How would you vote in a HRC vs. Warren primary race?

[Ken Burch]

It may or may not happen, granted...and there's a lot of time between now and then...and we do need to work like hell this year to fight the Right...but still...the question is out there.

for those favoring other candidates. just assume that those other candidates aren't running for, for the purposes of this poll.

66 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	HRC
	13 (20%)
	Warren
	52 (79%)
	No preference.
	1 (2%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[hrmjustin]

1. Hillary. n/t

[Algernon Moncrieff]

2. Hillary

I think DU is far more pro-Warren than the population-at-large, Plus, she keeps saying she won't run.

[hrmjustin]

4. I don't think Warren will run in the end.

I wish we had a hundred Warrens in the senate.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

5. Warrens and Frankens - I'm with you there

https://secure.alfranken.com/page/contribute

SEND MONEY TO AL!

[hrmjustin]

6. Great man!

[Peregrine]

10. and Krugman or Reich

Lets get serious on the economy. And it would make a great VP debate.

[closeupready]

66. No thanks. Reich is anti-union. Any ticket

with him on it ... gonna be real hard to show up and vote, let alone GOTV.

[Distant Quasar]

89. You mean Robert Reich? Clinton's secretary of labor?

The guy who has spoken out again and again about the importance of strong labor unions and why their decline has been bad for America?

Or are you thinking of someone else?

[Reter]

53. Franken is a fraud

His votes in support of the Patriot Act and NDAA made me sick.

[HERVEPA]

58. Fine in-depth anaylsis

[Reter]

111. I'm sorry but those are two huge issues

I know he's good on almost everything else. But those are some of my main issues. It's like saying 2001 was a great year, except for 9/11. That one thing ruined the whole year.

[yuiyoshida]

20. I agree with you 100%

Its really too bad too, if she doesn't run. Still, I think the Republicans will have no respect for the first woman President. I am sure things will come out eventually, showing how misogynistic they really are.

[merrily]

27. Republicans will have no respect for any President who is not a Republican.

[Logical]

14. If she is the nominee I would hold my nose, and money, and vote for her. Nt

[Johonny]

3. I voted for Barabbas

[Iggo]

11. Wewease Wodewick.

[Laelth]

26. +1 for the Monty Python allusion. n/t

-Laelth

[riqster]

30. Wait, Pontiuth! I may be of thome atthitanth!

[blkmusclmachine]

8. I think Hillary Clinton would be to the political <<RIGHT>> of Obama. NO THANKS!!!

[gwheezie]

9. As of now HRC

Hillary has already answered the questions I've had about her. I still have questions about Warren. Frankly either of them would be better than which ever loon the teagop runs. I can't imagine Warren being worse than the teagop person. I refuse to get into a Clinton vs Warren war. I avoided the Obama Clinton war in 08.

[RKP5637]

56. Agree!!! n/t

[SidDithers]

12. Kucinich used to win polls like this too...nt

Sid

[Logical]

16. Lol, nice try! nt

[wyldwolf]

45. I'd say it was a slam dunk success

Not only did Kucinich win polls like this, so did Howard Dean. Maybe even John Edwards.

[NightWatcher]

17. I was just thinking this too

Each election cycle DU falls in love with a candidate that breaks their heart. Kucinich was a heartbreaker and others held out for Edwards and dodged that bullet.

I'm more curious to see who the RWNJ's put up. Are they pragmatists, does a teahadist get in, or do they split their 45% between two candidates, allowing Hillary to skate in?

[Ken Burch]

18. Kucinich didn't break ANYBODY's heart.

He was lead-piped by the party insiders from the get-go.

[MohRokTah]

33. He lead piped himself with stupid shit

Nobody who says the military option is off the table for ALL foreign policy issues is intelligent enough to be president.

The man was stupid.

[Octafish]

48. When did Kucinich say that?

Nothing on the GOOGLE. Got a link?

[MohRokTah]

52. Real Time with Bill Maher, April 29, 2007

The moron even refused to say he'd give the order to kill bin Laden.

No person who refuses to keep the military option on the table can be president. EVER.

[Laelth]

69. Sadly, I agree.

As much as I admire and respect DK, it is unwise and politically incompetent to rule out a military response to a threat to the people of the United States. That said, not all liberals are absolute doves, and I don't think that DK represents the liberal position fairly on the Bin Laden issue.

-Laelth

[Ken Burch]

70. There's pretty much no use for war other than territorial defense now, though.

There will never be another U.S.military intervention in other countries that can possibly have humane or progressive results-especially in the Middle East.

And wars of "our national interests" are just wars of corporate interests.

Dennis is on the side of the human race. "Liberal hawks" are just conservatives who like to pretend they used to care about the poor .

And a president who's as ok with war as your candidate is will be incapable of doing anything positive domestically...because you can't do progressive things AND maintain a big war machine...the resources aren't there.

No one who wants peace deserves hatred.

[MohRokTah]

71. He was a fool.

Fortunately, the fool is washed up in politics.

[Ken Burch]

73. He wasn't a fool and he doesn't deserve your derision.

Being a hawk means giving up on social justice, human equality, and any hope for peace. You can't support a big defense budget and still want a decent world. War is the abandonment of hope.

[Octafish]

81. Thanks.

BTW: Anyone who thinks Kucinich wouldn't be a good president doesn't know him very well.

[MohRokTah]

83. Fortunately, we will never know what sort of president Kucinich would be. eom

[Octafish]

86. You are so right. And if we keep thinking your way, all we'll get are warmongers and war profiteers.

It's been that way, pretty much non-stop, since Nov. 22, 1963.

[MohRokTah]

90. .

[Octafish]

94. Roll your eyes all you want. US involvement in Vietnam lasted, what, 1953-1973?

US involvement in Afghanistan has lasted, what, since 2001? And here it is 2014.

In between, there've been a lot more wars. Not much money for peace, though. But, like the warmonger Baby Doc Bush said on Feb. 14, 2007:

"Money trumps peace." And then he laughed.

I remember Cindy Sheehan tried to bring it to our nation's attention.

As for his Poppy: Bush Sr told the FBI he was in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963.

[MohRokTah]

97. .

You may just want to look up the military history of the United States. We were involved in multiple conflicts prior to the assassination of JFK by the lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald.

[Octafish]

99. Not to the point that the whole purpose of government is to send money to warmongers.

Which is what it's become since Nov. 22, 1963.

[MohRokTah]

100. .

The government didn't send money to the warmongers in 1860?

The government didn't send money to the warmongers from 1865-1891?

The government didn't send money to warmongers in 1898?

The government didn't send money to warmongers from 1899-1902 in support ot the Phillipine American war?

I could go on.

There's nothing magical between the war machine and November 22, 1963, no matter how many false constructs you wish to create around the date.

[brooklynite]

50. The problem with CTs like this is they're lazy...

They fit into people's presuppositions, but fall apart the moment you think about them.

Let's assume that the "Party Insiders" did block Kucinich's campaign. If they HADN'T, explain how one of the most liberl members of the HOUSE, who couldn't win an expanded district much less a statewide race, would appeal to a national Democratic electorate.

[Laelth]

25. Quite true.

DU has always been rather liberal, overall. If only the same could be said of the Democratic Party at present.

-Laelth

[riqster]

31. I backed Denny Kooch in the primaries.

An honest man.

[Laelth]

38. I backed Jesse Jackson in the 1988 Georgia primary.

(an old campaign button that I proudly keep and cherish)

And Jesse Jackson won the Georgia primary that year. I have a long history of backing liberals whom the "wiser" and more "pragmatic" members of the party have regularly assured me could never win a national election. I thought they were full of crap then, and I think the same now.

-Laelth

[riqster]

42. That is how the primaries should operate.

Good on you!

[Laelth]

47. Here's the thing.

I am of the opinion that Democrats should run as Democrats and that liberals should run as liberals. Win or lose, I want Democrats to run as Democrats and not as Republican-lite. Winning as Republican-lite does us no good, in the long run, because each and every betrayal of Democratic principles tells the electorate that they can't trust the Party to support our own stated beliefs. To the extent that the Democratic Party is the liberal party in the United States, I think we should be liberals, and we should win or lose upon that basis.

Thus, I say, let's nominate real liberals, now and forevermore. Win or lose, at least we're trustworthy and consistent. We must show that we will always support working people, even if that means we nominate a candidate that has a chance of losing an election. Personally, I don't think we will lose very often if we run liberals because, 9 times of of 10, liberals are right as history has demonstrated.

I note that Harry Truman made a similar argument long ago:

I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman

-Laelth

[riqster]

51. In principle, given a fair and honest contest, I agree.

Sad to say, I often find myself voting against Teapubbies instead of for Dems.

I will vote against the greater of two evils, every time. But it would be nice to vote for a non-evil once in a while.

[LWolf]

110. For good reason. nt

[dembotoz]

13. warren and it is not even close

have to admit
never liked the clintons
bill or hillary


admire chelse though

[BainsBane]

15. I have a general rule about picking candidates.

I wait until there is an actual election with declared candidates and then I decide before it's time to vote. I don't play fantasy presidential politics league.

[Go Vols]

21. This seems to be a hypothetical question in the OP

Sorta like, "if you won the lottery", what ....

[Laelth]

43. In all fairness, you seem to be quite concerned ...

... about an issue that you think is irrelevant at this time.



-Laelth

[BainsBane]

85. I didn't say it was irrelevant

I said I wait until a election when I can hear the candidates discuss their views and then make a decision. At this point it is fantasy presidential politics because we have no actual candidates.

[6000eliot]

19. Not gonna happen.

[Historic NY]

22. Again with BS polls Waren said she wasn't running I believe her...

BTW Hillary hasn't said she was running either . Lets worry about 2016 insteasd of crafting some bullshit that isn't or hasn't happened.

[Enthusiast]

23. This is an easy one.

[Laelth]

107. Agreed. n/t

-Laelth

[Laelth]

24. k&r for Elizabeth Warren. n/t

-Laelth

[merrily]

28. Nothing says Warren and Hillary will be the choices, or the only choices.

I don't know who I will be voting for in a primary, but I know it won't be Hillary. So, I said Warren. But that may or may not happen.

[wandy]

29. Honestly, I would flip a coin and then fully support the primary winner.

[TBF]

32. I'd vote for Warren but Hillary would win here in TX -

and then I would support her in the general.

I do think Hillary is the stronger candidate in a national field. We are all political junkies of varying degrees, but folks have no clue who Elizabeth Warren is (folks in general). Hell, folks in general are lucky if they can name the president/VP at any given point in time.

[northoftheborder]

105. I did phone banking for Hillary in 2004 primary here in TX and....

.....we were calling to South Texas, the border areas, and 9 out of 10 people I talked to were going to vote for HRC. She almost won Texas, it was close.

[TBF]

106. I was a co-precinct leader

In Brazoria. The Latina women especially wanted Hillary.

[StevieM]

113. She won the primary (eom)

[northoftheborder]

114. you're right -having a brain fart here.

[tridim]

34. I'm voting for Democrats in 2014.

Are you?

[Union Scribe]

36. The OP has a choice of two Democrats. nt

[tridim]

37. It's 2014, not 2016.

Hillary vs. Warren doesn't matter AT ALL.

[doxydad]

40. Agreed!

[Union Scribe]

75. So why not ignore this hypothetical poll

Frankly a lot of things posted here "don't matter at all."

[tridim]

76. Because it is posted to divide Democrats.

Posted over and over and over and over, I might add.

November 2014 is the only thing that matters right now.

[rock]

35. HRC - I'm not falling for that again

Where an inexperienced first term senator with a big smile and shouts of "Change!", "I'm not a Washington insider!", "I'll do things differently" and other nice sounding bumper stickers are all they have to offer. Oh, wait - I didn't fall for this the first time either. Although I did have the good sense to vote for Obama when he won the primary.

[doxydad]

39. HEY! Warren ain't running!

DUers gotta snap the hell out of it!

E W said ...repeatedly, that she's not running. So, we need to get behind HRC. Pretty simple.

Maybe it's not your first choice...or would you rather see Krispie Kreme Christie sitting in the Oval Office?

This is a diversionary tactic...and about 14 months too early.


Just sayin'...

[DiverDave]

49. The question is pretty

specific, not who is running or not.
I will hold my nose if hill gets the nomination but I would much prefer liz.

Clinton is too tight with the folks that are dragging us down.

[doxydad]

62. Again....

I agree, but the TeapubliKKKans would love to divide the Dems at this point. I'm not falling for that.

[winter is coming]

64. So we're only allowed one candidate, for fear of the TeapubliKKKans? Fuck that noise. n/t

[doxydad]

79. Did not say that.

Let's review: WARREN IS NOT RUNNING. HRC will get the crown, regardless of whomever wants to run. deal with the FACTS, not some pie-in-the-sky-hooey-hopey-horsehockey. Not gonna happen. She's NOT RUNNING.

[winter is coming]

103. Okay, so which candidates *are* people allowed to speculate on without "dividing the Dems"?

If HRC will get the crown (ugh), regardless of who runs, why are people so concerned about dividing the Dems?

[DiverDave]

77. Nobody will change my mind.

and if I'm still alive I will vote for the D.

[CTyankee]

108. Well, if she's not running she won't be on a ballot, will she?

At least that's the way I see it. I will vote for her in the primary but if HRC gets the nom I will vote for her in the general.

[99Forever]

41. I want another choice.

One that doesn't support war crimes and their perpetrators.

[doxydad]

80. Me too.

See you in 2020

[madokie]

44. In that case I'd go with Lizzy

but I'll vote for the Democratic nominee no matter who it is. Elizabeth is new blood, something I think our country sorely needs, so I have to go with her first.
I'll leave it at that

[Javaman]

46. What??? No Lee Mercer????

All Three!!!

[pinto]

54. GOTV - 2014 !

There's plenty of time for 2016.

[MineralMan]

55. Ask me again when candidates begin announcing that

they are running in those primaries. I can't answer now. Nobody has declared his or her candidacy. This poll is meaningless, given that fact.

[Laelth]

57. Meaningless?

I think I understand what you're driving at, but the interest that this thread has generated shows that many DU readers and posters disagree with you about the relative import of the question posed by the OP.



-Laelth

[MineralMan]

59. Just posting my opinion.

You're welcome to take it for whatever you think it is worth.

[wyldwolf]

60. Only REAL polls are meaningless at this point. DU polls carry actual electoral implications

[Laelth]

63. Disappointing.

I'd like to believe that the opinions of the members of the democratic wing of the Democratic Party actually meant something to the party as a whole. Your far-too-quick dismissal of our desires and opinions is cause for concern.

-Laelth

[wyldwolf]

65. LOL

No, see, every time... EVERY TIME... someone posts a REAL poll that shows Hillary WAAAY ahead, someone (often, many) will say (said in a mocking voice) "but polls are meaningless now."

[Laelth]

67. That's true.

I don't deny it, and to the extent that you were merely pointing out the hypocrisy of some of your fellow Democrats, I understand where you are coming from.

How useful that might be is another question to which I have no answer. I shall leave you to your own devices on that subject.

-Laelth

[Laelth]

61. I think that you are a good and honorable person.

And you are welcome to take that compliment, sincerely intended, for whatever you think it is worth.

-Laelth

[Sheri]

68. warren all the way!

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

72. I'd like to know more about Warren

I like what I see on one or two issues but I need to know more. I never get carried away with politicians or fall in love with them. They have to really earn my vote. The last politician I worshiped was JFK and I was 12 years old.

[Laelth]

78. This would be a good place to start.

Here: http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Elizabeth_Warren.htm



Enjoy!

-Laelth

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

74. I'd prefer Sanders but would settle for Warren. HRC, no way.

[joeybee12]

82. I voted for Hilary but I'd like a "never gonna happen" option...

Liz is not going to run...at least not in 2016

[Xyzse]

84. I will vote for someone else.

This basically makes me feel like the election in 2008.
People are going towards two people (Hillary and Obama, now Hillary and Warren), one a well known problematic candidate(less problematic now), while the others is relatively unknown (Warren has not entered the general public consciousness yet).

She has impressed me more than Obama has, around the same time frame. People looked at him as a savior, and he had a minster-type presence and method of speech. Warren, is looked at as a savior but she does not have the same speaking style. Which I think is a plus in her favor.

Saying that however, I will still most likely support a different candidate for the primary when the time comes. Someone who has a much longer voting record, or probably one who started as a Governor, who has Executive experience.

[sadoldgirl]

87. 2014 is more important right now,

however, if we have to think of 2016 already, then I am for a much larger set for the primaries.

I don't know much about Governor Patrick, the other name coming to mind is Senator Brown from Ohio. And for an attack dog as VP I think Grayson would do well.

Still, I would like to see a woman as POTUS in my lifetime, although it may not be possible. Would she also get just .77 of 1 dollar?!

[dionysus]

88. warren in a primary, either in a general... but it's a fantasy scenario that most likely isn't going

to ever happen...

[NCTraveler]

91. Need to learn a lot more about Warren.

As of right now, I would lean towards Warren. Much more learning needs to be done with respect to Warren before I could write that in stone. I voted Clinton in your poll because of my lack of knowledge with respect to Warren.

[Laelth]

92. This would be a good place to start.

Here: http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Elizabeth_Warren.htm



Enjoy!

-Laelth

[NCTraveler]

96. Thank you for that Laelth. Will look when I get home tonight.

Whether Warren runs or not, I see her being a strong voice of the party. It will be worth looking into her more. Appreciated.

[Laelth]

98. My pleasure. n/t

-Laelth

[unblock]

93. i would most certainly *want* to vote warren, but i'd like to see some polls vs. republicans.

if she's a credible candidate for actually winning the general, then absolutely i'd prefer her. for the moment i answered the poll that i'd vote for warren. but if it comes down to hillary winning the general vs. warren losing the general, i'd switch to hillary.

[PeteSelman]

95. Warren obviously.

But we don't reflect general society. The average joe has no clue who Warren is.

[NuclearDem]

101. I'll decide in 2015.

[bigwillq]

102. Warren (nt)

[randys1]

104. Primary: Warren , but remember there is a Karl Rove group on here right now trying

to get you to hate Hillary

there is a link

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/08/america-rising-hillary-clinton-trolling

About this...

Please support WHOEVER you want in the primary, and if Hillary wins, then please support her because if you dont, Karl Rove wins

When Hillary Clinton declined to attend the annual Netroots Nation conference in July, the most vocal outcry came not from the progressive base, but from a Republican super-PAC founded by former staffers for Mitt Romney and the Republican National Committee. "Despite flying over Detroit, MI – the home of Netroots Nation 2014 – Hillary Clinton will not strategize with Democratic activists at the United States' 'largest progressive gathering' this weekend," the group wrote on its website. "Instead, she will be traveling from Connecticut to Minnesota in order to $ell her book." That condemnation was paired with a meme-ified graphic of Clinton waving goodbye to the "grassroots" as she flew by.

[davidpdx]

109. In a hypothetical between the two I'd chose Warren

We'll have to see who runs after the mid-terms.

[krawhitham]

112. That is a very vocal 14%

[La Lioness Priyanka]

115. HRC, dont think warren will win the general. However, if it was HRC vs o'malley

i might go with o'malley.

[Laelth]

116. Kick. n/t

-Laelth

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

117. I really don't know...

I'm one of those annoying "undecided" voters.

My main concern with Warren is whether she's have to resources and the organization necessary to win the General Election. If she were actively campaigning, then maybe I'd feel differently.

With Hillary, I have serious reservations about her overall motivation and loyalties, but fact remains that she has the connections from more than twenty years in Washington to be effective. She won't do all this things I want, and she'll probably do some things I'll hate, but on balance I think she'd do more good than harm, and she can actually get things done.

[Orsino]

118. The one who hasn't been as rich for as long...

...just as I did last time around.