Please Help Me, I Don't Understand

[QuestionAlways]

why people blame Hillary Clinton if there is no real primary. What is she suppose to do, give out millions of dollars to possible opponents and urge them to run. And maybe she has such a big lead in the polls because most Americans support her stands on the issues, or don't really care about the issues, or just think she is the most likely Democrat to beat the Republican candidate. This is not her fault and she should not be attacked for it.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. Heh.

She's out front because her buddies, many of whom worked for her last campaign, started up a superpac 'Ready for Hillary' to drum up support for her so that she could sit back and try to avoid pretending that she thinks she 'deserves' the White House and avoid the trap that cost her the election last time around when she openly showed people she thought she deserved it. So now she can sit back and pretend she's 'having greatness thrust upon her', rather than pursuing it.

(Edit, oh, and because polls show she has 99% name recognition, something no one else out there does.)

[marym625]

2. It is her fault. She orchestrated it.

Her main adviser is the mouth piece of the oligarchy, Larry Summers. That's no accident.


Here's a nice little quote from Mr. Summers when speaking to Elizabeth Warren:

After dinner, “Larry leaned back in his chair and offered me some advice,” Ms. Warren writes. “I had a choice. I could be an insider or I could be an outsider. Outsiders can say whatever they want. But people on the inside don’t listen to them. Insiders, however, get lots of access and a chance to push their ideas. People — powerful people — listen to what they have to say. But insiders also understand one unbreakable rule: They don’t criticize other insiders.

There are many articles about this but this one popped up first

http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2014/04/29/stunning-quote-larry-summers-to-elizabeth-warren-in-2009-insiders-dont-criticize-other-insiders/

[guillaumeb]

26. had not seen this one. Thank you for it.

From one "outsider" to another. Unfortunately, 99.99% of us are outsiders.

[Sunlei]

3. what if Mrs Clinton officially says she will run & she is backed by every great D, Obama, Biden, War

Warren..ALL of them back her for president. Will you understand then?

[Splinter Cell]

5. This is one democrat that won't back her.

Not a chance.

[Romeo.lima333]

8. why is someone who is willing to sabotage the democratic election allowed on a democratic board?

[Fearless]

13. If she doesn't excite democrats enough in the primary

Why on earth would she excite them enough in the general election. That's why we have primaries.

[Romeo.lima333]

14. she has a 54% favorability she excites more than anyone else. what i was refering to are people

who say they wont vote for the dem candidate if it's hillary.

[Fearless]

16. Favorably over a Republican does not equal votes.

We need strong voter turn out.

[Romeo.lima333]

17. favorable over warren and sanders not just republicans

wow the gop elves are tenacious - you are correct though we need a strong turn-out

[Fearless]

19. I disagree.

The issues democrats care about are better fulfilled by either Warren or Sanders. And the energy is there for Warren. She is the only one the base is begging to run.

[Romeo.lima333]

20. well now we're talking 2 different things. im talking polls and youre talkling feelings

The issues democrats care about are better fulfilled by either Warren or Sanders probably but we cant count on dems to vote and if you put up sanders the whole election will be SOCIALIST sanders blah blah blah. warren will be labeled LIBERAL which will motivate the right and they'll be out enmass cause THEY vote. however that isnt what i was taliking about

here are some actuall numbers

New York Democratic Presidential Primary Clinton 51, Warren 11, Biden 8, Cuomo 7, Sanders 5, O'Malley 1, Webb 1 Clinton +40
Wednesday, March 18

CNN/Opinion Research Clinton 62, Warren 10, Biden 15, Sanders 3, Webb 1, O'Malley 1

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/

i dont get how someone can disagree with actual numbers

[Fearless]

21. I'm talking about voter turn out.

I love how we trust polls until they disagree with us here at DU.

If we're using polls as the basis for elections' success, especially two years out, we would have had President Clinton in 2004.

[Romeo.lima333]

22. maybe you are now but i was talking about polls and you replied to a post about polls now

youre trying to say your talking about voter turnout - if you wanted to talk about voter turnout why reply to a post about polls. but turn out

like i said you cant count on dems to vote but if you put up warren or sanders THEY will turnout to vote. to vote out the socialist or the liberal unlike the dems THEY turn out.

and regarding polls i trust polls from reputable sources or polls that have numbers in-line with other reputable polls - you dont get to like/dislike a poll just b/c it doesnt say what you want

If we're using polls as the basis for elections' success, especially two years out, we would have had President Clinton in 2004. umm....smh

[demwing]

23. Why do you ask leading questions?

Who is it that you think is sabotaging the democratic election?

[Romeo.lima333]

25. see post 5

are you doing the same?

[demwing]

27. I'll vote

for whichever candidate I think best represents progressive, populist policies and values. At this time, I don't believe that person is Hillary, and I do not support her.

I am well aware of DU's rules. Are you?

Am I a saboteur?

[Romeo.lima333]

28. from the tos . Vote for Democrats.

i believe you know what that makes you, in violation of the tos
more from tos DU members must support Democratic nominees

[demwing]

30. I am absolutely not in violation of the TOS, which you appear to have skimmed, not read

Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats.

During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose.

But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative).

For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day.

Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

i believe you know what that makes you...

[Romeo.lima333]

31. well then you WILL support her if she's the dems candidate b/c to do otherwise would be a tos

since you will support her than i wasnt refering to you but
we'll see how you feel " when election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear."

since this clearly didnt apply to you one would wonder why you decided to chime in on this one post that wasnt about you.

[demwing]

33. It doesn't apply to ANYONE

im free to say what I please about whom I please without permission from you, and that applies to everyone here until the election season begins, so shew.

[Romeo.lima333]

34. the tos doesnt apply to anyone? averagejoe90 just got ppr'd over tos apparently it applied to him

did u mean shoo ? cause shew means show


shew
[shoh] Archaic.
Spell Syllables
Examples
verb (used without object), verb (used with object), shewed, shewn, shewing, noun
1.
show.

[demwing]

35. No not the whole TOS you picker of nits

the specific passage we discussed, within the context in which we discussed it.

And speaking of nit picking, are you really trying to score Internet points by playing the "spell Nazi" card?

Ok then ya got me, I misspelled a word, therefore my point is invalid.

[hamsterjill]

9. So, you'll vote for Ted Cruz if he's the Republican candidate?

And before you start laughing, understand that no one thought George Bush was going to serve two terms either.

Support whomever you want in the primaries, but if you don't vote for the Democratic candidate in the election, you are helping the Republicans win.

[Sunlei]

11. republicans 'cancel' another D vote. Lets hope -if- Mrs. Clinton primaries, it's at least similar

to her last primary.

Republicans billion dollar media blitz rag on Mrs Clinton so very much there is an 'Obama quality person' to win the primary.

[Romeo.lima333]

29. hillary has been around so long that people already have the only opinioon theyre gonna have

(provided she doesnt f it up) that's why her favorabilty numbers are pretty constant. everyone already has an opinion of her. so the "Republicans billion dollar media blitz rag " may have zero effect

[Cal33]

18. I don't particularly like Hillary either, but I would vote for her against any Republican. One

Last edited Tue Mar 24, 2015, 10:50 AM - Edit history (1)

Democratic vote not used means one vote less for the Democrats. It's helping the Republicans.
Why would you want to help the Republicans?

Just think of only one (but an important) point alone: If a vacancy in the Supreme Court should
take place, Hillary would surely not appoint a Republican to replace him/her. A Republican
president definitely would. Right now the Republicans already control the Supreme Court and both
Houses of Congress. If they should also win the White House in 2016, Gold help the USA!!!

Please don't let your opinion of Hillary's many faults blind you to the whole big political picture!
We simply can't afford to lose in 2016 !!!

We need all the help we can get.

[Romeo.lima333]

4. she's not left enough for some therefore she's not good enough for them -

they'd rather lose with a perfect candidate than win with a flawed candidate

[Splinter Cell]

6. That's not it at all.

We'd rather not vote for one republican over another, just because they claim to be a democrat.

[Romeo.lima333]

7. you just said the same thing - she's not left enough

[1StrongBlackMan]

10. Do you REALLY believe there is/would be no policy differences ...

between HRC and any republican candidate?

[Fearless]

12. She could just not run. That's what we need.

[Cosmocat]

15. I say the same thing about republicans

I get how some are lukewarm or even don't like her.

She is a prototype, run of the mill politician at this point.

BUT, she can run like anyone else can.

And, if people want a more progressive candidate, they can support whatever other candidates throw their hats into the ring.

Fight like heck in the primary and let the chips fall where they fall.

I say the same thing about republicans.

It isn't Ted Cruz's fault he is a raging POS scumbag, or Sarah Palin or whoever ...

They are who they are.

It is the fault of the PEOPLE who ... buy into, for a lack of a better way of saying it, their bullshit.

Our candidates are a reflection of who we are, sadly.

That said, as uninspired and warmed over as she is, I will fight for her if she is the nominee like nothing else.

Whatever her faults, she will be 1,000,000 times better than whoever the GOP puts up.

[CTyankee]

24. I guess this horse just isn't dead enough.

It needs to be deader.

[NHDEMFORLIFE]

32. A troubling conversation

I had lunch Monday with an old friend, we hadn't seen one another in a few years. Politically, he was always a Kennedy liberal, like me. when we began talking politics, he floored me by saying he hoped that Webb would run against Hillary. Beyond pointing to Hilary's obvious baggage, real and contrived, he said that Webb is a good Democrat on most issues and was probably less of a hawk than Hilary.
When we reached the brink of an argument, we both decided it wasn't worth it and moved on to sports.
At any rate, my question is, am I missing something about Webb, because he always seemed very much like Republican Lite to me.