It has to be said: HILLARY WILL NOT WIN THE NOMINATION..

[ddeclue]

I get tired of the "inevitable" Hillary-bots who show such hutzpah to go around telling us that we shouldn't bother trying and that we're all gonna be saved by Hillary and the Clintons.

Well thanks but no thanks my friends.. I've had enough DLC'ers, triangulation, equivocation, and Republican-lite corporatists wearing donkey masks and telling me they're a Democrat.

She will NOT WIN - people are tired of this kind of nonsense and want a real leader instead of a DLC'er.

We need a real progressive Democrat this time, not more Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton "War of the Roses" royal family nonsense. In a country of 300,000,000 people there's got to be someone not named Bush or Clinton who can run this country!

Doug D.

[Colobo]

1. K&R.

[Divine Discontent]

5. I strongly K&R

and I'm under the strong feeling that if they continue hammering her on policy and what she says, like O and J have been doing, they will continue to lower her down in Iowa a couple points by the end of the year. I think either O's people or J's backers, will coalesce to one or the other against her when one of them drops out (The only Clinton backer at an Edwards campaign asked me why any of them would drop out! no comment), and she will be defeated that way.

I dread her being our nominee. I will vote for her, but with thoughts of what might have been if we could have got someone instead of her, as I feel she will not do as much to change things as all the other Dem candidates will...

[ElizabethDC]

2. Just for the record, the thread that you're copy-catting was started by an Obama supporter

so it's not a "Hillary-bot" telling you that she's inevitable.

[ddeclue]

4. Well I see enough of them that are like this that I thought it was...

I'm an Edwards supporter but that Obama supporter ought to have more faith in Obama than that. I thought Obama did pretty good tonight and he has a much better chance to win than the MSM gives him credit for. I even believe my guy Edwards has a pretty good chance to win. After all, it's a statistical tie in Iowa where it matters.

Doug D.

[Colobo]

6. I still believe in Obama, don't get me wrong.

However, it's a very uphill battle we are facing here, and we can't fool ourselves.

[ddeclue]

10. Sure it is, I'm not fooling myself...

but it CAN and MUST be done, either by your guy or mine.

Doug D.

[gateley]

21. Honey, let me tell you about an uphill battle...

:7

But I'm not giving up unless Joe does. Hang in there with O! Don't get discouraged - he's doing GREAT!

[ClarkUSA]

24. Where's the uphill battle in Iowa? It's a coin toss there. Whoever wins there wins it all.

Just like in 2004. That's MY prediction.

[ddeclue]

26. More or less true...

Because the schedule of the first four states is so compressed, I wouldn't count anyone out before they are done though and the results could well be mixed after the first four.

[ClarkUSA]

27. I remember 2004

I believe that the media tsunami effect of the winner of the Iowa caucuses will be even greater in 2008 directly because
of the further compressed schedule.

[MonkeyFunk]

3. She may not

but the betting man would put money on her winning.

Who do you think has a better chance?

[ddeclue]

7. the betting man would be a fool then...

I think Edwards and Obama have a better chance. Elections are won in Iowa.

Doug D.

[MonkeyFunk]

37. Based on what?

Edwards has no shot. Obama is fading. Why do they have a better chance than Clinton?

You're funny.

[FatDave]

38. Because Iowa caucus-goers usually vote pragmatic?

Just sayin'...

[rinsd]

56. Two Dem elections have been won in Iowa, 1976 & 2004.

Iowa was not as important in 1984, 1988, 1992 or 2000. (when non incumbents ran).

[knight_of_the_star]

12. The betting man would know

That when there's money involved the words "sure thing" should never be used.

[MonkeyFunk]

36. Who said "Sure thing"?

Only clinton-haters claim her nomination is inevitable.

[TwilightZone]

8. Denial is a wonderful thing.

The posts claiming that the front-runner has no chance at the nomination are no less tiresome than those claiming that her coronation is imminent.

[ddeclue]

9. Real democrats can see through her DLC triangulating ways.

Denial is what the Hillarybots suffer from..not me.

Doug D.

[TwilightZone]

11. Just keep telling yourself that.

Maybe some day it'll become true.

[ddeclue]

14. Yep... and that day is January 3rd, 2008... Iowa Caucus day...

:rofl:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

34. So most members of the Democratic party aren't real Democrats?

I think that's nonsense. More real Democrats support Clinton than any other candidate, by a vast margin, and many of their grasps of her views are probably as good as or better than yours.

[FREEWILL56]

68. Enlighten everybody on her views if you would.

Skip the polls as we've had enough of those shoved on us. There was a thread not long ago that asked what her views were and only a couple even attempted to answer. What was mostly done by those few were avoiding straight answers known as spinning and denigrating those asking. Now Democrats aren't stupid, but then how is it nobody knows where in the world hillary is coming from one minute to the next? only her supporters seem to know and they can't seem to explain it to us anymore than hillary can.

[Divine Discontent]

13. how DARE you attempt to stifle free speech by belitting the OP!

lol... j/k.
Hey, if it rallies the troops, how can it be wrong? I think her personality is far from warm and inviting, and that she will not connect with a majority of Democrats, and that people like me will only vote for her b/c we get chills thinking of a Rudy or McCain presidency.

And sadly, it will drive millions to not vote who would if it was any other Democratic candidate because of how polarizing she is. And if you don't think she's polarizing, go stand out my work one morning and listen to them complain about her, or at my brother's workplace at the factory, and listen to the Hillary-hate that's been prevalent since oh, forever.

[TwilightZone]

16. Your assertion is not based in reality.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3673510

More voters indicated that they would stay home if Edwards or Obama is the nominee than if Clinton is.

[ddeclue]

17. WRONG! Edwards has higher win margins over GOP candidates than Hillary...

so that MUST be wrong.

Hillary is the poster child for liberalism for the GOP/Right Wing...

Unfortunately though, she's not really a liberal and real liberals know that.

She's a DLC corporatist.

Because she's a DLC corporatist, she's gonna make a lot of liberals sit on their hands on election day and sit on the wallets when the donation plate is passed.

Doug D.

[TwilightZone]

19. Ah, yes, proof that doesn't fit your agenda MUST be wrong. Too funny.

Please provide proof of your assertion. I provided proof of mine.

Anecdotal evidence at your workplace doesn't count.

[ddeclue]

20. Ahh talking out your ass - too funny...

According to Real Clear Politics, Edwards has a 15 point lead over Mitt Romney, 11 points over Thompson, and is tied with Giuliani. Hillary only has a 10 point lead over Romney, only an 8 point lead over Thompson and a 4.4 point lead over Giuliani.

My candidate is doing better against the Republican front runners than your candidate... Too bad.. you lose...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

[rinsd]

51. Except Hillary actually beats every GOPer while Edwards is in a statistical tie with Rudy.

"Too bad.. you lose..."

Thanks I was looking for the proper response to you!

[Hardrada]

66. That's true.

As I've said before I will start going to church again if Hill does not get the nomination because it will be a proof of God's existence.

[CoffeeCat]

15. I've been reading a other blogs...

...and I've been on the ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN messageboards, and there
is a consistent theme that crops up.

Democrats everywhere are asking, "Where in the heck are all of these Hillary
supporters?".

I would like to know as well. At least 70 percent of the people on this board
dislike her--and we're all Democrats! Republicans dislike her even more.
Who would end up voting for her?

The MSM wants her to run. Oh man, were their ratings high when they could
report on blow jobs and blue dresses. Everyone loves a sex scandal. It
increases ratings. The Republicans and right-wing hate radio are waiting
in the wings to Swiftboat her with something even more titillating than
a tarnished war record. They've got a sex scandal that will be relived so
vividly--it will feel like it's happening all over again.

How many times do you want to see the clip of Bill Clinton saying, "I did not...have..."?

I really believe that the current polls are off, because it's too early. People
aren't plugged in and paying attention. They say "Hillary" when a pollster calls,
because of her name recognition. I imagine that as more people plug in and
really think about their vote--that those votes will go to other candidates.

[flyarm]

23. i run internet groups in two states and one nation wide..and i get the same question daily!!

i know of only one dem who is supporting her..now i know damn well..he is not the polls they are showing..its worse than an landslide in the groups i work with..it is total -1

These are dems that do the dorr knocking..the phone banking, the poll watching and working..dems who do all the grunt work..and hard work...and a current theme among them all is ..if she gets the nomination..they will do nothing..no work at all.The consensus is..let her use the lobby money to pay for her workers.

fly

[xiamiam]

33. im also mystified since i dont know one person who supports her..not one..

either personally or socially..california here and of course we are a little more progressive but i know people and get emails from all over the country..and other than the msm...and the supposed polls...i have yet to personally know even one hillary supporter..

[countmyvote4real]

18. I hope you're right.

I also have to agree with themartyred's post in this topic. HRC is very polarizing to both primary and general election voters.

[LeftCoast]

22. So what happens if she does?

Your post seems to be more wishes than facts.

:shrug:

[ddeclue]

25. Then I will work on state and local races and she'll be lucky to get my vote..

certainly not my money or volunteer time.

I'd rather work for real Democrats at the state and local level than work for her.

Doug D.

[JackORoses]

28. Hillary may cost us the Presidency, but she will definitely kill the potential for a Super-Majority

Instead of a Landslide, we'll get a Nail-biter

[earthlover]

69. Hillary would be lucky to wih. No coat-tails with her. Too bad because....

...this is a year that could have been a transformational election, where we swept in a strong Democratic Congress.

The cost here will be Democrats running for Congress and Senate who lose their close battles.

Wouldn't it be a nice thing....in a year where the Dems should have all the advantages....for them to have a candidate at the top of the ticket who was not so controversial, and one who would unite Democrats as much as Hillary would unite the Republicans?

[emilyg]

29. Yes she will.

[cali]

30. sheesh, doug, this is your idea of an argument?

Yikes. Here's the bottom line: We don't know. Wow. Earth shaking isn't it? Try it on for size; it's not so hard to admit you don't know something. Your temper tantrum is not analysis or a forecast based on anything fact based. Clinton stands a good chance at winning the nomination, but.... she's certainly no shoo-in. may the gods of rationality fly to your side should she win it; you're gonna need them.

[Rageneau]

31. as BartCop says, "You want to put some money on that?"

Are you giving your "Nancy Grace guarantee" that Hillary won't win?

[Tactical Progressive]

32. When you're down to the absurd 'royals' line, you've lost all credibility

I don't think we want Hillary because we've already had Herbert Hoover and Harry Truman (and almost Hubert Humphrey), and George Herbert Walker Bush, in just the last 75 years. That's too many 'H's. There's 25 other letters in the alphabet!!! Enough names with 'H'!!!

What a silly attempt at an argument you've posited.

It was difficult to try to match it, but I think I almost did. Except that you were serious, and mine was tongue in cheek, so I guess I didn't really even come close to matching the absurdity.

[Perry Logan]

35. Let me see if I've got this straight...

1) Hillary can't possibly get nominated because no one really likes her; but
2) when she does get nominated, she can't possibly get elected because of her negatives, but
3) when she does get elected she'll be just another corporate minion, but...

No wonder I get confused talking to anti-Hillarites.

[ronnykmarshall]

39. Confused?

It's call having brain cells die.

GD-P has become a frontal lobotomy of dumb shit rants.

[Major Hogwash]

40. Well, she just lost 2 debates in a row.

I think it's time for Hillary to rethink how she can help a real Democrat get into the White House next year, instead of whining about it being a boy's club, whining that anyone who disagrees with her is "taking a page right out of the Republican play book", whining that she didn't plant questions, whining that they are "ganging up on her", whining about not playing the sex card, whining about other candidates "slinging mud" because they are also running for President.

Gawd, it's hard to listen to a shrew like that.

[rinsd]

52. "Gawd, it's hard to listen to a shrew like that."

Nope no misogyny here folks move along

:puke:

[Major Hogwash]

71. The truth hurts, don't it?

I could have called her any of a number of other names, but shrew fit her best because it can only be applied to her, none of the other candidates.

It's not misogyny to point that out, it's reality. Get used to it.

[CyberPieHole]

41. What brilliant analysis. Your case is so strong, you have changed my mind completely.

:silly:

[liberalla]

42. God, I hope you're right.

I'm not a Hillary hater, but she's my last choice of the Democratic field.

[BringBigDogBack]

43. Agree`

K&R

[AJH032]

44. just because you've "had enough" of her

does not mean she will not win.

[CnAnPB]

45. If HRC wins Iowa

Pack it up and send her to the General Election for it will be over.

[Froward69]

46. If HRC gets the nod EXPECT

some rethug for 4 more years.

[AntiFascist]

47. No doubt Hillary has a lot of support....

but are we really supposed to believe the corporate polls being crammed down our throats?

[oasis]

48. Plan B: I'll click my heels together three times and say "there's no place like home" and Hillary

will be whisked off to Kansas.;-)

[William769]

49. You know the Republicans think if they say it enough times it must be true.

Look in a mirror.

[durrrty libby]

50. She will indeed win..And I get tired of the waawaa denier whiners

Man o man Edwards had a horrible and very sad night

[inthebrain]

53. Republicans don't vote in the primaries

Country wide, Hillary has not set herself up very well for a national primary election. I have doubts that she even wins in NYS which is now starting to move much further to the left than her.

Hillary is considered another Joe Lieberman. On the war she's taken up the same positions.

I doubt she wins Iowa or New Hampshire. In California I think Kucinich is polling higher than Clinton and she doesn't have support in MA. CT Lamont voters are most likely going to vote Kucinich as well.

The people Clinton and some of the other candidates are trying to hit notes with do not vote in the primaries. Folks in this party are not going about the "electability" route this time out. After 04 they want a guy who's good on the issues and can handle themselves against Republicans who are out for blood.

Hillary, Edwards, Obama and Biden just don't get that.

[durrrty libby]

57. lol

[Catherine Vincent]

54. Better to be a "Hillary-bot" than a "Whiney-bot" nt

[LanternWaste]

55. I don't know who will win, nor do I know who will lose...

For my part-- I don't know who will win, nor do I know who will lose. That's all I can say with any degree of certainty.

I don't take pride in my powers of precognitive prognostication because I have none...

(but I do take a little bit of pride in unintentional alliteration : )

[Martin Eden]

58. Who will win the Super Bowl?

I mean, if you KNOW these kinds of things, I'd like to place a lucrative bet.

[durrrty libby]

60. The Pats of course

:P

[rodeodance]

62. THE PAK------NOT THE PATS

[Martin Eden]

61. That's good to know.

I'll invest my 401k on that bet first thing Monday morning (as long as the Pats win on Sunday and Tom Brady isn't injured).

[dugggy]

59. Are you in denial? n/t

[Yael]

63. Adding a K & R against the dynasty

Cheers! Enjoy your weekend, Doug.

[Lord Helmet]

64. we can always hope

[laureloak]

65. I agree. A vote for Hillary is a vote for the Republicans. n/t

[NoGodsNoMasters]

67. Talk like this is EQUALLY tiresome!!!

I could give a fuck less if some people dislike Hillary Clinton, she's not my favorite, but I'll vote for her. I didn't like Kerry, either. Most of the time in elections I don't vote for the democrat as much as I vote AGAINST the republicans. But let's look at some of the assertions being made... Hillary supporters aren't democrats? Harsh, dude,..not to menton factually deficient. "She will NOT win"...How the fuck would ANYBODY know this? Especially since she has raised more money than ANY OTHER CANDIDATE IN EITHER PARTY. Let's face it, money buys visibility, and voters don't vote for people they don't see all over the place, they also don't like voting for a sure loser, which is kinda common sense. Moreover, she has all the experience and connections, how do you figure the party would choose anyone else? Now, I've been arguing for years, Tom Hartman and Bernie Sanders were discussing this just the other day,...we NEED campaign finance reform. It would give progressive or third party candidates an actual chance, and greatly reduce the stranglehold that corporate interests have over Washington,....but thats' not going to happen before the election. The final summation seems to be that because there are better candidates, she will not win. I doubt anyone is naive enough to actually believe this. And, lastly, Clinton's far from perfect, we know her shortcomings, but do you prefer Giuliani or Romney (it's gonna be one of those two for the opposition.) so much you'd rather give them you're vote, which is, essentially, what you're doing if you vote for A-one of the B-list sure-loser candidates, or B-Don't vote for president at all in which case ABDICATING YOU'RE RIGHT TO COMPLAIN FOR FOUR FUCKING YEARS.

[_Wayne_]

70. If you're under 18, I admire your passion for politics...

But if you're over 18, you're an idiot.