General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf the Clinton campaign implodes, what splain will we get?
I'm just curious how this would be framed by the usual suspects here. Any good guesses?
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)But still, how would they manage, for example, to get behind a Warren candidacy?
BeyondGeography
(39,276 posts)Should be easier than getting behind Obama, which they did. PUMA never amounted to anything more than Carville wearing sneakers that were too young for him on TV.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,704 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)While neither Clinton holds office atm.
Nice try at rewriting reality.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,704 posts)By my reckoning the Clintons are at least 10-2 in their battles with their political opponents, with two of those losses coming when The Big Dog was little more than a political novice.
Andy823
(11,495 posts)I see people who support Warren say they will NOT support Clinton if she is the nominee. I have yet to see one Clinton supporter say they would not vote for Warren if she were the nominee.
I think that is the difference. For the record I would support either one, and will support whoever "IS" the nominee. I will not vote for Clinton in the primaries, but until I see just how is really going to run, I can't say who I would voter for come primary time.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I first made that vow during the racism from the Clinton campaign in 2007-2008.
If she becomes the nominee, I won't be talking about her again until after the general election to abide by site rules.
Andy823
(11,495 posts)Egnever
(21,506 posts)Last time it was if Hillary doesn't win I wont vote for Obama. Same BS different year.
Hell it was Hillary supporters last time that started the PUMA BS.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Im not sure if other DUers have attacked them, if they have, I haven't seen it.
I've only said that I'm certain neither one can win.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,704 posts)I have seen no evidence that Senators Sanders and Warren can reassemble that coalition.
Any national Democrat is going to be stuck around the 40% of the majority vote. that means he or she is going to have to forage around to make the difference up elsewhere.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)This notion that 'only the anointed saviour' can beat Republicans is silly.
The Demographic changes in the Presidential electorate over the last couple decades have consistently swung towards Dems. The only way a Dem will lose the Presidency going forward is if they manage to implode during the general through some serious scandal.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)break 190.
Love both of them. And they have no chance.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)(Ok, unless they run on an anti-immigrant, racist platform. If they avoid that, they're golden.)
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Pennsylvania, Virginia, Florida, Ohio, Colorado, Wisconsin, Nevada and Iowa.
Without those states Obama gets 221 EV in 2012. That is the ceiling for most Democratic candidates. It's a real fight to win those states and neither Warren nor Sanders has any kind of record of being able to win votes in anything other than the most liberal states in the country.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)I'm from PA and spend time in DelMarVa...
I think I have a pulse on what working class
voters in these places think.
How does your mileage vary?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)more confident than he is.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)There is a kinda "truthiness" to such observations
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)I'd rather you C&P rather than
making discussion an scavenger hunt.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)I'm out, you don't make any credible argument.
It's just childish retorts.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Since you are the official self-appointed expert, I guess we should just lose all hope and quit trying.
Oh woe is us.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)there's about a ten percent chance Sanders could not even win his home state.
Why can't some disabuse themselves at very least of the notion that Sanders could ever win a national contest?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)winning a national race is concerned.
http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20141226/news/141229053/
"I don't want to do it unless I can do it well," he told The Associated Press. "I don't want to do it unless we can win this thing."
That isn't exactly a confident position. His supporters should hear that message and take it to heart.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)He's saying he is feeling out his level of support
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)There is no spinning that away. He is not confident that he can win.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)What national election has Clinton won? Are you actually trying to equate her ability to win Democratic votes in a primary in various states to whether or not she would win those states in a general? 'Any sort of record' simply comes down to Hillary has run in a national primary before, while neither two have as of yet.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Clinton won the election on November 7 with 55% of the vote to Lazio's 43%,[97] a difference larger than most observers had expected.[98][99] Clinton won the traditionally Democratic base of New York City by large margins, and carried suburban Westchester County, but lost heavily populated Long Island, part of which Lazio represented in Congress. She won surprising victories in Upstate counties, such as Cayuga, Rensselaer, and Niagara, to which her win has been attributed.
.
.
.
Lazio's bid was handicapped by the weak performance of George W. Bush in New York in the 2000 election,[99] but it is also clear Hillary Clinton had made substantial inroads in upstate New York prior to Lazio's entry into the race.[99] Exit polls also showed a large gender gap with Clinton running stronger than expected among moderate women and unaffiliated women.
---------------------------------
So, bottom line, Hillary shows strength not just among Democrats but among voters that don't traditionally vote Democratic.
I don't see any support for Warren or Sanders outside of folks that come out every four years and pull the 'D' lever.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,704 posts)A search will demonstrate that.
That being said, although the Democrats have a distinct electoral and demographic advantage it doesn't mean they can elect anybody and win.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)It's the professio..., radi...., I mean extremist Left that to blame.
TheKentuckian
(24,934 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)I suspect that email won't do it, if that's what you're asking about.
Rex
(65,616 posts)What you can expect is an excuse that it is everyone else's fault. The ones that try and hippie punch here never are at fault for anything. Just us dumb libs don't know how to vote or think or elect a good person to office.
Blah blah third way blah blah. Ralph Nader/Ron Paul, fringe left, blah blah...and there you have it.
EDIT - Oh yeah I forgot, if she DOES win the primary etc..it will STILL be the same bullshit hippie punching. There is no win with the usual suspects. If they cannot stay perpetually outraged, they would have nothing to talk about on DU!
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)EDIT here ya go this was posted THE DAY BEFORE the election...but of course it was done in good faith to bring people together and all the usual suspects chimed in.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025750820
The OP is full of vitamin Ironic.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,911 posts)Perhaps you mean "dyed in the wool supporters"? I just hate to see DU become cannibalistic before primary season even starts.
Divisiveness over who supports whom sucks.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Clinton's IWR vote. my bad.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,911 posts)Republican operatives and freepers in general do try to mess with us. And besides the somewhat obvious trolls a lot of us get carried away also. We have all been subject to that. Thanx for your reply
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)A wise person once said that, before his ox got gored.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,704 posts)Then why did you start this thread?
Did you think it would promote comity?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)2. the hippie punching and left beating was on overdrive this weekend.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,704 posts)Scandals are to the Clintons what flies are to garbage truck but they never, ever sink them.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,704 posts)Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)Hillary lost the 2008 primary.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,704 posts)....... .... ... .... .......
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,704 posts)There is a 40% chance that we can wake up on 11/9/16 with the Republicans controlling every level of government from the state legislatures to the state governor mansions to the House Of Representatives, to the Senate, to the Presidency, to the Supreme Court.
If that doesn't scare the shit out of any person who is even a centimeter to the left of center it should.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,704 posts)Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #22)
Post removed
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,704 posts)My concerns are more plebeian, like if folks in need will get adequate health care, that if two people can love and marry one another regardless of their genders, and that granny's Social Security savings won't be put in the stock market.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)You brought up dick measuring and said simply that other concerns trumped it.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,704 posts)It seems you are interested in Secretary of State Clinton's and Senator Warren's genitalia, neither of whom I mentioned. Warren, it seems you have an interesting paraphilia to say the least. I couldn't care less.
Actually I do care a little bit. I care that you chose to share it with me.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)It seems you are running away from your own rhetorical device.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,704 posts)I suspect it's damn near impossible to sate, am I right?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)My concern about what will happen to my party and my nation trumps any obsession I might have with internecine dick measuring matches.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,704 posts)BTW, my "pal" seems capable of speaking for himself.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,704 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,704 posts)I don't know whether to reintroduce my "internet tough guy" internet personae or my "kinder and gentler" internet personae. Since I don't want to get a deletion and mar my stellar record I will split the difference.
I'll throw you a lifeline. "Internet dick measuring matches" referred to battles over ideological purity...You went into some odd riff about Secretary of State Clinton's and Senator Warren's genitalia, ergo:
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)and now you are taking umbridge?
Paraphilia (also known as sexual perversion and sexual deviation) is the experience of intense sexual arousal to atypical objects, situations, or individuals.[1] No consensus has been found for any precise border between unusual sexual interests and paraphilic ones. There is debate over which, if any, of the paraphilias should be listed in diagnostic manuals, such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or the International Classification of Diseases.
Your turn "pal".
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,704 posts)I used a dick measuring contest as a metaphor for something that wasn't high up on my preferred activities:
dick measuring contest-
A conflict in which two parties (usually male) are vehemently disputing something of limited relevance. Generally, both parties are somewhat wrong, but each refuses to be back down for fear of being thought the have the smaller of their two penises. Similar to a pissing match, but generally, the conflict involved involves a larger element of machismo, and continues on only because neither side wants to be seen as the one who backs down.
I'm more about improving the lives of my fellow human beings as I stated.
You turned it into an odd riff about Ms. Clinton and Ms. Warren's genitalia. You even suggested , implied, stated they even have penises, ergo:
BainsBane
(53,001 posts)gets at the heart of what this opposition to Clinton is all about.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,704 posts)I kind of regret using the metaphor that started this brouhaha but it's a metaphor for arguing about trivial things or what the person using it believes is trivial. It has nothing to do with actual body parts.
I used it to demonstrate that I am more concerned about improving people's lives than having ideological battles that lead nowhere.
The capitalist state is here to stay so I will do my best to vote for candidates in the primaries who have the best chance of winning so they can actually be elected and bend the capitalist state as much as possible to help those who really need it.
Call me a bread and butter Democrat.
BainsBane
(53,001 posts)So the arguments can at least pretend to be about something.
ismnotwasm
(41,916 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,704 posts)I feel a little responsible for this but my interlocutor deliberately misused my metaphor, ran with it, and wouldn't let it go.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)It did not add anything to the debate at all and that's besides the potential for folks to see it as sexist.
That's two very good reasons not to write what that person wrote.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Remember when a certain someone convinced us this was about to happen?
Rex
(65,616 posts)LOL! I guess some people are really gullible then. Yeah and Dubya convinced some people that there were WMDs in Iraq, when it was obvious there were none.
Some people will believe just about anything.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)Enjoy. Because then we'll see a real implosion, of this nation, once and for all.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)We already see people here saying they won't vote for her if she is the nominee.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Why would they do that?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Posters on DU are claiming that is Hillary wins the nomination they sill not vote for her.
That is puma.
tridim
(45,358 posts)They hang out at a site that mocks DU.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)You don't support the nominee that is puma.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I like the other possible candidate and if the win I will immediately support them.
Can you say the sme?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,704 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)C'mon. You can do it.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)The answer to your question.
Wasn't all that difficult, was it?
Vinca
(50,168 posts)Ever since the early days of the Bill Clinton campaign she's been investigated every time she lets a stray sneeze loose. She's certainly qualified for the job and certainly can win, but why? Maybe she's just a better person than I am. I'd take my fortune, buy and island and live out the rest of my life in peace.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,704 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Besides, she has had years to plot and plan her revenge on the GOP. THAT is why they shit their pants at just the mere mention of her name imo. They are scared she is going to repay them for all the crap over the decades.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)If I could be convinced that she has absolutely zero interest in 'bipartisanship', she'd be a much more attractive candidate.
Rex
(65,616 posts)to her name. I've literally watched repukes wince when I bring up her name. The truth of the matter if totally different, she is running because she wants to be POTUS. That is all, no revenge planned - but that is how the paranoid GOP thinks. That is the way people think when everyone they know is their enemy.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)The Clintons and Republicans have had a long love affair.
On Edit: Remember when Hillary's ardent followers started supporting McCain as well, after she lost the Dem primary?
Rex
(65,616 posts)However I do not think all of her supporters just stepped off the Third Way bus. I think she has ideas that appeal to many, yet they are a single issue voter or would never vote for a Republican. For some it is money and I have no doubt that some from that group voted for George Bush in 2000 and McCain in 2008. Also many still seem to be Reagan Democrats toward the economy...which means they hate fair trade and the social safety net.
Just don't want to broadbrush all of her supporters. Until November of last year, many of them had never even heard of the Third Way or knew what a Centrist was, so many of them are just now learning some history you and I knew and talked about years and years ago.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,704 posts)Neither party is going to help the other party pass a piece of popular legislation because they aren't going to get the credit for it and be rewarded at the ballot box.
Proud Public Servant
(2,097 posts)If it implode between now and the convention, leaving us with a different nominee, then no 'splaining will be necessary (except maybe 'splaining to some that "shut up and back our candidate" is a concept that applies to Clintonistas, too).
It it implodes during the general and costs her the White House, no 'splaining will be necessary because the sheer amount of raging, self-justifying, and finger-pointing traffic on DU will crash the whole site.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Did you get a satisfactory splain from Spitzer imploding? From Weiner? Edwards? Menendez?
Etc?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)but then again this candidate has been routinely described as the only possible viable candidate for the nomination. So it is going to be an interesting splain in the unlikely event that her candidacy implodes before the nomination.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Every time she is attacked, the attackers end up imploding. It is a beautiful thing to watch. Hillary haters implode, she continues to work on.
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)fadedrose
(10,044 posts)Rudeness to Warren Stupidity isn't helping HC either.
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)Posting the same anti-Hillary post repeatedly doesn't help anti-Hillary.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)Wolf Blitzer was yelling about HC's not getting an interview arranged was on TV. That makes it current news. If you see HC's name in the OP title, just skip it.
The OP isn't discussing the emails, it's asking about the aftermath.
I don't know who I want. And we need to do something about it.
I DO want more DU polls, for instance: (none with HC's name, these polls are needed only if the worst happens and she drops out)
A poll for Dem. Governors or past Governors
2. Poll all Democratic Senators or past Senators
3. Poll all House Democrats or past House members
4. Poll all Dems - who are or were in the movie business (Remember Reagan)
5. Poll all other notable celebrities - authors, singers, etc., Dems. of coure
6. Poll all Dems in the TV - hosts, frequent guests, shows, etc.
And allow 3 names for each group, till it gets narrowed down. Glad I'm not arguing with an HC supporter. Some are nice, and it makes me nervous when they are.
O
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)When Diane Feingold tells her to speak for herself, this can't be blamed on 'r's.
She has to explain why the servers in her house and who decides what stays private and what doesn't. That person should also be called to testify. Maybe it wasn't HC's fault.
Criticisms of her here in DL didn't cause it. Nobody reads us anyway.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Either the lefties will be framed as 'dupes' who are 'naive' or 'trolls' who are 'secretly RWers'.
After all, those comments are already being made, so why would the story change later?
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)While you are pointing at some figment of your imagination, maybe the other fingers are pointing at the true "usual suspect." <- That is about as imaginary as your op. Well, you beat me in the imagination category but it is close.
Ya never know, Gowdy just might hit it out of the park for the "usual suspects" next time. I wouldn't put all of your eggs in his basket. He's just not that bright, as has been repeatedly proven.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)This is exactly how such an op should be received here.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)with egg on their faces.
ismnotwasm
(41,916 posts)Do you mean she'll become unelectable because of some scandal? Then I vote for the Democratic nominee. I don't see the problem with explanations.
I'll vote Democrat until we have politically electable Socialists running for office. Maybe you can splain when my dream will come true.
DonCoquixote
(13,615 posts)That explains why Alison "I hate Obama Too!" Grimes lost
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)mistake.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]
QC
(26,371 posts)said mean things about her on an Internet discussion board, thus causing her defeat.
You know, the usual.
dissentient
(861 posts)That is one thing I noticed about cult of personality-type hard core supporters. They never blame their leader, it is always somebody else's fault.
When this latest email thing blew up, you saw it in action. Hillary did nothing wrong, and it is all a right wing or media conspiracy, blah, blah, blah...
Yea, sure, they forced Hillary to use secret email, with a private server in her home, knowing it would come back to bite her later! Those devious bastards!
still_one
(91,937 posts)How will that be explained by the usual suspects
I remember how Obama was constantly predicted to do this or that, and much of it never materialized, so forgive me if I remain skeptical of DU predictions
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)This OP is just ribbing.
Hillary is inevitable.
still_one
(91,937 posts)Iggo
(47,486 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)And recs to that thread from people that normally hate the OP. Hate makes some interesting bedfellows.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)1. Iowa is not Clinton friendly. Bill lost. Hillary lost there twice. She should have skipped Iowa because her losses elevates the winners to legitimacy. Tactical error on her part.
2. New Hampshire is in Sanders' back yard. Maybe he didn't win it, but he had a good chance at skewing results for those who did.
3. She lost the Black vote when South Carolinians were reminded of her racist 2008 campaign. And without the Black vote in South Carolina she didn't stand a chance.
4. The only county she won in Nevada in 2008 was Clark County, home of Las Vegas. Her opponent made certain to remind the residents of Las Vegas that she tried to suppress the vote in Las Vegas.
She went into Super Tuesday with an 0-4 start. By that point she had lost her legitimacy. She was yesterday's news. Liberals, unlike Conservatives, look forward. At least she's no Kucinich. You won't see her joining FNC to help their "Fair and Balanced" image.
Board rooms are so much more comfy.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)They are convinced invoking a Nixonian scheme to commit burglary, arson, and kidnapping is the perfect parallel to the nefariousness of liberal Democrats, somehow. And liberal Democrats are responsible for anything that doesn't go right in the Democratic Party.
And, they think about Nixon. A lot.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)nt
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)Do you tickle yourself?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratfucking
Rex
(65,616 posts)OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)That "ratfucking" was "a Nixonian scheme to commit burglary, arson, and kidnapping"?
Or that you are incapable of embarrassment?
Rex
(65,616 posts)Why are you so pissed off? Post # 111 explains it for you, gee why am I not surprised you don't like the answer.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)I originally thought that "It is amusing to watch people use that term and assume they have no idea the origin" was some kind of observation. Now I see that it's just a grammatical disaster.
Please accept my apology.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)I'm NOT alerting this, but this thread is just troll bait, IMO.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)It was a hypothetical, suppose Clinton's campaign implodes, shouldn't we get the correct talking points now so we know who to punch and how to punch them?
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)They skip that part...I think their minds are already working on a well place barb or three.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)except for Hillary's.
Hutzpa
(11,461 posts)as to what to expect this coming election.
alarimer
(16,245 posts)So we can get some decent candidates. As opposed to having Clinton be the default.
It should be a primary fight, not a coronation.