It's not enough to bash Hillary Clinton. That trick never works in primaries.

[MineralMan]

Instead, talking up your favorite primary candidate will be far more useful. If you don't like Clinton, keep in mind that she may well be the official nominee, once the primaries have run their course. It's not going to be easy for another primary candidate to replace her. Not easy at all. Just bashing Clinton isn't going to have the effect intended.

So, if you have someone in mind who is willing to run, it will be far more effective to build support for that candidate than to engage in Clinton-bashing, especially if you're using the same arguments the Republicans are and will be using.

Just saying. If Hillary Clinton ends up as the Democratic nominee following the convention, she's going to need support from Democrats if she is going to win and keep one of the execrable Republican candidates from winning.

Support someone, if you want a different candidate. Don't just bash the leading candidate for the nomination. That won't work, in the first place, and it could cause irreparable harm.

It's worth thinking about, I think.

Disclaimer: I am currently not supporting any candidate in the primaries, nor will I be. I will vote for and support the official nominee of the Democratic Party, whoever that ends up being.

[hrmjustin]

1. Exactly!

[MineralMan]

2. Personally, I think it should go without saying.

Apparently, that's not the case, though, so I'm saying it.

[hrmjustin]

3. I get there is principled opposition by many a good member here on DU.

Debate and questions are healthy and necessary to democracy.

but some of the ops and posts here have just been plain ridiculous.

[MineralMan]

4. Maybe after some primary candidates announce,

people will switch to positive campaigning for them, instead of simply bashing Hillary. I certainly hope so.

[Andy823]

31. Yep

Some here are starting to sound like the right wing bashers, and that's not the way it should be. I know there is a group here who seem to do nothing but bash Obama, bash Hillary, bash the democratic party, bash, bash, bash, it's all you see in their posts, and that should make one wonder just what their goals really are.

I agree with you that healthy debate and questions are necessary, as you said some here take it way to far, and strangely they seem to get hundreds of recs when they do it. Some days it looks like a competition to see who can bash the most and get more recs than the other bashers.

If these people really want to change things, they should find a candidate they think will be better suited than the others, and they should post about that person. Some here are doing just that with O'Malley, and I think that is good. We don't really know who will run and who won't, except that Warren has made it pretty obvious she won't run, but by posting things on someone you like it helps to get an idea on what other potential candidates think about the issues that need to be discussed.

I would love to see Sanders in the debates because even though I don't think he can win, he can push the other candidates to answer the issues that real affect this country.

[hrmjustin]

32. Tomorrow will be worse.

Sundays on DU are anti-Hillary central.

[William769]

5. I have gievn up on trying to reason with people.

It's not my fault and it damn sure isn't Hillary's fault that no one else is willing to go up against the GOP gauntlet.

So people pissed off they can't have the perfect candidate do what they do best, attack someone at least trying to stop a GOP president winning in 2016.

[MineralMan]

6. I'm sure there will be others running in the primaries.

But everyone is waiting for Hillary Clinton to announce her candidacy, which she appears to be about to do this weekend.

I don't really expect the bashing to end, but I wish it would, and that it would be replaced with positive campaigning for individual primary candidates. In the end, there will be one Democratic nominee running against one Republican nominee. At that point, it's going to be difficult for some who have invested largely in Hillary bashing to step back from that.

At that point, things are going to get extremely ugly and may well get ugly enough to allow a Republican to win in November. That would be an enormous problem in every area of concern to Democrats. An unthinkable one.

Bashing the leading Democratic primary candidate is something that will only have bad results. Positive campaigning for a different Democratic candidate, however, will present no problems. In the end, one nominee will be selected, and will be supported by every real Democrat. The alternative is not acceptable in any way.

[JonLP24]

7. I disagree

It is more important than every to examine candidates records on policies & rhetoric. Ironically, it was Hillary Clinton bashing Obama on Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and Rezko which were the same arguments the McCain campaign bashed Obama on.

[MineralMan]

8. And how did that work out for Hillary?

You make my point, you see. Her strategy did not work, and she was not the candidate who got elected handily.

Bashing does not work. Positive campaigning works. Thanks for your example of what I was saying.

[JonLP24]

12. If they are false or desperate attacks, I agree

Keeping it truthful then I don't agree. You forget, Obama made statements critical of Hillary Clinton all throughout the campaign.

Obama: Because while I was working on those streets watching those folks see their jobs shift overseas, you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board at Wal-Mart.

If she has bad ideas, bad policies, & activities I think it is worth bringing it up as long as they're not baseless like Clinton's attacks on Obama.

[MineralMan]

13. That was one candidate criticizing or questioning another candidate.

That is to be expected in primary races. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about bashing one candidate, even before there are any primary candidates who have announced. Hillary Clinton has not yet laid out her campaign or discussed her positions on issues. She will, I guarantee. So will the other primary candidates. There will be debates, and the candidates will question other candidates.

A lot of what is being said about Hillary Clinton is very questionable and one-sided. Some of it is just hateful. Trust me, we'll get plenty of that from Republicans if she ends up being the official candidate. More than plenty. We don't need it right now from Democrats. What we need is positive campaigning for primary candidates.

Tell us why you're supporting a candidate. Convince us to vote for that candidate in our primaries. That might get them to the convention as a real challenger. Bashing Hillary Clinton isn't going to accomplish that. She's already far in the lead. It's going to take some serious positive campaigning to replace her as the nominee. Bashing isn't going to accomplish that in any way. Her lead is too large and primary voters will determine who the nominee will be.

[JonLP24]

18. Even at this point Hillary Clinton has a record of statements & activities that are relevant

Besides the debates, campaigns will air negative ads & campaign staff will focus on reasons to support whatever candidate & for all this talk on what we should or should not be doing the Hillary campaign & supporters will be the doing the very things you're urging her non-supporters not to do. You remember PUMA? Who was that again? You seem to want it one way.

I certainly will give my opinion on all the various candidates on what things I agree with as well as things I disagree with. A lot can change from here to when the primaries end & her numbers are already slipping

Little said the email controversy is the top issue concerning him about Clinton’s candidacy, in part because it’s the most recent. “It raises a huge character issue for me. It goes to whether I can literally trust her,” said Little, a services consultant from San Francisco. “Her actions just don’t add up.”

The email controversy may be one of the factors depressing Clinton’s overall standing. Just 48 percent view her favorably, down four points since December and marking the first time her standing has fallen below 50 percent in Bloomberg polls dating to September 2009. Her high was 70 percent in December 2012.

More than a quarter of those who view her favorably also say she hasn’t been truthful about her emails.

And the percentage of Democrats who say they will definitely vote for her if she is the Democratic nominee has dropped a full 10 points, to 42 percent from 52 percent in a Bloomberg poll in June 2013. Just 18 percent of poll respondents say they definitely will vote for her for president, compared to 23 percent two years ago.

http://www.durangoherald.com/article/20150410/NEWS03/150419996/Hillary-Clinton-to-announce-presidential-campaign-on-Sunday-

[qwlauren35]

9. I have to agree with you.

Bashing, while unpleasant, gets all of the weak spots out in the open, allows the candidate to devise strategies to deal with them and prepares him/her for rigorous debate.

Personally, I hate it, and hope to hide for the next year rather than listen to it constantly, but it serves a good purpose.

[JaneyVee]

10. Good post. Bashing only creates divisiveness and cynicism, and...

Cynicism has never accomplished anything. Instead, people should work to get their preferred candidate as the nominee.

[MineralMan]

11. Thanks. Obviously, I agree.

Infighting is not the way to win elections. It's just not. Positive campaigning for the candidate of your choice is how you win. Once a list of primary candidates is available, I hope this negative crap comes to a halt.

[frazzled]

26. It sometimes does more than that

It can actually have an unintended "blowback" effect. That's to say, when the "criticism" gets too virulent or over the top, too ugly or hyperbolic, it can drive people to defend the candidate, even to overlook some o their real or acknowledged flaws (and EVERY candidate has flaws).

So yelling, screaming, and cursing about a candidate often not only fails to convince people of your position on them; it can drive people straight into that candidate's arms.

[JaneyVee]

30. That's me. I'm all for Bernie and Liz, but....

Seeing Hillary be over-attacked is making me like her more and defend her. Mostly because the attacks are bullshit and petty.

[99Forever]

14. Bringing up a candidate's history isn't a trick.

It's called doing one's due diligence.

Sorry you find being well informed to be "divisive."

[MineralMan]

16. Reviewing history is important.

I do it all the time. Much of what I'm seeing, though, isn't just "reviewing." It's very selective bashing that often ignores other evidence. I'm better informed than you may think I am.

I don't have a favorite primary candidate yet. In fact, there are none from which to choose yet. Soon, however, there will be, which is what this thread is about. Promote your favorite. That might work. It's not going to be easy, and you stand the risk of backing yourself into a dark corner if you simply bash Clinton.

I think that's a poor idea, frankly.

[99Forever]

23. One person says it's "bashing," another...

... calls it "reviewing history." How important it is to any given person, is entirely personal and subjective. Negative facts in a candidate's history, are none the less, facts. Just like positive ones. Comparisons are based on the perceptions of those facts, and those perceptions, are even more stubborn than the facts themselves.

[Cal Carpenter]

15. It is not enough to write off criticism of any politician as 'bashing'

as though it is certain that there is no reasonable basis for criticism. So if people are criticizing a given candidates voting record, for example, or inconsistencies between their speeches and actions, one might be better off defending the candidate on their record rather than calling it 'bashing' and trying (and failing) to discredit the criticisms.

Just saying.

It's worth thinking about, I think.

[MineralMan]

17. Where did I do that?

I can tell the difference between criticism and bashing. I've been around politics all my adult life. The difference is obvious. I'm not talking about criticizing. I'm talking about bashing.

I'm also not actually promoting any primary candidate, nor will I be doing that. My presidential candidate will be the one selected by the National Convention following the primaries. I'm not putting up any defenses of any candidate, nor will I. That's their job.

[Cal Carpenter]

19. Like you, I am speaking hypothetically

To a collective 'you'.

It's not always about you, MM

The difference is not obvious, LOL. This ain't my first presidential primary on DU, nor in real life. Your appeal to authority ("I've been around politics all my adult life&quot is tepid. I might say it is rather condescending, actually, if I were a more sensitive sort.

[MineralMan]

21. And yet, you're replying directly to me.

If I misunderstood your intent, you have my apology.

[Rex]

27. Nailed it.

His use of bashing was intentional and now he is playing it off and pretending he does not support HRC. Good observation. Just one of the reasons I take the OP with a small grain of salt, no matter what the topic.

[BainsBane]

20. That presumes a goal other than seeing Clinton defeated

which I have seen few signs of.

[MineralMan]

22. It's going to be very difficult to defeat Hillary Clinton

in the primaries, if that's the goal. Her numbers indicate that she is the most likely winner. Very few people who will vote in the primaries in each state are going to be seeing the criticisms. It will take a concerted effort on the part of some other candidate to overcome her current lead among Democratic voters.

Those who want someone else to be the eventual nominee are going to have to stump very hard for their favorite candidate if they hope to replace Clinton. Simply bashing Hillary isn't going to get the job done. Primary turnouts are very low, and are mainly made up of voters who ALWAYS vote. If you poll them right now, you'll see that those actual primary voters are Hillary Clinton voters by a large margin.

Changing their minds is going to take very hard, positive campaigning. That's the only thing that will change the outcome.

That's my point in this OP. Nothing else. I'll be supporting the nominee. Before that, I'm just a primary voter. I'll be voting for the candidate I believe has the best chance of defeating the Republican in November. It's just that simple. In elections for President, I get just one vote. I have almost no influence on elections at that level, except for canvassing voters in my own precinct. In every case, my goal will be to get people to vote a straight Democratic ticket.

Anyone who wants a candidate other than Clinton has a tough job ahead.

[greatlaurel]

24. Good post. Well said.

The right wing operatives push the cynical memes to drive down voter turnout. Anything that drives down voter turnout helps the right wing to further their goal of expanding power. The posters who have written post after post attacking Hillary Clinton are working for the right wing, whether they realize it or not. Anything that increases the attitudes "all politicians are the same" and "centrist Democrats are no different than Republicans" are assisting in driving down voter turnout.

When voter turnout is high, Democratic Party candidates win elections. When voter turnout is poor, the GOP wins elections. If Democrats win elections, good things happen for the American people, even if the Democrats are not considered "progressive".
People who say they will not vote for HRC, if she wins the Democratic Party nomination, are either right wing operatives or very foolish people who never look at history. A small but loud contingent of the Democratic Party hated Jimmy Carter and refused to support his reelection campaign against Reagan. Not reelecting Carter was a disaster for this country and the world. Reagan's legacy cost tens of millions of Americans their economic well being and hundreds of thousands of people around the world lost their lives. The Democrats who refused to help reelect Carter stuck to their principles and assisted Reagan's wreaking havoc on the world. Reagan could not have won the election if all the Democratic Party factions had gotten behind Carter.

The refusal of the HRC critics to look at her record in the Senate is extremely odd. We see lots of posts criticizing her taking campaign contributions from one industry group or another, but they never are able to show any real impact of those contributions on her voting record as a Senator.

Your point is very pertinent. Work in a positive manner to support whatever candidate you wish in the primary. Bashing other Democratic Party candidates does nothing to help your candidate and only helps the GOP drive up voter apathy.

Thanks for your post.

[MineralMan]

25. Thank you very much.

I can see that you get what I'm driving at here.

[calimary]

28. Good point. If indeed she is our nominee, this needs to be considered.

And I suspect she will indeed be our nominee.

This advice is REALLY good, sensible, and valuable. Hey, we want to keep the White House. We want a favorable outcome among those who want the authority to pick the next Supreme Court justices. So let's not rough her up too badly. We've got an entire convention hall showroom of clown cars to handle that department. Let's not help them. OR make their job any easier. OR add voices, lyrics, or harmony to their idiot-chorus.

[MineralMan]

29. Odds are high that she will be the nominee.

That seems very clear, based on polling. The eventual candidate will need enthusiastic support from Democrats, not only to elect a Democratic President, but also to bring voters to the polls for all of those other races, particularly congressional and state legislative races. Every presidential election is a strategic event. It's not just about who becomes President. Much else hangs in the balance.

Thanks for your reply!

[calimary]

35. To bring Dems out in other races - like the Senate. So we can get the Senate back.

AND shore up the state races and farther down-ticket. As far down as possible. We HAVE to be there. WE simply have to. Because there are MORE of us and when WE turn out, WE WIN.

[MineralMan]

36. We need to not pay any attention to the nay-sayers on GOTV.

It's up to those of us who are election activists to make an all-out effort in 2016.

Those who won't participate will simply not affect the outcome. They have only one vote each. Those of us working in GOTV have multiple votes to bring to the polls.

GOTV is always the answer in Democratic politics.

[vadermike]

33. i support hillary

But i think she needs a good primary challenge to hone her skills.. i worry that she is a little rusty.. i think she is tough, however.... i just hope the polling i am reading is inaccurate , one recent poll i read before she even comes out of the gate she is already looked at as untrustworthy and most now say they will not vote for her.. although, .. polling is still early and you know how we like to unskew etc etc.. but those things worry me a little... I still think she is the best we can put up for 16..... but i guarantee the GOP will come after her with everything .. and i am afraid they will drive her negatives up so high that she can't get elected.. maybe i am just being a worrywort.. i know she hired a great team , even some of the President's digital gurus .. we need to fight like our life depended on it, because it does... the GOP will destroy the Country and the Dem Party will most likely go into hibernation if they take all three branches!!!!!!

[calimary]

38. Welcome to DU, vadermike!

Glad you're here! I support Hillary too. The thing is - the GOP has never STOPPED coming after her. The GOP has never let up on all things Clinton. Did you hear that asshole wayne lapierre the other night, running through all the "gates"? Most of them were NOT hers. They were about her husband's presidency with a few leftover Arkansas things that had been so fully-probed and investigated and fine-tooth-comb'd that they found NOTHING. Hillary once said she and Bill were the most investigated - AND the most exonerated two people EVER. Because they faced investigation after investigation, inquisition after inquisition, persecution after persecution. They even tried impeaching him and they couldn't even get through THAT successfully - he survived and the Senate did NOT convict.

Hell, they even tried to kick him on the way out - voting to rescind lifetime Secret Service protection from the Presidency. The funny thing was - it kinda backfired on what I strongly suspect their intentions were. They wanted to find one more way to smack him around. Unfortunately for them, that new rule didn't take effect on HIS presidency. It started with the NEXT one: bush/cheney. So they, in effect, made sure that the President they hated more than life itself (at that time anyway) was the last to enjoy lifetime Secret Service protection!

Take yer best shot, assholes. Most of the up 'n' coming voters, as I heard the speculation on CNN just now, don't even know or care about the 90s. They're the HUGE demographic voting group called the Millennials - who are young, and who've come of age in THIS new century. They know what they know NOW. And the very recent past. All that other shit they don't know OR care about. So let the bad guys rage. The Millennials are just gonna see them as a bunch of old cranks.

[tazkcmo]

34. What is bashing?

Not praising? Criticism of any kind? One Warren supporter's criticism is a Clinton supporter's bashing and visa versa.

[Motown_Johnny]

37. But it may work in the General, and that is the problem.

Given that it took over a week for her team to come up with the "I didn't want to carry two phones" response to the email scandal (a response that makes no sense) it scares the hell out of me that she/the will not be able to respond well to the endless attacks the RW slime machine will churn out.

Their goal will not be to win the arguments. They will just be trying to depress the enthusiasm for her voters while whipping their's into a frenzy.

With her long record it won't be hard for the usual suspects to keep her off message by slinging mud constantly. Agreed, most of it is bullshit but once again, they are not going to try and win the argument.


It really might work, and it really does scare me. I don't have a problem with HRC as President. I have a problem with HRC as our nominee.