Will HRC's positioning shut down serious primary challenges?

[polichick]

Interesting that Clinton's opening remarks at today's roundtable echoed Bernie Sanders and EW regarding the game being rigged for those at the top. She even mentioned hedge fund managers and an amendment to get money out of politics.

Will this discourage others from getting into the race? Is it meant to?

[onehandle]

1. I dunno, but I can't imagine anyone seriously taking her on.

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.

[NYC_SKP]

4. We'll lose the general, people will lose interest in voting, what's the point?

If polls and the MSM pick the winner before we even have a single caucus or primary, then what is the point of voting.

The system is rigged, Hillary is evidence.

People will stay home in droves and we'll end up with Jeb.

[polichick]

24. Very true about people staying home.

[yeoman6987]

28. The system is rigged? Nobody is stopping others from running

In fact two are going to OMalley and Webb will run so voters will have a choice.

[Cali_Democrat]

29. Well that would suck

[JaneyVee]

30. Hillary is evidence, but she also supports campaign finance reform.

[forthemiddle]

45. She supports campaign finance reform?

Will that be before or after she raises the 2.5 BILLION dollars that the experts expect her to spend on the campaign?

I know I am being snarky, and I know the "other side does it so we have to", but it gets pretty damn tiring complaining about the Koch brothers, when we also have Richard Steyor, or Warren Buffett. Even if their issues are better than the oppositions, when does hypocrisy come into play? So for her to say she supports a Conditional Amendment is so sickening when she is raising 2.5 BILLION dollars.

[NYC_SKP]

52. No, she doesn't. And, first, she needs to be elected so depends upon Citizens United.

After that, well, yanno, why should she care?

http://www.thenation.com/blog/204225/hillary-clinton-still-too-cautious-campaign-finance-reform

[Agschmid]

46. To the people that choose not to vote, it's their loss.

You disenfranchise yourself, the easier it is to be disenfranchised next time.

[OKNancy]

2. I wish people would stop saying she is echoing.. she has said this things her whole career.

I'm glad I heard Ed Shultz say the same thing today.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. "We need people in the White House who represent the people's interest , not the special interest."

[polichick]

7. Ed talked about her interest in and work for people...

I think he also mentioned her relationship with Wall Street.

That's the disconnect.

[OKNancy]

10. She was the Senator from New York

Just as Elizabeth Warren has a relationship with Medical Device Manufacturers...

[DJ13]

3. That might work if voters thought she was sincere in her new found populism

(So no.)

[polichick]

9. Bernie says the people would have to really be ready for the fight...

in order for him to get in.

Do you think enough people are ready?

[DJ13]

15. The '08 version of Obama (v1.0) proved people are ready for a populist

But I'm not sure they can be convinced its not another con game just to get votes this time.

[polichick]

21. I have that same worry - voters have really been burned...

They don't believe in the system anymore.

[Maedhros]

5. Something doesn't make any sense.

First, go read this OP: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6506869

Then, tell me why Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, DLA Piper, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley would give a combined $3,285,831.00
to Hillary if they thought she was even half-way serious about Wall Street reform and campaign finance reform?

[polichick]

8. Exactly - that's why this positioning, the specific words...

...seem like a preemptive strike. Can't wait to see Bernie's response.

[Maedhros]

12. Democrats are trapped.

They tell themselves that they need an "electable" candidate, i.e. one that can garner campaign donations from Wall Street, which automatically excludes those who would fight against Wall Street. So they elect the Wall Street candidate, and then they have the gall to complain about Wall Street getting let off the hook over and over and over again.

[polichick]

17. imo the party sold its soul when it became the party of Wall Street...

What was that guy's name who was all about that change?

Oh yeah - Clinton.

[antigop]

43. Greider: How the Democratic Party Lost Its Soul

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12771559

[polichick]

62. Good read! "Clinton presided over the financialization of the Democratic Party...

Obama merely inherited his playbook and has governed accordingly, often with the same policy-makers."

And here we go again?

No thanks.

[Marr]

49. It's amazing to me that "electable" has become synonmous with "Wall Street-approved".

As you said, that is indeed the unspoken meaning of the word now. It's not like Hillary Clinton is known for her great charisma and personal magnetism, after all.

The thing she has going for her is funding, period. She's Wall Street's choice for the Democratic nomination, and that one point alone is what makes her "electable".

It's not unlike Romney's nomination a few years ago. He was oddly out of step with just about every faction of the Republican Party, with the exception of the big money faction-- but that trumped all. I wonder if this sort of extreme political tone-deafness isn't a result of our increasing wealth divide.

[polichick]

63. Brainwashing, pure and simple.

[okaawhatever]

22. Big corps give money to all serious candidates. Especially those who are on committes that

affect their business. They just give more to their preferred candidates. They aren't stupid, they want to make sure they've done something for whoever gets elected. These days you can't really tell who they're backing because that money goes to superpacs.

[Maedhros]

25. Yes. And I'm not comfortable with Hillary owing them $3 million in quid pro quo [n/t]

[Agschmid]

48. Who does she owe it too?

Can you clarify?

[Agschmid]

47. .

First: "The Employees of..."

Second: $3,285,831.00 over her career really isn't all that much money in political donations. To put it in context it's less than 1% of 2.5 billion what people say this election cycle will cost. (00.13%)

I know it won't matter but those are my points.

[mylye2222]

11. That what Im afraid of.

[polichick]

14. Me too - without a meaningful primary, the party...

becomes less relevant than ever.

[mylye2222]

19. And without real exchange on issuz

Not only it will look undemocratic... but pretty boring.

For years in France parties didnt organized primaries for presidential election. Only internal nomination, like a caucus. Then the Socialist party begun in 2006. And now the UMP will do the same. And a lot think it makes political life more healthy and open.
And now in the US... it sounds like a reverse movement among Democrats. Hillary 2016 introduce the notion of the "natural candidacy"....

[polichick]

23. You said it - undemocratic and boring...

If nobody else jumps in even I will probably check out until Election Day.

[mmonk]

13. I'd rather go through real debates on these issues.

And pointed questions as what she would do policy wise vs any platitudes (to sift out what is real). Do I think she will give the finger to her financial services contributors? The answer won't be clear without debate.

[polichick]

20. Yes, definitely debates - with hard questions for a change!

[KMOD]

16. Bernie's camp are saying that he'll

make a decision by April 30th.

[polichick]

18. Sure hope he's been running into plenty of people...

who seem ready for the fight!

[Agnosticsherbet]

26. Anyone who is intimidated by Hillary Clinton's campaign, is not qualified to be President.

If elected they will face far worse opponents than someone with whom they agree on at lest 85% of all issues.

[sadoldgirl]

32. It is not a question of intimidation,

it is a question of money, as Bernie has pointed out.

If HRC would be so sure of her success, why not refuse
these unbelievable sums, eh?

By now it is probably clear to most voters that our
Congress and WH is bought and not truly elected.

[Agnosticsherbet]

33. If Senator Sanders can not raise the funds, he can not compete with Republicans.

No matter who our nominee happens to be, this election will cost 5 to 6 billion dollars by the time both sides have finished the campaign for President.

That is the climate created by two Supreme Court decisions.

He will likely need between 50 and 60 million to run in the primary. He will need 2 to 3 billion to run in the general election.

It really sucks that we have been brought to this point because we lost elections and Republicans got to choose who would sit on the Supreme Court, but that is how it is.

So Bernie has to decide if he has what it takes to run in this climate. If not, then we will see who does have what it takes.

[sadoldgirl]

34. So we vote for proxy candidates.

Heck, in that case we might as well write in the Koch
brothers themselves or Dimon. Why bother with those
the DC parties have decided to support?!

[Agnosticsherbet]

36. We vote for who we think is he best candidate on the ballot.

if Bernie can not commit to raising the funds to compete; if he can not get in and fight for the position at the top, someone else will.

Nobody in a democracy is promised the best possible candidate. We have to vote for the people who have he guts and the drive to try.

[Marr]

50. Not "guts and drive".

We get to choose between the people who pass the screening of Wall Street and corporate America. That's clearly the first hurdle candidates must pass now. People who align with those interests are made "electable" simply by the piles of cash they hand over.

[JI7]

27. you think anyone seriously conducting a run would change their

Mind over this ?

[polichick]

31. I think the Clinton camp probably meant...

to influence any populist who is on the fence about running.

Might backfire by pissing someone off.

[hifiguy]

35. It is absolutely meant to.

Democracy is far too messy. Can't be having that. Pick your monarch and demand nomination by acclimation.

[polichick]

37. Wonder if it will backfire by pissing someone off enough to get in...

or if others will be somewhat relieved.

[djean111]

38. It is shameless pandering to liberals, and a total theft of Warren's and Sanders'

ideas. Never ever happen if she got elected. Never.

[polichick]

40. Have either of them commented on her rhetoric yet?

[djean111]

41. I doubt very much that they would.

Be funny if they did, but I don't think they would do that unless they were running. Or, definitely, I think, if HRC wins primary and general and then does nothing of the sort.

What cracks me up is that on the one hand we are told that it is okay to say anything, in order to get elected, so it is unfair to expect the blather to actually happen - and on the other hand, in almost the same gesture - are gifted with a lengthy list of "positions" - things a politician has said. Was the politician doing a pinky swear? Someone with 200 advisers, one of which is Larry Summers, is just not worth, for me, listening to or putting any faith in. Especially on economic matters.

[polichick]

54. "one of which is Larry Summers" - After the Obama experience...

Dems should've learned to pay attention to adviser choices.

Don't know what it will take.

[djean111]

58. Elsewhere we are being lectured/admonished that economic issues are ponies and that we are naive.

At best. My impression is that non-Hillary supporters are being told they are selfish and stubborn.
And that we want EVERYTHING. I hope Larry Summers takes their stuff first.

[polichick]

61. They might even thank him for taking their stuff...

Brainwashing is a bipartisan sport!

[seveneyes]

39. Everlasting Pain

[hatrack]

42. Sure - she'll simultaneously cover all the bases, and none of them

Kind of hard to counter that approach, if skillfully done.

[MineralMan]

44. It shouldn't. The real reason that some will not enter the primaries

seems to me to be the current polling information. A primary race is a grueling, difficult process. To be successful, a candidate must have some confidence in being able to come out on top at the end of the primary season. That would be pretty difficult this time. While some people might run just to get their positions aired and to influence the debate, doing that without any possibility of becoming the nominee isn't an easy choice.

The amount of work, money, and energy required for a serious primary run is daunting. If you add to that Hillary Clinton's apparent focus on many of the same issues her opponents might raise, it gets even more daunting.

Bottom line, few people would run in a presidential primary knowing that they would not have a chance of being the candidate. Many potential Democratic possible candidates will be active supporters of Clinton if she gets the nomination, so that gives them even less reason to run against her just for show. In fact, I can't imagine anyone running just for show. To run, you have to believe you might win the nomination. Looking at the current numbers, I'm not liking anyone else's chances.

Everyone plays the odds.

[VanillaRhapsody]

51. Its not Hillary....its her overwelming support among Democrats...

75% of them support her...

[arcane1]

53. Hell even the republicans are talking that talk.

[polichick]

55. One corporate party, two faces. Same ol' shit.

[arcane1]

56. I suppose it's good news that "sounding progressive" is something candidates think will get votes

But if Rand Paul can complain about income inequality, our side needs to do more than simply echo the complaints.

[polichick]

57. Both corporate parties get that the people are fed up...

So they trot out a bunch of crap meant to manipulate.

Sadly, there is no "our side" - yet.

[99Forever]

59. What a dilemma.

Who should I vote for ? The actual Burnie Sanders or someone pretending to think like him?


Tough decision.

[polichick]

60. I just hope that the real Bernie is meeting enough people who...

are ready for the battle he knows is ahead - otherwise he says he won't run.

I don't see enough people in my everyday life who are ready for that yet, but he probably knows where to look. We'll see I guess...

[99Forever]

64. That makes two of us, Polichick.

In my best estimation, the future of our nation is riding on it.