Why it is important to have a primary?

[kentuck]

Nobody knows when a candidate may have to drop out of the race, for whatever reason? What if Hillary dropped out of the race? Who would replace her? It is not good for a Party to put all its eggs in one basket, in my humble opinion.

If something like that were to happen, would the Party choose a candidate at their national convention? What if 3 or 4 people were nominated by the Party at the convention? How would it be resolved?

I think we need to debate.

[JaneyVee]

1. We're having a primary.

[morningfog]

6. Thank goodness. Hillary is a liabilty to the party as much as she is an asset.

[Jamastiene]

54. I wonder.

By the time the primary elections roll around, will we have more choices? That is the question. At one point, we were expected to fall in line after the primary process was finished. Now, we are expected to fall in line before the primaries even begin with no choices.

[morningfog]

2. There are so many reasons.

Hillary could implode, a scandal could catch up, she could have a serious health issue. But that is just the hypotheticals specific to her.

More broadly, the primary is when the party's platform is developed. What does the 2016 Democratic Party stand for? Is it just everything Obama has done? Of course not. What doe we want to change? What are we going to push for next? What are the challenges and the goals?

If we skip a primary, we leave it to the general election and the republicans to frame and define the parameters of the debate. We need a primary now to say: this is what is important. This is what matters. This is what voters will be voting FOR. Not simply what we vote against.

[kentuck]

4. I agree.

100%.

[Upward]

3. Gives the Rank and File The Illusion We Have a Choice

[kentuck]

5. The power is with the People if they wish to take it...

"A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit."

Matthew 7:18

[merrily]

16. Yes and no.

[Jamastiene]

55. That quote is one of the ones in the Bible that always set off my bullshit detector.

There are no good or bad trees. There are healthy trees and unhealthy trees, but even an unhealthy tree can bear a good fruit from time to time and healthy trees are not 100% perfect either.

I hope we do have a primary, but that certain Bible quote always just sets off my bullshit detector.

[kentuck]

63. I don't think it should be taken literally.

A liar is not going to start telling you the truth...

[JI7]

7. there is always a primary, there was a Primary in 2012

in west virginia democratic primary in 2012 more than 40 percent of democrats voted for some criminal in prison over obama.

i'm sure it was because obama was not liberal enough.

[merrily]

11. If 2012 was what you consider a primary, you'll have no problem with Hillary's anointing.

[JI7]

14. there is no anointing, people just have no interest in any other candidates

there have been people who have showed interest but if people are just not into them it's not the fault of other candidates.

[merrily]

33. Observably untrue. The draft Warren movement raised and continues to raise a lot of money, even

though she said she was not running. Whatever that does or does not say about Warren, it says plenty of people want alternatives to Hillary.

[JI7]

36. i don't see much evidence of this

[merrily]

37. I can't help that. The evidence exists.

[JI7]

38. too bad there is nothing to show for it

[merrily]

39. Different issue--and that remains to be seen.

[joshcryer]

25. Like Al Gore's "anointing?"

Why is this language reserved for Clinton?

Al Gore had a primary with Bill Bradley. The debates were boring and no one cared.

[merrily]

31. How did I miss that Al Gore's running again. I'm so embarrassed.

[joshcryer]

34. I sure don't recall anyone saying he was anointed.

He followed party protocol, ran a primary, and was duly elected.

Strange how this word seems exclusively used for a woman.

[merrily]

35. Was I posting here in 1999? Crap, I forgot that, too. This gets more embarrassing with each post.

[brooklynite]

8. Once again -- WHO IS SAYING there shouldn't be a Primary?

WHO IS SAYING there shouldn't be a debate?

WHO IS SAYING that Sanders, Chafee, Webb, O'Malley and even Warren shouldn't run if they want to? (note -- Warren doesn't).

What I DO hear people saying is "I don't like the candidates I have to choose from". And that is YOUR fault.

Nobody -- not the Party, not Clinton, not Wall Street, nobody -- is keeping another candidate from running. YOUR problem is that the candidates YOU like don't seem to want to run. And YOU, broadly speaking, have done nothing to encourage them to run except to blog to each other about how you don't have a choice. You spent months posting about how great it would be to have Warren, when it was obvious to everyone that she wouldn't run. You spent weeks telling each other how great it would be for Sanders to run, without telling Sanders that the time he has to organize and raise money is running out, so maybe he should get around to making a decision. I'd say you've got a window of two months (being generous) to get a candidate into the race, start getting him funded, and make the commitment to contribute serious hours to mount a serious campaign against MY candidate, who shows consistently high popularity and vote ratings. Otherwise, you'll be here a year from now still complaining.

[merrily]

10. You know very well who is. Schumer, Brown, Frank.

Now tell me again how what they say does not reflect the tack the party prefers and has been working toward for the past few years in any way.

What I DO hear people saying is "I don't like the candidates I have to choose from". And that is YOUR fault.

More baloney.

[JI7]

12. yeah, but why would you want a candidate who does what schumer wants anyways ?

so if someone decides not to run because of schumer they probably aren't that great anyways.

[merrily]

13. Misleading response.

[JI7]

15. pathetic

[merrily]

17. I stand corrected: your response was misleading and pathetic. nt

[JI7]

20. keep it up

[merrily]

32. Try the veal. It's delicious. And please don't forget to tip the wait staff.

[brooklynite]

19. Okay...it doesn't

Because I don't live in the blogosphere. I live in the real world, where I meet real politicians. The DNC Chair doesn't say this. The deep-pockets funders I know who support Hillary don't say this. Nobody is telling anyone else not to contribute or help out if they want to. The problem you have, as I mentioned before, is that, while Hillary Clinton won't win a DU poll, real world Democrats actually like her. The low point in her popularity now is higher than her high point in 2007-2008. And she out-polls every Republican.

So what if THREE people (one retired) express their personal preference? Are you saying there were financial supporters ready to support another candidate if only Schumer told them not to? And what's stopping you grassroots folks from using the power of the internet to organize yourselves and raise the money you need? Complain all you want about CU; it's the law of the land, and won't get changed in this election cycle. We can stand on principle and get creamed, or play by the rules the Republicans will be playing by.

nb - you claim that my charge is "baloney". Care to share the effort YOU'VE made to convince anyone to run?

[merrily]

29. Schumer, Frank and Brown are NOT real politicians? Who knew?

Once again, please stop presuming that you are the only one who has money, a brain, an education, an existence "in the real world," meets real politicians, etc. Aside from being off-putting, your bragging and condescension do not make your posts more convincing. Please save it for someone who is impressed by it, if anyone. The novelty of your providing support and/or good analysis would impress me.

The DNC Chair doesn't say this.

First, you don't that. All you know is that she doesn't say it officially, publicly, or to you, a donor. Of course not. I hope you realize that's a duh.

But are you implying that DWS actually outranks Schumer, Frank and Brown within the Party, or has more inside info than they do because of her part time job title? Because that would be hilarious.

The deep-pockets funders I know who support Hillary don't say this

Again, you know only what they say to you. And, again, duh.

The low point in her popularity now is higher than her high point in 2007-2008

Of course, that has nothing at all to doing with the public anointing that's gone since at least 2012? Or the fact that other hopefuls have only just begun speaking to the public as potential candidates?



Moreover, being the political savant and insider that you are, you know that polls this far out are meaningless?

So what if THREE people (one retired) express their personal preference?

Sorry. I guess I forgot to use the sarcasm emote when I told you to tell me again how three knowledgeable, powerful Democrats from 3 different parts of the country saying a very unusual thing publicly means nothing. Moreover, how can you honestly refer to it as only a "personal preference" when I've told you at least twice that Schumer made avoiding primaries the official policy of the DSCC in 2005? And backed up everything with a link? Do you think he did that in defiance of the Party's wishes? Also, while having express confirmation is nice, Schumer's statement was totally consistent with observations that have been being made for years by Democrats as to Senate races in Connecticut, Arkansas and elsewhere.

Speaking of irrelevancies, though, what is your point about Frank's relatively recent retirement from the House? Is that supposed to imply that he no longer has a clue what's going on in the power structure of the Party or that he is no longer part of that structure?

As I've also stated before, for years, all we heard from Democratic pundits and strategists and the shills at MSNBC was that the nomination was Hillary's if she wanted it and no one else would even bother to enter the primary. Absolutely astounding, unprecedented statements, yet consistent with each other and said persistently, since before Obama was even re-elected. That was mere coincidence, too? Just three powerful Democrats, every Democratic pundit and strategist, and every MSNBC anchor saying the same kinds of unprecedented things about this primary since at least 2012?

nb - you claim that my charge is "baloney". Care to share the effort YOU'VE made to convince anyone to run?

Your claim is baloney because, for one thing, that is why we have a Party. And why I USED to donate to it.

I have a day job. More than one, since I run a home. I have no ability to take time off from either one of those jobs to conduct a candidate search of any realistic kind. I have no search committees, no funding to hire any, no donor lists to fund my search efforts, no pollsters, no strategists, no list of volunteers, no way to get Obama or any other high-ranking Democrat to endorse, no media contacts and on and on and on. For someone who keeps implying that he lives in the real world and I don't.....The notion that I am just as capable of finding viable candidates, getting them to run and funding them as is Schumer or Frank or the DNC or any DNC insider is.....

Actually, I'll stop there because your claim is beyond baloney. It's a totally bs talking point that ignores every relevant reality imaginable. It's patently ridiculous on its face, yet so many of you have been posting it again and again, as though you all caught the same posting tic. It doesn't deserve even one serious response. Nonetheless, I believe I have responded to you on it at least once before. And I've seen someone who has a lot less to work with than I do try to explain to you how unrealistic and mean it is to post that to someone who has no money. Continuing in the out of touch vein, you responded that "all" it took was one phone call--which he would never have taken from someone with no money and no contact--and a trip to the Democratic National Convention (where you'd be wearing chinos). Seriously, that was your answer, even though she had posted to you that she didn't even have decent clothes to wear to a meeting with a prospective candidate.

Please bookmark this so that the next time you bring it up and my response is "baloney" or LMAO, you won't have to challenge me again.

As for what I've done to convince anyone to run, I generally avoid sharing information from my real life on the board. Even in real life, I don't talk about how much I donate or what I do on a voluntary basis. Growing up, I was taught that is unseemly and that is how I view it. I also don't challenge people to give me personal information to defend themselves against my insinuations. However, from my avatar, you may assume I'm doing my best to respond to Sanders statement that he will run if he sees support for that.

ETA: The post of yours I referred to, about how even a very poor person could find a viable candidate and encourage him or her to run is given here from memory. I don't catalog posts of other posters. Most often, I don't even remember who posted what. however, that one seared itself into my memory.

[brooklynite]

57. Fair enough -- I don't know what they say out of my presence...but neither do you

Other than a "we all know" assertion that the deck is stacked against the candidates you like, what piece of evidence do you have that any pressure (overt or otherwise) has been placed on any prospective candidate, or prospective supporter? It appears that either everyone is in on the conspiracy (making it very unweildy) or everyone being cowed into submission. Except of course for O'Malley, Webb, Chafee and Sanders, none of whom have claimed they were pressured to close up shop.

Mind you, I don't begrudge your complaints: it's certainly easier to do nothing and blame the faceless enemy than engage in the hard work of crafting a campaign from scratch.

[LondonReign2]

64. BOOM!

[merrily]

65. Thanks.

I wish I had been less angry when I wrote that post, though. I'm going to take a break from brooklynite. Not because of him, but because of my own reaction.

On the substance, though: Just google Hillary coronation. While I don't have any sources inside the upper echelons of the Party, as do journalists, I am certainly not the only one who came to this conclusion.

[Jamastiene]

56. You think the Republicans play by the rules?

I have some bad news for you. They do NOT play by the rules. They make their own rules up as they go along and centrist and right wing Democrats go right along with them and give them everything they want, iow, enable them.

[whatchamacallit]

44. About this concept...

That it's your fault if you don't like the candidates... As if one just needs to get off their ass and discover, recruit, prep, and finance (at a billion+ a pop) the candidate of their dreams... Who exactly are you admonishing? The OP? Any of 206,072,000 voting age individuals? Some random collection of likeminded spirits you imagine spontaneously coalescing into a political movement? This "it's your own damn fault" notion is mindbogglingly simplistic. It reminds me of the conservative delusion that the only reason people aren't wealthy is because they're lazy. You know, the only thing keeping the other 99% from fitting in the 1% (beside math) is grit and determination...

It's one thing to encourage people to be politically active, it's another to wildly oversimplify the political process and reduce it to a matter of desire.

[brooklynite]

45. I'm admonishing everyone (represented by this OP) who complain they're not being "given" a choice

Politics isn't a gift; it's a process that people have to be involved with. And if you're sufficiently angry about the potential of a Clinton nomination, then it's your job to make a serious effort to change the dynamic. Is it easy? No, because she's actually quite popular and will get millions of Democrats to vote for her. You've had the better part of a year to get an organized effort underway. You've have the internet and social media tools to get in touch with each other. And yet, nothing's happened that I can see other than back-slapping about how great it will be WHEN Elizabeth Warren gets in (when it was obvious she wouldn't), followed by some far-too-late efforts by MoveON and DFA to get her in (when it was still obvious she wouldn't), followed by more back-slapping about how easily Bernie Sanders would know Clinton off. Either he's good enough for you, or he isn't; if he isn't, perhaps you should have been working to get someone else long ago.

[whatchamacallit]

47. Define "everyone"

Everyone as individuals? Should millions of us be out there simultaneously promoting our personal favorites? Everyone as a heretofore unknown group or entity? Your concept is flawed because you make pronouncements about what people should do without identifying to whom you're actually speaking.

[brooklynite]

48. Okay -- "Everyone" here at DU that complains they're "not being given a choice"...

...and there's no reason you SHOULD all be working for the same alternative. Problem is, I don't see anyone working seriously to find ANY alternative candidate.

Sorry if that's not "encouraging", but I worked with a group to encourage MY candidate, and in case MY candidate didn't run, I personally reached out to another potential candidate, and met -- face to face -- to talk about why I thought he should consider running.

[whatchamacallit]

49. Alright, now were getting somewhere

Just a few more questions - What is the group or organization you're a part of? Can anyone join? Did you start the group to draft or promote a particular politician, or was it already established? I'm genuinely curious.

[brooklynite]

50. I joined Ready for Hillary...

which despite allegations to the contrary, was not formed by Hillary Clinton or her campaign team.

I ALSO reached out, personally, to Brian Schweitzer, to meet and discuss HIS interest, in the event Hillary didn't run. We met at the convention, and I offered to help organize support in NYC if he decided to step in.

[whatchamacallit]

52. I remember you telling me about Brian Schweitzer

All of your efforts are laudable. I'm not sure how your experience squares with the idea that we are, each of us, responsible for producing the candidates we want. In your case the organization supporting the election-ready candidate you liked, Hillary Clinton, was already established. Most presidential candidates aren't conjured into existence by normal folk, they are usually politicians who already have the desire, muscle and resources of the establishment. Where you may have a point, is the issue of us not able to promote true progressives (the candidates we'd like) in the current political culture. The reason we don't have the candidates many of us want, is not because we're layabouts and complainers, but because those candidates are shunted in the national scene. You see the prevailing attitude continuously reinforced on this board every time you read "Impossible", "They can't win", "Too far left", "We need them in the senate"...

[brooklynite]

53. So you're saying you can't organize a campaign because someone said something mean on the internet?

...more specifically, someone said something mean HERE?

Do you imagine that, if your preferred candidate made it through the Primary process, the Republicans wouldn't be ten times worse?

You should be working for a candidate that addresses your concerns regardless of what everyone else thinks.

[whatchamacallit]

59. I'm saying several things

1) You contend that we are at fault for not "creating" our own candidates, yet you admit you didn't start a candidate advocacy group from scratch. Which btw is what you'd have to do if a suitable candidate wasn't already being promoted.

2) Sloth isn't the reason there aren't more, genuinely progressive, candidates. They have been marginalized by their own party for so long they don't have the same opportunities as the safe, centrist, inevitable "winners".

3) We wouldn't be having this conversation if your attitude was more nuanced than "Get out there and get the candidate you want or STFU"

[brooklynite]

60. Re: #1

I didn't create RFH from scratch, but others did (and FWIW, I wasn't worried about my options in the Primary). However, I DID reach out on my own to meeting with Schweitzer, and was prepared, if necessary, to apply my efforts to building a campaign for him.

Re: #2

Once again, you're suggesting people won't run (or work for the candidate of their choice), unless there's an inviting, accommodating environment. Well, welcome to politics. If there's a opportunity for a progressive (as you describe him -- I suspect the average Democrat views Obama and Clinton very differently than you do) to get elected nationally, he/she and YOU should be prepared to tough it out if you care enough.

Re: #3

My attitude is only a reaction to the far more hostile comments about Hillary Clinton (far beyond a responsible disagreement on policy matters) that appear here, and continual complaints that somehow, they're not being "given" a progressive alternative to support.

[whatchamacallit]

61. Fair enough

I would say this conversation has value in, if nothing else, illuminating our attitudes.

[merrily]

9. Democratic voters DESERVE an authentic, vigorous primary. For that matter, so do all Americans.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12776064

[hifiguy]

21. This. A thousand times this. nt

[merrily]

22. Thank you!

[brooklynite]

24. And how are they being denied this vigorous primary?

Name a candidate who's being told not to run.

Name an individual or organization who's being told not to contribute.

[merrily]

30. Please see Reply 29. Also please stop asking me the same stuff over and over.

[brooklynite]

40. I guess I keep asking because ai don't get an answer...

The fact that three people say they'd prefer to have no primary is pointless if they're not doing anything about it. Where's the evidence that they are?

[liberal_at_heart]

18. I supported John Edwards until he had to drop out for screwing up like he did.

Ironically enough I supported Hillary and got bashed by all the Obama supporters. Now I support Bernie and get bashed by all the Hillary supporters.

[merrily]

23. On the bright side, you do cheer up your fellow Bernie supporters.

(If you facebook, don't forget to "like" him.)

[joshcryer]

26. The primary selects delegates for the convention.

It doesn't matter if it's a boring primary or a charged primary. The convention delegates shape the Democratic Party Platform.

If Clinton dropped out in the middle of the race you would expect other candidates to vie for the remaining delegates and superdelegates. As far as the elected delegates she had up until that point, I believe the runner up would get to send their delegates to the DNC, but I'm not 100% sure on that.

[JI7]

27. i was looking this up and found this link

and it mentions the florida and michigan primary race and how there was dispute over them moving up their dates and hillary winning both states and trying to get their delegates to the convention.

it was kind of big news at the time but totally forgot about it .

but the delegate process does show there is a system in place to help deal with something unexpected that could happen.


http://www.cfr.org/elections/role-delegates-us-presidential-nominating-process/p15414#p5

[joshcryer]

28. I think we're OK.

Even if there are health problems or a big scandal we'd still be OK. The Party would adapt pretty quick.

I can't see the clown car winning a damn thing.

[corkhead]

41. It is our only hope. Otherwise - My prediction: Meet the next POTUS - Richard Dale Snyder

Rick Snyder, current Governor of Michigan is going to run. That would make him the only relatively sane looking passenger in the Republican clown car. He is part of the rich & greedy wing of the party.

He is smart. He got his JD (Juris Doctor) degree from the University of Michigan at age 23. He is self-made filthy rich, he didn't inherit it like the last corporatist Republican candidate. He has taken the public positions on social issues he is expected to as a Republican but only as a matter of political expediency. That stuff took a back seat during the general election for Michigan governor in 2010 and he won handily in what is supposedly a blue state. He was re-elected easily in 2014.

Not electable in the primaries because he isn't crazy enough you say? He got the gubernatorial nomination in 2010 with just 36% of the Republican primary votes. The crazies were split and he received the votes of the semi-sane and the greedy. I see that same scenario playing itself out again in the Republican 2016 primaries.

I won't go into all that he has done while governor, but highlights include trying to loot the Detroit Institute of Arts and the No Fault Insurance Trust Fund. Making a mockery of representative democracy by installing dictatorships in Detroit and Benton Harbor (so called "emergency managers&quot in spite of voters repealing those powers by ballot initiative. He made Michigan a so called "right to work" state during a lame duck session and has decimated public school education funding in favor of privately run and owned charter schools. There's plenty more, look it up.

He is a Koch Brothers type dream candidate because he is actually electable.

If the election ends up being a choice between Hillary Clinton vs Rick Snyder. Hillary Clinton is outmatched and will lose.

As Harry Truman once said: " If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat"

We need a primary and we need it to be won by a candidate that promotes progressive ideals on behalf of the bottom 99% instead of Wall Street or we are really screwed.

[Jim Lane]

51. I disagree -- Snyder DOES have a "crazies" problem.

Concerning his 2016 prospects, you write:

Not electable in the primaries because he isn't crazy enough you say? He got the gubernatorial nomination in 2010 with just 36% of the Republican primary votes. The crazies were split and he received the votes of the semi-sane and the greedy. I see that same scenario playing itself out again in the Republican 2016 primaries.

I assume that the gubernatorial primary was the typical "plurality election" scenario -- whoever gets the most votes wins, even if it's less than 50%.

The Presidential nominating process is different. Democratic Party rules bar winner-take-all primaries, in which whoever gets the most votes in the state is awarded all that state's delegates. IIRC Republican Party rules allow them but only after a certain point in the process; the earliest primaries and caucuses must have some level of proportional representation.

The result is that, if Snyder gets 36% of the vote in New Hampshire, outpolling everyone else, he'll get more delegates than anyone else but he won't get all of them. You could have a situation where there are, say, some Santorum delegates, and after Santorum drops out they switch to Cruz. By the time of the first winner-take-all contests, the conservatives might be comparatively united behind a single candidate.

[Bluenorthwest]

42. Oregon will most certainly have a primary, can't elect delegates or nominate Representatives or

anything without a Primary. I understand that in some of the States with less voter participation many confused people thought there was no Primary in 2012, I saw DUers claim there was no primary because we had an incumbent. That's not how it works at all. People really need to get their facts in line.
Face it, if we have Democrats who literally think there is no primary when there is an incumbent as in 2012 or if there is a candidate with a strong lead, obviously that will harm turnout. Kentucky turnout in 2014 General Election was 45.9% in the 2014 Primary, 26.8% turnout.

[Capt. Obvious]

43. She's not going to drop out

and if she did we can just throw Walter Mondale in at the last minute to hold the White House.

[mmonk]

46. It used to be so the public coud hear ideas and pick which they preferred.

Now it's where the media picks the ones they like to promote their interests while selling lots of air time space for commercials.

[Jamastiene]

58. We are not winning in 2016.

Period. I have some news for people who believe these "polls" they keep quoting that say she can beat the Republican Party in 2016. It's not happening. You are dangerously underestimating the hatred the Republican Party has for her. You are also underestimating the extreme hatred MOST of Obama's supporters from 2008 have for her as well. You are underestimating misogyny in this country as well. ALL of those factions will be out to vote in droves if she is our nominee and they will not be voting for her. It is a guaranteed loss.

Unless we find a damn good charismatic liberal candidate that can appeal to nonvoters, and find that candidate fast, we are fucked in 2016.

[NYC_SKP]

62. Not with Hillary Clinton, we aren't. You are correct, we need someone genuine with appeal to masses.

Thank you for pointing out the current hopelessness of this.