Let's just get this out in the open.

[kentuck]

Is it a good or bad thing for someone to oppose Hillary in a primary? Does it serve any practical purpose or does it just divide the Party for the general election? What is your opinion ?

[JaneyVee]

1. The more the merrier. No matter what election.

May the best candidate win.

[rock]

70. Ditto

And may I add: obvious.

[hifiguy]

2. Coronations are for monarchies and Repukes.

Not Democrats when there is no incumbent president.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

3. Good by a long shot

[CanonRay]

4. Maybe it can give the eventual candidate a better sense of what voting Dems are thinking?

and enable the candidate to adjust his/her positions. Just trying to be positive!

[peacebird]

5. It's a very good thing to have multiple candidates.

[blm]

6. Good.

There IS no down side to open discussions and debate. Dems almost always have substantive debates. Unlike the poo-flinging neanderthals.

[upaloopa]

7. I am glad Bernie is in the race. I am a Hillary

supporter but I have always liked what Bernie has to say and it is important that his views are out there. Hillary is not the opposite of Bernie.
I don't think the debates will be very antagonistic.
I think this is the best chance we have had in 30 years to turn around the conservative trend.

[CTyankee]

41. Exactly! You are spot on...

and I am where you are politically.

[NCTraveler]

47. Well said. nt.

[winter is coming]

8. IMO, the purpose of primaries should be to hash out which candidate best represents

what the voters want to see in a candidate, so the more, the merrier.

[leftofcool]

9. Obviously the opposition has not hurt her in any way so I say go ahead and oppose!

[LondonReign2]

43. You see what is wrong with your statement, correct?

[leftofcool]

76. GOP hasn't hurt her yet. She still beats most of them by double digits.

[cyberswede]

10. Not just good...essential.

Having robust debate on issues and positions makes all the candidates stronger.

The eventual nominee can then bring their best game to the general.

[bluesbassman]

30. Concur with that cyberswede!

[NYC_SKP]

11. I oppose her because I want to win in the General. She is a loser for our party on that alone.

The GOP is savvy, they will take her apart and she is NOT blameless in what will happen.

One very simple example, she CHOSE to use a private server for emails. It doesn't matter if she did nothing illegal, it looks very bad.

The list is endless.

The voters are going to get very tired of this and wonder why they should bother with another Clinton and their problems, why not try something new.

We had better turn this around, and soon.

[arcane1]

12. Good. I'd like to see more primaries in congressional races too n/t

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

13. Gonna exercise my new rule, do NOT respond to that group of people

no matter how angry they make me

[Hoyt]

14. I believe winning in 2016 is critical. I'd rather Clinton spend time and money speaking out against

Republican policy, not fighting off pests in the party. Sorry, that's how I feel. If Sanders or O'Malley catch fire and move ahead, I'd suggest Clinton drop out for same reason.

[lovemydog]

20. Hi Hoyt. I too believe winning in 2016 is critical.

I think in the 2008 primaries, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were strengthened by the primary season. I think either nominee would have won the presidency. I think good strong debate and good strong challenges won't tear the democratic party apart. I think they show the rest of the country that we have potential nominees who care deeply about the future of our country and who debate these issues in an open and democratic manner.

[seveneyes]

25. fighting off pests?

[CrawlingChaos]

15. Obviously good (nt)

[Liberal Veteran]

16. If God wanted you to have a choice, there would be multiple Hillary Clintons.

[lovemydog]

17. Very good. For example, Bernie Sanders has a sincere message

and has real supporters who deserve to be heard. They believe they can win the nomination and win the general election. They have every bit as much right to demonstrate that as does any other candidate and supporters.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. It gives the people choices and allows scrutiny of the candidates.

I find it to be a pretty good idea in a (alleged) democracy.

[KMOD]

19. It's a good thing.

voters deserve choices.

I do not and will not vote on an uncontested ballot.

[Agnosticsherbet]

21. I think four or five more would be good.

It will make debates more interesting.

I'd rather not see a Republican style cattle stampede.

[kentuck]

22. I agree.

The more the merrier.

[1StrongBlackMan]

23. A lot depends on how the campaign is run ...

If the candidates go negative (even if that is what his/her supports would love to see), it is a bad thing and only divides the party. If, on the other hand, the primary race focuses on the issues and the candidates, at least act like they respect/like their opponent(s) and even acknowledge when their opponent has a valid point ... that would be fantastic.

Bottom line ... HRC supporters will not be moved off HRC by HRC-bashing; just like, Bernie supporters will not be moved off Bernie by Bernie-bashing. However, those in the middle might be swayed one way or the other for the wrong reasons ... the same reasons the gop will use to bash whomever is the eventual Democratic nominee. For example, expect to see: "HRC is a fake populist, joined at the hip to wall street" gop ads; or, "Bernie is a small market, self avowed SOCIALIST with bad hair" gop ads, just in time for the General Election, ... none of which helps Democrats (or progressives).

AND/but, they will leave off the, "But she/he is better than any republican" part. So, since that IS what those in the middle have heard for the last 1 1/2, so ... it must be true. So, Why vote?

[blue neen]

33. Agree with a lot of what you say.

I do think, though, for some undecideds that too much nastiness toward one candidate would actually move people TOWARDS that candidate rather than away.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

24. I don't understand

why we (collectively) are expending so much energy on this when the election is still 18 months away. It's madness,,,,,,,,,

[kentuck]

27. Must be important?

Or so many folks would not be talking about it?

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

32. No matter how much talking folks do

the election is still 18 months away. That's a long time isn't it?

[jwirr]

36. Are you saying that the Iowa caucuses is 18 months away?

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

59. No

The election.

[jwirr]

61. Yes, and that is not the rush. We are working on the primaries now. Iowa and NH are the first ones

in the nation. That is what all the excitement is about. The date of the Iowa caucuses is the first election in the primary.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

71. and when is that date?

and how many on this thread live in Iowa? I guess I'd like to see Democratic/Progressive/Socialist/Leftist voters work together to get a Congress that will be responsive to the people they represent. The real key to enacting change, in my opinion, is to get the Congress fixed. We can already see how the office of the President can be handcuffed by a truculent Legislative branch..........

[jwirr]

72. I do not know what that date is because I no longer live in Iowa. But I know that is when the

real primary starts and it is important to all of us. I also want to see change. And it is very important to work on fixing congress. Without at least a majority in the Senate any president we elect will have trouble. I would like to see us with control of the House also but things like gerrymandering have pretty much made that impossible this time.

[NCTraveler]

46. Voting between these two is much much closer than 18 months. nt.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

26. Of course it's a good thing.

It forces the candidates to defend their positions and gives us a chance to see what they do under pressure. However, I hope we don't end up with a ridiculous number of them, like the GOPers, who I think are up to about 15 now, and there could be more waiting in the wings. At that point it becomes an absurd free-for-all. Five or six candidates would be a good number, I think - no more.

[roody]

28. good

[Gman]

29. My original pick for prez has never won the nomination

In 11 elections, of course with the exceptions of the Big Dog and Obama. Me supporting Hillsry may be the kiss of death.

It's a good thing that the coming primaries with Hillary, Sanders, et al will showcase Democratic values to the country for an extended period of time.

Only good will come out of it.

[bigwillq]

31. Good.

I feel it serves a practical purpose.

[Throd]

34. AFN: Absolutely Fucking Necessary

[uppityperson]

35. In the primary, it is good. Having options is good otherwise why have a primary?

[Blue_In_AK]

37. It's a good thing.

[Yo_Mama]

38. Good for the party, good for her, good for the country

An unopposed Dem candidate in the primaries would be awful.

It makes the eventual nominee much stronger to have vibrant primaries.

Added: In my view, the only reason for anyone to oppose contested primaries is that they fear that their candidate cannot win, which to me is a confession that their candidate is very weak. Not what I would believe when I backed a candidate, so ????

[ucrdem]

39. No objections to a fair fight but that's not what we've got here.

A Dem-on-Dem primary is one thing, but Dem-on-Independent is something else. I know Senator Sanders has sworn on all that is true and holy not to run as an independent, but the fact remains that he IS an independent and there are no enforceable guarantees. So that's an unfair advantage at the very least.

[LondonReign2]

44. Being an independent is an unfair advantage? Who knew

[ucrdem]

48. Think about it.

In any rule dispute he can threaten to take his ball and run as an independent. Disputes typically arise around debate arrangements and fund allocation but there are more arcane ones that come up each primary season.

[tkmorris]

62. ANYONE can do that

It doesn't mean they will and Sanders is actually LESS likely than most to do so.

[ucrdem]

64. But they wouldn't

if they wanted to stay in politics. As for Sanders show me the enforceable guarantee.

[tkmorris]

65. Enforceable guarantee? There isn't one. For anyone

But, Sanders has stated, unequivocally, that he would not do so. Furthermore he knows that his support drops to less than zero if he does.

[ucrdem]

66. Right, which is why he should run as an Independent.

Problem solved.

[LondonReign2]

73. Right. being an independent is so advantageous that everyone wants to do it!

[merrily]

51. LMAO, Hillary has 91% name recognition, hundreds of millions of $$$, DNC backing, has been

campaigning for "her turn" to be POTUS since 1996, but Sanders' Indie status is what somehow makes this primary race unfair? You've GOT to be kidding.

[ucrdem]

53. I'd rather avoid a Dem crash and burn though I imagine some would find it thrilling. nt

[merrily]

55. In your mind, it seems to be inconceivable that Hillary would lose the general.

In my mind, that is a real possibility.

[ucrdem]

56. I can think of many ways she could lose and a Nader maneuver is just one. nt

[yallerdawg]

58. Where is your mind?

'Anyone but'?

[Gothmog]

40. How Bernie Sanders will help Hillary Clinton in the general election

I found this article to be interesting http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/04/bernie_sanders_running_for_president_helps_hillary_clinton_the_vermont_senator.html

If this continues to be the Vermont senator’s approach, Sanders will be more of a help to Clinton’s presidential chances than he will be to his own.

The first bonus that Sanders provides for Clinton, say her supporters, is that he becomes a foil. One of Clinton’s Democratic allies in Congress explained that with a country that prefers general election candidates closer to the middle, Sanders will always offer proof that Clinton is not really that far left. He does for Clinton what Howard Dean did for John Kerry in 2004.....

In 2012 Rep. Ron Paul and Mitt Romney had a symbiotic relationship in the Republican campaign. Paul elevated his own profile and gave his voters an outlet, but he never pointed out the yawning gaps between what he claimed to believe so deeply and the positions of the man who was on his way to being the party’s inevitable nominee. It’s way too early to see if Sanders will play the same role for Clinton, but it has started out that way.

Sanders is such a long shot that those who share his views might be OK with the consolation prize of imitation from Clinton. But if her move to the left is simply rhetorical, she can shed that rhetoric in the general election as candidates often do. This would be another reason for Sanders to press his case with more definition.

In 2014, Kerry did look very moderate compared to Howard Dean and Ron Paul did in effect work with Romney in 2012. I really think that having Sanders in the race will help HRC and get rid of the talking point that the primary process is a coronation. I remember the Ron Paul/Mitt Romney relationship in 2012 (Paul is from near my neck of the woods) and the two never directly attacked the other. Paul got increased exposure for his positions and Romney was made to look more reasonable.

[DrDan]

42. I think it is a good thing - gets the Dems thinking about the issues and how significant

the differences are between our candidates and those of the other party

Need to keep our candidates on the front page . . . and a good race does it

[NCTraveler]

45. It is good to support who you want to be in the general.

Amazingly simple. The division created will be minimal and of no concern.

"Is it a good or bad thing for someone to oppose Hillary in a primary?"

Unfortunately this is all too often the mindset. So many people are just angry and want to oppose something. They have nothing to stand for. I would suggest finding a candidate to support. Not one to oppose. We have some great people on our side.

[Marrah_G]

49. I think it is the purpose of primaries to give people choices

I am supporting and voting for Sanders because I want him to be president. It has nothing to do with Clinton and frankly the assumption that she is already the nominee is stupid.

[MineralMan]

50. Whoever wants to run in the primaries should run.

The voters or caucus goers in each state will decide who they prefer.

[stevenleser]

52. I was in favor of Bernie joining the race. Seeing how his supporters act, now I am not so sure.

I get that when you are down 40 points one of the easiest ways to start closing the gap is to go negative against the front-runner.

Just don't expect you won't get that coming back in the other direction.

I hoped Bernie would run a positive campaign and demand the same of his supporters. The chance that a contested primary ends up being a bad thing for the eventual nominee increases dramatically the more negative it is. And Bernie's supporters seem to be spending their entire time bashing Hillary.

[ucrdem]

57. Take away TPP and Clinton Cash and Bernie has no campaign.

He started at the bottom.

[stevenleser]

67. It's lazy and counterproductive. If I was advocating for Bernie, I would have a lot to say

without mentioning anyone else.

[Hiraeth]

54. Way Good.

[True Blue Door]

60. The framing of this question is utterly insane.

You make it sound as if the Democratic Party nomination for President of the United States is Hillary Clinton's personal property, and that it's somehow extraordinary and destructive to have competitive primaries.

That's so far out of whack with reality as to be surreal. We have a sitting two-term Democratic President because we told Hillary to shove it during her last Coronation Tour.

Such competition is not only the entire purpose of democracy, but it clearly works for the better.

[yellowcanine]

63. Unlike Republicans, Democrats do not select the "next person in line."

Of course others should run.

[lumberjack_jeff]

68. It is absolutely good.

Particularly candidates that are running serious issues-based campaigns.

[TBF]

69. I think we have a lot on the line in 2016 -

and we could see a UK result here very easily. If anyone doubts that they need to talk to their neighbors. OK, mine are especially crazy as I currently reside in Texas. But there is strong current against neoliberalism in this country that some seem to discount. I don't think pushing a candidate who authored TPP is the best route. Granted she has many good attributes as well, but I think the Clinton's time has passed. So has Jeb Bush's for that matter and a Clinton/Bush election is going to turn off many in this country who haven't benefited from "free trade", "trickle down", and other policies of the past 30 years. I'd like to see new faces on both sides of the aisle and I am absolutely thrilled that Bernie actually has a little traction.

[Doctor_J]

74. It's a waste of time. Clinton is being coronated and will preside as a far right "democrat"

I don't think she'll be able to get rid of social security, but her husband promised Paul Ryan that Medicare cuts would happen. Also public schools will be further slashed, and heritage care will be made even worse than it already is. And the drilling, fracking, TPP, pipelines, and wall street control over the white house will get worse.

[Hekate]

75. A robust primary season is essential. What is counterproductive is the scene at DU....

...in which enormous amounts of vitriol are splashed about in an attempt to destroy one particular candidate, and only that candidate. Vitriol is not debate on the merits, not even close. Half truths, lies, and things taken out of context should never be part of our Democratic primary process, as they serve no one but the GOP.

So -- still looking forward to that robust debate among Democrats, as that will be clarifying and solidifying.

[Binkie The Clown]

77. Having one name on the ballot reminds me of the old Soviet Union

No choice is not a choice. As Americans, and as Democrats, do we have choice or don't we?

[Rex]

78. Well it depends on if you like democracy or not imo.

Primaries are supposed to give people choices, you know those things we Dems proclaim to love so much. However, some don't like the idea of their pony losing and it is just not ONE groups pony.

DU is a madhouse of people pushing for others to like what they like or in some cases hit the road if you don't. Tough skin in GD, is needed yes.

Since I am voting for the winner of the primary, I think it good to see fresh blood in the race. I also like seeing HRC in the race, it means everyone will have to be on their toes and bullshit will get called out.

OR you can look at the GOP clown car and wonder which idiot is going to fuck up worse in their so called 'debates'. No matter what, it will be politicians vs. clowns and the clowns have big money backers and the SCOTUS (still) on their side. As much as I despise politicians that will say anything, I will take them over clowns any day. Clowns hate their audience and wish they could drop them in a vast of acid.

Politicians have not moved that far right yet and hopefully will never go that way.