If Hillary runs who is her best challenger and why?

[joshcryer]

Now, I'm going to get it out of the way, I would love for Warren to run but I don't know about her name recognition abilities. I know she'd be able to make a formidable ground game simply because I and other liberals will back her 100% and put in 100% of our time to get her elected, but I did that for Dean (and so did tens of thousands of Dems), and it didn't do much good. So if you select Warren please explain how she'd be able to earn as much as Hillary, who is likely to be able to pull in $1 billion in fund raising easily. I'm not ruling her out, just saying she'd be a supreme underdog, even more so than Obama who outraised Hillary (and McCain) by double.

If Hillary runs I will be extremely disillusioned and I need to know who I should try to back in that instance, because it's going to be insane if she runs. I can't think of any challenger who can really put her out of the running. This is not a "Hillary is inevitable" argument. I always figured Obama would beat Hillary, even when she was ahead in the polls. I do think she would make a formidable opponent if she ran and I can't think of others that would dominate. I am simply asking for peoples' opinion about who would dominate if she did choose to run. I am, again, for the second time, not making a "Hillary is inevitable" argument. I am asking for others to tell me their picks and their possibilities. This is a political question, not an argument.

[JI7]

1. maybe Sherrod Brown

it would not be like 2008. he wont have the appeal and power of Obama.

a lot of it might depend on Hillary and mistakes she makes and people ending up not being as excited about her as in 2008. and someone like Brown might be a good alternative. he has labor and is from ohio.

i have seen his wife on tv and she would be able to help get a lot of support also.

i think 2024 or 2028 is the next time we will get something like 2008 and we might see candidates like elizabeth warren, wendy davis, kamala harris,julian castro, and some others we haven't heard of the way we hadn't heard of obama in 2000.

i wonder if the republican party will split or die off. if they split i can see one side being like the fringe right wing racist parties you see in europe and the moderates getting the evan bayh types who are in the democratic party now.

[LuvNewcastle]

2. I'd like to see Dean run again.

Sorry, I meant this to be a reply to the OP, but I guess it doesn't matter much.

I don't think Warren will run this time, but a lot can happen in 2-3 years. However, if she does run, she has my unequivocal support. But assuming she doesn't run, I think Dean would be a good choice. I think he could keep the party together, and I don't think Hillary can.

[TheDebbieDee]

30. I like Dr. Dean, too......He's a real progressive that's not afraid to talk like a progressive!

I'll throw my lot in with Hillary, if she runs. But I wouldn't be disappointed if Howard Dean were the nominee......

[Skink]

3. Schweitzer from Montana should run

even join the ticket if Hillaryis nominated.

[Proud Public Servant]

4. I'll bet he's Hillary's choice for VP

Balance the ticket in terms of ideology, region, and experience.

[CTyankee]

80. Thata's my guess, too. I don't think urban voters would reject him and voters in the West would

see someone who shares a lot of their concerns. Plus, he brings a kind of folksy charm. I don't think Progressives would find him objectionable (unless there is something I don't know, which is entirely possible).

While I like Dean I think his time has come and gone. And now he has corporate ties that may not serve him well with progressive voters.

[Proud Public Servant]

5. Russ Feingold. Seriously.

If Hillary runs this time around, I don't think she'll have any trouble getting nominated. So the role of a challenger would be to keep her honest and force her to the left. That takes a campaigner with an impeccable track record, unimpeachable progressive credibility, and proven campaign chops. That's Feingold.

[Fuddnik]

11. Feingold was my first choice in 2008.

Then he decided not to run. I hope he does this time.

[Proud Public Servant]

13. Mine too! (n/t)

[joshcryer]

22. I'd be behind that pick 100%.

Russ is a true liberal.

My main hope is that the primaries don't have a huge slew of candidates, so that we can have a few choices, mainly liberal (left wing) choices and the typical neoliberal that we always have to put up with. Then the neoliberal is going to actually have to answer tough questions about social policy that they will have a difficult time with a good convincing answer.

[randysoames]

6. warren has a good chance

she will get a lot of young people behind her for her student loan activism

[WI_DEM]

9. Warren would never challenge Hillary

[MannyGoldstein]

78. Why? Too meek? nm

[Cal33]

75. And right now she is doing what she can to break up the big banks, which will get most of

the middle-class people behind her. We still have more than 3 years till Nov. 2016.
There are plenty of other evil practices of the GOP that Elizabeth can bring up to the
light and very publicly fight against.

I don't know if she even wants the job, but I would love it if she would be our next
president. She has already shown that she has all the qualities to be a great
one. If anybody can bring about real change, she can.

[Arkana]

7. No idea.

She's going to have the lion's share of the money and the machine behind her, and there are few up-and-comers in the party who have the natural gifts Obama did.

[joshcryer]

23. Thanks for that. I was wondering about that.

If there were any rising stars but none are really on my radar except for Warren and I don't know about her ability to out raise a potential Hillary candidacy.

[Arkana]

63. She doesn't, unfortunately.

Warren's 61, and while she's very pure of heart politics-wise, she doesn't have half the charisma or political aptitude Obama does. Plus, do we even know if she wants the job? Personally, I'm fucking SICK of special elections in Massachusetts.

[Yavin4]

8. I have a feeling that Hillary won't run

And the nomination will go to Biden.

[libodem]

10. Hmmm?

Hadn't thought of that? Hmmm? :ponder smilie:

[TBF]

12. I've been thinking the same thing.

Hillary is a much stronger candidate now than she was against Obama in 2008, but her health may be a concern (we really don't have details but she would be the same age as Reagan if she ran).

Unfortunately I don't think Elizabeth Warren would have a chance in hell.

[Yavin4]

14. I think that the biggest reason is that the Oligarchs won't let a Democrat win in 2016

They don't want 12 years of a Dem president. They want a Republican, and they want Chris Christie.

[BlueDemKev]

31. That would be a disaster.

Biden is not very popular and polls show him losing to virtually every possible Republican opponent except Rand Paul. Hillary MUST run.

[davidpdx]

47. I don't think either of them will run

and who can blame them, both have had successful careers. Both will be party elders and help strengthen the party.

[Yavin4]

62. Possible. The next likely candidate will be Mark Warner of VA

or maybe Cuomo in NY, but both will have up hill climbs. Howard Dean would be interesting, but many Progressives will be alarmed by some of his policy positions.

[stevenleser]

66. Unfortunately, Cuomo can't win. He's not liked by progressives, and the anti-gun legislation he

pushed is going to make it hard for him to compete in border states.

Too bad too because he is a good guy. He's one of the folks I hoped to see around in 2024 after Hillary serves her 8 years.

[JoePhilly]

15. I'm glad to see your thread ...

For about 2 years now, I've been telling DU's disenchanted liberals that if they spent half as much time working on finding better candidates as they do complaining about the Democrats that are already in office, they'd have a real shot at finding an "acceptably liberal" candidate for 2016.

I actually posted exactly that same point minutes ago in a different thread.

It will be interesting to see if your thread attracts the same level of interest that one bashing democrats tends to receive.

I hope it does. It could be the start of a positive trend around here.

[TBF]

16. Define "better candidates" -

It's not like anyone is going to be acceptable as a candidate unless they are willing to play ball w/the folks who run the show.

[JoePhilly]

17. Feel free to define "better candidate" however you want.

Its clear some are unhappy with many of the current potential democratic candidates.

I encourage those who find themselves in that situation to locate and promote "better candidates", defining "better" however they want.

You can spend your time complaining, or you can get busy finding and building up candidates that you think are "better".

Or, you can complain about "the folks who run the show" for the next few years, and then whine for another 4 to 8 years about President Hillary Clinton.

Your call.

[knixphan]

19. ^ Logical.

'Get busy living - or get busy dying.'

[Jamaal510]

18. Probably not,

but part of the reason why is because the vast majority of hair-on-fire threads tends to be in GD, and that area generally has more traffic, anyway.

[JoePhilly]

20. I'd love to see some of those ...

hair-on-fire threads become "find a solution" threads.

There's something to be said for the occasional "righteous rant" .... but GD has reached the saturation point when it comes to outrage.

[joshcryer]

25. Regarding the saturation point, yeah, basically.

DU hasn't had good substantiative discussions since, really, the 2008 primaries. And even then the bickering was nasty at times, at least the discussions were on point and people discussed policy and stuff.

Now it seems that people simply post outrage threads to get recs and to make some petulant point that we've all heard a dozen times before. It's a rehash after rehash and it's guaranteed to cause drama. Pointless drama, but yeah.

[joshcryer]

24. Well, it's difficult not to be disenchanted.

Simply because the earning machine tends to back the more corporate candidates. Even Obama, at the time, I was telling people he wasn't a super left wing progressive (maybe on welfare / social policy and then he was wishy washy at best in some areas such as gay marriage).

But I do understand your point and having been a Deaniac I understand the insurmountable odds to get a candidate with a good earning ability and with good policy positions.

I can't imagine that any "acceptably liberal" person can be elected President of the United States. But we can damn sure try to get someone other than Hillary and others of her stature. No offense, I'd back her reluctantly if she got the nod, and hell, I'm on the record saying that if she won the best thing to come of it would be the lulz / drama that would happen. Other than that though I would prefer someone else.

[JoePhilly]

46. I'm still waiting to see if a few of the more vocalyl disenchanted folks

spot your thread and speak up. Some of them can be counted on to post at least one, if not more, complain-a-thon OPs a day.

The outrage threads get a couple hundred replies ... so far, your attempt to rationally discuss alternatives to Hillary, isn't getting much attention from those who complain about Obama non-stop.

And I'd argue that Hillary is a bit to Obama's right.

I do agree on the right wing drama part ... a Hillary victory might just send the right wing into orbit, which could be fun to watch.

[joshcryer]

50. Those folks don't read the politics forum.

As far as they're concerned politics doesn't exist. Which is OK, I suppose, if that's your cup of tea. But it becomes an echo chamber damn quick if you can't actually discuss politics. The political realities. Believe me, I've tried to engage those folks but they don't give a damn, and deflect or simply disengage when they're challenged. There's one poster in particular who posts threads pretty much like clockwork but when I ask for solutions to the problem (which, btw, I agree with them, our political discourse has problems), they never give me an answer. Same poster. 4 years I've tried to get them to give me a solution, even a single one, and they never do. It's all about the echo chamber.

[JoePhilly]

51. I bet they see this OP still ... if you check "latest threads"

right now, this OP is #4 on the list.

I have the same experience. I regularly challenge some of them and by doing so, clearly I'm a sycophant, stasi, authoritarian, center right, sock puppet.

Anyway, since they won't be coming to enlighten us ... back to your actual topic ...

I know its wrong to say "inevitable", but let's say that it is inevitable that Hillary is at the top of the ticket ... an approach to getting a more liberal executive branch is to think about getting some one more liberal into the VP slot.

Its going to be tough, probably too tough, to jump a flame-throwing liberal up the stack into the top slot. But you could get one into the VP slot. And to do that, you need a couple of them running in the primary so that the chance for getting one of them into the VP slot increases. No 3rd way DLCer (blah blah blah) type beats Hillary anyway. So get a couple more liberal candidates on the stage.

I think Grayson might be angling along these lines.

[joshcryer]

53. Naw, it's sinking quick.

I have almost 30 star members ignoring me, primarily for that very reason, that I try to engage the "outrage brigade" but their followers just can't deal with it, so off to the ignore list I go. I'm familiar with this argumentation style with creationists and global warming denialists, so it doesn't bother me much. It's just a shame, even a bit embarrassing, that DU, a liberal forum, invites these types of close minded people.

I do like what you're saying and it is seeming increasingly likely that Hillary is going to make a run for it, so perhaps our best bet is getting someone on the VP spot, but I'm open still to alternatives, because it's not over until the nomination process is over. We're not a dictatorship. We can nominate our candidates. That's the democratic way (ironically many in the "outrage brigade" would champion countries that don't even have a nomination process for their "candidates," I can name 3 off the top of my head).

[JoePhilly]

56. Absolutely ...

And when I say it makes sense to target the VP slot, you still have to run for the top slot. But you have to be realistic too.

I'm a strategic thinker. You create a set of objectives.

If your football team was 0-16 last year, you probably are not going to win the super bowl this year. So your first goal is a record of no worse than an 8-8 season. Second level goal, make the playoffs. Third, win the division. Win a playoff game. So on.

And then you calibrate the target as you go. If by mid-season your record is 6-2, you start focusing on the second level goal.

The point is that in training camp, you don't say ... "sure we were 0-16 last year, but I promise you we'll win the super bowl this year".

My view of some of the disenchanted is that they want a super bowl ring NOW ... but they can't even field a team.

There should be a list of strong progressives from all levels of government. Who are they? Where are they? Which of them appear to have a potential trajectory that could align with specific targets.

[busterbrown]

21. We have to take this country back a step at a time... took 25 years to create this mess...

Its all about appealing to those middle voters in the swing states.. They by nature are not designed for
progressive change. they probably will succumb to the bullshit about progressive concepts being the path
to socialism (which would be great) and then to Communism.. Say what you want, but these middle line voters are tricky and never in a sure column..

My mind Hillary is a sure winner and based on Obama’s legacy will be able to take the next few progressive steps to heal the country... Then we can start talking about real progressives for the following elections..

[Agnosticsherbet]

26. Dean is considering a run in 2016.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/50185/howard-dean-2016-former-vermont-governor-is-considering-2016-run

[joshcryer]

29. Oh my god. Be still my heart.

That's awesome news! Holy crap.

[last1standing]

27. I like Dean but think he should go back to chair of the DNC.

Maybe Whitehouse or Sherrod Brown. I also think Udall could make a good run for it.

[TheDebbieDee]

28. Another Hillary Clinton candidacy would threaten to pull at least HALF

of the GOP female voters and who knows how many GOP male voters. And that's why Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi!

[BainsBane]

33. What meltdown?

You can't be serious. She owned them in that hearing. If you want to talk about meltdown, Boehner is constantly crying. He cries when his bottle of faux tanner is empty.

[BainsBane]

38. The word is incompetence

And I'm quite certain Hillary knows the English language. Save your Fox Benghazi crap for the brain dead Teabaggers.

[joshcryer]

40. I wonder if that's the first Hillary Hater to be removed.

We'll see in a few years if she runs...

[BainsBane]

42. He was bounced for Benghazi crap

not run of the mill Hillary hating. If that were a reason for a PPR, the site would be close to empty.

[joshcryer]

43. Heh! True enough.

Just wondering, I mean, if she gets the nomination a lot of long timers are going to explode and lose it, so, that dude won't be the last.

[BainsBane]

44. They'll explode

and then they'll be out knocking on doors to keep some Teabagging loon from being elected.

[joshcryer]

34. OK, fair enough, who would you consider the top candidate then?

[customerserviceguy]

36. I don't think it's an 'if'

and that means it doesn't matter who runs against her. Joe Biden will come in a distant second after the first several caucuses and primaries. I don't see the Repukes even managing to muster more than a "get to know me" candidacy for the national exposure. Even they know she'll pull in Rethuglican women voters.

If she wants it, she's got it, at no other time in American history (with the possible exceptions of George Washington and Ike Eisenhower) could you have said that.

[joshcryer]

41. That was said by some in 2007.

[JoePhilly]

48. I think the difference is that ...

Hillary didn't take the process serious enough last time and Obama caught her by surprise.

I doubt she'll make that mistake again.

That plus the strong tenure as SoS means any challenger would need to hit the ground running at full speed.

Also ... I'll go a head and say it (probably get screamed at for it) ... I don't think a man can beat her again if she runs.

Women that I know have already decided that she is more than qualified to be President.

The idea that she could lose to a 2nd man who comes almost out of nowhere angers them. Dean might have a shot, but he's been sort of off on the sidelines for a while. After him, I'm not sure I see any other man getting past her.

[joshcryer]

52. IMO it was an MSM invention.

Hillary really didn't have a chance, and I argued this back then, because she was too easily caught in lies. It's easier to catch a woman in a lie because the media already has invented this whole "women are liars" meme, so every time Hillary exaggerated about something (the sniper thing comes to mind), it gets picked at. Obama had his share of BS and his Harry and Louise ads should've made progressives dump him (any Dem using a Rovian tactic should not be trusted), but he managed to get away with it.

I do think, if she runs, it'll be about a woman being President, so I think that the conservatives will have to run a woman if they want to seriously contend. They can't keep up the image that they've fostered for so long. The American people want to break the wall that we've built and electing a black man was the first step. The next will be electing a woman.

One thing, if you were around then, is that I was actually a big Hillary defender. There were daily topics about how she was going to sink poor Obama by being a shrill old lady causing a ruckas because of superdelegates and how there was going to be a delegate tie and shit like that. One thing that really peeved me about the primaries then was that Obama utterly dominated the caucus system (something Hillary didn't count on). Resulting in his winning even though he had fewer votes. She wouldn't make that same mistake again (if she runs she will put a huge emphasis on the working class harming caucus system which doesn't allow people to vote during the day and only those who have the time can go to them).

[JoePhilly]

55. YUP ... on pretty much all counts.

I think being a Clinton hurt her just as much as it helped.

I remember thinking "which do I prefer?" ... having the right wing scream about Bill Clinton becoming President again through Hillary, or the scary black guy being in the White House.

My sense of the media was that all they really wanted was a fight between white women and African Americans. Basically, split the democratic party such that regardless of who won the Dem primary, the "other side" would be so angry that they wouldn't vote. That drop in turn out might give McCain a chance to win.

Personally, I found Obama and Hillary to be about equal on the issues back then. With Hillary slightly to Obama's right, but not by much. I'd have supported either.

One of the problems the disenchanted left faces is this ... for many of us, the danger of losing to a GOP candidate is greater than the demand to find some one more liberal than Hillary. So the "more liberal" candidate has to have a very high chance of actually winning. We don't want the country to become another Wisconsin or North Carolina, where the GOP is destroying the state.

[joshcryer]

57. Oh god, so many shitty memories.

It really was a divide and conquer thing. So many Hillary supporters called racists. So many Obama supporters called corrupt (Obama's Chicago politics and whatnot).

I felt that they were equal on the topics though Hillary voted for the IWR and Obama wasn't around when it was voted on so you couldn't prove one way or another how he stood on it. Other than that I was of the Krugman persuasion that Hillary was to the left of Obama on one topic, health care. I remember back then posters like ProSense were throwing Krugman under the bus hard, daily shitfests making him out to be the evil of all evils (most ironic being that ProSense has since found Krugman to be a fine resource these days).

[JoePhilly]

64. YUP and the media did its best to fan (and even create) the flames.

On the healthcare point ... I felt Hillary was more to Obama's right mainly based on her stronger support for the individual mandate.

I thought Obama had painted himself into a corner on that, but he actually played it smart. In the debates, he basically said that he understood why Hillary thought the mandate was needed, and that his preference was to bring down costs so as to make it unnecessary.

[customerserviceguy]

61. Yes, it was

I'm sure it took Hillary by surprise to see Barack Obama throw his hat in the ring before even completing half of one Senate term. She knew she had stood for and won re-election, and she thought that was key to getting voter trust.

A lot of people got surprised by the Obama candidacy in that election cycle. Do you see anybody with even half that potential impact on the horizon right now? I don't.

[Hippo_Tron]

71. She's polling at like 70% in the Iowa Caucuses

Comparatively at this time in 2005, she was leading her opponents by like 11 points or something.

I think polls this far our have to be taken with a shaker of salt, but I do think she's closer to inevitable this time than she was last time.

[joshcryer]

89. I just looked this stat up out of curiosity.

That is utterly crazy. It just reenforces my belief that if we want to get over the moaning about the candidate now we need to pick a good challenger for Hillary, and start soon, because we need all the time in the world to get that candidate prepared.

Source for your stat: http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/07/11/iowa_caucus_2016_hillary_clinton_s_59_point_lead_and_other_poll_portpourri.html

[BainsBane]

39. Chances of Republicans getting anyone through a primary

who can win a national election don't strike me as good. Who knows though. A lot can change in 3 years.

[Historic NY]

45. If Hillary wants it she will get the nomination...

Biden not so much he has run several times w/o much success. He was brought onto the ticket mostly as a consoliation, for his support. There is a slim and none chance for VP's going on to the oval office by campaigning on their own.

John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Martin Van Buren, George W. Bush were the only 4...Nixon was out of office when he ran.

[davidpdx]

49. I'm going to paraphrase what I heard Bill Clinton say the other day

We should stop making this about the next election and actually take time to govern.

Considering the first primary is 29 months away, I'd like to see who actually runs before I decide who to support.

Did we know 29 months before the election that Barack Obama would run? No (some may have correctly guessed, but they did not know for certain).

I'm open and willing to consider candidates once they declare. That is what I did in April 2007 when I started supporting Obama. Will I decide that early next time? I don't know.

[antigop]

67. no, no, no, david. Everyone has to buy into the "inevitability meme" NOW!!!!!

Don't you get it?

[davidpdx]

68. As I said above

I don't think she'll run. I think a lot of people who were expecting her to run will be disappointed.

[antigop]

69. Let's just focus on 2014 (as you have stated repeatedly). nt

[Sunlei]

54. anyone who would team with her to totally decriminalize just 'the plant.' They would be unbeatable.

[SheilaT]

58. What I find most discouraging about all these

Hillary! Hilary! Hilary! threads is that it's as if the Democratic Party consists of four, or at most eight members above the rank and file.

If Hilary runs, it will be a disaster. If she wins the nomination, well just hope the Republicans nominate someone who won't destroy the country even faster than the Republican governors are destroying their states, because we won't do well with four years of that kind of leadership.

Once again (maybe I'm on everyone's ignore list, which is why no one has ever responded to my pointing this out) I want to point out that in 1990, after the Gulf War, President George H W Bush was so wildly popular that not a single respectable Democrat remained in the running for the Democratic nomination for '92. It was so obvious to the most casual observer that he'd be re-elected that no one wanted to risk his or her political reputation by running against him. And of course we all look back fondly on his second term, right?

Oh, wait. Some guy from Arkansas had the chutzpah to challenge the popular incumbent.

In 2008, it was so clear that Hillary Clinton was going to be the nominee that the primaries weren't going to be worth holding. Of course, there was that guy, that newly-minted senator from Illinois who'd wowed everyone with a speech he made at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, but of course he was going to need more time and seasoning. It would be his turn in four, eight, or twelve years. What was that guy's name again? I keep forgetting.

Here's my point: There's a group think in the Hillary is Inevitable that is worrisome. It keeps people from thinking through very carefully about her flaws, why she is a terrible choice for '16 in many ways, the first of which she's Same Old Same Old. Get out of the box, people, and think about other possibilities, others who aren't simply a continuation of the many things that have dragged this country down.

I was a Deaniac in 2004, and I still feel betrayed that he didn't get the nomination. He would have made a great President, but that's the past. It's over. It's beyond time to look ahead.

I would love to see Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, or Alan Grayson on the ticket, in any order, in any combination. But I don't feel as if those three are our only possible choices. Just as in 1990, we are three years plus before the next Presidential election. We need to put aside worrying about that and focus on winning as many seats as possible in the House and Senate in 2014.

[joshcryer]

59. So are you arguing those others would be good challengers?

I'm unclear on your response. I'm fully on page with her not running. If she does though I don't see Warren, Brown, or Grayson putting up a considerable fight against her.

[SheilaT]

65. My essential point is that if we

think, three and a half years before the election of 2016, that Hillary Clinton is our best, or worse yet our only choice, I despair for the lack of imagination, the lack of a sense that we ought to see what unfolds in the next couple of years before we commit to her or to anyone.

in 1990 no one saw any Democrat as challenging George H W Bush.

IT'S TOO FUCKING SOON TO DECIDE ON THE CANDIDATE!

Okay, I feel a little better now.

Plus, if all we dither about is the inevitability of Hillary, we won't remember there's an election a little over a year away that matters hugely.

[peace13]

60. Think back to the primary season where Hillary refused to conceede...

where she failed to show up for the press conference she called and held the party up for more than a week maybe two. Where was she and what the heck was that about. When someone explains to me what the problem was then I might be able to endorse her.

My guess is that she had a mental breakdown of some sort due to the stress of the campaign. I don't see her as a fit candidate for the Presidency if that is the case. But then this is my theory and I would be happy to be proven wrong.

[Hippo_Tron]

70. I think Brian Schweitzer is the only alternative that's actually preferable to Hillary

Martin O'Malley, Andrew Cuomo, Mark Warner, and all of the other names seriously floated cut from the same centrist cloth as she is. If forced to choose between them, I'm going to pick the one who served as Secretary of State and did a pretty good job of it.

Schweitzer is probably the best chance of any real change.

I'd support Warren over Hillary, but I don't think she's running. Yea, I know Obama ran 2 cycles after being elected to the Senate and so did Bobby Kennedy, although Kennedy got into the race over a year later in the cycle than Obama did.

[marlakay]

86. I thought so to but he didn't run for senator

because they found some stuff on him. Made me sad, i think he would be great pres.

[AtomicKitten]

72. Al Gore, Howard Dean, Elizabeth Warren. nt

[Rosa Luxemburg]

73. Against Clinton probably Michael Steele (please!)

[grantcart]

74. I would make the argument that Hillary is inevitable if she decides to run, for three reasons:

1) Primary learning curve.

The Clintons have been through it 3 times. Just knowing where to go and where to put the resources is a daunting task. They thought they knew and then Obama just outflanked them by using the system not to just win primaries but to 'sweep' delegates (look at what happened in Idaho).

2) Pent up support.

If you are looking at Hillary then you need to put aside your DU glasses and realize that there are tens of millions of older women who have tremendous pent up support for Hillary because they identify their pain and suffering in the work place with her, that is what is behind the intensity of the PUMA support she had. She can tap into that pent up support for time, money and intensity and it will be formidable. Ironically as the Republicans get more effective in taking away Women's rights and benefits at the state level it will galvanize even more women in supporting Hillary.

3) Lack of a unified opponent

So for the people who would prefer to not have Hillary there is only one possibility and that is that there is a quick unification behind an alternative. The only one that could possibly be in that position is Joe Biden and because of his public persona he would need some time to counter the superficial SNL type impression that has gained currency.


While Hillary wouldn't be in my top choices I also don't think that she will be as bad as people think and then there is. If we have a woman candidate who can galvanize women and keep high participation of Hispanics and AAs then we enter with a huge advantage. The election of 2016 should not be about who will be President from our side but who generate a large enough groundswell to take back the House and keep the Senate because the reality is that without both of those places locked up there is very little we can do regardless who is President.

[grantcart]

76. I would make the argument that it is Hillary's to refuse for 3 reasons.

1) Primary learning curve.

The Clintons have been through it 3 times. Just knowing where to go and where to put the resources is a daunting task. They thought they knew and then Obama just outflanked them by using the system not to just win primaries but to 'sweep' delegates (look at what happened in Idaho).

2) Pent up support.

If you are looking at Hillary then you need to put aside your DU glasses and realize that there are tens of millions of older women who have tremendous pent up support for Hillary because they identify their pain and suffering in the work place with her, that is what is behind the intensity of the PUMA support she had. She can tap into that pent up support for time, money and intensity and it will be formidable. Ironically as the Republicans get more effective in taking away Women's rights and benefits at the state level it will galvanize even more women in supporting Hillary.

3) Lack of a unified opponent

So for the people who would prefer to not have Hillary there is only one possibility and that is that there is a quick unification behind an alternative. The only one that could possibly be in that position is Joe Biden and because of his public persona he would need some time to counter the superficial SNL type impression that has gained currency.


While Hillary wouldn't be in my top choices I also don't think that she will be as bad as people think and then there is. If we have a woman candidate who can galvanize women and keep high participation of Hispanics and AAs then we enter with a huge advantage. The election of 2016 should not be about who will be President from our side but who generate a large enough groundswell to take back the House and keep the Senate because the reality is that without both of those places locked up there is very little we can do regardless who is President.

[joshcryer]

79. Thanks grantcart, I always value your political opinion.

[BeyondGeography]

77. Whoever can win the black vote from her

Which is not any of the insurgent candidates people have been hoping for here. In fact, it's not anyone on the board.

Obama beat Hillary because he got enough of the white vote and swept the black vote. Hillary still cleaned up with the Hispanic vote and (owing to the Bill factor) led comfortably among blacks until Obama's show-me moment in Iowa.

Blacks will mostly return to Hillary in 2016 if she runs, imo, and she'll continue to run strong with Hispanics. That probability alone would make her very difficult to beat.

[Renew Deal]

81. Hillary is leading in the polls because people want to vote for her

This is a general reply to a few posts.

Hillary is leading because "liberals" do support her. I'm sure you know that "liberals" and "liberals on DU" are a different set of people. If Liberals on DU had their way, Wes Clark or Kucinich would have been the nominees in 2004.

My take on this is that Hillary's support is real. She will be the most experienced other than maybe Biden and she will have paid her dues. She was lacking in both areas in 2008. She is extremely popular with almost all democratic coalitions.

The "anybody but Hillary" types will have to find a viable alternative. Who is that going to be? Biden is too old (in presidential election terms) an a bit wacky. Sherrod Brown is not well known and will likely be considered less electable. Warren will have some grassroots support, but Hillary will still dominate with women and Brown will syphon off most of the rest. Nobody else stands much of a chance.

This is Hillary's nomination to lose. I'm not telling you to stop wasting your time because I think that's unfair. But I wouldn't waste time and money on some of the challengers.

[joshcryer]

82. Thus the OP.

I've tried not to engage those who want to make it about a "Hillary is inevitable" discussion (my OP explicitly made that clear). I wanted to see what people felt as far as who could be her biggest challenger. I'm unconvinced by many suggestions here (people throwing names out there without saying why, etc).

I'm not wasting my time, I'll happily sit idly by waiting to see who runs, and if there's someone better than Hillary that I think is worth my time, I'll devote it. If not, then I'll wait to see who wins the nomination, and vote for said winner during the elections.

I just simply do not see anyone being able to beat Hillary for the nomination.

[lyonn]

85. What I keep reading/hearing is Hillary's entitlement

The media, and I watch MSNBC most the time, seem to take this attitude. She once seemed to be wise and had a history with a pretty darn good president, Bill. But, she has disappointed. her vote to attack Iraq; her story about landing in, was it Bosnia?, while she was being fired at? And now I wonder what was her accomplishments while Sec. of State besides logging air miles? Kerry seems to be ready to wrestle bears.....well, is attemping the difficult matter of Palestine and Israel. In the old days Dean was impressive, then Biden got my attention, mostly due to his outlook on foreign affairs and being a fairly liberal Dem. His so called "gaffs" was thanks to media hype. Biden's sincerity impressed me, but, he was out of the running in very short order.... I am a yellow dog Democrat so any Dem gets my vote. I just have favorites.

[Hippo_Tron]

87. Kerry is tackling Israel/Palestine because there's an opportunity to do that now

Netanyahu lost a substantial number of seats in the last Israeli election and Obama won another term. Both placed Netanyahu in a position where he had to seriously pursue the peace process.

[brooklynite]

83. If Hillary runs, the competition will be.....nobody.

Dream all you want, but no significant political figure would want to run against her. Sherrod won't, Warren won't, Dean won't, O'Malley won't. At best, you'll get a left-wing House member (no, not Grayson) running to speak out on issues of concern, with no expectation of winning.

[Robbins]

84. Hillary

If she runs she will be the nominee and next president.

Look I don't even want her to run.But,I think she will.

If you think Obama Is too centist he's nothing compared to Hillary.She will make Obama like an ultraliberal compared to her.

I like to deal with reality.There isn't a candiate like Obama poised to challenge her.Obama became an instant star after 2004 convention who eveybody knew would run for president someday and people wanted him to.

I won't support her in primary or give her money but would vote for her In general election over the evil ones Bush or Chrisite or santuram.

I have no doudt she could easily beat one of the losers republicans In their tea party craze puts up it's how she would govern that would be of concern.

[Samantha]

88. Al Gore could take it

It has been 13 years since Election 2000. He has all the credentials and the political savvy to handle the Republicans. Think "climate change" and "lockbox" and ask yourself who is better suited.

Sam

[Lil Missy]

90. the only person who could win aginst her is Bil lClinton. n/t