• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hillary Clinton tops list of Dems voters don't want in 2016 [W:72]

j-mac said:
And here I thought repub's were having trouble with splits it their party....Demo's seem to be conflicted even within their own thoughts....
Click to expand...

Clinton isn't radical enough for modern democrats and progressives.

They want a Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi, maybe a Jesse Jackson......
 
Mr.Nick said:
Clinton isn't radical enough for modern democrats and progressives.

They want a Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi, maybe a Jesse Jackson......
Click to expand...

Clearly because the poll shows a moderate as the leader. The clintons are far from the radical left.
 
Re: Hillary Clinton tops list of Dems voters don't want in 2016

j-mac said:
.Please give us an easy target for 2016....
Click to expand...

Lord knows you need it. You couldn't even beat a black muslim gay communist socialist that was trying to destroy the country in 2008 and 2012.
 
tererun said:
Clearly because the poll shows a moderate as the leader. The clintons are far from the radical left.
Click to expand...

You don't know what a moderate is.....

Anyone who believes it's the governments obligation and duty to play "nanny" to the US populace (as democrats do) is in no way a "moderate."
 
Re: Hillary Clinton tops list of Dems voters don't want in 2016

Redress said:
Well, no. There is zero evidence that democrats will not happily rally around the candidate we choose 3 years from now. You are having a rough thread here, first distorting poll results by only showing what you wanted seen, then complaining when others made the exact comparison you did but with all the facts, and now wildly extrapolating based on no evidence beyond your will to believe.
Click to expand...

The thread isn't about me....I suggest you read the warning earlier in the thread, and start addressing the point instead of personally attacking people.
 
Re: Hillary Clinton tops list of Dems voters don't want in 2016

I already made the point. Despite the misrepresentation made in the OP, the voters who most dislike the idea that Mrs Clinton will be the Democratic candidate are Republican ones, because they know they have no-one to beat her. Their core old white man vote is dying off, while the women and minorites vote of the Democrats is growing by 2% every presidential election.
 
Re: Hillary Clinton tops list of Dems voters don't want in 2016

j-mac said:
The thread isn't about me....I suggest you read the warning earlier in the thread, and start addressing the point instead of personally attacking people.
Click to expand...

So now you do not want people to discuss the ideas you have presented in this thread? I wonder how well that will work...
 
j-mac said:
And here I thought repub's were having trouble with splits it their party....Demo's seem to be conflicted even within their own thoughts....
Click to expand...

Who the voters want is far less important than who the big money crowd wants. They supply the candidates, the voters simply pick from among them. ;)
 
Mr.Nick said:
You don't know what a moderate is.....

Anyone who believes it's the governments obligation and duty to play "nanny" to the US populace (as democrats do) is in no way a "moderate."
Click to expand...

Hillary and Bill were quite the moderates, and possibly even on the republican side given their stances on multiple things. They are not the extreme.
 
tererun said:
Hillary and Bill were quite the moderates, and possibly even on the republican side given their stances on multiple things. They are not the extreme.
Click to expand...

Yeah right.... Both know how to play politics. Don't confuse "give and take" with ideology....

Those clowns would be proud socialists if they could, so would most progressives in government... However to progressives "socialism" is a bad word hence the term "progressive."

It it matters they're not as crazy as some (Pelosi, Obama, Reed etc)..
 
Mr.Nick said:
Yeah right.... Both know how to play politics. Don't confuse "give and take" with ideology....

Those clowns would be proud socialists if they could, so would most progressives in government... However to progressives "socialism" is a bad word hence the term "progressive."

It it matters they're not as crazy as some (Pelosi, Obama, Reed etc)..
Click to expand...

I'm not a fan of mind reading. I prefer to go largely with what we can actually show, and we really can't convincingly show them to be socialists.
 
Boo Radley said:
I'm not a fan of mind reading. I prefer to go largely with what we can actually show, and we really can't convincingly show them to be socialists.
Click to expand...

One doesn't have to be a "mind reader."

The simple fact that a socialist would support both means both would support the socialist...

Why do you see Marxists everywhere at progressive rallies?? you tell me that??

The only difference between a progressive and a socialist is the fact that a socialist has the balls to admit they're a socialist. You know what? I have more respect for socialist than I do progressives for that fact alone..

As far as Billary - actions speak a thousand words.... A mute man could tell me hes a socialist - he doesn't have to say it.. I suppose that's one of the virtues of being human - sometimes people don't have to say what they mean for others to understand what they're saying...

Ya dig?
 
Mr.Nick said:
One doesn't have to be a "mind reader."

The simple fact that a socialist would support both means both would support the socialist...

Why do you see Marxists everywhere at progressive rallies?? you tell me that??

The only difference between a progressive and a socialist is the fact that a socialist has the balls to admit they're a socialist. You know what? I have more respect for socialist than I do progressives for that fact alone..

As far as Billary - actions speak a thousand words.... A mute man could tell me hes a socialist - he doesn't have to say it.. I suppose that's one of the virtues of being human - sometimes people don't have to say what they mean for okthers to understand what they're saying...

Ya dig?
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Socialist my support some more liberal over someone more conservative, but that doesn't make anyone a socialist. Not that you've shown socialist support. Nor would it make conservatives magical.

And Nick, there are many differences between liberals and socialist. Ask a socialist sometime. You're really too far over the edge here.
 
Rasmussen is a proprietary hybrid Fox News polling org and therefore sterile. It is not taken seriously, is it?
 
Mr.Nick said:
Clinton isn't radical enough for modern democrats and progressives.

They want a Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi, maybe a Jesse Jackson......
Click to expand...

Please let it be Jesse Jackson again.
 
Mason66 said:
Please let it be Jesse Jackson again.
Click to expand...

Democrats would find some way to elect him this time...

He'd actually have a chance - a better chance than he did back in the days where even democrats were conservative and progressives were still communists to some sort of literal degree.
 
Re: Hillary Clinton tops list of Dems voters don't want in 2016

Erod said:
The euphoria and leg tingling Obama created among minorities, liberals, unions, and college kids will be very difficult for the Democrats to repeat.

Empty, novel attributes aside, there is no substance to Obama. None. They know that, at least enough of them.

Democrats may very well just stay away this time, and let the adults handle things again.
Click to expand...

You wish.
As empty as the Democratic basket has become, the fact is they represent more Americans than the Republicans do. You guys have let yourselves become the party of white men and their wives. The Dems could run Woody Harrelson and Oprah Winfrey, in any order, and the Repubs wouldn't have an answer.
 
Re: Hillary Clinton tops list of Dems voters don't want in 2016

More partial to Joe, personally. However, nothing would send me quicker to the Democrats regardless of who it was, than throwing up a libertarian-minded Republican as the party's candidate. Christie vs. Clinton or Joe->I vote Christie. Paul vs. Clinton or Joe--->I vote Democrat.
 
Re: Hillary Clinton tops list of Dems voters don't want in 2016

j-mac said:
Then why is it so damned hard to get one of you Obamabots to define what he means by "fundamental transformation"? Care to take that on?
Click to expand...



Fundamental transformation? Well, let's see...how about healthcare for all Americans; how about the repeal of don't ask, don't tell; how about equal pay for women; how about a break for the Dream kids--all policies that your kind hates, but definitely transformative....
 
Mr.Nick said:
Clinton isn't radical enough for modern democrats and progressives. They want a Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi, maybe a Jesse Jackson......
Click to expand...

I am a Progressive, dunno how 'modern' I am, Hillary is 'radical' enough for me. :roll:

Problem with many cons is they shift the goalposts as it suits them until they have no meaning. Hillary was a scary far left liberal when it suited the con conversation.

The attempt to paint her as the most unwanted Democrat was very flawed, with over 60% wanting her, the 20 some percent will not find her as distasteful as the radical right claims Willard was for them in the last go-round.

While there is still plenty of time for someone to swoop in and take the nomination away from her, the numbers in her favor are like what the cons had in their pre-Iraq/economic crash days.

I understand the frantic need to divert attention from the train wreck that is the RNC these days... this won't help... :peace
 
notquiteright said:
Problem with many cons is they shift the goalposts as it suits them until they have no meaning. Hillary was a scary far left liberal when it suited the con conversation.
Click to expand...

Happens with liberals as well. When Bush was in office, it was not uncommon for liberals to pine for the return principled of small government conservatism of Goldwater and the budgetary constraints Eisenhower placed on the military, without thinking about the consequences of that. When liberals got a renewed taste of it after 2010, suddenly Goldwater, Ron and Rand Paul became the enemy again...and slowly, slowly, some are even starting to revisit Nixon and George W. Bush and think them decent and moderate, despite their decades-long dispute with both.

The attempt to paint her as the most unwanted Democrat was very flawed, with over 60% wanting her, the 20 some percent will not find her as distasteful as the radical right claims Willard was for them in the last go-round.
Click to expand...

It's transparent, because before Obama was a serious contender, Hillary was perceived as the worst case scenario for Republicans. When Hillary and Obama were months into their grueling primary bout, Republicans suddenly turned Hillary into the sensible, experienced, and decisive Democrat that could make the tough calls and make America safe in comparison to the neophyte that had captured the imagination of the Democratic Party base.
 
Fiddytree said:
Happens with liberals as well. When Bush was in office, it was not uncommon for liberals to pine for the return principled of small government conservatism of Goldwater and the budgetary constraints Eisenhower placed on the military, without thinking about the consequences of that. When liberals got a renewed taste of it after 2010, suddenly Goldwater, Ron and Rand Paul became the enemy again...and slowly, slowly, some are even starting to revisit Nixon and George W. Bush and think them decent and moderate, despite their decades-long dispute with both.
Click to expand...

Seriously? You really think it was "not uncommon" for liberals to pine for Goldwater and Ike, and think of Nixon and bush* as decent and moderate?
 
Wasn't Rasmussen saying Romney was going to win in a landslide?

Some of those polls were hurt their creditability.


j-mac said:
And here I thought repub's were having trouble with splits it their party....Demo's seem to be conflicted even within their own thoughts....
Click to expand...
 
SheWolf said:
Wasn't Rasmussen saying Romney was going to win in a landslide?

Some of those polls were hurt their creditability.
Click to expand...

No. There was a definite Republican lean to their polls in 2012, but they were generally only a few points off.
 
Fiddytree said:
Happens with liberals as well. When Bush was in office, it was not uncommon for liberals to pine for the return principled of small government conservatism of Goldwater and the budgetary constraints Eisenhower placed on the military, without thinking about the consequences of that. When liberals got a renewed taste of it after 2010, suddenly Goldwater, Ron and Rand Paul became the enemy again...and slowly, slowly, some are even starting to revisit Nixon and George W. Bush and think them decent and moderate, despite their decades-long dispute with both. It's transparent, because before Obama was a serious contender, Hillary was perceived as the worst case scenario for Republicans. When Hillary and Obama were months into their grueling primary bout, Republicans suddenly turned Hillary into the sensible, experienced, and decisive Democrat that could make the tough calls and make America safe in comparison to the neophyte that had captured the imagination of the Democratic Party base.
Click to expand...

I don't think any liberals, no matter the definition you give that group, would EVER want a 'return' to Goldwater or ever see him in a warm and fuzzy light. Ike would be vilified by his own party if he was in politics today.

Anyone who would cut the social safety net out from under millions of citizens as wall street tanked our economy one more time would be seen as 'the enemy' so I don't see the again part with the likes of Sen Paul. Nixon would be seen as a RINO as BushI was. I don't ever recall any real overheated rhetoric for BushI like there is for Obama.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom