Hillary versus the unknown fictitious way MORE Better Dem primary Candidate

[Savannahmann]

21. OK, how does she win on the issues?

The Democrats want to win, given. So how do we win on the issues? We ignored the issues and ran on personality and the slogan war on women in 2014 and the Republicans not only picked up enough seats in the Senate to take control, but picked up enough to be firmly in control.

Let's start with the groups that tend to support Democrats. Does anyone think that Hillary will get more of the Women's vote than President Obama did? In 2008 President Obama got 56% of the Women's vote, in 2012 he got 55%. We can assume that nationally, Hillary would do as well as President Obama with women. But how about in the key states? In Ohio, the election for Governor showed that the Democratic Candidate got 37% of the Women's vote. http://www.cnn.com/election/2014/results/state/OH

Well, we can lose Ohio, no problem. We have plenty of states to make up for Ohio man. Relax.

In Illinois, 58% of the women voted for Senator Durbin. http://www.cnn.com/election/2014/results/state/IL Yet, 7% of the women then turned around and voted for the Republican for Governor.

So the best we can say is that the Women's vote is probably going to be around 55% to 56% nationally. Key states are up in the air, and who knows how those will turn out.

Unions. As I've pointed out before, Unions are firm in their opposition to the TPP and especially Fast Track. The Unions have warned Senator Wyden of Oregon that his chances on reelection drop dramatically to coin toss areas if he supports the TPP and Fast Track. Besides the votes, Unions also provide the Party with volunteers, and donations. So running a candidate who is in favor of TPP and especially Fast Track risks reducing the support we get from the Unions. Losing that union support, and even a significant percentage of those votes, puts getting Hillary elected in doubt. To overcome that we would need to get at least 60% of the women's vote. Now, it's not unheard of for us to get that much of the vote, but it is fairly rare. Oregon is one example where we did. http://www.cnn.com/election/2014/results/state/OR

Yet, we pretend that the issues won't matter, or that the voter will look past them to find Hillary somehow a unifying figure. For that to happen, Hillary would have to have favorables out the wazoo. I'm talking the need of popularity seen only in rock stars.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating

She doesn't have it. She just doesn't have it. Her favorables were much higher, when she wasn't being looked at as the nominee presumptive. As a party we're viewed unfavorably as well. http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/democratic-party-favorable-rating

Now, these are not RW attack sites. These are not RW talking points, these are cold hard facts that we have to address if we're going to mount a serious challenge for the White House. If we do that, we stand a good chance of winning the White House, and we stand a fair chance of taking the Senate back. We should be focusing on the issues, and identifying issues that are popular with the public. Instead we're taking polls that at this point are about as useful as a Most Popular vote at a Suburban High School and pretending that the issue has already been decided, everyone can bow down now, Hillary is it. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026380105

If we continue on this path, the idea that these early polls are not only interesting, but indicative of some sort of outcome prediction this far out, and we are not just doomed, we would become little more than a regionally powerful minority political power with little to no influence reduced to shouting me too when the Republicans say they love America.

So my focus is the same as it was a year ago as we looked towards the Midterms. Getting our politicians out there talking about issues, getting them to embrace some populist issues so we can garner support and win. This idea is so radical, so obviously insane that it could never work. All we have time for is pithy slogans and asinine pictures with text that show how awful the Republicans are. Guess what, it's not working. The Republican party is about as unfavorable as our own party. http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/republican-party-favorable-rating

Ok, there is a slight difference. We're a full point six percent more popular. That by the way looks like this. 0.6%. That lead is so insignificant as to be useless. Interesting note, the Republicans won control of the Senate while they were way more unpopular than we were. More than half the people viewed the Republicans unfavorably, but they still won. It could have been the Republicans focusing on issues, no of course not. We had a way better meme, war on women, and the Republicans are so stupid.

So obviously issues matter, and in picking our candidate, we have to pick the one who is on the populist side of some issues. At least if we plan on winning votes. Hillary isn't that person. She's on the unpopular side of too many issues. We'll lose, badly if we run her. We'll stand outside the fence screaming at the Republicans as they go into the White House to work every day. We'll rail and rage at them as they control the Senate, and the House. We'll come up with more pithy slogans and cleaver pictures to show how awful the Republicans are, and they will be awful as they run their legislative agenda right through Congress and it gets signed into law.

That is our future, and instead of defining ourselves based upon issues for the future, we're trying to gin up support for one of the most deeply flawed candidates I've seen in my entire life.