Hillary has biggest lead of any front-runner in the history of polling

According to the Washington Post, Hillary has, at this point, the biggest lead of any front-runner in the history of polling presidential front-runners in non-incumbent elections. And not just by a little. By a lot.

I’m treating this as a news item, since we’ve been writing about Hillary Clinton lately. Consider this a follow-up to this earlier story, about her support, or lack of it, for peace with Iran.

Here’s Chris Cillizza and Sean Sullivan with the news:

Hillary Clinton is the biggest frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination ever. Yes, ever.

Hillary texting for climate advice

Hillary texting for climate advice

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s 61-point edge over Joe Biden in new Washington Post-ABC News polling makes her the single biggest frontrunner for a Democratic presidential nomination in the history of the poll, an affirmation of the conventional wisdom that the nomination is hers for the taking.

Clinton stands at an eye-popping 73 percent in a hypothetical 2016 primary race with Biden, the sitting vice president, who is the only other candidate in double digits at 12 percent. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who has signed a letter along with a handful of other Democratic senators urging Clinton to run, is at 8 percent. And that’s it.

That lead is almost three times as large as the one Clinton enjoyed in Post-ABC polling in December 2006, the first time we asked the 2008 Democratic presidential primary ballot question. At that time, Clinton took 39 percent to 17 percent for then Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, 12 percent for 2004 vice presidential nominee John Edwards and 10 percent for former Vice President Al Gore.

And note this comparison to Al Gore and the 2000 Democratic primary race:

Speaking of Gore, he is the closest thing to a Clinton-sized frontrunner dating all the way back to early polling on the 1984 presidential race. In a March 1999 poll, in advance of the 2000 presidential race, Gore took 58 percent to 21 percent for former New Jersey Sen. Bill Bradley, a 37-point bulge.

As always, do read the rest. It’s fascinating.

I’m not making a point with this, just passing it on. The 2016 election is going to be pivotal in American history. The president elected then will have just one job — deal with climate change, with a tool box nearly emptied by his or her predecessors. It’s well worth your time watching who ends up in the (sorry) hot seat. If you care about this stuff like I do, you might even help out, starting, well, now.

After all, the choices we make in the next three or four years — or allow to be made for us — will live with us for the rest of the century. Gets my attention anyway.

Mes centimes,


To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius

Gaius Publius is a professional writer living on the West Coast of the United States.

Share This Post

137 Responses to “Hillary has biggest lead of any front-runner in the history of polling”

  1. GregoryC says:

    You can thank the plutocrat elite and the U.S. Supreme Court for that appointment, not electoral politics.

  2. GregoryC says:

    Bill was a good thing? NAFTA offshoring jobs, decimating the Mexican economy too, increasing poverty and income inequality. FCC deregulation. Glass-Steagall repeal. Intrastate banking mergers creating TBTF/P banks causing the 2007+ financial crisis. “Make work pay” welfare reform. Failure to regulate derivatives. There is a reason why Bill has received millions in speaking fees from Wall Street — he represented well their neoliberal interests.

  3. Nathanael says:

    Pffft. Only the biggest lead in the history of the *poil*. I think the poll only goes back to Truman. Look at how an incumbent FDR did in the primary polling — oh right, the poll doesn’t go back that far.

  4. Silver_Witch says:

    hehehhe – Hi Dakotahgeo….snap to you!

  5. Silver_Witch says:

    Thanks Karmanot…I remember all this “intimation” from the last go round and frankly I am tired of the “you are helping the republicans” line. What a crazy world we live in eh?

  6. Michael Capanelli says:

    I can’t really say I’m a fan of Hilary, but I did like Bill despite that scandal. If she’s half as good as her husband was it’ll be a good thing for this country. Let’s hope she paid attention to what he got right and can set us on a course back there.

  7. Dakotahgeo says:

    My goodness… you ARE a cranky one. Did someone wee-wee in your Wheaties?!?

  8. vickif says:

    So far my back is okay as long as I don’t do any heavy lifting.

  9. Rudy Haugeneder says:

    Hillary is straight shooter. But what does that mean? Is Bill also a straight shooter and what does that/he mean?
    Time for Al Gore to give it another shot and see what happens. Those under age 40 seem to like him a lot.

  10. Bill_Perdue says:

    I’ve begun ignoring them and downvoting them, They may spray the internet with spittle but they don’t deserve to be treated as politically serious people until they act that way.

    They can’t because they’re they’re deathly afraid of being trapped trying to defend Obama and the Clintons wars of aggression, union busting and austerity which may be tactically different from the same policies of the Republicans but are nevertheless strategically the same.

  11. Bill_Perdue says:

    I agree that Democrats are in for an implosion, ie, splits incapacitating internal squabbling, etc., which is a good thing. But they’re also in for an external challenge from socialists and unions, who are winning a few minor local elections based on the campaign of $15.00 or fight, and by greens, who will have to move much further left to be taken seriously. The Greens reformist program is pretty much a dead letter.

    The serious challenge will come from whoever wins the allegiance of most working people and that won’t be Trumka and H Clinton.

  12. Bill_Perdue says:

    For many socialists and LGBT activists the idea of voting for any Democrat (or any Republican) just doesn’t work anymore no matter who they nominate.

    Warren, for instance, is a zionist and a supporter of wars of aggression and she votes with Obama’s right wing politics. Any candidate worth their salt will not be nominated short of another major economic shock and even then they’d probably nominate another rich conservative like FDR.

    Democrats and Republicans are now active enemies of working people, the Bill of Rights and world peace. People in that party who don;t like that agenda should begin considering moving on.

  13. Zorba says:

    With me, it’s the knees and the back.

  14. Zorba says:

    Not a “bug,” but a “feature.”

  15. karmanot says:

    “idiots like you reject the possible good, for the impossibly pure, and so help elect evil.” Sorry to break it to ya, Sweetpea but it is you who is the idiot. No, really. Ya are Blanch.

  16. karmanot says:

    Sit, spin

  17. karmanot says:

    Bam! Snap! With ya all the way.

  18. karmanot says:

    (Democrats are not part of the left.) BINGO!

  19. karmanot says:

    You are so good SW. I put a spell of boils on her.

  20. karmanot says:

    Thank Gaia you are 58. In don’t trust anyone under 50 these days. :-)

  21. karmanot says:

    I’m 67 and consider my arthritis a feature now. :-)

  22. karmanot says:


  23. karmanot says:

    “Those who don’t study history will be forced to relive it.” That’s why history has proven Nader correct.

  24. karmanot says:

    I’d rather read your beads Missy.

  25. JosephP says:

    First of all, thank you GP for all your invaluable reporting. I frequently check Americablog specifically for your articles.

    Secondly, thanks for reading and participating in the comments. This is something that I think is important, and I’m glad that you do this.

  26. Ford Prefect says:

    I’m finally at the point now where I can literally laugh at their absurd tactics. It’s taken awhile, but I can now fully embrace the absurdity of being told “you sound just like a Republican” by someone who sounds just like one of Dubya’s infamous “Dead-Enders” back in the day. Projection rules amongst the loyalists.

  27. Bill_Perdue says:

    I agree. Democrat shills have nothing to offer except enticements to support wars of aggression, union busting and austerity. What’s the point of discussing things with people like that? They seem to offer little but partisanship and personal attacks.

  28. Ford Prefect says:

    True dat, GP, but texting, “toughness” and “first woman prez” are not substance. They’re nothing more than an exercise in branding without taking positions on anything. So in a sense, we can split the hair and call it “Name Recog-Plus,” since that’s about as substantive as it gets. People still don’t know what her positions are and she’s not going to say anything of import probably until after she’s installed. The bottom line with her campaign now is simply keeping her name in the media and in people’s minds. It helps with early fund raising and helps keep the price of her influence peddling quite high.

    As for Dem victories, the party could be in the early stages of implosion. The party donor base will not back a Warren-type or a Grayson-type and as such any preznitential primary will be briefly quixotic. The House Dems seem to be surrendering for this year already, thanks to the self-inflicted wound that is Steve Israel. Seriously, if the Dems wanted Majority status back they would have hired someone who wants to win more than valuable cash and prizes. The WH is going to approve Keystone XL and they’re even trying once again to gin up another disastrous war in Syria–he might do it this time. There’s no telling how much worse this administration is going to be until they run out the clock and that could do a lot of damage to the party and its electoral base. All this adds up to a party completely divorced from its electoral base and utterly indifferent to what much of anyone who isn’t a carbon-belching CEO thinks about anything.

    Before we make predictions about 2016, we might want to pay rapt attention to 2014. Harry Reid seems rather concerned about keeping the Senate at this point. If he’s right, then deeper trouble looms and HRC may very well go down with the ship, no matter how much she spends, since all that early name recognition effort will tie her to incumbents and the policies that are pissing people off.

  29. FLL says:

    “If you care about Dem victories, offer a Warren-type candidate, not an Obama-type.”

    Your common sense analysis and ability to make distinctions is always much appreciated.

  30. vickif says:

    i’m 68 and arthritis is the only thing that slows me down. Knees and hands do not co-operate all the time.

  31. GaiusPublius says:

    I want to thank everyone for contributing to this discussion. It’s a good read & I’m learning a lot.


  32. adaminoregon says:

    If it wasn’t for a third party in ’92, (Perot), we’d never have to have heard of Hillary Clinton.

  33. cleos_mom says:

    Pretty good illustrations here of everything you’re warning about, Gaius. Sometimes it sucks to be the messenger.

  34. cleos_mom says:

    And of course, we’d all still have the right to vote…. :-)

  35. Ford Prefect says:

    +10,000. I won’t deal with Dem-bots, so thanks for you doing so.

  36. Ford Prefect says:

    Of course. That’s the whole point, yeah? Why on earth would she take positions on anything terrible (meaning: it’s bad for the entire planet, but very profitable) now?

    I can’t believe the naiveté behind this, “Why doesn’t HRC take a position?” bullshit. If it’s just youthful naiveté, fine. There’s always time fer learnin’.

    If it’s not, that’s troubling in the extreme.

  37. ronbo says:

    The Supreme Court installed GW Bush. Are you daft or drunk again, Judy?

  38. ronbo says:

    Excellent analysis and thought!

  39. ronbo says:

    Please enlighten us with your knowledge of the inherent benefits of Hillary. And since you know her level of purity, please outline what you consider purity. Is 10% agreement with a candidate too “pure” for you? Am I mandated by you to vote for Lieberman-like candidate if there is that magic (D) behind his/her name?

    I like your term “possible good”. If climate change does overtake us, will miles and miles of new beach front property be the possible good? Will spikes in food prices be your possible good? Will additional wars leading to MIC profit growth be part of your possible good? Is the 1% getting richer part of your possible good?

    I can tell that you’ve thought this through and know that we should just follow the plan that has worked so well these past 30 years. Right? The more we move the Democratic party to the right, the less space the Republicans have, right?

  40. ronbo says:

    She has name recognition. I bet the vast majority don’t know her stand on issues. Like Obama and Lieberman, she is a double-edged sword.

  41. ronbo says:

    So her votes for war and support for NAFTA make you a big fan. You’re gonna love TPP.

  42. ronbo says:

    You are the idiot for abandoning the Whig party! They could have made a difference; but, you wen’t and spoiled it. Good job loser.

  43. ronbo says:

    Is your knowledge so very limited that you don’t realize that there are many political parties? Are you even aware that there have been presidents elected from 6 different political parties?

    I’m amazed you still aren’t trying to force people into voting Whig!

  44. masaccio68 says:

    This is a choice? More Clinton? It’s hard to care.

    I’m sick of the plutocrats, including this one.

  45. Tone says:

    The higher she flies the further she has to fall. When Hillary proves to be Obama with ovaries perhaps the progressive-left in the USA will at last wake up and realize that the Democrats are no friends of theirs.

  46. FLL says:

    Unresolved childhood issues? There are probably better ways to resolve those issues than a futile attempt to convince progressives not to vote in elections.

  47. FLL says:

    How odd. I didn’t mention any politician at all in my comment. Not Ronald Reagan, not Jack Kennedy, not Vladimir Putin… no one at all. I only mentioned casting a vote for some candidate whose name actually appears on the ballot in the primaries and the general election. And yet that notion doesn’t sit well with some commenters. I wonder why? Can anyone tell me? Um… downvotes don’t count—downvotes, with no reply, just look timid and lame.

  48. Bill_Perdue says:

    The heavy work of waking them up will be done by Democrats (and Republicans) who’ll continue to waste trillions on wars of aggression, continue to impose austerity on workers reeling from massive unemployment and lower wages, and continue union busting and by increasingly disastrous weather.

    We can do the rest by emulating the socialists in Seattle who defeated a Democrat scab for city council (sweet) and the independent labor union candidates who defeated Democrat scabs in Ohio (sweeter still) and the groups in cities across the country who are emulating them.

    If you have the time read this story in LaborNotes and follow the citations to other stories. The road ahead lies in working in unions or with unions, in growing the union left and in using left campaigns to educate and organize working people to politically defeat the parties of the rich and their hirelings, the Democrats and Republicans.


  49. Zorba says:

    Until enough people in this country start doing this, Bill, we’re screwed.
    How do we wake them up???

  50. Ford Prefect says:

    In fairness though, she’s just about the only person in the Senate not named Sanders that is pushing to expand social security. She has other problems as well (Israel, etc), but compared to a lot of long-time duplicitous Dems, at least she’s fairly honest.

    I’m not gaga for her, but there have been vastly worse people in the Senate.

  51. Bill_Perdue says:

    The problem is, and this will cause Democrats to have heart attacks, they’re no better and no worse than Republicans. Would McCain have been worse than Obama. He would have pursued right wing goals in different ways and with a different emphasis but he would not have been worse.

  52. Silver_Witch says:

    Well I don’t feel old either….I feel not much different than I did at 30 (I am 58), except like you when the arthritis in my knees give me a hard time.

  53. Zorba says:

    I’m 66. I don’t necessarily feel “old,” except when my arthritis is acting up. ;-)

  54. Silver_Witch says:

    A rude rock at that – I did not know you were “old” Zobra! Wow this must be the old ladies ward . Wonder if John knows that.

  55. FLL says:

    Quite a number of comments! Various points of view, I see. JudyBrowni, Silver Witch and more. Well, Gaius Publius, I’ll quote your insightful summary:

    After all, the choices we make in the next three or four years — or allow to be made for us — will live with us for the rest of the century.

    What is the epitome of allowing our choices “to be made for us”? Not voting, of course. Is there anyone out there whose parents taught them that “liberals” or perhaps “queers” shouldn’t have the right to vote? If anyone out there internalized that poison during their childhood, then they would forever more be trying to convince progressives, etc not to vote in either the primaries or the general election, or at the very least, cast a vote for Micky Mouse. Comments? Suggestions?

  56. Zorba says:

    Well, at this point, I’m done with her. It’s like talking to a rock.

  57. Zorba says:

    We keep voting for candidates who do not have the best interests of the majority of the American people at heart.
    I am getting damned sick and tired of those who say “But, but, but….the other guy is worse!”
    I have come to believe that perhaps, perhaps, we need to let this country go so far into the toilet that people will wake the f*ck up and start voting for what is best for them, instead of constantly voting against their own self-interests. If we keep voting only for the major party candidates, then we’ll never get a true People’s Party going in this country.

  58. Zorba says:

    I’m older than you are, so what? I also no longer feel the need to coddle idiots who want to rewrite history for their own Party viewpoints.
    I think we’re done here.

  59. Silver_Witch says:

    Snap and well done Zorba – you have put a very rude and angry person in the world of fact. Thank you – I found it hard to engage her.

  60. Silver_Witch says:

    Travel well my friend – I am also old enough to know what I believe and what I do not. I no longer feel the need to interact with rude people who do not engage in conversation and only call people names.

    Peace be with you.

  61. JosephP says:

    Exactly right. And let’s remember that this is the person that made $400,000 for giving two speeches to Goldman Sachs.

  62. Zorba says:

    Judy, Judy, Judy.
    Apparently you are unaware that:
    1. Gore won the popular vote.
    2. The Supreme Court decision regarding the Florida recount basically (and wrongly) gave the election to Bush, despite the decision of the Florida Supreme Court to allow the recount to go forward. The US Supreme Court over-rode the findings of the Florida Supreme Court.
    And 3. If Gore had won his own damned state of Tennessee (and he was the first
    major-party candidate to lose his home state, which had elected him to
    the Senate, since George McGovern in 1972), he would have had enough
    electoral votes to win.
    Study history, yourself.

  63. Silver_Witch says:

    Zorba…let me dream for a few months – the election is far far away and a girl can dream and hope. He is direct, I like that, he is ruthless, I like that and he doesn’t mince words. AND I doubt he will get the nomination…..sadly.

  64. JosephP says:

    Judy, I do understand that an election is a choice, not a referendum. I voted for Obama twice because the other guys were so terrible. But really, it gets to a point where you wonder if it’s worth it to vote for a corporacrat like Hillary just because she is the lesser of two evils. It only further encourages Democrats like her to think that they can run as populists and govern like corporatists. I sometimes wonder if a man like Romney won because true progressives refused to continue to support the mendacity of Obama, it wouldn’t pave the way for a true Warren-like progressive to win in the future. It’s true that the country would suffer 4 years of Mitt rule, which would certainly be terrible. But really, 12 or 16 years of phony progressive backstabbing corporatists like Obama and Hillary may be worse.

  65. Silver_Witch says:

    In your 63 years you have not learned that calling people names deflates the conversation and does no good. Sad for you.

  66. judybrowni says:

    I meant idiots like you who help elect Republicans, who Democratic politicians then feel compelled to imitate, because that’s who you idiots were electing!

    (And, when Democrats controlled the Presidency and Congress, Republicans were forced to become more moderate, get it?)

    Oh I give up, recent history like the 2000 election is beyond you, why I bother to educate bone heads…

  67. Yeah NAFTA caused no real harm. Maybe you should learn a little more about the world.

  68. judybrowni says:

    For substance, see below.

    Or read the history of the last century.

  69. judybrowni says:

    I’m 63 and no longer feel the need to coddle idiots who cause real harm.

  70. Zorba says:

    I would, too. Bernie isn’t perfect, and he has done a few things that I don’t like, but he is closer to my beliefs than anyone else currently in office.
    Unfortunately, he doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting the nomination.

  71. judybrowni says:

    Like I said, idiots like you reject the possible good, for the impossibly pure, and so help elect evil.

    I’ve seen it too many times in my lifetime, and it’s why we’re living in a dystopian nightmare now.

  72. goulo says:

    Judy, you’ve left 4 comments here and each one of them calls the people you’re replying to “fools” or “idiots”. Are you dropping in from 4chan or youtube or something?

  73. Silver_Witch says:

    If you vote for Hillary Clinton you are voting for a REPUBLICAN, a great big fat anti-union, HAWK that will lead us along the same path that President Obama and Senator Feinstein has taken, in the guise of being a democrat to more spying on US citizens, more NSA power.

    So thank you but I think I will pass on your Democratic Utopia…sounds kind of smelly to me.

  74. judybrowni says:

    Be an idiot, vote third party or some other dumb show, and elect more Republicans if enough of you idiots do the same.

    I’m sure that will bring you your progressive utopia, it worked so well in 2000.

  75. judybrowni says:

    It’s fools like you who helped elect George W. Bush for president.

    I heard the same garbage then, Gore wasn’t “pure” enough either, so they threw their votes away on Nader or some other dumb show.

    I’ve been voting Democratic for over 40 years — have lived under both Democratic and Republican administrations for over 60 years — and I can tell you from experience that there’s a difference. A vast difference.

    Recessions and depressions have inevitably followed Republican administrations for nearly a century: Democrats had to come in to clean up the mess. As well as push for the social reforms that Republicans then try to dismantle.

    When fools like you helped elect Republicans in a majority, it was inevitable that Democratic politicians would come under their sway.

    When Democrats were in power in both Congress and the Presidency, Republicans had to become more moderate.

    But reject common sense — and the political history of the last century — and help elect more Republicans, I’m sure that will get you the progressive paradise you envision.

  76. Silver_Witch says:

    No substance in your posts either. No rebuttal to his comment – nothing to prove Elijah might be wrong or to prove that Mrs. Clinton is the right choice…..just spewing vile.

    Well done you Ms. well done you.

  77. Silver_Witch says:

    Oh Goddess here we go. So do you Judy often attack random people and blame them for the demise of the world based purely on your personal vision of that world?

    Honestly why would I “change” my opinion after a really nice warm fuzzy conversation like you just posted. You have proven my point – and I thank you. Go vote blindly for the lessor of two evils and what you will have my friend…evil.

    Travel well….

  78. judybrowni says:

    And it was “Democrat” fools like you, who didn’t think Gore “pure” enough who helped elect George W. Bush, by voting Nader, or throwing their vote away in some other dumbshow manner.

    Those who don’t study history will be forced to relive it.

    Unfortunately, the rest of us can be dragged through re-enactments with you fools.

  79. judybrowni says:

    It’s fools like you who helped elect George W. Bush for president.

  80. Silver_Witch says:

    And, if I may add, she is a newbie, just as Senator Obama was and we don’t really know what she “can” do….or will do. Although I will not vote for Mrs. Clinton, I might vote for Warren with my fingers crossed and hoping again for the best.

    I would prefer Bernie Sanders!

  81. Silver_Witch says:

    I am a Democrat that will not vote for Hillary…I will not vote for her in the primaries and should she win the primary I will NOT vote for her in the election.

    Voting “party line” no matter who they run makes for a really really bad system. If everyone does this the democrats know no matter who you run that person will be voted for and so they can run any crap candidate they want…just look at the Republicans – that is exactly what they do.

    Voting for the “lessor of two evils” is wrong and distasteful to me. That is my personal philosphy – you may vote as you see fit and I won’t come on here and get all up in your face about “What Republican are you supporting”.

    Right – like I look, post or act like a Republican – WHILE on the other hand Mrs. Clinton does indeed speak and vote and act like a republican – not a RW Nut Job, but she is a Hawk and she is anti-union…and I WILL NOT support her.

    Have a nice day!

  82. Silver_Witch says:

    No…I am not voting for Republicans henceforth. You know there are other parties than Democrat or Republican, right?

    And YES I am a very very pissed-off Democrat.

    I will NOT stay home on election day, nor shall I stay silent.

  83. S1AMER says:

    So you’re voting for Republicans henceforth? Or are you just a pissed-off Democrat?

    I say, if you don’t vote, you forfeit the right to bitch. Stay home on election day, stay silent thereafter.

  84. S1AMER says:

    So which Republican are you supporting? Or are you a Democrat who’s unwilling to provide a vote for your party’s nominee if that person is Hillary Clinton?

  85. Zorba says:

    You do realize, I hope, that Elizabeth Warren said:

    “I was a Republican because I thought that those were the people who best supported markets.” She states that in 1995 she began to vote Democratic because she no longer believed that to be true, but she says that she has voted for both parties because she believed that neither party should dominate.


  86. Silver_Witch says:

    Report Al…ahhh I couldn’t ….he is too cute.

  87. Ford Prefect says:

    To figure out what Hillary will do about anything, just look at her donor base and cross off the misguided pseudo-progressive ones. She do whatever her corporate donors tell her to do, just like her predecessor.

  88. Ford Prefect says:

    Either party’s “victory” will be the result of the other party screwing up more than the other one. This year, it looks like the House Dems are already giving up on trying to get Majority status back. So the screw-ups are starting way early this year.

    If Steve Israel ends up on Team Hillary, that’ll prove it’s just a vanity campaign intended to hoover up a mountain of illicit cash before an embarrassing loss.

  89. Great all we need is someone that was on the Board of Walmart whose husband signed NAFTA being President. Did I mention she was fired for ethics violations on the Watergate committee. Elizabeth Warren 2016!

  90. Ford Prefect says:

    REport them as spam. That might get their attention.

  91. cole3244 says:

    oh you mean the so called liberal media, i got it.

  92. karmanot says:

    waves hand }}}}}}}}}

  93. karmanot says:

    Even worse than watching Obozo’s SOTU a second time.

  94. mirror says:

    I’m not sure that Clinton would really do anything about climate change. The Obama administration and the current crop of national level Democrats pretty much show that the mainstream Democratic party dances perfectly in step with the energy industry tune. Where is any indication Clinton would be any different?

    That said, then why should I expect to energy industry to change their current obstructionist views on climate change? I don’t see it. I think absent some new movement, we are just fucked.

    If the US won’t move on climate change, the rest of the world doesn’t seem to have the cohesion or guts to do it themselves.

  95. MyrddinWilt says:

    What is rather interesting about the GOP field is that Christie still leads. Unless you throw Romney into the field and then he comes second. So the guy facing a major scandal leads the field until you throw in the guy who lost last time round and will not run under any imaginable circumstance other than the nominee dies before the election.

    The democratic field on the other hand is quite the opposite. Hilary is dominant against every imaginable challenger who is qualified to run (i.e. living, US citizen, not term limited). There is no reason to think she has any liabilities, certainly not Benghazzzzzzzzzzzzzi!

    But take out Hilary and Biden has very strong support and so does Warren. And all three cream any of the likely GOP candidates. At this point Santorum is the very strongest candidate they have who is likely to run. And he would probably lose to Jimmy Carter.

    The Democrats are in a very commanding position for 2016. They have the strongest candidates by a long shot and the electoral map favors Democrats very strongly. The Republicans can only win by winning all the swing states and picking up at least one blue state. And 2020 looks even worse for them as Florida starts to turn blue and Texas starts turning purple.

    The Republicans can only win if the Democrats really screw it up. Unfortunately…

  96. Silver_Witch says:

    Here we get then on and on and on – non-stop even after the election. I have unsubscribed from Al Franken’s campaign a MILLION times and I still get at least two emails a day asking for money or to sign something and he is not even my Senator (although I do send him money).

    It seems that all politicians are constantly in campaign mode now – if only to overcome the corporate money.

  97. Indigo says:

    It could also help Elizabeth Warren, he said, naively.

  98. Indigo says:

    That sounds about right to me.

  99. perljammer says:

    If only the hyperbole would go away when the election is over! Two things that get my goat are hearing the various candidates lie about themselves and their opponents, non-stop for months on end on television, and the incessant phone calls from candidates and political parties. The DVR helps with the first problem, but there is no escaping the phone calls.

  100. Bill_Perdue says:

    The bigger they are…

    Good post GP.

  101. pappyvet says:

    It’s a choice between B.S. light [dems] and B.S. heavy[repubes]. All in all , I’d still vote for Hillary. We need the time.

  102. Just_Ac says:

    My question, that I am amazed that nobody in the comments have approached, is where does she stand on climate change? I don’t know, but I do believe Gaius when he says that is going to be the number one priority, although I do have a shopping list of other priorities.

  103. Ford Prefect says:

    Rick Klein worked for Hillary before he went to ABC. They did it to destroy the one guy who represented real competition to the establishment Dem agenda. HRC’s people got a hold of the tape, who gave it to Rick Klein and got it on the air.

    Look at it this way: in politics, everyone does favors for everyone else so they have chits to call in later. It’s SOP everywhere all the time. Kerry’s vanity campaign was aided by the Clintonoid posse and he owed her big time after that. She wasn’t running, but that doesn’t mean she didn’t have something to gain… like maybe an appointment to SecState or something, right? But if nothing else, she was owed and that’s why her people did it. Those folks stick together, because there is advantage in it.

  104. Bill_Perdue says:

    Most people, Democrat or Republican, vote for what they think is the lesser evil. Those vote perpetuate war, racism and economic chaos.

    Some also suspend their opposition to evil and that was true of lots of Obama voters, who pretended to themselves that Obama was not just another run of the mill mad dog warmonger, union buster and austerity monger who wants to gut the Bill of Rights like Bush or the Clintons. It’s called projection and it’s as silly as believing that you have a secret lover named jebuz, or alla or yahwie who loves you and talks to you but no one but you can see him, or it.

  105. nicho says:

    Why would Hillary’s people have done that, since it directly benefited John Kerry? I think it was just a set up by ABC.

  106. nicho says:

    The “Dean’s scream” was just the icing on the cake. The damage had already been done from a media barrage, from the likes of the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, TIME Magazine, Newsweek, the Washington Post, the LA Times, The Boston Globe, the San Francisco Chronicle, etc. etc. etc., as well as all the cable news channels.

  107. Ford Prefect says:

    She doesn’t have a “mandate.” For that to happen, she would have to honestly say what her agenda is and do so clearly. Then, if people still support her, she has a mandate. The problem of course, is that almost no one is elected with a clear mandate, since they employ empty rhetoric to avoid saying anything of substance.

    It worked for Obama, it worked for the Big Dog and presumably it will work for whomever is installed next time around. But they can’t claim a mandate, since they bloody well lied about damn near everything.

  108. Silver_Witch says:

    Why won’t anyone listen to the Truth, that there is absolutely NO difference…in fact, I have a tinfoil hat theory that the Republican’s run such crap candidates so that the Dems can win – and they can sneak in their evil plan and we Americans think okay then we have candidates that care – when they could give a rat’s ass about anything other then lining their pockets and giving (that is giving with a Capital G) our country over to the Corporations.

    That simply means I will not, can not, will not vote Dem again.

  109. Ford Prefect says:

    Electoral politics has always been political theater and it’s decidedly worse now that both parties are devoted to the same ideology… and that trend started during the Red Scare of the late ’40s to early ’50s. At least back then the Democrats were still committed to the New Deal, which was the only thing separating the two parties.

    When there’s no real choice beyond relatively petty personal distinctions, theatrical kayfabes is all that’s left. Remember in 2008, HRC said she didn’t have any problem with the Iraq war, but that the Bushies were incompetent in prosecuting it. Ditto for Afghanistan. Pick any other policy area and there’s precious little difference between them. It’s mostly a matter of style, not substance. They’re goals are essentially the same.

    In a sense, HRC’s campaign epitomizes TINA: There Is No Alternative. That’s the Neo-Liberal mantra, so why not make it the overriding message of her campaign as well? It’s just kabuki non-sense, but if you can’t be honest with the voters about your agenda, kabuki is the only thing left.

  110. Silver_Witch says:

    No – there are many of us who don’t. And I won’t vote for her – WILL NOT. nope, uh uhhh – not going to do it.

  111. Silver_Witch says:

    Hi Perl…thanks for the number – however now I am sad that I will have to listen to at least 144 and 1/2 weeks of political hyperbole.

  112. Ford Prefect says:

    News flash: primaries are almost always vile to one extent or another. Go work on one and you’ll understand just how nasty they tend to be.

    That said, let’s also remember HRC’s racist undertones during the primary as well. I never supported HRC and was “meh” at best about Obama, but that really pissed me off. Then again, some of the misogyny directed at HRC also pissed me off no end and some of Obama’s supporters were perfectly content to “get it out there.”

    In the end, no one need be supporter of Candidate X to deplore the crass, bigoted tactics of others. The actions speak for themselves.

  113. Monophylos Fortikos says:

    I at least partly agree. Hillary Clinton is dangerously close to being the sort of candidate that a party runs when they’ve got no one better, rather in the way that the Republicans ran people like Bob Dole and John McCain. Right from the start the campaigns of such persons have a tinge of inevitability–and, therefore, futility.

    American presidential politics are largely about theater now and it’s far better to play the role of the fresh face than the entrenched establishment candidate who got the nomination only because nobody else was better. That pretence of being fresh and new helped Obama and it helped Bush Jr. in his day. It’s going to help the Republicans in 2016, assuming they’re smart enough to choose someone who can pretend to be an outsider.

  114. Ford Prefect says:

    Funny thing is, it was Hillary’s people that created the whole Dean Scream thing, so I’m guessing it won’t happen to her.

  115. Ford Prefect says:

    Can I make a wee suggestion, GP? Feel free to discard it if you wish, but here’s the thing: people who work on campaigns understand the mechanics behind these numbers and at this point, it’s almost entirely about Name Recognition. People aren’t thinking about 2016 and who the next Emperor will be, so such early polling is almost entirely a function of Name Recognition.

    So, simply pointing out her early polling lead doesn’t mean much if you’re not also pointing out how she gets these numbers. First off, there’s the millions of dollars already being spent to promote her by various Clintonoid groups. Money buys Name Recognition. The Clintonoids understand HRC has some negatives to deal with before she can campaign out in the open. Building a sense of inevitability among the polity acts as a prophylactic against doubts in the minds of the public. That’s why they’re already raising tons of money and spreading it around to every media outlet with their hands out.

    Everyone knows who HRC is, whether they like her politics or not. The more they can convince people she’s The One, the more it disarms her detractors and encourages her competitors to stay on the sidelines during the next election cycle. Building a Cult of Personality around an unknown like candidate Obama was nothing compared to building one around a known quantity like HRC, since we all know she has numerous vulnerabilities. But that’s what they’re trying to do.

    HRC becoming president should be no more inevitable than Obama’s attempt at starting a major regional war in Syria. There are ways to make it happen, of course, but that’s no guarantee it will work.

    Perhaps ironically, prog-blogs who post these posts sans context of campaign mechanics are only serving the interests of HRC’s ambitions, rather than making her campaign a case study in the manufacture of consent. Her numbers are the result of starting a campaign earlier than any other in US history. She’s already spending more money than any other campaign in history, through her various dark money groups. Behind the hype is the same crass, war mongering crook we’ve all come to know and loathe over the last couple decades and no amount of money can change that.

  116. cole3244 says:

    true but i will begin paying attention a little earlier than that.

    don’t forget the dean scream they used to remove him from contention without exposing the real reasons, the voters aren’t stupid they just act that way.

  117. Anonymous says:

    That said, I don’t think Hil is the best candidate. Too old, already grating on the public after the past few decades. Biden is also too old, literally every Republican with a formidable rank is an idiot. No good candidates so far in the 21st century, really.

  118. Anonymous says:

    Honestly, I think there are some things ‘Merica will never compromise on. 1- a Christian male president, 2- guns, 3- prudishness. This ain’t Europe! Now get me another burger.
    In all honesty, I think a lot of Dems are just waiting for the economy in Europe to rival that of the US. Then we will be able to leave our suicidal country without sacrificing comfort.

  119. perljammer says:

    Well, now it’s 144.51. See how the time flies?

  120. Jim Olson says:

    I do not support Hillary. (And, I can’t vote in the Dem. primary anyway…). But if the choice is between her and *any* Republican, I will hold my nose and vote for her in the general election.

  121. Bill_Perdue says:

    That’s akin to saying that opposition to Obama is racist. It’s true for rightwingers like the Democrats Clintons and the Republicans Limbaugh but not for leftists. (Democrats are not part of the left.)

    Voting for any Democrat is voting for a Republican program of union busting, wars, austerity and attacks on the Bill of Rights. Democrat politicians, all of them, are rightwing and moving ruther right as fast as they can.

  122. nicho says:

    In December of 2003, Howard Dean was acknowledged as the “unbeatable front runner.” Then, he made the fatal mistake of saying he would do something about the toxic concentration of media in the US. Then began a non-stop media assault on him. “Howard Dean is unelectable.” All media outlets participated, including the East Bumfuck PTA Gazette.

    Three weeks later, Howard Dean was officially declared “unelectable,” and John Kerry walked away with the nomination.

    So I would wait until February of 2016 to make any guesses.

  123. Bill_Perdue says:

    Voting for Democrats or Republicans is the same thing – they’re the same party in the sense that on most questions they have the same program.

    Both are lap dogs of the rich, anti-gay, pro war and both compete to gut unions, the Bill of Rights, Social Security and Medicare.

    Voting for Democrats is voting for a Republican program and vice versa.

  124. Bill_Perdue says:

    Happy days for the left.

    In our banana republic the election of H. Clinton will do more to build the socialist, union left and union movements and more to ruin the Democrats and create openings for the left than any other candidate they or the Republicans, their cousins, have to offer.

    Two years after the election of Obama 30 million of his 2008 voters deserted the Democrats in the 2010 elections and the Republicans won the House, and subsequently proved to be as right wing as the Democrats. The opposition to Hillary Clinton by workers and others will not take two years to manifest.

    H. Clinton is a right wing, anti-union (1), anti-Bill of Rights (2), racist (3), Islamophobic pro-war and anti-LGBT religious nutter (4). If she wins Democrats lose and the left wins.

    (1) She was on the Board of Directors of WalMart, the largest and most vicious anti-union anti-worker company in the US. It’s employees quality for Medicaid and food stamps. “Clinton served on Wal-Mart’s board of directors for six years when her husband was governor of Arkansas. And the Rose Law Firm, where she was a partner, handled many of the Arkansas-based company’s legal affairs.”



    (2) She voted for the Paytriot Act

    (3) Her support for the genocidal Iraq war, the mass murder of half a million Iraqi children by Bill Clinton and for the zionists campaign of ethnic cleansing in Palestine are guages of her anti-Arab and Islamophobic racism. She and Bill Clinton racebaited Obama through out the primary campaign in 2008. “Hillary Clinton’s Campaign IEDs (Insinuations, Exaggerations and Distortions) – The Clintons have built their entire political lives on the premise that if they
    can’t win pretty, they’ll settle for winning ugly. … “Is Obama a Muslim.” Hillary was asked on 60-Minutes. “No. Not as far as I know,” she replied”



    (4) http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2007/09/hillarys-prayer-hillary-clintons-religion-and-politics

  125. nicho says:

    That 0.52 week is going to be the bitch.

  126. Indigo says:

    I agree. Peaking this early is not an auspicious sign. Wait . . . not auspicious for her because if she peaks this early, all it really means is that the preferred nominee has n/ot yet surfaced. For those of us who prefer somebody else (read: anybody else!), it could mean that Hillary’s already over. And that’d be a good thing. Although, as I’ve said before, if we’re determined to build a police state, Hillary’s the man for the job. ( ahem! / clearing of throat )

  127. perljammer says:

    Between right now and November 8, 2016:


  128. S1AMER says:

    I happen to like HIllary, but I agree that, like her (or any other particular Democrat) or not, the most important thing is to win elections. Every step we take to get Republicans out of office (and keep ’em out) matters, whether it’s picking the best candidate or digging deeper for a bigger contribution or spending a few extra evenings making ‘phone calls.

  129. cole3244 says:

    two plus years in politics is a century or more in real time, wake me in the spring or summer of 2015 then i might pay attention.

  130. Jonas Grumby says:

    I am no fan of Hilary and can’t stand Bill. However, we are sadly at that point in America where the hands down, #1 election priority is beating the GOP in every, single election. So whoever the Dems proffer can do that, I support.

  131. dcinsider says:

    Nowhere to go but down.

  132. Drew2u says:

    I’m ambivalent about it, to be honest, but what consternates me is if she has this huge mandate and lead as a frontrunner, then what’s there to challenge her policies and take critical reasoning to her positions on issues?

  133. Monophylos Fortikos says:

    Yeah. Do we really have to help contributed to the evil trend of reporting poll results as though they were news?

  134. S1AMER says:

    I recollect that in 2007 and 2008 many comments on this blog against Hillary Clinton came close to matching right-wing sites in vileness. Yes, I know much of that was from hyper-Obama partisans who went beyond positions into personal attacks (understandable, perhaps, but never excusable). I also know that some of it was misogynistic (men on the left can sometimes look down on women as much as men on the right usually do)

    My question is: If she chooses to run and becomes the Democratic nominee, will all those on the left who so bitterly opposed her then support her now? Or will they just write off the election? Or what? (This isn’t an idle question, given what a Republican president and Congress could do to the country and the world.)

  135. nicho says:

    Oh, for heavens sake. In politics, a week is an eternity. Does anyone know how many weeks there are between now and the election? What a waste of bandwidth!

  136. angryspittle says:

    So did GHW Bush in 1991.

  137. heimaey says:

    Am I the only one that doesn’t want her to run?

© 2020 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS