So, Who Do You Want to Run in the Primaries for President?

[MineralMan]

Time's running short. If you're supporting someone as a primary candidate, let's hear about it. Tell us why you think your choice will win if he or she decides to run. Tell us what makes your candidate the superior choice. Be specific. Tell us if the candidate has indicated a plan to run, and how they're planning to get the votes required to get the nomination.

Without a dedicated, well-funded, highly organized candidate to oppose Hillary Clinton, I'm not seeing a way she won't be the candidate in the general election. So, I think it's time to hear from people about alternatives who make sense. Let's hear some positive support for an alternative and reasons why to think that alternative candidate will be successful.

Who's Your Candidate of Choice and Why Is That Person a Winner?

[Thinkingabout]

1. Hillary

[MineralMan]

3. OK. She's the leader so far.

From your reply, I guess she's your favorite in the primaries, as well. That's a good start. We have one name. I'm hoping others will suggest others, though, with explanations of why, instead of just attacking the one that's already a probable winner. That's why I started this thread.

[cali]

2. oh, she'll be the nominee. And I think she'll lose the general.

She's a lousy campaigner, and the MSM will attack her relentlessly. I think she'd lose against Walker or Bush.

[MineralMan]

4. That's always a possibility. But, if you think she's a loser,

why not suggest an alternative who isn't? Personally, I think she can win in the general election, but that's just me.

[cali]

6. I don't think there is an alternative. I think we have a really weak bench.

I'm glad that O'Malley is running. We'll see how he does fund raising.

[MineralMan]

8. I think that O'Malley will be opposed

by the same people who oppose Clinton, once they take a close look at him. Just a hunch.

[B Calm]

24. O'Malley, marijuana can be a gateway to harmful activity. No thanks!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

26. Ha. The last time I lit up was 1993./NT

[Bluenorthwest]

64. O'Malley does not stand a chance on the West Coast

nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. Maybe you can make suggestions to make her a better candidate.

Having lived in FL up until 2012 I can say Bush is not a juggernaut and lost the only competitive campaign he was in.

He also said dumb stuff like when asked what he would do for African Americans if he was elected governor he said "nothing."

And I don't see anything magical about Scott Walker. He strikes me as bland and uninspiring. I didn't like Bush* nor Reagan but I could certainly see their appeal to others.

[MineralMan]

14. I'm betting that Hillary Clinton is getting lots of advice

on that right now. As soon as she announces, the campaigning will begin in earnest.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. I want to be constructive.

Everybody sees things through the prism of their own experiences and interprets the world through that prism. I didn't like Reagan and George W Bush* but I can see why people did.

IMHO, Jeb Bush and Scott Walker are unspectacular, Jeb lacks his brother's swag, even if it was artifice, and Scott Walker reminds you of your dentist.


Hillary is really the first woman to be a credible candidate for the presidency. We don't have very many models by which to measure her. That being said I have seen worse presidential candidates than her in my lifetime and two of them actually won.

[MineralMan]

25. I tend to agree. If Hillary's the candidate after the Convention,

I think she can win, with strong support and a well-planned campaign. Many people, though, don't want her to be elected, and not just Republicans. I'm suggesting that they start proposing alternatives early enough to make a difference. Too many, I think, are still holding out hopes that Elizabeth Warren will run. I'm taking her at her word that she won't. Time to switch horses, I think.

[CrispyQ]

61. Just like we found out there were a lot of secret racists,

there are a lot of secret misogynists. I don't know how to say what I'm thinking. I am stunned at the disgraceful way the republican party has treated Obama from the very beginning. I am more stunned at how blatant racism seems to acceptable to a big segment of the population now, including the media. Or perhaps the media magnifies the racism for profit. Either way, they, meaning the repubs & the media, are going to rip HRC to shreds, especially given her history. Part of me wonders why she would even want to go through that shit, it's gonna be so ugly.

[Thinkingabout]

66. The Clintons are used to the RW crap, just as Obama has continued to do the job of

President, Hillary will also rise to the occasion. The DNC candidates can rise above the clown run the GOP has to run because of the TP side. It will not necessary to give the dumb remarks. We can use the primary time to establish a platform which helps the working people.

[android fan]

44. #1 reason I rejected her as a candidate

She thinks she does not have to do anything, as the nomination is awarded to her by "default". In other words, a coronation

No, she doesn't. She has to earn it. And so far, she hasn't earned it yet.

Bernie has earned his nomination every day. He sends out the right message and the thinking that is much needed to overcome right-wing nuttiness.

[brooklynite]

48. Bernie has earned his nomination every day?

The campaign hasn't started and he's already "earned" it? Talk about a coronation...

[android fan]

54. Yes he has earned it.

He's a national treasure and needs to be risen above. He has never gone negative on anyone, and will not start.










I think he gets it and can work with progressives from DFA.

Sanders has already enlisted the top strategist and will get the ball rolling soon.

[brooklynite]

67. And you know these messages appeal to people who don't frequent political blogs?

Guess we'll have to wait and see.

[CrispyQ]

58. I think she'll lose the general too, not just for the reasons you stated,

although I think they are legit issues, but I also think there is a huge contingent on both sides of the aisle, who want a white man back in charge.

[Purveyor]

62. She will most definitely lose the general and it is time to start planning

accordingly for a 'lock, stock and barrel' GOP controlled gov't come 2017.

Wish it was otherwise but I don't see it.

[Art_from_Ark]

73. If precedent is any precursor, that's where we're headed

Democrats have held the White House at least 3 times in a row only once since the antebellum era-- 1933-1953*

*Of course, Al Gore was cheated out of his victory in 2000.

[hobbit709]

5. I don't know, who isn't owned by Wall St.

[MineralMan]

10. If you don't know, then how is a primary opponent going to

be found? See, that's what I'm asking.

[TwilightGardener]

7. Whoever else shows up who has even a scrap of integrity and can

plausibly win.

[MineralMan]

11. Who fits that description? Name someone.

[TwilightGardener]

28. Warren, as it stands now. She would be my favorite to run.

She might be persuaded to get in if things start looking more grim for you-know-who.

[Octafish]

31. People I thought were Republican brought her up at a dinner last night.

Made my Shamrock Shake go neon blue.

[TwilightGardener]

39. She would be taken seriously, that is for certain.

Especially if she hires top-notch campaign talent like Obama did, to help her hone her instincts and polish up her performance (she's still a relative newbie to politics). Though Wall Street and its enablers would be looking to tear her down, which obviously won't happen with either a Bush or a Clinton, so she would have that disadvantage.

[MineralMan]

32. There will have to be big changes in polling.

Elizabeth Warren is in a really good place right now. I can't imagine she'll run unless polling changes dramatically. The Senate's a great job, really. Al Franken likes that job, too, and isn't interested in being President. Being President is a very, very taxing job.

Both Warren and Franken will be active endorsers, though, of whoever wins the primaries. So will Sanders.

[TwilightGardener]

41. Clinton name recognition is the gasoline this whole thing is running on, so far.

The media will have to introduce an alternate candidate and build him or her up so that ordinary voters start paying attention, just as for Obama in 2007. If the media ignores the other candidates or implies they are not serious or plausible (which is what they've been doing so far with O'Malley and Webb), then Hillary will be the nominee. It's really that simple. I don't see Biden getting any traction whatsoever.

[MineralMan]

43. Biden will probably run in the primaries, but will

be a Hillary supporter and not vary much from her positions. Then, if she's the nominee, he'll be a staunch supporter during the General campaign. I doubt he's serious about a run to be President. I doubt he wants the job, really. If he's in the primaries, it will be to provide Clinton with an opponent with some credibility and a current Executive Department office.

[Rex]

9. Yeah January 2016 is right around the corner. UNREC.

Time is running short!

[MineralMan]

13. Announcements happen way before January, 2016.

Campaigning for the primaries starts soon. Minnesota's caucuses happen in February, 2016. Do you not suppose it will require some serious campaigning to win primaries?

I take it that you have no names to offer or to support at this time, then.

[Spazito]

19. President Obama formally entered the race to become the Democratic candidate...

for President on February 11, 2007. He should have waited until January, 2008, right?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/11/us/politics/11obama.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[MineralMan]

21. See, right there you have it.

He started early and beat the presumed nominee for the office. That's what it will take for 2016, too. The reality is that nobody has a real potential alternative to promote. So, they're trying to put things off. That won't work.

[Spazito]

35. I found the article fascinating to read given the eventual results...

"The formal entry to the race framed a challenge that would seem daunting to even the most talented politician: whether Mr. Obama, with all his strengths and limitations, can win in a field dominated by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, who brings years of experience in presidential politics, a command of policy and political history, and an extraordinarily battle-tested network of fund-raisers and advisers."

This could have been written today with the only change being "Mr. Obama" being "any candidate".

Fascinating reading.

Edited to add: Entering early seems to be a better choice than entering late for a myriad of reasons, imo.

[shraby]

15. I'd like to see Sheldon Whitehouse run. He has all the qualifications to make a good president.

Smart
On top of climate science
Makes sense every time he opens his mouth
Doesn't do the "drama" thing
Speaks truthfully
Educated
You name it, he has it.

[MineralMan]

17. Has he shown any interest at all in running?

I've not heard any speculation about him for 2016.

[shraby]

70. Not to my knowledge, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't be a good candidate.

[peacebird]

50. I agree, Sheldon Whitehouse is a good choice. I like Russ Feingold as well. And Elizabeth Warren.

Love Joe Biden too.

[leveymg]

16. It may become necessary to draft Michelle.

She's not exactly begging for the job, at this point. But, I'd knock 4,000 doors for her, as I did for her husband in '08 - and she'd win because every single person who supported Barack would vote for Michelle.

Who doesn't want an Obama third-term here?

[MineralMan]

18. That's a novel idea. I think she'd have a lot of support, too.

I hadn't considered that possibility. I'm not sure she has any interest in it, though.

[Nye Bevan]

23. There are plenty of people who voted for Obama who would not vote for Michelle.

Those who believe that legislative experience, executive experience, or foreign or domestic policy experience are important qualities in a president, for example.

[leveymg]

33. You mean like Ronald Reagan was well prepared to be President?

[Nye Bevan]

36. Well, Elizabeth Warren was impressed enough to vote for him twice (nt)

[leveymg]

38. Notice, I haven't mentioned her, even once? (nt)

[Nye Bevan]

40. But you did mention Ronald Reagan (nt)

[Dems to Win]

57. HELL to the NO. Look elsewhere than First Ladies for our candidate.

"Any girl in America can grow up to be president -- all you have to do is find and marry a man who will be president first!"

Is this really the message Democrats and feminists want to send to young girls???

[leveymg]

68. Okay. I like Barbara Lee, a lot.

Just saw your post down thread. I'd be glad to work for her.

[Comrade Grumpy]

22. I hope Webb, O'Malley, and Sanders end up making serious runs.

It's good for the party to have a primary instead of a coronation.

In terms of policy, Sanders is the guy closest to my heart. But he's a long shot.

I live in a non-competitive state. I'll probably cast a protest vote for the Green or the Socialist. That's what I usually do. And then default to Dem for most of the rest of the ticket.

[MineralMan]

27. I love Sanders, but am quite sure he wouldn't have a chance

in the general election and won't win more than one or two primaries, if that. O'Malley has his own issues with progressives, and Webb has some serious deficits for women voters. I think at least two of those three will be on the earlly primary ballots, though. I think that Sanders will opt out before too long, though. Just a feeling I have.

[android fan]

47. Sanders will be burning Clinton left and right on all subjects

and make people *REALLY* notice him and consider him a serious candidate, rather than the fringe.

If he is a serious candidate, then the atmosphere of the Democratic Party has gone too far to the right, and it is time to correct it.

And yes, Bernie will change his affiliation to Democratic Party BEFORE he announces his run. that way, he does not play the spoiler.

If he's in it, he's in it to win it.

[tracks29]

29. My list

Hillary- What's there to say? We all know her. We all have an opinion.

Bernie - My choice in the primaries. We all know he is not the perfect candidate but I agree with him on every issue and I appreciate the way in which he does politics - especially in these times. I almost guarantee he will run in the Democratic primary which will make for lively, informed conversations at the debates. He has said repeatedly he will not attack Hillary or any other candidate and he has a track record to back up his no-negative-campaign talk. Perhaps most importantly to some here, he won't be a spoiler. I believe he will do much better than people expect and stay in the race longer than anyone not named Hillary. He says he won't do this thing unless he can do it well. He'll do it well. And it will be good for the party.

O'Malley - To be honest I don't know much about him. From what I do know he's a credible candidate and would be another person to keep Hillary close to the base.

Webb- Simply to show how Democratic voters won't put up with these type of Democrats anymore. People have concerns about Hillary's liberalness but Webb is even more to the right.

[MineralMan]

34. I've already said that I'd vote for Sanders in the Minnesota

primary if he's on the ballot. I'd love to have him in the White House. Knowing Minnesota politics, though, there's not a chance in Hell that he'll win the primary in this state, and I'm pretty certain he'll be out of the race by our late primary anyhow.

[Comrade Grumpy]

30. Good profiles of the leading candidates in the New Yorker: "The Inevitability Trap"

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/11/17/inevitability-trap

Webb seems to outshine Clinton on several policy fronts: Wall Street, foreign policy, criminal justice...

But good profiles of all the major contenders. Grumpy sez check it out.

[MineralMan]

37. Good article. Thanks.

[android fan]

42. Bernie Sanders...

I'm for Bernie all the way. Hillary is too right for the Democratic Party to choose. We need to go back to the left.... and find social justice, ax the MIC to nearly 1% of the budget and reallocate it for the infrastructure of America: Jobs, education, health, and more importantly: pursuit of happiness..

But I do welcome other progressives to the primaries.

We still have time, the primaries aren't until early next year.

[ancianita]

45. Clinton, Sanders, Warren and Jerry Brown, because I want their debates to rev up party voters.

I'm moving away from political theory as a source of knowing about governance, so I'm interested in how well these candidates can inform a mentally flaccid public toward a democracy-driven political economy rather than its current capitalist-driven political economy.

They should all outline their beliefs about privatizing Homeland Security, Intelligence Agencies, the military and education.
They should state their beliefs about trading alliances.

All of them can, to differing degrees, promote their ideas re foreign policy -- that democratic capitalist superpower life, with it balanced labor and corporation support, is better for the globalists than is the stagnant hegemony offered by all manner of fundamentalists of the Terror world.

On the domestic front...
Clinton can justify corporate third wayism of governance.
Sanders can justify social democratic governance.
Warren can justify regulated finance capitalism as an economic model of governance.
Jerry Brown, as head of the fifth biggest economy on the planet, can show how democracy doesn't have to be run BY capitalists to help only capitalists, and what his 'water conservation' plan is.

They could all present their plans for campaign/election/voting reform, too. The one who actually offers it will get my vote in the primaries.

Thanks for asking.

I'll get to why they are a winner later. I just want to see the party shine right now.

[demwing]

46. My List

Jerry Brown
Hillary Clinton
Howard Dean
Russ Feingold
Martin O'Malley
Bernie Sanders
Elizabeth Warren

Those are the voices I want to hear in a debate, they run the gamut of Dem ideas.

[android fan]

51. I'd drop Dean and Feingold...

Dean - so he can help the candidate win by re-utilizing the 50 state strategy - every state counts, not just the battleground states. He proved it twice, so he can do it again. He needs to get the people-powered campaign rolling right now, getting his brother to gear up.

Feingold - 2016 is Johnson's up for re-election. Feingold can simply take it back as it is rightfully his and start helping rebuild Wisconsin by removing every single bit of Republican and Kochstains from infecting politics again.

But the rest looks good. I would be suprised to see a few new names thrown in the hat.

[demwing]

69. I put Dean and Feingold in for exactly those reasons

barring some state legality, Feingold could run for both. I don't think he'd win the primary, but we'd hear his POV in the debates, and it would focus critical attention on Wisconsin. Good news if Walker wins the R nomination.

Deans voice in the debate pushing a 50 state plan would be ideal.

[Jamastiene]

49. Jimmy Carter.

That way everyone will think twice before being so hateful to each other inside the party.

[MannyGoldstein]

52. It's too bad that both Hillary and Warren have ruled out running.

I guess Bernie's the one.

[think]

53. Edit: Never mind /nt

[Throd]

55. Someone I've never heard of who is electable and not a tool of Wall Street.

Someone who hasn't been ensconced in the Beltway Bubble for decades.

[Man from Pickens]

56. Here's Jim Webb on Libya

sounds like a prophet - all of his concerns about the consequences were borne out in reality

not an endorsement just additional material for consideration

but I will say that the qualities I see here are Presidential qualities - straight shooting, responsible and serious, doesn't talk down to people and addresses questions directly

[Shrek]

59. Vice President Biden n/t

[Igel]

60. No clue.

But I think that while the question may not be unreasonable, it's not incumbent upon me to answer it.

Once long ago I worked in a cheap buffet-style restaurant with a banquet room that also provided food to an adjacent in-building bar (in a state where a bar had to have food available as a condition of pouring liquid). It hosted a speech-oriented group weekly and had veterans organizations that met there from time to time.

There were times the day before a food delivery when I looked at what I could prepare for the steam line and thought, "This is all trash." Sometimes it would result from having 150 banquet guests show up instead of the 50 as planned. Sometimes the manager just screwed up or for some reason foot traffic skyrocketed. Once the stock clerk was in a hurry and put the frozen meat on the shelf next to the pasta and tomato products without paying attention to the "keep frozen" writing on the boxes (hint: two days later, the frozen meat wasn't frozen and arguably wasn't really meat).

I'd hide in the kitchen rather than let people see that I was responsible for the slop. I'd heat stuff up, cook stuff, and shove it onto the steam table all the while thinking, "I'm going to go for the wise, tasty choice, and give myself a turkey and cheese sandwich on white for *my* dinner" or I'd rummage to see what leftovers that couldn't be served to the public were being stored in the fridge for a couple of the part-time poor who worked there to take home.

A sprinkle of parsley on top of the slop didn't make it gourmet. My "candidate" of choice for the buffet line wasn't available or my opinion didn't matter, so I didn't bother wasting my time drooling over non-existent chicken Kiev or beef bourguignon. I'd merely brick the grill and prepare for a spate of short-order and sandwich orders that desperate customers would place in order to avoid the buffet line.

That's my take on HRC. I voted for her last primary, caucused for her--Texas has a hybrid primary and caucus system. I got insulted and called racist for supporting her in the primary and not Obama. This time, I want to see somebody better if possible. But I refuse to do the equivalent of sprinkling parsley on slop and calling it a grand example of Cordon Bleu. Better to examine her, warts and all, so at least there's an informed choice *and* when the general elections are held nobody's surprised by what's on the steam table.

[Schema Thing]

63. Sanders, O'Malley, Warren, Clinton, Webb, Edwards

hah, just seeing if you were awake with Edwards. But otherwise, that seems like a recipe for a pretty deep conversation.

[FSogol]

71. Donna Edwards? n/t

[Dems to Win]

65. Congresswoman Barbara Lee is clearly the superior choice for Democrats to WIN!

If we as a party and country had any sense, we would be pounding on Barbara Lee's door, begging her to lead us.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have drained this country of blood and treasure and there is no end in sight. Let us turn to the one brave woman, the lone prophetic voice in our Congress who stood against these travesties and whose warnings have sadly come true.

I'm Ready for Barbara Lee -- the only member of Congress wise enough to vote NO on the AUMFs of 2001 and 2002. NO on the Patriot Act. NO on the Iraq, Afghanistan, and drone wars.

Democrats are united in mourning and opposing these wasteful wars and the threats to our civil liberties from the NSA. Let's put up a candidate who we can support with enthusiasm, who supports our values 100%, who will bring droves of voters to the polls because the Democrats are truly offering a bold choice.

Demand the BEST for our beloved country. Barbara Lee 2016!

[morningfog]

72. With no one announced, I would say I just want a large robust field and a long primary to

work out positions, discuss the issues, strengthen our candidate and build a support network. In other words, anyone and a lot of anyones other than Clinton.