General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsabout Hillary running
Look, I realize that we do not need to repeat the fiasco of 2000. Nader may be backing Rand Paul, but I have no illusions about the fact that the same congress and media that fights a Democratic president will fall all over themselves to obey a Republican, if not drag him further to the right themselves.
However, perhaps some of the Hillary supporters who are angry should think about why so many people are unhappy about the way the 2016 campaign is being sold to us.
One: If we simply coronate Hillary, she will have NO reason to go to the left. The moneyed interests will be there, ready to make "suggestions."
Two: By attacking those who have misgivings, many people who felt cheated are dismissed. The truth is, The democrats have been trying to exchange their base since Bill himself got elected, and that proverbial "bill" shows up at the Voting booth.
Three: The Gop still has their dirty tricks in place. It will be easy to sell the idea that Hillary lost Florida and Ohio
wyldwolf
(43,868 posts)Hillary supporters are angry because we constantly have to fend off lies from the left (here and here, for example) and the right.
should think about why so many people are unhappy about the way the 2016 campaign is being sold to us.
One: If we simply coronate Hillary, she will have NO reason to go to the left. The moneyed interests will be there, ready to make "suggestions."
No one has ever suggested a coronation. But those who don't support Hillary have an obvious problem with news of her success. If I could use a sports analogy like so many do when it comes to politics, it's like being told to shut up when your team shows the biggest potential to win in a coming season.
Two: By attacking those who have misgivings,
Ah yes, the old "if you would stop attacking us" bit coming from the mouths of the ones doing the attacking. Go through GD with an unbiased eye and see who starts attacking first.
like Billy, is a corporate shill. Want a poorer government than you have now? Coronate Hilly. Want a better government? Choose a real progressive. Personally, I will never vote for Hilly and Billy (because you will get both if you elect Hilly).
wyldwolf
(43,868 posts)Thespian2
(2,741 posts)Who signed the law to allow Wall Street bankers too ruin the economy? Oh, yes. That was Bill Clinton, helping out Phil Gramm who authored the provision.
wyldwolf
(43,868 posts)You're not making it up?? LOL
Such an old story. Are u regurgitating it because it's new to you?
Interesting how the Clintons have such astronomical approval numbers. You must be so much smarter than the rest of us.
Thespian2
(2,741 posts)how long ago Clinton helped bankers destroy the economy? Is that no longer relevant since Warren is trying to return some of the regulations? Your last sentence proves your childishness.
wyldwolf
(43,868 posts)MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)Hilly, My brain just tied you to right wing when I saw that so my first reaction was to skip it. Then I caught the Billy reference and no doubt was left in my mind where you may have crawled out from.
Thespian2
(2,741 posts)under a pile of idiotic thinking about Hillary Clinton. Go ahead, choose to continue to lose America.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)lobodons
(1,290 posts)Could care less about how close to center Hillary is. The only thing that matters is her SCOTUS picks will be be left of whoever the TPGOP candidate would pick.
merrily
(45,251 posts)She hasn't even said she's running yet.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)obxhead
(8,434 posts)That will govern as a Republican would, I'll choose neither.
I'm done supporting Democrats that act as Republicans.
OldRedneck
(1,397 posts)Let's assume the original post to which I am replying is not a GOTP troll, flopping around trying to sow dissent among Democrats.
1. There has been no coronation. We still must go through primaries, debates, and the like.
2. One response used a sports analogy in which, during the preseason, one team looks very strong -- but we still have to play the entire season during which there are upsets, injuries, player trades . . .
3. Another reply said it's about SCOTUS. Exactly. I give a damn if the Devil himself (herself?) is the Democratic candidate in 2016 -- just so s/he hangs on for January 2017 - January 2025, long enough to fill judicial vacancies with liberals.
3. It's also about the Senate and the House. In 2016, Republicans must defend 23 Senate seats. A few months ago I read an analysis that claimed 6-7 of these are safe GOTP seats, 6-8 are probable Democratic wins, and the rest range from lean D to lean R. We need someone at the top of the ticket with long, strong coattails to take both the House and the Senate. Do any of Hillary's challengers have that capability?
merrily
(45,251 posts)I've been hearing since 2012 from Democrats that no one will challenge her *wink* if *wink* she decides to run.
But no, no one was trying to make that a self-fulfilling prophesy. No one at all.
Thank goodness, Democrats have been pushing back against the anointing attempts that began over four years before the 2016 Presidential both prematurely and unanimously. The flacks seem to have toned it down a bit. But, for almost two years, it was as ludicrous as it was transparent.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)and the years I have been here show I am NOT a GOTP troll. as far as GOTP, this campaign so far seemes to fit the Hillary is queen types, "Get out the Progressive (so we can crown Hillary.)