The inevitable Hillary will lead to President Rand Paul.

[Savannahmann]

Everyday we get at least two posts, and often more, telling us how Hillary is inevitable, the best choice, and the only choice for Democrats. We get polling that nobody has the name recognition. We get polling about how Democratic Insiders and strategists are so excited about a Hillary Nomination that they are changing their underwear hourly. We had the campaign against Rick Perry pretty much mapped out and plotted. We could beat him with Hillary, no problem.

Then Rick Perry was indicted, and the game changed out of our favor. With Christy out, Perry was the presumptive nominee for the Rethugs. He had suffered from the image of being a blithering dumbass in the debates of the 2012 nomination. The man couldn't string a sentence together on TV to save his life. So he added glasses, because everyone knows Glasses make you look smart.

Now, Rick Perry is out, Christy is out. Who does that leave? Bush White House take three? No way that people get behind Jeb. Too much of one family. That my friends leaves the policy wonk Paul Ryan, or Rand Paul. The old boys network would prefer Paul Ryan, but they will figure out pretty quickly that they'll have more luck trying to moderate Rand than get Ryan elected at all.

Paul will win the early contests, and have momentum going into the rest of the states. His message is pretty simple, and worse, it feeds on and is encouraged by recent events. In other words, the Republican Candidate is on the Populist side of the issues. The populist side that could very well indicate the voters desires.

While Hillary is running to the right of McCain on foreign issues, Paul is going a different direction. Worse his ideas are going to resonate with the electorate. We've been at war with Terror since 9-11-2001 and people are sick of it. That's why there was no support for going into Syria. That's why President Obama suffered another drop in public approval when he started bombing ISIS. People are getting sick of it. After twelve years of bombing, and casualties, and diplomatic efforts, we're no closer to an end game than we were on 9-12-2001. Rand Paul's arguments that we need a policy of non intervention and allow people to sort out their own problems is liable to find a receptive audience. Military families tired of watching Mom or Dad or the Son or Daughter go off to fight and possibly not come home are liable to get on board. The argument Hillary will put forth that we must do this for security has been heard so often that nobody is going to buy into it. None of that has worked, so let's try something new will be the thoughts a lot of people will have.

Let me explain. Rand has a libertarian view on the drug war. He'll start with Legalizing Marijuana. People in Colorado will be interviewed and talk about all the tax revenue collected from the legalized sale of Marijuana. The public is generally pretty split on the issue, but they will probably fall on the legalize side of the issue, especially when there are a flood of drug war ruined my life over a joint news stories. So Rand will pick up support there, while Hillary will be going conservative to get the law and order vote.

Militarization of the Police. Rand has opposed it for a while, and Hillary has been silent. So the best case is she can say during the debates that she agrees with Rand Paul and his long held beliefs that she was late coming to the party about militarization of the police. Worst Case she takes the attitude that cops need that crap to protect us, or something, in an effort to shore up the law and order and conservative votes.

Either way, the Base of the Democratic Party will find themselves agreeing with Paul, and either arguing that the Conservative path is the right one to get the Democrat in the White House, thus selling out their core beliefs, or will argue that Paul is wrong about how he's doing it but right about what he wants to do. That last one loses us the White House by the way.

So let's look at the Economy. Paul has been a vocal opponent of bailing out wall street. Guess what, Occupy Wall Street was a vocal opponent. So who hasn't been a vocal opponent? Hillary because that would lose her the corporate sponsors she needs to stuff the war chest full of cash for the run.

Well, there's the NSA, which Paul has been a vocal opponent of, and Hillary has been supporting.

So to summarize. The Republican candidate will be on the Progressive side of many issues, while the Democratic Candidate will be on the regressive side of the issues. Now you're going to scream that Paul will destroy the Department of Education, slash Welfare, social security, and destroy a woman's right to choose.

The problem is that people will be willing to risk those issues to get action on the other ones. The message is going to be nothing else has worked, two administrations of bombing suspected terrorists and five thousand American Service members are dead and nothing has changed to make us more secure. Anyone want to bet that Paul doesn't use the phrase whack a mole to describe the effort against ISIS/ISIL?

So if we run the inevitable Hillary, we cede the White House to Rand Paul. Because there is no way we can out Conservative the Republicans. The Conservatives will either vote Republican, or stay home. The Liberals will vote Democratic, or stay home. It's the moderates, the folks in the middle. They'll be choosing between more of the same, and something new. What do you think they will choose?

So what do we need to do? We need to nominate a true Progressive. I'm talking Bernie Sanders, I'm talking Elizabeth Warren for the top job. I'm talking Grayson for the top job, not some sop to the LW by giving them a high position. Because nominating Hillary is giving away all the issues that are in the news. Anyone think there will be no more pictures of militarized police between now and November 2016? Anyone think that there will be no more revelations about the NSA between now and November 2016? How about stories about tax revenue in Colorado from the legalized Marijuana sales. Anyone think that we won't see any of those? Or lets talk about the war on Terror, anyone think that ISIS is going to give up and surrender because a few bombs were dropped?

How does Hillary support the attacking of ISIS which inadvertently helps Assad of Syria, you remember him the evil dictator of just last year, who will end up being our ally next year as we push intelligence and special operations types forward to identify the ISIS bases to bomb? When that happens, and it will, the press will revel in playing all the Democratic politicians who wanted to bomb the crap out of Syria to drive Assad into exile or prison day and night for days. The good news is that Hillary had said that Assad was a Reformer. Then a couple years later, that he had to go. So the good news is that we can say we were on the he's a reformer bandwagon before we were on the bomb the crap out of him bandwagon. We've just returned to our earlier position.

How did our election strategy become to be the nominee of the Defense Contractors, the Military Industrial Intelligence Conspiracy, the pro war on drugs team? Who decided that the key to getting elected was to become more interventionist than the Kaiser?

Nominate Hillary, and you hand the White House to Rand Paul. You can blame the voters for being stupid as they vote for the candidate that supports the issues that Liberals used to, but you will be doing it from outside the fenced yard of the White House.

[The Magistrate]

1. Rand Paul, Sir, Will Not Even Get The Republican Nomination, Let Alone Win The General Election

[wyldwolf]

33. indeed. Has this utter disdain for HRC blinded some on DU to electoral reality?

[shenmue]

73. Yeah

They need new hobbies.

[liberalmike27]

76. The MSM

Deeply embedded with the MIC, will never allow anyone who is anti-war to win "either" party's nomination if they can help it. He's going to be like an annoying fly that circles the rest of them, and I think you're wrong about Jeb Bush. I think the media is going to push hard for another Bush v. Clinton race, if for no other reason, more novelty.

But you are right. It is going to be tough for Jeb Bush, who left office when republicans only had to be "slightly" assholeish. Now they've got to be full-tilt asshole, so either Jeb will have to gin up his levels of the dark sphincter, or he's going to have to convince enough people that being a jerk will just continue to lose elections. I'm hoping for the latter, but with FOX still whipping up the repeaters, I think it will be a tough sell.

[rhett o rick]

115. And some have sacrificed their principles to back a presumed winner.

Apparently afraid to challenge the Aristocracy. Hoping the Aristocracy will bestow goodness on them. It's a good thing our Founders didn't have that attitude. Those that did were call Tories. Dare to fight for freedoms and liberties.

[2banon]

164. I'm thinking: Maybe "principles" were never real enough to sacrifice to begin with...

in terms of personal convictions, and "values" deeply rooted in socio-economic equality and justice.



Lip service versus implementation of real policy and legislation which actually represent those values shared and supported by the electorate.. When dealing with hardball obstructionism, then let it be met with an actual fight "to the finish" with no holds barred response, not the mealy mouthed, talking point list of non-answers that's served up on a daily basis.

[rhett o rick]

185. What get me is the sure audacity of thumbing noses at the plight of the lower classes

and blatantly supporting a candidate that is clearly in the pocket of Wall Street in general and Goldman-Sachs specifically. But we've seen this behavior before. It's clearly authoritarian. Like in the school ground, some (conservatives) choose to side with the biggest bully while the liberals choose to side with those being picked on. Sure I got beat up more than my share, but at least to me, I've kept my integrity.

[busterbrown]

94. He still has not taken his running shoes off when confronted with the question..

Does an owner of a Restaurant have the right to not service a Black person sitting waiting to place an order?

Then we can get on to his ex racist staffers, who have recently resigned.

His love of personal freedom to be defended at all costs? Except when it comes to a woman’ right to control her reproductive decisions..


And today we can talk about his non-interventionist views with regards to his foreign policy... Neocons and right wing muslim war mongers surely will admire this aspect of his platform..

He’s screwed on both sides of the fence..

[JDPriestly]

121. None of Rand Paul's stands will prevent him from winning the Republican

nomination.

And, the OP mentions only a few of the negative issues that work against Hillary. There is NAFTA for which Bill Clinton shares a lot of the responsibility with a bunch of Republicans who are no longer in Congress or who will not be running. There is the repeal of Glass-Steagall, the failure to watch Bin Laden's every move when it would have been easiest, just too many issues to list. (Blaming all that on Bill Clinton may be unfair, but it will be done. That's politics.)

Jeb Bush will not be blamed for George W.'s failures because Jeb was not in the White House with GW, but Hillary -- she was in the White House, presumably sharing the president's bed, breakfast, lunch and dinner and will be held responsible for the oversights and mistakes of Bill Clinton's administration. Not that Bill Clinton was the worst ever, but inevitably presidents make mistakes. Bill signed a lot of bills like the Telecommunications Act that have made our lives worse not better.

Really, Hillary is, I'm sure a very nice lady. Everybody likes her as an icon of the Democratic Party. But as a candidate for 2016. No. Read the handwriting on the wall in middle America. We want a populist candidate who will hand it to the banks.

Our economy is brittle, rigid. Wall Street is soaring while bank rates are way below the inflation rate. Small savers are suffering as a result. Interest rates are low -- if you have the income and the good credit rating to borrow money now. But a lot of young people in the house-buying, furniture-buying, baby-raising age owe so much on student loans that they cannot think to borrow. Wages are not rising to match inflation. Families are squeezed.

We do not want that in America. Our economy is enrichimg the already very rich and hurting the young people who are just starting to save as well as the seniors who actually rely on interest to supplement Social Security. Guess where the majority of likely voters fall on that chart.

Then there is the monopolization of many fields. Book stores have closed, quickly, quietly, as the big booksellers are monopolizing the retail book business. Google, Microsoft and Apple -- they dominate to the point that they are approaching becoming governments of their own in their areas. (Don't get me wrong. I don't think they are governments, but they sure rule in their areas of our economy.)

Next, the banks, ever fewer in number, ever more powerful, ever less honest, as prone to errors in judgment as ever, but unable to gain balance without taxpayer help when they start to tip. The banking "reform" was too cautious. It is being challenged in the courts and in the regulatory agencies, torn apart, piece by piece and has not adequately improved the precarious positions of the banks or our economy. It has to be more vigorously enforced if it is to lead to enough diversity in banking choices and make us more flexible as an economy.

We need change. And the changes we need are in fundamental economic strategy. That is Elizabeth Warren's strength.

Rand Paul adheres to and advocates for foolish, unworkable, overly simplistic economic theories. To paraphrase: "Just let the powerful run things there way and all will be well." That theory has been preached to Americans for such a long time that even though it has proved unworkable (The crash of 2008 is proof of that., a lot of Americans have heard it so often that they firmly believe it.

The idea that you can bring stability and the flexibility that comes with stability to an economy by removing the cornerstone of government regulation on which the economy rests is ludicrous but easy to grasp and therefore very marketable. It's like the slogan "breakfast of champions." Never mind that it is just calories with not much nutrition. Sounds powerful.

The Koch Brothers are among the most ardent missionaries of that Libertarian gospel. They are wrong. The world works well for them under that economic model, but it turns the rest of us into their serfs. Rand Paul ate the Koch's magic cookies, and, if elected, will place the entire world on the brink of the Middle Ages.

Hillary has no answer to any of the big economic problems facing our country. She is great on women and children. She is terrible on the economy. And I don't need to talk about foreign policy. She made a good Secretary of State but Obama was there to harness her warring tendencies.

We have to nominate someone other than Hillary. This is not the time to offer the nation more of the same. This is the time to introduce a new diet. Either we introduce a healthy diet, or Rand Paul will introduce his sick theories and the economy, our education system, our health care system, our safety net, our minimum wage, Social Security, Medicare -- all of the safeguards that we have built into our country that hold us upright as a people, that help us work together and for each other, will fall out from under us. We cannot let that happen.

Nominating Hillary would be letting the country down.

Sorry if this sounds like my hair is on fire. I may have let a little too loose with the metaphors and fun language (just came back home from an invigorating walk), but you get the point.

I agree with the OP. The Republicans are as likely to nominate Rand Paul as anyone, and if they do, Hillary will be a weak answer. Even if they nominate Jeb, Hillary will not make a good candidate. It is time for Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders. I'm a woman so I prefer Elizabeth Warren. I think she will appeal to conservative as well as liberal women, and that is who we need to appeal to. A lot of men will vote Republican no matter what. I think the next election will be decided by women.

[emulatorloo]

133. Paul will collapse under national scrutiny, as did Bachmann, Palin, etc etc.

[RoverSuswade]

135. I haved constantly disagreed with "Jeb has no chance."

Despite his conservative bent he is thought of as a good governor of Florida, a lot smarter than GWB, and he would get lots of Hispanic votes (maybe even above 50% and there are a lot of Hispanics in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania). That could cook Hillary in the general.

[busterbrown]

158. All your points are well thought out and I agree..

However.. There is a chance with your reasoning that all 3 branches of Govt. could end up being controlled by Right Wing ultra Conservatives.... Which simply scares the hell out of me...

I would love Bernie, Elizabeth, or even Sherrod Brown...However these 3 would be branded by Fox and the Koch brothers as Marxists Extremists..and the country as a whole is just not enlightened enough to call that sort of bullshit out..

Meanwhile.. Rand Paul will be called out on the things I mentioned in my reply... His hands off policy for Big Banks and Wall Street.. His distaste for the Consumer Protection Agencies, his huge part in the war against woman... (Reproductive Rights) ...His Racist Father’s News Letter,( When they go after Bill) and former staff members.. He recently has turned his thumbs down on The Dreamers, when confronted at a Diner, he got up and ran away.. His huge Plagiarism issue..etc..

He’s not a bright man and will inevitably screw up, when confronted with all these issues..

Our problem is that as it stands now she is our only hope of preventing a Plutocratic trifecta is Hillary... I do believe that Hillary understands that she is not seen as progressive enough in all the areas you mentioned, however she probably feels that she needs to be perceived as a Centrists in order to get any kind of funding which will match Koch and Associates.

If elected I feel she will lead from the Center Left..

[JDPriestly]

175. You are right about Rand Paul in this regard (as well as with regard to other things):

He’s not a bright man and will inevitably screw up, when confronted with all these issues..

But, neither are most Americans (bright) and so do most all of us (inevitably screw up).

But (another but), Hillary is same-old, same-old, and she isn't really personable.

It's not that she is a bad person. It is that she reminds a lot of people of the girl in first grade who was smarter than everybody else and tattled a lot. Do you think there is a way to cure that? Also, as a British woman I used to work with said about one of our bosses, "She gets her knickers tied in knots" too often.

Remember Bill Clinton? He even got by with the Monica Lewinsky caper because he was able to convey the message, "I'm just one of you." He exuded humility and the sense that he really loved everybody and wanted to serve the nation. In fact, he passed a lot of bills that increased the corruption in the US. He served the 1% just like all other fat-cat politicians. We just didn't realize it at the time. (I walked and walked up and down hills to help get him elected as I usually do for Democratic candidates.)

But Bill Clinton has great charm and, as I said, projects humility. If he makes a mistake, he admits it and seems genuinely remorseful. It may be an act, but good-hearted people like me buy it

Hillary kind of snorts at people when she thinks they are stupid or when they say something mean to her. That is a huge mistake. Her voice has improved a great deal since 1008, but it still sounds cold and a bit imperious.

Rand Paul, on the other hand, sounds like a Southern good old boy. That will not go over in California or New York, but it could take some swing states. Southern Ohio is an area I am very familiar with, and Rand Paul could be very popular there.

Remember that Gore won the popular vote. He just lost the Supreme Court vote. He could have taken swing states with a higher margin if he had come across as less aloof. On stage, what matters is not who you are, but whom others perceive you to be. Politicians have to be on stage all the time. Obama won because he comes across as patient, smart, and just plain cool. And in fact, that is how he has performed in the White House. I read a lot about racism, etc. on DU, but basically, Americans like Obama because they feel that he can be trusted to stay cool.

We need a strong candidate with truly populist views. I don't think people in D.C. understand how many Americans have gone into bankruptcy, how many lost their homes, ow many are paying high rents although their paychecks have leveled off, how many are still afraid of losing their jobs, how many lost their businesses and are trying to start over. Just last week, a lot of people were laid off in one of my friend's businesses. The economic data does not reflect the reality on Main Street. It just does not. The economy is getting a little better, but really not fast enough, not fast enough. And our infrastructure is in terrible shape. The situation in Ferguson is just one reflection of that fact. The police are on edge in many communities.

We need to break from the economic policies that Democrats ran on in the 1980s, 1990s and thus far in the 2000s. My mother, for example, a life-long Democrat in her late 90s complains that she is getting only a quarter of a percent of interest when her CDs turn over. And she is a lot better off than most senior citizens. We need to give Americans the hope that they can build a better life. I don't see how Hillary can do that since she will run on the same ideas that Republicans and Democrats ran on in 2004, 2008 and 2012.

Frankly, us little folk, those of us who don't gamble on Wall Street have been burned pretty badly by the economy since 2008. The banks were bailed out. The rest of America is struggling. Hillary is not the answer to that pain. Our trade agreements and, outside California, immigration (within California, we love immigration) are viewed as the reasons for much of the economic stagnation and hurt. Rand Paul can believably run on those issues. He can, on the face of things, stand for equality and all the things that we as Democrats really believe in while, winking and holding his hands behind his back, speak to the secret fears of millions of Americans who are still worrying about whether their jobs will be lost to new technologies, outsourcing, overseas manufacturing and competition from new entrants into the job market. Hillary personally is connected to for example the "free" trade policies that have cost Americans their good jobs.

Add all those concerns and many others and you echo my fear -- a government totally controlled by Republicans who pride themselves on their lack of literacy, their inability to understand science, their overconfidence in slogans about free markets, freedom (which they think they own and which they believe in in spite of the fact that Homeland Security shakes them down every time they try to board a plane) and their down-home folksy mannerisms.

Meanwhile, the Clintons are seen in all the right places with all the big donors including at events that connect them with Pete Peterson, enemy of Social Security and other such foes of what most Americans support. Really, if you have to choose between a Democrat who is very smart and shows it off but attends festivities (seminars, etc.) sponsored by Pete Peterson and other foes of the government programs that help ordinary people survive or a buy like Rand Paul of Jeb Bush who attend the festivities sponsored by the Koch Brothers and who say, "Ah shiucks," you know I'm on your side cause I talk just like you do," who do you think will win? Does it make a difference? Yes. To me and you. But to those who focus on events like Robin Williams' death or Kim Kardashian's loves to the exclusion of politics? Not so much.

I like Elizabeth Warren because she knows how to explain things to people so they understand and get the feeling that she is on their side. Hillary does not know how to do that. Hillary knows how to explain things quickly and in proper language that appeals to people in D.C. and big business, but she does not come across in that "Aw Shucks way that gets people elected."

A Spanish-speaking VP might help her, but I don't see one on the horizon. Xavier Becerra would be perfect, but he does not have the name recognition, and California is not a swing state. We need someone who speaks Spanish and is from someplace like Texas or Florida or Ohio. And even then, Hillary could lose big because of her political and personal negatives.

I think Hillary needs a challenger. We need to test her in the primaries. I think we can do better than Hillary. I think we can get a candidate who will be fresh, bring fresh ideas and language and give hope to Americans. I just don't think Hillary can do that.

[busterbrown]

195. We are in agreement practically about everything...

We really just have to pray to a God Of Our Understanding and hope..

This is a really scary time...

World wide greed has put our planet in jeopardy of loosing all things biological.!!!

[stevenleser]

173. Yes, they will (re: Rand Paul stances preventing him from winning the GOP nomination)

There are two groups within the Republican party that do not like him and they are a big chunk of the party. The Christian Conservatives and the Neocons.

Christian Conservatives still comprise around 25% of the GOP but their influence greatly exceeds their numbers. They turn out in large numbers, they volunteer in campaigns in large numbers and they are a big part of GOP GOTV efforts. The churches and pastors that support the GOP help get all these folks involved and help turn them out to the polls. They demand candidates be anti-choice and against LGBT equality.

The Neocons, who are around 15%-20% of the party demand an interventionalist foreign policy. They will not support an isolationalist or semi-isolationalist or anyone who proclaims that they intend not to go to war overseas to protect American interests.

A Libertarian Republican like Rand Paul has two options, either cave to either or both groups to win the nomination and general election or lose their support. Its also important to remember that among the other 60% of the party, many of them have sympathies for either or both of the Christian Conservative or Neocon beliefs. You can't just say, OK, I will forgo 40% of the party and win the other 60%. Nor would that make sense to try to win a general election. Turning off 40% of your base including that portion of the GOP base that participates more than any other in volunteering for campaigns, GOTV and voting is a recipe for disaster.

That is why I hope that Rand Paul gets the nomination. It will rip the Republican party in two.

[JDPriestly]

184. And Hillary's nomination could rip our party in two, if not in 2016, in 2020.

[stevenleser]

189. Nope, it won't. No data suggests such a thing. nt

[rhett o rick]

190. Great point. A H. Clinton-Sachs win will solidify the Conservative takeover of our Party.

The Conservatives want nothing more than to have a essentially one party system with total control of the Democratic Party.

[woo me with science]

252. +1

[joshcryer]

260. That's what they said about the 2008 primary.

That if Clinton didn't stop campaigning it would harm the party.

We saw how that turned out.

Still a shame Obama didn't / couldn't leverage the political capital Hillary Clinton's campaign helped garner.

[JDPriestly]

273. Then you agree that Hillary should have challengers.

I think that helped Obama's popularity enormously.

[joshcryer]

285. Absolutely.

I am on record saying that if she does not have a challenge I will find it hard to vote for her. That's unconscionable.

I posted about it before here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025115191#post10

Read my posts later in that thread if you want the details, but basically, primary = platform. Without a primary there's no platform. And without a strong challenge, as Clinton did for Obama, there will not be a strong and unique varied presence at the convention; someone else needs to elect delegates so that a more varied voice is heard.

[JDPriestly]

286. My first memory of a Democratic Convention was 1952 --I was nine.

At that time, it was broadcast on the radio. The convention was more dramatic then. Unbelievable that a convention heard on the radio could be more dramatic than the televised performances we see today. That year Adlai Stevenson won the Democratic nomination and Eisenhower the Republican one.

I also remember the Kennedy convention. There was, back then, a certain suspense.

If it's just a Hillary takeover, it will be boring and as you say, the personality rather than the issues and values will dominate the news. We need to think more about what we want our president to represent. It isn't always a matter of what the president can achieve in office. In fact, a president with the exception of someone like Johnson who knows how to push buttons and pull the strings of members of Congress, is mostly a symbol, an image that stands for a certain set of values. Obama has done a good job of projecting values on a lot of issues but failed on others. And on a few issues, I strongly disagree with what are apparently, Obama's views.

But one thing about Obama, his very presence, and not just his race, speaks of maturity, of calm, of intelligence, of self-control, of good judgment. His personality is well suited for the presidency but for the fact that he is too reticent to speak out strongly in favor of ordinary people. I don't know why that is, but it would be good if he took stronger, more emotional stances on certain issues, especially on justice issues -- like Michael Brown. He would be criticized severely, but he would gain respect -- and in my opinion, as a white liberal, especially from white conservatives. They would growl and criticize, but respect him more if he showed more outrage at the social and economic injustice in our country. That's my opinion.

I think that African-Americans misunderstand just how much white people are willing to change and respond to their expression, their calm but firm expression of their anger at the injustice in our system. But I am getting way off topic. (The ability to just digress as my mind flows is one of the great things about posting on the internet. Theoretically, people don't know who I am so what difference does it make. They can just stop reading if they don't like what I am saying.)

Thanks for your post. I agree.

[joshcryer]

288. Obama is the most bipartisan President in history.

Last edited Wed Aug 27, 2014, 07:21 AM - Edit history (1)

And for that I cannot condemn him or ostracize him. Supremely consistent governorship. Epically brilliant calm manner. Just, that guy you really wouldn't mind having a beer with or even a couple of shots of vodka, because, even if you're a shitty drunk, he'd chill with you and tell you how it is and not push buttons.

But Presidents, I personally believe, should not be the nice guy, should not be the bipartisan, "I'll listen to your BS," types. They should tell it like they see it and just drop the pretenses and bullcrap. Presidents need to have a platform and need to stick to it and need to be uncompromising, in my opinion.

In reality Presidential power is minimal at best, beyond command over the military (I insist that Presidents will not and do not recognize the War Powers Resolution as the SCOTUS will not hear anything to those ends; it requires a constitutional amendment to minimize that). Presidents, almost, are mere faces for policy, they can't do anything much beyond some federal level shifting of personnel or administrative decisions. The President can instruct the EPA, for example, to render CO2 a pollutant, however, that is almost meaningless. The President can't force the EPA to enact a carbon tax, that is a revenue action and requires at minimum control of congress (in particular, the House, as that is a revenue bill). The current administration has instructed the EPA to render CO2 a pollutant, however, and the EPA has the power to prevent new power plants to emit as much CO2, which is why coal power is on the decline. That's an EPA power that existed before the administration came to power, though.

A partisan President would be taking to the bully pulpit, as people complain about, on the regular. When the West Fertilizer Company explosion happened, for example, the President should've taken to their airwaves and called for cleaner technology. But what did he do? Nothing much, he spoke to a memorial / funeral event. This is just one scenario I can think about, but there are dozens. BP comes to mind. Except Obama wanted to keep drilling afterward. That's a bipartisan President for you.

If Clinton even indicates at a small level she will be a partisan I will gladly vote for her. I'm done with bipartisanship.

[JDPriestly]

289. Good points. But partisanship just for the sake of partisanship does not get things

done. We need someone who is a master of communication and who knows the facts so well she can respond to the idiotic arguments of the other party with authority and confidence. I don't think Hillary is that person.

Elizabeth Warren is an extremely forceful advocate. She is a master debater. In fact, she is the one who could carry off being a partisan for justice -- which is what we need. I like her fire.

[JustAnotherGen]

287. I don't think he will

Win the nomination that is - and if he does? Republicans who are National Security focused will view his policies as dangerous and cross the aisle. The same Republicans that don't care about gay marriage or abortion - but DO care about National Security - would cross the aisle.

I saw your poll numbers below. . As usual - looks like I'm going to pick a loser in the nomination process. If that is the field of candidates in 2016 - my guy doesn't even leave the bench. Putting that out here because I'm not a big supporter of Clinton or Warren in that position. So no one should come here and say I'm carrying water for either one.

[Gothmog]

99. Agreed

The GOP donor class hates Rand Paul

[EEO]

111. Agreed. And Hillary Clinton is not inevitable.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

253. The only thing inevitable about Hillary is that she will do Wall Street's bidding.

[JoePhilly]

177. Thread should end there.

[rhett o rick]

187. Sadly typical. We must end the discussion because we don't have any good reasons

to support H. Clinton a candidate with no integrity. She gave her integrity to George Bush. She now says she is sorry. Sorry for the deaths of thousands of our troops (of course none were children of her Aristocracy). Sorry for the deaths of thousands of innocent Iraqi children. Sorry for the deaths of thousands of innocent Iraqi people. Sorry for the complete destruction of Iraq. Does she think we believe that she didn't foresee this disaster? Sorry for the torture that not only ruined the lives of many innocent Iraqi's, but also stained America forever. She may honestly be sorry for her decision to give George Bush carte blanche authority to kill and torture. She may be sorry but she gave up her integrity and you can't get that back.

I will never support anyone that supported the Iraq war and torture.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

254. Who in their right mind would ever support someone who made such a boneheaded decision to support the invasion of Iraq?

[rhett o rick]

182. In your opinion, who will get the Repub nomination? Don't leave us in suspenders. nm

[Cha]

214. What this guy.. such a charmer.. and oh yeah a Liar

Chris Hayes: Rand Paul Has 3 Racist Strikes Now

This isn't an isolated incident, Hayes argued, listing the three "white supremacist strikes" Paul has racked up so far.

"Strike one was in 2009 when Rand Paul's Senate campaign spokesperson was forced to resign over a horribly racist comment and historical image of a lynching -- I'm not making that up -- posted by a friend of his on his MySpace wall on Martin Luther King weekend, then allowed to remain for almost two years," Hayes said.

Strike two, Hayes added, was when Paul expressed reservations about the Civil Rights Act in an interview on the Rachel Maddow Show. (Paul later said in a statement that he supports the Civil Rights Act "because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws.&quot

"And now this. Southern Avenger on the Senator's staff," Hayes said. "Well, I'm sorry, Rand Paul. That's three racist strikes. You're out."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/09/chris-hayes-rand-paul-racist_n_3570440.html

she http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5439129

Rand Paul falsely claims he supports Civil and Voting Rights Acts

But Paul’s previous statements on these topics cast serious doubts on his rhetoric this morning…

Rand Paul on the Voting Rights Act: “It was a time in our country when the color of your skin did need to factor into voting, but we’ve really gotten beyond that now. We have an African-American president.” [Newsmax, 6/25/13] Stupid.

Rand Paul on the Civil Rights Act: “I think it’s a bad business decision to exclude anybody from your restaurant, but, at the same time, I do believe in private ownership.” [Editorial Board, Louisville Courier-Journal, April 2010]

http://factivists.democrats.org/rand-paul-falsely-claims-he-supports-civil-and-voting-rights-acts/

And, Rand Paul's deliberate obtuseness on Ferguson, MO

Judd Legum ✔ @JuddLegum
Follow
Rand Paul on Ferguson: "There is a very good chance that this had nothing to do with race."

3:44 AM - 24 Aug 2014 90 Retweets 25 favorites

http://theobamadiary.com/2014/08/24/rise-and-shine-and-chat-on-5/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025439015

[3rdwaydem]

277. Very true.

[NightWatcher]

2. If I wanted to read that much, I'd go to school

Pauls are simpletons who appeal to people who don't understand politics.

They will never amount to anything more than snake oil salesmen.

Rand will never win a national election. He's a joke and an late night am radio host's dream, and that's all.

[TM99]

17. Never underrestimate the body politic in America.

Since 1960, we have elected many 'jokes' that many thought could never ever be electable - a Catholic, a Southern Baptist peanut farmer, an old actor, a serial womanizer, a dry drunk who destroyed every business he touched, and a black man.

I agree with Rand Paul on foreign policy, drug policy, and several economic positions including those involving Wall Street. That doesn't mean I will vote for him. But many will, including left-leaning Independents, who are sick of the Third Way take-over of the Democratic Party.

The OP is a very well reasoned speculative opinion piece. I found it an interesting read.

[1StrongBlackMan]

68. I, too, found this a good read ...

Last edited Sun Aug 24, 2014, 02:06 PM - Edit history (1)

though I disagree with much of the analysis ... specifically, the part where the OP suggests that the Democratic base is willing to risk core Democratic values, e.g., the social safety net, medicare, social security, and a woman's right to choose, in order to get movement on, IMO, things that have only recently (on this board) been called Democratic core beliefs.

The Democratic Party (and its base) has {Edited to add: Never} been pro-Marijuana/drugs, pro-isolationist, anti-Wall Street, or anti-NSA. In fact, the argument could be made that the Democratic Party (and its base) has never been "progressive."

[pscot]

119. But it does seem that part of the Democratic base

is thoroughly disillusioned with their party. And HRC is central to the issues that cause that disillusion. The OP spells that out. My guess is that Hillary will run strong with Democratic and Independent women, and may even pull some Republican women. But the urge for reforming change is strong. What we're doing is not working, and there's little reason to suspect that things will be any different under a Clinton presidency. The promise of more of the same doesn't sound like a winning strategy.

[2banon]

132. I'm not sure what point you're arguing

Perhaps it may simply be somantics or your definition/pov of how you define (and see) the term Progressive. I may be mis-reading your pov as "anti-progressive" (or not?).

Putting a side for this discussion the historical fact that the Democratic Party was the Jim Crow Party for over a century, in "modern times" let's agree that the Democratic Party was somewhat "progressive" since FDR (albeit dragging it's heels and hindering progress on Racial Equality and Justice matters for decades, until they weren't - oh no wait - nevermind - I'll agree with you that the party isn't "Progressive", at least not to any serious measure except during FDR times, it could be said that Johnson's administration was progressive, certainly during his times, were it not for the Vietnam War, Carter I would contend instituted Progressive policies.. That was about the end of the "Progressive Era"r as far as the way I see things.

Personally, none of these Presidents were Progressive ENOUGH, (not nearly enough) but given the Political Realities of a Crony Capitalist system... well 'enuff said I think.

Currently, it's completely unrecognizable as to be virtually non-existent. If that's your point, I agree.

[1StrongBlackMan]

140. I am saying ...

that the "Progressives" on this message board are casting their principles as those of the Democratic Party; but that position is against all empirical/polling evidence. For example, the Marijuana legalization, NSA, isolationism are not even near the top of Democratic issues. And, those issues that are at the top Democratic concerns, DU progressives act as if they are secondary, at best.

[2banon]

168. ok. I think I understand you clearly now.

but do let me know if I'm still being a bit dense..

from your perspective, progressive values and issues of concern/policy matters are not now, never have been (as you stated above) principles shared or held by the Democratic Party (i.e. Platform) and if I understand you correctly, never ought to have been in the past or present, nor ever SHOULD be held by the party in the future.

Do I have that right so far?

Just to be clear on my part, my intention is not to put words in your mouth, only to translate to benefit more my understanding of your position and clarity on your point of view.

(Often times, texting on message boards can be misleading or confusing).

.

[1StrongBlackMan]

188. Close ...

I am saying that the "Progressives" on this message board are casting their principles as those of the Democratic Party; but that position is against all empirical/polling evidence. For example, the Marijuana legalization, NSA, isolationism are not even near the top of Democratic issues. And, those issues that are at the top Democratic concerns, DU progressives act as if they are secondary, at best.

Now whether these issues should be held, or held in higher importance, by the party now, or in the future, is a different matter.

I, as a staunch Democrat and as a member of the Democratic Party's most reliable base, would NEVER, EVER consider these issues more important than racial equality and/or woman's rights.

[woo me with science]

205. Women and minorities can't afford more corporatism.

The effects of continued corporate warfare on this nation will be a disaster for all Americans, but *especially* women and minorities.

I don't know how the Third Way anticipates being able to protect values of racial and gender equality by supporting candidates whose policies are dismantling the very economic and democratic systems that make it possible for them to be empowered.

197. I just can't wait to see the status of women and minorities in this country when we are all working for Third World wages, Hillary's trade agreements have ramped up corporate power and the ability of corporations to override our laws and protections, and dissent in the new corporate America has been crushed.

[2banon]

208. Well Said, woo!

excellent example of the what we are struggling to overcome.

Seems like we've been at it for centuries... it's getting fucking tiresome,, but there ya have it..

[1StrongBlackMan]

229. Actually, ...

Women and minorities will be in the same relative position we have always been ... not that that is any of your concern.

And BTW ... from my perspective, at least the "3rd-way" seeks to protect values of racial and gender equality, or at least speaks to them; rather than, what we find here ... women and minorities being told that we will fair worse if we don't side with you to fight your economic fight; leaving us in the same relative position, along with receiving daily reinforcement of our historical experience with "progressives" (i.e., progressives ignoring, or even arguing to maintain the racial/gender status quo) ... once the battle is fought and won, progressives have no interest in returning the favor ... they move on to their next self interested issue.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

236. EXACTLY!! Get out of my head. I literally just posted the same point.

[woo me with science]

237. "not that that is any of your concern"

Remarks like this diminish you. You know nothing about me, and that was an unwarranted attempt at a personal swipe that, IMO, betrays your awareness that you are struggling here.

The point stands. Women and minorities always end up suffering more in more unequal, less democratic, more authoritarian societies, and that's the direction that corporate takeover of our democratic system is taking us. That's simply a fact.

[1StrongBlackMan]

245. Well, that not really true ...

Remarks like this diminish you. You know nothing about me,

I know of your near daily postings telling people that the racial/gender issues that make PoC and Women second class citizens, and are largely responsible for the intra-class economic disparities in income and wealth that exist, are secondary to your economic struggle against the 1%.

The point stands. Women and minorities always end up suffering more in more unequal, less democratic, more authoritarian societies, and that's the direction that corporate takeover of our democratic system is taking us. That's simply a fact.

And my point stands ... Our winning your battle leaves us (PoC and women), maybe, better off economically; but still, in the same relative position ... we just have a different white, male to struggle with/answer to.

[2banon]

248. Unless you're part of the 1%, it's YOUR STRUGGLE TOO. It's both RACE AND CLASS Struggle together

Understand the struggle against the 1% is NOT a SINGLE ISSUE problem.. And furthermore, if you actually believe that HRC has our socio-economic interests at heart, you'll been in for a very rude awakening. Unless of course, you share aspirations to be a member of the 1%.

[1StrongBlackMan]

250. Well, honestly ...

depending on where you draw the line (my household income is below the $500,000; but our net worth is above the $1,000,000, figure) and/or how you make the definition (based on income/net worth or how one made and what one does with that wealth), I might be a member of the 1%. How do you define the 1%. I use the "how one made and what one does with that wealth" definition because I have no inherent hatred of the wealthy. (Give me 100 Soros' or Buffets or Kennedys, any day.)

So the struggle against the 1% remains my issue; but it is NOT both a race and class struggle together, unless the struggler is PoC.

furthermore, if you actually believe that HRC has our socio-economic interests at heart, you'll been in for a very rude awakening

She may not have my economic interests at heart, but she has a voting record indicating that she DOES have my social/civil rights issues at heart. See those of us that have to deal with both the race struggle and the class struggle can make that distinction. Whereas, DU progressives seem to have neither my economic NOR my social interest at heart, as they ignore or argue in support of the racial status quo.

[2banon]

255. The Privileged Class does have it's perks, now don't it?

I might be a member of the 1%. How do you define the 1%. I use the "how one made and what one does with that wealth" definition because I have no inherent hatred of the wealthy. (Give me 100 Soros' or Buffets or Kennedys, any day.)

Well then, there you have it.

While income below $500,000 in current times does not place a person within the 1% milieu, you certainly are a member of the Privileged Class, and express aspirations to the attain status/wealth of the 1%.

That just about explains all I need to know as to why you choose to skew or ignore the core arguments Progressives posit in arguing against running another member of the privileged class to run as president.

She may not have my economic interests at heart, but she has a voting record indicating that she DOES have my social/civil rights issues at heart. See those of us that have to deal with both the race struggle and the class struggle can make that distinction. Whereas, DU progressives seem to have neither my economic NOR my social interest at heart, as they ignore or argue in support of the racial status quo.

Yes, HRC will represent your economic needs & interests, but she won't be representing any of my needs, along with the millions of the poor and working class across the country, of all races.

And by the way, I've been sort of busy and may have missed HRC's condemnation of the brutal Police actions in Ferguson, but I haven't heard a peep from her on this matter.

Did I miss that by chance?

Thank you for this most illuminating discussion.

[1StrongBlackMan]

261. I make no apology for ...

my hard earned wealth.

But you are correct, this discussion has been illuminating ... the more you wrote the more support you lend to this anonymous quote, I found on line:

Revolutionaries are rarely as dissatisfied with the system as they are with their position within the system.

[woo me with science]

269. I think a more accurate and useful way to conceptualize the situation

is that those who live in privilege often lack the perspective necessary to empathize with and try to understand the systemic situation of the poor.

IMO your blithe dismissal of the tremendous implications and importance for oppressed groups of being "better off economically" in post 245 reflects that, as does your tortured attempt to separate "civil rights" from economic oppression and suggest that minority groups don't need politicians to look out for their economic interests in post 250.

There 's some research around this phenomenon:

How wealth reduces compassion.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-wealth-reduces-compassion/

[2banon]

270. Apologies not expected nor requested

You have a vested interested in maintaining the status quo, I have a vested interested in reforming it.

Your vested interest in maintaining the status quo explains why you willfully ignore and often grossly mischaracterize the positions and concerns of the Left (Progressives). It explains why you seem to lack any desire to recognize the core underpinnings of the very power structures and dynamics at play with regard to race and class oppression.

That quote you posted reveals complete ignorance of the very term of revolutionary and who they actually are. Revolutionaries who lead the struggle against institutional racism, sexism, and the rulers of economic power over the poor and working class, such as Martin Luther King as an example are hardly satisfied with that system.

No wonder that quote is "anonymous".

Here's a quote from Marx:

The mode of production of material life determines the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.

[1StrongBlackMan]

271. And you have a vested interest in maintaining the racial status quo; ...

whereas, I am interested in reforming it.

Your vested interest in maintaining/ignoring the racial status quo explains why you willfully ignore and often grossly mischaracterize the positions and concerns of the Left (Democrats/Liberals). It explains why you seem to lack any desire to recognize the core underpinnings of the very power structures and dynamics at play with regard to race and class oppression.

That quote you posted reveals complete ignorance of the very term of revolutionary and who they actually are. Revolutionaries who lead the struggle against institutional racism, sexism, and the rulers of economic power over the poor and working class, such as Martin Luther King as an example are hardly satisfied with that system.

No wonder that quote is "anonymous".

Okay, let me amend the quote to be more reflective of what I wish to say, as evidenced by your willingness to conflate, then completely ignore the racial disparity, except as a means to advance your economic self-interest:

YOU are less dissatisfied with the system as you are with your position within the system.

{And when I say "YOU", I mean DU progressives.

[2banon]

274. I do not ignore nor deflate dynamics at play on matters of Race and Class

These concerns are exactly what I'm arguing is being ignored or dismissed with regards to political "choices" in this discussion!

Do we need to review the original exchanges between us in this thread wrt to HRC?

You say she represents your interest on matters of racial equality asserting a record of supporting civil-rights. This is true during her "salad days" of long ago.

I haven't checked, but assuming she did so during her short tenure as a U.S. Senator... her cozy relationships (and great financial benefit) with the very Financial Institutions which did enormous economic harm to people of color and the working class should, at the minimum, give a certain measure of pause in considering her as representing our interests. Not the only area of concern to me, but it certainly ranks high on the list.

As a Woman, it's a great disappointment that electing a woman president means she has to prove her "security" bonafides as even more bloodthirsty than any man in that position. That I will never give support to, and nor should any thinking person of color, for what should be obvious reasons.

By the way -just as an aside, no genuine Left Progressives on DU that I've ever read and respect would ever dismiss Race Matters of concern in our socio- political discussions.. additionally all this bullshit and wasted band-with wrt to "Rand Paul" is nothing less than bizarre to me or any other genuine Leftist on DU or anywhere else for that matter. Why it's the subject de'jour is baffling, but I'm sure there's a distraction purpose for it.


Editing to repeat the question still unanswered:

What did HRC have to say regarding Ferguson or even Trayvon Martin?

Or:

What does she have to say in general about the so called War on Drugs and it's corrupt, destructive impact on the African American Community?

What has she said on matters of Police Brutality, or the economic devastation to the African American communities vis a vis the financial crash in 2007/2008 ?

What does she have to say on the outrageous financial burdens on College Students in general and especially on the working poor and Minority communities trying to do what it takes to get out of poverty?

Just curious.

I heard her speaking in Mississippi back during the 2008 campaign, with that ridiculously phony attempt to speak "Black Southern" accent. It was as embarrassing as it was unbelievable, but it spoke volumes as to who and what she actually is.

[woo me with science]

275. Mischaracterizing what you are being told does not help your argument.

Last edited Tue Aug 26, 2014, 03:27 PM - Edit history (4)

You keep trying to insist that others are "denying" the importance of race and gender issues, when the posts clearly articulate exactly the opposite. They stress the importance of these issues and point out how economics is a major driving, aggravating, and sustaining force in that oppression.

Your bizarre denial of what simple history shows to be true across the human experience, and your attempt to smear others with what they have not been arguing, reek of privilege and disingenuousness, particularly since the posts you are replying to are right here on the page and speak for themselves.

You've acknowledged that you are in it for your own interests when it comes to choosing politicians, and I thank you for your honesty in that regard:

2banon (3,744 posts)
You have a vested interested in maintaining the status quo, I have a vested interested in reforming it.

1StrongBlackMan (12,850 posts)
271. And you have a vested interest in maintaining the racial status quo; ...

However, your mistake is in assuming that everyone else thinks that way, too.

You have put yourself in the stunning position of arguing, on a Democratic board,

(1) that racial and gender issues are unrelated to economic oppression and that one can simultaneously support racial and gender equality *and* support politicians who viciously assault the democratic and economic systems that all of history shows make that equality possible

and

(2) that expressions of anger and concern about spiraling poverty and inequality and oppression must necessarily be a sign of craven self-interest.

Think about that, and what it implies about your view of human beings and the role of politics in their lives. That's the myopia of the privileged, not being able to conceive that anything beyond self-interest - like compassion, or a sense of justice, or a desire for a more equal society - could be playing a part in other people's political views.

[2banon]

276. Yes, this exactly..

Thank you for engaging.. once again you've articulated so clearly the issues of concern in this discussion, and the points I had attempted to convey, but failed to apparently. And thank you for following the narratives, because it's rather disjointed to me.

Your entire post articulates my thoughts exactly..

This bit bears repeating:

You have put yourself in the stunning position of arguing, on a Democratic board, that expressions of anger and concern about spiraling poverty and inequality and oppression must necessarily be a sign of craven self-interest. Think about that, and what it implies about your view of human beings and the role of politics in their lives. That's the myopia of the privileged, not being able to conceive that anything beyond self-interest - like compassion, or a sense of justice, or a desire for a more equal society - could be playing a part in other people's political views.

[1StrongBlackMan]

283. This response is to you, Woo and 2Bannon ...

For the past couple of days, I have patiently seat by, allowing you two to question my "empathy" with the poor and working classes. My tolerance for that crap, while you whine about me launching personal attacks.

Well, I challenge the both of you ... I will place the work I have done with poor and working class people, professionally and on my own personal time, against yours, any day. And you best believe, it goes back better than 20 years and far beyond posting to an anonymous bulletin board.

If you disagree with me that racial interests are separate from economic issues ... fine, you are entitled to your opinion; but I am hereby lining the line with your questioning my "empathy" and/or commitment to bettering the lives of poor and working class people.

And know ... with every act that I performed, every program and project that I worked with, I saw the lives of straight, white males improve far more than those of PoC ... so don't tell me that I am employing "tortured attempts" when I say that racial interests are distinct from economic interests.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

234. OH, please! Don't lecture us. We know where we are, were, and will always be. You see, we never

expect much from these politicians because we can always expect to be on the bottom anyway--this, speaking as a black person and a woman. Regardless of how successful we are, we can always expect to be treated as second-, not third class citizens. We're used to it.

Hillary will be no different.

[2banon]

206. I see..

I don't see that these specific items are on the 'top of the list' for progressives, really.

The range of importance over and above the issues you mention that are important to you are at the top of the list for progressives too and have been forever.. but it's not as if they're just 'stand alones' either.

Progressives recognize the interconnectedness of all these issues.. peeling away at the onion to get at the root causes of inequality and injustice tends to reveal certain dynamics with regard to power structures at play, if you will, the underpinnings and institutionalization of class/race/gender socio-economic inequalities we've been struggling for so long to overcome.

In other words, it's not Marijuana initiatives that's so damn important to us, its the DRUG WAR itself, a direct cause of an inordinate number of Blacks and Poor people locked up in the Prison Industrial Complex, and oh by the way the NSA is connected to that too, despite the so called "national security protocols". And we can go on and on.

Our party, which we've been staunch members of for all of our lives needs a certain level of "enlightenment" shall we say, a certain level of commitment to the fight for socio-economic equality that we haven't seen in decades. Cuz, the status quo just isn't working.

Sorry didn't mean to get off on a tangent..

[woo me with science]

241. Very well said. I've noticed that tactic in the pro-corporate posting:

trying to mischaracterize liberal concerns about the drug war by distorting them as merely a desire to smoke weed, instead of what they are, which is what you describe so well here:

Progressives recognize the interconnectedness of all these issues.. peeling away at the onion to get at the root causes of inequality and injustice tends to reveal certain dynamics with regard to power structures at play, if you will, the underpinnings and institutionalization of class/race/gender socio-economic inequalities we've been struggling for so long to overcome.

In other words, it's not Marijuana initiatives that's so damn important to us, its the DRUG WAR itself, a direct cause of an inordinate number of Blacks and Poor people locked up in the Prison Industrial Complex, and oh by the way the NSA is connected to that too, despite the so called "national security protocols". And we can go on and on.

The urgency is not about wanting legalized marijuana. It's about the oligarchy and the creation of these oppressive systems for profit and control. It's about the corporate domination that dismantles democracy and puts corporations instead in charge of all these aspects of our lives, with the predictable result of oppression for so many.

[2banon]

247. Thank you for adding more clarity... you're exactly spot on.

But all this is socio-economics 101, absolutely exasperating to find ourselves repeating the obvious to people who should be quite well versed and in sync with progressive thinking. But apparently, they're not.

Whether it's "willful ignorance" or just plain ignorance is hard to discern. Trying to conflate Right Wing Reactionaries core beliefs to Progressives core beliefs reveals a significant lapse of intellectual honesty, or simply lacking common sense and logic.

[Savannahmann]

218. So what are the important issues?

NSA surveillance abuses is opposed by 59% of the population. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/10/nsa-poll_n_5572153.html

A mere 17% of the people supported the war in Afghanistan just last year. No worries, I'm sure they'll come around and jump on the war bandwagon once they see Hillary is onboard. http://swampland.time.com/2013/12/30/support-for-afghanistan-war-hits-new-low/

54% of the people think that the militarization of the police has gone too far. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/21/police-militarization-poll_n_5697852.html

59% of people support legalization of Marijuana. http://www.gallup.com/poll/165539/first-time-americans-favor-legalizing-marijuana.aspx

Economic issues continue to be the most important issue according to polling. http://www.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx

So if Rand Paul comes up with an even half way cogent plan for the economy, he'll be on the populist side of how many issues?

All that is left is immigration. And nearly half the people want the undocumented children deported right away. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/16/immigration-poll_n_5589010.html

So we now are left with the Democratic Party on the unpopular side of how many issues with Hillary? Tell me again how she wins the election without serious changes to her policies?

The good news is more people support Israel, for now. http://thehill.com/policy/international/214173-poll-finds-majority-in-us-support

So Hillary is on the more popular side of that issue.

So our election strategy is to take the unpopular side on as many issues as possible and hope that people choose Hillary because of name recognition. If we can get Hillary to insult some minorities and the GLBT community we can probably wrap up the Pat Buchanan vote.

[woo me with science]

281. Great post.

[emulatorloo]

98. When Sarah Palin defeated Obama, I was incredulous

Then Sharon Angle defeated Harry Reid!

Sorry these crazies like Paul just can't survive national scrutiny.

[hifiguy]

123. You're not alone.

And it is entirely plausible. Not necessarily likely but plausible, as the Mythbusters would have it.

[AlbertCat]

126. a dry drunk who destroyed every business he touched

Never elected.


And Grant was not a serial womanizer! (that was a joke)

The problem is how people think of these presidents as "one phrase people". Like they aren't complex humans. Yeah... all JFK was was a Catholic.

[TM99]

142. Bush was close enough in votes for hanging chads to matter.

Of course they are complex human beings.

And the media does not deal in complexities. It deals in simplicity. The average news report is written at a freshman in high school reading level. Countless Americans are ignorant of even how government functions here in the US. Countless more vote for politicians like he or she is a celebrity on a reality show. Countless more vote for one pet topic that directly impacts them alone without concern for the well-being of all Americans.

The party faithful of each side will vote for the proscribed candidate. It is those not affiliated or faithful to a party that decide which way things will go here in America. Once the PTB have the 'proper' candidates, then the people can fight it out over which social issue will win for the next four or eight years as it has for the last 40 years.

[yeoman6987]

145. Saddest about Bush is

That he was even that close. It should have been an easy Democratic win. The fact that it wasn't is what is scariest. Too many voters voted for Bush to allow it th be stolen. Still stunned to this day.

[TM99]

160. Yuppers and that is why I do not

discount a possible, note I did not say probable, win by a far right nut like Paul or Rubio.

I was a Republican until Bush. I was stunned he got the nominee. I was stunned that intelligent and otherwise good men and women I knew loved Bush. I was stunned it was close enough to win. I was not stunned by anything he did during his presidency including immediately getting us into war in the Middle East.

[rhett o rick]

192. The Powers That Be ran a representative of the statis quo Democrats against

an idiot. The American voters were stuck. Now we are looking at a similar event. H. Clinton-Sachs, the apple of the eye of the Powers That Be against any Republican clown.

The Powers That Be got smart. They wish they can have a Republican president but why not make the ignorant American people think they will get some change via a conservative Democratic president. Win-F'n-Win.

[AlbertCat]

146. And the media does not deal in complexities. It deals in simplicity.

Boy....you got that right!

They also deal in rumor more than news.

I hate "news of the future"!

[TM99]

161. It fits the mold.

Rumors are sensational and simple. Hell, even a 9th grader can understand them. Truth is not glamorous and is rarely simple but rather most often times quite complex. I do sorely miss the days of Cronkite and Murrow.

[2banon]

171. I agree with most of your analysis

I'm not interested in the debate over the hanging chads anymore, but you're spot on wrt to the media, the party faithful un-affiliated, and the endless charade, too many want to pretend is a the results of a democratic process. ("democracy" in action)

[still_one]

26. I went to school and I still don't want to read that much

[JaneyVee]

3. Current polling says otherwise...by a longshot.

[conservaphobe]

4. The way some anti-Clinton folks heap praise upon Paul, they probably hope you're right.

Paul fans please spare me the "we can agree with him without praising him" line. It's overused and no one buys it anymore.

[JaydenD]

11. Interesting viewpoint from a Kossack:

I see no praise of Paul here, just some realities to accept that he looks more progressive on some current issues than the Anointed One. That is absolutely frightening.

* [new] Hillary can't win many of the Obama voters (41+ / 0-)

Many are simply more adverse to WAR and more keyed in to foreign diplomacy compared to neoconservative hawkishness than she is.

This should come as no surprise. This is WHY people say she is to Obama's right. She campaigned on being "tough on Iran." She has said she would nuke them if need be. She was not, if I remember, in favor of a drawback in Afghanistan either. She voted for the war in Iraq, and to add insult to injury, she voted for really deadly cluster bombs that incurred the highest number of civilian casualties in Iran as well. All of this is who she is and why some Obama supporters and voters have rejected her. Not to mention that she's wealthy beltway establishment and same old, some old, palling around with John McCain and lying about being under Bosnian sniper fire. In other words, she's a typical third-way politician. She's NOT inspiring. She is canned and her views are off-putting to Progressives and to many Democrats in general who don't favor more world wars and military intervention.

And you are dead on that Paul plays the pied piper to the disenfranchised for this, despite his many horrific moral failings on other matters. I contend he is to be watched out for too, and I think the two are a match made in Hell in terms of electoral outcomes. At our peril is about all I can say.

"That nice, but how do we keep it from going back to business as USUAL?" - Elon James White on Ferguson, MO

by mahakali overdrive on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 06:23:21 PM PDT
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/17/1321899/-Hillary-Clinton-can-only-win-with-the-Obama-coalition

[OilemFirchen]

16. I think you are confused.

The "Anointed One" is Obama. Clinton is "The Inevitable".

How will you feign outrage when you can't keep your memes straight two years out?

Oh, and fuck Rand Paul.

[JaydenD]

20. Its you who are. Obama was the underdog, Clinton was the overdog.

I agree with you on the FRP tho. It's terrifying to me that he is making some people agree with him. He is using Hillary's lack of common sense and passion for the common american, in a very effective way. I'd still have to wonder which of the two would be the most destructive if elected.

We will see, won't be long and most likely nothing much we are talking about today will have much relevance to Nov. 2016. Everything can change for any of them in the flash of a moment.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

67. Obama is The Annointed One? That sounds like racist dribble that right wingnuts said about him...

Oh wait...they DID say that about him!

[Veilex]

109. "they DID say that about him!"

And they still do for that matter.

[OilemFirchen]

141. Nuh-uh.

That didn't happen. And it was a long time ago. And The Google is for lazy people.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

225. Your "lazy logic". First you say, "nuh-huh, that didn't happen". Then, you say...

"that was a long time ago". Which is it? Either you're dumb or a liar...or BOTH!! I say both!

[OilemFirchen]

227. You've seen the light!

Plus, it snaffles caps off of all sizes jugs, bottles and jars.

And it really, really works!

[Veilex]

108. Ummm. Candidate Obama was NEVER the "Anointed One"...

He was always the underdog... the longshot. Yet, he won.

[OilemFirchen]

122. I see.

https://www.google.com/search?q=anointed+one+obama&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq

[Veilex]

137. I have seen the light!

Oh! Your right! Back in 2008, Candidate Obama was definitely called "The anointed one", except that... he wasn't. Hmm.

Posting a google search is either laziness on your part, or you're expecting others to make your argument for you...which, I wont.

Lastly, for future reference, posting a google search does not support for your position... posting a direct link as an assertion of evidence, however, is quite different.

Cheers

[OilemFirchen]

139. I see.

Internet rulez, courtesy of Vellex.

Won't link to the wingnut sites, sorry. Here's one that you might enjoy because, probably, Greenwald:

The anointed one

[Veilex]

149. "Internet rulez, courtesy of Vellex."

No, merely rules of credible argument...but take it as you will.

[OilemFirchen]

152. I believe I did.

But thanks for the permission!

[Veilex]

210. So, since a single paper out of the UK has the words

"Anointed one" That makes it so?

Interesting viewpoint...

[conservaphobe]

30. 'Looks' is the key word.

Some of that bullshit he borrows from our more extreme contingent might give some of them warm, fuzzy feelings for awhile...

But with minimum wage eliminated and the social safety net buried 6 feet under ground... they'd be working four $1/hour jobs alongside their grandparents until the looming climate disaster finally wiped them off the face of the earth.

Their last, dying thought would be: damn, I didn't have much time to enjoy all those drugs, world peace, and total 100% privacy President Paul bestowed upon us.

[JaydenD]

40. Can't disagree with what you said there.

but I will never unsee nor unhear all the crazy that Hillary has unleashed from her lips and her deeds. From her laughing with Baker about waring with Iran - fucking ghoulish, to her idiotic fake southern accent in the primes assuming everyone is as stupid as her choices of campaign combat, to her suspicious association with that Dominionist group - these things make me physically feel ill right now as I type, and there is so many more, so so much more signs that she would be a total disaster for the American people and for the rest of the world.

[DCBob]

170. Wow... you must really despise Hillary.

What will you do if she wins our Party's nomination?? My guess is you will vote for some other candidate.

[wyldwolf]

35. Except the Kossack's viewpoint isn't grounded in reality.

* 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.



* The WaPo-ABC poll also shows liberal Democrats approve of Clinton's tenure at the State Department by a margin of 96-1, while moderate Democrats approve of it 84-12. Sixty-seven percent of liberals strongly approve of Clinton's performance, nearly 9 in 10 say she is a strong leader, and only slightly fewer say she's honest and trustworthy.

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

[stevenleser]

41. People mistake their opinions for facts and statistical analysis of the voters.

Folks like the OP need to understand something. The polls and analysis are already out there. We don't need to guess with our opinions. And their non-scientific observation of their small group of friends doesn't trump polling data.

Hillary has the support of the Democratic base. Whether individuals here on DU think so or not is irrelevant. The hard numbers are out there.

These kinds of OPs are embarrassing. If you don't like Hillary and dont want her to be the nominee. Say so and say it that way. Don't pretend your opinion is fact and analysis.

[wyldwolf]

54. and that really is a hallmark of far left and far right thinking

"fact" has a different meaning in their world.

[emulatorloo]

80. DU is as much a hall of mirrors as Free Republic or any other wingnut forum

Too much living in a bubble and confusing minority opinions w majority ones.

I am probably mis-remembering, but seems like DU used to be more reality based.

Not a fan of Clinton, too conservative for me. Rand Paul cannot survive national scrutiny: he will implode the way the other crazies have imploded.

[OilemFirchen]

134. President Kucinich begs to differ. (n/t)

[daleanime]

84. There's nothing wrong with that train of thought.....

but there's everything wrong about it. Polls are tools, the questions that need to be asked every single time you use them are: who created it, why did they create it, and what purpose was it intended to be put to. Is it to provide information about the America people to better follow their desires, or just to make it easier to steer them?

Do you have any 'polls or analysis' asking people how happy they are to give their support to any particular candidate? If they would be willing to support some one else? How much would they like other options?

These may just be my opinions, but I will continue to talk about them. Sorry about that.




"The damn thing won't fix in the box."

[stevenleser]

110. There is a LOT wrong with it. Opinions do not carry the weight of facts or statistical analysis.

and we are not talking about a single poll. We are talking about an organization, fivethirtyeight.com that has successfully used aggregates of polls and other intangibles to achieve an unparalleled level of success in predicting the outcome of elections.

Your opinion and that of the OP does not compare to that. Not even close.

[daleanime]

147. A tool is only worth what it's used for....

if it's used to further discussion, I could see that as a good thing.



When it's intended to limit or end talks....

[stevenleser]

153. That does not apply to this situation. The OP presented his opinions as fact.

The available facts completely contradict his opinion. If he has an opinion that HRC wouldnt be a good President, we can discuss that.

If he suggests that she would lose to Rand Paul, there are multiple series of facts that contradict that and OP has no facts of his own that support him even though his OP asserts that his opinion is factual.

[daleanime]

155. Then we're not too far apart....

definitely could have included more about why he feels people will move in that direction or reasons he thinks the support for Hillary is more hollow then the polls/some people would have you believe.


But he didn't, it was just an opinion piece and there's nothing wrong with that. Just because it's unlikely to sway anyone not leaning that way doesn't mean it's not worth saying.

[Demeter]

101. Opinions change, and Polls turn out to be Fantasy

Especially 2 years out.

But trends....trends develop momentum and a life of their own. Watch the trends--opinion in motion. Don't go by the snapshots of opinion polls.

[stevenleser]

107. Deeply held beliefs do not change in two years. Polls are never fantasy. They are either

conducted correctly, or they aren't and the reasons how/why they can go wrong are pretty well understood.

One of the things that helps the accuracy of using polls to predict outcomes is when groups of well conducted polls are taken in aggregate and various intangibles are added. This is why FiveThirtyEight tends to do very well.

FiveThirtyEight shows Hillary as a prohibitive favorite right now as I posted.

[Veilex]

116. "People mistake their opinions for facts and statistical analysis of the voters"

Yes, they do... and ironically enough that's exactly what you're doing here.
Its laughable that you think polls and polling data are scientific...
There is a reason for the quote "There are lies, damned lies and statistics"...
Statistical data is often a directed lie, when dealing with the realm of politics.

You think HRC is the only viable candidate? That's fine...your allowed to have an opinion, even if it's sharing is unwanted.
What you don't get to have, however, is to have an opinion of your own (and make no mistake, it is ONLY an opinion, and not fact), and then tell others that they don't get one of their own.

[stevenleser]

143. No, no, and no.

No, that is not what I am doing here.

No, statistics cannot be summarily dismissed that way.

And no I do not think that HRC is the only viable candidate.

[jeff47]

166. Embarrassing is pretending that those polls are meaningful.

According to polling in 2006, we were going to see a close race between Giuliani and Clinton in 2008. How accurate did that turn out?

It is way too early for polling to be at all meaningful in predicting the results. All it can tell you is the current state of affairs. And this far from election day, that's almost entirely about name recognition.

Who's going to win 2016? I don't give a fuck. We have a much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much more important election in 3 months. And we desperately need all hands on deck to help with turnout instead of fracturing the party over wild-ass guesses about 2016.

[stevenleser]

169. Those polls and studies are meaningful for a number of reasons.

For one thing, studies and polling of different segments of the Republican party to determine what their beliefs are and what issues are important to them gives you a clue as to what kind of candidates they will support.

Lots of research has been done that has told us that those who vote Republican can be thought of as belonging to one of 5-7 groups according to what issues are important to them. Among those are Christian Conservatives and Neocons.

Christian Conservatives are those who are anti-choice, anti-LGBT, etc. Those issues are the most important to them and as a result, those people hate Libertarian social policy and are deeply suspicious of candidates from the Libertarian wing of the Republican Party. They are around 25% of the GOP electorate.

NeoConservatives advocate an interventionalist foreign policy. They are between 15 and 20% of the party. They hate Libertarian foreign policy because Libertarians are isolationalists.

You think its embarrassing to look at what issues are important to people to determine whether a specific kind of candidate has a shot at their vote? That isnt a poll of current preferences, those are deeply held beliefs for those people. This is why Ron Paul, for all the enthusiasm in his supporters, couldnt get anywhere in the bid for the Republican nomination the last two times and it is why his son faces an uphill battle this time. Can he get it while 40-45% of the party is steadfastly against him based on deeply held values? Highly doubtful. And if he does manage to squeak by, he has zero chance against any Democrat that has reasonably secured the base.

[jeff47]

176. I love how you utterly ignored 2006's massive errors

while insisting polling this far out is accurate at predicting election results.

You think its embarrassing to look at what issues are important to people to determine whether a specific kind of candidate has a shot at their vote?

Not what you're doing. You are insisting that the polling tells you who will win in 2016.

That isnt a poll of current preferences, those are deeply held beliefs for those people. This is why Ron Paul, for all the enthusiasm in his supporters, couldnt get anywhere in the bid for the Republican nomination the last two times and it is why his son faces an uphill battle this time.

Only if they have another option that follows their "deeply held beliefs". Which is why they voted for a MA governor who passed the template for Obamacare in 2012 instead of, say, Huckabee.

Can he get it while 40-45% of the party is steadfastly against him based on deeply held values?

How'd Romney poll in 2006?

Oh wait, we're supposed to ignore history.

[stevenleser]

179. I am doing nothing of the sort. You are wrong on every point.

"I love how you utterly ignored 2006's massive errors".

Nope, they don't apply to what I am talking about.

"You are insisting that the polling tells you who will win in 2016. "

Nope, I'm not. I am saying who cannot win based on analysis of deeply held beliefs of segments of the GOP.

"Only if they have another option that follows their "deeply held beliefs". Which is why they voted for a MA governor who passed the template for Obamacare in 2012 instead of, say, Huckabee. "

Apples and Oranges. Healthcare has never been a deeply held belief of any segment of the GOP.

"How'd Romney poll in 2006? "

Has nothing to do with my contentions.

[jeff47]

183. Really? I'm so wrong you completely changed the subject?

Nope, they don't apply to what I am talking about.

That's 'cause when you realized 2006 pretty much annihilates your claims about the accuracy of polls this far from elections are, you changed to talking about how they show "deeply held beliefs".

Which then runs smack into:

Nope, I'm not. I am saying who cannot win based on analysis of deeply held beliefs of segments of the GOP.

Which is why Republicans voted against their deeply held beliefs to vote for Romney in 2012.

Apples and Oranges. Healthcare has never been a deeply held belief of any segment of the GOP.

So....you miss the 40+ repeal votes? Or are you going to argue that attempting to repeal a law more than 40 times is done because it isn't a deeply held belief?

"How'd Romney poll in 2006? "

Has nothing to do with my contentions.

Actually, it has everything to do with your contentions, since they're the exact same situation you are trying to analyze now. Did Republicans vote their "deeply held beliefs" in 2012?

So, are you doing polling for Clinton or something? 'Cause analysis like this could explain her utterly dumb "I'm still inevitable" campaign in 2008.

[stevenleser]

191. I didn't change the subject. The entire OP is about Rand Paul vs Hillary. You changed the subject.

Throughout my responses to this OP I have been talking about the same things, why Rand Paul cant win and that is because of the composition of the Republican Party and what different segments in it believe.

You used a straw man to try to claim my posts were based on current polling of Clinton. That is not what I was talking about.

So you used a straw man and then claimed I was changing the subject because I wasnt talking about your straw man.

Nice try, but again, wrong.

[jeff47]

194. And you have never typed the word "Romney" because......

Missing 'O' from your keyboard?

You used a straw man to try to claim my posts were based on current polling of Clinton.

Which is why I said presidential polling this far out is meaningless......

Wait, that makes no sense. Almost like your claims that Republicans won't violate their "deeply held beliefs" and vote for a governor who's policies in office were liberal-for-a-Republican. Surely they'd pick someone like Huckabee who checks many more boxes.

Besides, Romney was polling terribly two years out. And then they voted for him.

I know! They'd surely vote against a candidate who's extremely lengthy Senate career was full of compromises with Democrats and liberal-for-a-Republican policies. And then they voted for him in 2008.

And clearly, voting to repeal a law 40 times in one session is not at all an indicator of deeply-held beliefs. Why, Democrats have done that......never.

[stevenleser]

196. Romney has nothing to do with whether Rand is electable. Again, Romney is part of your strawman.

You are trying to bill this as me using current opinion polling in terms of current presidential preference as in whole or part of my reasoning and it is not. No matter how many times you try to assert it, that is not what I am talking about.

Romney has nothing to do with my arguments about Rand Paul.

[jeff47]

199. Romney is an example of your analysis utterly failing.

In both 2012 and 2008, Republicans voted for candidates who's histories violated their deeply-held beliefs.

You are claiming Republicans won't vote for Paul in 2016 because his history violates their deeply-held beliefs.

Kinda indicates your analysis is not nearly as iron-clad as you claim.

How'd they pull it off in 2012 and 2008? Massive lying. Both candidates downplayed the "bad" parts of their past, played up the "good" parts of their past, and made speeches which claimed that they really were very conservative. A large enough chunk of the base bought it and they won the nomination.

Paul can use the exact same tactics in 2016.

ETA: I don't think he'd be able to beat Clinton in the general in 2016. But I don't think he'd be able to beat damn near any Democrat in 2016.

[stevenleser]

200. No, it's not, because I am talking about something completely different than your straw man.

No matter how you try to pigeonhole my argument into being about what you want it to be, it's not about that.

[jeff47]

202. Then feel free to actually explain how Romney and McCain don't fit.

Instead of ignoring them. The last two Republican candidates might be a tad relevant in what happens with the next Republican candidate.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

238. Yep! Looks like it did in 2006 and 2007 when Hillary the Inevitable, the Annointed One,

and the Entitled would win the nomination by a landslide, and she would go up against Rudy Giuliani. It was going to be the Election of the Century. LOL!! (...and we laughed and laughed and laughed!)

Politics is a sport. These folks throwing around poll numbers over two years out from a presidential election season need to realize that the political landscape is fluid and changes from day to day--hell, from minute to minute. The American public is fickle, lazy and easily manipulated.

I could give a fuck about these polls or Hillary the Inevitable, Annointed One, Entitled. She has to earn my fucking vote. She is not entitled to shit!

[JaydenD]

48. Since Hillary has decided to publicly speak, those numbers have plummeted.

Open mouth, insert foot.

[wyldwolf]

53. oh, yeah, a wild 4 - 5 point swing in a +/- 4% error sample. All it takes is 50% + 1

Open mouth, insert foot.

[JaydenD]

60. At this early stage, those numbers are quite significant.

The momentum is going to crush her because it seems every time she publicly opines on a subject or witholds commenting, such as Ferguson, she messes it up. Her tone deaf and clumsy communication skills are not going to improve - this is who she has always been. Her false popularity is largely due to that Kardashian Factor - lots of coverage, no substance.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/as-hillary-clinton-re-enters-politics-her-numbers-drop-poll/

Hillary Clinton continues to hold an edge over potential 2016 Republican presidential rivals, according to a new Bloomberg News poll, but that edge is slowly dissipating as Clinton re-enters the political fray.

Fifty-two percent of Americans said they view Clinton favorably in the survey, down from 56 percent in March and 70 percent at the end of 2012, shortly before she stepped down as secretary of state.

Her declining favorability ratings have eroded Clinton's standing against prospective GOP challengers. Among likely voters in the poll, Clinton beats Gov. Chris Christie, R-N.J., 45 to 38 percent. In March, she held a 52 to 39 percent advantage over Christie.

Matched against Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and former Gov. Jeb Bush, R-Ky., Clinton earns 47 percent of likely voters' support, compared with 38 percent for the Republicans.

[wyldwolf]

62. not significant at all. Typical for a politician.

Last weeks polling has her defeating every conceivable GOP candidate by double digits - significant for a pollster that usually skews right. This has been quite consistent across all polling.

[JaydenD]

72. We will see, won't we.

Anything can happen in the long distance to November 2016. I lean heavily toward Clinton not being the democratic nominee for the reasons I stated - this is not 2008 where even then people were sick of her war drums and her vacuous and callous idiotcy - she will be looked at a lot more harshly with the newly acquired baggage she has accumulated since 2008 - but at least I can easily admit that there are factors that could change and that and I can end up being very wrong.

It's strange tho that so many pro-Clinton people can't see anything but her victory - when they have already seen her defeat the last go round and were saying pretty well the same things - it's hers if she wants it.

No, it isn't.

[stevenleser]

64. According to you. Not according to professionals like Nate Silver who accurately predict elections.

See my response #55.

[stevenleser]

55. No, they haven't. Nate Silver just spoke directly to those assertions.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/hillary-clinton-doesnt-have-a-problem-on-her-left/

Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Have A Problem On Her Left

1:22 PM AUG 13 By NATE SILVER

Hillary Clinton’s recent hawkish comments about foreign policy, in which she expressed some disagreements with President Obama, have inspired reporting and speculation that liberal Democrats will grow disillusioned with her ahead of a possible presidential bid in 2016. There is a ”pattern that has emerged in almost every recent interview Clinton has given: liberals walk away unnerved,” Ezra Klein wrote at Vox.

The Vox headline proclaimed that Clinton is “not inevitable” — that is, not the inevitable Democratic nominee. That’s right, narrowly speaking. Few things are inevitable, and Clinton’s nomination is no exception. Although she’s performing most or all of the activities that we’d associate with a future presidential candidate, she’s not yet officially declared for the race and could still decide against doing so. She could have health problems, or a heretofore unknown scandal could emerge, or she could decide that the 2016 climate has become grim enough for Democrats that the nomination isn’t worth seeking.

But the odds that a challenger will emerge from the left flank of the Democratic Party and overtake Clinton remain low.

As my colleague Harry Enten pointed out in May, Clinton has generally done as well or better in polls of liberal Democrats as among other types of Democrats. Between September and March, an average of 70 percent of liberal Democrats named her as their top choice for the 2016 nomination as compared to 65 percent of Democrats overall. An ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted more recently showed Clinton with 72 percent of the primary vote among liberal Democrats as compared to 66 percent of all Democrats. And a CNN poll conducted last month gave her 66 percent of the liberal Democratic vote against 67 percent of all Democrats.
.
.
.
(more at link)

[DonViejo]

36. "...he looks more progressive on some current issues..."

That's called "praise." Something you allege no one is giving Rand Paul.

[JaydenD]

51. I see it as calling it shameful toward Hillary rather than praise toward Paul.

[SunSeeker]

117. The word "progressive" should never be used to describe Rand Paul. nt

[JaydenD]

136. but yet some of his ideas are more progressive than Hillary's - on matters of war, for example.

She seems to condone it at every chance she gets, he is probably lying when he says he is against it but he does say he is against it, generally.

But of course that makes me a Ron Paul supporter. Nevermind discussion and trading opinions and all that silly nonsense.

[SunSeeker]

144. No, they are not "progressive," they all stem from his anti-government views.

He calls his positions "limited government" positions. He would never call his views "progressive." Why do you give him that honor?

[JaydenD]

148. Okay, I see your point. I don't intend to give Paul any honor.

It's just a shame he is talking about things she should be talking about, instead of leaping into Netanyahoo's arms to console him, and comforting the Wall Streeters because people are saying bad things about bankers.

I hope you see my point now too.

on edit:
Okay, maybe the word progressive shouldn't automatically be so honored. I have heard a lot of so called progressives be as crude and hateful and bigoted toward the President as any teabagger could dream about. So I had to add this part.

[stevenleser]

150. That depends on how deeply you analyze his beliefs. The 'whys' matter.

He and most Libertarians are not 'anti-war' because they think war is wrong. They are anti-war because of one or more of three reasons.

1. Because of their belief in a small, weak central government, they don't want to pay taxes to fund them

2. Out of a desire to see a small/weak central government, they adhere to a strict view of the Constitution that says that the President cannot act militarily at all without a congressional declaration of war.

3. They don't believe we should care about what happens to people in other countries and are isolationist from that viewpoint.

Now, it's possible that this is satisfactory or doesn't matter to some Progressives, or they would argue that the ends justify the means no matter how you get there. But it is yet another example of how Libertarianism and Progressivism have incompatibilities.

The way their beliefs translate into military and foreign policy in general becomes problematic. For instance:

Libertarians would not argue for the rights of women or LGBT in other countries. Libertarians dont think that is our business. For a lot of us on the left, that is problematic. I suppose if you are a straight white man and are lacking in empathy for those of color or women or LGBT that might be OK for you, but then are you really a progressive?

[OilemFirchen]

154. He's actually not an isolationist.

He simply believes in external defense by proxy. Why maintain a bloated military when Soldiers of Fortune can get the job done on the cheap?

Save the decimated military to fight the negores, the wetbacks, the liberals and the joos. It's not really all that difficult to understand where he's coming from.

[Jamaal510]

165. Interesting post:

They are anti-war because of one or more of three reasons.

1. Because of their belief in a small, weak central government, they don't want to pay taxes to fund them

2. Out of a desire to see a small/weak central government, they adhere to a strict view of the Constitution that says that the President cannot act militarily at all without a congressional declaration of war.

3. They don't believe we should care about what happens to people in other countries and are isolationist from that viewpoint.

The way their beliefs translate into military and foreign policy in general becomes problematic. For instance:

Libertarians would not argue for the rights of women or LGBT in other countries. Libertarians dont think that is our business.

[wyldwolf]

172. this is the most important subthread I've seen in a while.

[oberliner]

5. You suggest nominating Bernie Sanders?

That would almost certainly lead to the worst electoral defeat for the Democrats since Walter Mondale.

[still_one]

28. Actually I think the George McGovern defeat was pretty bad. Ironically, McGovern would have been a

great president

[oberliner]

31. That was before Mondale

Perhaps a Sanders nomination would go as awfully as McGovern's did. In any case, I don't think he would have a chance to win a national election. That is not to say he wouldn't be a great president.

[still_one]

58. I agree

[Joe Turner]

212. You know what

If the American electorate is so gullible to elect another republican after decades of right-wing degradation that has destroyed our industrial base, decimated our middle class and gotten us into endless wars then we deserve what is coming to us. And nominating another DNC-republican gets us to the same place anyway.

[oberliner]

223. That seems pretty defeatist

I think Clinton would be much better than whomever the Republicans would nominate.

[woo me with science]

6. I think you're right.

Reposting my response from when you posted this the first time:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5432640

I think you are right.

I have been fascinated by the ostentatiousness of Hillary's Third Way, neocon campaign, by the trumpeting of her "gaffes" about being poor by the corporate media, and by the level of deliberate obnoxiousness of many of her mouthpieces online. It would hardly be possible to run a campaign better suited to alienating the Democratic base and voters generally.

I thought for a while that the plan was just to infuriate the base as much as possible so that when a fake stealth populist appeared late in the game, Democrats would rally around him or her mindlessly and without demanding any serious vetting.

But in watching the play, I have decided that it's more likely that the corporate PTB have decided that it's time for a Republican.

I agree with you that Rand Paul will run on all those things, appealing to the general mood of the country, which is sick and tired of war and the shredding of our Constitution.

I think Hillary will run ostentatiously to the right of him and is planned and expected to lose.

By then we will be embroiled in another war, and all promises of reining in the military or reducing the police state can be explained away as impossible for the time being, and we will instead receive more major privatization and gutting of social programs.

We are screwed no matter which is elected, because Hillary will have already run on all the things Rand Paul will end up actually doing.

The PTB have us by the throat, because they own both parties, and they will play us once again. If genuine, non-corporate, non-infiltrating Democrats had any power left in the party at all, Paul wouldn't have to be a problem. He wouldn't even have to be an afterthought.

People are drawn to these formerly fringe Libertarians and libertarian-style Republicans only because they say some of the right things re: reining in warmongering, curbing the drug wars, and stopping the outrageous surveillance state. Every poll shows that people across party lines despise their willingness to scrap social programs/gut Social Security. All Democrats would have to do to blow them away would be to re-embrace the principles and policies they were supposed to stand for all along but have abandoned since selling out to corporate interests: being the party that reins in Wall Street, ends the surveillance state and the police state, restores our Constitution, reduces inequality, ends the outrageous drug wars, and STRENGTHENS social safety nets.

But our party is purchased now by the same ones who own the Republicans, and that's not going to happen.

So corporate Democrats will threaten and bully that we must support Hillary in order to avoid Paul, and they will claim to be vindicated when Paul is a disaster for human beings. But the truth is that The PTB will pursue their agenda under either one of them. Hillary's ostentatiously Third Way/neocon/neolib campaign is designed and backed by corporatists to enable or even ensure the coming of Paul and the continuation of the corporate takeover of this nation.

[woo me with science]

18. And....to those who claim so confidently that Rand Paul would never even get out of a primary...

Have you noticed what is happening in the far right propaganda machine?

Rush Limbaugh Stands With Rand Paul: 'The Neocons Are Paranoid'
The most popular conservative demagogue in America signals that hawkish foreign-policy dogma may be losing its hold on the GOP.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/rush-limbaugh-stands-with-rand-paul-the-neocons-are-paranoid/273938/

Rand Paul isn't a Libertarian like his father. He is an ostensibly libertarian-leaning Republican, and now we see that the conservative brainwashing machine is starting to line up behind him.

I always find it interesting to watch the direction of the talking points online; that's perhaps the only positive thing about living in a propaganda state now. In addition to the weird behavior of the MSM, Hillary's supporters online, and Hillary herself in almost fervently alienating her from prospective voters .....

...there's also been a steady stream of hatred in the Third Way propaganda, directed toward the Pauls and libertarianism in general. Odd, that the Third Way spends so much time and energy on them, only to pivot and swarm to declare them absolutely irrelevant in this thread.

I find that fascinating, too.

[emulatorloo]

87. Paul will implode in national spotlight, as Sharon Angle, "I am not a witch," Sarah Palin, etc.

You are either:

- too caught up in DU bubble world

- too eager to promote defeating Democrats

I hope to hell a credible challenge emerges to Clinton.

[jeff47]

167. Exactly what people said about that idiot from Texas in 1998.

How'd that turn out?

[emulatorloo]

201. Rand is a "true-believer" who cannot STFU. Shrub was a suit who did what he was told

Paul's brand of crazy can not be hidden.

[jeff47]

203. Which is why he still goes on Maddow.

Oh wait......

Well, it's definitely why he talked with the Dreamers in that restaurant.

Oh wait......

[2banon]

278. It is interesting, isn't it?

Up thread I said this discussion wrt Rand Paul was baffling to me.. something of a shiny object distraction.. I hadn't considered the Third Way's vested interest in this strategy.

Now it's making sense..

[L0oniX]

71. +1 ...dayaaaammmmmnnnn spot on. n/t

[Phlem]

127. Love to read your posts! [phone]

[2banon]

279. Jeez, yes.. This is exactly what's happening..

and either way, we're so screwed. what might it take to flip this entire paradigm on it's head?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. I have as much chance as being the 45th president as Rand Paul/nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

82. I don't knowbout that ...

if he makes it out of the gop primary, AND the progressives vote for paul or stay home, he stands a shot.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

106. Progressives are going to vote for a man who said he would have opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964

I don't think so.

[1StrongBlackMan]

120. Please listen more closely to what the DU "progressives" ...

are, and have been saying, as the OP states above:

So to summarize. The Republican candidate will be on the Progressive side of many issues, while the Democratic Candidate will be on the regressive side of the issues. Now you're going to scream that Paul will destroy the Department of Education, slash Welfare, social security, and destroy a woman's right to choose.

The problem is that people will be willing to risk those issues to get action on the other ones.

The OP suggests that the Democratic base is willing to risk core Democratic values, e.g., the social safety net, medicare, social security, and a woman's right to choose (not to mention Civil Rights issues, except those that effect straight, white males), in order to get movement on, IMO, things that have only recently (and largely on this board) been called Democratic core beliefs.

The Democratic Party (and its base) has never been pro-Marijuana/drugs, pro-isolationist, anti-Wall Street, or anti-NSA. In fact, the argument could be made that the Democratic Party (and its base) has never been "progressive."

[DemocratSinceBirth]

124. Take out the high falluting language

The OP is arguing that Rand Paul is going to run as the anti-war candidate and Hillary is going to run as the war candidate and he's going to beat her that way.

I don't see it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

130. I don't see paul winning, either ...

unless he is put in with progressive (anti-war, anti-Wall Street) votes, or by progressives not voting.

[2banon]

181. You're making an argument for Democratic Party to take Anti-War and Anti-Wall Street positions

AS THEY SHOULD! Don't allow the right wing racist thug party win on those issues. Really, quite a simple solution.

These are positions that MOST WORKING CLASS AMERICANS agree with and support! The attempt to box these positions into Left-Right paradigms are not working anymore, no matter how determined political functionaries keep trying to push that toothpaste back in the tube, it's not working.

You can demonize "progressives" and attempt to stereotype all you want but that isn't going to help "win elections" for the party.

[1StrongBlackMan]

186. That's my point ...

These are positions that MOST WORKING CLASS AMERICANS agree with and support!

These positions don't even register with MOST WORKING CLASS AMERICANS.

[2banon]

193. It seems that way at times..

especially if one is given to accept the M$M's framing of what issues are important to "most" working class American's. CNN et al would have us all believe their Corporate pablum as reflective of the population. But my daily experience engaging with the poor and working class tells me quite a different story/analysis. Granted, I do live in the Bay Area. But I have peeps in the South and in the Midwest too.

No, just cuz they're not saying so on PBS/NPR or CNN etc.etc. doesn't qualify. These things do matter a lot, and a growing and frustrated "electorate" is not being represented in the Beltway or their propaganda organizations and affiliate "think tanks".

[1StrongBlackMan]

217. My I ask what youdo for a living ...

because my experience with the poor and working class says something much different ... and so does the polling.

Yes, there a a lot of frustrated folks ... but it has little to do with the NSA or bankers not being prosecuted or government bail-outs to corporations or any of the other issues where DU progressives interest with paul.

[2banon]

230. Well.. now I'm on SSA..

But I was doing Caregiving work, have done office clerk jobs over the years and such. Definitely low wage work for most of my life. So I'm squarely in the "category' of the "working poor'.

I'm not seeing DU progressives in support of Rand/Ron Paul. I see lots of references to both, but not "support", certainly not by Progressives. That's a key reason why posts making that claim confuses me, I don't understand the point of conflating support for single item issues as evidence of broad support.

In other words, just because Rand Paul was anti-war (Iraq) back several years ago, doesn't equate to a candidate that represents any of the socio-economic concerns. Sometimes there will be cross over unanimity on single issues, and we can make note of that, but it doesn't mean we support him for office.

So there's this weird (to me) demonization of the Left going on in DU with these types of claims/assertions. I just don't understand why Dems would want to marginalize us, or even throw us under the bus for taking issue with the status quo policy and platform decisions, running candidates who are clearly in the pockets of Wall Street etc. etc. furthering the disadvantages of the poor and working class.

Apart from being baffling, it's also quite demoralizing which has it's own destructive effect.

You know. Divide and Conquer, That's how they always win.

[1StrongBlackMan]

231. While it is true ...

there are some saying that agreeing with paul on "Issue A", equals support for paul ... In my view, it does not; except in response to OPs that use paul's positions to beat up on Democrats. IOWs, by continually trumpeting "paul is to the left of HRC", without pointing to the 100s of positions where he is far to the right (or just plain insane), merely furthers the "two parties are the same" lie.

[2banon]

235. HRC

there are some saying that agreeing with paul on "Issue A", equals support for paul ... In my view, it does not;

Clearly, that's accurate, and I agree.

by continually trumpeting "paul is to the left of HRC", without pointing to the 100s of positions where he is far to the right

It's very important to highlight the extreme right position the Paul's support/believe in, if he were an actual contender. IMO, he is not an actual contender, and TPTB will never allow him to be..

Personally, I think he's used as a Red Herring by the TPTB, in order to make HRC "appealing" enough to run as the candidate for POTUS by so called "moderates".

It's a sheeps clothing situation..

Someone like HRC being shopped as a "moderate" should tell you all you need to know about the system we're all enslaved by.

[1StrongBlackMan]

244. And here's the sticking point ...

Someone like HRC being shopped as a "moderate" should tell you all you need to know about the system we're all enslaved by.

She IS a moderate on any number of issues ... if one uses the positions of the Democratic base, as the base line.

[2banon]

257. By today's Political Class Standards, I agree.

And if one is interested in maintaining the status quo, then HRC makes sense from that perspective.

But you were arguing, as was I, AGAINST maintaining the status quo.

Don't you recognize the contradiction here?

[1StrongBlackMan]

258. We are talking two different status quos ...

you wish to address the economic status quo; I am more concerned about the social status quo.

[2banon]

259. Socio-economics Brother, Socio-economics. n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

262. Are two different interests, Brother. Two different interests. n/t

[2banon]

264. Sister to you please. No, they're connected. it's all connected. peel off that onion.

[1StrongBlackMan]

265. Sorry ...

that's one problem with the internet ... you can't tell whom one is speaking with ... you just have to trust they are who the are, if they tell you anything ,,, and then you have to remember it.

Socio and economic are connected only if you are a person of color or a working (or wanting to work) white woman.

[2banon]

267. No Sir, that's quite incorrect.

You said:

Socio and economic are connected only if you are a person of color or a working (or wanting to work) white woman

.


Wikipedia:

Socioeconomic status. Socioeconomic status (SES) is an economic and sociological combined total measure of a person's work experience and of an individual's or family's economic and social position in relation to others, based on income, education, and occupation.

There's a plethora of links readily available on the same page..

Socioeconomic and political economic theory for more illumination as well...

[1StrongBlackMan]

268. Okay, I see our disconnect ...

Note, the wiki definition of "socio" is purely from a economic POV. You cannot see beyond (your own) economic interests to hear what I am saying.

I am saying that for People of Color, and arguably, for women (especially, Women of Color), social equality (i.e., the traditional understanding of "Civil Rights&quot is as, if not more, important as the economic equity struggle. This is because we recognize that an economic equity victory, still leaves us in the same relative position in terms of intra-class parity.

[2banon]

272. Socioeconomic, Racial and Gender Equality

Describes to me everything in post 268.

My point still stands, it's all connected in terms of the power dynamics/structure/system (the ruling and propertied class) at play which institutionalized race, sex, gender discrimination and oppression in all it's manifestations, (socio and political economically), and the working poor.

[CJCRANE]

8. Hillary's theme will be "spreading American values"

around the world, or at least that's what she's hinted at when talking about "telling a story" and intervening abroad more often.

I have been impressed by Rand & Ron Paul's foreign policy stances and I don't see anyone like them on the left.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

69. Like "hard working white people" values? Those values?

[Jester Messiah]

105. Yeah...

Spreading our values wide for a good plowing. No thanks, Hil.

[UTUSN]

9. Priceless: Rand running away from a Dreamer. n/t

[FSogol]

10. Unrec, except for the LOLs.

[woo me with science]

12. The thread is being very rapidly swarmed by the resident Third Way crew.

Usually a sign that there is something here perceived to be dangerous.

[wyldwolf]

38. to counteract the absurd far left crew

[woo me with science]

42. LOL. If it's so absurd, why swarm it?

Won't it die quietly on its own?

And what happened to all the Third Way fear and hatred of Libertarians that we've been seeing on here for months and months? Suddenly they're irrelevant?

[wyldwolf]

57. no swarming. This is a discussion forum. If you want a place where only your opinion is allowed...

... start a closed facebook group.

[1StrongBlackMan]

86. +1. eom.

[L0oniX]

61. Oh come on now ...just as we are all warming up to the third way corporatist war hawks.

[woo me with science]

70. LOL!

Months and months of Third Way threads warning about those evil Libertarians, and now suddenly we're silly to even mention them!

Nothing to see here....Move along!

[ForgoTheConsequence]

128. Lol at "far left"

More like center-left, which used to be the backbone of the party until the third way types came aboard and hijacked it and brought with them all their Reagan democrat bullshit baggage.

[2banon]

233. ^^^^This^^^ +1000

The Turd Ways strategy is to demonize the Left to the point where we all stay home.. then when their candidate loses, they can blame us for staying home. It will be all our fault because we didn't love their Corporate - War Hawk Hacks enough.

And they love punching the Left more than they love their own tool it seems.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

242. They definitely hate the left more than they hate republicans.

They always blame the left and almost always let republicans off the hook. Not to mention supporting republican wars.

It's no mystery why either, outside of a few social policy disagreements third way democrats are much closer to republicans than they are to center left democrats.

[joshcryer]

198. Apolitical left.

[2banon]

280. oxymoron, there's no such thing.

[carolinayellowdog]

224. Not since Snowden and Greenwald evoked the swarm effect

have I seen numbers like this: of 223 replies I can only see 58

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. DU political prognostications always tickle me./NT

[1StrongBlackMan]

89. I agree ...

the more wrong they are; the more loudly they make them!

[flamingdem]

14. Maybe Paul Ryan but not Rand

and Ryan will be an idiot like last time.

[Nay]

15. I cannot find anything in your essay that I disagree with, Savannahman.

We do have two years to go and some more shuffling of candidates may happen due to health issues, etc., but if it's Hillary and Paul, your scenario is very possible.

Hillary's major flaw is that she can't seem to see that the zeitgeist among Americans has totally changed over the past 5 years. For example:

She thinks she has to prove she can go to war without blinking, we are sick and tired of war that makes the problems worse.
She thinks she has to be tough on drugs, we wish our (son, daughter, father, friend...) wasn't in jail over a joint.
She thinks bailing out the banks is OK, we wanted to hang them all from lampposts to teach them a lesson.

Rand Paul is dangerous indeed, because he DOES have a few ideas that are progressive, AND the Democrats aren't agreeing with him on these ideas. What are voters supposed to think? If I were an uninformed voter (who are usually more progressive than not, according to dozens of polls), I'd vote for Paul, knowing that more-of-the-same Hillary is going to get us more of the same.

Unfortunately, Hillary has been very consistently a Republican in all the important issues that are blowing up now. She can't just turn around and say "Oh, yes, we should legalize weed, throw the bankers in jail" because no one will believe her. And they shouldn't -- she hasn't, through words or actions, shown in any way that she believes any of that. Bernie Sanders and a few others have shown their dedication to such ideals, and they are the only ones who can be believed.

I have no idea if Bernie has a chance of winning, but I'd like him to try.

[smirkymonkey]

22. Either way, we're screwed.

Nothing will change for the better either way. 4 more years of crap.

[stevenleser]

25. You and OP must have skipped out on politics 101. First, ensure you have support of your base.

Christian Conservatives and NeoConservatives constitute 30-40% of the GOP base. Christian Conservatives are completely against Libertarianism. NeoConservatives want an interventionist foreign policy. Both groups have already started voicing objections to Rand.

You cannot win elections while alienating that large of a percentage of your base.

[woo me with science]

27. See post 18.

[L0oniX]

34. Right and wrong are soooo old school. Winning is all.

[1StrongBlackMan]

102. In politics ...

that is correct.

[1StrongBlackMan]

100. And another significant segment of the gop base ...

is made up of "business" folks, that while they may love his low tax/no regulation message, they HATE his no subsidies message.

[stevenleser]

174. Good point. They won't say anything, they just won't donate money or set up PACs and that is a big

deal for a GOP presidential candidate.

[magical thyme]

159. I think Hillary really does want more war.

Early on, I presumed it was posturing to get past perceived weakness since she's a wymmins and all. But now I do believe she is an armchair warhawk, through and through.

[MohRokTah]

19. Rand PAul will never get past the Baggers in the primaries.

No way does he get the nomination.

[stevenleser]

21. All other analysis of the subject says otherwise. Rand would alienate 30-40% of the GOP base

The Christian Conservative and the Neoconservative part of the GOP base would be completely alienated by Rand Paul. You don't win elections by alienating that huge of a percentage of your own base.

And how would he make up for that? By attempting to appeal to progressives with a low tax, no regulations to protect the environment or workers and pro business agenda? Assuming progressives would stomach that, and I don't think they will, do you think that is enough to make up for the huge amount of the GOP base he wouldn't win?

All analysis of that question, by political professionals, says otherwise.

[Savannahmann]

44. Would those be the same political professionals who..

Said that Hillary was the obvious choice in 2008 and the only one who could win?

Are those the same Political Professionals who said that once we passed the ACA we would win big in the mid terms of 2010?

Or are they the same Political Professionals who said that if Obama was re-elected we would sweep the board?

I've heard all those meme's from the political professionals, who are now singing that Hillary is inevitable. She's the only one with the name recognition. She's the only one who has the campaign machine already running. She's the only one who has the political chops to win. The problem is, these political professionals are losing the Senate right now. http://www.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2014/senate-model/ Right now, Republicans have a 65% chance of winning the Senate.

But that's fine. Because the Political Professionals tell us that these things can never happen. Most Political professionals have a tin ear. They plan on the Rethugs screwing up in the campaigns. Well this year the Rethugs aren't screwing up. They're winning. Despite the plan to use the Hobby Lobby decision as the cudgel to wave at the voters. The Republicans insist on running winning campaigns.

So while the Political Professionals are certain that the sun will rise in the West tomorrow, the rest of us can look out and see what is really happening. Now, I'm going to find a hammer to bash my compass until it agrees with the Political Professionals. I wouldn't want to challenge their wisdom. They've done so much to make the Democratic dream come alive. Or something.

[stevenleser]

47. You are mixing apples and oranges and hoping it supports you. It doesn't.

If a pollster takes snapshot in time of current support of a candidate, that's all it is.

If we analyze a candidates positions and determine which groups will like him or not based on their stated positions on the issues, that is something very difficult to change. It is as simple as that. You have large defined and analyzed groups in the GOP that will not support Rand Paul because of the positions he has taken on the issues. That is not fluid and that does not depend on campaign strategy.

[woo me with science]

63. +1 "...the rest of us can look out and see what is really happening..."

Like what happened when Paul filibustered re: drones and Brennan at CPAC:

Rand Paul wins the first day of right-wing confab
http://www.salon.com/2013/03/14/rand_paul_wins_the_first_day_of_cpac/

The warm reception for Paul’s anti-interventionist foreign policy ideas is a stark contrast to the CPACs of years past, when neoconservatives ruled the day, like when Dick Cheney had a keynote spot just two years ago. Supporters of Ron Paul heckled the former vice president from the audience, but now one of their own is on the stage and getting only love from the crowd....

[emulatorloo]

90. Can't wait until he allows businesses to discriminate based on race, can you?

[woo me with science]

197. I just can't wait to see the status of women and minorities in this country

when we are all working for Third World wages, Hillary's trade agreements have ramped up corporate power and the ability of corporations to override our laws and protections, and dissent in the new corporate America has been crushed.

And you are missing the point, deliberately, I believe. Nobody here is arguing that Paul would be good for the country. I am saying that restricting the choices to these two would result in a wet dream for corporations and a disaster for human beings, because it would feed the corporate agenda either way.

[XRubicon]

23. Rand Paul? President? LOL.

[TwilightGardener]

24. Rand Paul is a lightweight. I have no idea why anyone thinks he will be President.

He's a joke.

[oberliner]

29. Who do you see getting the Republican nomination?

Not sure who the heavyweights are over there.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. They all lack gravitas. Gawd, I hate that word but it's true

The only one of them who isn't a joke is Jeb Bush and he isn't running.

[woo me with science]

37. Indicting Perry sure didn't add any "gravitas" to the status quo neocon crowd.

I think they're building up Paul. When Limbaugh is getting behind him, something smells.

[TwilightGardener]

45. I really don't know. Probably Jeb. It was supposed to be Christie, but

I don't see that happening now, he reeks of corruption. Legal troubles aside, Perry is just too unreliable a performer, he'll make an ass of himself again and everybody knows it. I think the Bush family really wants to repair their legacy through Jebbie.

[TwilightGardener]

75. I should also add, I think Paul Ryan will run and is less of a lightweight than Rand Paul.

[BlueCaliDem]

49. Jeb Bush. The moneyed powers-that-be want him in the White House. eom

[Nay]

81. Reagan was a joke, too, and look what happened there. nt

[TwilightGardener]

113. LOL--and I'm still not over the absurd notion of GWB as President.

[DCBob]

39. Absurd.

Are you drunk?

[MoonchildCA]

138. I'm glad I read through all the comments,

before I posted this same thing.

[whereisjustice]

43. you raise some good points, more likely Bush versus Clinton, as the elite battle it out

But your point is valid if for no other reason than to remind us that there are more than two choices and, so far, in spite of efforts by both political parties, it is still possible to vote for other candidates. This is always a preferable option to just staying home.

Hillary's chances look grim to me. Too many people were left out of the "recovery", setting the stage for another good ol boy style candidate that you'd want to drink a beer with to fill in the vacuum. If they are going to screw you over, they might as well be fun to hang around with. Hillary, like Romney, is about as stiff as it gets.

Working class citizens have been shut out of the political process for decades. It now takes millions to run in small school board elections.

Education reform advocates demand critical thinking skills, and as soon as you apply them to our political candidates, you get attacked for questioning their purity.

Neither political party gives a damn what people think, they only care about corporations. No matter who runs or wins, corporate CEOs will be the winner and the quality of life will continue to decline for the majority, just as it has for the last 35 years.

That is our destiny until we start holding the political process accountable for destroying the middle class and below.

[Nay]

178. I have always maintained that in 2016 it would be Bush vs. Clinton.

Sure, above I addressed the OP's essay and said what I think would be the problems Clinton would have running against Paul, but really, I think it's gonna be B vs C. When Christie was still viable, I thought he might be a possibility. As far as which one would win, I have no goddamn idea. I think there would be a lot of ugly talk about why it is that out of 350 million citizens, the country can't come up with any candidates not named Bush or Clinton. Dynasties are generally very bad for countries, and would be especially horrible with either of those two. But what can you do when the selection process is so corrupt?

[whereisjustice]

209. besides money polluting politics, congress is basically same size as 1914 in spite of fact that

population has more than tripled from 100,000,000 in 194 to 315,000,000 in 2014. Power continues to concentrate into the hands of a minority.

I haven't ruled out Rubio either as wildcard.

Most dangerous breed is the "economic conservative, socially liberal". Two diametrically opposite principals which virtually guarantee our nation will slowly tear itself apart from inside out.

"Oh, I'm not a racist, I just want to cut social programs for minorities and use the money to buy and maintain military weapons for our local police department to keep us safe. It's very sensible since the army gives it away (almost) for free."

Our nation has gone completely fucking bat shit crazy.

[woo me with science]

46. Rush Limbaugh stands with Rand Paul

I think this lends weight to your scenario:

Rush Limbaugh Stands With Rand Paul: 'The Neocons Are Paranoid'
The most popular conservative demagogue in America signals that hawkish foreign-policy dogma may be losing its hold on the GOP.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/rush-limbaugh-stands-with-rand-paul-the-neocons-are-paranoid/273938/

[XRubicon]

50. "lends weight" plus Rush = LOL

[JaydenD]

256. Okay, buster... you and your coffee and donuts

made me laugh.

I know I'm not supposed to laugh at that sort of thing here, or admit to it.

But I did.

[L0oniX]

52. Any ideas and principals from the opposition are automatically bad. Right?

Good ideas and principals come from many sources ...less from some and more from others. The key for a candidate is to be the person who has the most of these good ideas and principals incorporated into their person and not just well put together campaign speeches. For those who are not locked into zombie Dem voting some and not all by any means, of Paul's ideas will indeed resonate. If Dems really want to win on principals based on what really are best things for "we the people" they better start collecting and implementing the most good ideas and principals now before 2016 or we will be stuck with Hillary. What would you rather ...to be wrong and win or be right and lose? Being right does not need to mean Dems would lose.


- Poor people don't vote and or make huge enough donations to politicians = a 1% win ...change that or kiss real freedom and democracy good by.

[OilemFirchen]

129. A principled principal!

We need more of those.

Oh... and fuck Rand Paul.

[Bobbie Jo]

266. lol

[1StrongBlackMan]

56. No ...

So to summarize. The Republican candidate will be on the Progressive side of many issues, while the Democratic Candidate will be on the regressive side of the issues. Now you're going to scream that Paul will destroy the Department of Education, slash Welfare, social security, and destroy a woman's right to choose.

The problem is that people will be willing to risk those issues to get action on the other ones.

YOU are willing to risk those issues (and many more, like Civil Rights for everyone except straight, white men) to get action on the other ones ... The Democratic base will not.

[wyldwolf]

66. a VERY important point! n/t

[Savannahmann]

74. Actually, I never said I was voting for him.

I'm not a Hillary fan. But if she's the nominee, I'll vote for her out of party loyalty. But I think a lot of people won't. I think a lot of people will vote for Rand. I am not so conceited as to believe that everyone believes as I do. I am not so arrogant as to believe that people feel the way I do. I am realistic enough to recognize the danger, and I hoped to point it out.

I am sorry if you got another message from my postings. I apologize for not being clear enough about the central issue of my individual vote in the State of Georgia, where the Rethug candidate will win the state.

[heaven05]

77. +1000

[Autumn]

65. His trip to do surgery on poor blind people in Nicaragua is his campaign in action and idiots

will lap it up, hell if I didn't know him better I would fucking admire and like him. He is the anti Hillary and he's making that clear as a bell and it's going to work.

[VanillaRhapsody]

78. Oh my sides....PULEASE Stop! I can't take it....

[Metric System]

79. Fingers crossed!

[BlueMTexpat]

83. Nice try! But no cigar.

I am not thrilled about Hillary's recent posturing. Not at all.

But there is no way that Rand Paul could defeat her.

We are still a LONG way from 2016.

I prefer to concentrate on getting Dems - especially good Dems - elected in 2014.

If we don't, 2016 will most likely be our last try at maintaining the United States of America as a viable 50-state nation.

I believe that it really is that serious.

[sadoldgirl]

85. It seems that overlooking Paul

would be a great mistake. I for one never thought that W had any chance, yet we did not only have him for 4 years, but for 8 lousy years.
We don't know how well the voter manipulation will be managed by the Repugs. And don't forget that it may not take 50% or more to elect a president (Clinton?).

To all the supporters of HRC I would suggest caution, because

a) She has not declared

b) She may not declare, and

c) For unknown reasons she may not be able to declare.

It is never wise at this stage to put all your eggs in one basket. While you support her, consider other possibilities as well.
However, I would forget the "have-beens. They have not won in the Democratic Party for over 50 years. That trend belongs to the Repugs.

[wolfie001]

88. Watching the tape of him weasel out of those questions by that woman in the resaurant was.....

Last edited Sun Aug 24, 2014, 07:11 PM - Edit history (1)

.....pure cowardice. OP is way off on this one. Anyways, if we don't vote for the Dem than we deserve the Replug knuckle-dragger whoever he is. No more Bush2000 please?

[emulatorloo]

91. Lots of people here would cut off their noses to spite their faces

[Thinkingabout]

92. Are you Libertarian or Democrat?

I have read the same similar positions on the Libertarian site. If you think for one second Paul will be elected without big funds from corporations and wall street you might want to check the history on campaign contributions in the past few years. It takes big bucks to run a state campaign, Elizabeth Warren spent $42 million dollars in a state campaign, and as she readily admits she took donations from corporations. Multiply this amount by 50 states. Can you think of an individual who can supply the funds needed for a campaign?

Here is Hillary on Corporations
Hillary Clinton on Corporations
Click here for 22 full quotes on Corporations OR background on Corporations. •Take back $55B in Bush’s industry give-aways. (Apr 2008)
•FactCheck: Pushed Wal-Mart for women managers & environment. (Jan 2008)
•World Bank should impose rules on sovereign wealth funds. (Jan 2008)
•Bush defanged the Consumer Product Safety Commission. (Dec 2007)
•FactCheck: Yes, Bush shrunk CPSC; but it shrank before Bush. (Dec 2007)
•Outraged at CEO compensation. (Oct 2007)
•Stop bankruptcies to get rid of pension responsibilities. (Aug 2007)
•Enough with corporate welfare; enough with golden parachutes. (Jun 2007)
•Close lobbyists’ revolving door; end no-bid contracts. (Jun 2007)
•1976 Rose Law: Fought for industry against electric rate cut. (Jun 2007)
•Corporate lawyer at Rose Law while Bill was Attorney General. (Jun 2007)
•Corporate elite treat working-class America as invisible. (Apr 2007)
•Companies get rewarded with hard-working people left hanging. (Mar 2007)
•1980s: Loved Wal-Mart's "Buy America" program. (Jun 2004)
•1970s: Potential conflict of interest when GM sued Arkansas. (Nov 1997)
•1970s: Potential conflict of interest when GM sued AR. (Nov 1997)
•Businesses play social role in US; gov’t oversight required. (Sep 1996)
•Family-friendly work policies are good for business. (Sep 1996)
•Serving on boards provides ties but requires defending too. (Aug 1993)
•Voted YES on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore. (Mar 2005)
•Voted YES on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy. (Jul 2001)
•Rated 35% by the US COC, indicating a mixed business voting record. (Dec 2003)


Source

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/hillary_clinton.htm


Rand Paul on Corporations

•Cut corporate tax in half to create millions of jobs. (Feb 2013)
•Punishing the rich means the poor lose their jobs. (Aug 2012)
•Obama's "You didn't build that" insults American workers. (Aug 2012)
•Expand lending caps for credit unions to small business. (Mar 2012)
•Rated 14% by UFCW, indicating a pro-management voting record. (May 2012)

Source

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Rand_Paul.htm

The facts speaks for themselves.

[Demeter]

93. From your lips to God's Ear

Because as we all know, the Party ain't listening to anyone but Wall St......and the military/industrial/espionage complex. Oh, and Israel, on alternate Thursdays.

[Dems to Win]

95. I'm still hoping there is a serious challenge to 'inevitable' Hillary

I've got my lantern out, looking for a progressive politician under age 60 to present an alternative choice.

If Hillary is seriously challenged and wins the primary fair and square, I will grudgingly vote for her in the general election.

If the Clinton machine succeeds in intimidating all potential challengers, as described in this Atlantic article, so that she sweeps to the nomination unopposed, I will likely leave that ballot line blank.

Clintonphobia: Why No Democrat Wants to Run Against Hillary
Strong frontrunners have drawn challengers before. But given the Clintons' reputation for retaliating for betrayals, it's just not worth it in 2016.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/why-no-democrat-wants-to-run-against-hillary-fear-of-retaliation/378914/

My objection to Hillary 2016 is the exact same objection I had in 2008: Her vote in favor of the Iraq War Resolution. She was either duped by George Bush, or she really believed a US War on Iraq was the right decision for our country. Either way, she is not a person I want as president.

What do we want? A competitive primary!

When do we want it? 2016!

[amuse bouche]

96. No it won't

Try again

[Gothmog]

97. Rick Perry was never the presumptive nominee of the GOP

All Texans know Perry/Goodhair and there is no way that Perry would be the nominee. Perry is too stupid to mount a sustained national campaign to get the GOP nomination. If anything, the indictment may help Goodhair with the GOP base of idiots who hate the government but that help will not change the outcome which is that Perry would never be the GOP nominee

Rand Paul is also not gong to be the GOP nominee. The GOP donor class controls the nomination process and there is no way that Paul would be allowed to be the nominee. The GOP donor class hates Rand Paul with a passion.

[indivisibleman]

104. I disagree to some degree.

Yes, I have considered these very same thoughts. In the end I believe people vote for whom they feel safest with and when they get into the booth they may be thinking about what you mention here but in their heart they are going to vote for the best candidate and against the more dangerous candidate. Sure Hilliary would bring with her a similar administration in manyways but Paul would bring in the teapugs and the neocons. You know that another war would be much more likely under Rand Paul. Not because he would want one but because the members of his party will want one.

[rickyhall]

112. I like Sanders as a Dem with Grayson as VP but I seem to be 1 of 2 here.

If worry about Sanders' age but Grayson could finish Sanders' term and go for 2 more and keeping moving forward.

[loyalsister]

114. Suppose she's looking for a different effect?

Maybe there is a good totally different ulterior motive. She is now idiot. She is well aware of the fact that the statements she has made would enrage some people. She brought more attention to the issue of inequality. Suppose that that was no accident and the idea was to inspire the outrage toward republicans that we have needed. The media has been talking about it more, and the 2016 candidate will have to talk about it.
Maybe it's a move intended to pave the way for a candidate with a strong record opposing income inequality. We have needed people to focus their attention on economics and ignore the BS that leads them to vote against their interests. They lost gay marriage as a wedge issue. Abortion has less impact when republicans have opposed providing birth control. Guns- shifting a little bit. Immigration- the latino population outnumbers the racists. If those wedge issues are neutralized, maybe we can finally run a candidate who makes income inequality the primary priority.

Imagine what that could do for us when it comes to congressional elections? I'm not sure who might be the candidate who could best take advantage of that, but maybe having a dark horse is part of the strategy. Martin O'Mally has some strengths, but his weaknesses have yet to be revealed.

Conspiracy theories are more popular when they are horror stories, but consider the possibility and what kind of legacy they might leave if they orchestrated such a thing. Especially if the next president also gets really serious about climate change.

Unfortunately, when it comes to foreign policy I think she passionately believes what she says.

[Fred Sanders]

118. Why not Eric Holder? Someone must have asked "why not Obama" about this time, 2006.

[AlbertCat]

125. I hate News of the future

Unless of course it's a joke.

Wait a minute.....

[MoleyRusselsWart]

131. I have a SERIOUS fear

Last edited Sun Aug 24, 2014, 02:53 PM - Edit history (1)

That we absolutely can see a Rand Paul presidency at some point.

People are slowly waking up to the fact that things are fucked up. There's a lot of anger out there at the "establishment". People know the whole system is broke, and that we need to do something completely different, even radical, to fix things.

Problem is, most people are completely misinformed on what the problems are thanks to the corporate media and vast right wing echo chamber.

So the question is, which philosophy/movement is going to successfully tap into that populist anger and win the day?

I really fear that it could end up being the libertarian message. "Small gov, less spending, no taxes, no job killing regulations, the poor are dragging us down" and so on sells so easily to low information voters. And its a message people have been hearing for years now. Couple that with libertarians beliefs of reducing military spending and America's footprint abroad and they could win over a lot of people.

Of course this would be disastrous, but I fear there is a dangerous leadership vacuum right now with an angry, fed up populace ready for change. If the democrats don't fill that vacuum, someone else will.

[AlbertCat]

151. Very good post....

but for

There's a lot of anger

and

the whole system is broken



After all, education is the key!

[MoleyRusselsWart]

156. Ha, duly noted

[AlbertCat]

162. I know...

... they're really typos

[MoleyRusselsWart]

163. Yup, 5 week old son in

One hand, iPhone in the other.

[Louisiana1976]

157. A President Rand Paul sounds scary.

[Proud Public Servant]

180. I don't think HRC can lose voters to the GOP

What she can do, though, is fill them with enough apathy to stay home altogether. If she manages to alienate black votes by distancing herself from Obama and failing to speak up about incidents like Ferguson; if she manages to alienate young voters by going full-tilt hawk on foreign policy; and if she manages to alienate the left by playing relentlessly to the center (including picking a Blue Dog white boy as her veep), I'd say she puts the White House in play, big time.

[jobycom]

204. Nah. Rand Paul looks like a muppet.

[pampango]

207. I prefer Warren or Sanders but nominating Hillary will not lead to Paul or the Apocolypse

which are pretty close to the same thing.

[Scuba]

211. "Either way, the Base of the Democratic Party will find themselves agreeing with Paul ..."

Bingo.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

239. The base of the Democratic Party includes black folk. Black folk are not persuaded

by Ron or Rand Paul. The Pauls are racist fucks. Black people are not stupid.

[DemocraticWing]

213. This is just not based in reality.

We're Democrats, and we can nominate plenty of great candidates who hold our values. Those values are a government that looks out for average people instead of the 1%, and that includes programs that the Clintons have fought to preserve and expand like Social Security, Medicare, and the Affordable Care Act. Those values include reforms that the Clintons have fought to implement like raising the minimum wage, reforming the tax system to make the rich pay their fair share, and strong support for the rights of workers and organized labor.

Hillary Clinton is an experienced public servant that has served for 8 years in the Senate, 4 years as Secretary of State, and as an extraordinarily active First Lady to the most popular Democratic President since JFK. Hillary is pro-choice and will fight to stop the GOP's War on Women, Hillary is pro marriage equality and will fight for the rights of LGBT Americans, and Hillary supports compassionate and comprehensive immigration reform that will bring millions of people out of the shadows.

Rand Paul wants to take away the rights of black voters, thinks the Civil Rights Act was a bad idea, wants to amend the constitution to strip human rights from gay people, and wants to use every tool of the federal government to squeeze the poor and make the rich even richer. With Hillary we have the chance to elect the first female President, while Rand Paul is opposed to every policy decision that would ever help women, and indeed wants to enshrine anti-choice policy in the constitution.

Personally I'd rather vote for Sanders or Warren or perhaps another Democrat. I don't think Hillary is perfect, and the beauty of our party's primary option is that I get to voice my opinion and advocate for the candidate of my choice. But I also have to face reality that Hillary Clinton is polling at much higher numbers than she was 8 years ago, actually has much of the Obama coalition on her side this time, and much of the (non-DU) Democratic base thinks it's her turn to be President. She appeals to nearly all sectors of the Democratic electorate, and is one of the most formidable candidates among moderates in recent memory.

While she's not my first choice, if our Party chooses to nominate her for President in 2016, I will vote for her enthusiastically in the general election. Now hopefully we can stop bickering about a future election cycle in which nobody is actively running yet, and actually get down to business and elect Democrats to local, state, and Congressional offices in THIS YEAR's vital elections.

[iloveObama12]

215. Hate To Say It But If Hillary Doesn't Clean Up Her Act...It's Rand Paul As Our Next President

[Gman]

216. Horse manure - such drama.

Just plain 'ol horse manure. The sky is not falling. Cats are not sleeping with dogs. Armageddon isn't happening.

Hillary will be the next president. Get over it, get used to it. It's going to happen.

[brooklynite]

219. UNREC

You start with the cliche that supporters of Hillary Clinton say she's "inevitable" (two posts per day!). So it'll be easy for you to prove that by providing a cite. Except that they're not there.

[MineralMan]

220. Pretty Much Nonsense.

Oh, and FRP!

[Iggo]

221. Oh, I wouldn't be so sure about that.

Last time, The Inevitable Hillary Clinton led to President Barack Obama.

[Vinca]

222. If half the electorate wasn't nuts, I'd say you were off your rocker.

But, we live in an era where there is a plan to somehow combine voting with the lottery in an effort to get more people to vote. Think the lottery players will do much research? I hate to say it, but the poster could be right.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

226. Not that it would have dissuaded any of those

willfully ignorant types who want to proclaim you a 'Rand Paul supporter', but you might have at least shaved off a few of the criticisms if the title had been 'could' instead of 'will'.

[SixString]

228. DU Rec.

[Puzzledtraveller]

232. He definitely is framing the issues that we should be out ahead of.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

240. You said: Either way, the Base of the Democratic Party will find themselves agreeing with Paul

The "the Base of the Democratic Party" consists of black Americans. First, black Americans will stay home before they vote for a Republican. Second, black voters will never support Rand Paul! We know that he is racist. He may have fooled Cory Booker, but he has not fooled the rest of us. And yes, I can speak for most black people. Believe me. We are not stupid people and cannot be fooled. While we may agree with the substance of what he says in terms of the so-called war on drugs and militarization of the police, we also know what Rand Paul is trying to do. I wish that some liberal whites who support Rand and Ron Paul would not be tricked or fooled into supporting these charlatans just because they may say a few things that make sense. It doesn't mean that they should be in office.

[Savannahmann]

246. The problem is that nobody is making sense on many issues.

But we'll start with your claim that Black Americans are the base of the Democratic party. Are they the only group who votes Democratic? Obviously not. Blacks are one group, one of the larger groups, but not the only one that with some consistency vote Democratic.

Here's the truth though my friend. Many people are getting frustrated. They are tired of the same old recycled nonsense year after year, and they are asking why doesn't someone do something. That is the attitude that many people have concerning the upcoming election and why the Republicans stand a 64% chance to take control of the Senate. Now, if I was a smart ass, I'd ask why the African Americans aren't planning on going out and supporting Democrats, but we both know that would be ignorant as hell. The truth is those few percentage points of moderates that swing back and forth hear the Rethugs saying things they agree with. They hear the arguments from the Rethugs that they are voting against the "job killing minimum wage hike". When the GAO came out and said yes, half a million jobs would be lost, everyone on the Left went insane, furious at this assessment. The Rethugs looked damned good to the less politically active than us people.

So we lost the minimum wage hike move, and we lost the argument because the Republicans were talking about saving jobs, while we were left using our these people are suffering on the minimum wage argument which went no where.

So what is Rand Paul doing? He's picking his topics with great care. He went to Berkeley and got a positive response from the liberals there on the issue of NSA surveillance. He wasn't hoping to get the Liberals in California to vote Republican. He couldn't convince that many people to vote Republican if he hit them in the head with a shovel just outside the voting booth. But what he did was even worse. He got the Liberals to agree with him on one subject, one topic.

So what you ask. He's right on one issue. Even a broken clock and all that, posted in this very thread. But when the Liberals discuss him to more moderate voters, they'll say, well he's right on this, and perhaps that, but he's awful. The more moderate voters will take a look, and decide that a lot of what he says makes sense. Not all, certainly they will not agree with everything, but enough that they wonder what will happen if we give him a chance.

In the same time, Hillary will be giving the usual excuses that we have to protect our children from drugs and we have to fight the war against Terror, and we have to keep drug users locked up in prison. I believe that given those two choice, and assuming that Rand is able to come up with some canned answers on a few more issues, he can, and in fact I believe he will win.

Because he doesn't need to convince the entire population of African American's, nor does he need to convince the population who is tired of the war, nor those tired and disgusted with the War on Drugs, nor those who are terrified or furious at the militarization of the police, nor those who are offended by the NSA, he doesn't even need the entire Occupy movement to back him. He just needs a few percentage points from each group. President Obama won with about five million votes. If Rand Paul can pick up three million of those votes, he's won. Three million people. That's less than one percent of the population of this nation. One hundred and seventy five million people voted in the last Presidential Election. So he'd need one out person out of every fifty voters to switch to him from the Democrats to win.

That's what I'm talking about. How giving ground on populist issues is going to hurt us. By turning our backs on the voters will see us losing. It's what's got us losing the Senate now. We don't have long to turn it around and save the Senate, soon momentum will be in the hands of the Rethugs, and we will be trying to catch up.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

249. Excuse me. I didn't assert that black voters are the only Democratic voters.

Please do not patronize me. I am not a political novice and you are not dealing with an idiot here.

It is indeed a fact, however, that no candidate running for national office can win on the Democratic Party ticket without the majority of black voters.

It is also an undeniable fact that an overwhelming majority of the black electorate will not support a Republican Party candidate.

However, if the Democratic Party candidate is also not a viable or desirable candidate, a good number--maybe not a majority--of voters could stay home, enough to make an impact in a close or competitive election.

And finally, someone like Rand Paul is not an attractive candidate even if he makes a few statements that appear to make sense or placate black folks.

Once again, black Americans are not easily fooled by political rhetoric, especially coming from the mouths of Republicans. But I tell you what: If Hilary Clinton, her husband, or any of their surrogates start down that racist rhetoric road like they did in 2007 and 2008, she can hang it up too.

[Savannahmann]

251. Let me begin by apologizing.

I did not intend to sound patronizing, nor act like I was a professional speaking to a novice. My intent was to go through the various issues and the attraction to many groups who were not dedicated Democrats. I've never said that the dedicated Democrats would vote Paul, I said that the wafflers, the moderates that make up about thirty to forty percent of the voting population would be tempted. I apologize if my choice of words created the unintended image that you saw. I hope you believe this apology is sincere, because it is.

Each election we have to win those votes. You know that. http://www.gallup.com/poll/166787/liberal-self-identification-edges-new-high-2013.aspx

Thirty four percent of the people identify themselves as Moderates. We have to win those votes. The way to do so is to take the populist side on several issues, this is not dangerous at all towards the base, which is people like you and me, who are going to vote Democratic anyway.

This is especially good when the populist side is also the moral side. What I tried to do and apparently failed, was highlight the differences in the two candidates. Twenty years ago, Liberals would have led the Democratic Party on these very issues. The ACLU has long been arguing for the amendments being trampled now. So you would think that in the upcoming election Democrats who have a long history on these issues would be leading. Instead, they are at best following for the vast majority of elected officials.

I've quoted the numbers above. From true majorities, to the highest percentage of those sampled. The issues I highlighted are populist issues. The people want the changes that are being proposed by Rand Paul.

I have posted quite a few long replies and idealistic OP's. In just about every one my point of view is this. I want a return to the Democratic Party of old, the one guided by principle and not by party purity. Arguing that we can't do anything until we have solid filibuster proof majorities is asinine given the current political climate. We can pick an issue, say legalization of marijuana, and run with it. A better one would be the economy, proposing programs or incentives to help economically disadvantaged areas. But we don't do that. We toss a sop in the form of a Minimum wage hike and don't really fight for it all that hard. We got our asses kicked.

Many here are accusing me of being a paulbot, or of being a troll trying to get Paul elected. My desire is to drag the party back to the principled governing of the people. Where principles guided our actions. When we fought to do the right things, because they were right. Much earlier this year, I started warning that the Senate was in Jeopardy. Many of those who suspect me of being a troll for Rand Paul were accusing me of spreading Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt about the Senate. If we hold the Senate this year, it will be by the thinnest of margins. We'll be lottery winner lucky to hold 51 seats. We'll be pretty lucky to hold 50 seats and have Joe Biden as the tie breaker. It is far more likely that we'll lose the Senate at this point. The NY Times gives it a good chance. RCP has it at 52 seats for the Rethugs.

I complained bitterly that our campaign strategy was to pray that the Rethugs screwed up. We should have been out there on these issues, we should have been out there campaigning on them already. That was the moral choice, and the right one. Then people would see the clear difference that the Democratic Party could offer. Instead, we're left being Rethug lite. Now, worst of all, we're ceeding the issues to the Rethugs in the personage of Rand Paul. We are surrendering the issues of Civil Rights to Rand Paul. Do you have any idea how much that frustrates me? Issues we've led on for generations, we're too cowardly to pick up and run with now because we might be perceived as weak on crime, weak on defense, or weak on drugs.

I'm sorry if you interpreted my writings to be patronizing or insulting. I can honestly tell you that these posts stem from the deep dissatisfaction with the direction of the Party. I can say that my intent is to wake up a number of the people here to the dangers we face. Because we face a number of dangers. The first is the election this november where we stand a far too slim chance of holding the Senate. The second is how we approach the 2016 Presidential. I hoped that by starting the discussion, we could get it spreading, and out there, where it will do some good guiding the party to embrace the populist and moral positions, and take back what we led on. In short, I want to win elections and most importantly govern wisely according to those principles.

But to put it bluntly. I don't think that the Republicans expect much of the Black Vote. They'll take any they get, but they aren't worried about it yet. They would love a win on populist issues, and we're liable to give it to them. African-Americans make up 13% of the voting public. Six percent of those voted for Romney. In order to win, a majority of Blacks would have had to vote for Romney by a much wider margin that is probable.

http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_12.html

Read the stats my friend. A majority of College Grads voted Rethug. A majority of Moderates voted Democratic. If we lose those moderates, we lose the election. It's that simple. It's really no more complex than that, and it never has been.

[1StrongBlackMan]

284. +1 eom

[Rex]

243. Dream on. Ted "I fucked up the country" Cruz has a better chance!

And he has NO chance!

[Wella]

282. The key question for the GOP is "Whose turn is it?"

The Republicans always seem to pick the guy whose "turn" it is. That's why they got Poppy Bush (former candidate in 80; Veep), Bob Dole (not a popular choice), and John McCain (candidate from 2000 who lost the nod to Shrub.) Shrub got nominated because the neocons wanted Cheney to run their PNAC war.

So, whose turn is it this year? Clearly not Rand Paul. If you think about the 2012 field, it's Perry (now tangled up in legal issues), Mitt (again, but they won't let him run again), Ron Paul (who was totally ignored, even though he came in 2nd in Iowa), Newt (who was basically in the race because of one rich nut), Rick Santorum (who is a nut, but did better than expected and might be a potential Veep this time around to throw a bone to the religious right), Herman Cain (if the GOP is desperate for a racial minority), and Jon Huntsman, who was considered a RINO but actually would have been an intelligent choice based on his background. I don't seriously consider Bachmann here, since I don't believe the party ever took her seriously.

So potentials?

Ryan (Veep running mate, 2012), Santorum (maybe as Veep), Perry (if he can get out of legal trouble), Christie (Ann Coulter's choice in 2012 ). An outside choice might be Wisconsin's Koch-sponsored governor, Scott Walker or (if they're courting the Latino/a vote) Susana Martinez of New Mexico. I don't see Tea favorite Ben Carson having a real shot. Ted Cruz has been running his mouth, but his Canadian citizenship (coming after the birther thing) could be a real drawback for the GOP.

[Blue_Tires]

290. For the last time

There is a HUGE difference between what Rand says in his speeches and what he actually does in the senate...

Like the old man, he continues to get away with it because people are too ignorant/lazy to actually see he's done next to nothing in congress aside from the odd symbolic vote or long-winded speech...

But thanks for the whitewash and complete omission of Paul's dirty laundry...