General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFor those who would prefer a different presidential candidate than Hillary
in 2016, it's time to get started promoting someone. It needs to be a specific candidate who:
1. Is very interested in running for President.
2. Has a background that will enable you to campaign earnestly before the primaries.
3. Is well-known already to voters for something positive.
4. Doesn't have any serious negative issues from the past.
If you start right now to build up support for that candidate, by primary season you should be able to count on a good showing in the early primaries in 2016. That will help with fund-raising and help your candidate win in the large groups of primaries.
Think about 2008. Someone got the nomination who wasn't Hillary that year. He met all of those four points and had a very active group of supporters early on, even this far from the nominating convention.
It's time to find a candidate and get started building support. If you wait much longer, it will be too late.
Don't want Hillary? Get to work, then, because it's going to be a tough 18 months. That first point in the list above is the most important point of all. If the candidate isn't eager to run, find someone else. There's not much time.
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,719 posts)As well as timely.
Thank you!
JustAnotherGen
(31,907 posts)There are three strong potential candidates - but I don't think any of these have outright declared they are running:
Biden
Clinton
O'Malley - strongly considering as of the last week of October of this year.
Possible -
Sanders
Not sure about Warren as it looks like there is people momentum but not her will.
Me - I'd like to see Howard Dean or Deval Patrick throw their hats in the ring - but that won't happen.
MineralMan
(146,333 posts)Clinton: She's running. I don't think there's any question about it. Her run will inhibit others, too.
O'Malley: He might run, and appears to be the best choice for Hillary-dislikers to approach. However, I'm not sure he will appear to be progressive enough for some people and lacks current nationwide name-recognition, except with very politically aware people.
Sanders: I don't think Sanders will run seriously. I think he may well run as a stimulator of issues, but his age and past political party declaration will hurt his campaign if he tries seriously.
Dean: I doubt he'll run. He's just 66-67 years old, but I don't think he'll oppose Hillary Clinton for the nomination.
Deval Patrick: Would he run? He might. If so, he needs to declare soon. He takes some good positions and has a growing name recognition. I don't know enough about his politics, though to predict his acceptance by the progressive wing of the party.
Others? I can't think of any just off the top of my head.
JustAnotherGen
(31,907 posts)MineralMan
(146,333 posts)There seems to be a lot of dislike of Hillary being expressed, so if that will be a problem, there's not much time to select a different candidate. Presidential races are long, long things, but seem to settle into just a few candidates quickly. Hillary has a strong edge at this point, so any alternative is going to have to appear soon or have no chance.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)Richardson: I'm afraid the GOP permanently damaged him, especially if he has to go up against Hillary
Castro Bro's: Probably too early
Kerry: Too late I'm sure
Clark: Again, possibly too long in the tooth at this point.
Strangely, Hillary should have many of these same problems, too many negatives, too old, limited administrative accomplishments, but she seems to be exempt some how.
MineralMan
(146,333 posts)I think he's a possibility, but we sure aren't hearing from him. Maybe he's a VP choice already by someone.
I don't see Kerry or Clark in this at all, and Richardson probably isn't going to stick his neck out again, either.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)If either were approached with a serious suggestion that they had a chance, they'd be all in. But they won't take that advice from DU. There are people who can deliver that message, and DU doesn't include any of them.
MineralMan
(146,333 posts)That's pretty much true for every candidate who might possibly run. However, candidates thinking about running have already set up campaign organizations of some kind, or others have set them up in hopes of recruiting the candidates. That's what I mean by DUers supporting candidates for primaries.
7962
(11,841 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)On Warren, her "no way" has seemed to moderate recently.
JustAnotherGen
(31,907 posts)I love the idea because he doesn't have a record of stupidity out there - he won the seat and then got to work . . . he hasn't played political games of sound blurb and one upmanship and inflict pain on the opponent.
But he'd have to want to run. The only place I've seen Franken's name is at blogs and DU.
MineralMan
(146,333 posts)gathering this year. He said, "No way." I don't think he has any presidential aspirations. He seems to like being one of Minnesota's Senators, though, and he's growing in popularity here, so he'll probably be able to keep that office if he wants to.
But I don't think he'll even consider running for President in 2016.
JustAnotherGen
(31,907 posts)Booker unequivocally wants to be a Senator from NJ -
Unless the Gov's seat is up. And he would win it.
MineralMan
(146,333 posts)really happy to be a Senator. He seems to thrive on that job, and it shows. I'd vote for him as President, but I think he's not interested in politics at that level. Senator's a pretty good job, really. It's amazing that he got elected to that position, really, but he's building a great reputation here in his home state. I think he'll stick with it.
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)than as President.
MineralMan
(146,333 posts)have needed some Senatorial clout to get the help they needed. He's also working to help Minnesota whenever he can in terms of legislation, etc. He's been a pretty serious guy as Senator Franken. He seems to like the job, too.
SomeGuyInEagan
(1,515 posts)The SNL skits hinted at it, the Air America show gave us a peek inside, but man-oh-man, Al is so much more a policy wonk that we ever considered. And - in Minnesota and the country - seriously benefit. There is an intensely serious side to Al Franken and he is thriving as a Senator.
I think the comment upthread about him understanding that he can do more to help people as a Senator is on target and is what really drives him. To hear him talk about Franny's family and the role Social Security played in their lives when her father died young is memorable.
MineralMan
(146,333 posts)On both a personal and political level, I really admire Franken. I've had several chances to talk briefly with him, and have talked at length to his wife and daughter. He's personable, friendly and always sincere. He's also got his head straight about many things that are very important in this country. It's almost impossible not to like Al Franken if you have a chance to meet him.
I try to get to as many events where he will be in attendance as possible. Often, I've had a chance to exchange a few words with him.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)with seniority. When that happens they are often very powerful and can do a lot for their state and the nation. Remember Ted Kennedy.
MineralMan
(146,333 posts)as a Senator from Minnesota, but I can pretty much guarantee that he can stay in that job as long as he cares to.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)That "Got to work" attitude means those of us outside MN don't hear much about his longer-term plans.
LawDeeDah
(1,596 posts)He is very sharp and quick witted, And Principled.
Oil and Water.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)As B2G pointed out, Jim Webb has indicated some interest. So has Brian Schweitzer. Neither of them is yet even in the "likely to run" category, though.
I agree with Mineral Man that Webb will have trouble appealing to progressives. From what I know of Schweitzer, he's a mixed bag -- to Clinton's left on some issues but to her right on others.
If I had to bet right now on how I'll vote in 2016, I'd bet on O'Malley. I think it more likely than not that he'll run and that he'll be the progressive alternative to Clinton.
JustAnotherGen
(31,907 posts)Could be really fun in a primary though . . . He'd shake things up.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)He embodies the populist formula.
JustAnotherGen
(31,907 posts)I don't think he would win - especially not the independent millenial minorities - Rand Paul is actively courting them and has been so the Democratic Party is way behind the 8 ball with the low information ones - but he could take middle age white male blue collar voters.
Let's get a good bloody primary going!
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)The bankers will go after him hard.
BeyondGeography
(39,382 posts)Obama was already positioned as a strong, potential alternative by the Fall of 2006. That's when his book tour happened (and it was a legitimate bestseller). He also had the '04 keynote in the bank and, most important, a powerful differentiator issue-wise with his stated opposition to the Iraq war back in 2003. IWR is what lost if for Hillary in 2008. Obama shouldn't have even bothered running if she had voted against it.
This time around there are galvanizing issues, but nothing so straightforward as that. Many, many people with energy and some money to contribute wanted to teach anyone who voted for IWR a lesson, myself included.
This time around, we have the economy, but there is no single policy differentiator as powerful as IWR. You need someone with star power, and Warren is the only one who comes to my mind as being able to make a fight of it. She has the smarts and the credibility, but she says she is not running. The not-Hillary's can be excused for feeling a little frustrated imo.
MineralMan
(146,333 posts)Elizabeth Warren is going to have some trouble with her fairly long period as a Republican. While she's popular for her economic positions, her support for Reagan is going to be a liability for those who remember Reagan for his negative positions on so many things. I suspect that if she actually ran, people would soon find reasons why she shouldn't be elected. On the positive side, she doesn't have a long career as an elected official, so you can't find actual voting records, but that's also a potential negative.
I think she's going to decide not to run. She has an excellent position, currently, that gives her a good deal of political clout, and can probably continue to serve in that capacity for a good long time. Running for President is a tough gig. It looks to me like she is a Hillary supporter for 2016.
Kingofalldems
(38,487 posts)Or is it a convenient way to attack Democrats?
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)Seriously, the DU is filled to the brim with people who hate the Democratic party. I think they've driven off most mainstream Democrats completely at this point.
Mind you, I have no problem with constructive leftists who want to promote their own ideas. But that's largely not what you find here.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
Peacetrain
(22,879 posts)for Hatch in Iowa.. I need to take a closer look at him.. I am thinking he is giving it some consideration about running..
But your point is great.. if you have a candidate that you want to see run.. From Hillary to Biden to OMalley.. and all ships between.. (these are Democrats) you have to get working on the state levels.. and stick your foot in the water and promote them..
JustAnotherGen
(31,907 posts)I've also learned - the one I want never gets the nomination!
But - O'Malley is very interesting to me if Biden opts not to run. He has the cynicism of my age group that I find appealing.
Bmore84
(2 posts)As a resident of Baltimore (City), Maryland, I would say to pass on O'Malley. He did some OK things as governor, but his economic policies nickel and dimed a lot of the working class by raising fees, tolls, etc over 27 times while in office. He is perceived as so much of a blah candidate in Maryland his second in command (Brown) lost to a no name republican. He did not do a lot for the working class and focused instead on working to cut deals for larger businesses.
The taxes (rental increases), fees and tolls don't seem like a big deal to most, but you have to pay a toll just to get around the harbor. Seeing as I was working on a low hourly wage I essentially spent my first hour at work paying for the ability to get to work, because a lot of people have to go through the tunnel or over the bridge to get to work. Generally policies like this don't affect the middle class, but I think people forget that it sucks a lot when you are part of the working poor.
A lot of this might be a general problem with how government in Maryland is run (from city to state), however O'Malley only seemed to add to the problem rather than working to solve it. I am not sure about else where, but the democratic party in Maryland generally looks out for the middle class and avoids the poor sections of the city. A couple of our city council members even got caught living in upscale suburban homes, while only maintaining a city address so they could continue to hold office.
I would probably vote third party (and so would a lot of people I know in Baltimore), if O'Malley was nominated.
Peacetrain
(22,879 posts)JustAnotherGen
(31,907 posts)I really want to see a very bloody knock down drag out fight like we had in 2008.
sus453
(164 posts)am not excited at all about O'Malley. I know he wants to run, and he's been positioning himself for this for the last two years. However, in Maryland, the O'Malley administration has been totally in the pocket of corporate interests and developers. And I believe O'Malley's tenure was part of the reason that the Democrat Anthony Brown lost the 2014 governor's race.
BobbyBoring
(1,965 posts)Did you hear about the proposed mileage tax? A GPS device would be attached to your car and you would be taxed 5 cents per mile that you drove.
He's unelectable. He would be branded as a tax and spender which he is.
7962
(11,841 posts)I pay taxes on every gallon of gas I buy. You want more money, raise the gas tax, dont track my movements
sus453
(164 posts)I have read nothing credible to link Martin O'Malley to a mileage tax.
Peacetrain
(22,879 posts)but has not posted here since 2008.. but he was Biden precinct captain at the caucasus.. and hubby and I were there for Obama.. Biden has a tremendous appeal to millennials.... which I find fascinating..you would think the age difference would impact more..
I just got to talk to Gov. OMalley for a couple of minutes.. I have to do some research of course.. but he interests me...
I have to admit.. I love Joe Biden too..
JustAnotherGen
(31,907 posts)Were my top picks in 2008. I gave equal amounts of money to their campaigns but joined organizing for Edwards very very early in the process.
Clinton was never on the radar and Obama was 4th.
Peacetrain
(22,879 posts)even before his issues.. and I can't give you a specific reason why he made me squirm.. he just did.. We got to see the President before he became so popular.. in a room with just a couple hundred people .. (we are in Iowa)..and thing about the President.. he is who he was then and is now..after all the craziness and off the chart emotional goofiness of the Bush era.. everyone kept saying they wanted a cool and thoughtful person at the helm.. Well that is what we got.. and the second he was in office.. people were demanding he change and be like Bush in his demeanor.. you never know.. Vice President Biden just might decide to run.. and I think he would do very well..
JustAnotherGen
(31,907 posts)But in 2004 my very first choice was Clark. Gotta be honest on that one - but by the time the primary got to my state - he was totally out.
Edwards was talking poverty and the housing bubble very very early. He 'got' it.
What drew me to Obama in the summer of 2008? After those meetings with Edwards and Clinton (probably where Edwards told him what was on the horizon) was Obama adopted at least in his campaign - that anti poverty language.
Edwards always talked about ALL of those in poverty and the working poor. He didn't just direct it at the 'urban' poor.
I've never known a hungry, cold, day in my life - but I have a huge empathy chip for those who have. In 2016
I'm going to need to see that empathy chip in the candidate - and it must be sincere - for those who work their fingers to the bone but never get a good night's sleep.
B2G
(9,766 posts)would love to see him in the primaries. I think he would draw a lot of independents and even some conservatives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Webb
MineralMan
(146,333 posts)he hurt himself with women with his belief that women weren't capable of combat military service. He's been out of politics and seems to want to stay in the private sector. I don't see enough to differentiate him from Hillary to make a run have any chance of success.
B2G
(9,766 posts)it's that our nominee needs to be incredibly strong on the economy and national defense. And they need strong appeal with the unaffiliated voters.
If they're not, we'll never win.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)It had nothing to do with national defense and very little to do with the economy. We don't need to run a center-right Democrat to win. Many of them lost in this last election.
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)They worked VERY hard to not be too objectionable to conservatives.
It FAILED. Miserably.
And this election taught me something very, very different than it taught you.
You would push us more to the right. I'd push us much more to the left. Progressive policies have widespread support. Wall Street hates them. A majority of average Americans support them. In poll after poll this is demonstrated, and progressive policies even won when placed on the ballot in THIS election.
Democratic candidates do not push for progressive policies effectively or passionately, and MANY people then don't even bother voting. This would be the unaffiliated voters you were talking about mostly.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)unless, by some miracle, Hillary declares she is not running.
Certainly there is nothing we can do at DU about that. Might as well just pray for a miracle.
cali
(114,904 posts)MineralMan
(146,333 posts)where I laid out what people need to do to build support for an alternative candidate. I don't remember any such OP. Remind me with some links, please.
MineralMan
(146,333 posts)to find an alternative candidate with much of a chance of getting the nomination. There's some risk that some factions will sit out the election or vote for some third party candidate. The libertarian-leaning Democrats will probably have a -L candidate on the ballot. That could cost the Democrats maybe 10% of the vote and create a low-turnout election. That's a concern to me, since the Republicans may well put a moderate Republican on the ballot to oppose Hillary Clinton. That's a dangerous situation, IMO.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)If Clinton does clear the field of all the more "mainstream" candidates (Biden, O'Malley, etc.), then Sanders will probably run in the Democratic primaries. If he doesn't, someone will come forward, even someone who (like Gravel in 2008 or Sanders this time) doesn't have much chance of being the nominee but wants to raise issues.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)who raised the issue of - The "fair" tax. http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/55
cali
(114,904 posts)prefer another candidate can do about it. And you know enough about political reality to know that that's true. Oh, and you've only posted this same op about 15x. It's nonsense.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Does it ever cross your mind to pick a candidate you like and post positive things about them?
MineralMan
(146,333 posts)Iliyah
(25,111 posts)Liberal/Progressives are more positive and care for their fellow man/women, ya'know, what Jesus Christ tried to teach. GOPers are the total opposite, they are the devil.
MineralMan
(146,333 posts)I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing a plan coming from you. Yes, I keep posting about what people need to do if they want an alternative candidate to run as a Democrat. I will probably continue to do that as long as people only discuss the negatives about the person who is the most likely to be the Democratic candidate. This is DU. You've posted way more than 15 posts that are negative about Hillary Clinton. What's the difference? This is a political forum. My goal is to elect Democrats, so I'll be trying to do that for the next two years. What would you expect me to do?
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)What kind?
MineralMan
(146,333 posts)That kind.
Like, for example Al Franken, my Senator. Like Betty McCollum, my congressional representative. That kind. They won their primaries and ran against Republicans.
Like Barack Obama, for the same reason.
I vote for Democrats in general elections. Every freaking time. In primaries, I vote for the most progressive candidate.
Any Democrat is better than every Republican. That's why.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)That kind?
MineralMan
(146,333 posts)I've seen. I live in Minnesota. Before that, I lived for over 50 years in California. I can only vote for candidates on my own ballots.
Al Franken. Betty McCollum. They were just on the ballot I just voted on. Do you like them OK?
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)"They've never been on my ballot".
But you avoided the point of the question quite well. Embarrassed buy something?
MineralMan
(146,333 posts)If you're talking about this:
"Any Democrat is better than every Republican."
I stand by that statement. In any case, Specter changed parties like I change underwear - frequently. Which version of him are you talking about?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlen_Specter
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)I asked "like Arlen Spector", which was a simile. It was in reference to the questions "what kind". It was intended as a expansion of that question.
MineralMan
(146,333 posts)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlen_Specter
When he was a Democrat, he voted with Democrats. When he was a Republican, he voted with Republicans. He really was neither in a convincing way.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)Is this the kind you'll work for in the general?
Is this the kind you'll back?
When you said "Any democrat" was this what you meant?
MineralMan
(146,333 posts)On my ballot this year was Al Franken, Betty McCollum, Mark Dayton, and my local state representatives. Dayton's a moderate Democrat. All the others are progressives. Those are who were on my ballot. I helped them get there. I campaigned for them. They were elected.
Arlen Specter is, as I said, not on my ballot and has never been on my ballot. He's not my problem.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)I understand, you made a broad generic sweeping statement about "any" that you don't want to have to explain now.
Is Blanch Lincoln still alive? Would that simile help you?
MineralMan
(146,333 posts)with Democrats. I didn't vote for him, though.
Didn't vote for Blanche Lincoln, either.
Did you vote for either of them? The thing is that I choose the place I live. As a self-employed writer, I can live wherever I want. When my wife and I moved to Minnesota to help care for her aging parents, I researched the political leanings of various places in Minnesota. I chose a house in St. Paul, because the area consistently elected progressives to office. I could have lived in other places, equally near my in-laws where that wasn't the case. I made my choice.
Would I have voted for Arlen Specter if I lived in Pennsylvania? Not when he was a Republican. Maybe when he was a Democrat. But, I don't live in Pennsylvania and would not live in Pennsylvania. It's not my idea of where I want to live. Neither is Minnesota, frankly, but family comes first with me. My father-in-law died a couple of years after we moved here and my mother-in-law is now 86 years old. We moved here for them. I'm a Californian. My parents are both 90 years old and live in my old home town. I'm not there because my two siblings live in that town and nobody but my wife and I live here. Family. I expect to die in Minnesota. I can't afford to move back to California and my wife's mother is very likely to live to 100, since pretty much everyone in her family has. So, here I am. I chose where I live here.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)What kind of democrats? The Blanche Lincoln type? Do you qualify that declaration at all? Or is it "any" democrat as you once said?
tridim
(45,358 posts)MineralMan
(146,333 posts)I can't see him winning, somehow.
randome
(34,845 posts)It's a superficial world out there! And in the MSM. I fall victim to it myself. Clinton is just too damned old. If she demonstrated the verbal alacrity of Sanders, I wouldn't have a problem with her. But she doesn't. Now that Obama has shown what it's like to have a fresh, energetic face at the helm, I want more of the same.
Not everyone ages the same but Clinton crosses the threshhold for me of someone who is too old for this job.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]
MineralMan
(146,333 posts)Hillary is old. She's almost the same age I am, in fact. I know that I wouldn't have the energy to run for President or to do the job, for that matter. But I'm not in the race. Frankly, I'd prefer someone who is younger, more progressive, and who has an abundance of energy and charisma. Obama was perfect on those counts in 2008.
I'm not a huge Hillary Clinton fan at all. If she's the nominee, of course, I'll work to get her elected, but I'd like to see some alternatives in the primaries. As I said much earlier, if Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren are on the primary ballot here in Minnesota, I'll vote for one of them. I'll caucus for either of them, too, at the precinct caucuses and conventions.
There's no mistake, whoever gets the nomination will have my full support. But we could use some choices for 2016.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)that has ever been made here on DU.
Robbins
(5,066 posts)Our only hope Is others oppose Hillary In primarys
Hillary as nominee In 2016 will be the most hawkish right wing ticket ever on democratic side.
There won't be any room for liberals In Democratic party any more.Just 2 partys for top 1%
It won't matter who wins General.the 99% lose.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]
MineralMan
(146,333 posts)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Castro
Seems like he's been around all the time. Is he considering a run in 2016? I haven't seen his name too often on DU as a potential challenger. He's got the credibility, for sure.
randome
(34,845 posts)But I haven't heard anything about him since.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]
MineralMan
(146,333 posts)Perhaps he's still in the wings, or he could even be a pick for VP by Hillary. If she has talked to him about that, it might be the reason for his general silence on the matter. I don't know, and don't know anyone to ask. I'm completely unconnected in DC circles.
JustAnotherGen
(31,907 posts)Seriously- I could see him as a VP candidate.
He's a solid liberal who communicates effectively and who puts out a tremendous amount of energy.
I've seen 'age' as an issue for some - this could be a counter balance to that. And in light of a pretty rough thread by a Millenial here yesterday -
I think we need to pay attention and listen to them. A younger X'er would appeal to them on the ticket.
MineralMan
(146,333 posts)hearing from him right now. Just a guess, though. He's positioned pretty well right now, with that cabinet position. It's interesting that he got confirmed. Maybe he's just keeping his head down.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)donate to any Presidential campaign. I will work my ass off for him.
MineralMan
(146,333 posts)switch parties yesterday. If he's on the primary ballot in Minnesota, he'll have my vote, too.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)MineralMan
(146,333 posts)I think that could be his biggest stumbling block in getting the nomination. The Democratic Party has a lot of history and might not be as accepting of Bernie Sanders as you think on the national delegate level.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)isn't that great. Bernie is speaking of the things that are of concern to a lot of people. If he keeps it up and can get his message out I think him being an Independent will only help draw people in, he can switch to a Democrat later. I post a lot of his stuff on FB and it gets a lot of likes from republican people I know and I think it's because he's an Independent.
MineralMan
(146,333 posts)His reasons for running or not running and whether to run as a Democrat are not are his own. I'll leave him to decide how he wants to proceed.
shraby
(21,946 posts)He's smart, well educated, strong progressive Dem., young and has good ideas on how things should go.
I said before, if Clinton wins the nom. I'll vote for her, but enough of Clinton and Bush. This country is bigger than that.
Just because someone can run, they not necessarily should run.
MineralMan
(146,333 posts)I haven't seen anything about that.
shraby
(21,946 posts)would be trustworthy.
bhcodem
(231 posts)Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)Ha, just kidding. That's just to stick it to Hillary.
How about Webb? He's got senior-statesman status, has proven he can win contested elections on unfavorable terrain, and isn't likely to use the military as his own personal play-toy.
MineralMan
(146,333 posts)I haven't though much about him. Do you think he's interested in a run at all?
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)which is one of the things that makes him attractive as a recruit candidate - he's not power-hungry and actually makes decisions that take into account more than "what's in it for me?"
MineralMan
(146,333 posts)to be President. So, pretty much anyone who gets elected has put him or herself forward as a candidate. Reluctant candidates are rare in presidential races, I think, in modern times.
DinahMoeHum
(21,812 posts)One who is not afraid of getting in there and kicking the GOP in the nads.
MineralMan
(146,333 posts)mainstreetonce
(4,178 posts)Has Hillary said a word since the troubling election results?
Have we heard anything from her?
allinthegame
(132 posts)Bernie Sanders is an important element in keeping the D's on track but I thought this post was about finding a Presidential candidate who is NOT HRC who can WIN....
Mr Castro is young and inexperienced....so was Obama and sadly that got him into a world of hurt...I cannot imagine going down that highway so soon again
Joe B and John K would not even consider the madness of the campaign
Al Franken is an excellent Senator and although older than Castro would also not have the broad based experience
Which is the same thing we have to say about Ms Warren....
Sadly....the bench is very shallow....
merrily
(45,251 posts)And the staff and consultants?
This business of pretending that anyone working three jobs and barely making rent can do what the DLC does is tiresome.
MineralMan
(146,333 posts)campaign organization or someone has set up such an organization for them. Supporting a candidate means getting involved with those organizations. It also means talking up the candidate on forums like this one and on social media. That's free.
Grassroots support is the most important thing any of us can do for a candidate, frankly, as individuals.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Democrats have been trying to sell the story that, "if Hillary chooses to run, she'll clear the field: No Democrat will run against her."
People who may be planning to run against her anyway, if any, are likely keeping that tightly under wraps.
I began supporting Obama in every possible way in 2007, but this go round is very different--and it's not even the equivalent of 2007 yet.
MineralMan
(146,333 posts)You'll find things like this:
http://ready4warren.com/
or this:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/US-Senator-Bernie-Sanders-for-President-2016/253576231398947
There are websites for all of the potential candidates. All you have to do is Google.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Bernie has said he will run if he gets support and I have indicated my support for his running in several ways. Will I back him for the actual nomination? It depends.
MineralMan
(146,333 posts)Several DUers have campaign graphics for her in their signature lines.
merrily
(45,251 posts)mean she's running in the real world?
When I think of my support for a candidate, I think of donations and working, not my DU sig line or my DU posts. I don't know if I want to start that for anyone who says he or she is not definitely not unning.
I try to choose my candidates analytically. Sure, after I have made that choice, I have become emotional about it, and that's useful, too. However, I affirmatively try not to base the initial decision on emotion.
I don't know that I even want to research and analyze a bunch of hypothetical candidates because someone or other is excited about them. I'll encourage almost anyone who seems interested in running to run. But, someone has to at least commit before I sit down and make hard choices, then take out the credit card or checkbook and start working.
And that is one of many ways in which Hillary's coyness is hurting others. This is not a prom date she's stringing along and thinking it's funny.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I certainly have a hard time believing he fit #3, I hadn't even heard of him til he ran, so I find it hard to believe anyone outside of Illinois and Dems who sit around watching conventions had heard of him then.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)I'm obviously exaggerating (engaging in a tad bit of hyperbole) but he was the keynote speaker in '04 at the DNC. You don't get that because no one has heard of you. That said, it was a leap to believe he could go from a good speech, to the White House. However, certain power brokers connected to the Kennedy clan saw it differently and convinced him to run.
The silliness of serious discussion about potential 2016 democratic candidates is that none of us are that kind of power broker and until they decide who can and will run, we don't have much of a say. All of the "draft [fill in candidate name]" efforts are pointless if the brokers never show up to promise money and support. It's not that the candidate can't initiate the effort, but their primary efforts will be to find that kind of backing.
There is a developing political class euphemistically called the "political industrial complex". It's the class of pundits, pollsters, consultants, and former administration officials, as well as party leaders and such, that are where these efforts get started. Without them you'll go no where. No one will talk about you on the Sunday shows, there'll be no op-ed columns about you, no Late Night appearances, no real "buzz" without their cooperation. Not all of them by any stretch. You'll need a core set that basically sees that you have a chance, one that can either immediately line their pockets, or give them credibility in the long run (to land the next candidate job). And it is a minority core set. But you'll need them, and they don't read DU.
merrily
(45,251 posts)I don't think many in the general public had heard of Obama before 2004. The PTB in the Party, yes. The Illinois people, yes. The kind of people to whom the OP is addressed, no.
Who the hell heard of Palin before McCain picked her as VP? Well, I had, but only because I happened to be watching Craig Ferguson the night she invited him to visit Alaska.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)The GOP knew who he was. The press knew who he was. But yeah, the OP is addressing all the wrong people.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Nay
(12,051 posts)presented with 2 or 3 preselected options. We will vote for the one that makes us the least. And that will be that for the primaries.
merrily
(45,251 posts)A lot of things suggest to me that he was the choice for 2008 before he was chosen to give the keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)that's a good point you bring up.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)onenote
(42,768 posts)The buzz about him started in 2004 when he spoke at the convention. He was visiting Iowa (the Harkin fish-fry, which is a big deal) in September 2006. He was on Oprah (big exposure) in 2006. He consistently polled as the number two choice for the nomination after Hillary starting in the fall of 2006 and caught her in some polls as early as April 2007.
Number 3 matters and Obama did fit it. Who among the potential candidates, at a comparable point in time, had established themselves as a contender?
MoonchildCA
(1,301 posts)People rarely announce this early. I think anytime within the first half of next year is sufficient.
The speculation of him running, in the meantime, will give him a platform to discuss issues (which may actually be the only reason he runs anyway.)
He certainly shouldn't switch parties before he runs, that would be showing his hand too soon. Also, announcing too soon would give everyone "not yet running" someone to run against, from both sides. In fact, I'm sure that's why Hillary has not announced yet, and probably won't until next year.
A few months is forever in political terms. Nobody knows what the dynamic will be between the president and the new congress. I think it will help the candidates to have a better idea what the climate will be.
For the politically aware, I also think there is probably some midterm burnout. I think all the candidates can and should wait until next year before making anything official.
Meanwhile, it doesn't hurt to have fun with a little speculation...
joanbarnes
(1,723 posts)MineralMan
(146,333 posts)Franken's not running, BTW. I asked him at a campaign event and he said, "No way." His words.
JustAnotherGen
(31,907 posts)I want him in the House. His divorce issues are none of my business - don't really care.
But he is SO EFFECTIVE in the House.
Response to MineralMan (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
MineralMan
(146,333 posts)I'm not interested in nonsense. That's a right-wing meme is what that is. It won't play here. Sorry.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)I love your post and am thrilled that this topic is being discussed.
We need and must have options...and the best possible candidate that can win.
MineralMan
(146,333 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)tech3149
(4,452 posts)I moved back to my childhood home ground in 2002 and found there was virtually no Democratic party presence. No contact information, the office was only opened a few weeks before elections, staffed by geezers even older than me, no plan or process to improve the status of the party. The local Democratic club was not much more that a coffee clatch with pretty much no plan for communication and outreach but at least provided a platform for local candidates.
If the national party leadership wants to see a change in outcome, I would urge them to invest in developing local party structures that push positive policy agendas and groom candidates. I see the best way out of this clusterfrack as building from the bottom up. We can expect continued electoral failures as long as the party allows well paid consultants and party "leadership" to decide which candidate to support because they are "viable" candidates (see Bob Casey) while there accepted policies contradict party platform.
Most of us out here in the hinterlands are tired of voting for the lesser of two evils and we sure don't get excited about supporting that lesser.
In fact, I feel both my votes for Obama were votes for the "lesser". There was an article during his first primary that reviewed his books to reveal his support of the "free market" and the financial industry. His appointments made it very clear that the article was more accurate than most would feel comfortable with.
If HRC is the only choice, I will toss my cookies and suck it up but will expect no better than we have seen over the last 50 years.
MineralMan
(146,333 posts)a good thing to have. In Minnesota, we're helped by using the caucus and convention system to endorse candidates, and the system is reasonably active, although caucuses at the precinct level are poorly attended for the most part. Our District Conventions, on the other hand, are lively and energetic. They actually do the work of making sure we have good candidates on the ballot, at least in my districts. I'm happy to be part of the process, albeit a very small part.
secondwind
(16,903 posts)brooklynite
(94,745 posts)How would a true progressive party fund a candidate? This should be the very first question to be asked and answered! Searching for a candidate without knowing how you would fund him or her is irrelevant!
MineralMan
(146,333 posts)with support from the candidate's own state party as a bonus. Anyone considering a presidential run either has or is creating a grassroots organization to begin funding the campaign. In some cases, it's an independent effort, as for Elizabeth Warren, who is saying that she's not running. Even Hillary doesn't have an official campaign organization, although there are already a few independent ones.
We can only select from candidates who have a goal of running or who have a strong independent organization trying to build support for that candidate. The presidency is not some congressional campaign, which is really a local campaign. It is national in scope and has enormous financial needs. Only proven political leaders who have won elections are in any sort of contention. They already have organizations that support them that they can call on.
We can pick from candidates who are already well-known nationally. Nobody else need apply.
groundloop
(11,523 posts)We absolutely MUST win in 2016, and we need to be solidly behind whomever ends up winning the nomination. I don't believe some of the heated anti-(fill in the blank) talk is helpful and you make extremely valid points about getting behind a nominee early on who can win.
MineralMan
(146,333 posts)everyone. We have lots of discussing to do in the next couple of years.
azureblue
(2,152 posts)Clinton may be an insider, but she is a skilled politician. It would be a safe bet Warren would not be a silent VP, and I think Clinton is savvy enough to see the huge advantages of putting her on the ticket and, most important, implementing Warren's ideas. Clinton needs a progressive populist and Warren, excels at that. Plus she is super intelligent, and able to simplify things when needed and use her smarts to beat down the idiots, when that needs to happen. I think this is what we should push - there is no other candidate but Clinton who has the power she has, so it would be far better to put that to use, but couple it with a progressive VP. If it were me, I would say Warren / Sanders or Dean / Warren, but none of them on their own, can pull it off and win the election. We should accept Clinton as the nominee, and work to pair her with a progressive VP.
MineralMan
(146,333 posts)I suspect she's also looking at Julian Castro and a few others. The VP selection is almost always a political choice. Castro, for example, would bring in the Hispanic and probably other minority vote, and would represent a slate that had both a woman and a man on it. On the other hand, Elizabeth Warren would boost turnout by progressives and, perhaps, millennials. There may be other names being considered, too.
Frankly, if John McCain had nominated someone other than that excremental half-term Governor from Alaska, it would have been a much closer race. The choice of a VP candidate is a very, very important one for any presidential candidate.
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)a progressive" unless Clinton passes in office?
Such a move purchases nothing because it is worth nothing. It is an effort to pay with magic beans but worse, at least with the beans you get beans.
JoeFH
(12 posts)I do not believe we can win with Hillary. I hate to admit it but we need to be realistic.
She's a got LOT of history to beat on. (Rest assure they'll pull everything out of the closet)
The pugs got a head start beating on her, and they will do so every day 24/7.
You will be so sick of hearing about Benghazi, you will want to throw up. (as if you aren't already)
She'll be connected to Obama every which way humanely possible, up to and including bold face lies.
She'll enter the race with a lot of Democratic support, but we need more than that to win. I am not sure she can sway the margins as she is a polarizing figure, generally speaking.
The worst news is that I have no idea who could replace her. I know of no new superstars rising in the Democrat party that demonstrate an appeal to the margin voters.
The only way we win with Hillary is if every Democrat in the nation throws there full and dedicated support behind her as well as chew on the margins. Judging from last Tuesday (or this thread) I don't see a snowball's chance in that happening.
MineralMan
(146,333 posts)Hillary Clinton chooses as her running mate, a lot of what you're saying could just go away. And she knows that, too. I don't know you well enough to be able to judge your political acumen, but I think you're overstating at this point.
JoeFH
(12 posts).... how much I would LOVE to be proven wrong with my concerns..
As far as acumen, I don't suppose I am any better or worse than your common Armchair Political Strategist. I have worked many years in Ohio GOTV efforts, as well as helped organize in my local district.
So my opinions can be taken as what they are - one man's worries.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)whereas the GOPers/Libertarians will have a large one. For the next two years the monter Koch's congress will show to America and the world how nutso they are. Apparently America has forgotten how much damage they can create for their personal selfish gains.
MineralMan
(146,333 posts)Who knows how many clowns it can hold. The last clown standing will be the GOP candidate.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)MineralMan
(146,333 posts)It's really hers to lose, I think, and it will take a very strong primary effort on someone's part to beat her for the nomination.
Maybe there is someone who can do it, though. One thing's sure; we'll find out in time.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Unfortunately, I think that means she has little reason to change positions.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)Well, I have learned he is the Governor of Maryland. But, more importantly I have learned there are people that dislike him enough to look for his name on progressive message boards and sign up to start talking trash about him. Is the trash talk true? Maybe, but you can bet he has a lot going for him as a progressive if he already has enemies that have a knee jerk reaction just from hearing speculation of him running for president.
MineralMan
(146,333 posts)I'm not much for liking politicians I don't know much about. If he becomes a contender, I'll do research on him. For now, though, I have other things to do.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)Knowing he has enemies early on is a good indication he is progressive. However, it's not enough. I hope he comes out soon with a strong message. We do need someone to counter Hillary. I will vote for her only if she is the only thing standing between us and a stacked Supreme Court.
angrychair
(8,733 posts)As you have stated "Any Democrat is better than a rethug" and I will vote for HRC if she is our Party's choice BUT it will kind of feel like I'm hitting myself in the head with a hammer.
I would love to to have Sanders or Warren run but that seems unlikely.
I don't like O'Malley because he doesn't bring anything different to the table than HRC and if anything may be even more of a "centerist" corporate shill (also don't like the fact he sold out to the gambling industry).
Webb has said things about women that is awkward at best if not outright misogynist. I also worry he would be a shill for the MIC.
In short unless we have some candidate X out there I don't know about than HRC is the most likely choice.
Stellar
(5,644 posts)But, I must say, I like the way you think AngryChair.
Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)MineralMan
(146,333 posts)I don't know enough to characterize him.
Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)Who is and who isn't.
But he's very strong. Great speaker. That much I do know and will be a strong candidate if not this cycle than later.
The biggest knock he might get is an Obama 2.0 in that he has not finished a full senatorial term yet and therefore not qualified, but he was a strong Mayor.
Same with any other freshman legislator.
MineralMan
(146,333 posts)[
raging moderate
(4,311 posts)But he doesn't want it. I already asked him, when he came around to talk to our little local Democrats' group. He said he already has a day job.
MineralMan
(146,333 posts)I take them at their word. We need someone who is committed.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Her background/past rule her out on the other two.
DeadLetterOffice
(1,352 posts)... who would make my feet dance with joy.
Alas, I'm something of a believer in that idea that the people best suited to being excellent Presidents generally want nothing to do with being (or campaigning for) President.
The truth is that any person willing to and capable of becoming President is by definition going to be someone I don't really trust. I hate that I have become so cynical about politics and the American electorate, but I have. So I shall pinch my nose and vote for the party's nominee come 2016, and remember to hold myself accountable when I complain afterwards about how I'd hoped for more from my President.
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)One week later...
IT'S ALMOST TOO LATE FOR ANYONE BUT HILLARY!
I've got an answer for that tactic and you a into gonna like it and I don't care.
MineralMan
(146,333 posts)after the election. The election's over, and it didn't work out as well as it might have. Now that it's over, it's time to look toward 2016, just as I have said so many times in the past.
I haven't said it's almost too late for anyone but Hillary. I have said that it's time to start working on 2016. There's a big difference. It is time for that, now that the 2014 election is over. So, I posted an OP to that effect and it's encouraging people to find a candidate to run against Hillary Clinton in the primaries.
I'm not sure why that is a problem for so many people. Who would you like to see run in the primaries? That's the question.
senseandsensibility
(17,146 posts)Do you have any other reasons besides that she's inevitable and "can win" and meets your criteria listed above? By the way, she can't win, and isn't inevitable. Very few white males will vote for her. Her share of that demographic is tiny to begin with, and by definition "liberal." Her policies will cause them to go elsewhere. The corporate media will trash her relentlessly once she has the nomination. Without liberals, who will support her? I am a middle aged white female. I will not. So again, why do you support her?
MineralMan
(146,333 posts)I will vote for her if she's the nominee. But I'm very open to alternative candidates, which is why I posted this thread. Who do you have in mind as an alternative?