If HRC is nominated WITHOUT a primary challenge:

[Ken Burch]

Last edited Mon Dec 29, 2014, 08:39 PM - Edit history (2)

The party will stand for nothing in 2016 and the outcome of the race will not matter.

ONLY a race where someone is standing defending workers, the poor, and activists for change will produce any passion or enthusiasm on the Democratic side.

A coronation will make the fall 2016 race an energy-free zone, a passion-free zone, a mundane competition of factions of the wealthy, because the party will do nothing but blur the differences on all but a few trivial side isues and appease Wall Street and the Pentagon. The poor won't be mentioned in the campaign(which guarantees that they won't be helped after it)workers will continue to take second place to the bosses, and it will be war without end no matter who wins.

Such a race can only mean a landslide Democratic defeat, because the voters don't want TWO parties of the corporate status quo.

Why would ANYONE other than the Republicans want us to take that path?

Why lose with blandness when we could win by firing up the economic majority, by committing to real change from below?

(on edit...thread title edited to remove unnecessarily inflammatory phrases).

[BainsBane]

1. When was the last time a non-incumbent was nominated without a primary challenge?

I think there is little danger of the nomination's not being contested.

[unblock]

34. gore 2000? bush 1988?

both sitting veeps, though.

[hrmjustin]

41. Gore had a challenge. Bill Bradley.

[unblock]

152. yeah, but it was really no contest.

generally people drawing the line between truly contested elections and effective coronations.

this is a meaningful distinction as lichtman (he of the 13 keys to the presidency) has pointed out. truly contested elections are not only potentially damaging to the ultimate candidate, but they are also a symptom of discord within the party and a harbinger or lower support and turnout in the general.

there's pretty much always someone else on the ballot, that's not the important part. bradley never really got out of the starting gate and never made gore sweat. lichtman gave that key to the democrats for having an uncontested primary.

[hrmjustin]

153. Actually that was considered contested until the voting happened.

[unblock]

155. which is to say the media did its usual job of overselling the drama.

[hrmjustin]

156. Well yes to an extent.

[Chathamization]

193. Eh...and if they didn't wouldn't people be complaining about a coronation? N/T

[unblock]

200. we've had virtual coronations before. people only complain when the media gets it wrong

or is appears to be trying to manipulate the outcome. well, sometimes.

the best example of them getting it wrong was obviously the democrats 2008. the media and hillary were pushing the "inevitability" meme and obviously that ran into a bit of a snag on super tuesday. but, at a minimum, many presidential re-elections are virtual coronations and nobody objects to that.

[George II]

99. Bush in '88 ran against Dole, Kemp, and several "regulars" (including Harold Stassen!)

[unblock]

154. more interesting than the democratic primary in 2000, but still no real contest.

again, lichtman's key went to the incumbent party for uncontested election.

there was never enough there to seriously threaten poppy or wound him for the general, or that could be seen as evidence of a party rift affecting turnout in the general.

[Autumn]

2. Bernie. Someone who stands for the poor and working class.

Otherwise there is no point.

[Agnosticsherbet]

7. He has not changed parties yet.

Clearly he has not decided whether he will run as a Democrat, an independent, or not run at all.

[Autumn]

17. Not yet, but he's the one speaking out for those who most need a voice to speak for them.

few others in the democratic party are.

[Agnosticsherbet]

116. Unless he changes parties he can not run in a Democratic Primary

To his credit, he is thinking about changing parties, according to stories I read. Until he changes parties, he will not get my support. I will not support a non-Democrat, even if I agree with what he says.

Voting for an independent in our system is, at best, tossing you vote in the crapper. Teddy Roosevelt, was the most successful third party candidate in history, and all he managed to do, bless his Imperial spirit, was to make sure the Republicans lost.

[Just for Fun]

122. I'd rather vote for a true progressive first

before I vote for Hillary.

Bernie is a true progressive. Secretary Clinton certainly is NOT.

And she has way too many negatives that would not even inspire any Democrats to work with her. Most will run away from her because she's poison.

If you want to argue with me about Ms. Clinton, then go ahead, but I would suggest that we start with TPP, which is partially authored by Clinton and is strongly for it. Real Democrats oppose it, and is considered toxic for the middle class and the poor. One can't even begin to understand why Obama is for it, but there you go - he's governing like he's a 1980s Republican moderate.

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/272957-obama-says-his-economic-policies-so-mainstream-hed-be-seen-as-moderate-republican-in-1980s

ON EDIT: If Ms. Clinton remains a victor, I will unenthusically vote for her. No footwork, no activism or anything from me. Just a vote, and a nose-holding one.

[Agnosticsherbet]

126. If Hillary Clinton runs against Bush or Paul or any other Republican,

then she will be the best Candidate on the ballot with no need to hold my nose. I always choose the candidate I think is the best candidate on the ballot.

[Ken Burch]

142. ANY Dem can beat those guys.

We don't need Wall Street money.

We don't need big chunks of right-wing policy with a tiny few progressive increments around the edges.

We don't need to accept Permanent Mideast War as an unchangeable fact of life.

There's simply nothing that special about HRC.

She's simply one possibility among many...and her supporters are not entitled to their smugness.

[Just for Fun]

22. He'll personally let you know in March..

and he will change to a TRUE Democrat, as a member of the REAL Democratic Party, not a Third Way, pulling the platform back to where it was intended to be - center-left, with progressive ideals and social justice.

[Ink Man]

58. First

he's a runs as a Socialist. Then changes to Independent and now he may change to the Democrats. He comes from one of the smallest states in population in the nation. The city of San Diego has twice the population of Vermont. I like to see him in the mix, but sorry I don't see Mr. Sanders turning any red states blue.

[Just for Fun]

60. Give Bernie a chance.

Trust me.

Today's Democratic Party is the Republican Party of the 1980s.

We need to go back to Democratic Party of 1960s and bring on progressives who are true progressives, and give voters a real choice - instead of picking lesser of two evils every time.

We need to expand the two-party system and allow everyone to have a say, without having to pay through the nose for it.

[Historic NY]

132. Well then your advocating another party and thats not what this site is about...

the party of the 60's really WTF are you thinking. JFK or Johnson, the rest was a wash.

McGovern - Wallace not theres a good one, RFK took to long and was gone too soon, Muskie..Humphrey........

We had a party that was greatly divided. Unless your willing to bring the racist southern Democrats back they couldn't stand the Civil Rights Act.

http://prospect.org/article/democrats-60s-fixation

[Just for Fun]

137. I am advocating for a TRUE Democratic Party.

Today's Democratic Party is the 1980s Moderate Republican Party.

It's not what we want right now, any more Hillary Clinton, and we are forced to go more to the right, and I, for one, am SICK of dealing with the right spectrum, and would prefer to deal with the left spectrum where social justice, equal rights and higher wages are progressive issues, and we haven't seen those in a long time up for discussion.

Last Congressional action for wages was 2009, and it was still a piddly raise.

My wife gets $8.08 and is required to get another 23 cent raise to reach minimum wage for 2015 because Colorado raised the minimum wage to 8.23, and it's still not enough.

I am all for $15 minimum wage, though, and so does nearly 75% of the Americans, and CEO's can cut their ridiculous salaries to 10:1 of the highest earning ratio. In other words, if the highest minimum wage worker makes $17.000 A YEAR, then the CEO cannot earn any more than $170,000 a year. If they want more money in their pockets, RAISE the minimum wage - easy enough.

[MADem]

143. What??? "Today's Democratic Party is the Republican Party of the 1980s??"

I don't think ANY Democrat would find it "OK" to let people die wholesale from AIDS and not put some government muscle into research. I don't think ANY Democrat would regard HIV as a "punishment from God for being gay." I don't think ANY Democrat would snark about "welfare queens" (hint hint that racist Reagan meant BLACK welfare queens, doncha know) nor would they insist that catsup was a vegetable in a school lunch.

And that's just for starters.

You need to go back to the history books--there's a lot you're forgetting about the eighties.

And you're forgetting a lot about the sixties, too--it was a Democrat who dug us deeper and deeper into a war that got bigger and bigger and bigger, culminating in the death of 58K service members and countless wounded, many quite grievously. The unrest and demonstrations were quite extreme -- anyone who lived through the "Hey hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?" era won't forget it anytime soon. How successful were progressives back then? Answer--not VERY. When a visibly uncomfortable, slimy and shifty-eyed guy like Richard Nixon can swing an election at the end of that decade, it's apparent that the progressive agenda wasn't ready for prime time on the national stage.

This failure to launch continued into the seventies, as well. Look up the phrase "Don't blame me, I'm from Massachusetts" and you get an idea of how sunny the progressive agenda was. Even when Democrats were able to elect a President, it was a conservative southern Democrat with a religious mindset--and he only lasted one term.

[Ken Burch]

71. HRC herself can't turn any red states blue.

Even red state voters aren't thrilled by trade pacts, deference to Wall Street on economics, and perpetual Middle East wars.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

117. She may not turn any red states blue

but (likely) not for those reasons IMHO

[PeteSelman]

164. He doesn't need to turn red states blue.

He just has to keep the blue states Democrats already have. He could even lose a couple and still win.

[Cali_Democrat]

3. Has the 2016 Democratic primary been cancelled?

I must have missed it.

Got a link?

[Ken Burch]

4. Not cancelled, but the point of all the anti-Elizabeth Warren and anti-Bernie posters

is to make us shut up and accept HRC right now, without getting anything from her.

Even though nominating her means going all the way back to the Nineties, which would be worse than losing.

[n2doc]

8. What did we get last time?

Lots of promises that were immediately forgotten after election. The idea that a primary will 'force' someone to change their beliefs is crazy. HRC is who she is, and if we want someone different, then we will have to make sure they get more votes in the primaries.

[Cali_Democrat]

12. Hmmm...would you say there are more pro-Warren prosters...

...or more pro-Hillary posters on DU?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024202790

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4202593

[Thinkingabout]

108. HRC posters votes.

[Cali_Democrat]

118. LOL. nt

[brooklynite]

23. Care to point out an "anti-Elizabeth Warren" post that ISN'T "she's not running"?

[Jim Lane]

67. Several posts have squawked that she used to be a registered Republican.

The anti-Warren smear is that she was a registered Republican (true) and that she therefore "supported racist, anti gay, anti choice policies" (false).

In addition, I vaguely recall seeing posts along the lines of "if she were the nominee, the corporate media would paint her as a wild-eyed radical and we'd get stomped." Unlike the lies about her record, I consider analysis of her electoral prospects to be a legitimate issue. The media bias would be a factor, but of course so would her ability to offer a genuine change, which Clinton can't do (except to the extent that she changes policy by being more conservative than Obama, notably on foreign policy).

[Thinkingabout]

119. Did you know HRC is rated in the same spot of EW? Guess since it is a left

Position they are either left or right.

[Jim Lane]

140. I know that one misleading graph, posted here about a dozen times, alleged that.

Clinton currently holds no public office, so she won't immediately be put on the spot on issues like the TPP or the Antonio Weiss nomination. I'm not aware that she's made a public statement on either. If, as most of us expect, she does run, then the developing campaign will pin her down. When she finishes triangulating, we can see whether she's actually in the same spot as Warren.

[Thinkingabout]

147. The records speaks for a lot. Hillary was pushing for Civil Rights in her college days, it did not

start n the past few years. Hillary tried in vain to get health care passed in the 90's. She has worked hard for women's rights, against violence against women not only in America but around the world. She has been talking about equal pay for women. These are Democrat issues which still needs attention. In recent years she has traveled the world, met with world leaders, has served on Obama's cabinet and understands the dangers of terrorist. She understands the need for action. This is a matter currently facing the next commander-in-chief.

[Jim Lane]

174. Hillary's record has things to like and things to dislike.

If the general election comes down to Hillary Clinton versus ____ (fill in the blank with any of the people who've been prominently mentioned for the Republican nomination), I'll vote for Clinton. I hope we can find a better nominee, though.

[Thinkingabout]

175. No candidate has emerged with a better record than HRC, there are new and upcoming

candidates in the DNC but still the experience of HRC trumps.

[Jim Lane]

176. Experience doesn't trump.

To take the most obvious example, McCain had much more experience than Obama.

For me, the campaign isn't about comparing resumés. It's about trying to make an educated guess about what each candidate would do as President. The candidate's record (jobs held and actions taken) is part of that.

[Thinkingabout]

179. If experience doesn't matter why would you bring up McCain's experience?

I admit McCain had more experience than Obama, but McCain had a few problems, he was running as a republican after W and he picked Palin as a running mate, big problems.

[Jim Lane]

184. My point is that I voted for Obama, the less experienced candidate, and don't regret it.

I didn't say that experience doesn't matter. What I wrote was, "The candidate's record (jobs held and actions taken) is part of" the decision. So it matters, but it's not the be-all and end-all. I'm quite willing to vote for a less experienced candidate if the combination of all factors points to him or her as the best choice.

[MADem]

139. The post you linked to was by a Bernie Sanders supporter.

It's not surprising s/he'd find something to not like about a putative competitor.

[Jim Lane]

141. It's "an 'anti-Elizabeth Warren' post", which is what brooklynite asked about

I wasn't getting into the poster's motives, just stating a fact.

[MADem]

145. What was "anti" about it?

It was factual. She was a Republican in the Reagan era, just like Clinton was a Republican when she was a teenager.

Candidates have histories and backgrounds. They voted certain ways, held certain views. That doesn't mean they haven't grown and changed over time, but every action we take informs our life experience, and we're all a product of our own experiences.

Many people here don't realize how strongly Warren feels about the military and the entire national defense structure--she went so far as to use her Senatorial clout to keep an unneeded Army weapons system in production to save jobs for her constituents. All of her brothers served in the military. She's not a "swords into plowshares" type. Bernie Sanders, to the surprise of some, is a strong supporter of Israel; he spent some time during his youth on a kibbutz and that shaped his views, so people who hope he'll toss on a keffiyeh and head for the West Bank to Fight The Power will be sorely disappointed.

I'm interested in WINNING so I feel we should field the strongest candidate. That said, if a weak one slips through to the general election, I won't play the aggrieved partisan and take my ball and scurry home--I'll be all over voting for, GOTV-ing for, and contributing to whichever candidate makes it onto the General Election ballot in the Democratic slot.

As I've said before and I will say again, the WORST Democratic is better than the BEST Republican.

[Jim Lane]

173. It was "anti" to assert, falsely, that she "supported racist, anti gay, anti choice policies"

She was a registered Republican. The only way you can get from that fact to the poster's smear of her is by adding a major premise that a person who is registered in a political party automatically supports every policy of that party. That premise is clearly wrong.

I was a registered Democrat throughout Bill Clinton's presidency. Nevertheless, I didn't support his policies on NAFTA, DOMA, welfare reform, or several other things.

You write that "the WORST Democratic is better than the BEST Republican." I'd say that, at the Presidential level, that's always true, and for downticket races, it's almost always true. (The last time I voted for a Republican, he lost to a Democrat who subsequently took a plea and did time. I don't regret that vote.)

Nevertheless, I wouldn't carry that to the point of saying that the prospects for the general election are the only relevant factor. If we have a 60% chance of winning in November with a candidate who'll make a mediocre President, and a 59% chance of winning with one who'll be outstanding, I'd go with nominating the one who has the lesser chance of winning.

[MADem]

177. Why are you saying that the assertion was false? She voted for a candidate and she surely knew the

party platform. Don't paint the woman as obtuse, or a victim, or someone who was so scatterbrained that she didn't know what she was voting for...or she had such terrible tunnel vision that she just couldn't SEE all those issues that were at the forefront of the Reagan presidency--because that doesn't make her look strong or smart or focused--it makes her look like a one-issue noodge who is too eggheaded to understand or investigate issues that aren't personally important to her--i.e. a person without empathy or common sense. And she's NOT that. She knew the platform, and she didn't find it so daunting that she was not able to live with it. That is fact. She had a choice to make, and she made it. She chose Reagan. She didn't choose Carter, and she didn't choose Anderson. And she was a registered Republican up until the MID-90s. She was registered as a GOP voter in PA in 1996--that's a matter of public record, too.

People DO change their views over time. With age comes experience, compassion, a "kinder, gentler" (to riff on Poppy) view of the world. As some people mature, they can become meaner and angry that life is passing them by, but as others grow older, they become much more forgiving, accepting, and understanding. EW's GOP past didn't stop me from voting for her, campaigning for her, donating to her, and driving people by the dozens to the polls over a very long election day. Why? Because I took her at her WORD, as she is TODAY--not as she was as a teen or a forty year old.

It is not unreasonable to suppose that EW held the views that the bulk of the GOP did when she was in the Reagan camp, and by the mid-nineties, had a change of heart. It HAPPENS. Ask Jumpin' Jim Jeffords' ghost, ask Linc Chaffee, ask Charlie Crist. Once upon a time, Ronald Reagan was a populist Democrat who really, truly gave a shit about the working man. His mother had to live on assistance because his father wasn't around, he came up in poor circumstances--for the longest time he remembered those lessons, until he somehow forgot. He sure wasn't one of those populists in the mid-eighties, though, now, was he?

It's too important, in my view, to nominate Don Quixote and Sancho Panza to represent the Democrats to tilt at the windmill in 2016. We need to win the White House and preserve sanity at the Supreme Court. It is THE most important thing on the agenda, to my mind. It's more vital for generations that will live on after I'm long gone, but I can think beyond my own selfish interests and know that a sane Supreme Court makes life better for all--and a crazy Supreme Court could put prayer back in school, rupture diversity, take away choice, shove gay people back into the closets, codify unequal pay into the law of the land, and push Americans back into enclaves where hate and suspicion thrive.

YMMV, and that's what discussion boards are for, of course!

[Jim Lane]

178. You make two unsupportable assumptions.

First, you state that Warren voted for Reagan. Do you have evidence for that? I admit that I haven't followed the subject very closely, because it doesn't fascinate me the way it does some DUers, but what I've read is simply that she was a registered Republican. "Everyone registered in a party votes for all that party's candidates" would be another false premise.

Incidentally, I appreciate your mention of Reagan's past. The people who denounce Warren because she was a registered Republican into her 40s need to be reminded that Reagan was a registered Democrat into his 50s. I'd be delighted if President Warren did for the left what President Reagan did for the right.

Second, even going on the assumption that she voted for Reagan, it's still a leap to assert that she supported all his policies. In most elections there are only two candidates who have any realistic chance of winning. Most voters have to settle for a candidate they consider imperfect. (There are religious Democrats who are against abortion rights. There are libertarian Republicans who don't like their party's anti-choice stance.) The most that can be inferred about the voter is that, as you write, "She knew the platform, and she didn't find it so daunting that she was not able to live with it." That doesn't justify an assertion that she supported specific policies.

If the mere fact of her having been a registered Republican is so devastating as some people contend, then they should be happy just to report that fact. If someone goes beyond that to write "She supported anti-gay policies" or the like, then that charge needs to be backed up with more specific evidence.

[MADem]

182. She said she was a Republican-she preferred the GOP because they better supported markets.

They were more "conservative" in their approach to markets--it's at the end of this interview.

She also refused to respond when asked if she voted for Ronnie--which basically (and sorry if you don't agree, I won't be convinced otherwise) means she voted for him and is too embarrassed to admit it. In MA politics, not voting for Reagan is a badge of HONOR. She couldn't lie (which is a plus, actually), so she refused to tell.

And I don't know about you, but I'm not going to vote for any Republican even though it's a GOP legislator who has proposed allowing dogs on AMTRAK trains, which is something I strongly support and think it's high time they make happen. I'm not a one-issue voter. I go for the entire platform, and there'd better be more than just one thing, not just dogs on trains, or "markets" to earn my vote. That's just me. "Markets" wouldn't be nearly enough for me--I'm into human, touchy-feely stuff--social programs, school lunches and breakfasts for poor kids, afternoon enrichment for at-risk youth, heating assistance for people in cold winter climates, wellness checks for the elderly, stuff like that--I don't like the idea of anyone not having somewhere to turn if they're in dire straits. I also despise institutionalized inequality, discrimination based on anything, unequal pay, and the lack of a frickin living wage. Those kinds of things are the planks of our party's platform. They aren't the planks of the "bootstraps" and "drown the government in a bathtub" GOP platform.

I could never find the GOP to be a good fit. Ever.

Everyone is different, though, and--as I said--people DO change.

I mean, come on. Some things are what they are. A lot of people bought the Reagan bullshit. I have an unusual talent, I can spot a bullshitter better than many people--it's made me valuable down the years. I can't tell you how I do it, I just have that skill. Reagan was a bullshitter, but he was a GOOD bullshitter.

Maybe she bought his bullshit, but I cannot believe she didn't know the party platform--that would mean she was stupid ... and she's not stupid.

[Jim Lane]

186. Ah, but what's Clinton's position on dogs on Amtrak trains? America wants to know!

I wasn't even aware of this issue until reading your post, so thanks for the consciousness-raising.

As for your statement "I cannot believe she didn't know the party platform" -- why do you underline that? I wasn't pleading ignorance on her behalf. I'm sure she knew the platform in broad outline (though I'd be very surprised if she'd read it -- I'm a politics junkie and I've never read any party platform beginning to end).

As for never voting for any Republican, the first time I did so was in Massachusetts. Republican Senator Edward Brooke was running for re-election. There were plenty of Massachusetts Democrats who would have loved to take that seat. When it came down to it, though, none of the liberal Democrats wanted to oust the nation's only black Senator. The Democratic nomination fell, more or less by default, to a conservative, whose brilliant plan was to attack Brooke from the right. In Massachusetts. I voted for the Republican, who, with this small aid, was re-elected (with a margin of almost 30%).

I don't regret voting for a Republican who was more liberal than the Democrat, or later voting for a different Republican who was running against a Democratic crook. Thus, I think "never" vote for a Republican is too strong, but only by a little bit.

[MADem]

191. I don't know--she wasn't a Senator when that legislation was introduced in the House. I'll bet she

is for it, though!!

I said "I cannot believe she didn't know the party platform" because that's what I meant. She's a smart woman, she surely had a television, she read the newspapers, and she knew where the GOP came down on issues like equality and a public health (non) response to the AIDS crisis. The "battle lines being drawn" were pretty clear in that era--there were stark differences between the party platforms.

Ed Brooke was the more conservative candidate in the Brooke-Peabody race--in fact Peabody was too LIBERAL for a lot of the MA racists who liked their neighborhood schools and liked people to stay in their lanes. I think you're misremembering a bit what Peabody's views were (and his ultra-liberal mother, getting arrested for trying to integrate pockets of the south, etc.). His second race was against John Droney, who was no rightie either--if you remember, that guy had Lou Gehrig's disease, he didn't make a very compelling appearance (had trouble walking/talking but his mind was totally sharp) and he didn't stand a chance for those reasons, not because of his political leanings.

If we're to get further down in the weeds, that guy was the Middlesex DA (a job that can make a person appear way more "conservative" than they actually are), a protege of John F. Kennedy (he worked on JFK's House/Senate/Presidential campaigns, and JFK basically made sure he got the DA job) and a fellow named JOHN KERRY was his eyes/ears/mouthpiece in the DA's office during the seventies and after Droney's failed Senate run after Kerry managed to jump over a lot of old Droney loyalists in that office to become Droney's Number One guy after graduating BC law. Droney wasn't stupid--he was an able DA, but he didn't have mobility, youth, vigor or a clear speaking voice, and Kerry had all that and more, and in effect, functioned as Droney's surrogate in public life. Kerry moved on after it became clear he wasn't going to succeed Droney as the Middlesex DA (jumped/pushed?) and it was onward and upward to better things for him. But let's not assume that Droney was a wingnut--his job was to put crooks in jail, never a touchy-feely gig on a good day.

In any event, Ed Brooke left politics before things got totally ugly, while there still was a thing known as a "New England Republican." But he left in the SEVENTIES and never held elective office again. The GOP in the eighties had their "southern strategy" well entrenched and they were leaning hard to the "law and order" right, going after those "welfare queens" and building up the military and wasting money on "Star Wars" to bring the Soviet empire to a close. And that's when Warren was aligned with them.

And sure, Ed Brooke was a RINO (or a New England Republican), and MA did like having our extra-special Black Senator, even though he said lame, mainstream stuff like "I don't like Stokely Carmichael," (sop to those South Boston racists) and he was even considered as Spiro Agnew's replacement by Nixon (fun fact)-- he didn't survive a third Senate run not because of his GOP affiliation but because he was screwing around on his Italian war bride and she wasn't having it. Surely you remember the fuss she was making? It got pretty ugly there for a bit--she wanted to Make Him Pay. He was spending a lot of time in DC and at Studio 54 "doing the hustle" if you will. What we didn't know, but found out much later (in the past decade, in fact) is that his main squeeze was none other than his "good friend" BARBARA WALTERS.

And when he lost his seat, he lost it to a WAY more liberal guy, a Democrat by the name of Tsongas, whose wife sits in his old House seat today.

Amazing that the dude is still alive after all these years--he's 95, and living in FL, I believe. His current wife bears a slight resemblance to Barbara Walters, too--go figure.

[Jim Lane]

192. I was referring to Droney, not Peabody

Yes, Droney was Kerry's mentor, but my recollection of the campaign is that Droney decided to run on an appeal to conservatives. I think he was pushing the death penalty as a big issue.

Brooke's involvement with Barbara Walters didn't come out just recently -- I thought I remembered hearing about it, and a search (because you got me curious) confirms that it was reported in People magazine at the time of the divorce, although only with the careful "has been linked with" language. My recollection is that Brooke's big problem wasn't the rumored infidelity (not just with Walters, either), or even the divorce itself, but that in the course of it he was caught lying.

Anyway, you're certainly correct that the Republican Party of today has no Edward Brookes in it. Perjury and all, he's still far better than anyone they're running today, anywhere.

[MADem]

195. Droney was a DA--of course he was running on his record as Middlesex County's Top Prosecutor.

If you look at the link I offered in my post above, that's where the "friend" verbiage came from WRT Barbara Walters. What everyone thought is that they were "casual companions" and that he called her when he needed a plus one, and she did the same. That's the story they put out, anyway. After all, she was playing the beard for the odious Roy Cohn (he did a HUGE favor for her father--managed to get an arrest warrant dismissed, actually, so she found herself able to ignore his slithery side, apparently). It was only when she and Ed got hot-n-heavy that people started to notice, and they decided, for the sake of both their careers, to end it. She apparently liked him a lot, if her book is any indication, and by all accounts he felt the same. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see the sizzle here:



The wife was really making a stink, too--she was going out of her way to excoriate him not just in the press, but among his friends and political associates. The divorce was a bit of a thing in some corners--divorce was starting to happen here and there, but there were still pockets of tut-tutters who viewed marriage as an endurance contest and the whole "To death do us part" aspect inviolable. In any event, it was enough to do him in. It didn't help him in the North End, that's for sure.

[still_one]

42. Not at all. This is a forum to discuss, and or argue about issues and hypotheticals. There are

actually much more anti-Hillary posters than anti-Warren or anti_Sanders.

Of course we are all entitled to our opinion, but DU is only representative of DU.

As far as your assertion that having Hillary would be worse than losing, I guess the Supreme Court means nothing to you.

You do realize that Bill Clinton's appointments were pretty good.

In fact what helped bring the Democratic party to the state it is in today is when labor decided to vote for reagan:

"The Reagan Democrats were Democrats before the Reagan years, and afterwards, but who voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984 (and for George H. W. Bush in 1988), producing their landslide victories. They were mostly white, socially conservative blue-collar workers, who lived in the Northeast, and were attracted to Reagan's social conservatism on issues such as abortion, and to his hawkish foreign policy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_coalition

I guess we all know how well that turned out for them when Reagan took office. Labor has been suffering ever since.

[Ken Burch]

57. I don't condone blue-collar votes for Reagan.

What you forget, though, is that Mondale was largely responsible for causing that to happen when he caved in to Rubin and his insistence that "deficit reduction&quot i.e., more Reaganism)was a higher priority than reindustrializing the Rust Belt.

If Mondale had actually fought for the working class in that campaign, rather than appeasing Wall Street by putting the deficit become human need, the Reagan Democrat breakaway likely wouldn't have happened. They voted for Reagan because Mondale didn't represent change, from where they saw it.

I wish they had voted differently, but that's what happens when you put being "pro-business" ahead of being a Democrat.

[still_one]

100. I thought it was Carter and his deregulation of the airlines. However, since

Mondale was his VP, what you say makes sense, and I actually agree they took labor for granted, as they have been doing other demographics

[Ken Burch]

103. Carter's belief that low inflation was more important than full employment didn't help, either.

We used the same tactics against Reagan in 1980 and 1984 that had already failed miserably in 1966 and 1970-run as bland centrists and trust that the voters would reject Reagan as "too extreme"...rather than firing up the base.

[still_one]

104. Gee. I agree

[JI7]

52. hillary is less popular on du so if you go by what is on du

She has little chance of getting the nomination.

[Mnpaul]

85. I don't think she is popular with primary voters

In 2007 she only managed to draw about 24 of 489 delegates at my county caucus. The rest were split evenly between Edwards and Obama. I can see why they want to skip that part. I think the primary voters are probably more knowledgeable on the issues.

[hrmjustin]

87. They split the popular vote.

[Mnpaul]

91. but not the delegate count

or states carried
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2008

[hrmjustin]

93. That is true and thst is why he won but in actual voters they did split the vote.

[Ken Burch]

124. HRC ONLY had the nominal popular vote plurality

because she betrayed party rules by running in the Michigan and Florida primaries...primaries all Democratic candidates were told to stay out of because their timing broke party rules.

It was only the right-wingers in the Democratic parties in those states who wanted the early primaries...and every other candidate did the honorable thing and stayed out of them.

HRC sent the message that it was ok to flout party rules in the name of the egos of two states.

[Mnpaul]

146. I saw that in the wiki

I wonder what the party loyalist types have to say about that? Does that make Hillary a LLI?

[joshcryer]

157. Both MI and FL delegates were seated.

Obama got less votes because he didn't get on the MI ballot. "Uncommitted" probably would have gone to Obama.

But how the selection process worked, Hillary Clinton got more seated and represented votes than Obama, that is a fact.

It is immaterial that either way the delegates were going to be seated.

Clinton lost because she lost the caucus ground game, she could have won had she actually had the foresight to look that far ahead and consider the growth of Obama's campaign.

Fortunately, by losing then, she didn't have to deal with the turmoil that the US has had to experience the last 7 years, and will be regarded as one of the greatest Presidents ever. 2016-2024 will be "easy mode" compared to the crap Obama has had to deal with.

[Ken Burch]

158. You can't achieve presidential greatness as a centrist militarist who defers to Wall Street

Or when your attitude is that elitist technocrats should decide policy while labor, the poor, and grassroots activists must be kept out in the cold.

HRC is incapable of ever being to the left of Bill. Her public silence in the Nineties proves that.

She has no Bobby Kennedy in her soul.

[joshcryer]

159. She's already to the left of Bill.

[misterhighwasted]

95. "all the anti-Elizabeth Warren and anti-Bernie posters"

If there are any, I haven't seen them.
On the other hand I have indeed seen far more anti-HRC posts and absolutely NO anti-Sanders nor anti-Warren posts.
Only negative posts I have seen on either of those two is generally in reference to what Warren herself has said about NOT running.
Not in a pro HRC argument, but as a matter of stating a fact.

As far as Sanders, any remarks posted have been to remind people of his Independent status, which keeps him from running on the Democratic ticket. Posters also reference the lower polling numbers of the two.

There is a great deal more Anti-HRC comments here on DU than either Warren or Sanders.
I read very little pro-HRC.

Not sure what exactly your post is referring to.

No one here is making Warren/Sanders posters "shut up".
I have however, seen far more of just the opposite.

With two years before the election, anything can happen in the final run.
Whomever the Dem nominee will be, they will have to take on the enormous powerhouse of the GOP billionaires, corporates, & their organized & paid social media machine, as well as gerrymandered districts, racial division, vote flipping machines, and just plain stupid people who vote one issue only such as Guns, God, and Gays.

It will be a damn battle like none we have seen.
All in and anything goes will be the 2016 mantra of the GOP.

Its not simply what your preferred candidate stands for, its what they will be fighting against in the 2016 election.

[loyalsister]

162. I know that isn't true for me

I would like to see a primary that facilitates the conversations we have been needing for a very long time. I think Bernie would be a great contribution to that. Warren. Why give up one of the strongest voices we have in the senate?
I hope that there are viable candidate other than Hillary. And, other than Jim Webb. I hope that a strong candidate who leans more in Bernie's direction will materialize, but I'm not sure that will happen.

[NYC_SKP]

5. Fuckin' hey, Ken Burch! Tell it!

Where are the champions to speak out for us and against mediocrity and business as usual?

K/R

[VanillaRhapsody]

6. nobody ever says this except for LLI's

Meanwhe HRC has a 50 point lead over the entire pack.. ..and THAT is what LLI's try to deny....that Hillary is soooo popular with actual Democrats

[Ken Burch]

20. People who are talking about the Democratic primaries are not LLI's

And YOU are not the official arbiter of whom is and is not a Dem.

The whole point about talking about HRC's status in the polls now(at a time when polling for 2016 is too far away to matter)is about badgering everyone into line behind HRC now...the way the party badgered everyone into line behind Kerry as soon as possible in 2004(fat lot of good forcing that race closed as soon as possible did)and 2000.

We need a real, passionate debate and discussion all the way up to the convention...declaring the whole thing over in March or so and pushing everyone to "fall in line" is always about having the party stand for nothing and about making the convention meaningless-neither of which, as history has shown, actually do the party any good.

And HRC's supporters didn't stop fighting for her until almost the end in 2008, even though they knew by mid-May or so that there was no legitimate and honorable way for her to be nominated.

[Enthusiast]

40. +1 an entire shit load.

[beerandjesus]

50. Funny how that poster denies and reinforces your point in the same post!

[AtomicKitten]

61. wtf pack are they talking about?

There is no pack. Nobody has declared their candidacy with the exception of a couple not serious gadflies. The polling results are largely name recognition. BFD. We saw a similar monster lead disintegrate in 2008 due to hubris and bad management. While it will be fun to watch the Clintons embarrass themselves again with their jackassery and poor sportsmanship, the primary hasn't even started yet. In due time, people. In due time.

[ColesCountyDem]

66. +1000! n/t

[VanillaRhapsody]

84. if you cannot support our decision in the Primary

Its a fact.....you dont have to like it

Independent means not dependable...sorry if that bothers you...but as a lifelong democrat I do have the right to speak the truth..

[Ken Burch]

94. AFAIK, You NEVER called Reagan Democrats, (and I doubt you ever called Democrats for Nixon)

"Right-Leaning independents".

Most likely, you never said a thing about the old Southern Dem Congressmen who were committee chairs but(even in the Seventies and Eighties)NEVER endorse the Democratic presidential ticket...something that(as black Democrats pointed out at the time)should have COST them their committee chairs, according to the party rules.

And you were probably fine with Dems who voted for Fritz Hollings for the Senate in SC, but wouldn't do a damn thing to help Mondale(solely because Mondale had backed the black freedom movement).

Nor, to my knowledge, did you ever question the party loyalty of Dems who backed Charlie Crist(at that point still basically a moderate Republican)in his always hopeless independent U.S. Senate campaign against actual Democratic nominee Kendrick Meek in Florida, OR ever use that the loyalty of the INCUMBENT SENATE DEMOCRATS who campaigned for right-wing independent Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut Senate race against the actual Democratic nominee Ned Lamont.

And if Jesse Jackson or Dennis Kucinich had ever been nominated, you'd have likely attacked THEM and not the right-wing nominal Dems who'd have refused to support them.

It's ONLY people who question the party from the Left who get the "you're not a Democrat" treatment from you.

And I seriously doubt that you, personally, have any greater absolute party loyalty than any left-Dem. It's just that you've assigned the "more loyal than thou" role to yourself, and that is not something you are entitled to do.

You are simply another registered Dem...you are not ABOVE the rest of us.

It should be enough for you to simply disagree with people.

[Just for Fun]

127. +1 - exactly my thoughts.

Thank you, Ken Burch - we may not always disagree on everything, but I'll defend your right to say it.

[Old and In the Way]

131. So Regan Democrats are going to vote for Bush?

Nope....they' ve been voting Republican since 1980. Big Fucking Deal. We have counted on Reagan Democrats since 1980. WHY? Because they always Republican...and those voters are diying

[Ken Burch]

144. The point is, they were far more disloyal to the party than anybody on the progressive left.

And none of the people who bash left-Dems EVER called them out on it.

Meanwhile...left-Dems, the ones who bore no responsibility for the defections of the Reagan Dems(we'd have lost those voters even if we'd run on a platform that was anti-abortion, anti-gay and anti-ERA...and nobody who was opposed to all of those things actually agreed with the basic values of the Democratic Party by 1980 anyway)have been vilified, left out in the cold, and told to shut up and take what the party "strategists" gave them without question.

[reddread]

168. so, swing voters are a myth?

must be, or shall we believe actual liberals are jumping ship and losing elections?
kill the base before populism takes control.

[VanillaRhapsody]

196. if you cannot pledge to accept who we pick in the Primaty....even if it is HRC

who happens to consistently poll 63% among us by the way.......then you are no longer a Dependable Democrat..

Not Dependable = Independent

Easy peasy ipso facto not a Democrat but a Left Leaning Independent.....It doesnt need me to arbitrate it... it just is...

[Dawgs]

21. Still doesn't change who she is.. n/t

[FSogol]

25. LLI?

[Ken Burch]

29. It's Vanilla's code for "anyone who doesn't back HRC ISN'T a Democrat".

It's McCarthyism and it's below the belt, but she won't ever let up on it.

Even though HRC is doomed to lose South Carolina(Vanilla's home state)just as massively as anybody else we could go with.

[davidpdx]

163. Thanks for clarifying that

The other one I dislike is Tea-left. I won't say which foam at the mouth person it is, but if you read enough I'm sure you can figure it out.

[VanillaRhapsody]

197. so wrong on so many counts

if you cannot pledge to vote for whoever wins the Primary....even if it is H R C...then you are a Left Leaning Independent....its just a fact. It doesnt require that you like it....it just is.

Oh and I no longer live in South Carolina though my family is still there.....so wrong about THAT too!

[Dr Hobbitstein]

36. Left leaning independents.

Mostly, it refers to those who have stated they will NOT vote for Hillary in the general election if she is the nominee, but it also refers to many posters here who are not registered Dems.

[FSogol]

75. Thanks. n/t

[NorthCarolina]

96. As opposed to RLD's

Republican Leaning Democrats, also known as Third-Way?

[Dr Hobbitstein]

187. No, as opposed to Democrats. n/t

[Buns_of_Fire]

115. As opposed, of course, to the PUMA ("Party Unity My Ass") folks, who

decided that they wouldn't vote for any Democrat unless it WAS Hillary back in 2008... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_United_Means_Action

As an aside, I wonder why some erstwhile lurker hasn't snatched "Left Leaning Independent" as their user name yet?

[Dr Hobbitstein]

188. LOL!

Party Unity My Ass. Hadn't heard that one! But yeah, same basic idea.

I will say, however, that the OP's premise that there are tons of anti-Bernie and anti-Warren posts here is quite far-fetched. Saying that Bernie/Warren don't poll well compared to Hillary doesn't make one anti-Bernie or anti-Warren. However, constantly dragging Hillary through the mud IS anti-Hillary, and there is a lot of that.

[arcane1]

33. Decades of name recognition don't add up to good ideas.

And WTF is an LLI?

[Logical]

48. Like 2008??? nt

[Ken Burch]

74. People who don't want HRC are just as much Democrats as people who do.

You are not the Party Loyalty Goddess.

[Katashi_itto]

194. Lol! I won't for her regardless.

[1StrongBlackMan]

9. Who here is demanding that HRC be nominated without a primary challenge ...

except, of course, right wing pundits (posted by anti-HRC Duers) and anti-HRC Duers?

[Thinkingabout]

45. I would like to know who they are referring also. I see you did not get an answer and iI dont know

Who they are talking about. It will be interesting.

[KittyWampus]

77. When your main intent is to be inflammatory and divisive, setting up straw men

to knock down is one tried and true strategy.

I don't care for Clinton and don't want her as POTUS, but haven't seen any on DU demanding she be handed the nomination w/o challenge.

[jeff47]

79. There are a decent number of people who will reflexively attack

if you bring up any option other than Clinton. And they'll bring up whatever they come up with for why anyone else can't run. Such as Sanders having to climb the insurmountable wall of....registering as a Democrat.

I know you'd prefer I do a call-out, but I'd rather not have a post hidden.

[1StrongBlackMan]

89. Yeah, okay ...

so you have nothing, huh?

All of these reflexive attacks and posing of challenges, still do not equal demands that HRC be nominated without a primary challenge.

[bigwillq]

10. I feel there will be several Democrats who run for the nomination in 2016

I hope Hillary is one of them.
I hope Warren is one of them.
I hope Sanders is one of them.

[cascadiance]

30. I think it is important that all of them run, even if I support Warren at this point...

I think the more candidates that are in the primaries, and the more voices we hear in debates, etc. the more viewpoints Americans will hear that hopefully will be less filtered by the corporate media to spin their way, and the more we can feel that an honest discussion of what ideas will deal with the issues of today will work best for all of us. Without that array of candidates, that discussion won't happen, and Americans won't have as a clear idea as to why they are voting for who they ultimately vote for. Americans have long been too deprived of real education and topical and useful information services that aren't propaganda.

So, even if both Warren and Sanders both run, I think it would be a problem if Hillary or some other one of the Third Way doesn't run, so we can hear from them personally why they feel their stances on what Democrats should stand for as a party is better than what Warren or Bernie propose. If we can't hear that discussion, it will be hard for people to connect the dots of who is best to lead on many of these important issues. They need to hear the good and also the not so good being discussed and measured publicly in front of them to help them sort that out and feel stronger themselves about who they want leading them.

The big problem for those of us who want to start these movements, is how we work around the corporate media message/propaganda machine to make this kind of discussion possible, and have potential leaders feel comfortable participating in them. That is where DU can help us a lot, by exploring newer ways of using the internet and other venues to achieve this.

[still_one]

44. I think Hillary and Sanders, but not Warren. Also think Biden, Webb, and maybe Jack Reed. I think

the possibilities on the Democratic side will bring many of the issues that need to be talked about

[LanternWaste]

11. I'd love to see a post demanding there be no primary

I'd love to see a post demanding there be no primary or challenge-- but alas and alack, I fear all I will receive is an misinterpretation of some post that states nothing of the sort-- regardless of whether that's part of your reminder or not.

[MisterP]

56. maybe it's a complacent "why would Hillary have rivals?" and everyone's arguing about inflection?

[hrmjustin]

13. I haven't seen anyone demand there be no primary here. n/t.

[Agnosticsherbet]

14. How about a link to the demands.

I have seen people who support Hillary, but haven't seen any outright demands that no one else run.

[Ken Burch]

27. That's the only reason to post "HRC's way ahead in the polls" threads.

And "Elizabeth Warren used to be a Republican" threads.

And red-baiting threads about Bernie.

It's about pressuring everyone to just accept the return of the Other Ruling Family without question, as if the Nineties didn't prove that a Clinton v. Bush race will always be meaningless.

[hrmjustin]

32. Hey! I post Hillary is ahead polls and that does not mean I want no primary.

You presume too much sir!

[Jeff Rosenzweig]

54. Except that

Clinton is way ahead in the polls, for whatever they're worth (absolutely nothing). And Elizabeth Warren did used to be a Republican. As to red-baiting threads about Sanders, if there are any (which I doubt), they would be so stupid as to be literally beneath contempt.

Are you so wanting for fellow DUers to vilify that you have to inveigh against "demands" for no primary challenge to Clinton when none seem to exist? And even if they do, are you really so insecure in your own preferences that such things are somehow a threat? And even if you've correctly identified the motive for people posting such things, can you explain the magical mechanism by which that causes you or anyone else "shut up"? Or how it's "pressuring" you or anyone else to do (or not do) anything?

Personally, I'd like to see Sherrod Brown get in the race. Does my preference "pressure" you? And even if I started 20 threads a day about Brown, strenuously insisting that he's the only one with a chance to win in '16, would that somehow be forcing you to "shut up"?

[gwheezie]

62. I would vote for brown

I wish he would run. I plan on voting for hillary if she is in my primary but if brown ran I would reconsider.

[Jeff Rosenzweig]

64. That's good to hear.

I believe he could be an excellent President.

[Ken Burch]

70. Brown would be good, too.

Anyone from the people's wing of the party...Al Franken might actually be interesting as well(he did just get re-elected by a sharply increased majority, after all).

[OilemFirchen]

97. Outstanding questions.

Welcome to DU.

[Agnosticsherbet]

109. If the polls say she is in the lead, that is called news. People are allowed to post news

And at Democratic Undergound I do believe that it is acceptable for people who support Clinton to post in support of her, just as it is accetable for people who support Warren, Sanders (though he is not a Democrat at this time), or Vermin Supreme (my current favorite of the candidates that are running).

Are people who are calling for Warren or Sanders or Vermin Surpeme calling for no one else to run?

So post a link where someone called for no one else to run, and I will post there and let them know their attitudes stink. If you can not, well then I can't find them and the appear not to exist.

And for Pete's sake, Clinton was a Glodwater girl in Highschool. and Reagan was a Democrat until 1962. (Check it out.) Until Truman people of color (POC) were unwelcome in the Democratic Party, and the south was solidly Democratic, and openly racist.

People need to realize that people and parties change over time in this country.

[jeff47]

82. Call outs are an excellent way to get a post hidden.

Which is why you won't get a link.

[MADem]

15. Says you.

It's an opinion and you are certainly entitled to it, but it is in no way controlling.

I think I'll take my chances with Clinton SCOTUS nominees than Schivo-supporting Jeb Bush SCOTUS nominees...but that's me.

[Ken Burch]

24. The Supreme Court isn't worth being bland centrist or right-of-center on more than half the issues.

I love Ruth Bader Ginsburg, but she wasn't worth punishing mothers on welfare, pushing through #41's trade deals, corporate luxury suites at our conventions and expanding the goddamn death penalty.

And the voters aren't demanding that we be hawkish on the Middle East and deferential to Wall Street, as far as that goes.

We should try to win by actually mobilizing the economic majority...not selling our souls for massive campaign donations.

[brooklynite]

39. Right! Much better to have it bland centrist NONE of the time...

...as long as you stood for your principles.

[Ken Burch]

59. You're assuming we can't WIN on principles...that we can't win the argument

but can only scrape in by default...and then, that we can't set the agenda after getting elected.

That mindset cost us Congress in 1994...and again, in two stages, between 2010 and 2014.

Assuming that this country is permanently right-wing(a lot of left issues, such as higher wages, won on the initiative level in 2014, even while centrist Dems were going down in flames running "we hate the uppity n----r, too" campaigns(as Grimes, Landrieu and Nunn all did)
is defeatist.

It serves no purpose to assume most voters want the country to be under permanent austerity and permanent war, with as many executions as possible.

[MADem]

76. Says you!

You're welcome to your opinion, but I'm afraid I can't agree with it.

The Supreme Court can fuck this nation over for generations. They can ROLL BACK gains that have been made to this point, simply by hanging their views on a quirk of verbiage. They don't have to be right--they just have to have the votes.

I suppose if you don't have a stake in issues like reproductive rights, equality of opportunity and access to the law regardless of gender, orientation, ethnicity, race, laws against discrimination based on religion or lack of same, and you don't mind the fact that corporations have more rights than human beings, that whole Supreme Court silliness is just what? Nothing but a thing?

But there are people who do care about these things, and I'm one of them--so again, you can profess your point of view, freely and with all due earnestness, but it's not at all controlling and you haven't convinced me of the rightness of your argument in the slightest.

Who picks the Supremes can mess us up more--and for far longer-- than any Congressional election can.

[Ken Burch]

81. It can't outweigh NAFTA, the '96 welfare bill. Glass-Steagall repeal and more executions

In a Democratic adminstration, Democratic voters are supposed to be able to count, if nothing else, on at least never LOSING ground.

I'm as pro-choice as you are, but throwing poor women under the bus, throwing working-class women out of jobs with globalization, and occasionally throwing some women into the freaking gas chamber weren't worth ONE Supreme Court justice and the grudging, nominal protection of reproductive rights(something Bill and Hillary never really cared about anyway, because if they had they wouldn't have accepted the argument that women who seek abortions should, in fact, be treated like wretched sinners).

Besides, we never had to be as far to the ugly right as we were in '92 and '96. The country wasn't demanding that Dems be just as pro-Wall Street and anti-99% as the GOP.

And there's no public demand now for Obama's trade pact proposal or for letting Wall Street brokers strut around like gods who walk the earth.

Nor is there any reason to believe that any HRC Supreme Court nominee would ever stand with the people against Wall Street, Pro-business Dems NEVER nominate anyone to the court that does things like that. She'd probably nominate a corporate lawyer who just happens to be slightly pro-choice.

We can win WITHOUT leaving the majority behind and out in the cold. We can win with a grassroots, people's campaign.
Big checks from bankers isn't the only way to protect choice.

We can win AND keep our party's soul.

What do we have to lose from trying?

[MADem]

120. Says you!

Again, you are entitled to hold your views, but you're not convincing me. I don't want a Jeb Bush presidency.

The Supreme Court has the charge of interpreting the document upon which ALL our law is based. If lunatics are interpreting that document, you can take your pet issues and stick 'em where the sun don't shine, because the Supreme Court can sweep every concern you have to the side and turn you into a serf--and you'll have no recourse. That's where it all begins.

Most Supreme Court justices--who are in it for life--become MORE themselves, not less, once their appointments are cast in stone. They are more concerned about their legacies than anything else. Thus, a liberal will become more liberal, a conservative more conservative.

What we have to lose is the Presidency, and if Jeb Bush becomes President, he'll nominate justices who think Terri Schiavo should have stayed hooked up to machines, that it's OK to pollute the world because Jesus will get us out of any problems we create, and women do not have the right of choice, and gay people can't marry, and it's OK to pay women and minorities less than white males, because the Bible tells them so.

So, sorry--I'm not sold on your argument. The Supremes, to my mind, that's the Big Deal. We have to have our team picking those replacements. If not, the future could be dire.

[Ken Burch]

125. Nobody wants a Jeb Bush presidency.

But why assume the ONLY way we can stop that is to stay with deferential, half-conservative path-of-least-resistance politics?

Or by turning labor and the poor into collective human sacrifices to the God of "Benign Neglect".

Why assume we can only win if we let Wall Street and Fox News set the terms of debate(which is what nominating HRC and "staying the course" means)?

Do you really believe we CAN'T win the arguments?

Do you really buy into the Joe Klein "This is a center-right country" myth?

That's just defeatist.

If we defend social rights, workers and fight for the poor, we can still prevail and we can STILL nominate Supreme Court justices.

We don't have to barter our dreams to do that.

Nor do we have to assume that the discussion is over on economics and foreign polilcy and that we have to bathe in ugliness and human gore just to scrape into the White House.

There are more people below than above. Mobilize them and we win. Make them care and earn their trust and we can win in a landslide.

Enough already with shame-based politics.

[MADem]

134. The Democrat who will win is the Democrat with the ground game.

We know who that Democrat is, no matter how much people want to suggest otherwise. It's not like that Democrat has been sitting on her ass expecting people to come and kiss her ring--she's gone out and gotten the support, gathered the supporters, lined up the state and local players, locked up the pledges.

Warren is not running--she's said so, over and over. Yet people try to parse her words in vain hope that she'll "change her mind" or that she's "too naive" to know her own mind, or something. She isn't stupid--she's parlaying her Lefty Cred into clout in the Senate, but that's where it ends. No does mean no.

Even Bernie has decided to wrap up the chit-chat. He's going to terminate the speculation in the Spring. If he's telling the truth when he says he will not run if he can not win, then he's not running. We'll see.

http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20141227/NEWS03/712279926

Either way, Sanders said he won’t run just to nudge the debate to the left.

“I don’t want to do it unless I can do it well,” he told The Associated Press. “I don’t want to do it unless we can win this thing.”

[SomethingFishy]

189. So if the "Democrat with the ground game" isn't one that is standing up for

the majority of people in this country.. I should vote for them anyway.

Got it. Thanks. Been doing that for years. Hasn't worked out to well so far...

[MADem]

190. The Supreme Court will be at the forefront of our lives in the years to come, and the person

leading this country is going to pick key members of that court.

I don't want the Jeb Bush court making decisions about our nation's future. If you think that's not a big deal, well, go on with your bad self! Throw yourself on your sword, and feel principled for so doing.

[tiredtoo]

16. While there is a smattering of support for Sanders and Warren

Hillary has the money tied up. This appears to be a non-contest from the get go.

[FiveGoodMen]

80. It's because money determines elections that elections don't really matter

The same money is behind both parties.

[tiredtoo]

92. For sure EOM

[alcibiades_mystery]

18. That's not actually a reminder

That's just, like, your opinion, man.

[Cali_Democrat]

38. Hahaha...I love that movie. nt

[brooklynite]

19. UNREC

Name one person here who "demands" or even suggests that Clinton shouldn't have to compete in a Primary.

or

Name one person here who says Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren shouldn't run in the Democratic Primary.

[zappaman]

26. Who has demanded that HRC be nominated WITHOUT a primary challenge?

[NanceGreggs]

69. I'm amazed he's still in one piece.

He's been dragged out on DU so often, you'd think he'd be nothing but a handful of twigs by now.

[jeff47]

83. Call outs are an excellent way to get a post hidden

Which you already know. But it's a great way to pretend that it never, ever happens and that there's nobody on this forum who constantly posts attacks on anyone suggesting alternatives to Clinton or displeasure at her candidacy.

[zappaman]

86. Bullshit.

No one here has said there should not be a primary.
Link to one. No call outs necessary.
Or it's bullllllllshit.

[jeff47]

130. A link is a callout.

Again, you know this. So no, it isn't bullshit. It's blindness.

But hey, reading this very thread is just so damn hard. You'd never find how we non-Clinton fans have been declared no longer Democrats, but independents. Attempting to throw us from the party is surely a sign of wanting a contested primary.

[zappaman]

136. Couldn't find the links, eh?

Me neither.

[MADem]

148. No it isn't. There's no TOS rule against linking to another thread on DU to back up an assertion.

And doing so is neither "bullshit" nor "blindness"--but what a rude way to characterize a discussion of the issues.

Further, there's nothing in the TOS to prevent a DUer from supporting whosoever they choose during the primaries--so long as we're not talking about supporting Republicans:

Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

If the TOS specifically says it's "OK" well, then it isn't a callout.

If someone is going to claim that DUers are having conversations of a particular sort, it's not unreasonable to be expected to back up that assertion with some proof.

I don't know a single solitary "Clinton fan" who will stay home if Clinton doesn't win the nomination. I think most if not all of them will vote for the Democratic nominee, no matter who he or she might be.

I wish the "non-Clinton fans" (to use your term) would be as enthusiastic in keeping the White House for the Democratic team, no matter who is nominated.

[MineralMan]

185. There's no rule against linking to other posts on DU.

No rule at all. It happens all the time. People's points are that there are no posts on DU recommending that nobody run in the presidential primary elections. There are people who are Hillary supporters and who want Hillary to be the official nominee. But I've not seen anyone suggest that others should not declare their candidacies and run.

For myself, I'd like to see some other primary candidates. I will end up voting in November for the official Democratic nominee, of course, but the more running in the primary the better.

So, if you can find threads or posts where someone has said nobody but Hillary should run, you can post links to them without any fear. There's simply no rule against it, and it's not a callout. It's just a link.

[MADem]

150. That's just not true. The TOS talks about people supporting whosoever they choose in the primaries

But the reason that there are no links to "demands" that no one else run is because there are no threads saying that.

And if a spirited discussion between people supporting their own choice of candidate is regarded by anyone as an "attack," well, they aren't working with a very strong candidate, are they?

This is a DEMOCRATIC message board--the people who post here are left of center, and they're going to support candidates who follow that general mindset. If a candidate is truly getting "attacked" in this environment, and not simply "challenged" as to views, opinions and attitudes, then that candidate might have more trouble when they get out in the heat of the primaries and shit is getting flung at them by the GOP.

The primaries, and the period leading up to them, are the crucible---either the candidate will be forged and hardened, or they will crack and crumble.

Instead of fighting the process, it should be welcomed. The Republicans aren't going to be using the kid gloves, make no mistake.

[hrmjustin]

28. And if hillary wins the nomination will you vote for her?

I will easioy support Warren, Sanders, or any of our other possible candidates if they win.

[Ken Burch]

31. Well yeah...but that's not the point.

I don't have to promise to be disloyal to the presidential ticket to be sincere in my convictions.

[hrmjustin]

35. No you don't have to promise anything.

It is just a question.

[still_one]

47. and so will most of us vote for whoever is the Democratic nominee. Hillary will not be the only

candidate. Jim Webb, Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, possibly Jack Reed

Don't think Elizabeth Warren wants to run in 2016, she is happy in the Senate for right now

[Sheepshank]

37. Progressives on DU are demanding a cancellation of Dem Primaries?

I don't think re-iterating Elizabeth Warren's statement that she is NOT runnig for POTUS, or not hanging on Bernie Sanders words while he has not formally renounced his "Indenpendent" status, makes for cancelling all primaries. Apparently you do, so I'll just have to disagree with your OP.

[Ken Burch]

63. Not progressives...but then progressives don't want HRC as nominee. n/t.

All the HRC lead threads are about trying to bludgeon people into line before anyone even votes.

There's no positive justification for referencing polls now that have no connection to what political reality will be in 2016.

Former presidents Ed Muskie and Ted Kennedy*both of whom I supported, btw) could have told you that.

[OilemFirchen]

102. "(P)rogressives don't want HRC as nominee."

Sez who?

[hrmjustin]

105. I post Hillary is leading polls in the Hillary room. Why do you insult me by saying i am trying

to bludgeon people into line?

Your post is insulting!

[Just for Fun]

133. Because you decided to throw out anyone who isn't for Hillary

in the HRC forum, for one.

Enjoy the echo chamber on that forum.

[hrmjustin]

135. You knew what you were doing.

This is the SOP of the room;
Statement of Purpose

Discuss the life, career, and accomplishments of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. Supporters only.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=about&forum=1107


The room is for supporters only. You agreed to the terms of service to this site when you joined recently.

[Sheepshank]

169. Is the Photography group an "echo chamber" too?

How about the BOG, or the Gungeon etc. The most stupid statement on this thread yet...insulting those that take the time and effort to create and participate in their own support group with TOS that describe their purpose. you personally don't like it, so you insult?

[Just for Fun]

171. these forums dont throw you out if you criticize them

Except for BOG (which is also trashed because its another echo chamber) you are comparing apples and oranges.

[hrmjustin]

172. You are aware you agreed to the rules of this site?

If you have an issue with the rules of this site, you can always make your complaints known to the owners of this site.

And you she know there are plenty if groups here eith long ban lists.

[Sheepshank]

180. TOS.....if they can ban, and they enforce the TOS, they will

quit crying about groups and their rules that you don't like, it makes you look petty.

[tammywammy]

43. I admit I don't read every post here

But I've never seen a Hillary supporter demanding no one else run in the primaries.

[gwheezie]

46. I voted for hillary I will vote for her again

I hope she has a vigorous primary challange several in fact. Who knows I might change my mind. I can think of several people I would love to see run Just because hillary supporters point out she is ahead in polls doesn't mean we are demanding no primary. Especially if Jeb is the nominee. Some people are going to be turned off by bush v Clinton so a primary that is exciting and dynamic can help hillary and if someone makes a strung enough case then hillary won't be nominated. I like hillary. I plan to vote for her but if she isn't nominated it won't be the end of the world.

[JI7]

51. nobody wants to put in the work to help another candidate

The way there was for obama.

Only the Hillary people seem motivated to get out and campaign for her.

[lobodons]

53. Dems need a Primary for 16

Will serve as a good VP and Cabinet vetting process for Hillary.

[sadoldgirl]

55. The part in brackets in your title

is wrong,imo.
However, the points I agree with are the steady dismissal
of other candidates, especially the one "X is not running".

The point is NOBODY has declared yet. People may have
their favorites, and, yes, the steady "HRC is way ahead in the
polls" gets really stale and boring after a while. But again:

NOBODY has declared yet, and therefore dismissal of any
possible candidate in indirect ways is clearly uncalled for.

Just my 2 cents.

[Thespian2]

65. K & R

[Dustlawyer]

68. If we show enough support for Bernie Sanders we won't have this problem.

Hate to burst bubbles, but those of you who deride Fox Bots for being brainwashed, yet still think Obama and Hillary do not represent the same folks as the Republicans need to look into the mirror. Our Democracy is swirling the drain, and unless we get rid of campaign contributions, the revolving door, and bust up the media and banking oligarchies, you can stick a fork in it!

[MyNameGoesHere]

72. Yes Hillary, step aside please so we can run a

won't run and a can't win candidate.

[reddread]

110. candidate that wont run to wars we cant win

[MyNameGoesHere]

129. Yes Hillary will start more wars than

I don't l know. Maybe she can use Super Duper Freaky drone attacks instead of the current normal ones.

[reddread]

165. Libya, Syria, Iran she is bloodthirsty

Never mind the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of dead Iraqi children
that were ever so "worth it"

[MyNameGoesHere]

183. If history has taught me anything

it's that politicians pay lip service to getting involved or not. The drone wars are as much a war as the other ones you mention, which as far as I know haven't even started yet. Or at least Hillary hasn't sent troops or drones there yet has she?

[KittyWampus]

73. I haven't seen ANY DU'er "demand" Clinton be nominated w/o challenge.

Not one. Maybe you encountered a singular poster doing this. But the fact you invent some mythical DU'ers who are umreasonable Clinton advocates says something about you and it isn't particularly admirable.

[Omaha Steve]

78. Since Rush wanted HC to get the nomination in 08....

That should make D's think about a no race primary!

[Agnosticsherbet]

111. He thought she was easier to beat and that a nomination fight would hurt Obama.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/04/limbaugh-urges-listeners-to-vote-for-clinton/

You might want to check out why Limbaugh would do such a thing before you try to make a point with it.

[Omaha Steve]

113. You just made my point

Because she would be easier to beat.

I know just why Rush did it.

[PatrynXX]

88. I won't vote for a Conservative and thats that

end of line. Hillary is pure conservative.

[NightWatcher]

90. The Powers That Be have already decided it's Bush/Clinton in 2016

This election will cost about 4 BILLION. The billionaires and corporations have decided that it will be between these two spokespeople.

We can have our little primaries on both sides but it won't matter in the long run, nor will challengers move the Party platforms away from Center.

[hay rick]

106. Center???

You mean the center between the right side of far right and the left side of ultra-far right??

[frazzled]

98. Who's demanded that?

I've never seen a post "demanding" that Clinton be nominated without a primary challenge. Ever. I think you're confusing anyone who poses the least question about another potential candidate with a "demand" that they not run. That's crazy, and it's a total misreading.

As so many are so fond of saying here, no one is above criticism. No one. And criticism isn't a gesture of total denial. Is your criticism of Clinton a demand that she not run?

(For the record, I have no candidate yet for a 2016 primary.)

[Ken Burch]

101. I'd be fine with her running

If she'd let the grassroots draft the platform from below.

And tell Wall Street to go to hell.

Not asking too much.

[arely staircase]

107. throw your hat in the ring nt

[Thinkingabout]

112. I just read through the replies and still have not seen evidence of anyone saying there should not

Be a primary. HRC backers knows she can stand the test. We know the trash dumping on her and know the truth so the Karl Rove tactic isn't getting through.

[RiverLover]

114. "If HRC is nominated WITHOUT a primary challenge?"....HELLO Third Party!

That would be very bad for Democrats.

[Ken Burch]

123. Did not say that.

Did not mean that.

It's about whether you can get people to care or not.

IN a race between a 'pug and a center-right Dem, you just can't.

And it wouldn't even matter for feminism, because trade pacts, military intervention, and pro-business economics are all bad for the vast majority of women-the ones who DON'T watch Lifetime and OWN.

[RiverLover]

128. I know! Preachin to the choir. Repug, Fake Dem, Conservadem, "centrist", all the same.

She must have a primary, and may ABC prevail!

No more pretendems!

[Doctor_J]

121. I think HRC is betting on Wall Street favoring her over Bush The Fatter

She won't bother with Obama's phony "Change" shtick - no one will fall for it this time anyway. She is hoping that the wall st connections and the women's vote will carry the day, and sh'es probably right. The problem is that this sort of campaign is that the coattails will be non-existent. She'll have to work with a Republican congress, but I think that she, like Obama, would prefer that anyway

[customerserviceguy]

138. When you hear the name of the Republican nominee

It will focus your mind wonderfully (apologies to Samuel Johnson).

[ucrdem]

149. If HRC effectively gets a pass like Bill got a pass in 96

I'm not sure that would be a bad thing. Whatever rhetoric she's going to usefully borrow from Sens. Warren and Sanders I imagine she's already noted. Another knock-down drag-out like in 2008 is going to weaken the ticket and suck $$ from other races and I honestly don't see the benefit. I just don't think HRC and her advisers including Bill and Barack are going to revamp whatever strategy they're planning in response to dark horse primary challengers. It would make her look weak for one thing and for another I'm really not sure she'll do anything so very different policy wise than either Sanders or Warren anyway. For another thing none of them have actually declared and released detailed platforms that I'm aware of so there's really not much to compare except rhetoric.

[rufus dog]

151. If a monkey flies out of my ass WITHOUT causing me pain

Then I will sell everything I own and give it to the Hillary 2016 campaign.

Point being, chill the hell out, a monkey ain't flying out of my ass, if it does it will cause my pain, and I won't be giving all my money to Hillary in 2016.

It is an embarrassment, along the lines of a monkey flying out of my ass!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

160. We're all supposed to be thrilled to have Hillary!

Didn't you know that?

[akbacchus_BC]

161. Here is my question, if Hilary is the nominee, then you all

Democrats have to vote for her. A republican being elected is not the solution, that party will undo all the good that President Obama has done.

Frankly, is Hilary the right person, she is getting on in age! I have no idea if she still can run the US if elected!

[reddread]

166. are you worried about liberals voting?

that aint EVER where the problem is.
just the blame.
one long hippy punching rodeo.

[rock]

167. OK, you're entitled to an opinion

and so am I. You're dead wrong.

[mylye2222]

170. If so it would be a spoof of a democratically

nominated candidate.
But yes there is a risk it could happen.

Any are like me really fed uo regarding the way how strong Clintons have a grip over Democratic party?

[MineralMan]

181. And why would you think that will happen?

Since nobody at all with any credibility has even declared their candidacy, including Hillary Clinton, it seems to me that you're way ahead of yourself with this. I expect there to be primary opponents. I don't know who they'll be, though. If you have someone you thing should run, encouraging that person to run would be useful.

Personally, I welcome all primary candidates to run. That will make for a more interesting primary election, to be sure. Why do you suppose nobody will run? I don't get it.

[pnwmom]

198. Or it could simply mean that other possible challengers have decided

that she's the most electable candidate, even though (or because) she's not the most progressive.

And they're not trying to kneecap her before she faces the Rethug.

[Warren DeMontague]

199. I know some people would like to skip the primaries entirely

but I don't see that happening.

[NCTraveler]

201. Don't remember a primary in my lifetime without a challenger.

We on the left have enough concern with Hillary without completely making things up that have absolutely no basis in reality. A primary with no challenger. lol. Complete lack of reality.