Skip to main content

View Diary: Hillary soars over GOP hopefuls in Iowa poll as Christie's crash gets worse (262 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  People post poll numbers (5+ / 0-)

    from ACTUAL AMERICAN VOTERS, and all of a sudden it's a coronation?'s what the voters clearly say they want based on EVERY polling organization.

    •  Its not what the people here want to hear (7+ / 0-)

      but get a single polling outfit to post a 3.1% uptick in the number of people that want Elizabeth Warren to run for president and it will top the rec list.

      Poll Truthing...  ...whaddya gonna do?

      Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

      by Wisper on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 09:33:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Exactly so (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jeremimi, TofG, mconvente

      These are polls of would be voters, not the decrees of DNC higher ups. I fail to understand how the people expressing a preference is undemocratic.

    •  Some kossacks think the polls are skewed. nt (7+ / 0-)
      •  Some Kossacks are fucking stupid (7+ / 0-)

        If people want to think that voters are voicing approval because they don't know her entire record or

        that she is being over-romanticzed because she's out of the spotlight or

        that they will be compellingly swayed if a "true progressive" were to step up and mount a national campaign or something

        That's one thing, but trying to nullify poll results that don't match your own much-desired world view makes you sound like a Romney Supporter.

        Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

        by Wisper on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 09:46:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, they're saying the people don't really (3+ / 0-)

          support Hillary in huge majorities despite the polls indicating exactly that. What those polls really mean is that they are looking forward to someone else. Who? Don't know. Because Progressive.

          •  She (0+ / 0-)

            is the only Democrat perceived to be running for POTUS in 2016.

            Let's give it a little time, and no matter how much we do or do not want HRC to be the candidate we all should agree that a robust primary process must be allowed and encouraged.

            •  allowed (0+ / 0-)

              sure. But what is no one capable of mounting a vigorous challenge wants to run?

              •  I don't think that (0+ / 0-)

                will be much of a problem... economic populism is going to be a major issue in 2016, and someone with some credibility in that area will be able to mount a respectable challenge to HRC.  

                The biggest danger here is if the Very Serious People within the party are successful in "clearing the field" for HRC by squashing competition before it is allowed to present itself to the voters. That's why I think we ALL need to push back hard on the "inevitable" line of thinking.

            •  Not true. Biden is the sitting VP and it is (0+ / 0-)

              traditionally expected for the sitting VP to run for the nomination.  Biden has also never ruled it out and made it seem like that he has all intention of running.   Warren has ruled it out categorically, so there is that.   The others?   Schweitzer looks very much like he is running.  O'Malley as well.  

              I don't know where you get your info from, but your statement that HRC is the only one perceived to be running could not be further from the truth.  Indeed, there have been more statements out of Biden's, Schweitzer's, O'Malley's and a couple of others' mouths about running for president than from HRC, who has been completely silent on the subject.  

              •  Yes, (0+ / 0-)

                people that pay close attention to politics have a pretty good grasp of who might run for the Democratic nomination.

                The other 99% of America wouldn't be able to pick any of those people that you named out of a lineup, except MAYBE Biden. To them, HRC is the Democrat that is running for POTUS in 2016. As we get closer to the election and other candidates start making noise we will see the numbers jump around.

                •  Again, not true. We have seen polls that (0+ / 0-)

                  show that the more people pay attention to politics, the more they are engaged, the more likely they are to go for HRC.   Also, MAYBE Biden?  He is the sitting VP for two terms, has virtually 100% name recognition.  Don't be silly now.  

                  There is no logic to suggest that the numbers are going to jump around.  All comers start off with no base at all, something that was never the case for Obama in 2008, or Edwards, or Tsongas, on and on the list goes.   The mountain the challengers have to climb to come even in close proximity is gigantic, and looks insurmountable.   Consider that the Obamas are going to endorse Clinton, so will Dean, Warren, Gillibrand, McCaskill, Feinstein, et al.  What, pray tell, can a current 1 percenter offer against that to go from 79% to 1% to somewhere in the neighborhood of 40% to 30%?   It defies logical reasoning.  

                  •  We are years away from the election (0+ / 0-)

                    What happens to HRC's numbers when she has to take a position on regulation of banks and Wall Street, or when she is directly questioned about the hundreds of thousands of dollars Goldman Sachs has paid her in recent months?

                     What will be her position on cuts to Social Security and Medicare benefits? What does she think of Snowden and other whistleblowers? How does she feel about marijuana prohibition? What is her plan to address income inequality?

                    HRC has some serious vulnerabilities that WILL be exploited by her opponents. That's why the establishment is doing everything possible to squash opposition before it even has a chance to present itself to the Democratic voters.

                     My only concern at this point is pushing back against the "inevitable" nonsense so that we have a chance at a real primary contest, for the good of the nation and the party.

                    •  Confounding (0+ / 0-)

                      How EXACTLY is "the establishment" doing "everything possible" to squash opposition?  That seems like a bunch of nonsense now.  What, are "they" commissioning poll after poll showing HRC squashing every other Democrat in never before seen fashion?  Please enlighten, because from what I have seen so far this is nothing but nonsensical hyperbole.  

                      Nobody is going to make a big thing about her speech money from Goldman Sachs.  Are we saying she is not allowed to speak to companies?  Or Wall Street companies?  That would be stupid.  Why should she not?  If Verizon asked her to speak, would that be ok, or would that interfere with our ideas on net neutrality?  

                      Years away from the election?  2.  And by  this time next year you better have the infrastructure in place, the sponsors and money bundlers lined up, the office spaces in the early states booked, or you might as well forget entering (except for perhaps Clinton and Biden, but you can be guaranteed if either or both decide to run, they'll have all that in place by March, April of 2015.)  

                        Also, I am here to tell you in advance, she is going to run a very populist campaign that will be satisfying to almost all Progressives, and if you think she'll run on cutting Social Security benefits and Medicare benefits (a "grand bargain" of sorts) you really need to look inward and examine something there, because that isn't going to happen.  Quite the opposite, she will campaign on being the protector of SS and Medicare, the protector of food stamps, the purveyor of a minimum wage increase to $10.10, the purveyor of extending unemployment benefits for those who are long-term unemployed, etc.    

                      Now, I would REALLY like to know where some other person might stand on Snowden.  Who exactly do you have in mind?  O'Malley?  You REALLY think he would say anything different than HRC about Snowden?  Or SS?  Or Medicare?  Or food stamps?  How about Schweitzer?  Nope.  How about Warner/Cuomo?  They are very much to the right of her.  How about Gillibrand?  Nope.   Name your dream candidate and let's see.  Otherwise you are just talking for it's own sake here.  Let's see where the logical candidates are in many of these areas to make a credible case here.  

                      And, once again, as said many times before by others, but apparently not allowed to sink in, NOBODY has declared her as "inevitable" because it is so programmed by the "party establishment."  It is YOU who is using that constantly as a tool here.  For all we know, she might not even run.  But, if she WERE to run, she is absolutely going to win, because we have ample evidence in the polls to know that to be the case.  Too high are her favorables amongst all stripes of Demcrats, especially with Progressives.  Are there a few who don't want her to run?  Sure, but those are in the absolute deep minority within the party, a very small percentage.  Her support is sky high, especially amongst Progressives, and you are just fooling yourself if you think that is just going to change overnight by virtue of a current 1%er saying "But I like Snowden and what he has done" (which no Democrat to date has done, and don't expect anyone considering running for President to say anything remotely like that about Snowden.)

    •  Agreed (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mconvente, Shawn87

      Clinton would have been President in 2008 if it weren't for one person: Barack Obama.

      Obviously Obama is no longer standing in her way - unless something drastic happens between now and November 2016 (and obviously that's a possibility ... anything can happen) I strongly believe she will be the next President.

      And it's equally obvious from looking at these poll numbers that this is how the majority of Americans feel.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site