Been able to support another democrat.

What's wrong with that.

Or is it just the personality you like?

When someone else joins the fray, I will reevaluate my choice.

Anyone who refuses to join the fray because they are unwilling or unable to do what it takes isn't qualified for the job.

This shit is broken.

Today, Hillary Clinton said, "And we need to fix the dysfunctional political system and get unaccountable money out of it once and for all, even if that takes a constitutional amendment,"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6508519

This is just an opening statement that is going to be an important issue in this election to Democrats. Republicans will not do anything.

Republicans, no matter what we say, are not stupid. They realize that this is going to be a brutal, expensive campaign. Why is it that they are having no trouble getting people to commit but we are?

there's nothing wrong with that. I supported Al Gore and if he threw his hat in the ring, I'd support him again.

I currently support HRC but that's only because no one else has declared yet if and when they do, I'll look at their positions and re-evaluate but you can't expect everyone to be like that. And some people are going to support HRC because of the negative outpouring because some people don't like bullies.

I'm not saying questioning her positions is bullying but the way some folks go about their disdain for her (and those that support her) are bullies.

Some people are just afraid to step out onto it.

And why things are so FUBAR now.

have their minds set on Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren should either of them decide to run. Some people just know who/what they want in their choice.

...even if DUers don't want to admit it?

Bernie Sanders, Martin O'Malley and Jim Webb have been traveling for months in support of their Porto-campaigns. Where are the THOUSANDS of people yearning for someone, ANYONE instead of Hillary Clinton?

is because Americans aren't yearning hard enough to materialize them out of thin air?

Politicians run for office for a mix of three reasons:

Ambition (don't knock it)

A desire to press a policy agenda

A belief that they can win

I suspect that Webb and Chafee are running to press an agenda on foreign policy and the military. Sanders has a policy agenda and MAY believe he can win. O'mally has ambition and may also believe he can win if lighting strikes.

Everyone else? I think a serious politician recognizes that Hillary Clinton IS incredibly popular, both with liberals and centrists, and that MOST voters AREN'T yearning for an alternative. If they're ambitious, they probably recognize that they CAN'T win, and are better off waiting until 2020 or 2022.

BTW - were you complaining that we already had a favorite (Gore) in the lead-up to 2000?

Right now she's the most recognizable name.

chicken burrito bowl! That is what I am voting for

Is it Ronda Rousey's fault almost nobody wants to get in the Octagon with her?

If the fault lies anywhere it's with us for our support of a rigged game.

Just a thought.

but her record, positions, and baggage are meaningful considerations as to whether she is best suited to lead the country forward.

In the case, the conservative lobbying group Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act or "BCRA&quot .[2] Section 203 of BCRA defined an "electioneering communication" as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary, and prohibited such expenditures by corporations and unions.

Since McGovern, a faction within the Party sought to take the choice for a nominee out of the hands of primary voters. That was when Super Delegates were first proposed, but turned down. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate#History

When Carter lost, the meme became that Carter lost to Reagan because of a primary challenge by Kennedy. Although that is a ludicrous claim, apparently, it "took." So, when Mondale also lost to Reagan, the proponents of Super Delegates were able to get the Party to adopt that policy. But, think about the ramifications of actually holding a primary for about a year, then having Super Delegates override the vote. It would be far easier for the Party just to use choose the candidate and then use the primary for the benefit of the chosen one. (Maybe, eventually, they'll just do away with an expensive primary entirely?)

We had no primary in 2012, but there is no incumbent this time. They've simply been treating Hillary as though she were an incumbent.



A post of mine from almost a full year ago:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1265&pid=1223

All I will say at this early date is, I want a real primary, damn it.

First, the Democrats come up with Super Delegates, so that if primary voters choose a liberal, the party PTB can overrule all of primary season. Now, they've come up with the self fulfilling "foregone conclusion" propaganda, unanimously touting Hillary as the winner, with the help of all the party pundits and strategists on TV and radio and the MSNBC anchors.

I began noticing this in the early fall of 2012. I even saw all those "Tell Hillary you want her to run" things online that far back. (LOL, as if anyone had to persuade her?)

When that kind of coordination exists more than four years before a Presidential election, the workings of the Democratic Party certainly don't seem to me to be as democratic as I expect them to be. IMO, single candidate primaries are almost as bad as single candidate elections.

Just one example. Recently, Chris Matthews was giving Christie another well-deserved bashing. However, Matthews referred to Christie as the only one who could have given Hillary any trouble. Not the only one who could have given the next Democratic Presidential nominee any trouble, but the only one who could have given Hillary any trouble.

Who the fuck are Matthews and the rest of the propaganda team to spend three or more years brainwashing everyone to believe that Hillary is the inevitable nominee? Why are they the "deciders" now? And do they think no one notices those tactics?

I thought an advantage of registering as a Democrat was the privilege of choosing a nominee from a real field of qualified people. Not gesture of a vote, but a vote that actually means something.

When the democratic is back in the Democratic Party process, I'll get excited. For now, I want the brainwashing attempts to stop and my party to start acting democratic.

One motivation is that all those politicians want to be on the winning team. When one candidate is starting from such an advantage nobody wants to get on her wrong side, because they don't want to make an enemy of a future President. It's like you said, her advantage is so big, it's almost like she is the incumbent. Her campaign has been running for years and they are planning to bulldoze straight over any competition.

BTW, I did not say the Party is discouraging primary challenge because Hillary's advantage is so big. That may or may not be true, but that's not what I said. Also, please note, that it's not only about Presidential primaries, but also Senatorial. Does it apply to the House, too? I don't know. How about state and local? I don't know.

There was always the meme about the real Party decisions being made in "smoke-filled rooms" (which gives us an idea of how long ago that was, since it's probably non-smoking rooms at this point). Should it be that way? I don't know. I think its a discussion worth having honestly though, instead of having the Party trying to brainwash us since 2012 that Hillary is such a strong candidate and so beloved that no one will even try to oppose her.

794 cannot override 3566, as only a majority of the total is needed to elect a nominee.

There is absolutely nothing stopping the local primary and caucus delegates making superdelegates utterly impotent. Less than 20% of the votes come from superdelegates.

If a candidate doesn't win the nomination, smoke-filled-backroom-white-male-DNC-DINO-corporatist-Blue Dog conspiracies are not to blame. It's not getting enough pledged delegates from local primaries and caucuses that's their problem.

" Less than 20% of the votes come from superdelegates." That's enough!!

If a candidate doesn't win the nomination, smoke-filled-backroom-white-male-DNC-DINO-corporatist-Blue Dog conspiracies are not to blame.

Woe betide successful professionals being allowed to have an opinion on advancement within their profession.

And there wasn't even anything approaching unanimity amongst this monstrous cabal of Democratic officials (a goodly number popularly elected themselves incidentally), as they split about 70/30 for Obama last time.

And the undisputed fact remains, any popular groundswell from pledged delegates - the people who actually show up and vote and run local precinct meetings - would utterly roll over any even unanimous action on the part of superdelegates. Thne big D Democratic nomination is very small d democratic. The most popular candidate, amongst actual party members, will always win.

not get. BTW, a split vote don't impress me much, not in Congress, where it's not too hard to make sure a certain vote goes a certain way, even if it looks close, and not with the super delegates, where it's even easier.

Tne big D Democratic nomination is very small d democratic.

Woe betide successful professionals being allowed to have an opinion on advancement within their profession.

Bravo. Perfect. Absolutely the nail on the head. Thank you!

there really needs to be a primary process, with real ideas and real candidates.

Without that, imo, reasonable attention would be payed to several others in the 'field,' and they and others wouldn't be discouraged from participating more actively.

AND the repukes' ever growing clown car provides plenty 'drama.'

will be media cannon fodder... if they get any coverage at all.

I think that is why there is a favorite. O'Malley is expected to enter the race, and some are arguing for him and have even suggested an O'Malley group.

The problem as I see it as so much of the arguments against Clinton are exclusively that, against, with nothing that they are for. I don't see what that accomplshes. I personally think it would be great if people advanced certain policies or reforms they would like to see championed by the party. I don't think general references to "corporatism" cut it. What specifically would people like to see advanced in order to promote the interests of the people?

Some of us do have a favorite. Many of us, in fact. For some of us it is Bernie Sanders. For others it's Elizabeth Warren. For another group, it's O'Malley. And for some of us, it's Hillary Clinton. Which "we" do you represent? We're all Democrats, but we're not all the same in our preferences.

In November of 2016, "we" will vote for the Democratic nominee. The "we" I'm talking about is Democratic voters. Those who don't vote for the nominee won't be part of that "we."

So, you need to define which "we" you're part of.

is mostly directed at Skinner, I just didn't want to call him out.

Skinner gets one vote, just like the rest of us. He also gets to post here on DU, just like the rest of us. "We" is a risky word to use, in a rhetorical way. Usually, it means something different to each person who uses it.

Thanks for the English lesson.

Unless you're officially representing some organization, your opinion is only your own. "We" is a logical error in that case. The Bandwagon argument is always flawed.

Is this really egregious enough to continue?

want to call out Skinner, so you substituted the word "we." I found that really informative, since it explained what you were trying to do. I'm not sure it worked very well, though. I noticed, at least, that your use of "we" wasn't accurate, since it wasn't inclusive of everyone on DU. In fact, it wasn't even representative of DU, since there are many groups here, all with different points of view.

Egregious? Not really. Just sloppy on a logical level.

Learn something

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/We

I find the thought process to be completely understandable on an individual basis.

And if the answer is "a majority of Democrats" as shown in the polls, well, what's wrong with that?

I find the question posed in the OP to be rather odd. There almost always is a front-runner. They may slip and fall back, so being a front runner doesn't guarantee the outcome. But having a front-runner is probably preferable to having a clown car full of candidates like the repubs with no clear front runner amongst them.

Inevitability (read: money) has scared off any serious competition.

Hillary is the only Dem running so far.
Nobody else has declared. It isn't some conspiracy against your better judgment!

It doesn't smell like democracy.

We need to win the White House and Congress then we can do something about it.
If it is Hillary or someone else we need to elect them because if we lose it is all over for the next two or three generations.

Because some PR clown said so.

Sit down, shut up and applaud on command. Dissent is disloyalty. Disloyalty is treason.