Day two: Perky Held Hostage waiting for a well-reasoned response

24 hour ago, I posted this now expanded thread with the hope of engaging in a civil discussion about the consequence of nominating Hillary Clinton. I have only small doubts that she can be elected...but that is not the thrust of the thread. I want somebody to give me a well reasoned argument as to how Hillary is going to achieve an Honest-to-God mandate. I am still waiting....]


I am reasonable.. I want a real discussion. I am not looking for balmes flaimbait or a moshpit.I want discussion. I am going to continue posting this every morning until I find some one who can convince me that she can receive one and how it might occur. Or I get 200 recommends. Please help free me from my concerns one way or the other.

PLEASE READ and Keep this kicked

For the life of me, I can not figure out why in the world we would want to nominate someone who is so abjectly polarizing as Hillary Clinton. Given the Republican Attack machine does anyone really think she is going to effectively move voters in swing states to secure the election in November? At best it is a crap shoot. She is despised by the right. She is the Poster Child of Polarization. Perhaps none of it is of her doing, but it is absurd to think that she can unring that bell.If Hillary is the nominee the election will not be about Iraq or the economy or about healthcare. It will be about Hillary. No thanks.

She may have vision....she may have guts...she may well be the most experienced..but that is not where voters in Middle America make their decision.


The hallmark of great presidents is that they are able to call the nation together and that nation responds affirmatively or at least the middle third. Reagan was a sixty percenter. He got things through a Tip O'Neal-led Congress. How?... by pulling in enough Dem support in the hustings to scare the Dems in office.

Nothing in Hillary's makeup or history suggest that she is either able to or even wants to do that,There is no reason the right candidate can not do the same thing again as a Democrat...But it surely will not be Hillary,

Even if she could run a Northern strategy and pick up win in November it is going to be by a slim electoral margin. The election is one or lost in the middle: its like the 162 game baseball season. we win 1/3rd we lose 1/3rd.. It all depends on what we do with the remaining third in this case the 180 electoral votes that are up for grabs. I want someone who will draw a bigger coalition against a weak GOP standard bearer rather than someone who might get just 96 electoral votes against a united energized GOP. and where is that going to leave us?

No mandate for change.
No Mandate to get us out of Iraq
No Mandate on kitchen table issues.
Four more years of the politics of personal destruction and gotcha politics.

You see it is not enough just to win. You do not have to suck up to the the GOP to get problems fixed But you do have to have swing voters solidly in your court. Not because your solutions are perfect...but because you have the ability to inspire trust that you have their interest at heart; that the issues are real and that the GOP leadership is clueless and obstructionist.

You can't do that when you are the poster child for divisive politics. Half the country simply does not trust Hillary Clinton or her judgment. The whole of the nation is crying out for change.

It is not enough that she is the most experienced or even the most "qualified". It is not enough that she would give the GOP fits with her election. However much delight we might take in that, it solves nothing. What will she be able to get accomplished if after two years of filibusters, we lose the the mid terms?

Why would we want to institutionalize the 50% formula of the last two elections? Hell the last forty years????

The Democratic Party has not had a mandate election since 1964. We have only won a majority twice since. Carter in 1976 and AL Gore in 2000


Where for the love of God tell me is the upside to having this woman be our standard bearer?

She is the epitome of a Pyrrhic candidacy. Why are some us willing to destroy the nation in order to to secure such a shallow self-serving victory????

cause it takes a President to get things done.....remember that NAFTA thingie? :shrug:

35 years of experience won't mean squat if the country isn't solidly behind the president. If you think the nation will be solidly behind Hillary Clinton, you simply haven't been paying attention.

.

Frenchy supports Obama I believe

...that one flew right over my head, obviously.

.

Which Democrats will the nation's rebublicans be solidly behind and support? Which Democrats will the GOP play nice with? Which Democrat will not be the target of dirty tricks? Which Democrat will have the full support of the nation? (Because we all know that the nation is made up of Republicans as well as Democrats...)

The answer won't be the name of any of the Democrats running.

Yeah... I've been paying attention.

Hillary Clinton was poison to the Republicans long before she ran for office. It isn't "which democrat won't they attack," because they'll attack anyone, of course. But it is far different thing attempting to bring down a president who enjoys popular support than it is to gin up the real hatred already in existence. If you deny there is deep, deep animosity in this country toward Hillary Clinton, you really have not been paying attention.

Look, I'm not bashing Clinton at all, I'm not one of the haters. I'm a realist. I know people, quite a few actual real live people, not anonymous posters online, who absolutely recoil in horror at the mention of her name. My wife's former boss STILL breaks out laughing and starts in with the "Hillarycare" stuff and blames she and Bill for everything wrong with the whole damn world. And they're not the only ones. Do you know ANYONE with those kinds of visceral reactions to Edwards or Obama or any other Dem besides Ted Kennedy?

Again, I sincerely think you're missing the bigger picture. Hillary Clinton has a built-in base of extreme dislike that will be insurmountable and easy to build up, which no other candidate even comes close to. It's called "exploiting a weakness." Why help them do that?

.

It is a faulty premise that was debunked in NY. I for one am not going to let the right-wing attack machine define my candidates for me. I am going to research myself.

The polls with high negatives are notorious for fluctating depending on the day and whose ahead. They are wrong.

She has proven that she can bring people together--she has done it consistantly in the Senate.

She did not have a tough race becaus Rudy got sick and the the GOP could not get their act togther.

How has she brought people together in the Senate? What legislation has she gotten passed?

nt

You are way too conventional in the way you look at problems. A huge win doesn't mean you have the right to do what you please.

This is a most excellent post. It nails it 100% in terms of why people like me, who don't hate Hillary Clinton at all, feel she is absolutely the right person at the very wrong time. Yesterday at this time I was on the Greatest with something like 208 recs. I wish I could give those recs to your post. It sickens me to think that America will have to put up with 4-8 more years of this shit if we elect such an obviously polarizing figure at a time when we finally have a chance to really make a difference.

Please, Hillary Clinton supporters, Obama supporters, Edwards supporters, AMERICA supporters... really, really read what Perky is saying. This is our moment to make dramatic, history making change. And that history should be deeper than just gender. Thanks Perky.

.

although I had to read the first sentence a couple of times.....


"This is a most excellent post. It nails it 100% in terms of why people like me" lol

That was yesterday after 208 recs..."You like me! You really, really like me!"

:rofl:

.

give it your best shot..

The divide in this country is huge, it's uncivil, it's been fueled by years of being taught we were entitled to have an unsustainable lifestyle, and now by the fear of dawning recognition that that's not going to happen.

If you are looking for some superhero to come along and rescue us from that realization, or to make people suddenly go "oh, okay, I'm good with giving up all my expectations and dreams, justice is more important than my personal ambitions" that's not going to happen.

One might as well criticize the Iraqi Prime Minister for not having a mandate.

If this is a standard you are applying only to Clinton, you've got a double standard. If it's a standard you think some other candidate is going to meet, I think you're fooling yourself.

He got an amorphous two-thirds of swing voters on his side. My poiunt is that that polarization occurs need not be the end game. That is what Clinton and Bush have wroght on this nation and we should hope to be better than that.

1980, I'll give it to you, but there's always a form of mandate in an economic crisis as people demand some kind of dramatic change.

but he did maintain what he created...Mandates are probably first term events.. But hold it I though you have ben arguing that mandates are not real.

They aren't necessarily even dictated by winning percentage. Mandates exist more in the national mood in general, but not really from any particular election. I think you can win by .2% and still get your whole agenda through. Polk did so with no mandate at all back in 1844.

My sense is that there is only one candidatewith enough crossover appeal because of generational factors and the mood of the country reagarding more of the same old same old. The could pull it off.


I am not saying Obama is the perfect candidate. Far from it. But his message resonates in spite of the "risk elements" One thing is clear however is that it could never be Hillary.

Do you agree at least on the Hillary part?

I agree that Hillary - OR ANY OTHER CANDIDATE OF ANY PARTY - will not unite the country.

I am tired with lines like "his message resonates" because campaign branding is empty marketing crap put together by focus groups. If you look at his branding vs. Clinton's, you aren't comparing candidates, you are comparing marketing departments.

Have you ever watched Our Brand Is Crisis? If not, you should. It's about James Carville mucking about in the Bolivian elections. Want to know what they used as one of their big slogans? "This is the most important election of your lifetime." Sound familiar? The slogan tests well with focus groups, and it really doesn't matter the country, the year, the politician who uses it - the slogans and messages are interchangeable. They aren't based on the candidates themselves, they are based on what the general population responds to.

It's like watching coke vs. pepsi commercials - the "branding" is unrelated to the actual product. I know this is part of our culture nowadays, to get sucked in by advertising that the promotes "an image" rather than containing any usable information about a product. So Coke is marketed as "the world learning to sing" - come on, seriously. What is that? And candidates are branded as "Change" even if the "change" candidate votes 90% of the time with the old legacy candidate.

If you look back at what I was saying, the anger and fear in this country is at a different place than it was during the Reagan years. People were living an unsustainable lifestyle then, also, but the key difference is that they were not so painfully aware that the resources were running out. There were some scientists and more environmentally aware people that got it, but the global warming, peak oil, and all that was not in the mainstream public eye in the same way as it is now.

People are facing the reality that our limited resources have been squandered, and either they HAVE to kill off more and more people in other countries to steal their resources until that runs out as well, and it will, or they have to change their lifestyle, in dramatic ways. That's a very different thing for them to come to terms with. So again, I think it's unrealistic to expect any candidate to magically get people to a point where they can accept the move into what we, as Americans, tend to think of as how those other people are supposed to live, and unite behind that.

...why can't...



.

I like Obama - but he's not perfect. However, I totally agree and think that Hillary CAN NOT WIN a General Election. Maybe i'm more jaded because i'm in Nebraska - a very RED state where E V E R Y O N E hates her. I don't know why.. i really don't - but there is ZERO chance that she would be able to win this state. Midwestern "Values Voters" do not like her, and won't even consider her. But, they will come out in droves to vote against her.

Obama on the other hand is not despised. There are people who don't like his policies or positions, but even many of those people kind of "Like the guy". He will not polarize the vote against him like Hillary will. I don't think he can win Nebraska either, but I do think that people not happy with their Republican choice will be happy to sit at home on election day instead of heading out in the cold to vote against him because they dispise him.

That is the difference in a nut shell between Obama & Clinton for me. Likability. No politics, No Iraq war, no race or gender cards. Likeability converts into Electability. And in November, I want to ELECT a democrat.

But that is not the same as being able to lead. Even if/when she wins, she'll still have to govern and lead the people. You can't lead people who don't want to have anything to do with you. Sadly, too many Americans simply will not give Clinton the time of day, let alone any support for her policies, whatever they might be. That is the issue. I think ANY Democrat is very electable at this point. The Republicans are in freefall, right along with the economy they brought upon the country. That's going to sting badly, and people will be looking to clean house. Democrats will win, and likely will win big. It's what the new President is able to do with that win that is important.

.

A 60% win does not necessarily mean a mandate nor do sizeable wins of other kinds. Did Reagan really accomplish anything after his 1984 win? Did Clinton after his 1992 or 1996 wins? Not really. Did Bush, with a hugely Republican Congress or a decent sized win? No, he didn't get anything done. Go back to Eisenhower, and the Republicans in 1952, they were turned out in 1954 immediately and then Eisenhower had to continually compromise with the Democrats from then on.

FDR is the ultimate example in 1936. He had a HUGE mandate in that election as did the Democrats and his second term was very ineffectual. Nixon in 1972, same thing.

Compare that to Bush in 2000. No mandate at all and he got so much of his agenda through.

EDIT:
I see a few "mandates" in history and those are 1932, 1920, and 1896. That's about it.

Tax cuts and a huge increase in defense spending with relative ease

Clinton never got a majority let alone a mandate.

Also, you have yet to disprove my examples. 1984, 1972, 1952, 1936 were all mandate years with virtually no results. Some of the biggest wins in history with no tangible results.

Clinton came in with high favorables, a majority of states, and a clear win in a 3-way race. That was a mandate. The media declared it to be such. He couldn't get much done. He won very decisively in 1996 and didn't get much done. I forgot huge Democratic Congressional majorities were maintained along with very clear poll numbers demanding a new direction.

Which Democrat candidate will the nation fully support?

You continue to state the Sen. Clinton won't have the support behind her to accomplish her primary goals. If that is indeed true, it begs the question-- which Democratic candidate will have the support of the Republicans to advance their own cause?

That's true on both sides according to recent polling. The idea Obama will somehow win 60%+ is absurd. Maybe 54%, but Hillary might get that too.

If you look...you will find it was LBJ. He ran against a weakened GOP and converted that mandate into the War on Poverty, the Clean Air and Water Acts and Civiil and Voting Rights legislation


We can not even get a Patients Bill of Rights done given the fractures we have in the political schema. I think it is at best naive to think thatHillary Clinto of all people would be able to get enough swing voters, have the necessary coattails or build the type of coalition necessary to effect real change on health care.


She is a fine person with good politics. I just think she can pull that off withthe hand she has been dealt.

It may be that there's no real counter-argument to this, but then this makes me wonder why some people have so much faith in her for the GE. I have the same concerns as you about nominating Clinton, and I honestly would like put those concerns to rest if I can. But maybe I can't.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4062253&mesg_id=4062253

I think my these is sound but I have not had a single argument that effectively dispels the concens and it now been 26 hours.

and "Unity" that won't happen.

The era of the US leading the world in lifetstyle, industry, and everything else is over. Europe and Japan caught up to us long ago and are running far ahead. China, india, Korea, South America... All are coming up fast and will overtake us soon enough. Our lifestyle is simply unsustainable as the rest of the world catches up.

So, what is the next President to do as the planet runs out of fish and fresh water? Another 2 billion or so people are now competing for food as we shift agriculture from food to energy production-- what's the President supposed to do about that?

What's the President to do as our electricity demand grows exponentially, but we can't build new clean powerplants fast enough? And when we don't have enough busses or trains when gas goes to 10 bucks a gallon?

We are at the beguinning of the rude awakening that we have no absolute right to live as we do, and whoever is in office in the future will have to deal with that when dealing with that will not be easy or pretty.

It might well devolve into dictatorship, and a dictator with an angry population and a huge war machine will do what?

I am suggesting that elections and mandates and change occur when you get connected with the middle third of the electorate.

I Do Not. You have framed a lengthly (and hard to read) question that gives no room to expand. A typical ambush type question right out of the repuke playbook.

If Hillary were such a "polarizing" figure her work in the Senate would have produced nothing more than hard feelings, and this is not the case. The media are the ones who like to keep this stirred up and those like Rush (lying nazi whore btw) are out of ammo and they know it. HRC has to be the most vetted politicians in history. The right wing hate machine is continually being exposed for what it is, and is becoming more and more obsolete. I believe an HRC win will hobble them to the point of being laughable.

As for change? Change is inevitable my friend, regardless of who sits in the Whitehouse. In Hillary's case, I especially like what I am hearing about "green collar workers." Energy whether you like it or not, will be the single biggest issue we face over the next several decades. Further more, I see a Clinton Presidency as a turning point. I believe people like you see a finished basement in their home and can't understand that there are things one must do before you can actually start the beautifying part. The appealing part is always the last to go on. We all want change, but I think it is naive to think ANY candidate can walk in and hand us change. Edwards is correct in his assessment that "they" will not hand it over just because they are asked.

As I have said before, in one of my silly analogies. We are on a ship heading right for an iceberg, and what we need is someone who can get right to the controls, slow it down and get the course changed. I think it is a little hard for the average person to understand just how daunting that this is. Once the course has been reversed then the ground will be fertile enough to get some changes rolling. This I believe, will give Obama a chance to mature, gain more experience and become less of a polarizing figure. I have a lot to say on this matter but please think about this. The Republicans have a proven track record of being pathological liars. So to believe them when they say they want Hillary because she is the easiest to beat. I laugh, as she has them scared shitless.

Listen carefully. How many people still think Iraq was behind 9-11 (about 50%)? People like myself (and most of you I imagine) have been shouting from the trees that they had nothing to do with it. But to this day they still believe it. I think the ignorance of the average American voter at this point in time makes an Obama candidacy a non starter. I think B.O. needs some more exposure and a successful Hillary presidency could, and would set the stage for an Obama Presidency at a later date. If Obama, or Edwards for that matter, get the nomination, the other side could run a chicken and win. One last example prove my point. Kerry had Ohio pretty well sewed up. But EVERYONE underestimated the "gay marriage amendment." Hell there were people in line that looked like they got off their death bed to vote against(the fags), not for the amendment. I had little doubt as to how they were going to cast their ballot for Pres. I knew we were in deep trouble after listening to the people talking. So whether you or I like it or not, I predict that an Obama nomination would only serve to fire up the opposition with more resolve and thus disenfranchise the Dem's. Obama with luke warm support,in the end would give the Presidency to the Republicans. And until I see some data or start having experiences that are contrary to my theory I will stand by it steadfastly, and pray that I am not here in November saying I told you so. I would much rather have you saying, "I told you so" when you disagree with a decision that President Clinton made.

Have a nice day.

Some of you had been dismissive of my premise. Suggesting that mandates are no longer possible. I think that is an interesting subject but I would suggest that were that true. It is likely that we will never get out of either the Iraq quagmire or the health care quagmire this country faces.

I do not think that can be done without a mandate.

I keep asking for Clinton Supporters who understand those issues to make the case that Hillary can do that...but no one has accepted the challenge yet.

I want to be clear... I do not think she is a polarizing figure. I think the nation is polarized about her. What I am deeply dubious about is her ability to overcome that barrier to a real mandate.

You can use broad exisiting national support to push issues. Bush did that in 2001 on tax cuts. Polk pushed his agenda through with very slim victory in 1844.

I don't see Obama able to do bring victories on these issues any more easily than Clinton. Pretty speaches don't pass legislation without requisite support.

Either one of them will win handily, and will pick up the presidency and conduct business as usual. Could you define clearly what you mean by a mandate? Neither one of them is promising anything very substantial.

and picking up 2 out of three swing states.

Electoral landslides aren't very indicative of popular support--Witness Reagan's forty-nine states to Mondale's one.

Or perhaps I should ask: why is that number important to you, and what would it mean for the rather nebulous platform of a President Clinton or Obama, say?

Of a pupular movement to change direction. You have to carry the majority of the middle, plus your base in order to move the nation in any direction... Another indicator is a desicive popular vote win of at least 6 points. But a poplar vote wind does not necessarily mean an electoral vote landslide. The more states won the better the case you make.

Is 35 states a landslide? it depends on the states I suspect.

...under Clinton or Obama with this 320 electoral victory that wouldn't also happen with another split decision? I don't see it making much difference, myself, particularly because their proposed changes don't seem very substantial.

a 320+ EV win against McCain would be a clear indication to very quickly wind down Iraq.

You also need to understand that both candidates are paying to the base and the message come Labor day will be different. But I think the key issues are going to Iraq, Illegal Immigration and Health care.

I happen to think that this is a perfect storm of sorts. You have a situation where the GOP is exceedingly fractured.There are different elements who do not like Huckabee, McCain and Romney. but if Hillary is the nominee they will hold their nose and vote for the standard bearer because that is the one thing they all agree on.

Obama has already shown crossover appeal and is likable. If you accept the premise that there are two ore three red states in the south that might be in play if Obama is our guy and AA voters in the south come out in huge numbers and enough Southern white dems and swing voters come across because they really do not like the GOP nominee (say Huckabee) and we pick off Florida with either Bob Graham or Bill Richardson. I think 320 is a reasonable target and I think we are off to the races.

The decisive '06 elections didn't fire up our "fighting" Dems much, if at all. If Clinton and Obama were really running on ending the war, I might go along with you. Perhaps you're right; maybe, just maybe they're closet anti-war candidates, and are just waiting for sixty votes to rip off their corporatist masks and order a withdrawal. The most I think we can hope for is a gradual winding down and "redeployment," since anything called withdrawal would call into question their votes to fund the war.

Mostly, I think a landslide would send a clear message to Clinton or Obama that they are peachy-keen just the way they are--Obama to a lesser degree, since he (at least) used to be a vocal opponent of the war. Edwards? If he could win big, even I'd have to admit that that was a mandate for change. My hopes are fading for him, but I'd like him to hang around around to drive the other two--a little bit--to make us some real promises.

See, even a decisive victory for a corporatist Dem over an uber-corporatist Republican is still a mandate for corporatism, and in that case I couldn't hope for much change. Would it embolden a few more Dems to put forward some real progressive legislation? Sure--but such bills still wouldn't pass.

No, it looks as though Americans are going to be satisfied with a touch of rebranding. Most of us still haven't learned.

(Very few people remember FDR.)

When push comes to shove, she would get an electoral mandate. Whether that expanded to a moral mandate, who knows?

Number of votes....which states? Who is the opponent. How does she pull it off?

That would probably be the biggest victory since Bush-Dukakis.

She is proving to be a very good practical campaigner, money would be no problem.

I don't think she's Mrs. Excitement, and her ceiling is surely lower than Obama's ceiling. But her floor is higher and I would prefer to take a higher chance of a simple victory than gamble on the possibility of a bigger win with a candidate who might get 60% and might get 45%.

Also, the mandate issue is not so significant, since any Dem President will have both houses of congress. (Another reason the value of reaching across the aisle is an odd priority his year)

So the mandate would be a mandate to shove something down congresses throat that congress doesn't really like... I don't see that Clinton or Obama are offering such giant changes that they need a mandate to get them through a Democratic congress.

With Barack's fondness for reaching across the aisle, we are talking about solutions so broadly acceptable that they would attract some Republican support, so they would cruise through a Dem congress with or without a mandate.

Just typing here... this is not a studied refutation of anything. Just my impressions.

He had his core supporter but he reached across the aise on issues rather than his whole agenda.

That's the attraction of the Obama candidacy. He is able to reach across and be a consensus builder, whereas Hillary shouold she win is so reviled by the right that consensus can not occur.

That mean everything will have to be a war everything will be gillibuster and I supsect nothing will get accomplished.

It's comparatively easy to unify an ethnic group against real or perceived common enemies.

The Reagan years were just a bunch of white Dems voting Republican for a while.

Not many Democrats of color ever voted for Reagan.

I just don't think unifying white people as a great political accomplishment. It seems like anyone could have done it if they were nasty enough to do it.

Actually, Nixon created the Reagan coalition in his landslide of 1972. Same deal... let's get all the white people together.

All that payback for the Civil Rights Act of 1964...

Please anyone?

contradicts their midless rants,n

:thumbsup:

Al Gore didn't win a majority. His 48.4% of the popular vote was a plurality, because it topped the loser's 47.9%, but was short of a majority.

So it was just Carter post 1964.