General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIt's Hillary's problem if she can't easily win a primary
I went to a Hillary rally back in 2008. My take was that she seems too much of a politician and lacks a certain authenticity, that back then Obama was able to capitalize on.
Well, not just Obama but Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter were able to win based on a certain authenticity about them. All three had down to earth stories to give as well as an ability to connect when speaking, and they were people who were not entrenched in the beltway (and thus had outsider appeal.)
How the heck can Hillary Clinton look down to earth? She's already so damn rich and in the establishment. She also doesn't have a very good ability to connect. She just seems too much of a politician, too much entrenched in the beltway. She will, like any other establishment candidate, be vulnerable compared to someone who's much more authentic and populist.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)Really? I'd be far more concerned about Senator Sanders winning a primary, and he's definitely going to have to do that very early in the primary season. Winning primaries against Hillary Clinton is going to be a big order, even in states near Vermont, which has its primary on Super Tuesday, March 1. Bernie Sanders is going to have to have already won more than one primary by then. Will he? I don't know yet.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)She garnered near 20,000,000 votes and won a myriad of primaries including CA, FL,NY, OH, PA, and TX.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)It wasn't enough, of course, but then, she's not running against a highly charismatic candidate with enormous personal appeal this time. Senator Sanders has terrific ideas, but he's not Obama as a candidate. More's the pity.
Gothmog
(143,999 posts)I doubt that Bernie will be able to raise that type of money
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)for Senator Sanders on Act Blue was set at only $500. I think that got reached after a couple of days. It seemed to me that it should have been set much higher, and should have been met very, very quickly.
I found that interesting. Lots of talk, to be sure, but campaigns run on money. Candidate Sanders did raise $1.5 million in one day at the very beginning. If he did that every day until the election, he'd still be far behind in fundraising, and I don't think it's possible to continue that kind of momentum for long.
Money is going to be a big deal in this primary race. Winning primaries is tough if there's a well-recognized, popular candidate already in the race. As I've said before, this is going to be a hard pull for Bernie Sanders.
Gothmog
(143,999 posts)In my county the local county party raised $150,000+ and was still outspend badly by the GOP. In 2008, Obama had a truly amazing ground game and GOTV operations which took money
onecaliberal
(32,483 posts)With our system. Senator Sanders actually stands for the people but they can't be bothered to support him because we need to go with a candidate who is for the monied interests in this country. It's sickening.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)Rather than jumping fast to respond
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Gothmog
(143,999 posts)I also think that Hillary Clinton will easily win most of the primaries.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)It really doesn't make a difference, I think. Vermont might be a fairly easy win for Sanders, but that primary isn't until Super Tuesday. The earliest primaries may well be the hardest for Candidate Sanders. Keep an eye on the Iowa Caucuses. If Sanders doesn't do very well there, he'll be off to a very poor start. I expect Hillary Clinton to work hard in Iowa and build a strong following that will show up to the caucuses and support her.
Watch the size of the rallies before Iowa caucus time and count heads. That will give a hint about the potential results.
Gothmog
(143,999 posts)The Iowa caucuses require a ground game and field offices to well on the Democratic side (Santorum won Iowa by living in the state for six months and going to all of the Pizza Planets in the county but I doubt that Sanders will follow that path). This time in 2008, Obama had a number of field offices opened in Iowa. Like you, I expect HRC to organize heavily in the state and to rely on a ground game. Many of the people who won Iowa for Obama are now working for HRC and that makes a difference
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)She's very popular in the North East. It's a mistake to think that Sanders will automatically win states near Vermont. Vermont is a strange state, politically. It always has been.
Clinton fans are going to be very loyal, and will show up at primary polling places. Can Sanders build enough grassroots support in all of those early primary states to win? Not easily. He certainly will have supporters in all of them, but whether they can turn out enough voters to get the win is open to question.
Again, DU is not representative of Democratic voters in any state. Not even close. Many active DU members will vote for Sanders, and some will donate to his campaign. How much influence and votes will that create? Not much, realistically. DU is mostly made up of people who like to read and post on a discussion forum. Threads on GOTV sink like stones on DU. I know, because I've written many of them, since that's my primary focus. We're good at talking on DU. I'm not sure how good we are at actually getting votes.
Gothmog
(143,999 posts)My passion is election law and those threads are also not popular. My friend, Juanita Jean, calls me a law nerd
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)If we're going to win against the Republicans, GOTV is how we will do it. If we don't go all out, we may well lose all three branches of government to the Republicans. I'm shocked that people aren't understanding that. We lost the Senate in 2014, due to low turnout. It was embarrassing.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)kentuck
(110,950 posts)Not a leader.
Just my opinion.
DURHAM D
(32,595 posts)kentuck
(110,950 posts)She certainly wasn't a leader in opposing the Iraq War...she went along...
DURHAM D
(32,595 posts)He wanted her vote more than any other Democratic Senator.
kentuck
(110,950 posts)my point.
DURHAM D
(32,595 posts)True leaders know how/when to work with others, unlike some on this forum and about which I often think... that is the last person in the world I would want to serve on a committee with.
jftr - This is the worst insult/character flaw I can think of.
The world is not black and white and only simple minded people believe it is.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)And she will win.
JI7
(89,173 posts)?
DURHAM D
(32,595 posts)some on DU will say that voters are stupid.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)It is up to the candidate to convince the voters they are the best choice. Candidates win or lose based on their ability to make their case.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)And I still don't see how getting attacked from both sides in the run-up is going to help her win in November 2016.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)His support seems a lot like Ron Paul's. A small number of very fervent followers. How many states do you honestly think he'll win? A self described socialist starts in a pretty deep hole- especially here in the south. Obama certainly started with a pretty significant hill to climb but his oratorical skills garnered him a lot of devoted followers. As evidenced by his announcement to run, Bernie is not a galvanizing speaker. Having said that, I'm glad he's running. It's good for the Democratic party.
DURHAM D
(32,595 posts)it doesn't seem like anyone knows who he is. Just before his formal announcement I was working on a project with 10-11 other people, mostly women. We were doing physical labor so everyone was chatting and discussing sports, weather, local government, etc. Someone mentioned Bernie and everyone was trying to figure out who he is. I said, he is a Senator from Vermont. This didn't really help anyone focus.
Subsequently I heard the following:
Oh, he is from the east coast.
Is he the guy who is mostly bald?
Is that the guy that gets so excited when he talks?
How old is he?
And finally - Oh, I know, that is the guy who spits when he talks.
At this point everyone was laughing and all the heads were nodding. They have no idea what his views are but they, like about 95% of the votes, will vote on whether or not they "like" him.
The American people are not going to vote this guy
into the Oval Office. Never mind that he's an avowed socialist.
To think otherwise you need to be completely out of touch with the reality of contemporary American politics.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)are afraid he might win. You're hoping your chant, "he can't win, he can't win" will somehow make it come true. I think you are going to be surprised at the number of Americans that are looking for an honest candidate. One that isn't owned by Goldman-Sachs and the Wall Street gang.
ret5hd
(20,433 posts)Blue State Bandit
(2,122 posts)An old white guy!
His "Avowed Socialist" problem may prove easier to overcome than the baggage that comes with Hillary. The republicans have been gearing up to face Hillary for years now. They have been grooming their base for this since 2006. If Bernie were to come out of nowhere, the republicans would be caught with their pants down and their nostrils caked with Koch money. He stripes the youth base out from under them and that's the game.
I'll vote for Hillary if she makes the General, but she ain't getting off that easy.
nyquil_man
(1,443 posts)to being as well-known, for as long, as Clinton. Opinions about her are calcified, particularly among older generations. Whether you've loved her or hated her for the last 25 years (there doesn't seem to be very much in between), it's going to take a lot to change your mind.
This was a problem Bill, Jimmy, and Barack simply didn't have to tackle.
I felt her best, most "down to earth" moments in 2008 came when she was engaged in a real contest; when she was sitting on her laurels, she lost ground. That's why I don't buy into the notion that a competitive primary season will damage her irreparably. She's the clear favorite -- far more than she was in 2008 -- and I don't think a sharpening and honing of her message is going to change that.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)Some pundits have argued Sec Clinton lacks charisma, I'm doubt that's true.
Her public face is reported more as a serious person. I don't think that's a bad thing. It certainly would be low on my list of things that could prevent me from voting for a candidate.
No doubt she will certainly be compared to other candidates who will vary in their projection of charisma and charm.
still_one
(91,947 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)it is Hillary's fault, not the people that are wary of her.
I agree 100%.
Do not blame me for not giving her support in the primary. If somehow she wins the primary, I'll support her in the general. You can blame the people that say they wouldn't support her in the general if she loses the general - I'm not one of those people.
brooklynite
(93,851 posts)or..."the MSM" wouldn't cover him?
I've already seen signs that some people here aren't prepared to accept the notion that voters in the real world don't all think the way they do, and that there's any possibility that their candidate could lose.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)Heard it for years about Kucinich; the PTB wouldn't allow him to win.
His supporters refused to accept the obvious fact that Kucinich didn't have the wide appeal they attributed to him - so they blamed everyone but the candidate himself.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)the votes as a politician, it's the fault of said politician.
I will not be supporting Hillary in the primary. I have every right to support any Democrat I damn well feel like supporting. Whoever wins the Democratic primary will have my vote in the General.
I don't care who thinks so-and-so doesn't vote like I do, because essentially, it is my sole vote. Just mine.
As for:
When you point a finger, remember there are four pointing right back at you.
brooklynite
(93,851 posts).but I won't be blaming anyone but Hillary in the (unlikely) event that she loses (an assessment based on real world data rather than personl feelings). And I'll work like hell to get the nominee electd, whomever it is.
Will you say the same?
Aerows
(39,961 posts)to get the nominee elected.
You can quote me on that.
I'll remind you though, that there is a reason why President Obama is President, and not President Hillary Clinton.
brooklynite
(93,851 posts)Barack Obama had the prominence of a Convention Keynote Speech. He had a year's advance planning to secure initial financial and political support. And he was willing to accept contributions from PACs and individuals you consider "tainted" by Wall Street. Add to that, he was a Democrat with mainstream positions, as opposed to someone self-identified as a Socialist.
We have President Barack Obama, not President Hillary Clinton.
She's not the nominee yet, and your support of her is just as valid as my support of any other Democrat.
She's no more entitled to "her turn" than Ann Romney was in taking the White House. Our nation has many challenges, and we deserve the very best Democrat that we can get to lead us. If Hillary is our nominee, I'll give her all of my support; until then, I'll work on getting the Democrat that I feel can best lead us my support.
brooklynite
(93,851 posts)....I've in no way criticized YOUR support of Bernie Sanders. And again (and again and again), neither I nor anyone else have suggested we should have Primary, or that Hillary Clinton deserves a "coronation".
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)with a 50.4% majority. Obama got 42%. She got 31 delegates to the national convention. Obama got 25. No other candidate got any delegates. So, maybe you weren't impressed, but Hillary won your state's primary election with a majority of the votes. It's always a mistake to assume that how you feel represents how the majority of voters feels. It's often not true. Here are the primary results from Arizona in 2008:
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/AZ.html
Hillary Clinton will win the AZ primary again in 2008, since there's no Barack Obama on the ballot in 2016. Her margin will likely be higher than it was in 2008, too. That's the reality.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)She's pretty bland and lacking in the personal charm that enabled Bill Clinton to bullshit his way out of all the jams his stupidity got him into. Obama has a bit of that charm too plus he has the dignity and grace to take a lot of shit and not get rattled.
Hillary is kind of a crap magnet. Everything her opponents throw at her has a tendency to stick because she appears to take it all so personally. If she doesn't develop the ability to loosen up she'll be a basket case before the primaries arrive.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)I agree that she has got to quit taking everything so personally.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)She will do that. Bernie might could win Vermont if he were still in the race by the time of the Vermont primary.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)She self destructed against Obama.
She has a chance to win if she runs a positive campaign during the primaries.
thesquanderer
(11,954 posts)AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)pnwmom
(108,925 posts)And Obama was a much stronger candidate than Sanders at this point.
zappaman
(20,605 posts)Will you be posting more articles from Newsmax?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6614969
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)fadedrose
(10,044 posts)Are we that strange and out of step?
Where in the heck are they polling those publicized numbers?
Aren't we normal or what?
Gothmog
(143,999 posts)If DU reflected the Democratic Party, then Dennis Kuicinch would have been the nominee at least once
Beacool
(30,244 posts)DU lives in its own little bubble.
Gothmog
(143,999 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Fizzle when another couple of candidates enter the race. The Hillary haters will go for someone else and the candidates will divide the votes between themselves.
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)that she might lose due to lack of this or the other.
Yet, if you go to reddit you will find a lot of young people
very happily welcoming Bernie. Then there are groups
like OWS and PDA, who start working their butts off
to organize for him and to collect money for him. We
don't know where Move-on will go, but he may have the
edge for individual union members.
He got a good start with money collection for the first
24 hours, which may have been only the first and most
hasty rush.
All I say is, don't make the mistake to count him out,
no matter how much some of you would like or on
the other hand dislike to do so.