The sudden surge in Ready For Hillary signatures

[IceSpear]

The only one I see in this thread is Lief.

BRTD and Harry too.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

No need to let the Republicans destroy America unchecked to make some point about a leftist revolution.  Not in 2016.

Ready4Hilldawg!

[TNF]

I can't wait for the inevitable justification of Hillary privatizing Social Security or abolishing public sector collective bargaining rights from our Democratic posters in four years.

[King]

I can't wait for the inevitable justification of Hillary privatizing Social Security or abolishing public sector collective bargaining rights from our Democratic posters in four years.

As opposed to the justification that "Hillary would have done it anyway so losing with Bernie Sanders was the right thing to do" when President Cruz does it.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

I can't wait for the inevitable justification of Hillary privatizing Social Security or abolishing public sector collective bargaining rights from our Democratic posters in four years.

The Dems have to rally the base.  No way does that happen.

[King]

True Leftists should know that Congress is more important to any agenda setting than who the President is. Hillary is the best hope to wing Congress, even the House, in 2016.

Though it is an unlikely proposition.

[IceSpear]

I can't wait for the inevitable justification of Hillary privatizing Social Security or abolishing public sector collective bargaining rights from our Democratic posters in four years.

Don't hold your breath waiting for that fantasy.

[TNF]

I can't wait for the inevitable justification of Hillary privatizing Social Security or abolishing public sector collective bargaining rights from our Democratic posters in four years.

The Dems have to rally the base.  No way does that happen.

Right, which is why the Democrats pushed through NAFTA in 1994, got rid of welfare and signed off on media monopolies in 1996, gave China permanent normal trade relations in 1999, supported the war in Afghanistan in 2001, supported invading Iraq in 2003, supported the PATRIOT Act, supported the Iraq War 'surge' failure in 2007, didn't impeach Bush when there was clear evidence to do so and clear public support for doing it in the first place, bailed out the banks with no strings attached but tore up UAW contracts and lowered wages as a condition of bailing out the auto industry, took single-payer off the table and reneged on the promise of a public option in 2010, bombed Libya and agreed to the sequester in 2011, and begun bombing Syria and Iraq (again) only a few months ago.

Yeah, those Democrats definitely would never do anything to upset their base. Never ever.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

I can't wait for the inevitable justification of Hillary privatizing Social Security or abolishing public sector collective bargaining rights from our Democratic posters in four years.

The Dems have to rally the base.  No way does that happen.

Right, which is why the Democrats pushed through NAFTA in 1994, got rid of welfare and signed off on media monopolies in 1996, gave China permanent normal trade relations in 1999, supported the war in Afghanistan in 2001, supported invading Iraq in 2003, supported the PATRIOT Act, supported the Iraq War 'surge' failure in 2007, didn't impeach Bush when there was clear evidence to do so and clear public support for doing it in the first place, bailed out the banks with no strings attached but tore up UAW contracts and lowered wages as a condition of bailing out the auto industry, took single-payer off the table and reneged on the promise of a public option in 2010, bombed Libya and agreed to the sequester in 2011, and begun bombing Syria and Iraq (again) only a few months ago.

Yeah, those Democrats definitely would never do anything to upset their base. Never ever.

Once upon a time, Democrats WERE tough when they realized that America needed to be pulled out of an economic quagmire.  They'll get there again, and this last cycle of failed moderation will help. 

[free my dawg]

I can't wait for the inevitable justification of Hillary privatizing Social Security or abolishing public sector collective bargaining rights from our Democratic posters in four years.

The Dems have to rally the base.  No way does that happen.

Right, which is why the Democrats pushed through NAFTA in 1994, got rid of welfare and signed off on media monopolies in 1996, gave China permanent normal trade relations in 1999, supported the war in Afghanistan in 2001, supported invading Iraq in 2003, supported the PATRIOT Act, supported the Iraq War 'surge' failure in 2007, didn't impeach Bush when there was clear evidence to do so and clear public support for doing it in the first place, bailed out the banks with no strings attached but tore up UAW contracts and lowered wages as a condition of bailing out the auto industry, took single-payer off the table and reneged on the promise of a public option in 2010, bombed Libya and agreed to the sequester in 2011, and begun bombing Syria and Iraq (again) only a few months ago.

Yeah, those Democrats definitely would never do anything to upset their base. Never ever.

Once upon a time, Democrats WERE tough when they realized that America needed to be pulled out of an economic quagmire.  They'll get there again, and this last cycle of failed moderation will help. 

This isn't a cycle. It's been the new norm since 1992.

The Democratic Party has abandoned people like us. Maybe I would be sadder if I had actual attachment to the party.

[TNF]

I can't wait for the inevitable justification of Hillary privatizing Social Security or abolishing public sector collective bargaining rights from our Democratic posters in four years.

The Dems have to rally the base.  No way does that happen.

Right, which is why the Democrats pushed through NAFTA in 1994, got rid of welfare and signed off on media monopolies in 1996, gave China permanent normal trade relations in 1999, supported the war in Afghanistan in 2001, supported invading Iraq in 2003, supported the PATRIOT Act, supported the Iraq War 'surge' failure in 2007, didn't impeach Bush when there was clear evidence to do so and clear public support for doing it in the first place, bailed out the banks with no strings attached but tore up UAW contracts and lowered wages as a condition of bailing out the auto industry, took single-payer off the table and reneged on the promise of a public option in 2010, bombed Libya and agreed to the sequester in 2011, and begun bombing Syria and Iraq (again) only a few months ago.

Yeah, those Democrats definitely would never do anything to upset their base. Never ever.

Once upon a time, Democrats WERE tough when they realized that America needed to be pulled out of an economic quagmire.  They'll get there again, and this last cycle of failed moderation will help. 

No they won't. The Democrats would have continued to pursue austerity and free trade in the 1930s had it not been for the fact that the unemployed were getting really interested in something called communism during the Great Depression. The New Deal wasn't planned out by anyone. It was an ongoing accident of history, whereby the Democrats stumbled along, offering reforms here or there to prevent something like what happened in Russia in 1917 from happening in the United States in 1937.

The difference today is that there's no organized, agitated force that can demand concessions from the Democrats, and without one, those concessions won't be made.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I can't wait for the inevitable justification of Hillary privatizing Social Security or abolishing public sector collective bargaining rights from our Democratic posters in four years.

The Dems have to rally the base.  No way does that happen.

Right, which is why the Democrats pushed through NAFTA in 1994, got rid of welfare and signed off on media monopolies in 1996, gave China permanent normal trade relations in 1999, supported the war in Afghanistan in 2001, supported invading Iraq in 2003, supported the PATRIOT Act, supported the Iraq War 'surge' failure in 2007, didn't impeach Bush when there was clear evidence to do so and clear public support for doing it in the first place, bailed out the banks with no strings attached but tore up UAW contracts and lowered wages as a condition of bailing out the auto industry, took single-payer off the table and reneged on the promise of a public option in 2010, bombed Libya and agreed to the sequester in 2011, and begun bombing Syria and Iraq (again) only a few months ago.

Yeah, those Democrats definitely would never do anything to upset their base. Never ever.

But but but ... Bernie Sanders would have forced NAFTA through because he can't be any better than the Clintons.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

I can't wait for the inevitable justification of Hillary privatizing Social Security or abolishing public sector collective bargaining rights from our Democratic posters in four years.

The Dems have to rally the base.  No way does that happen.

Right, which is why the Democrats pushed through NAFTA in 1994, got rid of welfare and signed off on media monopolies in 1996, gave China permanent normal trade relations in 1999, supported the war in Afghanistan in 2001, supported invading Iraq in 2003, supported the PATRIOT Act, supported the Iraq War 'surge' failure in 2007, didn't impeach Bush when there was clear evidence to do so and clear public support for doing it in the first place, bailed out the banks with no strings attached but tore up UAW contracts and lowered wages as a condition of bailing out the auto industry, took single-payer off the table and reneged on the promise of a public option in 2010, bombed Libya and agreed to the sequester in 2011, and begun bombing Syria and Iraq (again) only a few months ago.

Yeah, those Democrats definitely would never do anything to upset their base. Never ever.

Once upon a time, Democrats WERE tough when they realized that America needed to be pulled out of an economic quagmire.  They'll get there again, and this last cycle of failed moderation will help. 

No they won't. The Democrats would have continued to pursue austerity and free trade in the 1930s had it not been for the fact that the unemployed were getting really interested in something called communism during the Great Depression. The New Deal wasn't planned out by anyone. It was an ongoing accident of history, whereby the Democrats stumbled along, offering reforms here or there to prevent something like what happened in Russia in 1917 from happening in the United States in 1937.

The difference today is that there's no organized, agitated force that can demand concessions from the Democrats, and without one, those concessions won't be made.

Duly noted, TNF... but I'm too concerned with saving the country from the GOP right now.  When it comes to important aspects, they are truly very different parties.  (progressive reform to healthcare, openness to minimum wage hikes, taxing the rich, etc.).  These are things that the Democrats don't take far enough, but the Republicans would never consider at all. 

[IceSpear]

Remember everyone, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell will promptly pass President Bernie Sanders's agenda with no interference whatsoever.  After all, "Republicans" in Vermont vote for him, I'm sure he can turn Boehner and McConnell into far leftists with magical socialist pixie dust!

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Remember everyone, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell will promptly pass President Bernie Sanders's agenda with no interference whatsoever.  After all, "Republicans" in Vermont vote for him, I'm sure he can turn Boehner and McConnell into far leftists with magical socialist pixie dust!

I thought they would because Bernie Sanders is another neoliberal imperialist just like them.

[Goldwater]

You know, it's funny. Most of the arguments on this forum seem to be people who hate anybody to the right of them with a burning passion vs. people who also hate anybody to the right of them with a burning passion, and are to the left of the first group of people.

[IceSpear]

Remember everyone, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell will promptly pass President Bernie Sanders's agenda with no interference whatsoever.  After all, "Republicans" in Vermont vote for him, I'm sure he can turn Boehner and McConnell into far leftists with magical socialist pixie dust!

I thought they would because Bernie Sanders is another neoliberal imperialist just like them.

Oh right, I forgot the True Leftists turned on Bernie. I guess he got too mainstream.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Remember everyone, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell will promptly pass President Bernie Sanders's agenda with no interference whatsoever.  After all, "Republicans" in Vermont vote for him, I'm sure he can turn Boehner and McConnell into far leftists with magical socialist pixie dust!

I thought they would because Bernie Sanders is another neoliberal imperialist just like them.

Oh right, I forgot the True Leftists turned on Bernie. I guess he got too mainstream.

^ Left-liberal imperialist thug Bernie Sanders. 

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

We've been cast back to 2005, with grim talk of a permanent Republican majority and Hillary Clinton as Mark Warner, the Democrats' uninspired hope for salvation.

Typical post-election hysteria.

[TNF]

Remember everyone, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell will promptly pass President Bernie Sanders's agenda with no interference whatsoever.  After all, "Republicans" in Vermont vote for him, I'm sure he can turn Boehner and McConnell into far leftists with magical socialist pixie dust!

I thought they would because Bernie Sanders is another neoliberal imperialist just like them.

Oh right, I forgot the True Leftists turned on Bernie. I guess he got too mainstream.

^ Left-liberal imperialist thug Bernie Sanders. 

Bernie Sanders is a Zionist, so yeah, that makes him a supporter of imperialism by default.

[BM]

I've been ready.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Desperation can drive people to bad places. I sort of pity them in a way.

[King]

I don't even understand what Hillary has done to warrant the True Leftist vitriol. All the attacks appear to be centered around that her husband was the most popular President of the past 30 years who left the middle class wealthier (obviously bad because bankers) and more prosperous than when he found it and that she was an edgy teenager who voted for Goldwater (you'd think TNF and Snowstalker would empathize).

[Lief 🗽]

80% of the hatred of Clinton is sexism. She is exactly the same politically as people like Joe Biden who none of the True Leftists (at least the ones that are still in the Democratic party; TNF doesn't count) seem to have a burning hatred for.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

80% of the hatred of Clinton is sexism. She is exactly the same politically as people like Joe Biden who none of the True Leftists (at least the ones that are still in the Democratic party; TNF doesn't count) seem to have a burning hatred for.

Sadly there are probably people who actually believe this.  To answer King's question, if nothing else, I think there are a number of Republicans (Rob Portman, Jeb Bush, Brian Sandoval Bob Corker, and Scott Walker all come to mind, although I go back-and-forth about Walker) who would probably beat Hillary.  Whether they'd run or can make it through the primary is another question.  Jeb probably can't, but I am hesitant to rule it out completely.  Sandoval and Corker can't, but either could be strong VP picks for certain candidates (with Corker it'd have to be a non-Southerner at the top of the ticket).  However, Portman and Walker can definitely make it through.  If Portman runs (which is quite possible), I could easily see him becoming the establishment pick once Christie inevitably implodes, especially if Bush doesn't run.  The thought of a Portman/Corker or especially a Portman/Sandoval ticket should scare the hell out of Democrats.  And that's ignoring the fact Hillary is something of a paper-tiger as far as the GE goes.  Her support is a mile-wide-and-an-inch-deep and she's about as likable as Nixon. 

TL;DR: Although I have ideological issues with Hillary (particularly her short-sighted and reckless demagoguery on foreign policy), my chief concern is that the Democrats are about to corenate a presidential candidate who is extremely capable of blowing a very winnable election without even allowing a primary that would force her to develop responses to the attacks that the Republicans will inevitably use during the GE.