2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhy would we want a nominee that SO MANY PEOPLE already HATE or dislike?
This makes no sense to me. Hillary comes with a HUGE liability in that regard. People will turn out to vote AGAINST her. And should she happen to win, the wars against her will never end.
Why would we not prefer a nominee who does not elicit that level of antipathy?
I know I would. I am very tired of the leader of my party being the object of hatred.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
marym625
(17,997 posts)Excellent post!
Obama was foolish to run for a second term. I have no doubt that if Bernie became president, the Republics would be very kind to him.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I don't expect them to be 'kind' at all. But they haven't spent 40 years hating his with a passion. They've spent that time working alongside him, helping him pass bipartisan amendments left and right.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)If she becomes the nominee, she'll get inundated with all manner of scandals... false and otherwise.
marym625
(17,997 posts)Your powers of taking two words and deciphering the hidden meaning are amazing! How astute! Do you do parties?
I do! Did you see "Eyes Wide Shut"?...
marym625
(17,997 posts)But glad you laughed instead of alerting. I thought it was funny
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)He flip flopped on issues. He never fought back. Someone had to have something embarrassing on him or threatened him. That won't be the case with Bernie I believe. And republicans could never see the gifts Obama gave them because pure and simple they are blinded by racism.
marym625
(17,997 posts)Yep. I agree with everything you said
Marty McGraw
(1,024 posts)all the way back to the 2009 presidential state dinner and had so much to do with prior rot still being in place at high levels of govt.
https://www.google.com/search?q=salahi+presidential&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)in the polls, 'because she will be easier to beat'.
Bernie is a FIGHTER. He has taken on Repubs better than anyone and WON.
hack89
(39,181 posts)If BS and HRC were close when it comes to electoral support you might have a point. But they are not even close. So why not trust the instincts of the people supporting HRC.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)I do not believe that ONE Republican will vote for her or even consider supporting her. I do not believe that many independents will do that, either.
Bernie, OTOH, has a strong attraction for meny who do not characterize themselves as Democrats.
hack89
(39,181 posts)So let's not get too concerned about Repukes and independents.
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)... that BSers choose to consistently ignore.
Response to hack89 (Reply #40)
misterhighwasted This message was self-deleted by its author.
NCcoast
(490 posts)And Hillary was the foregone conclusion then as well.
Bernie pulls 25% of the republican vote in Vermont.
Republicans will show up to vote against Hillary no matter how pathetic their candidate is. And they will be pathetic so why spot them someone with so much baggage?
What do you get with Hillary? Republican Lite, and 8 years of going nowhere.
Let's take advantage of the fact that we're going to be running against some kind of putz and put someone in office who'll take us somewhere.
Response to NCcoast (Reply #109)
misterhighwasted This message was self-deleted by its author.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)being the target of hate is to take up a nice hobby and ignore all this until time to vote, then then go back to ignoring it. The hard right has been trained to believe the left will destroy all that is good about America, and NO Democratic candidate will be nice or honest enough for the kind of people who, for instance, believe in "American exceptionalism" and that it is our duty to nuke Iran and Russia. The cure is apparently for the worst of them to be lost to senility or die off, but that'll take a while.
As for Hillary, she HAS widespread support. That's your real problem with her, but that's definitely not just going away either. I recommend gardening for serenity, btw.
hopemountain
(3,919 posts)nor do i believe bernie sanders believes in nuking anything. hillary is the war hawk - or are you ignoring this truth about her? yes, hillary has widespread support - but so does bernie. it is the hillary msm & billionaire supporters who are paying money to spread this false persona of her being so "supported" and shushing the exciting and incredible support bernie is garnering.
MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)to nuking those countries. Id]s that like the mushroom cloud statements those other guys used to sell a lie? Do tell us all about her nuclear war plans for those countries. It should prove interesting.
hopemountain
(3,919 posts)tone - it would not matter how i respond. good bye.
MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)other guys reacted when their mushroom cloud crap was revealed. They had no comment and kind of ran away.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)She even stated that some people in Iran would actually welcome a war against their country, as if they wanted their country to become Iraq version 2.0. 
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)of you advocate using our nuclear arsenal to force the world to bow to "American exceptionalism," but for decades now I've lived in predominantly conservative communities, and every social gathering I've attended where this kind of stuff is discussed brings our nukes up. It's far from rare, and you must be aware of it from your own right-wing friends.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]
emulatorloo
(46,155 posts)They just knew it! Reinstitute the draft too!
Was senseless then, especially senseless now given his work as SOS.
charlyvi
(6,537 posts)He'll be a caricature of a politician. That's what they do. Bernie has baggage as well, and they will make everything of it that they can.
freedom fighter jh
(1,784 posts)Bernie has a proven record in getting conservative votes. I don't know that Hillary has proved herself there.
hack89
(39,181 posts)So let's not get ahead of ourselves.
freedom fighter jh
(1,784 posts)that we need a candidate who gets widespread support. Bernie does.
merrily
(45,251 posts)hack89
(39,181 posts)but to please you - "Bernie is polling poorly among Democrats and does not have a level of support that comes anywhere near to HRC's. Until there is any indication that he is significantly closing that gap, it is a waste of time to worry about how republicans and independents will vote in the general election."
Better?
merrily
(45,251 posts)Of course, your re-phrased version does not mean the same as your original version.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Okay. THAT was funny.
hack89
(39,181 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)The anti-war movement was tossed to the cops and the party in it's wisdom supported the Vietnam War that LBJ started by running a hawk out of fear of being called pacifists.
He was the wise choice who was not only the most qualified but he was someone who could win and keeping the Republicans out of office was the most important thing. A lot of closed door head nodding took place back then among the "serious" people.
hack89
(39,181 posts)Buzz cook
(2,899 posts)That the same people that hate one democrat won't hate any other democrat; or that the media won't be in the bag for the republicans if one democrat instead of another gets the nomination.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,853 posts)
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(101,853 posts)Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)there are Republicans that would be shot before they'd vote for Hillary,. exaggeration ? Yes, but not by much .
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)citizens United was originally founded to try and destroy Clinton. It would behoove you to look things up before making such a blatantly false statement. She is on the record as stating her SCOTUS picks will be based in part on their willingness to overturn CU
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)Or what part did you miss, " Republicans who would be shot " or " in her honor " ??
merrily
(45,251 posts)Sometimes literary conventions are like math.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)HassleCat
(6,409 posts)The Republicans will hate any Democratic president. Should Sanders be elected, they will hate him with the same white hot fury they already feel toward Clinton. When you ask them why they hate Clinton, they can't come up with specific reasons. She's just "hate-able" in their minds. If Sanders is the nominee, we will see the same thing directed his way. They don't hate Sanders right now because they haven't been told to yet, but that will come.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(101,853 posts)
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)"I am very tired of the leader of my party being the object of hatred."
MisterP
(23,730 posts)campaigning like in 2010 and '14?
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,853 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)HassleCat
(6,409 posts)Superdelegates. "Some animals are more equal than others."
marym625
(17,997 posts)Citizens United took care of that. No matter what party anyone is affiliated with, who they support in the primary, etc, buying votes is the thing to do. Nd that's what super pacs are for.
One vote, one person isn't even true anymore thanks to republican dirty tricks "The New Jim Crow" cross check voter purge and SCOTUS overturning the Voters Rights Act.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)But we're not allowed to discuss superdelegates, according to some Clinton supporters here.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Contest, it is about taking on the business of a country. BTW, Sanders has lost the vote of confidence with Congressional Members, I dont think I would be worried about Hillary's liabilities as much as a congress whose Democratic members likes some one else, who I going to work with a president when there is not any confidence in the president.
ejbr
(5,892 posts)His lack of endorsements have nothing to do with a vindictive DNC who may have threatened lack of their support next election?
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)Fairly comprehensive...
ejbr
(5,892 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Now to bring in vindictive DNC when the DNC has allowed him to run in our primary does not seek to get ANY support from Democrats. Without votes in Congress he would be a lame duck president from day one.
ejbr
(5,892 posts)Even though they vote with him, or him with them, on most occasions? Odd assumption.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)A president needs some one who will sponsor his agenda.
Giving banks a get out of jail free card and military intervention. Gotcha
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)ejbr
(5,892 posts)What bills will the republican controlled Congress allow Madame President to pass? Keeping in mind, she is one of their favorite people of course and they are anything but accommodating.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)to the bills sponsored, I get concerned when I do not see support to a congressional member who has been in congress since 1991.
Perhaps there are lots of people who do not know the way congress, the president and the courts work.
At this point, it seems to be a moot point as the people aren't coming around. Cheers
merrily
(45,251 posts)Billarycare, etc. Budgets also go from the White House to Capitol Hill. Only Congress passes legislation, yes. But the White House often starts the ball rolling.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)I guess you are ok with that. Kiss SS goodbye. But HRC supporters only care that she is tough. I am glad that Margaret Thatcher isn't running.
There are endorsements of HRC that I feel are ONLY because of pressure from the party leadership. I don't begrudge them their endorsement. It's "company" loyalty. But I do see through it.
ejbr
(5,892 posts)I also believe endorsements are becoming more meaningless as the masses see that they are self-serving.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)with every fiber of their being, you are doing something very very wrong.
FDR welcomed the hate of republicans and so should all democrats, liberals and progressives.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,853 posts)
Starry Messenger
(32,381 posts)
Ron Green
(9,870 posts)Last edited Mon Nov 2, 2015, 04:47 PM - Edit history (1)
He was hated by the Plutocracy, loved by working people.
Today's Plutocracy have no problem with her.
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)Qutzupalotl
(15,824 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)are so very negative. Hillary is very popular among Democrats in general.
As for the crowd of Hillary haters on the right, they are only one, but a real one, of the reasons people are STILL leaving the GOP. Decent people are repelled by that degree of nastiness and the dishonesty required to support it.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)I think Bernie can grab that demo far more effectively than his polarizing opponent.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)opponent" himself. I think he's probably picked up, or will, virtually all of the radical left who despise Hillary. What neither of them will get are the rest of the hostile extremists to whom words like "hate" genuinely apply, but then very few of those are genuinely "independent" and are actually firmly committed to the right.
By definition, the "mushy middle" do not feel enmity toward Hillary or anyone else, but being middle might be a bit more wary of Bernie at first -- until they feel familiar with him.
You know, we keep hearing this theme here that Hillary is too hated to be a good nominee. Those who imagine that are indulging in wishful thinking. They want to believe everyone feels their dislike (and anxiety that she is out-campaigning Bernie), but how can that be with such strong and widespread approval by tens of millions on the left and middle?
Bernie really should have started much earlier if he wanted to win the White House, but of course early on he never realized he might actually have a chance.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Only about 10% of the electorate will actually vote for either party.
40% of the electorate either vote for "their" party, or do not vote. That 40% is roughly split between Republican-leaning and Democratic-leaning. Many pollsters treat this group as a single entity, but that's a mistake - they will not vote for the opposite party.
The Democratic-leaning pool is actually to the left of the party. That's why they stayed home for the 2010 and 2014 "Oh my God we're so sorry we did anything liberal" campaigns.
They also can not be motivated by "Republicans bad!!". That's why they keep staying home when we give them "Republican bad!" campaigns.
And they currently rate Clinton a "meh". "meh" will not get them to the polls. And I don't see any evidence from the Clinton campaign that they even begin to understand they have a problem. The widely-anticipated "tack to the right" in the general election is exactly the wrong thing to do when trying to get these voters to the polls.
Meanwhile, the Republican-leaning voters can be motivated by "Democrat bad!!". The difference in their motivation is a big part of the difference in where they ended up politically. And Clinton mashes the "Democrat bad!" pedal to the floor.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)disgusted people are with the GOP and the right in general. It's a huge factor. You know, I tend to read your posts because you sometimes pass on useful knowledge, but they're often very partisan too.
In this case, I'm genuinely wondering about your Hillary's "widely anticipated tack to the right." It seems very unlikely in this environment, with it's strong push and pull to move her farther left off centrist left, but I'd like to read more. Where are you picking this up? (Please don't tell me the Bernie Forum.) 
Thanks, Jeff47.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)She's moved/pulled to the left for the primary. There's little reason to expect her to stay there for the general.
As for "where I got this", how about every "moderate" Democratic campaign at every level since 1992?
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)"Bernie phenomenon" you saw? So, no "nate silvers" are predicting this, I take it.
BTW, like it or not, and you don't of course, and I don't usually either, but when politicians do tack toward the center it's because a majority of voters await them there... We are a representative democracy, after all.
Interestingly, Ryan has taken immigration reform off the table. Conservative Hispanic voters have been looking at Cruz and Rubio. Will this push that group at least toward the largest block of Hispanics, who like Hillary?
Have a nice day.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)There will no longer be anyone on her left flank, thus no need to "tack left".
And as I mentioned above, this is false. Only 10% of voters await them there. 20% of voters await them to the left of "centrist" Democrats.
And when that 20% stays home, we get a giant pile of "stupid, lazy voters!!!" posts on DU, forgetting that we pushed them aside in order to aim for the smaller pool in the middle.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)When politicians "tack," it's not to the 0 on a line graph.
BTW, I wouldn't refine too much on official numbers. With every election for some time now, the people who believed them have been increasingly more surprised by the realities revealed when the votes are counted.
That's why Gallop has pulled out of polling candidate positions this time around. Their results and predictions have become increasingly and unacceptably inaccurate.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)There's a reason I keep talking about centrist Democrats. It becomes the point around which we can measure.
That's why Gallop has pulled out of polling candidate positions this time around. Their results and predictions have become increasingly and unacceptably inaccurate.
Largely because "unaffiliated" voters have been treated as "swing" voters. Thus averaging out Democratic-leaning and Republican leaning.
But swing, Democratic-leaning and Republican-leaning are three different groups with different behaviors. Lumping them together provides as accurate a picture as lumping together registered Democrats and registered Republicans.
Also, Gallup has done a lousy job of making up for the statistical anomalies caused by relying on landline polling. That's a large reason why their polling has gotten less and less accurate over the last two decades. But that is Gallup's pre-election polling. I'm talking about the output of exit polling, where we are literally counting the electorate instead of guessing at the electorate.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Especially not now.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)We know what happened in 2008, 2010, 2012 and 2014 by literally asking the people who voted and comparing the answers.
To claim 2016 has created a radically different electorate where "too liberal for the Democratic party" voters suddenly want centrism would require some proof.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)It doesn't reflect the majority. The polls bear that out.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)True swing voters (people that sometimes vote Republican, and sometimes vote Democratic) are also gone - they only make up about 10% of the electorate now.
The people actually deciding the elections since 2000 are "marginally attached voters". They always vote for one political party, but do not always vote.
They are frequently polled in one blob as if they were swing voters, but they aren't. The Democratic-leaning ones will never vote for a Republican, and are significantly to the left of the Democratic party. Republican-leaning ones will never vote for a Democrat, but are also significantly to the left of the Republican party.
So Clinton in the GE will likely win the 30% of the electorate that are Democrats. But 30% doesn't win elections. She can not win the ~30% that are Republican, nor the ~20% that are Republican-leaning. In fact, she energizes that 20% to vote against her.
So she has to win the ~20% that are Democratic-leaning. And she will have a very hard time doing that due to her long track record of being significantly to the right of them. That's why she earns a "meh" from them. Just like our 2010 and 2014 campaigns.
These voters do not respond to "Republicans bad!". If all you have is "Republicans bad!", they stay home. Just like 2010 and 2014.
So how will Clinton do better than "meh" with these voters? The actions of her campaign do not indicate she even understands that there is a problem.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,096 posts)The reason she is not well liked is the same reasons Obama is not well liked. And believe me when they want to, they will do the same to Sanders and O'Malley.
still_one
(98,883 posts)For a "lame duck" President, his favorabe ratings are not bad, especially compared to other administrations at this point in time
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_favorableunfavorable-643.html#polls
LettuceSea
(337 posts)There are only so many attorneys and CEOs that will vote for her.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)You don't win elections with 23.7%.
mythology
(9,527 posts)Being generous Sanders polls at 30%. If we take 30% of the 30% of the electorate, it's about 10%. That's a substantially smaller number than 23.7%.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)And that's not exactly the case.
Sanders has plans that can attract more voters in the general. What's Clinton's plan to do better than 23.7% in the general?
still_one
(98,883 posts)This is why DU is so much fun. It seems both sides have no respect for their respective supporters.
Incidently, my comment about DU being so much fun was scarcasm
eridani
(51,907 posts)Clinton and Obama are both socialists according to the whackjob conservative element.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)
riversedge
(80,814 posts)
Tommy2Tone
(1,307 posts)If Bernie were winning, and he's not, they would hate him too.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)... broken glass for the chance to vote against another Clinton....
It's an almost visceral, pathological hatred of her that drives her enemies, and it's why she cannot be the nominee if we want to hold onto the WH...
Tommy2Tone
(1,307 posts)Just my opinion but I think a lot of Bernie's fans don't care about winning the White House if Bernie is not there?
Todays_Illusion
(1,209 posts)a corporate friendly tool of the wealthiest. Now she seems to becoming more conservative when if she were listening to the public she would be moving left not right. Something she did for about one or two weeks, abandoned now with the Social Security retirement age, the trade deal vagueness and that to me wrong idea about the Death Penalty.
Hillary seems to have gone not only corporate conservative, but social net/civil rights conservative.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)And continue to reward NRA with his NRA friendly votes?
Todays_Illusion
(1,209 posts)lies and myth. I suggest LBJ and FDR our two most well known liberals as evidence, both were business friendly and the so called business community pretty much dictated Bill Clinton's Presidency.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Ways. We buy vehicles made by corporations, we use internet services provided by corporations, I was paid nicely by a corporation, we purchase fuel provided by corporations.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Todays_Illusion
(1,209 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)The poster states that we all have relations to corporations, as though purchasing something at Target and being owned by corporations are all in the same category.
Nonhlanhla
(2,074 posts)So Republicans hate Hillary. Shocker.
Luckily they won't hate a guy who is a self-proclaimed socialist, 'cause they dearly love socialism...
So the question can easily be reversed: why would we want to nominate someone associated with socialism? Republicans and independents will come out in droves to cast a vote against "socialism."
Both candidates have drawbacks.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)The RW folks who "hate" Clinton are the same people who "hated" Obama and will "hate" Sanders. Those aren't the Republicans Clinton will be looking for.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)--would never vote for a Democrat anyway. 80% of eligible voters under 30 did not vote in 2014. Sanders is mobilizing them, and Clinton has zero appeal for the alienated.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,853 posts)She is better than even money to become the next president at the betting sites where people bet real money. Anybody that knows anything about gambling knows that's remarkable...You have to bet $115.00 to win $100.00 should she be elected president.
Senator Sanders is a 7-12 /1 underdog, which puts him way behind Hillary and behind Rubio and Donald Trump:
The odds of her winning have actually increased since she announced back in April. She started at 4/5. She is now 4/6 or better.
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2016/winner
Are these people who are betting their presumably hard earned money ciphers?
eridani
(51,907 posts)If they think they can predict the behavior of the alienated, they are delusional.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,853 posts)Please cite the data that suggests there is this inchoate mass waiting to be mobilized.
Thank you in advance.
While you are doing that you can explain this to me:
Expectations are less settled for the general election in this poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates. In an open-ended question asking all Americans whom they expect to win the presidency in November 2016, 37 percent pick Clinton, more than name any other candidate; next is Donald Trump, tipped to win by 20 percent. Boosted by Clinton’s score, 48 percent pick any Democrat, while 37 percent pick one of nine Republicans.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-rebounds-democratic-race-gaining-sanders-biden-alike/story?id=34580456
eridani
(51,907 posts)Name familiarity, and no vision whatsoever.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,853 posts)1)There is no data that there is some inchoate mass waiting to be mobilized for Bernie Sanders and to be fair there is no data to suggest that phenomenon would occur for any candidate.
2) Comparing mid term turn out and general election turn out is specious...General election turnout is always substantially higher:
P.S. There is much talk about Hillary having a problem with millennials:
https://today.yougov.com/news/2015/10/29/clintons-growing-support-among-democrats/
The above graph belies that.
eridani
(51,907 posts)We have one hell of a lot of alienated non-participants in this country. Sanders is mobilizing them, and Clinton doesn't have a chance with them.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,853 posts)That is a theory in search of evidence. Respectfully, if the evidence exists you should be able to adduce it.
Oh, and if this inchoate mass is comprised of millennials, Senator Sanders is losing that demographic :
https://today.yougov.com/news/2015/10/29/clintons-growing-support-among-democrats/
P.S. Participation always goes up from mid terms to (general) presidential elections, ergo:
eridani
(51,907 posts)Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,853 posts)eom
Vinca
(53,994 posts)We shouldn't fret, though. Nothing will get done for the next 4 years whether it's Hillary or Bernie in the Oval Office. As long as the GOP has the gerrymandered House, we'll be in gridlock. What we should focus on is electing Democrats in the states so we have a majority when the next census rolls around. Then we can bust up the safe GOP House seats.
ChiTownDenny
(747 posts)...with one minor alteration: "What we should focus on is [ALSO] electing Democrats in the states..."
ChiTownDenny
(747 posts)I typed ALSO in brackets between the words is and Democrats but it doesn't appear in my comment. Hmm.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)you're better off with just parentheses.
ChiTownDenny
(747 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Yes, it's a clown car on the Republican side at the moment. But those Obama voters who stayed home in 2010 and 2014 don't respond to "Republican bad!". That's why they stayed home when all we gave them in 2010 and 2014 was "Republican bad!".
Clinton is a dangerous choice for us in the general election. She depresses turnout on our side while boosting turnout on their side.
Vinca
(53,994 posts)
wendylaroux
(2,925 posts)No I do not hate Hillary.
Don't know that I hate anybody.
I do however hate,how pissed off I get at some very talented, hateful posters.
RandySF
(84,324 posts)
tishaLA
(14,778 posts)Why did I think you'd been supporting Sen Sanders? I must be completely clueless
bhikkhu
(10,789 posts)As I tell my kids - if you hate someone you haven't met, you are a puppet on someone else's string. That's no way to choose a candidate.
For the record, I'll vote for Sander's in the primary based on his voting record and his positions. If Hillary wins the primary, I'll happily vote for her in the general - they are both very good candidates.
SCantiGOP
(14,720 posts)But I have to admit that your sophomoric statement is mitigated by your awesome use of CAPITAL LETTERS in your topic
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)Hell Sanders can't even get the backing of the ppl he works with on a daily basis. What does that say about him?
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,853 posts)eom
Beartracks
(14,602 posts)The Republican candidate won't even have to explain policy positions or why anyone should vote FOR them. They would merely point to Hilary and say, we need to keep her out of the White House.
Hell, they already want to impeach her if she gets elected.
Whereas, Bernie's got cross-over appeal and may actually be able to steal votes from the Republican candidate. 
==========
hopemountain
(3,919 posts)doing and saying anything they can to hate on bernie. because it works - or so they think. the thing is bernie is sincere and really means what he says. this is why i am voting for him - because i know he will do his darn-est to make life in america good for all and not just the 1% as the other candidates will allow.
Historic NY
(40,037 posts)Mostly it was Republicans and Social Rejects then that made up all kinds of disgusting memos and pictures of her....
They went after her from all different directions and she beat them
in 2000 she beat Lazio 55-43%
in 2006 she beat Spencer 67-31%.
So you have to ask yourself who are those haters?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)He was a late replacement for Giuliani, and very under-funded. In a state that has not elected a Republican to statewide office after 2000 (IIRC).
Spencer had even less money and less backing against an incumbent, with Republicans across the ballot doing even worse in statewide races. He was a pretty obvious sacrificial lamb.
The only seriously contested election she's faced is the 2008 primary.
Historic NY
(40,037 posts)2000 NYS1
raised spent
Hillary Rodham Clinton $29,871,577 $30,153,926
Rick A. Lazio $39,020,511 $40,576,273
In 2006 Spencer was the sacrificial lamb.
https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/elections.php?cycle=Career&cid=n00000019&type=I
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,853 posts)eom
bowens43
(16,064 posts)She will not get out the young voters, she will not get out the older male voters, she will not get out the progressives, she will probably not fair any better with women voters, especially when the attacks that republicans have been preparing for decades start hitting the air waves, twitter and other social media.
She is un-electable but many feel she is 'owed' the presidency despite her lack luster , if not incompetent , performance as Secretary of tat and US senator.
eridani
(51,907 posts)The Sanders supporters I know who will not are highly alienated, and down on political parties.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)It makes no sense at all. Personally, I think it's deliberate so as to make CERTAIN nothing ever improves for anyone but the .01%ers. Why people vote for this sort of nonsense is indeed baffling.
Mike Nelson
(10,943 posts)...they will switch to Sanders at the drop of a hat!
TexasProgresive
(12,730 posts)
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)All the polling data on them is a bit soft, but it favors going with Sanders in a match up against Trump, afaik. Either way, Secretary Clinton's negative ratings have been trending into an alarming zone for her candidacy. If polling shows Clinton fatally weak in states we have to fight for then there will be talk of "keeping our options open" by those inside the Democratic establishment.
You Bernie supporters continue to crack me up.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)I don't think for one second that people understand the very deep dislike for her. I hear it from neighbors, co-workers and in causal conversations. She cannot win a general if she happened to be the nominee.
We are bombarded with all her endorsements, etc...but they are from old school, massively Entrenched Establishment types...they love their big money and big power. They have now enjoyed 8 years of such and they don't want anyone rocking their boat. Many were not a surprise...some were but as we learned a bit more, they should not have been surprising . Don't even get me started about DWS and the DNC...
It's still early...and Bernie is still spreading the Bern to thousands and thousands...now come his ads to millions! Get ready to welcome onboard many, many more Berners.
I am wholly convinced that we can do this.
Go Bernie!
Go Berners!
unblock
(56,198 posts)
and for the logic-impaired, no, i'm not "comparing" clinton to lincoln, i'm just saying that the high negatives alone are not the sole determinant of the best choice for nominee.
especially when established national figures *always* have higher negatives than lesser-known candidates, not to mention that the hillary-haters are never going to vote for a socialist anyway.
finally, why on earth should we let the worst of the rotten republicans have any say at all in who our nominee is?
charlyvi
(6,537 posts)Ask Bill Clinton what his two terms were like; ask Barack Obama. WHOEVER is the nominee, the right wing fever swamp will throw everything vicious, untruthful, scandalous or otherwise damaging to try and destroy them. If you want a Dem party leader who is not hated, you're in the wrong decade. Until the republican party regains sanity, we have to content ourselves with gridlock.
DrBulldog
(841 posts). . . my thyroid dies a little more.
DissidentVoice
(813 posts)I am actively supporting Bernie Sanders. He reminds me of when Democrats were DEMOCRATS, not "go along to get along with the Republicans since they've moved this country's political discourse so far to the crazy right and we got blasted in 1980 and 1984."
He speaks to things that matter to me.
Thus far, I have not heard Hillary Clinton do so.
Yes, she comes with political and personal baggage. Yes, the Republicans will dig up every piece of long-dead B.S. like Whitewater, Vincent Foster and whatever else they've had in storage ever since Bill Clinton left office.
It would not surprise me if she gets elected and Republicans would try to start some sort of crack-brained impeachment proceedings before she even took the Oath of Office.
However, if Bernie Sanders does not get the nomination, I will vote for Hillary Clinton. The Republicans must be kept out of the White House, if we do not want a repeat (and worse) of the George W. Bush years...the current crop (except for maybe John Kasich) are even further to the extreme right than W was.
BUT...I will be holding my nose doing it. Not because of the political and personal baggage she carries, but because she is a product, if not a key architect of, the Democratic Leadership Council, which to me has done nearly as much to ruin this party than the Republicans have.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)I think every POTUS has been hated and considered the enemy by a certain percentage of the US. It comes with the territory. Some will hate Bernie because he is a Jew. Some will hate him because he calls himself a democratic socialist. Some will hate him because he doesn't look "polished" enough, and some because he's not a woman. Some will hate him specifically because he is a serious challenge to the oligarchy/wall street, and/or Hillary.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)will become the object of hatred from the right. Non-aligned independents and the right don't like Hillary. They don't know Bernie. Should he become the nominee, they won't like him.
And people will come out to vote against a "socialist". The right wing noise machine will whip people into a frenzy over that. Anyone who downplays the significance of that is living in an alternate reality.
I agree that Bernie is better suited to bring more historical non-voters to the polls. He is offering something outside the standard political pathway. Hillary is more the status quo candidate--discouraged, non-voters aren't going to the polls to support that. But she is also the most qualified to step into the job on day one.
Instead of worrying about who the right wing will hate, we need to concern ourselves about who will be the most effective Democratic president for realizing progressive goals and a better U.S. of A.
I don't have the answer to that just yet.
tishaLA
(14,778 posts)I appreciate the nuance involved and the skillful use of capital letters.
Lazy Daisy
(928 posts)I've yet to hear the right say they would start impeachment the day after inauguration if Bernie is elected.http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/many-gop-voters-board-impeaching-hillary-clinton
How much more time, money and future of this country are we willing to give up?
madamesilverspurs
(16,512 posts)Beyond amazed that it isn't.
shenmue
(38,598 posts)
Leading in the polls means people hate you? Wow!
yuiyoshida
(45,415 posts)I been called a Hillary Hater on here once. I don't hate her, I do think she is some what dishonest especially making people think she is for the people when she has already proved she takes support from the Corporate elites. Hate her? No.. I won't vote for her unless she wins but I don't think she will win.
Beowulf42
(317 posts)if we nominate a democrat or a progressive I don't see that the hatred will abate one little bit. The Republicans hate any one who is different, or progressive, or intelligent, or etc. There is nothing to do but go through the nominating process and work our asses off to elect whoever is the winner. My mother told me you are known by the enemies you make. There is no more deserving enemy than the idiots and malefactors of the conservative members of our society. Get used to it. It isn't going away until we defeat them.
Response to grasswire (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
840high
(17,196 posts)voting for her because she is a woman.
GitRDun
(1,846 posts)If sooo many people hate her, why is she beating BS so resoundingly in the polls.
It's Bernie who can't build a broad coalition of Democrats, not Hillary.
I'm sure it sucks that the guy you like is losing, but do so many of you have to share your pain by explaining how everyone else is foolish or uninformed?
I think all of the D's have some flaws...try to shine some light on reality.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)The level of vitriol here has gotten 11 ugly.
Please, every deity I don't believe in, make it quick.
It's just too negative. If you invest in positive things in your life, you feel positive. I don't know how anyone can look at DU in GD
and find anything positive.
I want to ask people to go back to being civil, but apparently, that ship has sailed.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Eye, mote, beam.......
Aerows
(39,961 posts)is an insult, I can't wait to see how you would wilt under true "castigation".
It is pretty clear that I am no shrinking violet, and let's not pretend you are one, either, because you are not.
My goodness it would be absolutely funny if I thought your "outrage" was genuine.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Outraged? No....merely pointing out your disconnect.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)You have my permission to post it. Let's see if everybody else is as "outraged" as you are implying that you should be.
My inbox is full and I have a bunch of things to do, so forgive me for not wading through it to find a perceived insult. I have no time right now to dwell on negativity.
NCcoast
(490 posts)I understand that all of the traditional sources of power and opinion making are against Bernie. And that's why he's blazing a new trail in social media to get his message out and it's working.
Bernie is the first true social media candidate in America. More people showed up to see Bernie in Boston than any political candidate ever, all the Kennedy's included, over 4 months before the first caucus. There's a serious movement going on here, and it's just getting started.
We have a real opportunity to move this country forward. Bernie can beat any candidate that crawls out of the clown car. Let's not settle for Republican Lite out of fear when we're poised to stomp a mud hole in these idiots. We need to seize the moment.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Big +1
Gman
(24,780 posts)Obviously more electable.
JI7
(93,617 posts)Chan790
(20,176 posts)so they can point to it in 2020 as proof of the need for moderate nominees. Hillary gets the nomination, Hillary loses the GE, the talking heads blame us for pushing her to the left during the primaries and forcing her to run in the GE as a progressive instead of her solid centrist base.
It's so goddamned predictable as to be pathetic.
chess
Moonwalk
(2,322 posts)...But how is electing Sanders going to result in a leader of your party NOT being hated? Obama is hated, rabidly hated, not by his own party members (mostly), but by Teabaggers and bigots. Are you saying that Sanders wouldn't be hated by them? The bigots? The conservatives? The Teabaggers?
Electing Sanders does nothing to end this feeling of "tiredness" you have of for this hatred of your leader.
Which pretty much answers you're question. Hilary supporters are more than used to her being hated and understand it comes with the job. Been there, done that, worn out the teeshirt. The followers of any leader need to understand how to deal with hatred of their leader, otherwise they'll always be tried and not be able to support that leader and what that leader wants to do (can you say Gandhi? MLK?). You're going to need to learn how to do this as well, or there's no leader you're ever going to be able to follow, not, at least, on a national level.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)than Bernie does. She is WAY, WAY, ahead of Bernie. And most importantly, she can win ... and she can beat any of the Repuke candidates.
And just something to note - the amount of bitterness and hatred of HRC on DU is not the same as the "Real World" of Democratic voters, who support her.
By the way, you could convince every single person on DU to switch to Bernie, or to sit out the election - either way, it amounts to a spit in the ocean and HRC will still win the Primary with the support of the "Real World" by large numbers.
DonCoquixote
(13,961 posts)Let me tell you this, if we worry about someone being like able, we will never, ever win. If we looked for likabale, it is very unlikely we would either choose Hillary or Bernie, we would roll out yet another former Southern professor with expensively cut hair and an Ivy League education. As much as I wish Al Gore or John Edwards were running, I know that we need people that get aggressive, that will PISS the mainstream media off. The MSM will not wait for anyone to come within a telescope view of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave before in effect, trying to run them or ruin them, both if possible, as that makes more money. And let us not get into the sub media that, unlike Morning Joe, will not even pretend to be anything but the Billionaire's answer to Pravda.
So the point is, the fact that the GOP will be howling for either Bernie or Hillary's blood is by no means a minus. I live in DIXIE, and yes, Florida is still very much Dixie. Even Carter, Clinton, as yes LBJ are looked on as hated figures, because the Churches and the Aristocrats in their mansions tell them too! You cannot have anyone that even hints at being liberal, even a bloody-fisted hippie puncher like Bill was, even a war monger like LBJ was, even someone who kissed Churches ass like Carter was, and still be right wing enough for the folks that frankly never accepted the surrender at Appomattox.
So, let us get rid of the idea that we need to be liked. Neither Hillary nor Bernie, hell, not even Bill himself if he was able to run, will be liked by the Fox-fed Citizens United, Ted Nugent part of the country. The best we can do is make it clear to people that the other side really has NOTHING to offer at best, and will be a disaster at worst. Sadly, the person I have to give the credit too is NOT Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who will go down in history as the one that handed Congress to the GOP.
No, the person exposing how awful the GOP is is none other than Donald Trump. Scott Walker, once the Koch brother's anointed prince crumbled, and now Jeb Bush is faltering; even if he survives, his soft white underbelly is exposed, and whoever runs against him will enjoy the prep work Trump did carving him into sushi. Now, I am not praising Trump, and I say he must NOT get within so much as a Jet Plane ride to DC. If we can find a way to have him stationed on Pluto, we should start fueling the rockets now. BUT, it just goes to show that the GOP is weak, and we have a golden chance to show America how weak, but no, we are cuaght up in a fight where the followers of Bernie and Hillary show the flaws that have made the Democrats snatch failure from the jaws of victory. We have people wanting to play the old Union tunes and demonize people on Bernies side, then you have Hillary people wanting to become the "NEW" democratic party, ditch unions on her side. And as always, the GOP knows the name of the game is NOT to make people like you, but rather to make sure the Democrats fight, and make the people hate them in the process.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)But, the reality is that it's not just Republicans and Conservatives. It's the very far left, Independents, and people who are struggling to get by that see she isn't going to help them in the slightest.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)based on the latest polling?
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Just the opposite.
CobaltBlue
(1,122 posts)I wanted Elizabeth Warren.
She opted to not run. (And I think it's because she does not want to be president. Who can blame her?)
I would like Bernie Sanders.
My point is that I'm wanting liberal policies to counter the corporatist and rightwing policies which are being propped up by the oligarchs.
Now, as for Hillary Clinton: I don't hate, despise, or feel disdain for her. She's not my No. 1 for the nomination. And, yet, I don't look at her with some sense of antipathy.
The No. 1 problem in United States politics is the money.
This goes well above the heads of the candidates and the two major political parties.
glinda
(14,807 posts)as well as talk to people locally (conservative area) and I cannot recall a time when such a large portion of Dems say they hate her and will not vote at all if it comes to it. This is scary because we cannot afford a Conservative (more than her leanings) in office. Just had a fundraiser tell me she is hearing that.
Bernie is THE only one who can unite people to some degree. And it only makes sense because he is doing it FOR the people. For their voices and concerns. I hear Republicans say they would vote for him. In this area of the State that is huge.
As POTUS, it will be never-ending attacks while the world burns. And the worst part is because so many dislike her they will think that ok.
It is a heartbreaking time in my opinion. We are out of time and as these games go on and on I have less hope.
I do not hate her. I do not like her positions and the baggage she comes with.
Even a Dem fundraiser in confidence told me that she is hearing pretty negative things coming from people on her. The machine that is behind her to get her in has no clue how bad it really is.
Tarc
(10,601 posts)so this is rather moot. Conservatives lie and lie and lie again, then circle back to lie #1 and scream it 10x louder. If Sanders is the nominee then pretty much every GOP advertisement will be a "socialism is a step away from Communism", which all of here know is completely absurd but it will be red meat for the red state voters.
Neither Sanders nor Clinton has any edge or disadvantage in the "HATE or dislike" aspect of this.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Sure wouldn't want to piss off republicans by picking a candidate they don't like!
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts) emulatorloo
(46,155 posts)There are plenty of great reasons to vote for Bernie in the upcoming primaries, rewarding the GOP slime machine for what they have done to HRC is not one of them.
As soon as he wins Iowa and New Hampshire, the sewage pipes are going to open him.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)LynnTTT
(363 posts)I agree that Hillary is truly hated by the right. But I think that's going to be our future.
If Bernie takes the lead the right will start accusing him of being a Communist spy because he went to Russia in 1988 when mayor of Burlington. Lindsey Graham already brought it up in the most recent debate.
I don't know where the right would go on Martin O'Malley, but they would find something.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Indepatriot
(1,253 posts)
lark
(26,081 posts)Anyone who was elected president with a D behind their names will be subject to total and awful vitriol, no matter what their positions. Are you saying we shouldn't have elected Obama because the rw hates the day he was born? You think that they will hate Sanders any less, ho boy, are you wrong about that. They will hang him in effigy as being a "socialist", communist, crazy.
Even stranger is letting the other side's hate determine your vote.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)....of Benghazi.
Herman4747
(1,825 posts)brooklynite
(96,882 posts)Democrats.
Present company excepted.
BigDemVoter
(4,700 posts)They will lie and make every effort to undermine WHATEVER candidate wins. I think Barack Obama has learned a hard lesson, as I believe he thought he could "unite" the two parties. Plain & simple-- he could not.
They LOATHE the Clinton's and always have. But if Bernie wins, get ready for accusations of communism, anti-Americanism, blah, blah, blah, and it WON'T STOP.
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)Since the people who hate her a lot can only vote once, they are not a problem.