New data shows Hillary has tremendous support among liberals, less support among conservative Dems

[Cali_Democrat]

Hillary Clinton doesn’t have a problem with liberals.
By Aaron Blake June 16

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has said repeatedly that she won't run for president in 2016, and yet the idea persists: That Hillary Clinton could find herself vulnerable to a more liberal primary opponent.

The problem? Almost all of the most recent data suggests that Clinton doesn't have any real problems on her left flank. Indeed, she's actually stronger with liberals than she is with more moderate Democrats. And very, very few liberals have anything but nice things to say about her.

To wit:

* A new CNN/Opinion Research poll shows that when voters are asked whether they would prefer Clinton, a more liberal alternative or a more conservative one, about twice as many non-Clinton voters say they prefer the more conservative one (20 percent) to the more liberal one (11 percent).

* A Washington Post/ABC News poll this month showed Clinton taking a bigger share of the vote in the 2016 primary among self-described liberals (72 percent) than among moderate and conservative Democrats (60 percent).

* The same poll shows 18 percent of moderate Democrats don't want Clinton to run. Just 6 percent of liberal Democrats agree.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/06/16/hillary-clinton-doesnt-have-a-problem-with-liberals-not-hardly/

[Tarheel_Dem]

1. Haven't always been a supporter, but her main selling point for me is the folks who are against her.

[Cali_Democrat]

6. Yup

Those same folks try to use people like Warren to attack Obama and Hillary even though all three enjoy huge support among the base.

Transparent Republican tactics are obvious....and transparent....

[VanillaRhapsody]

36. the think the are good at masquerade!

[Tarheel_Dem]

38. "Transparent Republican tactics are obvious....and transparent...."

[Scuba]

54. Yes, because those of us a bit further left are Repubicans. Yeah, that's the ticket!

[pscot]

128. Curses! Our secret plans for the Romnification of America

have been foiled again by that doughty band of courageous moderates who think everything is just hunky dory.

[billhicks76]

67. Are You Joking?

That is the worst strategy ever and is the reason the whole DC insider game screwed us to begin with. Conservatives also dislike Ron Paul but I see Centrist Democrats disparaging him more than Bush. This whole article is a joke anyway because in my experience Hillary is opposed by liberals and gets her support from moderates and conservatives. She is " our" worst candidate because she can't be trusted with the truth.

[Tarheel_Dem]

75. I suspect you've confused DU Liberals, who may or may not be, with real world liberals. That's.....

a problem. Like I said, her best selling point for me, is the fact that folks like you don't like her. It's not hard to conclude that it's the same small legion of crusaders against the current POTUS.

As to your anecdotal "experience" & "liberal opposition to Hillary", I don't really give a crap. In case you didn't notice, that's not what the polling says.

[billhicks76]

81. Obvious

That you don't give a crap what liberals think...the election is a long way off. As people get reminded again of her Iraq War vote and all the exaggerations and lies to promote herself she will fall. We don't need another anointing. And her closeness to the Bush family makes many of us sick.

[Tarheel_Dem]

86. How many? There's no Barack Obama waiting in the wings this time around. Charisma & energy....

matter. You can be aligned exactly with liberals on the issues, but if you can't bring in independents and moderates, you LOSE. Hillary will have the support of folks who would have supported her had Obama not emerged. I'm sorry, but for all her passion, EW just isn't that person.

Don't confuse DU with anything in the real world. Remember, it's still "Underground" after all these years. I mean, it's the only place on earth where Dennis Kucinich could actually win a presidential primary preference poll.

[peacebird]

2. The liberals I know think she is far too hawkish & pro-corp, & not liberal enough.

I read that Wall Street wants her as Pres because she will be supportive. I want someone supporting people, not corporations.

[btrflykng9]

16. Agreed, peacebird

She's way too corporatist for my taste! Why is it that liberals don't take this into consideration more when voting? If you are buddies with the big banks, you are not a friend to the middle class.

[VanillaRhapsody]

18. funny this poll shows you your anecdotaL evidence is not reliable

[peacebird]

23. Romneys polls showed he was going to be President, HRC's polls showed she would be Dem nom '07

Just sayin'

[Tarheel_Dem]

40. But these aren't "internal" polls.

[Stryst]

64. I'm 32 years old

And have been a registered voter since the day after my 18th birthday, and I have never once participated in one of these polls that keep getting tossed around. And once I downloaded the actual documents being quoted, you find that these polls are based on about a thousand responses, most of whom were landline responses.

There are currently more than 146 MILLION registered voters in the US. So these polls don't "show" anything. They indicate the opinions of a small sample size.

I'll still vote for her if she's our candidate, just please take these polls with a grain of salt.

[peacebird]

119. I am 57 and have voted in every election except 1 since I was 18 & have never been called for a poll

So I do take them with a grain of salt. Especially because they are landline only. BUT they get reported as gospel, and that bothers me....

[VanillaRhapsody]

130. so unless you got polled....its invalid?

Do you know how many Americans there are?

[Stryst]

134. I'm sorry

I thought I was clear in my post. There are 318,892,103 Americans. 146,311,000 (approximately) of them are registered voters. 1000 call sample size. I didn't say the poll was invalid, just that with such a small sample against the background population, it's a low percentage sample to be basing broad opinions on. If less than a hundredth of a percent of voters responded, I find it somewhat irresponsible to make blanket statements such as "liberals say this", when you're asking the opinion of such a small sample.

I'm not a statistician, nor am I involved in public policy, I just think that we should always be wary of anything that might be used to sway public opinion.

And I certainly apologize if using a personal anecdote flavored the discussion before we started talking about numbers.

[VanillaRhapsody]

135. you realize this is standard and even used scientifically right?

This is how its done in and out of politics..sorry

[Stryst]

138. And that's why

drug recalls are so common. Small sample sizes are bad science. I do have a degree in anthropology, so I understand statistical research.

If I walked into a room with a thousand people, asked one person "What do you want for lunch?" and then claimed that the entire room wanted pizza, you would call BS. Just because "this is how it's done in and out of politics" doesn't mean that it's good science. And why, exactly, is suggesting that readers look at the methodology of a study so offensive to you?

[treestar]

107. A real poll is more accurate than the people any one person knows

I am surrounded by righties who think Hillary is a commie, soshalist librul

[hrmjustin]

3. All the people I know who are democrats want Hillary.

[Logical]

5. Hi, my name is Gary, I live in Kansas, I don't want Hillary! Now....

That is not true!

[hrmjustin]

7. I meant in real life.

[Armstead]

37. This isn't real life?

[hrmjustin]

78. I mean people I know in person.

[FrodosPet]

80. Not even close

The few thousand people posting here represent a much more energized and liberal group than the general public. MAny people have political split personalities.

For example, I have multiple friends who is supporting gay marriage AND the Second Amendment AND drug testing for assistance recipients AND the legalization of marijuana.

[JI7]

91. nope, especially on sites where one can remain anonymous

[progressoid]

14. I only know one Democrat in real life that wants Hillary

My anecdotal evidence trumps your anecdotal evidence because mine is in italics and underlined.

[hrmjustin]

15. Well here in NYC she is well liked.

I don't know about where you are but here she is well liked.

[riqster]

21. DUzy!

I can trump yours:

My anecdotal evidence trumps your anecdotal evidence because mine is BOLD, in italics and underlined.

Neener.

[progressoid]

89. more neeners

[bMy anecdotal evidence trumps your anecdotal evidence because mine is BOLD, in italics, underlined with links!]

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

88. LOL, I knew TWO, that is til my dad finally called it quits w/ Hillary after she gave a boost to the fracking industry.

[MineralMan]

4. If Hillary runs, it's going to take an extraordinary effort during

the primaries for any other candidate to win the nomination. And that's true in every state. With that kind of current support for Clinton, other candidates are going to have to rely on primary election GOTV efforts the like of which have never been seen before to beat her. I do not believe that will be possible in enough states to keep Hillary from being nominated at the Democratic National Convention.

If Hillary decides not to run, the field will be completely open. However, I doubt that any of the alternative candidates can win in the general election in 2016 against any of the leading Republican candidates. I believe Hillary Clinton will run and that she will get the nomination easily. If so, she will have my support and I will campaign for her as part of my local election activism.

In the meantime, since nobody has announced at all:

GOTV 2014!

[Logical]

8. Hillary had a 40 point lead over Obama at one point! And managed to lose it.....

So keep that in mind!

[progressoid]

10. Yup

And didn't he say he wasn't running at some point too?

[VanillaRhapsody]

20. you keep reminding yourself of that......whatever gets you through the night

[Logical]

27. Are you saying that is incorrect??? nt

[neverforget]

77. there is only one candidate: Hillary Clinton!

The primaries are over even though NO ONE has declared and it's only June 2014.

[MineralMan]

28. Yes, that's true. Grassroots efforts won out.

Still, Barack Obama has charismatic qualities that will be hard to duplicate by anyone I've seen mentioned as a possible candidate. His ability to make people smile and to gain their trust and support is unmatched in any candidate I have ever seen. I don't see that in either Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. Obama won due to his personality and ability to win votes from people.

Had he not been in that race, Hillary would have won going away. But, during the primary campaign, it was the enthusiastic grassroots efforts that brought people out to vote during the primaries that did the trick. That is what is required. Will it happen in 2016? I don't know. We'll see. For now, my focus is on 2014.

[Logical]

79. I see it very different......

If Hillary was so great or popular how did a unknown come in and cause her to lose a large percent of her supporters? It must have been very weak support!
The type of support that does not volenteer or donate.
She may end up being the only game in town. Which will be disappointing.

[FrodosPet]

84. President Obama is a very charismatic man

Sens. Sanders and Warren are both very intelligent and committed to helping people. But neither has the combination of energizing charm and ability to connect to the common man and woman like the President does. He can be sophisticated one moment, folksy the next, and it is all natural.

[Cha]

93. True.. and that's why the m$m pushed that he couldn't connect to people.. they went

after his strengths. Always saying there was an "enthusiasm gap" when the pics made them out the Liars that they are.

[Mnpaul]

95. And yet

Sanders is able to connect with the "common man" in his own state and win as an independent, pulling support from both parties.

I would bet most people would rather listen to Bernie than Obama. People don't want bs talking points, they want the truth.

[JI7]

92. Obama was not an uknown, from the time of the 2004 speech he was getting worldwide attention

[Logical]

99. Yes he was! Early polling shows he was! Hillary lost a huge lead! nt

[JI7]

100. early polling showed Hillary has a Pres Lead, but not that OBama was an unknown

OBama was very well known worldwide after the 2004 speech. and there were support groups for OBama this time before the 2008 elections.

[Logical]

101. Hillary lost a 40 point lead, that is all you need to know! nt

[JI7]

102. no, that's too simplistic and ignores Obama's incredible talent

[Logical]

103. Well, if no one incredibly talented comes along, Hillary get it! :-)

[JI7]

104. i'm talking about a specific type of talent that can appeal to large numbers of people

which would help to go up against Clinton and all the power behind that because there is a lot there.

[dsc]

122. actually she lost no support

she was in the mid 40's in the polls and wound up with 49. Her problem was that she picked up no additional support.

[billhicks76]

71. No One Likes A Fake

Hillary is our Cantor.

[Little Star]

9. I agree.

[Andy823]

97. I agree and I disagree

I do agree with you that if she runs it's all over, she gets the nomination. But until I see who else is running I don't agree that if she doesn't run, then we lose to the republicans. Republicans have a pretty good group of "clowns" running again, and we still have a good chance of winning if the right candidate jumps in. Don't ask me who that would be because right now, until we know for sure who might run, I couldn't name any names. I just think that the way republicans are going, alienating just about every group in the country but the supper rich an corporations, their odds are not going to improve, that's good no matter who runs as the democratic nominee against them.

I do agree though that if she runs, she wins the nomination and the WH.

[truebrit71]

11. None of the liberals I know are enthused about her AT ALL....

fwiw

[VanillaRhapsody]

22. exceptions dont change the rule

[leftynyc]

29. ALL the liberals I know

will not only vote for her but will work on her campaign. I know it sounds like I'm just pushing back on your post but it happens to be the truth. She's incredibly popular in NY.

[truebrit71]

43. The liberals I know will mostly vote for her, but they'll probably campaign for someone...

...more aligned with their views...just like I will...

[Iliyah]

83. Me me me

If she runs I'll work with her campaign. She's popular in California as well.

It doesn't take a rocker scientist to know exactly what the GOP party are doing. Coming to the DU I see a lot of GOPers talking points here as well.

[leftynyc]

118. This website has gone so far

from its beginning it feels like someplace else. The primary wars here made what's happening in the repub party look like a picnic. The difference is that I can't think of even one poster that didn't get on board with the Pres Obama campaign as soon as Hillary suspended hers. I was on cafepress.com that very day ordering my shirts and buttons. As far as I was concerned, Hillary and Obama were virtually the same - the differences were so minor as to be irrelevant and yet you would have thought Obama was a raging liberal and Hillary a neocon right wing nightmare. It was ridiculous. Then when Pres Obama governed like the moderate left Democrat he was, everyone was outraged. Well, not everyone - the Hillary voters already knew he wasn't the raging liberal he was claimed to be.

[Zorra]

12. So MSM has redifined the word liberal to include right leaning centrists. What a surprise. nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

24. can you prove that is in play here.....or is this off the top of your head?

[Zorra]

65. Maybe. Do you consider yourself a liberal? nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

129. of course I do.....

I am also a loyal Yellow Dog Democrat...

[Zorra]

132. But you appear to enthusiastically support a potential pro-corporate

neoliberal presidential candidate as the Democratic nominee, the chosen candidate of the faux-liberal fascist Third Way party, who by all appearances wish to preserve the status quo of continual expansion of privatization, polarization of wealth, weakening of our social programs, such as Social Security, and the highly destructive MIC war machine economy of the bankster oligarchs, if she is elected President.

With all due respect, I don't understand how you can possibly accurately self-identify as a liberal Democrat under these circumstances.

Here is some rah rah go HRC propaganda bullshit from the, conservative, neoliberal, pro oligarchy, pro_MIC corporatist Third Way party, whose views on Hillary Clinton's desirability as our next President you appear to share.

Third Way Perspectives

The first woman president is not about the past
March 10th, 2014
by Bill Schneider

Want to see excitement? Look at the polls. In the latest CBS News-New York Times survey, 64 percent of Americans say they would like to see Clinton run for president. No other potential contender in either party — Vice President Joe Biden, Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo — gets more than 33 percent.
snip---
Educated, upper-middle-class liberals like Warren and New York Mayor Bill de Blasio are trying to push the Democratic Party away from Bill Clinton’s New Democratic centrism toward what they regard as a more populist direction.

That’s the populism of the Occupy movement. It’s very popular at Harvard, where Warren used to teach, and Park Slope, Brooklyn, where de Blasio lived. The Clintons’ populist appeal is more authentic. They don’t talk about going after Wall Street or rich people or big business. They talk about bringing back prosperity.
snip---
One thing Clinton can’t promise to do is end the polarization of U.S. politics. The last four presidents — two Republicans and two Democrats — promised to do that. They all failed. In the CBS-Times poll, an overwhelming 82 percent of Democrats say they would like to see Clinton run for president.

Anyone, even Anne Coulter, can claim to be a liberal; just as anyone can claim to be Mary Poppins.

[VanillaRhapsody]

133. I support whoever wins the democratic primary....dont you?

Google Hillary Clinton on the issues to see why I categorically deny your premise and find to your dismay she is a Liberal to the left of Obama. Which is why I supported her before him!

[Zorra]

136. Yeah, I will vote for her in the GE if she's nominated, in the hope she turns on her bankster

handlers. I really do think she has serious potential to go rogue.

I will be leaving the US to go live in another country soon after the 2016 election, unless a real Democrat wins. If Hillary wins, and she goes rogue, or there is a serious pro-democracy direct action driven movement, or both, I will return to the US and help do what must be done to save the country and the planet.

Otherwise, at that point, it's over, and I'm not going to waste my time here fighting an already irrevocably lost battle, when I can be sipping Mojitos in a palapa, watching a gorgeous sunset while laying in a hammock on a beautiful tropical beach.

(Oh, and left of Obama means what? Slightly less moderate republican?)

[leftynyc]

31. I'm sure they're using self-described liberals

That you don't consider them liberals is completely irrelevant.

[truebrit71]

45. ...and therein lies the problem...

...besides, didn't Obama "self-describe" himself as a moderate republican once?

[leftynyc]

126. No - it's not a problem at all

Everybody gets to make those decisions for themselves and it's not for you or me to define who is a liberal. That so many here bought into the "he's more liberal than Hillary" nonsense is their problem.

[truebrit71]

127. The irony here is that neither are liberals...

....and yes, when people identify themselves incorrectly, as is most likely in this case, it skews things, as in the results of this poll.

I can decide to label myself a seagull, doesn't make me one, by my standards, or anyone else's.

And therein lies the problem...

[freshwest]

13. The 'Liberal' brand isn't pure enough, so it will have to be discarded by some now:

[DeSwiss]

17. This is one LIBERAL they didn't poll.

- I'm sure Hils asked them to leave me out of it though......

[VanillaRhapsody]

30. awwww.....then i guess that proves it!

the results MUST be made up.....

[KamaAina]

19. Um, who exactly are these conservative Dems supporting?

Please don't tell me LIEberman is jumping in!!

[raouldukelives]

25. She makes MLK look like Ayn Rand! nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

32. tell the truth you never read Ayn Rand

have you?

[Ed Suspicious]

26. Any excuse to nudge us more rightward.

Must work to appease bluedogs!

[VanillaRhapsody]

33. how so?

are you claiming the poll is fraud?

[Ed Suspicious]

41. I'm saying that I've read How to Lie With Statistics

and I know how easily poll results can be manipulated. I do not put much stock in polls. They can be useful and occasionally informative, but I think the offer an air of scientific credibility that is mostly useful as leverage toward a desired narrative.

What did Eric Cantor's pollsters convince themselves of in his recent loss? 30 point favorite? Polls aren't useless, they're usually just used for a different purpose than you think.

[VanillaRhapsody]

44. apoor excuse is better than none i suppose

This is overwhelming.......it would be outright made up. I dont like the results therefore the whole thing is false.... Just like a good ideologue

[truebrit71]

46. "just like a good ideologue"....you must be irony-deficient mate...

[VanillaRhapsody]

48. a realist like myself can compromise

i support whoever wins the primary and you wont see me trash Demcrats......but you cannot compromise on you dogma.....THAT is an ideologue.....Look it up!


And now I laugh at you....

[truebrit71]

51. Yup...

...so sez the Centrist-Toe-The-Line-Obama-Is-The-Bestest-President- EVAHHHHH guy...

[Dragonfli]

55. In all fairness VR is a gal not a guy, but the rest is correct /nt

[truebrit71]

57. I stand corrected...thanks

[Ed Suspicious]

56. Did I say that? I said I don't put much faith in opinion polls; Full Stop. I referenced a poll

by the other team whose data was misconstrued and likely used to convince their employer of a happier narrative than reality. I am an equal opportunity skeptic of opinion polling. I've designed and conducted polling in college. I am a poli-sci major who will be pursuing graduate studies in just over a year in the same field, and I see wonky, ill-fitting conclusions drawn every day. I see selection bias. I see push polling. I see error all over the place for a multitude of reasons. I don't disbelieve statics, I find them to be the reasonable background for many a convincing story. Opinion polling as a science unscientific. I see them to be about as useful for fine point prediction as astrology. You might disagree, but my opinion of opinion polling does not make me an ideologue.

[Ed Suspicious]

63. She may well find greater support among self described left leaning liberals, vs an unknown

more leftist candidate, but that could easily be explained away, when she is the only real announced candidate who is facing attacks from the right, as a circling of the wagons. Also, if polled, Hillary vs Anybody more left of her, I may reply Hillary simply because the unknown quantity is unknown and may be a stinker of a candidate. I would prefer a centrist Hillary over Ted Cruz, or Dipshit Perry Texas any day of the week. Most people are smart enough to know that it takes more than "anyone left of Mrs. Clinton" to equal competent candidate. We'll vote for the win when faced with Bluedog vs batshit crazy.

[Cali_Democrat]

73. Republicans didn't put much stock into the 2012 polls either

Actually, they took it a step further and decided to create their own "unskewed" polls.

Look how that worked out for them....

[billhicks76]

76. So Much Faith In Polls

I have faith in people. Poll results get manipulated all the time. A Zogby poll back in 2006 said 59% of New Yorkers believed that the Our government facilitated a conspiracy and a coverup on 911. Given your posts I hardly see you believing that. I definitely don't believe active liberals prefer Hillary...she is the preferred by conservatives and a Wall St has already publicly said so. She is the candidate of Wall St, the war machine, the surveillance state and the drug war. She even tried to suck support out of medical marijuana proponents without actually supporting it by dropping shallow hints she might support it with more research. Sanjay Gupta looks like a hippie next to her. She is beholden to Big Pharma and for that matter BigEverything. I cannot wait to campaign for someone else and watch her get in trouble for more self-serving lies she is bound to distort reality with.

[jeff47]

34. Yea, screw this 2014 election crap. Time to move on to 2016. (nt)

[Raine1967]

98. THIS!

I am far more concerned with NOVEMBER than 2016. 5.5 months.

I live in a fairly safe district. What are people doing to try to flip the house and make the senate stronger?

I would really like, to be very honest, to see Hillary helping the dems out in this regard.

[Scootaloo]

35. Vs. what other candidates?

OH WAIT, that's right, there aren't any!

[whatchamacallit]

39. Then there's a problem with the modern definition of liberal

Because Hillary isn't even in the ballpark.

[Dragonfli]

60. The modern definition of liberal is neoliberal, so there is that.

Just like the Progressive Policy Institute is not progressive.
[font size="1"](they advocate cutting the safety net, free trade that sends jobs overseas and trickle down economics to name a few of their greatest hits)[/font]

New Democrats like redefining words, it's fun

[whatchamacallit]

61. Yup

[Egnever]

42. LOL

Sorry not buying that bs

[bowens43]

47. Liberal apprently = center/right

[TRoN33]

49. I'm a liberal yet...

I'm wary of Hillary's pro corporate and pro Wall Street flavors.

[raindaddy]

50. Anyone attacking Hillary from the left.....

would be a real live populist Democrat, not a soft-serve, third way Republican from the 70's.

[SkyDaddy7]

52. WOW!! Would have thought the opposite!!

Space left blank...




...Because obviously HRC is the DU chosen candidate 7 we are not allowed to criticize or dare speak another candidate's name...ESPECIALLY YOU KNOW WHO!!! They will will threaten you with IGNORE!!!

[beerandjesus]

53. Checkmate, liberals!!

The centrists have pwned you again!!!

[Cali_Democrat]

70. If you read the article, it's actually the centrists who have been checkmated

Liberals overwhelmingly support Hillary according to the data.

[frylock]

58. this is why i self identify as progressive rather than liberal..

the meaning of liberal has been twisted to mean "not republican" as far as I can tell anymore.

[laundry_queen]

72. That's what I see too.

And then there is the issue that the media has branded Hillary as a ' far-left liberal' so people who like her will also brand themselves as such, whether they are or not in reality.

[Chathamization]

94. It used to mean the center-left

[Android3.14]

59. She has a problem with this liberal

The former Walmart lady can't win Republicans, independents dislike her (40% saying they definitely will not vote for her), thinking progressives recognize she isn't progressive and probably is unable to win, and if she did, she would continue serving her masters rather than the American citizens.
Will she fund public universities so everyone who has the ability and desire can go to college? No.
Will she launch an Apollo style program to wean us off the oil teat? No.
Will she back a living wage? No.
Will she redirect the trillions we spend on the military in order to rebuild American infrasructure? No.
Will she shut down the NSA's domestic surveillance? No.
This is a bad choice for America.

[djean111]

62. Well, then, why so relentlessly panties-twisted and rude about those of us who do not

like her? We obviously are a teensy little group of fake dems, right? She must be a shoo-in!!!!! Bwah!
Looks like there is a real earnest and relentless effort to stave off any primary, because the last time she was in a primary, it didn't work out so well.
Oh, and I do not do the lockstep thing. I don't give a shit about polls, I don't vote according to any polls. I vote according to policy. And learned my lesson about what is real and what is just campaign blather, last time.

[laundry_queen]

74. ^^ this. nt

[beerandjesus]

123. +1

We're all just gonna vote for Rand Paul anyway, right?


By the way, gotta love how "liberal" is being defined for us by a group of partisans who never miss an opportunity to trash Ralph Nader, a true liberal icon.

[Larkspur]

66. Maybe this is why former Gov. Brian Schwitzer (D-MT)

is leaning to the right.

I'm not a fan of the Clintons and distrust Hillary when it comes to Wall Street, H-1B Visas + outsourcing of jobs, but she is the best qualified woman right now to run for Prez.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

68. It's still up to her to convince enough voters to vote for her.

I'm still, and expect to remain, unconvinced.

[fbc]

69. I know multiple independants (ex-repub) that love Warren and can't stand Clinton

Warren could steal votes from Republicans. I don't see Clinton doing that.

Many voters, regardless of affiliation, are fed up with Wall Street and corporate sponsored politicians. They see Clinton as more of the same.

[woo me with science]

82. Typical MSM corporate propaganda poll that relies entirely on

on personalities and labels, rather than asking about a single important issue to lend meaning to the word, "liberal."

The only "issue" mentioned here at all is Benghazi, the quintessential MSM shiny object. Anything important - the economy, the surveillance state, the TPP - is deliberately omitted.

This vapid horse race is what our elections have been perverted into, deliberately, by oligarchs who don't want the public to discuss actual issues or even to be aware of them. Politics is presented to the country as a team sport, where you root for your team or your favorite celebrity, and nothing more.

This is why the official Democratic Party survey of voters for 2014 lacked questions about most of the major issues of the day. It's also why we can get through an entire election season on this board with incessant posts by the corporate crew here in defense of their candidates, an infinitesimal percentage of which actually contain any reference to policy.

The corporatists know that when voters are polled on policy, they choose policy on the left. That is why the elections have been deliberately dumbed down to this level, and why we are presented with this incessant, meaningless propaganda of labels rather than actual issues.

[Baitball Blogger]

85. That's odd. I would expect her base to be conservative Dems.

[Divernan]

87. WHERE ARE LINKS? to claim Warren "has said repeatedly that she won't run for pres.in 2016?"

First I saw repeated references from Clinton supporters that Warren had signed a letter along with other Dem. women urging Clinton to run. But I never saw any copy of any actual letter. So first, I'd sincerely appreciate it, to see that. Now the claims are being made (as in the OP) that Warren has said repeatedly that she "won't run for President in 2016". Again, I'd appreciate it if someone would post one or more links detailing exactly when, where and to whom she said it, and of course her exact words. Never the less, assuming some avid HRC supporter is civil enough to dot those i's and cross those t's, there is no law, regulation, rule or court opinion barring anyone who has made such statements from changing his/her mind and jumping into the race. It's happened before (Obama) and it will happen again. I know it, and you all know it. As does the man who wrote the article quoted in the OP.

I have been encouraged by WArren's writing a new book - something all presidential candidates do, often before actually declaring (as-has-yet-to-declare HRC, now on her book tour) and how Warren has spoken out boldly on hot topic issues and confronted Republican politicians. Based on my 50+ years as an active Democrat who has always actively worked on campaigns from the local govt. to the presidential level, Warren is positioning herself to declare.

As the blogger/author, Mr. Blake, continued, in the link from the OP:

As we've argued before, there is indeed plenty of desire among Democrats for the message being touted by folks like Warren, and she would likely quickly gain support if she changed her mind and decided to run.

But the same crowd that likes Warren's message and would seem to like Warren herself seems more than content with the idea of Hillary Clinton for president -- at least right now. Things can always change, and the Clintons can indeed be tied to the "1 percent" pretty easily.

The biggest advantage Elizabeth Warren has over any competition is that she's the "hottest" politician in Washington. According to a recent Politico article, Warren ranks ahead of Clinton, as well as her possible Republican challengers in a Quinnipiac University poll:

When Americans were asked to give prominent politicians a score, zero to 100, of how "warm," or favorable, they feel toward that person, Massachusetts Democratic Senator Warren was the highest-rated of the bunch with a "temperature" of 48.6, according to a Quinnipiac poll out Thursday...

Clinton was in second place at 47.8...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/elizabeth-warren-not-hill_b_5491171.html

[brooklynite]

113. How's this?

Sen. Elizabeth Warren says she hopes Hillary Rodham Clinton runs for president in 2016 — the latest in a series of declarations of support by the Massachusetts Democrat, who some have speculated could seek the Oval Office herself.

"All all of the women — Democratic women I should say — of the Senate urged Hillary Clinton to run, and I hope she does. Hillary is terrific," Warren said during an interview broadcast Sunday on ABC's "This Week," noting that she was one of several senators to sign a letter urging Clinton to run in 2016.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/04/27/elizabeth-warren-i-hope-hillary-clinton-runs-for-president/

Of course, maybe the Washington Post made the whole story up, right?

[Divernan]

121. Why, thank you so very much! (channeling Brenda Lee Johnson for southern accent)

It has always puzzled and bothered me that so many start their summary dismissal of Warren with that claim, but never cited a link to back it up. Unlike others on DU I have never trashed a report because it's source was the WaPo.

[KoKo]

90. Cool...but her Book was still 30% off in the Big Rack in Barnes & Noble

when I last went into there. It's not unusual for a book to be discounted when "B&N" is one of the few booksellers left in cities where one can purchase.

I assume the Amazon Sales and others would have higher purchases from all of us online these days. But, there are folks who still buy at "B&N" so it would be interesting to know why it was 30% off.

It's a large book with wide margins and typeface (indicating from my Book Publishing Days that is was a "Fluff Book" with the heft of the large margins and typeface meaning it was a rushed out job meant more for Politics than thoughtful, incisive reading with many footnotes and introspection.). Thumbing through it....didn't make me want to buy it because the few "juicy bits" were already out there on the Internet.

But, hopefully those who wanted to read it bought it and she is doing as well as many of her supporters say in book sales. I'm only giving you my "B&N" experience.

[840high]

105. My grocery store had it 25% off. I will

not buy it.

[William769]

96. kick & recommended.

[treestar]

106. Interesting peek into the real world

Hope you don't get accused of being LoZoccolo,

[Bonobo]

108. The problem? Conservative Dems also identify themselves as "liberal dems".

But that doesn't mean they are.

Thank you, you've been a lovely audience.

[Cali_Democrat]

111. What do you mean? I assume you're referring to self identification...

...which is what all political polls use to identify Dems, republicans, liberals, conservatives etc...

Do you have some kind of evidence to back up your assertion?

I'm not calling you a liar, but a link would be nice.

Thanks.

[Bonobo]

114. It is evident.

Otherwise how do you explain the large number of DUers that are liberal Dems but oppose her?

Will you continue the unjustified claim that DU is not representative as those here are far to the left of even those that represent what you claim is the left wing if the Democratic Party?

[Cali_Democrat]

115. So you have no real evidence to back up your assertion

Online polls, groups, and forums are not scientific samples. That's why most Internet polls have a scientific disclaimer at the bottom saying "this is not a scientific poll".

Also, you appear to be basing your opinion on this number of posts you see on DU. That's certainly not scientific. It's possible that the folks opposed to her are simply more vocal and participate in online forums more.

Basing your claim on the number of posts on DU doesn't make any sense.

Actually it's a little amusing.

[Bonobo]

116. I'm unconvinced that you know what "scientific" means.

But no, I do not have "evidence".

This is a discussion board and I am presenting my opinion.

In fact, if you understand what constitutes "evidence", you would readily admit that the "11% of liberal deems" is itself quite spurious and does not represent any proof of ANYTHING.

It is all opinion and mine is one as well, albeit based on 12 years of observing DU.

So answer the question. Is it your claim that DU is SUCH an outlier that the anti-Hillary faction represents people that are so far to the left of even "liberal Dems" that they are just off the map?

[Cali_Democrat]

131. I'm basing my assertion on an actual poll using self-identification

You're basing your assertion on the number of posts you see an online message board.

That's what I would like to call a FAIL.

Political polling is done using self-identification. As you can see from the 2012 results, this kind of polling can be very accurate and it even caused Republicans to go out and create their own polls because they doubted the science behind the polling.

You appear to be making the same mistake.

[JI7]

117. yeah, if you go by DU polls Kucinich and Edwards each had far more support

than Obama and Clinton combined .

[djean111]

137. "Otherwise how do you explain the large number of DUers that are liberal Dems but oppose her? "

By calling the DUers who oppose her right-wing trolls and plants.
The nastiness towards those of us who oppose her seems almost intended to drive Dems away......because it surely would be idiotic to suppose the rudeness would change any minds, or even make the I Heart Hillary Club something one would want to join because of the membership.

I suppose if Hillary gets the nom, we will all be asked to cheer on things like the TPP, just to show solidarity. Not gonna happen.

[hatrack]

109. Would post an opinion, but like HRC on Keystone, "I can't say" ...

[abelenkpe]

110. Telephone poll

"Interviews with 1,003 adult Americans conducted by telephone by ORC International on May 29-June 1, 2014. The margin of sampling error for results based on the total sample is plus or minus 3 percentage points"

Don't know anyone under 50 who has a landline or would answer a call from an unknown number. Telephone polls aren't going to get a clear picture of voters concerns moving forward. Polls will need to include many different sources of information gathering in order to be more accurate.

[MFrohike]

112. Two things

1. If that's actually how the CNN poll was worded, I have to wonder a bit about its accuracy.

2. I have to laugh when people trumpet the Post and ABC News. All I can think is that you must not be familiar with those "news" organizations. It's like citing the less professional versions of Pravda and Izvestia.

[B Calm]

120. I said it in 2008, if Hillary is our nominee, Republicans win the presidency!

[Orsino]

124. Democrats supporting a Clinton? To varying degrees?

Astonishing. Thank God for the WaPo.

[ieoeja]

125. Further proof that ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025118919