Why Are Possible HRC challengers So long To Announce?

[mylye2222]

Is there only a money issue?
Or are they somewhat "afraid" of Clinton MegaMachine. Anyway it can raise strategic question.
The problem is that if they wait too long before formally launching bids... they will be eaten alive bu HRC super now-leading and will struggle to find space of expression in media.
And people will be used with the "only one choice" idea.

[still_one]

1. The Iowa caucus is in August. Those who are going to run will decide by June

[brooklynite]

56. No, the Iowa Caucus is in January, 2016...

The only August event is the Republican Iowa Straw poll

[Capt. Obvious]

70. You're quick

[Evergreen Emerald]

2. Yes...I recall how mad lots of posters were on DU

when Clinton did not announce earlier. What are they waiting for?

[clydefrand]

3. Just maybe,

they are waiting until lots of people are just sick and tired of hearing about
HRC HRC HRC HRC ....

[boston bean]

4. Hillary was "criticized" for not entering preventing others.... okay... don't agree with that.. but

now that she has announced, she is still responsible for others not entering as quickly as you think they should?

[MineralMan]

5. It could be that many of them actually support Clinton.

Think about that. Joe Biden? He'll enthusiastically endorse her. Even Elizabeth Warren has said that she'd be an excellent President. Bernie Sanders will also endorse her if she gets the nomination, even if he runs in the primaries, which I doubt.

O'Malley? Don't know about him. He may make a primary run or he may not.

Put yourself in the position of alternative candidates, if you are able to do so. You'd probably ask yourself if running made sense for you. You might decide that it wouldn't.

But, since you're a French citizen, you can't run or even vote in this election.

[mylye2222]

9. Yes but it sound that Warren sort of changed mind recently.

She lately sounded more critical about HRCs ability with "being Dems future".

On Biden.. I think he maybe no is busy with WH job.

I cant vote maybe but there is no law that forbid me to be interested in your politic. You would not use that rethoric is I was on your side politically.

[MineralMan]

10. Actually, I would.

US elections are a US matter. I pay no attention to the opinions of non-voters in our elections, whatever their politics.

You're welcome to your opinion, of course, but it doesn't matter in our elections. US Voters matter.

Please proceed. I promise not to comment on the state of politics in France. That's for French citizens.

[mylye2222]

13. Oh come one.

The only problem you have is that I dont share you views.
My nationality is a bad excuse.

Does I come to complain everytime( though not often ) a DUers opens a topic re. French politics/ Le Pen.... re nything re French society and politics?

[MineralMan]

14. You don't even know my views.

Truly you do not.

[mylye2222]

16. I still know that you cant accept critics when it comes to HRC.

Even when its constructive.
You are living in a fantasy world where every single liberal supports her withous reserve.

[cascadiance]

36. Yes, Elizabeth Warren's recent "questions" to Hillary Clinton don't sound like an endorsement...

... and quite frankly I don't think I'd like Biden as president or even him as a former senator for what he did with the bankruptcy bill for Delaware-based corporations when he was Delaware's senator, that have helped skew our economy the way it is now.

He's a reasonable diplomat, which has made him a better VP than he is a legislator or a president, so haven't minded him doing what he's been doing recently.

[MineralMan]

38. She's pushing Clinton to say something about those things.

And Hillary Clinton will oblige when the right opportunity comes up.

She'll be answering all sorts of questions, no doubt.

So far, she's been doing OK with that, in stating her priorities. Expect much more. It's going to be a long campaign.

[cascadiance]

49. If she doesn't want to be looked as manipulative, she should have made it a part of Sunday's speech

... to address these concerns when she started her campaign, to show that these issues are serious priorities for her, and "new directions" for her as a politician that depart from her older stances and actions, and that show she's well prepared to back up her words with actions if she starts talking about them right at the beginning, and not just waiting for a later time to what many will believe as "parsing words" conveniently to avoid making heavy commitments one way or the other to ensure that she doesn't get taken to task later by either her "sponsors" or those voters that she might "break her promises" to.

If being a populist supporting stances like Elizabeth Warren is part of Hillary's core being now, it would have been the best to start off her campaign with stating them, as a sign that this is a new Hillary Clinton that wants to unite progressives with other "mainstream" parts of the party, as opposed to continuing to do what those like Rahm Emanuel have done more explicitly in saying in effect "f*ck yourselves", you don't count right before he took charge of building Obama's cabinet.

[LordGlenconner]

61. I also question how "enthusiastically" Biden will support her

Joe wants/wanted to be president and I think in the absence of Clinton he'd probably be the frontrunner. But now that she's in and seems to have the wind at her back, he probably knows he has next to no shot of winning.

He may go through the motions, and appear to be "enthusiastic" but we'll never know how sincere he is about it.

If he wasn't enthusiastic I can't blame him at all. Sometimes dreams die hard.

[fadedrose]

18. I welcome your interest

and am interested in the affairs of other countries. How their leaders work with our leaders is important to me.

And our politics now are kinda mind-boggling and no one can blame Europeans or people anywhere for being interested. So many issues that affect you as much as yours affect us make US watching mandatory....there's trade, racism, war, agreements, etc., a lot to keep us in touch.

[Renew Deal]

6. I think the other named candidates know they don't have a chance

And that shows in their general lack of commitment to the race. O'Malley and Webb are both interesting, but they are mostly unknown. Hillary is a global figure. There's nobody in either party with her stature.

[mylye2222]

11. I hopr you are not implying that

Primaries are after all uneusefull... and that Hillary should simply been designated?

[MoonRiver]

19. Nobody but the Hillary haters say that.

It's the responsibility of other primary challengers, NOT HILLARY, to announce. Geez.

[Renew Deal]

25. Not at all

The game needs to be played. But sometimes there is a favorite.

[Agschmid]

28. No one is saying that.

[PassingFair]

24. She lost last time around.

Hopefully a better candidate will step forward before Iowa.

[Renew Deal]

26. That's the point

There is no better candidate this time around. Last time those in the know knew Obama was her main competition. I'm not sure if anyone in the current flock even rises to the level of competition. Someone like Gore or Warren might. But no one currently.

[PassingFair]

27. Hopefully there will be others stepping up.

Hillary does not stand a chance in the general election.

Half of democrats don't like her and ALL republicans hate her.

Worst. Candidate. Ever.

[Thinkingabout]

39. who told you she did not have a chance, someone like Bill Kristol and Karl Rove?

[PassingFair]

41. Have you heard any of your republican friends singing her praises?

Ever?

She will fail in the general election if we are stupid enough to select her.

[Renew Deal]

44. Yes, Clinton, Gore, Obama, etc were so popular with republicans

If it wasn't for republicans, they wouldn't have won.

You know there is another large block of voters right?

[PassingFair]

48. They were southern, or black.

They brought a certain amount of votes.

No one is more reviled by the pukes than Hillary.

"You know there is another large block of voters right?"

If you think women will vote for her just because she is a woman, you are wrong.

[Renew Deal]

52. Many people will vote for her because they actually like her

And I mean independents. She is polling very well with them. I'm waiting for you to prove your "50% of dems" claim.

[PassingFair]

57. I point to the last primary. Over half of dems preferred another ....

All it will take is another option. One perceived as progressive.
Whether they ARE progressive or not.

Pro-War,
Pro-Wall Street, Hillary

I know a lot of "independents".
Almost all of them are republicans and will vote against her.

[Renew Deal]

64. Different race. There was a credible challenger then.

There is no one with a chance of winning the primary running currently.

Your personal experience is anecdotal. Go ahead an pull some poll numbers. I'm sure you can get them in the same place where you find support for the 50% claim.

[PassingFair]

65. That's why I'm hoping that a "credible challenger" stands up.

And Obama wasn't a "credible challenger" until Edwards imploded.

[Thinkingabout]

45. The GOP is struggling to get a candidate who can go head to head.

[cascadiance]

51. which is why we shouldn't swallow the line that "Hillary Clinton is the only candidate that can win"

... that is thrown out to us constantly now as a reason to anoint her the nominee.

Republicans ARE bad, and most Americans don't want them in office. But they don't have to have Hillary as their choice against them. Why not give them a real populist that will make even more Americans happy that that person is working for them and not big money, that both Republicans at large, and the Clintons have shown themselves to be over the years.

[Renew Deal]

53. It is not a reason to annoint her.

And she is not the only one that can win the GE. But she is the only one currently that can win the primary. Disagree? Name one Dem currently running (including Sanders) that has a chance of beating her.

[cascadiance]

62. We would have said the same thing last election even after the primaries started...

... as these polls showed then.



But that doesn't mean someone else couldn't win later, as was actually done then.

It's still early to write others off and to write her in. History shows us this to be the case, despite what the corporate media shills want us to believe!

[PassingFair]

66. Early name recognition goes a LONG way with low information voters.

Fingers crossed for a viable opponent!

[PassingFair]

60. + 1000

We can only hope that a viable progressive stands up to this choke-hold!

[Renew Deal]

42. Do you have a source for your "half of Democrats" claim?

[treestar]

46. Polls of Democrats don't agree with that

[Yavin4]

47. "Half of democrats don't like her " ? Really?

The exact degree of Democrats' excitement about Clinton is varied. Forty-four percent describe themselves as "enthusiastic," while 36 percent opt for a less fervent "satisfied."

That adds up to 80% support. Where do you get "the half don't like" her from?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/13/hillary-clinton-poll_n_7058088.html

[PassingFair]

50. If ANY candidate with potential steps up to challenge her,

that milquetoast 36 percent will vanish.

I can only hope that someone will announce soon.

[mythology]

54. So you have nothing to back up your claim.

It's fine to not support Hillary Clinton, but at this point you're making things up to support your position.

[PassingFair]

58. Did I make up the LAST primary?

Maybe I'm just in a lucid dream.

[Renew Deal]

55. I hope they announce too

Because reality will hit you like it hit the Romney voters in 2012.

[brooklynite]

59. "Half the Democrats don't like her"...

...let me suggest that DU comments are not reflective of the Democratic Party?

Polling OVER time has show her to be both popular and a strong match for every Republican candidate.

Clinton 2008 and 2016: There’s No Comparison

Hillary Clinton is polling about 20 points higher than she was around this time eight years ago, even though the polls pit her against strong candidates who probably won’t run, like Elizabeth Warren.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/13/upshot/huge-head-start-for-clinton-but-the-big-race-is-far-from-won.html?rref=upshot&abt=0002&abg=0

Remember - there's a real world beyond your keyboard.

[onehandle]

7. There is no Barack Obama, who was a known quantity far before 2008.

Many of the viable potential candidates either have already said they're not running, are already supporting Hillary, or just simply can't beat her.

[lame54]

8. What the hell do you mean...

NOBODY should be announcing yet

I can't believe we are going to be subjected to the agonizingly long political season - and everybody accepts as the norm

the next one is only going to get longer

another horrible consequence of Citizens United

[BainsBane]

12. They do more than accept it

They demand it even earlier, and talk obsessively about the presidential election years in advance. Then they rail about money in politics, with no awareness that their own demands for early campaigns only contribute to the expense.

[JustAnotherGen]

34. +1000

And I suspect HRC wanted to take her 'licks' early - I mean even right here at DU she's been pecked to death over her logo, her similarity to old time TV stars . . . No other Democratic Candidate is going to have to run that gauntlet. She was smart to get the fury over - so she can get on with her campaign. I suspect if she wins then I will wake up the day after the election to read: Okay - so who should we go for in 2020.

Truly what it sounds like - when doves cry.

[BainsBane]

68. Yep, it's as bad as the cable tv pundits

which is shameful.

[fadedrose]

15. Everybody's afraid of something

The Clinton MegaMachine has frightened a lot of people who might have announced already.

It also delayed announcing and large public gatherings because they are aware that HC is not a great public speaker and the more she's seen, her ratings are unaffected. She's not shy at meetings where $200,000 per speech is charged, maybe free speech is not appealing and is to be kept private.

Also, they don't want her to have to answer questions that are important to Democrats - TPP, why donations are coming from foreign countries, etc. No accusations on my part, just putting down what I've been hearing and would like the stuff cleared up.

Laughing makes her likable, just as Obama's silly smile at the end of his comments makes him likable, no, lovable. But he comes thru with red meat instead of whipped cream when asked about important topics. Oh, by the way, Joe Biden was the first high-profile to come out for gay rights, next was the President and Michelle, and Hillary at least a week or so later. Joe didn't wait to see if his constituents were ready. Courage here, I'd say.

When a few more mistakes are made like the emails, Wall Street connections if there are any, more candidates will appear, and do it boldly, and not with a tail between their legs like in apology.

[mylye2222]

17. Thank you for stating true facts.

Be prepared to be called a "RW troll hater" in 5...4....3.....

[fadedrose]

22. I've been called a hater

but not because I am, but because I am not a supporter.

I'll tell you who I come close to hating - Michelle Bachman, Marsha Blackburn in the female group, and too many men in the US House of Representatives that are just plain disgusting. Also, some Senators like Cruz, etc.

Just as some want a certain person for President, others want someone else. I don't recall DU'ers calling people "Warren Haters," or "Sanders Haters," or "O'Malley Haters," or "Jim Webb Haters," when their candidate is not the favorite, and I think the whole thing is very childish and below the dignity of people who read and post to DU.

Thanks for your post. Viva La France. (sp)

[JustAnotherGen]

35. Very well said

And can I say - I'm right there with ya - but can we add Sister Sarah Alaskastan to that steaming pile of shit?

[hrmjustin]

20. Call them up and ask them.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. The constant drumbeat of negativity is going to drive long time posters away.

Maybe that is their intention.

[Thinkingabout]

43. When this trail gets a little further there will be less of the negativity.

[onenote]

23. Please identify the "possible HRC challengers" whose announcements you are awaiting

Other than, possibly, O'Malley and Jim Webb.

[fadedrose]

30. I wish Joe Biden's people would make some noise

His mistakes are small, maybe embarrassing, but none are crimes, suspected crimes, money sources, etc.

Don't criticize me for saying those things, I just happen to watch a lot of news programs and can only parrot what I hear. Write to MSM and THEM they're "haters."

The unified Republicans are going to come up with a lot of bad news, some true, some not. None seems to be afraid of challenging HC because of the arsenal of fire power they have available. And many Dems don't care for 2 or 3 of her husband's policies, and his popularity stems from being impeached about a matter having nothing to do with the presidency since it was a consentual matter and Democrats got mad at the Republican congress (Henry Hyde and other hypocrites).

To his credit, Vice President Biden was the FIRST high-profile figure in politics to come out publically for gay rights, even embarrassing President Obama who hadn't said a word yet, and who had to hurry and get his opinion public.

[onenote]

33. I seriously doubt Joe would run

No, his mistakes aren't crimes. But his public persona, fairly or not, is not that of a strong leader. More importantly, he'll be 74 on election day. Just as McCain was often mocked here for his age, Joe would be the butt of age jokes as well. There will be a cap on the support he can get within the party because he would essentially be running as a one-term president.

Fair, no.
Realistic, yes.

[cascadiance]

40. His pushing through the bankruptcy bill as a Delaware senator doesn't have me supporting him...

... as that legislation has hurt a lot of Americans in its interests to help serve the Delaware corporations that surely helped his political campaigns to get that favor back.

[cbdo2007]

67. Biden is statistically our best chance of winning...

and would be the safe choice.

On the other hand, since this is a "throw away" election for the Dems (because we've been in power for the last 8 years), they're likely to save their best candidates for 2020 and 2024.

[Agschmid]

31. Yup...

[hrmjustin]

29. I have a feeling Sanders is not going to run.

[longship]

32. Because it's 19 fucking months until the election! nt

[ScreamingMeemie]

37. This. Exactly this.

[jberryhill]

69. +1

[Bluenorthwest]

63. It's not 'so long' because it's still early by all actual standards.

The average announcing dates fall in late May and June of this year, using past elections as a guide. Earlier announcements like Obama's are an exception, not the rule.

[betterdemsonly]

71. This is what I fear.

I fear the new normal is to dispense with primaries.

[mylye2222]

72. I share the same fear.

That primary season will just je a kikd of "show" without real ideas confronting

[polichick]

73. Bernie has said that he'll only get in if the people are ready...

...for the kind of all-out fight it would take to beat the corporate establishment.

He'll decide soon.

My guess: the people aren't ready - most aren't even paying attention.