkish foreign policy(you can't be progressive and be open to a military strike against Iran, for example-the use of force there couldn't have any progressive or even mundanely positive results).
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Biden of not knowing the struggles of the working people. In the years HRC attended college there was lots of struggles, mostly against the war but very close to the OWS. HRC was active in the panther protest and worked with the ACLU in their trials. She sure isn't dome prude who has hung like a picture on the wall during her life. She has fought for women's rights around the world and not just in the US. Both she and Biden has fought for working people.
rupertps8or28
(7 posts)Sadly, our political establishment as a whole has veered to the right, so much so that any politicians truly dedicated to leftist causes don't have a chance in hell in being elected to office. At the end of the day, I'll take HRC over ANY of the vile politicians in the modern GOP. I still remember the destruction Bush's cronies did while they were in charge.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Give me a Dem who is going to work for the people and I will vote for for em. No more "we suck less". That ain't going to work this time.
Reformed Bully
(43 posts)Michelle & Jill
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It'd be worth it just to see the all the Faux Noise heads explode on-camera.
treestar
(82,383 posts)There will not be as much to build on if we let Rs have Congress again. It's too early to worry about the Presidency. Why we are so stuck on it amazes me. Most people have no idea what their local governments are passing while they worry about a Presidential election over two years away.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Based on the way Bill handled the congressional elections in 1994 and 1996(he conceded both to the Right without even trying to fight them)will HRC? will Biden? will anybody in their pro-corporate wing of the party?
If those folks were perfectly happy let Newt run things then, there's no reason to think they care about ending the Boehnerhaus or saving the Senate now. HRC would almost certainly prefer to have an all-right wing congress-she never fought the GOP when she was a senator in the minority-she just went along with EVERY surrender without a fight-and none of those cave-ins ever helped the party win votes in the elections after them.
treestar
(82,383 posts)On Hillary's Senate career, which I imagine has nothing to back it up.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)BUT - I also think that there is about as much enthusiasm for Hillary as there is ever going to be.
And attempts to gin up more enthusiasm are just off-putting.
Asking for enthusiasm is just too damned much. Not to mention futile.
Just go count your campaign money.
I would rather donate to Occupy, Hillary won't need what little I can spare, that's for sure.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)Or, maybe not.
Has there ever been only two running in a Dem primary before? If so, can you link, would be interested to read.
I mean a list of official entries, not who the media decides on and then ignores the rest.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)and the differences between them were tiny.
