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

treestar

(82,383 posts)
64. If we're on the misogyny issue then 2008 doesn't mean much
Thu Apr 16, 2015, 01:57 PM
Apr 2015

Because Hillary was in it. The reasons people wanted her out was that she was not able to win by that point.

So the question on misogyny really is before 2008, was there ever a time there was a candidate who started out in good position but people thought that person needed opposition? Or was there simply opposition?

Did people think someone should run against Gore just to do so?

Although both Gore and Bradley showed comparable success in terms of fund-raising, Bradley lagged behind Gore in many polls from the start and never gained a competitive position. Despite the late endorsement of the Des Moines Register,[8] Bradley went on to be defeated in the Iowa Caucus; Gore garnered 64% of the votes, while Bradley received only 35%.[9] Gore won the primary competition in New Hampshire as well, though by a significantly smaller margin, receiving 52% to Bradley’s 47%. After a resounding defeat on Super Tuesday, with Bradley failing to carry the majority of delegates in a single state, he withdrew from the race on March 9.[10]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2000

Did that help the Democrats win that election? We know how it turned out. It was close enough for the Republicans to exploit the opportunity to get it into the courts.
I disagree. 2008 had 2 major Democratic candidates, and I don't think there was anyone who thought still_one Apr 2015 #1
And when it was a close race, one was told to get out of it early... boston bean Apr 2015 #3
not really karynnj Apr 2015 #83
Several top tier candidates in 2008... Cheese Sandwich Apr 2015 #78
I don't understand. I'd ask the question in reverse. stone space Apr 2015 #2
Precisely Sherman A1 Apr 2015 #23
it's not sudden cali Apr 2015 #4
Except when it was demanded one get out of it and concede boston bean Apr 2015 #9
yeah, that got absurd cali Apr 2015 #19
really, you want to have the delegate wars again? SUPER DUPER DELEGATES! snooper2 Apr 2015 #29
I remember the calls for her to concede, quite forceful calls.. boston bean Apr 2015 #32
Well, after McCain got the repuke nod, it was well known Obama had it in the bag- snooper2 Apr 2015 #37
2008 was as vigorous a primary campaign as it can get. morningfog Apr 2015 #39
It was, but there were many calls for her to concede and criticisms when she didn't. boston bean Apr 2015 #43
Well at someone point it is reasonable to make the case that a primary candidate should conceded aikoaiko Apr 2015 #53
The calls for it began in January... Whatever... boston bean Apr 2015 #102
and many hillar supporters said he shouldn't challenge cali Apr 2015 #55
That is nothing like where we are today. morningfog Apr 2015 #58
My desire to have competition in the primary is to be able to get the issues out. When we have only jwirr Apr 2015 #50
It works fine. I agree there should be a primary election and debates. boston bean Apr 2015 #51
That was wrong. A candidate should make that decision themselves. But now, are you asking sabrina 1 Apr 2015 #68
the calls were after the primaries when she karynnj Apr 2015 #84
what? after a certain point it was no longer close. Hillary had no chance KittyWampus Apr 2015 #59
You can call me out all day long, since you do nothing but attack Hillary and those who support NoJusticeNoPeace Apr 2015 #10
This message was self-deleted by its author B2G Apr 2015 #14
another delightful and false tidbit from thee cali Apr 2015 #24
I agree, it's not sudden Michael_wood Apr 2015 #92
It's called CHOICE. PassingFair Apr 2015 #5
Suddenly? tazkcmo Apr 2015 #6
Certainly didn't happen in 2000... brooklynite Apr 2015 #7
And how much criticism was heaped upon Hillary for not conceding boston bean Apr 2015 #12
Doubtful Capt. Obvious Apr 2015 #15
Those calls for conceding occurred because it was statistically impossible for her to win. Renaissance Man Apr 2015 #17
They were... I thought it was superdelegates that got Obama over the hump? boston bean Apr 2015 #25
Super delegates controlling the outcome was karynnj Apr 2015 #90
A majority of 2,117 were needed to secure the nomination... boston bean Apr 2015 #94
it made no sense until the primaries were over karynnj Apr 2015 #97
True, but so did Barack Obama and he got the majority of them.... boston bean Apr 2015 #98
The key word is DISPROPORTIONATE karynnj Apr 2015 #101
I guess that all depends on how you look at it... boston bean Apr 2015 #103
As soon as the issue was mentioned, Kerry said that he did not think that the superdelegates karynnj Apr 2015 #107
Why are you asking me these questions?? boston bean Apr 2015 #108
Please provide a link to anyone of any stature saying she should drop out in January karynnj Apr 2015 #109
Here you go.... It's a little difficult to search nearly 8 year old articles boston bean Apr 2015 #110
I'm not limiting anything - and why should I do a DU search for something I don't think exists karynnj Apr 2015 #113
I think your challenging this is bizarre, when we pretty much agree with eachother. boston bean Apr 2015 #114
I thought that was ridiculous. Hell Hath No Fury Apr 2015 #30
I agree. I have no issue with a vigorous primary. boston bean Apr 2015 #34
I agree. Hell Hath No Fury Apr 2015 #46
Bill Bradley never gained traction, but he was karynnj Apr 2015 #86
and the 2012 alternatives are not? brooklynite Apr 2015 #88
I was not commenting on them karynnj Apr 2015 #93
Its not Dwayne Hicks Apr 2015 #8
Untrue. Renaissance Man Apr 2015 #11
Post removed Post removed Apr 2015 #13
oh and you speak for millions? cali Apr 2015 #26
Misogyny has nothing to do with it. Renaissance Man Apr 2015 #27
agreed cali Apr 2015 #35
Remember how she was the person to beat, Clinton POWER! But then came- Iowa snooper2 Apr 2015 #40
It could be true this time treestar Apr 2015 #65
If we're on the misogyny issue then 2008 doesn't mean much treestar Apr 2015 #64
There was a lot of racism during the 2008 primaries tularetom Apr 2015 #48
If you think competition is unimportant, B2G Apr 2015 #16
Pure subterfuge. Hell Hath No Fury Apr 2015 #22
excellent point. cali Apr 2015 #42
The OP made a huge deal out of that pintobean Apr 2015 #54
stinks. : cali Apr 2015 #57
You? A racist?! B2G Apr 2015 #61
yep cali Apr 2015 #71
Wow, this is kind of weird. BeanMusical Apr 2015 #67
If there are any cobwebs left to be cleared better to be done in the primaries LynneSin Apr 2015 #18
Oh horseshit. Hell Hath No Fury Apr 2015 #20
There are both advantages and disadvantages to lack sufrommich Apr 2015 #21
That disadvantage would also be an advantage. The more attention on Repubs and what they believe stevenleser Apr 2015 #31
I would hope so,but I've learned not to sufrommich Apr 2015 #36
Competition has been important all along. It's nothing new. n/t arcane1 Apr 2015 #28
It looks like you're saying Hilary should run unopposed, but you have a Bernie sig Reter Apr 2015 #33
I didn't "demand" but certainly wanted somebody to challenge Bill Clinton in '96. Tierra_y_Libertad Apr 2015 #38
Competition is healthy. Orsino Apr 2015 #41
it's comments like the op's cali Apr 2015 #45
I would say that it tammywammy Apr 2015 #47
the same thought has occurred to me cali Apr 2015 #49
i thought that from the beginning m-lekktor Apr 2015 #70
Oh, how quickly we forget Proud Public Servant Apr 2015 #44
Disagree mylye2222 Apr 2015 #52
Because we don't want to get burned again. Jamastiene Apr 2015 #56
I disagree. A candidate who has no strong opponents applegrove Apr 2015 #60
I don't think it has to do with Hillary. NCTraveler Apr 2015 #62
Competition is healthy and should be the status quo. Nothing sudden about it. Throd Apr 2015 #63
Competition hones your skills DFW Apr 2015 #66
Because it's the election democratic process, that's why. AtomicKitten Apr 2015 #69
It's actually better for Hillary to be contested. herding cats Apr 2015 #72
Easy. '68 and '80 the party pushed one person above all. Many people demanded that MAN be tested. ieoeja Apr 2015 #73
both those years show the opposite to what you are saying karynnj Apr 2015 #96
+1 uponit7771 Apr 2015 #116
Why all of a sudden is it so important to hang on to the past? GeorgeGist Apr 2015 #74
Failed premise. Agschmid Apr 2015 #75
It's not because Hillary is a woman daredtowork Apr 2015 #76
Fair point, but... Mike Nelson Apr 2015 #77
I'm sick of sexim, but a primary is needed. People need to hear it. n/t freshwest Apr 2015 #79
Ok, let's look. Name the examples of past election seasons you have in mind... JHB Apr 2015 #80
Patience. A-Schwarzenegger Apr 2015 #81
I made an edit to my post, but I'm not sure if it's relevant to your reply. JHB Apr 2015 #89
Thanks for the note. A-Schwarzenegger Apr 2015 #91
name the last unchallenged man who was not an incumbent president. karynnj Apr 2015 #82
Where have you been? It's all anyone has talked about for months - TBF Apr 2015 #85
Oh, that's a big fat fail. I've always been an advocate of competitive primaries. winter is coming Apr 2015 #87
For all of the calls for a primary opponent Proud Liberal Dem Apr 2015 #95
Then you don't understand how democracy works. Octafish Apr 2015 #99
"all of a sudden" lol Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2015 #100
Do you have any evidence demwing Apr 2015 #104
It there is no other candidate, then the choice is the candidate that there is. But still... liberal N proud Apr 2015 #105
"All of a sudden" the democratic process is important. lol. nt RedCappedBandit Apr 2015 #106
I support Hillary, but even I want a primary. RandySF Apr 2015 #111
2 recs says it all. PowerToThePeople Apr 2015 #112
A primary challenge in 2008 resulted in control of the White House for eight years. cherokeeprogressive Apr 2015 #115
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Why all of a sudden is it...»Reply #64