The real primary fight of 2016 (KOS says Clinton is inevitable)

[wyldwolf]

Hey, disclaimer - big Clinton fan here. Both of them. Hell, all three of them. Barring an entry from an as-yet unknown candidate who wows me, Hillary is my candidate in '16. But I don't believe anyone should run for anything unopposed.

------------------

Some people have to come to terms. And I'm looking at you, people desperate to find an alternative to Hillary Clinton in 2016.

If Hillary runs, she's the nominee. I know it's in vogue to talk about how "inevitable" Hillary was in 2008. But it was a different world. I remember it because I was in the midst of that battle. People wanted an alternative, and alternatives existed. At her best, Hillary's poll numbers were in the 40s with Obama in the strong 20s. Look for yourself. Yes, she was the frontrunner, but there was a strong primary field within striking distance.

There is no alternative to Hillary this cycle. The last time anyone polled the Democratic primary field, Clinton had 73 percent of the vote, Biden 11, and Elizabeth Warren nine. That tells us a couple of things. One, 73 percent is A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE. She is the consensus nominee, and if you disagree, you are objectively in the deep minority. Second of all, there is no one to provide even nominal challenge. Clinton (again, assuming she runs) will have some "challengers", but it'll be a bunch of people auditioning for her VP slot.

To reiterate, leads like 45-25 in 2007 didn't make Hillary "inevitable". Numbers like 73-11 in 2014 absolutely do. And you know what? Those are not irrational numbers. Hillary will be a great president.

Elizabeth Warren isn't running. I get why people persist with this fantasy, but it's nothing more than a fantasy. Warren had to be dragged in kicking and screaming into the Massachusetts Senate race, a geographically small state in which she could sleep in her own bed every night. If you barely have the fire to run for Senate, then you absolutely don't have the fire to mount a brutal presidential campaign. And even if she did, all she'd have to do is look at the polling (73-9!) to realize she'd have a million better things to do with her time and her donors' money. SHE. AIN'T. RUNNING.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/17/1278315/-The-real-primary-fight-of-2016-and-it-s-not-an-alternative-to-Hillary#

[Loudly]

1. Alas, he's probably right.

And what does that mean for winning the Presidency?

[vi5]

2. Thus, the rightward drift will continue.

The Democratic party will soon be as far away from it's roots as the party of the people and the working/middle class as the Republican party is from it's "small government", Party of Lincoln roots. Unfortunately both of those things mean an even more drastic rightward shift for both.

[PowerToThePeople]

3. Puke

unrec

[DiverDave]

4. Oh goody, more repukes.

When is money going to be taken out of the
political process?
After the revolution, that's when.
Until then same ol shit

[LWolf]

5. I don't come to terms with neoliberals.

If HRC is "inevitable," then so are some other choices on my part.

Of course, my support could still be earned by a better candidate.

[Chathamization]

6. The focus on the presidency is a mistake, IMO

A progressive infrastructure needs to be built at the state level, and we need more progressive members of congress. The top down method reminds me of what the Greens have been trying (“Jill Stein got 3.5% of the vote for governor? Well, then she should run for president!”). On top of that, the largest bottleneck when it comes to progressive legislation seems to come from congress at the moment, not the president.

[wyldwolf]

8. ah, very wise observation

And true, too. Please remind us of that next year when we're all slinging crap at each other during the primary season...

[TreasonousBastard]

10. Very true, but punditry often needs...

controversy more than accuracy.

[L0oniX]

7. We're going down the tubes anyway. Totalitarian corporatism has an unstoppable strong hold.

[Motown_Johnny]

9. HRC damaged herself last time around

I know that everyone inside the bubble of inevitability will attack me for this, but I don't care.

I also know that you/they don't care about what she said or did last time around. Swing voters do and will.

Snipergate is a real problem, even if you want to pretend it isn't. You can't just go out and lie about the military putting you in harm's way and then expect to later become Commander in Chief. Things just don't work that way.

The "irregularities" in regards to the primaries in both Florida and Michigan are a real problem too. We are now in a fight about people's right to vote. Nominating someone who did what she did last time around isn't smart. It will be a constant point of attack and is irrefutable. She will be knocked off message constantly.


Then there is the whole flip flop on NAFTA. I still don't know where she claims to stand on trade but I can tell you I don't trust her on the subject.

This is without things like her begging for people to vote for the Iraq war or the fact that she carpetbagged her Senate seat.

If she wins the nomination I will vote for her but it will take one hell of a lot of work to get me to vote for her in the primary. It is possible but highly unlikely.

OK, now you can flame me for pointing out weaknesses. Hide your head in the sand and pretend that they don't exist if you want. That doesn't help any of us, but I'm sure it makes you feel better about your choice.

[hrmjustin]

11. I love Hillary and will vote for her again but this year I am focused on getting rid of

my congressman Michael Grimm.

[TreasonousBastard]

12. Just out of curiosity, what were Obama's numbers...

in early 2006? Anybody take him seriously back then? Even heard of him?

Right now we have people, Kirsten Gillibrand for one, who are off the radar but would make excellent candidates.

I think the real question is who has the stomach, or the money, for a primary next year.