This message was self-deleted by its author

[KMOD]

This message was self-deleted by its author (KMOD) on Sun Nov 1, 2015, 09:43 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[Thinkingabout]

1. Actually the post I read about not havng a primary are like yours.

I am a Hillary backer and I have been talking about having the primaries. If you have a candidate you would like to promote then promote your candidate. As for me Hillary supporters are looking forward to a primary.

[Andy823]

3. I agree

The ones pushing that meme are the same old anti Obama, and now anti Hillary posters, not Hillary supporters.

[Thinkingabout]

7. When you say

I would feel betrayed, and angry, and I most likely wouldn't vote.


It gives me the feeling you are not to vote if she is the nominee.

Yes, I would like to see her run but I also believe she is very strong and would say strongly she does not want to run. I think she is running because she can be a good president and her services would be of good use.

I do hope you back Hillary and most of all vote, not only in the primaries but all elections. It will be good to elect a Democrat president but would be better to elect a DNC majority In Congress and state houses.

[Thinkingabout]

45. Actually it is potential candidates who decide. I don't think we would want the DNC to decide

That anyone would or would not run. I don't get the feeling the DNC is only wanting HRC to run, the sheer exposure of a DNC Primary where issues are discussed just may reach voters and encourage voter participation. I do not know who or what is behind this DNC does not want a primary when primaries properly run is good. We do not need a clown GOP primary but a well run with good debates, we can do this.

[Old and In the Way]

2. I like HRC, but I would also like to see anyone who thinks they have a better vision run.

But I also know this. Republicans now have an overwhelming economic advantage in our politics. That translates into running candidates that they will support thru the primaries...forcing the frontrunner to spend capital to win. I used to be good for a couple pf thousand every election cycle. Now, I can bearly afford a couple hundred bucks. Pretty sure I am not alone. Big money is on Republicans....all they need are cheap votes. Because their base ain't putting their wallet behind their votes. No need when billionaires are deciding who you will v o te for...

[Old and In the Way]

18. It is effective.

Look at the # of anti-Hillary posts are made eVery day. This posting doesn't come cheap.Don't believe me? Look at certain posters who are trying to kneecap HRC and then see their "0" comments when Threads are posted about Republicans running for POTUS. Oddly, they never have anything to say about those individu a ls. But support Hillary and they show their true colors.


And I am not even in the HRC club.....yet.

[SheilaT]

4. No primary, or a very cursory sort of one

with no other contenders would be so incredibly wrong. As much as I am very opposed to Hillary Clinton as our nominee, as much as I think she's a truly terrible choice, what's even worse is that she have no competition, nothing that would serve to focus what the party really wants. She is not already President and running for re-election. She's not looking for validation of what's she's already accomplished. She was rejected in 2008, and she really ought to go out there all over again and convince people she really is the best choice.

If she is nominated, especially if there is no real competition at any point, then the best we can hope for is 1, the Republicans nominate one of their real crazies, and 2, that even more Republicans stay home than Democrats. I predict an appallingly low turnout. Heck, I live in a reliably Democratic state, so my not voting won't matter. When I used to live in a reliably Republican state, Kansas, I often thought of not bothering to vote. What I hate most about the Electoral College is that the majority of votes really don't count under that system. Actual direct election of the President would change things a lot. And for the better, in my opinion.

[KMOD]

6. Hillary Clinton would agree with you.

That said, I think folks should wait and see if she is actually seeking a primary run.

Many other candidates are holding off, some who are hoping she will run, and others who are taking advantage of the fact she hasn't announced and potential republican candidates are being scrutinized in the mean time.

[brooklynite]

9. You are aware that she's been staffing up for months?

[KMOD]

11. according to anonymous people, yes.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. Anonymous sources are different than anonymous people

There are legal ramifications to announcing you are going to run or set up an exploratory committee.

[brooklynite]

13. So, all the news reports are wrong?

Whatever illusions let you sleep at night.....

[KMOD]

15. Ok, let me again try to clarify,

HRC is under a lot of pressure to run.

There are many supporters who are trying to do anything, including taking off the workload of a Presidential run, to convince her.

HRC, however, has stated numerous times, that not only trying to run for President, but the time and effort of actually being President, is something she needs to contemplate very seriously. She is a grandmother, she is a worldwide advocate for women's rights, she has the Clinton Initiative, she has respect all over the globe. She does not necessarily have to be President of the United States to make a difference. She has power and respect right now.

Should she run, I will listen. I will listen to all who run. I will vote for the Democratic Nominee and support them fully.

[brooklynite]

17. I think you're out of the loop...

...she talked about the need to contemplate a Presidential run some time ago. While she won't and can't formally say anything, I've heard her speak twice in the past five months, and my political experience tells me she's running, along with the extensive work that she's engaging in to build up a campaign team.

[KMOD]

19. Hey, that's cool.

It's just opinions, ya know.

[merrily]

31. No, it's more than opinions. Podesta, a top advisor to both Pres. Clinton and Pres. Obama

quit his job to join her campaign.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/white-house-adviser-podesta-to-join-emerging-hillary-clinton-campaign-1421184262

She has over 200 policy advisors, many of whom have been working on how she will handle the income inequality issue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/us/politics/economic-plan-is-a-quandary-for-hillary-clintons-campaign.html?_r=0

Opinions should have some factual basis, not be contrary to facts.

[KMOD]

36. Until she announces

the rest is speculation.

[merrily]

38. Nothing in my post was speculation. I gave links.

I'm going to another thread. I don't mind disagreement with what I post, but his thread is way too far removed from reality for me.

[KMOD]

39. Yup, not surprised at all.

see ya,

[merrily]

33. I cherish this moment. For once, I could not agree more with you.

[cali]

49. oh for pity's sake. She's staffing up. She's even hired Robby Mook

to manage her campaign. She is running and will announce toward the end of April.

[NanceGreggs]

14. I have not seen a single HRC supporter ...

... come even close to suggesting that there should be no Democratic primary. I have also not seen a single Hillary supporter refer to her as "inevitable, the 'chosen one', the 'anointed one', or this 'being her turn'."

And yet DU is replete with posters decrying these notions - even though they haven't been expressed by anyone here.

Would you happen to have a link to Hillary expressing "concerns about whether she wants to 'put the time into' being president" if she wins?

I've never heard that one - and it would be a rather remarkable statement if it was actually made. Despite the present incompetence of the MSM, I feel certain that if Hillary stated that she wasn't sure that she wanted to invest her time into being president if elected, that would have been headline news for weeks.

So if you can provide a link to that statement, I would be much obliged. And if no such statement was made, you might want to rethink attributing it to her.

[KMOD]

16. I also haven't seen any Hillary Clinton supporters suggesting no Democratic primary.

But the charges have been stated by others.

[youtube]

[/youtube]

[NanceGreggs]

21. From your own OP ...

... "I think all of the talk of not having a primary, comes from Democrats who are pushing HRC to run."

There are a lot of DUers who want HRC to run. Are they not part of the "Democrats" you spoke of? Or are they somehow a different breed of Democrats, or Hillary supporters?

Have you come up with a link yet to Hillary expressing "concerns about whether she wants to 'put the time into' being president' if she wins"?

I'm sure all of us would be very interested in her having made such a statement. I don't want to think you just fabricated that declaration off the top of your head. Surely there must be a specific statement you're referring to.

[KMOD]

22. Maybe I'm not being clear here,

The choice to run, is HRC's choice, and her choice alone. My opinion is that she may not want to run, yet is being pressured to by others.

The parsing of words around here is incredible. It's no wonder so many of you are always at each others throats.

I posted a video above. An interview with Charlie Rose. That is what I'm basing my opinions on.

[NanceGreggs]

23. I watched the video you linked to.

I didn't hear Hillary express "concerns about whether she wants to 'put the time into' being president" if she wins."

That is not a matter of "parsing words" - it is a matter of your attributing a statement to HRC that she never made, nor did she state anything even remotely like that.

If you want to opine on Hillary's actual statements, have at it. But fabricating statements is not acceptable.

[KMOD]

24. I'm not fabricating.

It's my opinion. That's all. And I based my opinion on what she said.

Edit to add: "I understand how the job is done, and I understand what has to be prioritized. I just have to decide whether that's what I want to do at this point in my life" HRC

[NanceGreggs]

40. Again from your own OP ...

"... and because she has stated concerns about whether she wants to put the time in, not only in running, but in being President should she actually win."

Do you understand what "SHE HAS STATED" means? It does NOT mean "this is my opinion based on what she said" - not by a longshot.

"She has stated" means she SAID IT. And apparently she didn't, did she?

"I understand how the job is done, and I understand what has to be prioritized. I just have to decide whether that's what I want to do at this point in my life."

Do you REALLY think that's the same as saying "I don't know whether I want to put the time in if I'm elected president"?

REALLY?

[merrily]

28. You don't think Schumer, Brown and Frank are supporting Hillary?

[KMOD]

30. I do think they are.

They do not speak for HRC, however.

[merrily]

32. They support Hillary AND discourage primary challenges, directly contrary to your Reply 16,

Which says that no Hillary supporters have been discouraging primary challenges. Your Reply 16 never said a thing about being official Hillary spokespersons and neither did my reply 28.

When someone disproves a post of yours, don't just move the goal post.

However, the idea that Schumer, Brown and Frank would make public statements about no Democratic primary challenges for Hillary against Hillary's wishes is naive at best.

[loyalsister]

25. Not to mention losing nearly a yr. of exposure via press coverage to republicans

There would be no platform to make distinctions not only between themselves as candidates, nor to reinforce the contrast between the parties.
I wonder if Nader exploited that? Not having an ongoing consistent message may have been what gave him the opportunity to draw similarities and disregard differences between Bush and Gore.

[KMOD]

26. Exactly,

Thank you.

[merrily]

27. Pushing Hillary to run for President? You have an idea how Hillary feels about a primary challenge

and that idea is she wouldn't vote for President unless she has a primary challenger?

[KMOD]

29. Hillary suppots primay challenges.

That was made quite clear in 2008.

[merrily]

35. No, it was not not. What Hillary made clear in 2008: Hillary wants to be President and

probably would have been if there had been no primary challenger. She was not at all happy that someone who was 30 points behind her at one point defeated her.

[KMOD]

37. Yeah, ok

You say tomato...

[JI7]

34. everything she is doing is based on a Primary , if nobody else runs

it's not her fault . but there will be a primary just as there was in 2012 when Obama was on it.

[TreasonousBastard]

41. There really wasn't any until 1952 when New Hampshire's convinced...

Truman not to run for re-election.

And that was just New Hampshire-- there weren't many other state primaries back then. It wasn't until 1968 that primaries got a real start with the convention cockup that year.

So, a bunch or our greatest Presidents were nominated by conventions and smoke filled back rooms while some of our worst came out of the primary system. Proving only that neither primaries nor smoke-filled rooms are the better way.

[longship]

42. ^^THIS^^

I wouldn't mind the smoke filled rooms except that they would not be the same smoke filled rooms of the past. Things have become so different these days.

And I despise the primary system as it stands.

If I were to change it, it would be a national primary in late August, nominating conventions in early September, and a two month campaign. Shit! The UK does the whole thing in six weeks or less. Only the USA mindlessly wrings their hands over presidential nominees a whole 19 fucking months before the election. It is fucking utter madness. We get what we deserve.

[djean111]

46. Not smoke-filled rooms, but boardrooms, these days.

[Sherman A1]

43. That's nice

[joshcryer]

44. It's not possible, the platform is voted upon by delegates.

Those delegates are selected by the primary process.

It may be a boring primary, but we'll have a primary.

Odds are it'll be a tiny bit exciting with everyone fawning over "Anybody But Hillary" but they're unlikely to win unless she really fucks up badly.

[MineralMan]

47. Who is advocating not having a primary?

Can you link to even one post on DU where someone has suggested that? I doubt it.

There will be a primary election, with multiple candidates. Anyone who thinks there will not has not observed presidential elections in the past. There will be campaigning, debates and a schedule of primary elections in almost every state.

I don't know of anyone who wants there to be no Democratic primary.

[cali]

48. HRC has been doing all in her power to clear the field. That's hardly a secret

and she's clearly already decided.

[boston bean]

51. Can I have some proof of HRC doing "all in her power to clear the field"?

Where does that come from?

[boston bean]

50. I know, huh all those EW & BS supporters

really ought not to be pushing for people to run.