A bit of advice for those who do not want Hillary Clinton to win the nomination

[MohRokTah]

Last edited Tue Aug 26, 2014, 11:27 AM - Edit history (1)

It's simple really. You need a large group of people to settle on a single candidate to oppose her. That's step one. It has to be one because Hillary Clinton's biggest advantage, and quite frankly the advantage that scares away the best potential opponents is her ability to raise cash.

Hillary's second biggest advantage is to have a large pool of candidates opposing her early on. They will spread the cash from potential donors across a larger pool and weaken everybody's position.

Those two advantages nearly put her in the nominee's position in 2008. People forget, Barack Obama came close to losing the nomination to Hillary Clinton. It was an extremely close race.

Step two, raise cash. A lot of cash.

And here's the one thing you're going to have to accept if you want to defeat Hillary Clinton in the primaries.

Your candidate has to accept lots of cash from high money donors. Corporate CEOs, Wall Street bankers and brokers.You will need capitalist cash because without it, Hillary will roll over your candidate like a steamroller over a beetle.

That's the reality of retail politics in the 21st century. Money is king. You need operations at the state level and that takes money.

[FSogol]

3. So you'll give a vote to the GOP over 1 issue? Even though you probably agree with the Democratic

nominee on 80% of everything else?

[FSogol]

22. By writing Jimmy Carter, you are voting for Paul Ryan or whatever miserable asshat the GOP nominates

You should consider the Supreme Court before you flush your vote away.

Bye.

[Vattel]

88. Not that "no-vote-is-a-vote-for-the-republican" silliness again.

[hifiguy]

36. in a solidly blue OR red state - at least in presidential elections -

there is nothing wrong with voting third-party for an office or two. My state is solidly blue in POTUS elections and if it appears to be such the days before the election I will vote Green or some other third party for the presidency but an otherwise straight Dem ticket. I will not vote for HRC. I steadfastly oppose Wall $treet and the MIC, both of which she is firmly aligned with. Can't do it.

[FSogol]

43. Jimmy Carter is a 3rd party candidate? Write in votes are a vote for the GOP.

Justify your high ideals however you want. Big primary season coming up. I'd rather hear about people's preferred Democratic candidates rather than hearing HRC bashing 24/7.

[rjj621]

58. How???

How is a write in vote a vote for the GOP? It's not a vote for the GOP, it's simply a non vote for either candidate. A right to express our displeasure of the current candidates or this ridiculous pandering two party system that gets less and less done while really only trying to raise money, worry about the their next election, and blame the other party for every single thing wrong in Washington, the US, and the World. If we had decent candidates, a more functional Washington, and trust in the current party, perhaps less people would consider voting third party.

[FSogol]

60. When you do not vote for Democrats, Republicans win.

Ask Al Gore about it some time. The primary is your chance to show dissatisfaction, not during the election. Protest votes and staying home only help the GOP. See the 2010 midterms.

[hifiguy]

69. There is this thing called the Electoral College.

If a Democrat in a fire-engine red state, like Oklahoma, or a deep-sea blue state, like California or my own Minnesota usually are, for a third-party candidate for POTUS there is no detriment to Democrats as long as that person votes an otherwise Democratic ticket, which I have all my life.

[FSogol]

70. Specialized case. There are many purple states out there and many states where the status quo is

changing. Look at the growth of Democratic voters in Texas for example. No Texas voter should vote 3rd party under the assumption that Texas is solid red.

[hifiguy]

73. i agree with you completely in that respect

and Texas is a perfect example of where it should not be done.

[FSogol]

74. Thanks for that. I've always lived in purple VA and every single vote is precious here.

GOTV, DU

[hifiguy]

76. Yup!

Minnesota has been blue for so long at the presidential level that it's easy to get a little complacent up here.

[FSogol]

113. I'm sure Paul Ryan and Ted Cruz will be much nicer to the Palestinians. n/t

[bigwillq]

66. I live in CT, and I do the same

I don't see it as a throw away vote. I knew a year ahead of 2012 that CT would go for Obama. So, I voted third party. No harm, no foul. If it appears it may be close in 2016, I will reevaluate my choice.

[hifiguy]

68. Exactly the way I see it.

Though if I must vote for HRC I will be doing it holding my nose and closing my eyes.

There's no way I will not vote for every other Democrat, especially my wonderful congressman, Keith Ellison.

[MohRokTah]

4. You might not want to mention that around here too much, especially going into elections

This is a web site for electing Democrats.

[MohRokTah]

27. Jimmy Carter is not a candidate for any office.

Trying to get people to vote for Jimmy Carter via a write in will be a violation of TOS after the primaries are over in 2016. You've got time to think about it, but keep that in mind.

[Fawke Em]

30. The poster didn't advocate that anyone else vote for Jimmy Carter.

(S)He only said (s)he would vote for Carter.

[GeorgeGist]

37. ooga booga

[rock]

21. OK, we'll put you down for 1/2 vote for Hillary

and 1/2 vote for the repiggie. It's the mathematics of the situation.

[Purveyor]

52. At this point in time, Jimmy Carter is my candidate too.

[BaggersRDumb]

101. Then you must hate ACA...cuz if cons can, they will destroy it as well as

Women's rights to their own bodies and just about every other god damn thing we have fought for the past 40 yrs.

[Xyzse]

2. Well yes, I agree.

I am not worried yet. I am still in 2014 mode.
Maybe next year, I'll figure out who I want to support.

My money would probably go to O'Malley, and he is my governor.

[FSogol]

5. I'm a O'Malley supporter too. Hope he announces quickly after the midterms. n/t

[MohRokTah]

13. I like O'Malley. If he can secure the right people he could become a contender.

He has the chops, he just needs the cash.

[MohRokTah]

6. Edwards became succcessul in the 2008 election by announcing late 2006. eom

[Xyzse]

7. Yep....

[ancianita]

8. You fight retail politics by demanding that these moneybags can ONLY win on the merits and truth of

their arguments, and on an articulated vision for the betterment of all. Those three, if foremost and consistent in a candidate's campaign, at least point to a rat's ass chance of the chief executive looking out for the 99%; perhaps those standards would influence state election levels, as well.

If merits/truth/vision don't matter to voters more than who's richer/slicker than whom, then voting shouldn't matter anymore, either.

[MohRokTah]

11. Ya can't sell it if you can't afford to sell it.

National retail politics is expensive business.

[ancianita]

78. Well, then representative politics for The People hasn't got a chance. We shouldn't fool ourselves.

Trying to find some old school exception, like we thought Obama was, is random and risky.

I'm trying to believe that a truthful, visionary message will transcend the costs of media exposure and make up for losing the spending contest. You're not helping.

[MohRokTah]

80. The winning candidate in 2016 wil have to be capable of raising $1 billion.

That's just cold hard reality.

[NightWatcher]

9. So Hillary will benefit from what's wrong with US politics?

This is why we'll never see campaign change, or lobbyist reform. Those with the big bucks in power do not want to give up the big bucks nor their power.

Congrats, the Mighty Hillary Money Machine will, as you said, steam roll over everyone else.

Oh, since she has all this corporate money, does this mean she won't flood my inbox with daily begs for more money from little old me? Either way, she's not getting my money or my volunteering effort. I'm not knocking on doors or making calls for her. She's got the bucks, she can hire pros. Sure, I'll vote for the nominee, I can go ahead and mail in my 2016 ballot today for all it matters, but that's about it.

[MohRokTah]

10. Every buck counts.

Small donations by themself may work on some statewide elections, and could certainly work in small district elections.

Retail national politics requires big money, though. Small donations alone won't cut it at that level.

[Autumn]

12. advice.

[MohRokTah]

15. Thanks. eom

[bullwinkle428]

14. Don't expect to see serious movement from the potential contenders until

after the 2014 mid-terms.

[MohRokTah]

16. I expect the first announcement to come in December. eom

[MineralMan]

17. There isn't a single candidate to oppose Hillary.

The ones whose names are being bandied about on DU may not even declare, or if they do, they may not have any intention or desire to actually become the candidate. In the second category is Bernie Sanders, who might run just to move the debate further to the left. He's not even a Democrat, and likely would have zero chance of winning in the general election. If he does change parties and run, he likely will win no more than one or two primary elections. His presence in the campaign, however, might force some topics into the debate that might otherwise not be there.

Elizabeth Warren is probably in the first category, and may not, and probably will not run at all. She's popular with one group of Democrats for whom economic issues are of primary importance. However, if she does run, her background as a Republican is going to end up as topic 1 for discussion by many people for whom social issues are of primary importance.

And then there's Hillary, who I'm almost certain will run. She has poll numbers on her side, both for the primary elections and for the 2016 general election, as well, based on potential GOP candidates. If she does run, it will take a candidate with her name recognition and broad-based support to beat her for the nomination. So far, I've seen no such potential candidate even suggesting running.

It's all too early, really, to talk about this. Until the 2014 election is over, nobody of any stature will declare candidacy for 2016. It's simply not done. So, it's all speculation and pretty much nonsense to begin the conversation now. For now, the main concern should be to:

GOTV 2014!

[Laelth]

33. Just curious.

What's the basis for your opinion that Hillary Clinton will run? Is it just intuition, or do you know something I don't? If you have some inside knowledge, please share.



I also note that Elizabeth Warren is the 3rd best fundraiser, behind Obama and Clinton, in the Democratic Party. That's why those of us on the left think she's the best chance we have to get a liberal nominated (and, by liberal, I mean an economic liberal). As you rightly noted in your post, many of us feel that the economic issues are paramount.

It's the economic issues that make us liberals.

-Laelth

[MineralMan]

39. It's just my intuition, based on what she has said and done.

As for Elizabeth Warren, I do not believe she will run. Again, my intuition, based on her own statements. If she does run, she will have a very difficult road ahead of her. Yes, she's forward thinking on economic policy, and on some social issues. However, she has some baggage, as well, and has far less name recognition in the general population than you might think. How she does in primaries, should she run, will probably let everyone know that she doesn't have the broad-based support among Democrats that many think she does. Most people, in fact, I believe, know very little about Elizabeth Warren, despite her popularity among some Democrats and other progressives.

I do not think she will run. I do think she will enthusiastically support HRC, though. I think it's entirely possible, in fact, that Hillary Clinton will not have any viable opponents for the Democratic nomination. I do not consider Bernie Sanders to be a viable primary opponent, by the way. Maybe in one or two states, he might pull 25% of the vote in the primary, possibly. Democratic voters are not homogeneous in any way, and the majority vote as though the primaries were a popularity contest. In the general election, most will vote for the party's choice anyhow.

I've been around Presidential politics since JFK's first election. I was just a high school kid then, of course, but was involved then, too. My intuition, as you call it, is based on all of the elections since then. I've voted for every Democrat from 1968 on, and began campaigning for Democrats in 1960. I've followed every primary and general election, and have predicted each of them correctly before the election. 1968 was very difficult to predict up to the Democratic Convention. After the convention, it was clear who the winner would be, sadly.

[mylye2222]

18. I only hope they will be contenders!!!!

[NYC_SKP]

23. You're right, she'll get plenty of Corporate funding. But not a dime from me.

I have this horrible condition:

I'll only send funds to and vote for people who truly represent our values.

If the system is broken, I'll be damned if I'll let that lower my standards.

[leftstreet]

24. But surely the DNC has a backup plan, yes?

If Hillary screws up her campaign, or falls ill, or something?

[MineralMan]

25. What I hope is that the DNC is focused entirely on 2014 right now.

As we all should be, in my opinion.

GOTV 2014!

[MohRokTah]

40. You should see some jockeying from potential 2016 candidates in this election.

Lending support in 2006 was how Obama prepped for 2008.

[MineralMan]

42. I suppose so. We'll see.

We're almost to September. The campaigns for Congressional seats are just starting to roll out strongly. Visits to districts and states by potential 2016 candidates should be beginning soon, although you usually see more the closer the election is.

How much influence that has on those Congressional races is open to question, though. Every House election is really a local election, and the outcome depends more on GOTV than anything else in swing districts. That's my focus, not endorsements from presidential wannabees. They have their place, but I don't think they're that influential, except for getting the presidential candidate's name out there.

I see that Bernie's interested in Iowa. He's playing an interesting game, I think, but I doubt very much that he considers himself a viable candidate, really. I think he hopes to stir the pot some, though. If he does that, it will be a good thing. Elizabeth Warren? I don't think she's running, and I expect that we'll hear from her in support of Hillary from the beginning of the campaign, starting in 2015. Same with Joe Biden and some other names who have been mentioned as possible candidates.

Personally, I think a lot of people are going to be disappointed when their dark horse candidate doesn't even show up for a run. I expect to see a lot of that here on DU over the next couple of years. I don't think it's going to be pretty, and I think Hillary's going to take a lot of heat from some sectors. I also think that doesn't really concern her all that much, to be frank.

[MohRokTah]

44. The support for the candidates is really more of the money game.

If you can show you can raise cash for people running for the House, the Senate, or the Governorship, you show you can raise cash for yourself in a presidential run.

It's about proving yourself to the people with the money.

[MineralMan]

48. Sure. Still, people like Hillary have already proven that they

can raise gobs of money.

[MohRokTah]

59. Yeah, her candidate support will be much more strategic.

She doesn't have to prove she's a player.

I'm with you on Bernie's game. He wants to raise issues and drag the thing to the left, and that's good.

O'Malley could be a stalking horse here. He's got the potential, he just needs to prove he can show the money. I'm doubtful if he'll be able to do that. He'll need to put together a dream team like Obama did in 2008 if he's going to be a contender.

[MineralMan]

61. O'Malley's struggle is going to be name recognition.

Right now, he has almost zero. That affects fundraising and campaigning for other candidates. It's going to be a tough pull for him.

[MohRokTah]

64. Absolutely!

He doesn't even have a book out so far as I know, and a book is always a good way to drum up recognition.

[neverforget]

26. let's get past the mid terms and then worry about 2016.

No one has declared they are running yet and it's all pointless speculation until then.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

50. This ^ ^ ^ ^

[gyroscope]

28. Walmart will be among her biggest donors

as well as defense contractors and big banks, etc.

I don't think she'll have much trouble raising cash. but then again, even with all those big name corporate donors and her name recognition she still lost in 2008.

[Laelth]

29. I respectfully disagree.

What we need is for Hillary Clinton to declare that she's not running for President in 2016. Then we can start to have a serious discussion about whom we may wish to nominate.

Until she makes such a declaration (and she might), we're going to see a constant battle between Hillary supporters and all the rest of us who would prefer a more-liberal and less-compromised candidate.

-Laelth

[MohRokTah]

41. You'll not see that.

If she determines she will not run, that will come after the mid-terms.

For my part, I fully expect her to run.

[cantbeserious]

31. You Mean Raise Cash From The 1% That Will Then Expect Favors To Crush The 99%

eom

[vi5]

32. Well, at least you're honest.

Nice to see someone admit that money and moneyed interests are Hillary's priority.

Good to hear she won't need my support, but she sure as hell isn't getting it. Luckily as you point out she's got many, many wealthy benefactors who can help her out. Best of luck to her.

[conservaphobe]

34. No matter who wins on our side, America will be fine and the world will stay very much intact.

If not, the election won't have anything to do with it.

[sabrina 1]

35. You don't understand obviously. Hillary, or any other candidate who is Corporate Funded

will be okay with those who fund them. They are willing to fund anyone who will take their bribes and in the end, whoever wins is okay with them.

We do NOT need Corporate Funded candidates, that is exactly the objection to Hillary.

Make MONEY in POLITICS POISON.

We don't need much money to find out who is funding these candidates and to use it to oppose them.

Yes, it will take time, but it has to start somewhere, now seems like a good place to start.

Meantime, the WH race is the least important.

CONGRESS is where to place the emphasis, to get good candidates in this upcoming election and again in 2016.

The president can't do anything, we have been told, without Congress. So why focus on a race that even if we win with a great candidate, will be totally ineffective if Congress is not on the side of the people?

[leftynyc]

45. The Supreme Court is in the balance in 2016

so the White House is the most important.

[sabrina 1]

49. Heard that before also. Vote for the SC. Remember, the SC nominee cannot get past

Congress either.

Sorry, all these old 'strategies' have failed the people. It's way past time for the people themselves to start strategizing.

[leftynyc]

53. They don't have to get past Congress

just the Senate. If you want to pretend having more Scalia's on the court is no big deal (vs more Ginsberg's) then we have nothing to discuss. I'll just know you have your head in the sand on this issue.

[sabrina 1]

57. Congress = House and Senate. I remember how many Democrats voted for Bush's nominees.

Biden eg airc AFTER stating he would not. Just one of my recollections regarding the SC Justice 'strategy' we hear so much about only to see Dems, enough of them every time, help push through legislation and nominees we the people made clear we were opposed to.

So, back to my point, if we focus on Congress instead of the Billion Dollar WH Race, the next time another BUSH tries to get one of his nominees through, s/he will be faced with a Senate that has no Dems who are likely to help him/her do so.

You only emphasize why the WH is not where the focus needs to be. It needs to be, first, we now know, at the local lever AND on Congress/Senate.

Let the Corps waste their billions on the WH while the people figure out how to BLOCK them on issues that do not help the people.

[leftynyc]

63. I don't think you understand

the supreme court process. Only one person that has been nominated in recent memory has not cleared the senate - that was Bork. I come from a family of lawyers - all liberals - and each one says the same thing - Presidents get to pick their high court judges. It's one of the consequences of elections. You don't just willy nilly oppose a justice because he/she is a liberal or a conservative. It's just not done. That's why Ruth Ginsburg (a REAL liberal) got 96 senators to vote for her.

I'm not the one who needed the education on who votes in Supreme Court justices. YOU said they needed to get through Congress and I pointed out that wasn't true as the House of Reps has nothing to do with it. ONLY the senate.

[sabrina 1]

72. No, I DO understand and you post only makes my point more strongly.

Clearly the system, as you point out, has failed. CHANGE is what is needed to make sure that SC nominees ARE rejected when they are not suitable for the SC.

What you are advocating is that we continue a failed system. It's WAY PAST time to change the system you just outlined. And to do that we have to focus on CONGRESS.

Congress is made up of two Houses, the House of Reps AND the Senate. You pointed out nothing most people do not know.

Focus on Congress is what is needed to get those changes. And the next time someone like Thomas is nominated Citizens United won't be able to push him through.

11 Democrats voted for Thomas. He could not have been nominated without them.

THIS is what has to change. We need members of Congress, BOTH HOUSES, who will reject those nominees who, like Thomas, obviously do not serve the people's interests.

[leftynyc]

77. What are you talking about?

What part of THE HOUSE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SUPREME COURT NOMINEES is too difficult for you to grasp? What part of elections have consequences and the supreme court is the biggest one is too difficult for you to understand? And you're wrong - Thomas serves the interests of the President that nominated him and his supporters quite nicely. So do the rest of the con judges. They don't support YOUR interests which is very much the point of getting a Democratic president. I'm getting the feeling you seriously don't understand the process involved OR the history.

[sabrina 1]

90. What part of Congress is made up of two houses do YOU not understand? And 11 DEMOCRATS

who voted for Thomas, one of the most reactionary and disastrous SC Justices since he made it, with the help of all those Democrats, to the SC. What is it you are failing to understand about Dems helping to push through SC nominees no matter how bad they are? If those 11 Dems had voted 'Nay' instead of 'Yea' there would be no Thomas on the SC.

We KNOW who he serves and we know how he got there. THAT is what has to change.

I have a feeling you are seriously trying to distract from the issue.

I understand far too well how we get the kind of SC we have right now.

With the help of Democrats who should have NEVER supported Thomas' nomination.

And my point still stands, Congress, both houses since you seem to not understand the term 'congress' is where the people have power and that is where the focus should be.

[leftynyc]

91. Since I'm the one who

pointed out there are two houses - one of which has NOTHING to do with supreme court nominees, obviously I'm not the one who needs the lesson. You don't get it and it seems you never will. Presidents get their judges to the high court confirmed unless something very egregious is involved - not liking Thomas is not a reason. That's he's a conservative is not a reason. THAT's the issue. That you want to make it something else is not my problem.

[sabrina 1]

92. Since you're the only one in this discussion who thinks there is only one issue people

are concerned about, and who had to be told 'putting the focus on Congress rather than on the WH' meant both houses and NOT just because of ONE ISSUE, I don't think I am the one who is failing to understand anything here.

[leftynyc]

94. Sigh

If you don't understand that the only lasting legacy any President really has are his/her picks for the high court, not my problem. Everything other than military action and high court picks can be undone by a subsequent President. It's the MOST IMPORTANT reason to vote for any President because it's something that last for decades - Kennedy was nominated by a President who's been dead for over 10 years. And you think not liking a candidate is a reason to vote against him/her going against over 200 years of history. Using your suggestion - us acting like the teabaggers - would only make sure that nobody got seated.

[sabrina 1]

95. If you don't understand that a Congress (both houses) that actually represents the people

were ever to be elected here in this country, no president would get to leave the kind of 'legacy' left by Bush eg because the PEOPLE'S Reps would not allow it to happen.

The way things are NOW, if, or when as it will happen, the next Republican occupies the WH and nominates another Thomas, WHO IS GOING TO STOP that?? Dems? They SHOULD, but as we've seen, the WON'T.

Thomas, eg, should have been impeached for not recusing himself from what was a clear conflict of interest in the Citizens United vote. The ONLY Dem who was trying to bring awareness to this gross violation of trust was Anthony Weiner. And perhaps one other Dem. We saw what happened to HIM, we saw the leadership throw him under the bus as quickly as possible.

And then we saw an end to campaign to stop Thomas from doing this again.

That decision SHOULD be overturned because of Thomas' vote. But who is trying to do that NOW?

The SC is there because of both parties. If we had a true Representative Congress, Weiner would have had a huge amount of support for his efforts to go after Thomas' clear conflicts. But we don't, do we, so with the help of the Dem Leadership, Thomas, whose transgressions have FAR, FAR more consequences for this COUNTRY, that what they go Weiner for, was protected, by the Dem Leadership.

[leftynyc]

96. People can scream

and stamp their feet all they want. That's not going to change the FACT - that members of congress in both parties understand and you don't seem to - Presidents get their judges for the high court seated. I notice I don't see you complaining that Ginsburg was seated after receiving 96 votes in the senate so obviously many cons were part of getting the most liberal justice currently on the court seated. Even cons understand the reality that you want to deny.

[BlueCaliDem]

67. Thank you! It never ceases to amaze me how naive some Progressives are

when it comes to the importance of who we elect as president and the lifetime seats on the highest and most powerful court of the land (from which there is NO appealing decisions).

These people just don't seem to get it - and then Roberts and Alito are installed and - POOF! - the VRA is gutted and voting becomes almost impossible for PoC, corporations are suddenly people and have unlimited "speech" in the form of $$s, religion is gaining more power to deny women access to contraceptives, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

With three SCOTUS seats ready for replacements in the coming eight years, the LAST thing we need is another Republican in the White House or a Republican Senate. I wished more people could comprehend how vitally important it is to our rights as ordinary people to have a Democrat in the White House and to maintain a majority of Democrats in the Senate, because you can bet your last constitutionally protected right that the Koch Bros do.

[TheKentuckian]

97. If that is the case then it is important to trust the person to appoint good judges

Few in the party I trust less to appoint the right people to positions of any sort than Hillary Clinton.

Why? Look at the fucking hacks she surrounds herself with, look at the dumpsterfires she associates with, listen to what she says, DLC founder for crying out loud, surveillance state proponent, a damn neocon, proud free trader, and since she will tell blatant, stupid, and easily disproved lies she has no credibility anyway.

I look at our challenges and where we are right now as a country as well as a planet and find it somewhere between absurd and batshit crazy to look at the world today to support a person and the people she would bring in to address them that are all about when in a hole to just keep fucking digging having substantially embraced corporate dominance, military and clandestine interventionism, and assaulting civil liberties the same as the supposed opposition.

Supreme Court? I don't want this person hiring a call center supervisor or a restaurant manager. Might as well be serving up fucking Joe Lieberman as far as I'm concerned.

Better than the TeaPubliKlan? Sure but that will buy you shit because guess what so was arguably the worst President in history. Maybe Jeb or a Romney would be a little improvement but the rest of the field is pretty much EASILY worse than Junior Bush and I can't grade on that curve, it is too dangerous and meaningless.

[leftynyc]

98. Whatever

If you think the republican candidate will give you more of what you want, knock yourself out.

[BaggersRDumb]

103. If what happened when they DIDNT vote in 2010 didnt teach them, nothing will

[leftynyc]

108. Agree

But they'll be here complaining non-stop. I gave up on the perfect candidate a very long time ago as I live in the real world.

[Bettie]

46. Tell me why she's the best candidate out there

Honestly, you're saying she's the best candidate because she can raise a lot of money.

That doesn't seem to be the best way to get the point across that she's really the best candidate to vote for, it actually says she's the corporate candidate, that she's the Wall Street candidate.

Make no mistake, I'll vote for her if she's the nominee, but that is in no way assured in the primary season.

So, convince me.

I'm open to hearing your argument, but you lose me when you begin telling me that it's a done deal because of money.

[MohRokTah]

47. That's precisely what I'm saying.

If a candidate is incapable of raising the nearly $1 billion it will take to win in 2016, they are not worth considering.

[sabrina 1]

51. So 'she's the best candidate because Corporations love her'. Lol, is this some kind of joke?

[BlueCaliDem]

71. No. No joke. It's reality.

Thanks to people who cried that there was no difference between Gore and Bush in 2000 - and who influenced enough people to vote either Nader or not vote, we're stuck with RW corporate lackeys in the Supreme Court of the United States. YOUNG corporate lackeys.

Come 2016, we have a chance to right that wrong by electing a Democrat as president and to continue to keep a Democrat in the WH and a Democratic majority in the Senate until Scalia and Kennedy keel over in their seats a la Chief Justice Rehnquist, and Bader-Ginsberg retires. This will tilt the Court in OUR favor.

The basic rights that this crop of corporatists on the most activist SCOTUS in history is eroding can still be turned around - IF we stand together and keep Democrats in the White House and a Democratic majority in the Senate. That, is the reality.

[sabrina 1]

75. Gore WON the 2000 election. The SC stole it for Bush. Let's stop changing the facts about that

act of treason please.

We are here, in 2014 and Corporations have taken over the election process, BECAUSE WE LET THEM.

So, it's time to change this system. Throw out the Corporate tools who have been bought and paid for by Corporate America and replace them with actual Reps of the People.

Or are you saying we should just keep on doing the same old thing and never even try to change a system that has so failed the American people?

When should we start actually doing something to change this rotten system??

[BlueCaliDem]

81. Yes. It was an act of treason, and yes, I know Gore won. But Bush became president

because we have a pro-GOP media and billionaires willing to put hundreds of millions behind GOP presidential candidates. The reality is, the election was so close that the GOP were able to steal it through Florida and other electorally important States.

That didn't happen in 2008 or 2012, although they did try their damnedest {remember the shocked look on Karl Rove's face when Ohio went to Obama?}. Why? Because people went out, en masse, and voted overwhelmingly for President Obama despite the naysayers, the overwhelming negative coverage he received in 2012 by the U.S. media, and the billions the Kochs, the Adelsons, the oil barons were throwing at him.

Oh, and there wasn't a Nader running against him as there had been against Gore.

Or are you saying we should just keep on doing the same old thing and never even try to change a system that has so failed the American people?

No, I'm not saying that at all, and you know it. But attacking HRC instead of uniting behind her while she's the most powerful Democratic candidate we have who can beat any candidate from the GOP, won't do anything to change a system that's failing us. It will only exascerbate it because you're forgetting that HRC doesn't only have enemies on her Left-flank, she has some powerful and well-funded enemies on the Right side - enemies with billions, not millions, to spend to buy our government. Let's not make their job easy, shall we?

When should we start actually doing something to change this rotten system??

When we have filibuster-proof majorities in the Senate and the majority we had under Nancy Pelosi in 2009, and not sooner.

[sabrina 1]

93. 'When we have filibuster-proof majorities in the Senate'. Why didn't we do it, first thing, in Jan

2009? THAT is what we went out 'en masse' for? To seize the moment. We didn't, for whatever reason. So what makes you think that if we go out 'en masse' and do the same thing again, anything is going to change so long as these candidates are Corporate Funded?

THAT is what lost us the 2010 election. Independents stayed home. They DID go out in 2008, they helped get that majority, only to hear nothing but excuses as soon as they got it.

So now what? Keep repeating the same old failed policies? Keep 'hoping' that one day it will work?

No, what needs to be done is to choose and then support candidates who are NOT corporate funded. Make 'money in politics' POISON, which it is.

I know, Dems decided to take that money also, that WAS the solution, and it hasn't worked, has it? There are always enough Dems to help pass the Corporate agenda now. Show me a single time when our side voted UNANIMOUSLY against a Corporate friendly piece of legislation, including all of our Foreign Policies. The ONLY unanimous vote I've seen lately is the one to support Israel!!

That alone told people that huge change is necessary if the people are ever to be properly represented.

[BlueCaliDem]

99. It's debatable who, what, and why our side didn't turn out in 2010. There is no conclusive

study explaining the reasons other than that it were mid-terms and the majority of America just don't vote in the mid-terms. At least, not on our side.

We never had filibuster-proof majorities in the Senate in 2009. Never. So that's why we didn't get any meaningful reform through. I mean, jeezus! We couldn't even get a public option through, thanks to ConservaDems from conservative States.

That's why, under Speaker Pelosi, four hundreds and forty-four bills were filibustered in the Senate and never saw the light of day. And they weren't even controversial! Can you imagine then the odds for any meaningful campaign finance reform bills originating in the House passing in the Senate where they needed 60 votes to override a filibuster? I wouldn't put any money on it.

After Citizens United, especially, Democrats know that although they might not be able to out-raise Republicans, but they can at least raise enough to counter the barrage of attack ads that will be targeting them - and we must also not forget that not all Corporations are bad. I know of one personally whose CEO (through crafty loopholes) gave President Obama $4 million in 2012, and he's as liberal as one can get. He told me that he doesn't need quid pro quo and he doesn't expect it. He, unlike the Kochs, understand that he can't keep making millions supplying if consumers don't have jobs and then money to demand. He understands that consumers, not capital gain profits or more tax cuts for the wealthy, drive the economy.

[sabrina 1]

100. You're jumping ahead from Jan 2009 to a few years later AFTER they let the moment pass, then

used 'we didn't have enough Dems, Kennedy was sick etc.' In Jan 2009 after waiting so long and working so hard to get there, there WERE things that could have been done IMMEDIATELY but were not. 'Give them some time' we heard, then 'it's too late, we don't have the majority we had in Jan'.

Sick of the excuses frankly. If Repubs had had a victory like that in 2008, laws would have been pushed through before the end of January and everyone knows it.

As for there being any question about 2010, there really isn't. Progressives went out and voted, which is why Progressives lost hardly any seats. Blue Dogs lost, because Independents and all of us, actually, were told 'how can you blame Dems for not getting a PO eg, when the Blue Dogs won't go along'. So, they were told 'the Blue Dogs are the Problem' which was obvious anyhow, so they stayed home when that was their only choice.

I will say it again, this party needs to stop BLAMING THE VOTERS. It is not a good campaign strategy considering the past decade or so when it is clear, it is NOT the voters, it is Corporate Money that has taken over and elected officials will vote for how is paying their way every time, as we have seen.

[Bettie]

104. It is depressing to me that the 'ideal' candidate is

that due to fundraising ability rather than issues or character.

So, really? Hilary is the best choice because Wall Street and Corporations like her.

I'm guessing she'll do what's best for them.

As I said, I'll vote for her if she's the nominee, but I did hope to hear something positive other than "she can raise lots of cash".

[MohRokTah]

105. That's the way it is. If you can show me another potential candidate who can raise...

the necessary $1 billion, I'll gladly consider them. Right now, I only see one Democrat capable of doing that.

[Bettie]

106. See, I get that she can raise the money

I simply don't have any confidence that she will actually put in any time for those of us in the 99%.

I don't have confidence that she will nominate SC candidates that will be even nominally to the Left.

I do know she'll be the nominee if she runs, but I was hoping someone had a good thing to say about her views and positions, other than "she's good at raising money".

If that is the only factor that matters anymore, why bother?

[MohRokTah]

107. This is only the presidency.

It's still different in state level contests and even more different in local level elections.

If you want to change the dynamic for the top, you've got to change the makeup at the bottom. This is where the Republicans and the 1% have it down.

And you have to be patient. Ten years minimum to effect change as big as you want, because you have to start with state legislatures and the House of Representatives and work your way up.

[arcane1]

54. In other words, the system sucks :(

[MohRokTah]

55. I can't deny that.

The system has been this way in the Democratic side since 1972 after the big wigs of the party decided not to leave it up to the people alone (super delegates, anybody?).

[morningfog]

56. The system sucks, AND Hillary is a beneficiary and representaive of what sucks about it.

Great message!

[MohRokTah]

62. Show me ONE OTHER Democrat capable of raising $1 billion for the 2016 election.

I will absolutely give a great deal of thought to switching support to that Democrat.

[morningfog]

65. Money is all that matters apparently.

[Man from Pickens]

79. I'm not sure cash matters as much as it used to

Eric Cantor reportedly spent $6 million vs. $200k for his opponent and he lost badly.

There is a mood in this country that is simply outraged at the status quo, where corporations buy the government they want and the rest of us are left out of the loop entirely.

[MohRokTah]

82. National politics vs. local politics.

A presidential campaign is very different from a campaign over a House seat.

The primaries in a presidential campaign are retail politics at its finest. It then evolves into wholesale politics for the general.

A House seat is retail politics on a very small scale.

Comparing the two is to compare a ball bearing to a beach ball.

[Man from Pickens]

83. In the past

Money could buy you an election on the House level, no problem.

I think that's changing, due to a popular awareness of the corrupting influence of money, as well as the rise of alternative and social media. People don't really get their news from the TV anymore.

It will take some money, of course, but I don't see the major sources of Dem-side cash (unions, professionals, universities) drying up with a different nominee. If you look at Obama's sources of cash and subtract the corporatist donors, you still end up with more than enough to run a formidable national campaign.

[MohRokTah]

84. In the past, you could always overcome money on the House level.

It depends entirely on the size of the district.

For example, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Alaska you cannot do retail politics for a House seat. The area covered is just too big.

Cantor's district, on the other hand, was small enough to make retail politics very viable and using shoe leather combined with volunteers = big bucks on the retail level in districts that cover small geographical areas.

[Man from Pickens]

87. The problem over making money-raising from corporations a prerequisite for a nominee

is that there's not a heck of a lot of difference between that and simply putting the nomination up for sale.

If the election resolves to corporate-Democrat vs. corporate-Republican then that really is no choice at all, and makes a mockery of the idea of democracy. Choosing my favorite corporatist is not the choice I want to be making at the ballot box.

I believe money will flow in to whoever the Democratic nominee is, if for no other reason than many donors finding any Democrat preferable to any Republican.

There have to be other alternatives who can both raise money and be acceptable on policy. Bernie Sanders was suggested to me and I think that's a good idea. I am also open to other suggestions. We have a whole country to pick from, why should we be forced to line up behind one of the least appealing candidates in the party?

[MohRokTah]

89. I can't disagree with that, but there are no other alternatives for the national level.

In most cases, there simply aren't any alternatives on a statewide level, either.

The price of admission to the Oval Office on January 15, 2017 will be $1 billion raised.

That doesn't even count the SuperPAC money.

[mulsh]

85. Better advice is wait until if/when she announces she's a candidate.

n/t

[MohRokTah]

86. Really, it's advice to anybody who wants to win the nomination in 2016.

The cost for that ride all the way to the finish will be $1 billion.

[Recursion]

110. Vermin Supreme

He's a declared Presidential candidate.

[BaggersRDumb]

102. I dont like dynasties or corp Dems, but since we really only have two choices, corp Dem who leans

toward doing the right thing at least part of the time, vs a corp righty who will NEVER, not ONCE, do the right thing, the choice is simple.

But isnt there a little part of you that would just LOVE to watch fox and righty heads explode having to say

PRESIDENT HILLARY CLINTON

a god damn WOMAN is President?


oh those fucking twits

[Recursion]

109. Wasn't this the argument in 2008?

[MohRokTah]

111. Obama was capable of outraising Clinton in 2008

You point me to a single Democrat who is capable of raising $1 billion for 2016 and I'll absolutely consider them.