I'm a little confused on recent replies to some of my posts here recently.

[mmonk]

Do people support the Democrats holding primaries to elect their candidates or not? Just wondering. I know election years get crazy around here sometimes and maybe I just attribute it all to that? Or are some Democrats not welcome?

[Faux pas]

1. Just my humble opinion

I think the trolls have taken over the site.

[HereSince1628]

4. Not sure it's a successful insurrection of trolls...

It's been like this every election cycle. IIRC it got so troublesome that the entire discussion of presidential elections was sent to its own forum.

[Faux pas]

16. Was making an observation

from watching the gigantic influx here the last few months. I think they attack closer to election time. Like i said, jmho.

[shenmue]

10. I think so too

[Faux pas]

17. Great minds

and all that jazz!

[shenmue]

18. Thank you

[L0oniX]

2. Our local district Dem candidate deserted us.

[MADem]

3. Are you talking about this election cycle, or two years hence?

It's too late for this cycle but in the next one, why not?

And that includes the Presidential cycle, even though I support the Clinton candidacy.

I don't think it's helpful to continually tout people who have repeatedly stated they do not wish to run, in definitive terms--that's more of a taunt for goading sport than an actual proposal. And the people doing the taunting might be, as someone else suggested in this thread, doing a bit of sport-trolling.

[LawDeeDah]

8. Well then if I were you, I wouldn't do that:

I don't think it's helpful to continually tout people who have repeatedly stated they do not wish to run,

Me, I kind of like people saying whatever they like and wishing Warren would run for President is not verboten no matter how much you want to make it so.

[MADem]

11. Ah, you again. No one is saying that such comment is "verboten" save you.

What a characterization! Classic, certainly. Last time I checked, "helpful" and "verboten" were not synonyms.

I can, and will, question the motives of people who repeatedly tout the candidacy of an individual who has decisively shut the door on such an option.

No matter how much you might not like it.

[LawDeeDah]

13. ''who has decisively shut the door on such an option.''

Nope, my opinion differs. No one in their right mind would declare this early (or announce they are going head to head with a Clinton this early in the game - they would get slaughtered), and I consider Warren to be very much in the right mind, so sorry once again, but I am allowed my thoughts and wishes.

Warren 2016!

[MADem]

14. Isn't that nice that you characterize the woman's factual statements in terms of your opinions.

Look, you may as well go be the bane of someone else's existence because your tactics are lost on me. You clearly have no respect for Warren's "No Means No" assertions and that's your problem. I think it's disrespectful of the Senator to disregard her like she's some silly woman who doesn't know her own mind, but that's me.

Perhaps you might want to jump on the Sanders bandwagon if you want an early alternative to HRC. He's suggested he might run (does that mean, per your political judgment, that he isn't in his right mind?), unlike Warren who has repeatedly, vehemently, and in plain English that anyone can understand--and to the FEC, no less-- ruled it out.

In case you're still unclear, here's the full letter to the FEC:


http://thehill.com/sites/default/files/letter_to_fec_disavowing_the_ready_for_warren_pac_august_22_2014.pdf

[bigwillq]

5. I fully support primaries (nt)

[djean111]

6. It is sort of weird - it does seem like some DUers are determined that their candidate is the ONLY

candidate, and I fear for their mental health when primaries do start. So, yeah, it almost seems like some want to skip the primaries and just declare the "winner" right now.

[SheilaT]

7. Depending on exactly what you are referencing.

If you're referring the the Hillary is Inevitable crowd, keep in mind that this sight was a complete cesspool all during the leadup to the nomination of her in 2008. Oh, wait, she didn't get the nomination did she?

More to the point, a lot of people here were clearly PUMAs, and I found that quite disheartening. This time around, a lot of them seem to be hoping that if they declare her inevitability once again, any other potential candidate will be totally cowed into not running. And potential supporters of any other candidate will be equally cowed.

I also think the Hillary supporters vastly underestimate how she is beloved and seen as a viable candidate by only a small portion of die-hard Democrats, and that out there in the rest of the voting universe, she is not that beloved.

[LawDeeDah]

9. I think too that this underwhelming 'force' for Ready for Hillary

is just a tactic to intimidate others from going for the race.

It is not going to work, that is just silly. Look how many other Democrats stepped up in 2008 - Hillary was supposed to be the winner in that race too and she didn't intimidate anyone from running and it won't work this time either.

It's become comedy theater, and very amusing - imagine how much more fun is ahead.

[wyldwolf]

12. everyone supports primaries. We're just not supposed to talk about the front-runner...

Any discussion about poll numbers immediately brings whines about 'coronations' and 'dynasties.'

[Savannahmann]

15. Well you can hold the primary if you really want to.

But, apparently the conclusion is already written in stone.

The nominee will be Hillary. The next President will be Hillary. I suppose the Republicans will insist on actually holding the election, although it might be easier if they just admitted it now and let it be as destiny has already determined. Even more