Will Democrats losing big in 2014 help or hurt Hillary

[ProSense]

or any Democratic candidate for President

2 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	Hurt
	2 (100%)
	Help
	0 (0%)
	Not sure
	0 (0%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[pipoman]

1. What will hurt Hillary

is if a Democrat runs against her...

[AtomicKitten]

23. +

funny + true

[Marr]

25. +1

[cthulu2016]

2. Help, of course. But not so much, or in a manner such that it is overall desirable

[Arctic Dave]

3. Since she is more of a republican I don't see how it matters.

Her and rahm should partner up and lose together.

[forestpath]

4. +1

[Politicub]

5. .

[BlueCaliDem]

7. Oh brother.

[KamaAina]

6. Well, Hillary's an American,

so it would hurt her.

Of course, she's a one-percenter, so it probably wouldn't hurt her that much. It's the rest of us I'm worried about.

[blm]

8. It will hurt ALL of America AND our party. 2016 will be ripe for rigging and GOP will gain

more power on state levels in 2014 to do the rigging.

[BlueCaliDem]

9. It will definitely hurt Hillary, but above all, it will hurt this country on every level.

I hope the vast majority of the American electorate will see it before the 2014 elections ramp up. We need to GAIN seats in the House, State legislatures, and Governor mansions if we've learned anything from 2010. The Republicans are out to destroy this country and make it a safe governing haven for powerful corporations. They're out to sacrifice American workers for the American elite. I can only hope that more and more Americans will wake up to that painful but real-world fact.

[BlueCaliDem]

10. It doesn't surprise me anymore that your post isn't getting more Rec's

even though this IS a Democratic Party site.

and rec'd.

[hfojvt]

14. Why should this post get more recs?

Considering that it is just finger in the eye of progressives. Is that really rec-worthy?

[BlueCaliDem]

27. I'm a Progressive, and it's NO "finger in [my] eye".

Do you even know who ProSense is? Too many around here, do.

And, to answer your question, it should get more rec's because it's a wake-up call. Will you heed it? I sure as hell will, just as I heeded the call to support President Obama in 2010, just as the majority of Californians heeded that call since we, and only one other state, booted out the Republicans and elected more Democrats into State offices which in turn, elected more U.S. Reps in the House. We didn't listen to the "disenchanted" on the Left. We heard them, but we had the foresight to know that to stay home because of all the noise so prevalent in our media and online {"Liberal" Ed Schultz was one of them}, we knew that staying home would result in a Governor Whitman and Senator Fiorina. Our state returned to our Democratic state, unlike Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, to name a few.

It's a lot like George Santayana's, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

[hfojvt]

29. define progressive then

because as I use the word, it is a group of people who generally loathe Hillary Clinton and the DLC that she stands for.

Even though the DLC has tried to co-opt the word progressive.

And who is pro-sense? Why don't you tell me? Because to me, he just seems to be a guy who is paid to flood this board with a bunch of pro-DLC and pro-Obama spin.

Because it is hard to believe that anybody would work so hard shoveling bullsh*t for free.

If it's a wake up call, then it is a wake up call for progressives to start now trying to derail Hillary.

And as far as working in 2010, unless you spent more than $4,000 and more than 500 hours volunteering, then you did less than I did in 2010. And we got shellacked here anyway.

[BlueCaliDem]

31. Progressive: one who wants to move this country forward. Regressive: one who doesn't.

Cutting one's nose to spite one's face ain't ever helped "Liberals" and their agenda. It's why it took this truly progressive president and all his political capital to push through universal health care and expand Medicaid for the poor and working poor, among many, many other things he's done to push this country forward despite being excoriated by self-proclaimed "Progressives". Progressives support progress, however incremental. That's why I'm a Progressive and can safely and proudly call myself one.

You appear to make the classic mistake of conflating Liberals with Progressives. Although at times Liberals can be progressive, it's not always {or usually} the case. Sometimes, through their stringent purity rules, they are actually REgressives. They don't care if this country moves forward {progresses} if the policies and variables to make that happen aren't "pure" enough, in their not so humble opinions. They'd happily not vote {voting or not voting out of one's "conscience" because, well, they are more important than the country} if they feel the candidate isn't towing their line. The GOP is more than happy for such "Progressives".

So, a person who thinks {maybe even believes} he's a Progressive but who actually works much like the Teapublicans {purity test} by undermining the power of the Democrats in Gov't because they're not "liberal enough" {I'm thinking here, Dennis Kucinich supporters} are empowering the true Regressives in the Republican Party.

And you know what's so sad? They don't even see it.

And as far as working in 2010, unless you spent more than $4,000 and more than 500 hours volunteering, then you did less than I did in 2010. And we got shellacked here anyway.

It is very, very, VERY hard for me to believe that after having read your anti-Obama posts. Very hard. So you'll forgive me that I don't believe you.

[hfojvt]

34. actually I put progressives to the left of liberals

that's why I use the word progressive instead of liberal. I use it to mean "the left wing of the Democratic Party" whereas liberals are more like "the center of the Democratic Party".

Or at least they used to be, before the Party moved way to the right.

As for anti-Obama posts, well before 2010 I was considered an Obama-bot here http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/121
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/127

What happened?

The way I see it, Obama betrayed me. He extended the Bush tax cuts, and then lied about it http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/138 , and then kept proposing more tax cuts for the rich, like the accursed payroll tax cut http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/135

and then Obama made the vast majority of the Bush tax cuts permanent. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022130101

So, at this point, I am not very kindly disposed towards him.

But I still will do what I can to defeat our odious Republican Governor, put more Democrats in the state legislature and even take a couple of Congressional seats in Kansas (taking the 2nd and 3rd districts would be the best case scenario, one we realized in 2006, but I highly doubt it in 2014). Even if I don't run myself, like I did in 2010 (for Congress (lost in the primary)) and in 2012 for County Treasurer (got creamed like all the other Democratic candidates for County office).

[hfojvt]

11. who wants to see Democrats lose big in 2014?

Besides Obama, I mean.

[ProSense]

15. I don't know,

"who wants to see Democrats lose big in 2014? Besides Obama, I mean."

...but I've been reading that Obama is going to cost Democrats the election. I mean, does Obama wanting it make it so?

After all, he isn't up for re-election ever again, which is a good thing.

[hfojvt]

17. Did Democrats losing big in 2010 help or hurt Obama in 2012?

Did Obama have something to do with 2010 or was it all Glenn Greenwald?

And it sure does give him a handy little bag of excuses for moving to the right

"he has to compromise with Republicans".

[ProSense]

18. It

"Did Democrats losing big in 2010 help or hurt Obama in 2012?"

...hurt his legislative agenda leading into 2012.

Do you think it helped him in 2012?

[BlueCaliDem]

28. Do you think you'll get an answer

instead of the usual snarky remark? I wouldn't hold my breath, ProSense.

[hfojvt]

30. thank goodness you are not providing any snarky remarks

and I pretty much already answered that question in post #17.

[BlueCaliDem]

32. You don't think you can dish it and not expect any in return, do you? And as for #17

yep, you did respond with snark. Congrats! And thanks for providing me with an example.

[Tempest]

12. So it's already a foregone conclusion Democrats are going to lose big in 2014?

What kind of fucked up bullshit surrender is that?

[hfojvt]

16. It's totally the fault of the emoprogs too

for not getting behind Obama when he moves to the right.

Buncha whiny Quislings we are.

[William769]

13. Will hurt the Democratic party & America period

[graham4anything]

19. Hillary will be the next President, let me count the ways.

Hillary will be the next President
The following applies to Hillary-

if the electorate holds the person in office liable, then which part of the congress is one talking about?
The house? If so, the house is filled with republicans these days. Therefore the house would turn opposite what is in, so

also, are you talking about the senate

Well, Jeeepers Mr. Wilson, there are only 1/3 or so senate seats up for grabs in 2014.
As such, guess who are the incumbents in most of them?
Why they are republicans
So if the senate were to oust the incumbents, wouldn't that help the democratic party as more repubs are in than dems?

Any dissent helps Hillary
Any solidarity with President Obama helps Hillary
matter of fact, Hillary is so in, she is in.
Everybody loves Hillary.
Landslide in 2016 for Hillary.
Anyway they rope-a-dope it, Hillary is playing for longterm and anywhich way you can, HIllary wins.

Heads she wins
Tails the other party loses.

Rush Limbaugh hates Hillary. Sean Hannity hates Hillary. Fox hates Hillary.
The more they put Hillary down, the more a protective cocoon goes around her and the more she rises in the polls. Putting Hillary down by the right wing is so 1990s.
The more the rightwing same old club puts down Hillary, the better.

Now, what if it's another nominee(as I suspect the reason for the wording in the description of the poll is thinking along this line -

Wouldn't if it is someone other than Hillary, hurt that other candidate in a major way?
Because the other democratic candidate would then have ALL the baggage.
Remember something-the rightwing people already think all democratic people are ultra liberals.
To them, there is NO difference between Joe Lieberman and the candidate furthest left.
They are all the same.

Do people realize that people already have formulated their opinions on President Obama and Hillary and those opinions will never change.
All the others are unknowns to the mass public, and the only thing they know is are they republican or democratic.
And no democratic voter will vote 3rd party.Not after Ralph Nader and 2000. He insured that.

So, after blasting the Obama and Clinton voters, now what would be left to elect someone the public will have the perception of being so far left?
It isn't the older seniors that vote far left.
So the wrong people will have been given the wrong message.

The protest voters would be not achieving the results they wanted because of this.

Jeb Bush would be President.
or the ghost in the room could find an opening to become President.

but it won't be the Senior senator from Mass.
Because the very people who would wish her to be President, would in fact be the ones to make it so impossible.
The seniors would not vote for someone all the way far left. They are far too conservative for it. Remember, that very same demographic in 2008 and 2012 voted for John McCain and Mitt Romney. The one and only demographic that didn't vote for President Obama and Team Obama.

Think about it. It would be another McGovern or Dukakis year.

and I commend what I believe to be very good wording on what seemed at first to be very bad wording in the poll itself.

kudos!I think.

[sarisataka]

20. IF...

Democrats lose big in '14 the country will be hurt. It will likely lead to a (R) victory in '16 as the party of the sitting President shoulders the blame for all problems, even if the fault lies with Congress.

[Beacool]

21. Of course it would hurt Hillary if she does run, particularly if she wins the WH.

It would hurt any Democrat in that same situation. An even bigger Republican majority in Congress would hurt any Democrat trying to pass their agenda.

[HappyMe]

22. It would hurt any Democratic candidate.

[sadbear]

24. Hillary will probably win either way,

but two more years of republican fatigue should help her in '16.

[Laelth]

26. What a bizarre poll.

I do think Democrats will lose a few seats in Congress in 2014, but I doubt Hillary will even run for President in 2016. Generally speaking, I suspect that the 2014 election will not have much, if any, impact on the 2016 election.



-Laelth

[Zorra]

33. Hillary won't be running for President. She's retired from politics. nt

[Bucky]

35. Any big Republican gain leads to Republican over-reach leads to Democratic rebounds

This pattern's been going on for 20 years now. It's boring me.

[Chisox08]

36. Hillary won the 2016 primaries?

Why wasn't I informed of this?

Giving in to Republican demands will hurt Democrats not only in 2016 but 2014. Proposing cutting Social Security, Medicaid or Medicare will hurt Democrats. I wish the Democrats would stop snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory, like in 2010.

[winter is coming]

37. Not everything is about Hillary.