A Good Thing, Or A Bad Thing, For Hillary To Not Have An ACTUAL Challenger In The Primaries...

[WillyT]

I've always wondered about Orrin Hatch's roll in the 2000 Republican Primary...

Info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2000

Pretty sure he and everyone around him knew it was a futile run.

I wondered to myself whether he was a "minder" for GW...

You know... act like you're running against him, but be there to rescue him from himself if needed during the debates.

I don't know how to gauge Jim Webb... or Martin O'Malley...

But I don't consider them any kind of threat to Hillary.

Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, who seem to be in tune with the mood of America is a different matter.

So I'm just asking here... If a REAL threat to the Hillary juggernaut is a good thing or a bad thing for the Democratic Party ???

13 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Good Thing.
	0 (0%)
	Bad Thing.
	13 (100%)
	Obligatory Other !
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[TwilightGardener]

1. Well, if she blows it or has a stroke/heart attack, I assume we'll

think it's a bad thing. Imagine if John Edwards had been made the Dem nominee in 2008 and THEN the story about his cheating broke? Challengers dig up the dirt before the big game.

[Katashi_itto]

56. Lets face it. She has lots of dirt to be dug up too.

[el_bryanto]

2. The one advantage to it is that it would give her more time to raise money

Given the amount those fucking Kochs are prepared to spend, it might well be of benefit to her to spend that time raising money.

That said, I still think she should have a challenger - she's too centrist or even rightest for my taste and a challenger will push her back to the left. The problems we are facing aren't going to be solved by a centrist, pro-wall street stance.

Bryant

[Thinkingabout]

6. The charts on the issues does not back up your story. I realize it is stated over and over here on

DU but she is pretty far left.

[el_bryanto]

8. On some issues she is; but she is Wall Street to the bone. nt

[Thinkingabout]

13. Name the candidate who isn't.

[el_bryanto]

37. Bernie Sanders? nt

[Thinkingabout]

38. Wrong, he cozy up to them also, when you go on a weekend with the

Lobbyists of the energy, tobacco and oil you are right there with them.

[mahina]

46. Hillary? Far left?

How so? She's not at all left, in my view. I'm curious.

[Thinkingabout]

60. Don't think you have read me stating Hillary is far left. In your view where does Warren stand?

[Thinkingabout]

3. Primaries gives free air time, news coverage. We dont need tbe GOP getting all the free time.

It gives a platform in which to establish our positions on the issues and for the truth to emerge.

[wyldwolf]

4. Bernie Sanders is no threat to Hillary. Sorry.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

11. That's true. Hillary's biggest threat is Hillary, every time she gets in front of a camera and takes some poll-tested position.

[wyldwolf]

14. Her 60%+ lead just might dwindle by 20% by November 2016.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

18. Hillary lost to a virtual "nobody" in 08 so anythings possible. Let's have at it & may the best candidate win. Good luck 2 ur side.

[wyldwolf]

22. That old canard?

Whenever I mention that Hillary Clinton is an overwhelming favorite for the Democratic nomination — and would be even if Senator Elizabeth Warren ran — the conversation usually comes back to 2008. “She was supposed to be inevitable last time,” the refrain goes, “and she lost.”

I get it. I remember that Mrs. Clinton was “inevitable,” and I see why today’s discussions of Mrs. Clinton’s strength sound familiar.

But there is no equivalence between Mrs. Clinton’s strength then and now. She was never inevitable eight years ago. If a candidate has ever been inevitable — for the nomination — it is Mrs. Clinton today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/upshot/hillary-clinton-and-inevitability-this-time-is-different.html?_r=1&abt=0002&abg=1

[betterdemsonly]

52. Wendy Davis got the same type of enthusiasm from certain dems

didn't win many socalled "dissaffected Gop women" in the general, though. Their mostly to well healed to worry about abortion, and while the non well healed may worry about it, they may also worry about the poverty that drives them to have one.

[Katashi_itto]

57. I see, so she wasn't Inevitable back then. But she's inevitable now.

Glad to know shes inevitable.

Now that she is inevitable. I don't have to even bother with campaign donations, campaigning for her or anything I did for the Obama campaigns.

Totally cool!

Every time I get the remotest desire to contribute or vote for the Hillary. Someone helps cure that.

Thanks for clearing that up.

[wyldwolf]

58. Who said she was 'inevitable back then?'

And for that matter, who's actually saying she is now? But I can say with some certainty that she's being made inevitable the longer a 'reaaaaal Democrat' ( ) stays out of the race.

[Kalidurga]

5. It is a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad thing

sorry to hold back like that, but that's all I got. It's horrible for people who want to see real change being made. It's horrible even for people who are somewhat okay with the status quo (because if you don't actively fight the 1% you lose a lot of ground), it's just a horrible thing for everyone even Hillary because she needs a reality check (like everyone else) once in a while to show her Republicans they aren't our friends.

[malokvale77]

7. It's a bad thing.

No candidate should every go unchallenged. It makes them forget the people they will be representing.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

12. Hillary forgot about them - the people on main street - a loonng time ago, when she sold out to the fat cats on Wall Street.

[malokvale77]

29. I voted for her in the primary...

against Barack Obama. She has greatly disappointed me since. I believe she is more interested in power, than good government.

[Cali_Democrat]

9. You need to relax, Willy

Have a beer! It's Friday!

[WillyT]

16. Is A Martini Ok ???

[malokvale77]

21. as long as...

it's a dirty one.

[WillyT]

23. That's My 86 Year Old Mom...

The Olives end up with no "juice" way before they are gone.

[malokvale77]

31. Tell Mom hello

A women to reckon with.

back atcha.

[WillyT]

32. I Shall...

[Thinkingabout]

10. Primaries can also vet a VP, it would be a place for a potential VP candidate to emerge.

Or we could produce a Sarah Palin, Dick Cheney or a Dan Quayle.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

15. Or to submerge in Hillary's case. I'm hopin Elizabeth picks Bernie, or someone of his ilk, to represent as VP.

[Thinkingabout]

17. Maybe Warren will, we would fall to a GOP with Bernie on the ticket.

His self proclaimed socialist title would sink him and the presidential candidate to the bottom.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

19. U cud b right or maybe Bernie wud excite a whole lotta folks who feel left behind & wudnt otherwise vote 2 do so.

[Thinkingabout]

36. butnot enough to win an election, a Palin moment.

[Fumesucker]

20. Primaries are not commonly asssociated with coronations..

We are not amused by this impudent line of questioning.

[WillyT]

25. LOL !!!

Impudent is my Middle Name...

WillyT... The Impudent.

[Ramses]

30. .

[Ramses]

24. 2 things you can be sure of

1) The left will be blamed when she loses, instead of picking a better candidate
2) We will be told to shut up, sit down and clap harder

[WillyT]

26. WORD !!!

[joshcryer]

33. She won't lose.

[Ramses]

35. you meant to say the 1% wont lose

I fixed it for you.

[bigwillq]

27. Good, for her!

I think it would be a bad thing for anyone not to have a challenger. I would like to see a challenger and then let the democratic process play out.

[chillfactor]

28. I will support Hilary if she is the nominee...

but I think having a challenger would be a benefit to the party....no "free" nomination can be good for the Democratic party as a whole

[joshcryer]

34. Gore had Bradley.

They had 6 debates. No one remembers.

[Cleita]

39. I don't understand why Hillary is the anointed candidate.

I had lunch with two other Democratic women yesterday and all three of us wanted another candidate, but admitted we would have to hold our nose and vote for her so we wouldn't have another Bush presidency. We need a choice and she should have at least some primary opposition. Think about it. 100% of us at that table were ready for someone else other than Hillary. Each of us had a different reason for not being thrilled with her, so that was three reasons for not wanting Hillary. I pray Bernie Sanders and hopefully some other candidate will challenge her in the primaries. Frankly, we need another John Edwards, who is the real deal instead of the phony he emerged to be. He had a good and popular message though, and someone needs to take up the banner for the rights of the working class and the failing middle class, not to mention lifting up the poor to middle class.

[WillyT]

40. Because It's A Guaranteed Win... Dontcha Know...

Every Democrat I talk to feels the same way.

But I live in California.

[Art_from_Ark]

45. I spent a few months in Massachusetts in 1988

I felt for sure that Dukakis was going to win!

[SheilaT]

59. Talk to me, then.

Hillary is NOT a guaranteed win. I think her supporters simply have no clue how widely hated she is outside of a relatively small segment of the Democratic party. There's this happy fantasy that if Hillary is nominated, practically every woman in North America, well in the United States anyway, will vote for her because of a pent-up yearning for a woman President. That simply won't happen.

Look at how many women continue to vote for Republican candidates, even when they are voting against their own self-interest. Except they have no clue that they are voting against their own self-interest. All they know is the the Democrats are the Party of Satan, and plenty of them believe that women have no place in public life, and that a woman President will be a clear sign of the coming Apocalypse. Absolutely nothing we can say or do will alter that.

The other argument, that she's bullet-proof because she's been through a tough primary season before, is likewise naive. Do you (Hillary supporters) honestly believe they won't dredge up every old canard, throw as much dirt at her as they possibly can? They are NOT going to roll over and say, "Gosh, she's back and so clearly nothing that can be said against her can possibly stick." Plus, they now have Benghazi to play with. Yeah, we here know that Benghazi wasn't her personal fault, that our State Department did not screw it up royally, and what happened is very small potatoes compared to lots of things that the Republicans support.

At the end of the primary season, once we have our nominee, the vast majority of actual Democrats will vote for that person. But if we give them someone they can hate a lot, most people who aren't already dedicated Democrats, may well vote for the Republican, whoever that turns out to be.

[Cleita]

61. Or those who are liberal at heart but not very politically savvy will

either vote for a third party candidate or not at all. Both scenarios would throw away votes maybe bringing us another President Bush.

[SheilaT]

62. It is my opinion that a lot of the support

for Hillary comes from those who are not very politically savvy. I know that statement will probably incite a huge number of posts flaming me for it, but I still stand by it.

Just as a lot of not very politically savvy people in the past thought that John McCain was a liberal, and harbored fantasies that he'd switch parties and perhaps run for President as a Democrat. Or that Chelsea Clinton will run for office, of that Malia and Sasha will someday. Or that Condeleezza Rice would run for President. That one was being bruited about sometime back, and I mainly heard it from young women who only saw that she was a female, and also African American, and hadn't a clue that she, number one, had never run for office before and wouldn't survive a week in the rough and tumble of real electoral politics, and number two was tightly allied to George Bush and his gang of terrible people.

Although your point about voting for a third party candidate really cuts to the heart of being politically naive. The third party candidate invariably draws votes from the candidate he is most like, and if enough voters go for that candidate, it will throw the election to the one we most don't want. I know that people here have said that since they live in a very blue state, they feel free to vote for a third party candidate, because the Democrat will win anyway. I have mixed feelings about that. I've actually at times thought of not bothering to vote at all when I lived in the red state of Kansas, because my vote didn't count. I really do wish we'd go to a direct election of President and get rid of the Electoral College for once and for all. If every vote really did count you'd see candidates and their surrogates campaigning in many more places than they do.

[Cleita]

64. You are preaching to the choir here. I think we need to scrap the electorate college

too and go to the direct popular vote.

[mahina]

47. Martin O'Malley!

[octoberlib]

48. I belong to

two Democratic women's groups. One of them is city wide , the other is state. I'm seeing the same distinct lack of enthusiasism for Hillary in both.

[rgbecker]

41. Post has contradictive questions: Title and last question in text.

In the title the question is stated: Good or Bad, Hillary to NOT have a Challenger.
In the last question in text: Good or Bad, Real threat to Hillary.

Which is the actual poll question?

Not trying to be snarky, just don't know how to answer nor can I figure out which idea is "Winning" the poll.

[F4lconF16]

43. +1

I am confused too.

[IcyPeas]

42. I think it's unbelievable

that in the whole United States of America --- what's the population? 320,000,000 or something? Not one other person wants to be president. It's unimaginable. I don't think anybody wants THAT job anymore .

[Donald Ian Rankin]

44. Mixed.

There are cons (destruct-testing your candidates is useful) and pros (infighting is costly and weakens you before the real thing).

[ileus]

49. Leave Hillary alone...it's our time now.

[NuttyFluffers]

50. coronations are alway a bad thing. dialog a good thing.

this is about running the country. we should have higher expectations about hearing the views of our potential leaders. nothing is gained by our ignorance.

[Jamastiene]

51. It could be good if it was a primary from the left.

But, primaries between centrists never do well for the Democratic Party, at all. The Republicans just keep a list of the mud slinging and hideous things Democratic candidates say to each other during our primaries. They turn around and bring those things up after the primaries are over. So, really, Democrats have done their work for them. We really need to stop doing their work for them. They never learn. They are the perpetual cheaters who have been getting by with it far too long.

Lately, it seems Democratic primaries have gotten worse. Remember how brutal the last few primaries we have had for presidential elections have been? Honestly, with Jeb Bush in the running this time around, I don't want any mud slinging against whatever Democrat ends up as the most likely nominee. I would vote for a rattlesnake, if I have to, to try to fight Jeb Bush getting anywhere near the White House. Then again, I think it would be kind of cool to have a rattlesnake for president, if it was at least a left of center rattlesnake. No foreign leaders or Republicans would dare try to piss off a left leaning rattlesnake. They would be afraid of those dual "veto pens." We need a left leaning rattlesnake to become a star in the party for 2020, if 2016 turns out as vomitous as I am afraid it will turn out. I do NOT want to see Jeb Bush as president.

[fadedrose]

53. Neither do I want Jeb for President

But I have to give them credit for having so many declared already to run. It's either real or an attempt to show democracy in action.

This closed campaign that we MAY have seems like something in a bad novel. Hope everyone wakes up.

Cha in an another thread consoled me by saying that when the right time comes, we will have others throw in their hats. Cha is a smart person and I tend to believe anything he says. Got my fingers, toes and eyes crossed.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

54. Depends on whether you want the eventual nominee which will very likely be Hillary ...

Depends on whether you want the eventual nominee which will very likely be Hillary to win the general election.

[Octafish]

55. When people have a choice for whom to vote it's called 'Democracy.'

When people have no choice for whom to vote it's called "Business."

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

63. +1 “After all, the chief business of the American people is business." Calvin Coolidge

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

65. In matters of conscience, the law of majority has no place. Gandhi