Hillary can only benefit from a primary challenge

[Cyrano]

Here’s why I think Hillary needs a primary challenger:

1. She needs to win over Dems who want to see only Elizabeth Warren, or Bernie Sanders in the White House. Whatever her positions, everyone needs to know them.

2. Next year, she’ll be debating some GOP opponent who survived his primary. But she hasn’t been on a debate platform since 2008.

3. Why does she want to be president? This is, of course, a question that men are rarely asked. But you just know it will be coming at her relentlessly.

4. The MSM and Fox “news” will cover every wingnut attack on her, and we know they will be numerous and vile. Those who defend her will rarely be covered. She will have to be her own main defender and must show that she can get up and punch back really hard ala “Rocky.” A primary challenge will serve to get her into that mode.

Unlike some here at DU, I will vote for Hillary, or any Dem who is nominated. I will not sit home, or cast a vote for some GOP fugitive from a lunatic asylum.

So what do you think? Does she need a challenger?

[TheBlackAdder]

1. There MUST be at least one challenger. This allows progressive ideas to be seen by the public.

Without a debate, there will be less Democrat coverage in the media.

Everything will focus on the GOP debates and their positions.

===

Debates will engage and energize the Democrat base, solidifying ideas for the 2016 election.

[MineralMan]

2. Why would she not have challengers?

I expect there to be other candidates. Why wouldn't there be?

I don't remember any DUer suggesting that others not run in the primaries. In fact, I don't remember anyone suggesting that.

Everyone's welcome to run, of course. There will be primary elections.

[BlueCaliDem]

4. Exactly! There are going to be challengers, and I hope for a rigorous debate among them.

We, as a country, can only benefit from a seasoned Democratic presidential nominee who has a few battle scars.

[mylye2222]

3. K n R. Yes she needs a challenge.

With zero challenger we will never know what she offers as a platform.

[MoonRiver]

5. It's not up to us whether she has challengers or not.

Let them announce and get into the fray. Nobody is stopping them.

[hrmjustin]

6. There will be a primary challenge.

[lewebley3]

7. Hillary the is only non-coward: It didn't help Gore to have a primary Challenge

It would be a waste of money: we are going to need 1billion to
get in the fight at all.
Elizabeth Warren is a dead end, the banks run this country and she
has bashed them.
Hillary is skilled politician, and like Obama knows how play and win
a few round's for the American people.
Hillary will be running as a heir to Obama, like a sitting President: Sitting
president have a high electability rate.
We need to not take risks, the GOP will take this country war if they win,
Whomever, runs for President is going to be attacked by Fox, if we
all stick together and fight back on behalf of our candidate we all
be just fine. Obama will be on the campaign for her as well
Warren and Sanders: The GOP can only win if they divide us: a primary
could leave us divided. Then we will lose, I don't' think it helps to
Hillary bashed for the sake of bashing: You should be patting her on the back
for wanting run: because the rest of dem's seem to be cowards!!

[Cyrano]

10. Umm, Gore won. The SCOTUS

appointed Bush.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. Gore dispatched of Bill Bradley rather easily.../NT

[Jim Lane]

26. All recent non-incumbent victors have emerged from contested nomination fights.

I had thought maybe one would have to go back to Eisenhower for a counterexample, but on checking I found that, despite his immense personal popularity, even he faced significant competition for the nomination from Taft.

JFK beat LBJ and others. Nixon beat Rockefeller and Reagan. Carter beat Udall, Jackson, and Brown. Reagan beat Bush, Baker, and Bob Dole. Bush41 beat Dole, Kemp, Haig, and du Pont. Clinton beat Harkin, Tsongas, Brown, and Kerrey. Bush43 beat McCain, Forbes, and Elizabeth Dole. Obama beat Clinton and Edwards. I've named some of the significant opponents to the eventual winner but these were the major ones that popped into my head, and there were others.

The point is that in every election in the modern era (marked by the predominance of primaries and caucuses rather than the roles of party bosses), the Presidency has gone either to the incumbent President or to someone who emerged as the victor from a fierce intra-party struggle. If Gore had become President in 2000, or if you apply the criterion of popular vote rather than being inaugurated, then that election might qualify as a counterexample, because Gore had disposed of Bradley so easily. All the other cases are clear, though, in that the winner faced a tougher nomination fight than did Gore in 2000.

This quadrennial fretting about the supposed ill effects of a nomination fight seems misguided.

[lewebley3]

27. Jim Lane, All the Primary did to Gore was hurt him!!

Media matters pointed out in months when the primary was run
for Gore, that was the time when the corporation media smeared
Gore with silly lies.
A primary would only leave the corporations in charge of the election:
let support our candidates Hillary has been a loyal democrat for almost
thirty years: We all know her, we need to spend out time helping her and
win the Senate and House back.

Think what will happen to the GOP in the next months they will dragged
down by each other, and hopefully destroy themselves. We don't want
that for the Dem's

Let's leave the primary up to democrats to decide, your history is pointless
under the supreme courts Citizens United to decision

The Koch brother have enough money alone to buy off every paper in and every
writer in America.

[Jim Lane]

28. I strongly disagree re 2000

An acrimonious primary can hurt the eventual winner, but the Bradley vs. Gore duel was quite civil. If anything, Gore would've been better off if there'd been more fireworks on his road to the nomination, to get him more publicity despite the ongoing fierce battle on the Republican side. Even as it was, it helped get him some exposure, some recent debate experience, some warmup for his staff and volunteers, etc.

Media matters pointed out in months when the primary was run for Gore, that was the time when the corporation media smeared Gore with silly lies.

Is it your argument that, if Bradley hadn't run, silly lies that were thrown at Gore would never have surfaced? I'd think it more likely that they would have come out anyway, but in the fall, when they would have been more damaging.

I don't understand your conclusion. This part seems to suggest that Chafee, O'Malley, Sanders, and Webb should just abandon any idea of campaigning and wear their Ready for Hillary lapel pins 24/7 until Election Day:

A primary would only leave the corporations in charge of the election:
let support our candidates Hillary has been a loyal democrat for almost
thirty years: We all know her, we need to spend out time helping her and
win the Senate and House back.

But then you write:

Let's leave the primary up to democrats to decide....

I agree with that part. Let Hillary run, but let her face an opponent from the more progressive win of the party, and let Democrats in primaries and caucuses around the country decide who'll be the nominee.

As for Citizens United and the Kochs, I don't foresee lots of corporate money flooding into television ads attacking Hillary as too conservative. To the contrary -- in the general election, we'll certainly see any Democrat attacked as being too liberal. If Hillary is the nominee, she'll be better positioned if she can point out that she was the more conservative candidate in the primaries. "You call me a socialist? Ha! I ran in the primaries against a real Socialist and I beat him! I'm in the sensible middle."

[lewebley3]

29. Don't Agree: If the Dem's know they want Hillary now, why waste money!!

The money coming to attack Hillary, will have nothing to do with
real content: it won't matter about conservative ads.

The media corporation want to make money on making up lies that
will have narratives from the primary. This is what happen to
Gore, Brady never had a chance, but the primary hurt Gore,
he has tagged for being the smartest person in the class( as if there is
something wrong with being smart):

The other Dem's are Welcome to put their hat in but they don't
have the money because of Citizens United. We could use their money
to help the Senate and House.

Lets run Hillary as third Obama term, elect ability will go sky high,
remember if we lose American will be going to war.

Do you really on to have a primary just to have primary to attack Hillary!!

I say no way!!!

With Obama out their making speeches for her, and talking out his successes
she can't lose.

All we need is Team work!!!!!

[Jim Lane]

30. That's a big "if", my friend.

Some Dems know they want Hillary now. Some know they don't. Some are undecided.

There is no "the" Dems who make a monolithic decision.

You write:

The other Dem's are Welcome to put their hat in but they don't have the money because of Citizens United.

In the primaries, Clinton will almost certainly be far ahead of everyone else in donations from 1%ers and corporate PACs. To the extent that there's corporate money deployed for "independent" expenditures under Citizens United, you're correct that Clinton will be far ahead on that score, too. Nevertheless, there are many of us who aren't willing to give up and just surrender the party to whichever candidate has the most friends on Wall Street.

[BainsBane]

8. She will have primary challengers

We already know O'Malley is gearing up to run. The only presidential candidates that don't have challengers are incumbents, and even then it's not guaranteed (ie. Kennedy v. Carter in 1980). There will almost certainly be others, regardless of what people on DU think about it. I don't know why some have decided there won't be challengers. The idea seems to come from the same crowd that's been railing against Clinton for years now and thereby helped to make her the presumptive nominee.

[djean111]

9. So you see a primary challenge for Hillary as just a little PR exercise? Nothing that would

threaten her winning the nomination?
Primary challengers would be just like those poor bait dogs used to train other dogs to fight?
Wall Street Hillary is as far as a politician can get from Liz Warren or Bernie Sanders. So I confess I do not understand how, exactly, a Hillary vs anybody debate could win me over.

A bit of hubris there, methinks.

[MoonRiver]

11. Do you really think anybody cares if you are "won over?"

I personally do not give a flying fuck.

[djean111]

14. Oh, I am shattered. Why on earth would I care what you think? I am answering a point in the OP.

1. She needs to win over Dems who want to see only Elizabeth Warren, or Bernie Sanders in the White House. Whatever her positions, everyone needs to know them.

Pugilistic and thin-skinned bunch.

[MoonRiver]

19. And of course she will present her positions,

starting tomorrow.

[randr]

22. She needs to prove how she will support

and adopt positions of Warren and Sanders.

[mylye2222]

13. You NAILED IT.

I am sure some in the Clinton team wants a primary ti be a "show up only " one so their favorite candidate will not be endangered in anyway.

[Cyrano]

15. No, I do not see it as a PR exercise

I see it as a needed step to toughen her up for whichever clown-car resident she ends up running against. They are relentless and the media will be with them most of the time.

So if Hillary ends up as the nominee, will you show up and vote for her?

[djean111]

16. Not doing the pledgey thing. Sorry.

And I think you answered my question in the affirmative. You see primary challengers as mere rehearsal buddies.

[Cyrano]

20. Not really. Perhaps someone else will

win the nomination. I'm not irrevocably glued to a Hillary presidency. At this point, we really don't know what the coming months will bring. We'll have to wait and see.

On edit: Having said that, I will vote for the Democratic candidate. And that is a pledge (assuming that the candidate is saner than the GOP one).

[Novara]

12. She will still win the nomination....

....but getting more of the public interested in the race can't be a bad thing. Remember, Republicans win in low turnout elections. If she has a contender or two, people will pay attention because they want to know where everyone stands. The debates will be something to watch.

The worst thing would be for her to not have a challenger - people will tune out and not vote. In my mind, that's handing the Republicans a victory.

So yes, please bring on a challenger to make the race interesting and spark the voting public's interest.

[brooklynite]

17. And she'll have one...or two...or three

I think a lot of people are conflating "no challenger" with "no challenger that -I- happen to like"...

[William769]

18. Of course she does.

That's what primaries are for.

I have always advocated for a vigorous primary.

[randr]

21. We can only win with a primary challenge!

Put all the Democratic principles, goals, and programs on the table. Drive the final candidate to the consensus of the whole.

[freshwest]

24. Of course she does. That's what I expect. HRC enthusiasm doesn't replace the process, which some

seem eager to trot out in going at her supporters. There is no inevitability, even with money. Look at Romney's loss.

His team was outspending Obama so much BO knew he'd have to form a PAC even though he'd be slandered as a corporatist. None of the candidates for president for decades have been paupers, nor have they failed to not garner a lot of money. 'Open Secrets' is the friend of those who want to disprove distortions on funding, not media stories or talk radio.

The problem now is the flood gates were opened with the decision to sweep away normal regulations with the Citizens United decision. The integrity of the ruling was dubious, when the main supporters on the Court have been hanging out with the Koch brothers and their various front groups regularly.

HRC has an advantage of name recognition. Like you, I will vote for the Democratic nominee. I want very much for HRC and the country's sake, to have good debates set up to set standards for the head our party's banner.

I have seen nothing from HRC supporters except unbridled enthusiasm. No 'coronation' will be taking place before the DNC meets and announces the nominee. Those perjoratives were directed at Obama from Infowars Libertarians. Last time I heard so much caterwauling over who will or will not be debating was the GOP primary and convention where Ron Paul got shut out. Their online enthusiasm didn't inspire real life votes.

They couldn't concieve of political changes from the ballot box that didn't go their way. They couldn't accept that the majority didn't agree with them. Obama couldn't have possibly struck a nerve with people who wanted fundamental change, could he?

In the end, though, the Koch brothers nominated Mittens and even made an appearance at the RNC with Adelson. But refused to talk to media, being beneath their station. And the Paulibans howled loudly at every primary, 'We was robbed!' and then continued on their whinefest. They hate all Democrats and got Ron's spawn Rand in office.

The Koch brothers have already decided to put a billion more or less into the GOP candidate, whoever it will be. My money is on Cruz, as a dark horse in the way Bush, Sr. was. He's done exactly what the Koch brothers wanted in the shutdown, and just called for NRA members tp for support those like him who 'bled' fighting Obama. Oh, the tyranny King O inflicts on them!

We won't get Koch money, and we don't want it. But we must have a candidate who can get money to respond to a tsunami of attacks generated by those hundred of millions. And one who appeals to those most disenfranchised among us, as their patience is at the breaking point with the political system being ineffective for them.

The reichwing would not be ashamed by the death of Obama as they have been calling for it since before he got into office. Really, that is their heart and the most radical of them want it to start an all-out race war. It's been the far right's plan for many years, and they want to step into the vacuum of power wars always allow to take place. With a RW dictatorship such as the world has never known, is their plan.

Right now, they are just doing it in slow motion, dismantling the federal government through defunding, useful idiots and propaganda such as America has never seen. It's a damn scary thing when one looks at how bad it could be.

But when I see the educated young leaders Obama talked to in Jamaica, elsewhere, I have hope for better days ahead.

The mauling of any candidate's supporter in the Demcratic Party is undeserved, better suited to the rightwing board s that have always characterized Obama as a king and tyrant.

If HRC does not win, one thing is for sure: She will campaign for the winner. Because she is a Democrat first, it's a part of her record.

Looking forward to some tough campaigning, truths revealed and vigorous debate. Hoping it will be illuminating with real discussions of where the nation needs to go, how to effect the lives of people for the better.

Let's see what how people react to the debates. I cannot see ours devolving into the hatefest the GOP did with the Tea Party calling for the death of others. That will never be anywhere near the Democratic Party. There is a difference.

Apologies for rambling. Yes, she needs a challenger, several. She will have to win the debate to display her strengths. At times she is very clear, at other times, too nuanced for many to hear. She needs to make the case that her causes are our causes.

[Cyrano]

25. freshwest, part of your post is

something that I believe to some degree.

I, for one, would not have posted it here because, in my own opinion, it would have been too "inflammatory." Here's the part I'm referring to.

"The reichwing would not be ashamed by the death of Obama as they have been calling for it since before he got into office. Really, that is their heart and the most radical of them want it to start an all-out race war. It's been the far right's plan for many years, and they want to step into the vacuum of power wars always allow to take place. With a RW dictatorship such as the world has never known, is their plan.

Right now, they are just doing it in slow motion, dismantling the federal government through defunding, useful idiots and propaganda such as America has never seen. It's a damn scary thing when one looks at how bad it could be."

I agree with much of this. Perhaps what you've said deserves an OP. It would be interesting to see how many believe that the wingnut portion of America is really that calculating, evil, and/or ignorant. Just know that you are not alone in these kind of thoughts.

(Edited to correct the name of the poster to whom I'm responding. It's "freshwest," not "freshwater." Sorry about that. Stupid is a stupid does.&quot

[realFedUp]

31. Dream on

She's been completely vetted and is thoroughly experience in both sides of arguments. Really useless to have a primary. There isn't a smarter person out there who will run.
Biden can't keep his mouth shut....open enough to grab a baby's binky.