Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
156 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
If the Clinton campaign implodes, what splain will we get? (Original Post) Warren Stupidity Mar 2015 OP
Not *IF... Agschmid Mar 2015 #1
nah, she could easily survive this. Warren Stupidity Mar 2015 #2
Warren's another woman BeyondGeography Mar 2015 #8
Yup. Agschmid Mar 2015 #12
I'm starting to believe in the "by 1000 cuts" theory. Agschmid Mar 2015 #11
The Clintons are still here...Their enemies are all gone or defeated... DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #32
Ah, actually their enemies now control both houses of Congress. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Mar 2015 #61
A fly couldn't fit into the space between reality and me. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #69
Maybe you haven't noticed Andy823 Mar 2015 #36
Please list the DUers who will NOT support Clinton. Thanks. nt ChisolmTrailDem Mar 2015 #49
See this link. I stopped counting at 20 DUers who said they will not vote for Hillary in the general stevenleser Mar 2015 #54
Me. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Mar 2015 #63
Check out stevenleser's link. nt Andy823 Mar 2015 #132
LOL people say the same crap every primary season Egnever Mar 2015 #101
Speaking for myself only, I've always said that I love Warren and Sanders. stevenleser Mar 2015 #50
The only way we win is to reassemble the Obama coalition or come as close as reasonably possible. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #59
Any Democrat put forward will beat any Republican out there. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Mar 2015 #66
There is no way Sanders or Warren get to 270 electoral votes. In fact, I would be surprised if they stevenleser Mar 2015 #72
Anyone. Anyone who runs as a Dem. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Mar 2015 #82
No, and I will tell you what states Obama won that most Democrats will have trouble with stevenleser Mar 2015 #89
A Populist candidate can win in those states. Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #92
No, they can't. nt stevenleser Mar 2015 #95
Why? Do you think those voters will vote against the economic self-interest? Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #98
See my #104 below. Sanders himself doesn't sound particularly confident. I have no idea why you are stevenleser Mar 2015 #105
So your opinion is based on your interpretation of what someone else said? Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #113
Nope, see my #112. I always have evidence. nt stevenleser Mar 2015 #114
The last post isn't evidence of anything. Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #121
Keep telling yourself that. nt stevenleser Mar 2015 #122
LOL, is this what you consider intelligent debate? Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #126
Well then. 99Forever Mar 2015 #149
Following last year's Vermont governor's race... OilemFirchen Mar 2015 #97
The startling thing is that Bernie as much as has indicated his own lack of confidence as far as stevenleser Mar 2015 #104
Bernie is not saying a Populist can't win Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #115
That is exactly what he is wondering. Whether he or any populist can win. stevenleser Mar 2015 #116
Waitasec. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Mar 2015 #107
Hillary did well in her senate races in counties typically difficult for Democrats to win in NY stevenleser Mar 2015 #112
I have been one of the the biggest proponents of the "Blue Wall" theory on this board. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #102
Isn't obvious? daleanime Mar 2015 #3
We will hear more about Andrew Cuomo banning fracking? TheKentuckian Mar 2015 #4
I would hope that would depend on how and why it implodes. Orsino Mar 2015 #5
You have to ask? "All DU Lefties fault, didn't support the candidate enough." Rex Mar 2015 #6
What, exactly, is "hippie punching"? nt ChisolmTrailDem Mar 2015 #51
Were you here right after the Nov 4th elections? nt Rex Mar 2015 #53
No such thing as "usual suspects" when you are talking about some long time Democratic activists Tom Rinaldo Mar 2015 #7
+1 cyberswede Mar 2015 #9
yeah you are probably right, I'm overreacting to being called freeper for objecting to Warren Stupidity Mar 2015 #13
To be honest, there probably are legitimate "suspects" on all political discussion boards Tom Rinaldo Mar 2015 #20
I just hate to see DU become cannibalistic before primary season even starts. Warren Stupidity Mar 2015 #21
"I just hate to see DU become cannibalistic before primary season even starts." DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #28
1. I'm curious as to what the official splain will be. Warren Stupidity Mar 2015 #34
It's impossible to do an autopsy on a live body and that's why they are never done. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #65
Great analogy! nt Erich Bloodaxe BSN Mar 2015 #67
Thank you.../NT DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #71
LOL...there are some pretty scandalous reasons why Oilwellian Mar 2015 #131
LOL...if Barack Obama was allowed to run in the 016 primary I wouldn't bet against him. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #134
There is a 40% chance that we can wake up on 11/9/16... DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #10
I fail to see how that addresses the OP. Warren Stupidity Mar 2015 #15
My concern DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #22
Post removed Post removed Mar 2015 #24
Wow. Agschmid Mar 2015 #25
I don't know because as I said I'm not obsessed with the measuring. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #26
"I'm not obsessed with the measuring" is not what you said upthread. Warren Stupidity Mar 2015 #37
It was a rhetorical device... DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #42
it was a rhetorical device Warren Stupidity Mar 2015 #70
I apologize if my pointing out your paraphilia has you shook. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #77
It was your obsession pal. Warren Stupidity Mar 2015 #80
Use of the quote box indicates your shookness Capt. Obvious Mar 2015 #87
Thank you for agreeing with me, I think. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #106
Then why are you speaking for "him"? Capt. Obvious Mar 2015 #108
Wut/NT DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #109
"Pal". There is no "need to get snippy with me", Warren. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #91
really? you have described me as having a dick obsession/pathology Warren Stupidity Mar 2015 #123
Hmmm DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #128
That hidden post BainsBane Mar 2015 #137
This place is getting nasty DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #138
I wish they'd at least wait until we have actual candidates BainsBane Mar 2015 #141
That was disgusting and you are correct. ismnotwasm Mar 2015 #140
I feel a little responsible for this... DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #143
You're not at all responsible for that person taking your metaphor where they did. stevenleser Mar 2015 #154
Ah, to dream... Buzz Clik Mar 2015 #14
Convinced who!? Are you kidding me? Rex Mar 2015 #29
Then I would suppose we would have to be disappointed a stronger candidate didn't run Egnever Mar 2015 #16
What we'll get is President Scott Walker ProudToBeBlueInRhody Mar 2015 #17
Now you're talking. That is an excellent splain! Warren Stupidity Mar 2015 #19
I imagine they'd most likely be focused on beating the Republican nominee nt geek tragedy Mar 2015 #18
Will you please stop making sense?! This OP is for manufacturing outrage. No reason desired! stevenleser Mar 2015 #48
Usual suspects? If she loses it means she did not run a good campaign and someone else did. hrmjustin Mar 2015 #23
Pay attention Justin. "Implodes" - that doesn't even require running. Warren Stupidity Mar 2015 #30
Forgive me Warren! The better question is will Puma rear its ugly head if Hillary wins. hrmjustin Mar 2015 #31
Wait what? Dead end Clinton supporters will rise up if Hillary wins? Warren Stupidity Mar 2015 #39
No my dear Warren, Puma or Party Unity My Ass is making a comeback. hrmjustin Mar 2015 #43
No, PUMA are unbending Hillary supporters. tridim Mar 2015 #119
Imho it is the same thing. hrmjustin Mar 2015 #120
Well then you are living in your own private puma. Warren Stupidity Mar 2015 #125
No Warren! I fully pledge to support our nominee. hrmjustin Mar 2015 #129
4/10/NT DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #35
I suppose objective reasoning would be out, then? randome Mar 2015 #27
OP has no interest in that. nt stevenleser Mar 2015 #47
What was the "splain" when John Edwards' campaign imploded? OilemFirchen Mar 2015 #33
My splain was "fuck that idiot". Warren Stupidity Mar 2015 #40
That's not a splain. nt stevenleser Mar 2015 #45
'xactly. Warren Stupidity Mar 2015 #68
There you go. OilemFirchen Mar 2015 #60
I honestly don't know why Hillary wants to put herself through this shit again. Vinca Mar 2015 #38
Her persistence is what attracts me to her. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #52
Because she knows she can win? Rex Mar 2015 #56
Actually, if I believed that, I'd be far more likely to vote for her. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Mar 2015 #74
No I was just explaining the mindset of the GOP, their fear is based on their emotional response Rex Mar 2015 #79
Oh, c'mon Rex Oilwellian Mar 2015 #136
I have no doubt, saw the pics of her hugging up on Old War Crime himself. Rex Mar 2015 #139
She does scare them and bipartisanship is a myth if it was ever true in the first place. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #155
Depends on when it implodes Proud Public Servant Mar 2015 #41
OMG, how silly. You realize that is a possibility with any candidate for any office, right? stevenleser Mar 2015 #44
yes I do. Warren Stupidity Mar 2015 #75
Gowdy and his right wing ilk are the ones imploding. NCTraveler Mar 2015 #46
Damn, don't you ever get tired of this crap. HERVEPA Mar 2015 #55
It's current news and should be in DU's GD... fadedrose Mar 2015 #62
Two things. I'm not a Hillary supporter. I'd prefer Warren or Sanders or possibly O'Malley HERVEPA Mar 2015 #64
As I typed that last post fadedrose Mar 2015 #103
My take is that she caused the implosion herself.... fadedrose Mar 2015 #57
It'll be blamed on the lefties and Repubicans working in some sort of teamwork. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Mar 2015 #58
Hmmmm. This didn't go very well. NCTraveler Mar 2015 #73
oh its going fine. Warren Stupidity Mar 2015 #78
That we can agree on. NCTraveler Mar 2015 #96
Primarily some Democratic Party elected officials (pimarily in the Senate) mmonk Mar 2015 #76
'Spain' what you are talking about ismnotwasm Mar 2015 #81
The same sort DonCoquixote Mar 2015 #83
I never understood why Grimes did that. i know Obama is not popular in KY but that was a huge hrmjustin Mar 2015 #84
The only thing one should say in the event of a candidate pulling out is: "NEXT!" randome Mar 2015 #85
The irrelevant yet stupendously powerful fringe left QC Mar 2015 #86
It will, of course, be everyone else's fault but Hillary's dissentient Mar 2015 #88
What a stupid negative premise. What if the campaign does not implode still_one Mar 2015 #90
No need to worry Capt. Obvious Mar 2015 #93
Probably, but it looks like the ex governor of Maryland may throw his hat in the ring still_one Mar 2015 #99
"You never loved her." Iggo Mar 2015 #94
Probably you will get another round of threads that bash certain DUers. Rex Mar 2015 #100
'Splaining ... ieoeja Mar 2015 #110
"Ratfucking." DirkGently Mar 2015 #111
Technically thinking about Nixon Capt. Obvious Mar 2015 #118
It is amusing to watch people use that term and assume they have no idea the origin. nt Rex Mar 2015 #142
How ironic. OilemFirchen Mar 2015 #146
See post #111 for understanding. Rex Mar 2015 #147
Understanding what? OilemFirchen Mar 2015 #148
Oh I thought you might want to know what my reply was to, first. Rex Mar 2015 #150
My mistake. OilemFirchen Mar 2015 #152
Apology excepted! Rex Mar 2015 #153
How on earth is this a constructive thread. Adrahil Mar 2015 #117
Shouldn't we be prepared with the correct talking points? Warren Stupidity Mar 2015 #124
Yup, a continuing pattern HERVEPA Mar 2015 #151
So now Clinton is imploding LOL dear god help us NoJusticeNoPeace Mar 2015 #127
uh no, the op asks what would happen if her campaign implodes. Warren Stupidity Mar 2015 #135
What would happen if Scott Walker was elected Prez and we had a repub house and senate? NoJusticeNoPeace Mar 2015 #144
WHAT IF means WILL...did you not get the new DU translator for newspeak? Rex Mar 2015 #156
It is everybody's fault under the sun Aerows Mar 2015 #130
I love this thread for the simple fact that it is an eye opener Hutzpa Mar 2015 #133
I hope it happens sooner rather than later alarimer Mar 2015 #145
 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
2. nah, she could easily survive this.
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 12:18 PM
Mar 2015

But still, how would they manage, for example, to get behind a Warren candidacy?

BeyondGeography

(39,276 posts)
8. Warren's another woman
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 12:24 PM
Mar 2015

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.

Erich Bloodaxe BSN

(14,733 posts)
61. Ah, actually their enemies now control both houses of Congress.
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 01:10 PM
Mar 2015

While neither Clinton holds office atm.

Nice try at rewriting reality.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,704 posts)
69. A fly couldn't fit into the space between reality and me.
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 01:18 PM
Mar 2015

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)
36. Maybe you haven't noticed
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 12:47 PM
Mar 2015

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.

Erich Bloodaxe BSN

(14,733 posts)
63. Me.
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 01:11 PM
Mar 2015

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.

 

Egnever

(21,506 posts)
101. LOL people say the same crap every primary season
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 01:48 PM
Mar 2015

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)
50. Speaking for myself only, I've always said that I love Warren and Sanders.
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 01:00 PM
Mar 2015

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)
59. The only way we win is to reassemble the Obama coalition or come as close as reasonably possible.
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 01:10 PM
Mar 2015

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)
66. Any Democrat put forward will beat any Republican out there.
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 01:15 PM
Mar 2015

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)
72. There is no way Sanders or Warren get to 270 electoral votes. In fact, I would be surprised if they
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 01:19 PM
Mar 2015

break 190.

Love both of them. And they have no chance.

Erich Bloodaxe BSN

(14,733 posts)
82. Anyone. Anyone who runs as a Dem.
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 01:24 PM
Mar 2015

(Ok, unless they run on an anti-immigrant, racist platform. If they avoid that, they're golden.)

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
89. No, and I will tell you what states Obama won that most Democrats will have trouble with
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 01:33 PM
Mar 2015

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)
98. Why? Do you think those voters will vote against the economic self-interest?
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 01:44 PM
Mar 2015

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)
105. See my #104 below. Sanders himself doesn't sound particularly confident. I have no idea why you are
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 01:54 PM
Mar 2015

more confident than he is.

Cosmic Kitten

(3,498 posts)
113. So your opinion is based on your interpretation of what someone else said?
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 02:10 PM
Mar 2015

There is a kinda "truthiness" to such observations

Cosmic Kitten

(3,498 posts)
121. The last post isn't evidence of anything.
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 02:25 PM
Mar 2015

I'd rather you C&P rather than
making discussion an scavenger hunt.

Cosmic Kitten

(3,498 posts)
126. LOL, is this what you consider intelligent debate?
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 02:35 PM
Mar 2015

I'm out, you don't make any credible argument.
It's just childish retorts.

99Forever

(14,524 posts)
149. Well then.
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 04:36 PM
Mar 2015

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)
97. Following last year's Vermont governor's race...
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 01:43 PM
Mar 2015

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)
104. The startling thing is that Bernie as much as has indicated his own lack of confidence as far as
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 01:53 PM
Mar 2015

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.
 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
116. That is exactly what he is wondering. Whether he or any populist can win.
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 02:12 PM
Mar 2015

There is no spinning that away. He is not confident that he can win.

Erich Bloodaxe BSN

(14,733 posts)
107. Waitasec.
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 01:57 PM
Mar 2015
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.


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)
112. Hillary did well in her senate races in counties typically difficult for Democrats to win in NY
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 02:09 PM
Mar 2015
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_New_York,_2000#Analysis

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)
102. I have been one of the the biggest proponents of the "Blue Wall" theory on this board.
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 01:49 PM
Mar 2015

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.

Orsino

(37,428 posts)
5. I would hope that would depend on how and why it implodes.
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 12:21 PM
Mar 2015

I suspect that email won't do it, if that's what you're asking about.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
6. You have to ask? "All DU Lefties fault, didn't support the candidate enough."
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 12:21 PM
Mar 2015

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!



 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
53. Were you here right after the Nov 4th elections? nt
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 01:03 PM
Mar 2015

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)
7. No such thing as "usual suspects" when you are talking about some long time Democratic activists
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 12:22 PM
Mar 2015

Perhaps you mean "dyed in the wool supporters"? I just hate to see DU become cannibalistic before primary season even starts.

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
13. yeah you are probably right, I'm overreacting to being called freeper for objecting to
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 12:26 PM
Mar 2015

Clinton's IWR vote. my bad.

Tom Rinaldo

(22,911 posts)
20. To be honest, there probably are legitimate "suspects" on all political discussion boards
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 12:30 PM
Mar 2015

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)
21. I just hate to see DU become cannibalistic before primary season even starts.
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 12:31 PM
Mar 2015

A wise person once said that, before his ox got gored.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,704 posts)
28. "I just hate to see DU become cannibalistic before primary season even starts."
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 12:42 PM
Mar 2015

Then why did you start this thread?

Did you think it would promote comity?

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
34. 1. I'm curious as to what the official splain will be.
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 12:46 PM
Mar 2015

2. the hippie punching and left beating was on overdrive this weekend.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,704 posts)
65. It's impossible to do an autopsy on a live body and that's why they are never done.
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 01:14 PM
Mar 2015

Scandals are to the Clintons what flies are to garbage truck but they never, ever sink them.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,704 posts)
134. LOL...if Barack Obama was allowed to run in the 016 primary I wouldn't bet against him.
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 03:02 PM
Mar 2015


....... .... ... .... .......

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,704 posts)
10. There is a 40% chance that we can wake up on 11/9/16...
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 12:25 PM
Mar 2015

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.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,704 posts)
22. My concern
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 12:31 PM
Mar 2015
My concern about what will happen to my party and my nation trumps any obsession I might have with internecine dick measuring matches.

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #22)

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,704 posts)
26. I don't know because as I said I'm not obsessed with the measuring.
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 12:38 PM
Mar 2015

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)
37. "I'm not obsessed with the measuring" is not what you said upthread.
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 12:48 PM
Mar 2015

You brought up dick measuring and said simply that other concerns trumped it.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,704 posts)
42. It was a rhetorical device...
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 12:52 PM
Mar 2015

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.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,704 posts)
77. I apologize if my pointing out your paraphilia has you shook.
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 01:22 PM
Mar 2015

I suspect it's damn near impossible to sate, am I right?

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
80. It was your obsession pal.
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 01:24 PM
Mar 2015

My concern about what will happen to my party and my nation trumps any obsession I might have with internecine dick measuring matches.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,704 posts)
91. "Pal". There is no "need to get snippy with me", Warren.
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 01:36 PM
Mar 2015

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:


Now I'm curious. Who's dick is larger, Clinton or Warren?
 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
123. really? you have described me as having a dick obsession/pathology
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 02:30 PM
Mar 2015

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)
128. Hmmm
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 02:40 PM
Mar 2015

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:

Now I'm curious. Who's dick is larger, Clinton or Warren?


DemocratSinceBirth

(99,704 posts)
138. This place is getting nasty
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 03:34 PM
Mar 2015

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)
141. I wish they'd at least wait until we have actual candidates
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 03:47 PM
Mar 2015

So the arguments can at least pretend to be about something.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,704 posts)
143. I feel a little responsible for this...
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 03:52 PM
Mar 2015

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)
154. You're not at all responsible for that person taking your metaphor where they did.
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 04:48 PM
Mar 2015

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.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
29. Convinced who!? Are you kidding me?
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 12:43 PM
Mar 2015

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.

ProudToBeBlueInRhody

(16,399 posts)
17. What we'll get is President Scott Walker
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 12:27 PM
Mar 2015

Enjoy. Because then we'll see a real implosion, of this nation, once and for all.

 

hrmjustin

(71,265 posts)
31. Forgive me Warren! The better question is will Puma rear its ugly head if Hillary wins.
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 12:46 PM
Mar 2015

We already see people here saying they won't vote for her if she is the nominee.

 

hrmjustin

(71,265 posts)
43. No my dear Warren, Puma or Party Unity My Ass is making a comeback.
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 12:52 PM
Mar 2015

Posters on DU are claiming that is Hillary wins the nomination they sill not vote for her.

That is puma.

 

hrmjustin

(71,265 posts)
129. No Warren! I fully pledge to support our nominee.
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 02:41 PM
Mar 2015

I like the other possible candidate and if the win I will immediately support them.

Can you say the sme?

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
27. I suppose objective reasoning would be out, then?
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 12:39 PM
Mar 2015

[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

Vinca

(50,168 posts)
38. I honestly don't know why Hillary wants to put herself through this shit again.
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 12:49 PM
Mar 2015

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.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
56. Because she knows she can win?
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 01:06 PM
Mar 2015

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)
74. Actually, if I believed that, I'd be far more likely to vote for her.
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 01:20 PM
Mar 2015

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)
79. No I was just explaining the mindset of the GOP, their fear is based on their emotional response
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 01:23 PM
Mar 2015

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)
136. Oh, c'mon Rex
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 03:19 PM
Mar 2015

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)
139. I have no doubt, saw the pics of her hugging up on Old War Crime himself.
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 03:41 PM
Mar 2015

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)
155. She does scare them and bipartisanship is a myth if it was ever true in the first place.
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 05:14 PM
Mar 2015

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)
41. Depends on when it implodes
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 12:51 PM
Mar 2015

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)
44. OMG, how silly. You realize that is a possibility with any candidate for any office, right?
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 12:56 PM
Mar 2015

Did you get a satisfactory splain from Spitzer imploding? From Weiner? Edwards? Menendez?

Etc?

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
75. yes I do.
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 01:21 PM
Mar 2015

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)
46. Gowdy and his right wing ilk are the ones imploding.
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 12:57 PM
Mar 2015

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.

fadedrose

(10,044 posts)
62. It's current news and should be in DU's GD...
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 01:11 PM
Mar 2015

Rudeness to Warren Stupidity isn't helping HC either.

 

HERVEPA

(6,107 posts)
64. Two things. I'm not a Hillary supporter. I'd prefer Warren or Sanders or possibly O'Malley
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 01:13 PM
Mar 2015

Posting the same anti-Hillary post repeatedly doesn't help anti-Hillary.

fadedrose

(10,044 posts)
103. As I typed that last post
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 01:49 PM
Mar 2015

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)
57. My take is that she caused the implosion herself....
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 01:09 PM
Mar 2015

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)
58. It'll be blamed on the lefties and Repubicans working in some sort of teamwork.
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 01:09 PM
Mar 2015

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)
73. Hmmmm. This didn't go very well.
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 01:20 PM
Mar 2015

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.

ismnotwasm

(41,916 posts)
81. 'Spain' what you are talking about
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 01:24 PM
Mar 2015

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.

 

hrmjustin

(71,265 posts)
84. I never understood why Grimes did that. i know Obama is not popular in KY but that was a huge
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 01:26 PM
Mar 2015

mistake.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
85. The only thing one should say in the event of a candidate pulling out is: "NEXT!"
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 01:28 PM
Mar 2015

[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)
86. The irrelevant yet stupendously powerful fringe left
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 01:31 PM
Mar 2015

said mean things about her on an Internet discussion board, thus causing her defeat.

You know, the usual.

 

dissentient

(861 posts)
88. It will, of course, be everyone else's fault but Hillary's
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 01:33 PM
Mar 2015

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)
90. What a stupid negative premise. What if the campaign does not implode
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 01:36 PM
Mar 2015

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

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
100. Probably you will get another round of threads that bash certain DUers.
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 01:46 PM
Mar 2015

And recs to that thread from people that normally hate the OP. Hate makes some interesting bedfellows.

 

ieoeja

(9,748 posts)
110. 'Splaining ...
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 02:05 PM
Mar 2015

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)
111. "Ratfucking."
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 02:08 PM
Mar 2015

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.




OilemFirchen

(7,143 posts)
146. How ironic.
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 04:28 PM
Mar 2015

Do you tickle yourself?

Woodward and Bernstein's exposé All the President's Men reports that many staffers who had attended the University of Southern California such as Donald Segretti, Tim Elbourne, Ronald Louis Ziegler, H. R. Haldeman and Dwight Chapin had participated in the highly-competitive student elections there. UPI reporter Karlyn Barker sent Woodward and Bernstein a memo "Notes On the USC Crowd" that outlined the connection. Fraternities, sororities and underground fraternal coordinating organizations such as Theta Nu Epsilon and their splintered rival "Trojans for Representative Government" engaged in creative tricks and underhanded tactics to win student elections.[1][2] Officially, control over minor funding and decision-making on campus life was at stake but the positions also gave bragging rights and prestige. It was either promoted by or garnered the interest of major political figures on the USC board of trustees such as Dean Rusk and John A. McCone.[3][4] It was here that the term ratfucking had its origin. It is unclear whether it was derived from the military term for stealing the better part of military rations and tossing the less appetizing portions away or if the military adopted the phrase from the political lexicon.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratfucking

OilemFirchen

(7,143 posts)
148. Understanding what?
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 04:36 PM
Mar 2015

That "ratfucking" was "a Nixonian scheme to commit burglary, arson, and kidnapping"?

Or that you are incapable of embarrassment?

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
150. Oh I thought you might want to know what my reply was to, first.
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 04:37 PM
Mar 2015

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)
152. My mistake.
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 04:44 PM
Mar 2015

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.

 

Adrahil

(13,340 posts)
117. How on earth is this a constructive thread.
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 02:21 PM
Mar 2015

I'm NOT alerting this, but this thread is just troll bait, IMO.

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
124. Shouldn't we be prepared with the correct talking points?
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 02:33 PM
Mar 2015

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?

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
156. WHAT IF means WILL...did you not get the new DU translator for newspeak?
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 05:16 PM
Mar 2015

They skip that part...I think their minds are already working on a well place barb or three.

Hutzpa

(11,461 posts)
133. I love this thread for the simple fact that it is an eye opener
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 03:01 PM
Mar 2015

as to what to expect this coming election.

alarimer

(16,245 posts)
145. I hope it happens sooner rather than later
Mon Mar 9, 2015, 04:28 PM
Mar 2015

So we can get some decent candidates. As opposed to having Clinton be the default.

It should be a primary fight, not a coronation.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»If the Clinton campaign i...