Has the Democratic Party become exclusively for Obama/Clinton loyalists?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I was originally going to post this in the 2016 board, but decided not to because the conversations here are usually better.  Mods, feel free to move this thread if it doesn't belong here.


I wanted to expand on something I mentioned in another thread here that no one ever seems to talk about or even notice.

For the last few years it's been a given that Hillary Clinton is going to run in 2016 and win the primary and whatever Democrat tries getting in the way of that will be crushed and forever purged from politics.  I think this makes sense given the environment, but I've noticed there seems to be a kind of strange enthusiasm for a Hillary run that's nothing like other prospective candidates the party's seen.  In 2008, Hillary started out as the easy frontrunner, but there was still a whole slate of candidates running alongside her, each with their own established base large enough to make the race competitive.  In other words, Hillary was in the driver's seat, but there was just enough support for other candidates to knock her down.  And as we saw, that's what happened.

2016 has a few similarities.  There is a number of prospective Democratic candidates, but none of the new non-Hillary candidates are of similar caliber to 2008's bunch.  There won't be a John Edwards (pre-scandal), Barack Obama, or Bill Richardson to stir things up, so years out from the primaries we can safely say it's Hillary's prize if she wants it.

Now, what concerns me about 2016 is not Hillary Clinton herself per se, but precisely why she will start off with the support she has.  Is it because most Democrats take a Clinton victory as inevitable?  Is there any reason for enthusiasm among most of her supporters other than that?  Will the 2016 primary be our version of 2012's GOP primary where the frontrunner wins just because voters saw the path for him?

And hell, let's say Hillary doesn't run.  Who will take her place as frontrunner?  Well, I'd probably nix Biden, as I don't think he's going to run at all, so that leaves us with, well, everyone else.  Will the Democrats nominate someone who runs on a straight pro-Obama platform and promises to continue everything he's done, or will they nominate someone with a newer approach?  And if the latter candidate loses, will he or she lose any credibility they had within the party and never have their day in politics again?

So this makes me wonder, has the Democratic Party, intentionally or not, taken on the model of a business where whatever the boss says goes?  Is a politician shooting themselves in the foot if they don't tout the Obama/Clinton line?  And if that's true, how can Democrats truly claim they're for the common man if they pour all the power and influence into the hands of a few - in this scenario, the Clintons' and the Obamas'?

Personally, I don't know who I'm going to support in 2016 because no one's actually declared yet.  I haven't seen a single speech, a single debate, or a single campaign site, so making a decision this far out, to me, is foolish.  But I will only support Hillary in the primary if I'm convinced that she's a better choice than her opponents.  No one should be entitled to the trust of their party or the country just because of their last name, but alas, I feel that way of thinking is becoming so common among most (but not all) Democrats.

My basic point is that if a party threatens to purge you for not supporting its de facto bosses, I wouldn't want to be in that party, and I'd say that even if I were a hardline Clinton supporter.  I don't own the party.  I don't feel entitled to handpicking the winner.


Anyway, I'm not trying to piss anyone off or concern troll.  Those are just my thoughts.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Hillary is doing well with low information voters who don't know how awful she is, or who are supporting her mainly because of her gender. If the race ever ends up being decided on political views,  the 3rd-way warmonger is toast.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Hillary is doing well with low information voters who don't know how awful she is, or who are supporting her mainly because of her gender. If the race ever ends up being decided on political views,  the 3rd-way warmonger is toast.

I wouldn't necessarily say it's low information voters.  I'm sure there are plenty of smart Democrats who are only supporting Hillary because they expect her to win, or because she's "next in line."

Again, this thread isn't meant to be a critique of her.  I just don't want to be in a party that only supports its candidates because they expect them to win.

[IceSpear]

Hillary already had the support of about half the party in 2008, even though Obama edged her out. To add to the half she already claimed, most of the people who supported Obama now support her as well. That is why she's the overwhelming frontrunner. Had she sat in the Senate and sniped at Obama from the sidelines all throughout his presidency, you'd likely see a lot more opposition to her.

Of course, you can find some people who support Hillary that despise Obama (like in Appalachia). And people who support Obama but despise Hillary (latte liberals, some African Americans). And an even smaller group that despise both (those vestigial Democrats who never changed their party affiliation along with the True Leftists who would prefer to write in Bernie Sanders or Nader before voting for an "impure" Democrat. Strange bedfellows). But the vast majority of Democrats like both of them. Clinton brings universal name recognition, electability, being acceptable to wide swaths of the Democratic party, 90s nostalgia, and being the first female president all to the table. Nobody else in the Democratic Party can compare with her resume or popularity.

I'm not sure if this answers your question or not.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Hillary is doing well with low information voters who don't know how awful she is, or who are supporting her mainly because of her gender. If the race ever ends up being decided on political views,  the 3rd-way warmonger is toast.

I wouldn't necessarily say it's low information voters.  I'm sure there are plenty of smart Democrats who are only supporting Hillary because they expect her to win, or because she's "next in line."

Again, this thread isn't meant to be a critique of her.  I just don't want to be in a party that only supports its candidates because they expect them to win.

Here's a November 2006 CNN poll of Democrats against John McCain
McCain beats Clinton 48-47
McCain beats Obama 49-40
McCain beats Kerry 55-37

Good thing we didn't go with one of those unelectable Democrats.

[Donerail]

Now, what concerns me about 2016 is not Hillary Clinton herself per se, but precisely why she will start off with the support she has.  Is it because most Democrats take a Clinton victory as inevitable?  Is there any reason for enthusiasm among most of her supporters other than that?  Will the 2016 primary be our version of 2012's GOP primary where the frontrunner wins just because voters saw the path for him?

They think she can win and they want to win - Making History™ while doing so is just a perk. Probably motivated more by fear of Republicans taking office than anything ideological.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Hillary already had the support of about half the party in 2008, even though Obama edged her out. To add to the half she already claimed, most of the people who supported Obama now support her as well. That is why she's the overwhelming frontrunner. Had she sat in the Senate and sniped at Obama from the sidelines all throughout his presidency, you'd likely see a lot more opposition to her.

Of course, you can find some people who support Hillary that despise Obama (like in Appalachia). And people who support Obama but despise Hillary (latte liberals, some African Americans). And an even smaller group that despise both (those vestigial Democrats who never changed their party affiliation along with the True Leftists who would prefer to write in Bernie Sanders or Nader before voting for an "impure" Democrat. Strange bedfellows). But the vast majority of Democrats like both of them. Clinton brings universal name recognition, electability, being acceptable to wide swaths of the Democratic party, 90s nostalgia, and being the first female president all to the table. Nobody else in the Democratic Party can compare with her resume or popularity.

I'm not sure if this answers your question or not.

Hmm.  Alright, that makes sense, though I don't think Hillary would have spent her Senate days (if she hadn't joined Obama's cabinet) sniping at him just because that's not what most former primary rivals do.

Hillary is doing well with low information voters who don't know how awful she is, or who are supporting her mainly because of her gender. If the race ever ends up being decided on political views,  the 3rd-way warmonger is toast.

I wouldn't necessarily say it's low information voters.  I'm sure there are plenty of smart Democrats who are only supporting Hillary because they expect her to win, or because she's "next in line."

Again, this thread isn't meant to be a critique of her.  I just don't want to be in a party that only supports its candidates because they expect them to win.

Here's a November 2006 CNN poll of Democrats against John McCain
McCain beats Clinton 48-47
McCain beats Obama 49-40
McCain beats Kerry 55-37

Good thing we didn't go with one of those unelectable Democrats.

I meant the primary, not the general election.  But yes, that's an interesting tidbit.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Now, what concerns me about 2016 is not Hillary Clinton herself per se, but precisely why she will start off with the support she has.  Is it because most Democrats take a Clinton victory as inevitable?  Is there any reason for enthusiasm among most of her supporters other than that?  Will the 2016 primary be our version of 2012's GOP primary where the frontrunner wins just because voters saw the path for him?

They think she can win and they want to win - Making History™ while doing so is just a perk. Probably motivated more by fear of Republicans taking office than anything ideological.

Because right-wing warmongering Democrats are just dandy?

[Beet]

Ugh, this is a very long post based on some wrong assumptions.

First of all, at this point in the 2008 cycle most people didn't even think Obama was going to run; in fact, most followers of politics would have been surprised to learn he planned to run. He had been in the Senate for little over a year and his profile was low. He certainly didn't have an established base of any sort. So if we're going to make comparisons between 2008 and 2016 we certainly can't rule out that it will play out similarly. The main difference between today and January 2006 is that in comparison to then, the invisible primary seems to have gotten off to a very fast start. You already have guys like Martin O Malley running around the country trying to line up support from future delegates whereas there was nothing of the sort in 2005. But whether the current state of the race will remain static is unlikely. It almost certainly will not.

As we've continually and will continue to see, 2 weeks is a long time in politics. Let alone 2 years. And yet you always have people trying to project the present into the future as if nothing will ever change. It is true that some people have presumed that Hillary will get the nomination. But not everyone has. Brian Schweitzer certainly hadn't come to that conclusion. Neither have I. I have been quite vocal for the past year that it's too early to say anything for certain. We will not even have a clear idea of the field until mid 2015.

I certainly hope Clinton wins the nomination, but the notion of inevitability is false.

Second of all, you have to come to grips with the fact that the support for Hillary is genuine and comes from the grassroots. The woman has 1 million Twitter followers after joining less than a year ago, for Pete's sake. Over a million Facebook likes. Top favorabilities among Democrats by far in every poll. Top choice for nominee among Democrats in every poll. Top general election performer among all Democrats in every general election poll. Most admired woman for something like the 10th or 15th year running.

It's the common man that wants Hillary. I mean, it would be an elitist coup by the bosses if we nominated anyone but her. The idea that somehow it's the opposite is really fascinating- where does this idea come from? We are living in a bubble here.

 The people at the top of the Democratic party on the political side are people like Jim Messina, Obama's campaign manager, Jeremy Bird, GOTV organizer for the Obama campaign, or David Axelrod, top political consultant. These people don't even particularly like Hillary. Obama's never been too close to her himself. If you asked him to choose a successor, it would probably be someone like Rahm Enanuel.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I think a good part of it is the feeling that if hadn't been for Barack, Hillary would have easily triumphed in 2008.  So there's a (non)sense that she's owed the chance to be our first woman president that was denied her only because she faced our first black president..

[IceSpear]

First of all, at this point in the 2008 cycle most people didn't even think Obama was going to run; in fact, most followers of politics would have been surprised to learn he planned to run. He had been in the Senate for little over a year and his profile was low. He certainly didn't have an established base of any sort. So if we're going to make comparisons between 2008 and 2016 we certainly can't rule out that it will play out similarly. The main difference between today and January 2006 is that in comparison to then, the invisible primary seems to have gotten off to a very fast start. You already have guys like Martin O Malley running around the country trying to line up support from future delegates whereas there was nothing of the sort in 2005. But whether the current state of the race will remain static is unlikely. It almost certainly will not.

As we've continually and will continue to see, 2 weeks is a long time in politics. Let alone 2 years. And yet you always have people trying to project the present into the future as if nothing will ever change. It is true that some people have presumed that Hillary will get the nomination. But not everyone has. Brian Schweitzer certainly hadn't come to that conclusion. Neither have I. I have been quite vocal for the past year that it's too early to say anything for certain. We will not even have a clear idea of the field until mid 2015.

The circumstances are far different from 2005-2007. The only comparison is that Hillary was the frontrunner then, and she's the frontrunner now. But once you get past that surface level similarity, the comparison falls apart. Hillary was only polling in the 30s all of those years. While it was enough to be the frontrunner, it clearly left an opening for someone to upend her. Right now she's in the 60s/70s in polling, which is an entirely different universe.

[Donerail]

Now, what concerns me about 2016 is not Hillary Clinton herself per se, but precisely why she will start off with the support she has.  Is it because most Democrats take a Clinton victory as inevitable?  Is there any reason for enthusiasm among most of her supporters other than that?  Will the 2016 primary be our version of 2012's GOP primary where the frontrunner wins just because voters saw the path for him?

They think she can win and they want to win - Making History™ while doing so is just a perk. Probably motivated more by fear of Republicans taking office than anything ideological.

Because right-wing warmongering Democrats are just dandy?

I'm not a Clinton supporter by any means, will not support her, and will probably end up volunteering for her primary opponent. But the perspective of Hillary supports is that - compared to, say, refusing to raise the debt ceiling - relatively, yes. Their perspective is that anything that stops the Republicans from winning and crashing the global economy, bombing Iran, etc is positive, and right now Clinton is best-positioned to do so.

[Beet]

Certainly Clinton's in a stronger position, but it's also earlier. That's my point. A 5 point lead the day before the election is worth more than a 20 point lead the year before. From the perspective of other potential challengers, there are plenty who are at least as strong or stronger than Obama looked in January 2006.

[IceSpear]

Now, what concerns me about 2016 is not Hillary Clinton herself per se, but precisely why she will start off with the support she has.  Is it because most Democrats take a Clinton victory as inevitable?  Is there any reason for enthusiasm among most of her supporters other than that?  Will the 2016 primary be our version of 2012's GOP primary where the frontrunner wins just because voters saw the path for him?

They think she can win and they want to win - Making History™ while doing so is just a perk. Probably motivated more by fear of Republicans taking office than anything ideological.

Because right-wing warmongering Democrats are just dandy?

I'm not a Clinton supporter by any means, will not support her, and will probably end up volunteering for her primary opponent. But the perspective of Hillary supports is that - compared to, say, refusing to raise the debt ceiling - relatively, yes. Their perspective is that anything that stops the Republicans from winning and crashing the global economy, bombing Iran, etc is positive, and right now Clinton is best-positioned to do so.

I find it ironic that someone who enthusiastically supports Charlie Crist has hangups over Clinton's ideological purity.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

First of all, at this point in the 2008 cycle most people didn't even think Obama was going to run; in fact, most followers of politics would have been surprised to learn he planned to run. He had been in the Senate for little over a year and his profile was low. He certainly didn't have an established base of any sort. So if we're going to make comparisons between 2008 and 2016 we certainly can't rule out that it will play out similarly. The main difference between today and January 2006 is that in comparison to then, the invisible primary seems to have gotten off to a very fast start. You already have guys like Martin O Malley running around the country trying to line up support from future delegates whereas there was nothing of the sort in 2005. But whether the current state of the race will remain static is unlikely. It almost certainly will not.

As we've continually and will continue to see, 2 weeks is a long time in politics. Let alone 2 years. And yet you always have people trying to project the present into the future as if nothing will ever change. It is true that some people have presumed that Hillary will get the nomination. But not everyone has. Brian Schweitzer certainly hadn't come to that conclusion. Neither have I. I have been quite vocal for the past year that it's too early to say anything for certain. We will not even have a clear idea of the field until mid 2015.

The circumstances are far different from 2005-2007. The only comparison is that Hillary was the frontrunner then, and she's the frontrunner now. But once you get past that surface level similarity, the comparison falls apart. Hillary was only polling in the 30s all of those years. While it was enough to be the frontrunner, it clearly left an opening for someone to upend her. Right now she's in the 60s/70s in polling, which is an entirely different universe.

If I remember correctly (and that's a big 'if'... I probably should've read some polls before I made this thread...), Clinton was the overwhelming frontrunner in 2006 until the campaign actually started and then she ended up in the 30s.  Her margins were brought down by other candidates, not just Obama.

[henster]

I am annoyed that Clinton has essentially frozen the field because she thinks it's her turn to run there are a lot more promising and younger candidates than her like Warner, Klobuchar, Sherrod Brown, Kirsten Gillibrand, Deval Patrick etc. I really don't like retreads it's always good to have new blood.

[IceSpear]

First of all, at this point in the 2008 cycle most people didn't even think Obama was going to run; in fact, most followers of politics would have been surprised to learn he planned to run. He had been in the Senate for little over a year and his profile was low. He certainly didn't have an established base of any sort. So if we're going to make comparisons between 2008 and 2016 we certainly can't rule out that it will play out similarly. The main difference between today and January 2006 is that in comparison to then, the invisible primary seems to have gotten off to a very fast start. You already have guys like Martin O Malley running around the country trying to line up support from future delegates whereas there was nothing of the sort in 2005. But whether the current state of the race will remain static is unlikely. It almost certainly will not.

As we've continually and will continue to see, 2 weeks is a long time in politics. Let alone 2 years. And yet you always have people trying to project the present into the future as if nothing will ever change. It is true that some people have presumed that Hillary will get the nomination. But not everyone has. Brian Schweitzer certainly hadn't come to that conclusion. Neither have I. I have been quite vocal for the past year that it's too early to say anything for certain. We will not even have a clear idea of the field until mid 2015.

The circumstances are far different from 2005-2007. The only comparison is that Hillary was the frontrunner then, and she's the frontrunner now. But once you get past that surface level similarity, the comparison falls apart. Hillary was only polling in the 30s all of those years. While it was enough to be the frontrunner, it clearly left an opening for someone to upend her. Right now she's in the 60s/70s in polling, which is an entirely different universe.

If I remember correctly (and that's a big 'if'... I probably should've read some polls before I made this thread...), Clinton was the overwhelming frontrunner in 2006 until the campaign actually started and then she ended up in the 30s.  Her margins were brought down by other candidates, not just Obama.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html

She never cracked 50%, and most of the time was in the high 30s or low 40s.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Okay, that clears things up a lot.  Thanks.

[IceSpear]

Okay, that clears things up a lot.  Thanks.

Actually, I did notice that chart only began in 2007, so I checked for 2005/2006 polls as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_Democratic_Party_2008_presidential_candidates

She didn't crack 50% in any of the split field polls even in 2005/2006. She cracked 50% in some of the head to heads, but even in those there was still a quite large segment that didn't back her no matter who her opponent was.

Compared to now:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html

Trying to suggest it's equivalent or even close to equivalent is just lazy analysis, which means the media will be endlessly doing it from now until Hillary is the nominee.

[Beet]

I am annoyed that Clinton has essentially frozen the field because she thinks it's her turn to run there are a lot more promising and younger candidates than her like Warner, Klobuchar, Sherrod Brown, Kirsten Gillibrand, Deval Patrick etc. I really don't like retreads it's always good to have new blood.

What? She's not preventing anyone else from running. To the extent the field is 'frozen' it's because big donors and officials don't want to commit to someone else unless they get a Sherman statement from the strongest candidate. It's not her fault she's such a strong candidate! I mean, they all wish they were in her shoes.

What does a 'frozen field' mean 24 months before the first primary, anyway? Sheesh, I remember when these things didn't start until after the midterms!

[Cobbler]

Honestly, while she does have an outstanding resume, I think a lot of the support for her is the desire on the part of Democratic voters to have the first female president. So, if you have a viable female candidate running from Hillary's left (like Warren), people would be more open to back that other candidate than they would a male candidate (like Schweitzer).

[Mr. Morden]

So, if you have a viable female candidate running from Hillary's left (like Warren), people would be more open to back that other candidate than they would a male candidate (like Schweitzer).

Right, but problem with that is that Warren has been rather adamant that she won't run.  (Granted, it's early, lots of people change their mind, etc. etc.)  And the two other female pols who've sounded more open to a run (Klobuchar and Gillibrand) have basically ruled out a run *if* Clinton is in the race.  Heck, every one of the female Democratic US Senators apparently signed a letter urging Clinton to run.  At least at present, it looks like whatever challengers Clinton may have (should she run) would much more likely be male than female.

[Lief 🗽]

If you don't have a positive opinion of either Clinton or Obama, then I'm not sure why you're a Democrat.

[Zioneer]

If you don't have a positive opinion of either Clinton or Obama, then I'm not sure why you're a Democrat.

What if we have a positive opinion of Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders instead?

[Хahar 🤔]

Bernie Sanders isn't a Democrat.