I don't think so, though. She's still "strikingly dominant" in the Democratic field.

1. There are a LOT of left wing Hillary Haters out there
2. A large and impressionable portion of the country is reading DU

Which one best suits your delusion?

Rather than choose one, let's just say that the conclusions you present represent just a tiny subset of reality.

As for my delusion: I have this unfulfilled fantasy that posters at DU are capable of having a discussion without resorting to juvenile insults.

But I have yet to see an explanation for how "the left wing" grousing about Hillary could directly effect her numbers. Can you describe the process?

Second, though I agree in principle with the idea that endless spewing of anti-Clinton bullshit will hurt her, I don't agree that all of it comes from left wing opponents. It is disconcerting, however, how gleefully that self-declared left wingers so gleefully repeat that bile here at DU.

Finally, is negative campaigning effective? Hell yes it is, and unless you just arrived in the US this morning, you know that's true.

So, kindly quit the phony naivete routine; it's disingenuous at best.

The fact that there is serious, broad and deep mistrust of her should be instructive, except to those who think their chosen one can do no wrong.

would that pledge filter down to his DU supporters.

1. Some people have serious reservations about her. I know I do.
2. Not everyone reads DU religiously and not everyone understands the subtle issues and differences between the candidates. (Hell, I have a bunch of neighbors that don't even get a paper delivered, and I have never seen a book in their homes.)
3. If we don't point out our concerns, we do a disservice to several entities
a. we do a disservice the the not well informed voter, who has no way to learn the problems with a candidate
b. we actually do a disservice to Hillary, because without that criticism, she has no chance to learn, grow, and improve as a candidate
c. we do a disservice to ourselves and our country. There were people who thought that W would actually govern from the Center, much like other pols who tacked right or left just to get elected. If they knew in advance just how scary his ideas actually were, how horrible his advisors (Cheney and so many others) would be, and how we would drop our defenses, allow a terrorist attack on the country, then lie and dissemble our country into a war that cost trillions, I doubt that W would have been elected.

No, we have a job to do, even if Bernie stays above the fray.

You make comments to people that make no sense; attack them for imagined reasons.

You think that is helping?

Repeating the flaws and the dangers about a Clinton WH is important, especially because of her ties to Wall Street.

See ya.

I knew that hillarians were ultra-sensitive, but sheesh.

I have said, repeatedly, that I do not have a preferred candidate in this race ... and won't until after the debates, and possibly, after the primaries. But my "hope" is that Democrats will show their support FOR a/the candidate(s), of their choice; rather than, AGAINST the candidate(s) they don't like.

Now to my "Issues""

1) Irrelevant to positive campaigning.
2) Cheering unfavorability numbers for a Democratic candidate, does nothing to explain the subtle issues and differences between the candidates.
3) See 2, for responses to 3a, b and c.

I like Bernie, but this constant drumbeat here at DU....

But here you are with the "chosen one" bullshit.

as I was reminded in another thread. For example, in a televised CNBC interview last week, Sanders said that Hillary "hustles money."

“When you hustle money like that, you don’t sit in restaurants like this. You sit in restaurants where you’re spending—I don’t know what they spend—hundreds of dollars for dinner and so forth. That’s the world that you’re accustomed to, and that’s the world view that you adopt. You’re not worrying about a kid three blocks away from here whose mom can’t afford to feed him.” - Bernie Sanders on CNBC, 5/26/15

One could argue, "But it's true! She does hustle money! That's not negative campaigning, that's just truth!"

But that would be bullshit. That's negative campaigning plain and simple. Essentially calling your opponent a pimp who doesn't feel any concern or compassion for hungry children is not only negative, it's a good ways down the scale of negative.

I admire Bernie and negative campaigning is not characteristic of his style. It's one of the things I admire about him. But he's not immune to going negative against his competition.

When voters complain about corporate politicians, it's like saying the word "cancer", or remarking on what a lack of traffic there is on the freeway. It makes negative things happen.

You should only ever cheer for these corporate shills, because that's how we get Incremental Progress©!

Past, present behavior.

This listening campaign - Seriously? Really? She expects us to believe that by sitting in a staged setting, smiling, looking human and humane, that her mind will be changed?

Or when a huge hedge fund donor threatens her about saying nasty things about his profession? Which group will have a bigger impact on her decision-making?

The email issue has not really gone aeay. The dilemma for her is that, while not illegal, it seems like she was intentionally hiding types of records that the FOIA should have applied to. There were information requests going back to when she was in office.

The annoying thing is that once the records were put out, they showed nothing bad. She really should have passed the emails when she left office.

On the fees, there are examples where Bill spoke to countries she was dealing with. Here, there is an appearance of conflict of interest.

These are both self inflicted wounds that hurt her , even when there was no real wrong.

clear that she'd rather talk about something else...say something Progressive or non-corporate funding.

Maybe her waffling strategy to straddle the fence, 'hear our pain', but have no real policy position or ideas about it is hurting her?

Maybe her deference to the wealthy 'grass roots' is hurting her?

So far her campaign seems all staged, scripted and lacking any genuine purpose. maybe that is hurting her?

I don't see any incessant and baseless attacks from the left at all. I see plenty form the right. From the left what I see is a quest for honest answers, and we are getting none.

Where does she stand on TPP, yes or no?

She still hasn't explained her Iraq war vote.
What was the nature of the 'mistake' she made?
Was she conned by Bush's lies? Did she give in to the war band wagon and just went along with it, too afraid to stand up and oppose it? Did she think it was a good strategy and now knows that was a crazy idea? Did she back the war to advance her career to appear 'tough' so she could use it later on to position herself in her political ambitions? Just saying it was a mistake is not enough. She has to explain herself.

given the media is hardly liberal and most folks, even independents, gasp I know...do not read DU.

And as an independent. Yup, I am one of those mythical creatures, both sides are doing this shit. I can almost tell who's shift it is.

Let me tell you, that is highly entertaining. Pass the popcorn.

thinking the New York Times is the main organ of the communist party. It is a center right paper...most of US press leans center right to far right.

Take my word on this. If you think they are left...I wonder what will be your view of the lacks much distribution, is an actual Marxist paper, Workers World. Now, that is a left wing paper.

American education, or to be frank, lack of it as far as politics goes, strikes again.

By the way, be proud, the meme of liberal media came out of the Nixon White House. Glad you have now chosen to use a nixonian term, not that this surprises me.

Back to the entertainment. This is a hoot. (Actually I need to work on an update on a regional story)

The article was about how right-wingers are baiting the left to attack Hillary.

some of those so called attacks are very valid criticisms of the candidate.

No candidate is the second coming of Christ.

Now here is a question for you...will tell me a lot...what Do the State Department emails, released so far, reveal at a policy level?

Because very few media actually did the exercise of figuring it out. Which leads to my first point...center right papers.

By the way, huge clue. Republicans want Hillary as the candidate in the general. Oh the oppo research heaven!!!! And that is not a lefty talking, that is a political reporter talking.

is so small and insignificant that they are quite powerless. Tough the country is center left (by American standards, not center right.) It might even go further left since the pendulum IS swinging.

As to the emails, I am not surprised you do not care about POLICY, hard core partisans rarely do. But what they reveal is a continuity in foreign policy, regardless of who is in charge, all the way to the Reagan WH in some tings, others to Bush Sr, Clinton and Junior. The haws are very much in charge, the CENTER RIGHT you seem to adore, with an interventionist policy is in charge.

Why our media did not go there. Less the NYT commit some journalism after they catapulted the propaganda that led to a war of aggression. One that by the way, is a continuum of policy at State. We used to be more careful about that, like when we mined the Nicaraguan Harbors. By the by, we did lose at the International Court, one reason we still refuse to formally join it.

Moreover. if you think any of this will change at State, regardless of who gets elected... I got a bridge for sale in New York City... hell, I will give it you you. Let's make sure is near the NYT.

And yes, we run a non partisan paper. We report on all this crap. I am personally endorsing BIG MONEY. At the end of the day, that is the big winner. But what I wrote about oppo research, is well known outside of partisan lands. It also makes the job for media that much easier. I will only have to find the dirt on one side... half the work. And given I got a city council race... with at least two open seats.

That I don't care about policy is, what, the third false accusation you've tossed at me today? What I said is that I don't care about the content of the emails. Why should I? It's just another Republican witch hunt. Granted, if the emails said something like "let's execute all black people" then I would care, but obviously they don't. The emails are just a game, they have nothing to do with policy.

After that your post gets a bit nonsensical. Are you claiming that foreign policy won't be different under a Dem versus a Rep administration? If so, then you're wrong. If not, I can't figure out your point.

Finally, about opposition research, I have no idea who you are or whether you are a reporter or anything. But if you sincerely think that the GOP would rather run against Bernie than Hillary, the one thing you most certainly are is wrong.

not ideology.

And as to the emails, you do not care about policy... if you did, you would have done the due diligence and gone though them. Trust me, the only Benghazi in them (and not all of them) is the location of origin.

The content, which you seem not to understand, has to do with what actions we are going to take regarding the revolution, things like when Stevens first came in, threats to the hotel they were staying, and lengthily reports on conditions.

As I said, you do not care. You are a partisan. My original training is as a historian. I knew what I was reading.

Though I have a question for Issa... why the hell did he NOT go after the only document in there that could have kept the scandal somewhat alive? Shallow, yes, but most Americans don't know about the policies we have in place when diplomatic vehicles get into an accident, especially when people die. Of course, that is what is called in the business a gotcha question. (And I am sure Issa would be surprised any reporter actually read that email... if in proper earshot to local RW radio host that will get Issa in trouble with the base.... but likely Issa will just run away AGAIN.)

As to oppo research, you actually do get that. They have been planning and got their knickers in a twist when they did not get this in 2008, to run against Clinton. This is like the second coming of the 1990s. They are salivating. They have reams of oopo research on HRC... some is crap, some is not, wheat chaff kind of a problem.

The name alone conjures images of BJs in the Oval Office for some hyper partisans among Republicans. Some are looking forwards to dig out Vince Foster all over again. I fear for some they would like to exhume the body for real.

Their worst nightmare is that anybody BUT Clinton gets the nomination. They might have some on Bernie, O'Malley is completely unknown

Really, I don't care about policy because I don't want to personally dig through thousands of emails? This is your argument? Maybe, you know, I have other things I'd rather do, and I have a pretty good sense of where Hillary stands on policy issues because, umm, she's one of the most visible political personas in the entire world. Nah, couldn't be.

Sure, if by "policy" you mean details about how they secure an embassy and respond to an attack, then, no, I don't care. I'm sure it's interesting and important, but I'm more concerned about, for example, not losing the Supreme Court for a generation.

The oppo research thing, if you could find any credible analyst or even an anonymous source that said that the GOP would rather run against Hillary than Bernie, that would be a start. Until then, these are just nonsensical ramblings. Yeah, they have oppo research. They always do. They had it on Obama. They had it on Bill. They will find some on Bernie or O'Malley if it comes to that. A billion dollars buys a lot of dirt.

Hillary's dirt is out there. Everyone knows about Benghazi and BJs and whitewater and "hail of gunfire" and so on. There's so much that it gets monotonous. And still she outpolls the whole field.

which was useless due to structural damage. Yup, a total of ONE email. I see you did pay inordinate attention to the hearings though. And you keep admitting you care shit for policy while saying you do. This is actually funny.

And you will not find that document in the NYT... you literally have to overhear heads of local republican parties, or hopefully Rience Priebus will say it with a hot mike. But if you missed the 1990s cottage hate industry, you must be too young.

Every person I know who is somewhat connected (or well connected) to BOTH parties, knows this. It is like the worst kept secret in DC.

You know it is bad when you can hear this away from the beltway. Which we have.

And I am not talking about the polls, which at this point, for all sides are meaningless. I am talking about facts once again. I am sorry, but we are not partisan, and we work with facts. The fact is... Republicans are salivating, becuase it gets the base really activated. It is not just red meat, it is filet mignon al tartar to the base.

On the bright side, if she gets the nom, unlike you, they are aware of this. And I am writing IF, because we still have a primary to go through.

"emails" and excoriated me for not going through "them." I guess not all journalists/historians/wonder-what's-nexts are as familiar with plurals as I had once assumed.

As far as policy, again, we are have definitional issues. Your definition of policy is "operational details regarding how the state department secures an embassy". My definition of policy is along the lines of taxes, healthcare, etc. So I guess by your definition I don't "care" about policy, although I'd be curious as to how you define the words "care" and "about".

have fun with the straw there, and I will close by giving you a link to the State Department server

http://foia.state.gov/Search/Results.aspx?collection=Clinton_Email

I will not bother with my reporting, because we do policy and that is not fit for kinder underground

Oh and one last thing Dan. you personally attacking me, or what we are doing, is like Tuesday for some in Democratic Underground. Personal attacks are expected. Keep it up



They are quite adorable.

are in the loop. I am sorry but you are not.

And you got quite a bit of facts including a bunch of emails from an actual government source you can take the pleasure to go though. It is mostly procedural and some of the emails are quite repetitive, but they quote the email within it.

keep throwing straw. With that cute flame you posted though, be careful.



It is adorable, but you really should watch it.

By the way I do not expect you to read Foreign Policy either. Or any other high policy journal. I just don't.

Dangit, that elusive "loop", I never manage to find my way into it. Which is too bad, sounds like a wild party.

how you are trying to make this about me... and not the facts. And you were given more than a few.

Don't worry, hyper partisans on both sides suffer from cognitive dissonance often. Also they reject facts that do not support their particular story line In the case of the emails for republicans it is the lack of an actual scandal that they cannot accept. You seem to be unable to comprehend that those emails reveal interventionist policies going back to the Reagan White House. Of course you need to look at them in a continuum.

Hyper partisans are also quite allergic to actual policy. This is a problem since some make it to legislative bodies where ideology should give way to pragmatism. When you got a few, all is well.They are the colorful characters we all get a chuckle from. When you have a bunch, you get government gridlock.

Feel free to have the last word.

me because I'm not part of the "loop", which I guess would kick you out of it if you lowered yourself to the point of posting them on DU.

But if at some point these "facts" get reclassified from "top secret" to "OK to share with adorable people", you know where to find me!

that is more fair than you are going to get anywhere.

Here you go

http://foia.state.gov/Search/Results.aspx?collection=Clinton_Email

Have fun.

Here's the thing. This is kind of complicated, so buckle up. We were discussing two different items in parallel.

#1) the emails and Benghazi. This, as I said, is something that I couldn't care less about.

#2) whether the GOP would rather run against Bernie than Hillary. This is where your claims rely on those magical "loop facts" that you're not allowed to share with DUers without violating the secret covenant.

So, because of my indifference to the Benghazi witch hunt, and the regulations of your "in the loop" secret society, it looks like we're at an impasse. But like I said, if they change the rules, I'll still be here, adorable as ever.

trust me. Tune in to Hannity.

This is not a secret. Except apparently on DU.

This is red meat to the base. And if she gets the nom, Hanity and the rest of the crew have not even gotten warmed up yet.


And you are backpedaling some of your statements now.

Which is kind of funny.

But when people try to misrepresent I tend to answer, for fun mostly, because you are still trying to make it about me.

Realize I really could care less who wins the nomination for either party. In the end, big money is the big winner here. OK. I will make my decision on who to vote for, just becuase I need to remain in practice, not becuase it really matters, not on polls, nor on talking points at places like Democratic Underground. Or scoring sheets from ALL parties (as independent you get ALL the shit from ALL sides... it has it's advantages. When they are 180 from each other, that can be discounted easily).

I will make my decision on the FULL candidate and their policies, and if they happen to have a government, voting record, that too. And if they have speeches, yup. You know, GASP I know, make an informed decision.

As I said, the full public record we can find on these clowns. Fiorina will be more of a challenge, Carson less so... he has been leaving bird droppings all over the internets. (They are both polling under 0 in the MoE though, and I gotta take a limit to who we look at for actual reporting) So far the three dems have those records, some larger than others, but all three do.

And as to A, that is where you show your lack of interest in foreign policy as policy. It is NOT about HRC, it is about foreign policy. It is what it reveals about that foreign policy. These are discussions that in a rational country, we are not one of them, we would be having.

but thanks for that comparison. I respect Krugman a lot. I consider him down to earth and all that.

pretend that being "independent" gives them the intellectual high-ground. You see, views don't actually differ on the shape of the planet...

but as an independent, you are making your whatever candidate a disservice.

You need us. We don't need you. That is not a threat, that is a statement of fact.

important. I think I'm starting to understand why you are on the fence between Carly Fiorina and Ted Cruz.

More misrepresentation.

I gave up the ghost. The U.S. is an oligarchy, elections are for show. One votes to remain practice.

In oligarchies there are certain policies, see foreign policy for example, that do not change in any fundamental fashion regardless of who is the figure head. Where it "matter" a little more, the debate is how much, is in internal policy.

This is the kind of discussion not had on partisan sites though. But I am back to the zen state I had at 18 when I first voted in Mexico. It makes really...no difference.

That could change of course. But Oligarchies are only put out of their misery when most people realize there is a problem. I cannot say we are at most yet, but more folks are realizing this is just for show.

I am kind of flattered you are actually "listening" though I doubt you really are. After all you keep calling me all kinds of things I am not.



And with that, have an excellent day. I do not think a hyper Partisan and a non partisan can see eye to eye. I will keep working with facts though. Reality based community and all that.

I gotta say, autocorrect got some cute correctly spelled misspellings.

everyone down your drink!

all ears.

and that's as concise and descriptive as I'm going to get.

It is quite obvious what that poster is doing here on DU.

The responses to you are the most unhinged I've witnessed at DU, and the unhinged bar is set very, very high.

Have a good one, ducky.

But I'm a sucker for flattery, so anyone who calls me "adorable" in three consecutive posts wins my eternal allegiance.

... when she's so off the right wing deep end are making quite hilarious statements!

We work hard, in our reporting to be fair to all, and not take sides. The NYT hardly does that.

This country has no far left.

The heroic Joe McCarthy took care of them back in the 1950s. And Nixon did a mop-up job in the 60s. They are long gone.

Pathetic, but expected.

That one is just a sad joke of a username. Yeah, the 'far left'. The folks here that say that love them some GOP! How they are still posting here, is a sad testament to how far DU has fallen over the years.

The playing field is rapidly changing. Fewer people identify themselves as Democrats every year.. Down to 32%, the Republicans are down to 23%.. The Democratic party has failed the poor and middle class economically so it's not surprising the numbers are so low.. And the blame falls directly in the lap of the "new" Democrats who control the party...

Let's hope Bernie can pull this off before the Democratic party becomes a fringe party like the 23% Republicans...

Okay sure, let's go with that.

then sure, that makes sense.

I just don't think she's a viable GE candidate and should get out now while it's early to clear the field so we can get the strongest non-Hillary nominee possible.

But we don't.

The GOP is a fucking clown car.

If Hillary dropped out tomorrow...the new front-runner in polling would one of Marty or Bernie. I don't think Hillary is viable though...I think we're past her high-water mark where she does nothing but decline from now to Election Day and if she were to secure the nomination, it would be a disaster roughly-equivalent-or-actual to President Ted Cruz.

And let's be honest again. Bernie is a pipe-dream. Can O'Malley go from obscure governor to president in such a short time? I don't know. I don't want to risk it.

nomination. For the last 7 years she's been the only one mentioned as a candidate for the 2016 primary.

Related reasons to convince people to support her - instead of running on name recognition, inevitability, and "you have no other choice"

dead Iraqi civilians dripping from her hands? That kind of 'baseless attack'? Her vote on Iraq should permanently disqualify her from holding any high elected office.

Which then makes me dance with glee. No more lesser of 2 evils for me

That is if you can convince the 76% of Democrats for whom HRC is their first and second choice to be their nominee to abandon her.

like you, is as hollow as it comes. but to answer you, no. It confirms my worry that she's weak in a general election campaign, and that she's running the same lousy primary campaign. yes, she'll likely be the nominee, and I think odds are she'll lose us the presidency. That will be her fault, and the fault of people like you.

Due to rapidly changing demographics in order for Hillary to lose she will have to lose a greater percentage of the white vote than every Democratic presidential candidate since Walter Mondale. That includes Mike Dukakis, Al Gore, John Kerry, and Barack Obama, and of course Walter Mondale.

I am not remotely convinced there is a Republican on the horizon that can duplicate Ronald Reagan's feat or that the percentage of white voters who will vote for Ms. Clinton will be driven that low.


Hillary gets 90% of the African American vote, 70% of the Latino vote , and 70% of the Asian vote, she can win the presidency with only 35% of the white vote. That is easily doable.


I eagerly look forward to my thesis being tested and ultimately vindicated.

Say she gets 90% of the African American vote, but 10% fewer African Americans vote in 2016 as opposed to 2012. She'll have to make up that number in white voters.

The problem with an uninspiring candidate, is that people don't show up to the polls for them. Barack Obama could've inspired aliens from Jupiter to vote for him, and I don't believe Hillary has that same cult of personality.

I would never compare Hillary's political skills to President Obama's political skills... He is one of the most charismatic figures in American political history.

I am betting that Hillary is charismatic enough. Coupled with Republican cupidity that will alienate people of color she will do just fine

than any corporation has treated me.

My guess is the vast majority of Democrats have the sense to know that well regulated/taxed corporations are important to our country.

I get that you are happy to see Clinton bashed, even if it costs us the White House. Dance.

If Hillary loses us the WH, because she blows it, and that's the only way that will happen, it's her fault and the fault of her see-no-reality supporters. And yeah, I'll be blaming you lot.

to point out a candidate's flaws.

This makes me happy, yes, because it increases the chances that we can nominate a better candidate.

Unless you can convince the 76% of Democratic primary voters who indicate she is their first or second choice to be our nominee to abandon her.

But up until Sanders she was the only choice...Now we have 3 and 2 are still unknown to most of them...but that will change and so will the numbers.

I think there's a glitch in DU, it's including posts from the 2008 election run-up.

yes

Instead of having skin in the game how about a kidney?

Hillary loses the nomination I put my kidney on a donor list. Bernie loses the nomination you put your kidney on a donor list.


Consider it a service to your fellow human being.

We can work out the logistics.

I think I'll let you win this round of "Quien es mas macho." Well played indeed.

PEACE
DSB

And by God, there surely was an act of God, because we Dems by and large resent being told for whom to vote because it is their due.

And it's not DemocratSinceBirth who is starting threads by the barrel subtly or not so subtly denigrating other Democratic candidates.

convince a big part of that group that supports her based on name recognition and poll numbers to switch as they hear about better candidates.