Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 20 Apr 2015, 8:44 am

Will she remain so?

What does this say about the Democrats?

Can Democrats ignore the contradiction between fighting for the middle class and raising $2.5B to run for President?
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 20 Apr 2015, 12:20 pm

I doubt she'll remain the only candidate. Whether she'll face any kind of meaningful challenge remains to be seen though. It's an odd situation this time around in that the current Veep, who under normal circumstances could be expected to run, is a clear non-starter.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 20 Apr 2015, 1:06 pm

This would be more fun than O'Malley (hopeless) or Sanders (less than hopeless):

Despite repeated claims to the contrary, Mayor Bill de Blasio is positioning himself to be the leftist “progressive” alternative to Wall Street-friendly Hillary Rodham Clinton as the Democratic candidate for president, a national party operative told The Post.

De Blasio’s hope, the operative said, is a “Draft de Blasio’’ movement will develop among progressive activists over the next several months that will lead to the mayor being able to defeat Clinton in the primary elections next year in much the same way leftist Sen. George McGovern successfully challenged the initially front-running establishment Democratic candidate, Sen. Edmund Muskie, more than 40 years ago.

Standing ready to back de Blasio against Clinton, said the operative, is the state’s small but influential Working Families Party, which has strong ties to de Blasio and is funded by some of the nation’s most powerful labor unions.


I don't like de Blasio, but he might be able to compete financially. Well, okay, not really, but better than the other two.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 20 Apr 2015, 1:28 pm

Sassenach wrote:I doubt she'll remain the only candidate. Whether she'll face any kind of meaningful challenge remains to be seen though. It's an odd situation this time around in that the current Veep, who under normal circumstances could be expected to run, is a clear non-starter.
I think there will be some who at least test the water. Sanders is making a lot of noise at the moment. People are talking about Elizabeth Warren but I think she's got time to bide. Still, if she gives it a go this time it should not counts against her if she loses.

I see from this Wikipedia article that there are the following candidates:

Hillary Clinton

3 who declared in 2012 and are (to put it charitably) unlikely to get far

Jeff Boss (Truther, NJ)
Vermin Supreme (Performance Artist, Mass)
Robby Wells (failed to get on the Reform and Constitution tickets in 2012, declared as Independent for 2016 and then switched to Dem for this election cycle)

3 who have been 'formally exploring'

Lincoln Chafee (former Republican Senator, then Independent Gov of RI, who switched to Dem after election)

Martin O'Malley (former Mayor of Baltimore and Gov of MD)

Jim Webb (SecNav under Reagan, Senator from VA)

3 who have 'publicly expressed interest'

Joe Biden (I'm not sure he's that obviously not a potential runner)

Bernie Sanders (obv my favourite but has a snowball's chance in hell)

Paul Strauss (DC "Shadow" Senator)

Of those 9 alternates, I think a few have some promise, but not many. Cuomo is also mentioned, along with Cory Booker and Deval Patrick. They've been popping up in polls (especially the "no-Hillary" polls).

The Democrats could do with an alternative. And Hillary could do worse than to be seen to win against a field, rather than by default. She's far from my favourite Democrat - and about my third-favourite Clinton, so I'd like to see a viable option anyway.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 20 Apr 2015, 1:42 pm

Joe Biden (I'm not sure he's that obviously not a potential runner)


What I meant was that he'd be a very poor candidate who probably couldn't win the nomination and almost certainly couldn't win the election. He may still run anyway of course.

Who's your second favourite Clinton btw ?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 20 Apr 2015, 1:52 pm

Sassenach wrote:Who's your second favourite Clinton btw ?
Chelsea.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 20 Apr 2015, 1:55 pm

George Clinton was way cooler...
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 20 Apr 2015, 1:59 pm

Sassenach wrote:George Clinton was way cooler...
I had forgotten about him. OK, Hillary gets the no4 slot.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 20 Apr 2015, 2:27 pm

danivon wrote:
Sassenach wrote:Who's your second favourite Clinton btw ?
Chelsea.

Bill's your favorite?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 20 Apr 2015, 2:54 pm

danivon wrote:
Sassenach wrote:I doubt she'll remain the only candidate. Whether she'll face any kind of meaningful challenge remains to be seen though. It's an odd situation this time around in that the current Veep, who under normal circumstances could be expected to run, is a clear non-starter.
I think there will be some who at least test the water. Sanders is making a lot of noise at the moment. People are talking about Elizabeth Warren but I think she's got time to bide. Still, if she gives it a go this time it should not counts against her if she loses.


She turns 66 this year. I don't think it matters if it is "counted against her." If she is ever going to run for POTUS, it has to be this year.

Lincoln Chafee (former Republican Senator, then Independent Gov of RI, who switched to Dem after election)


He is a tested pol and might be able to garner some support.

Martin O'Malley (former Mayor of Baltimore and Gov of MD)


I don't see him as credible, resume notwithstanding. His performance as governor was not that great. His ACA rollout was terrible.

Jim Webb (SecNav under Reagan, Senator from VA)


Seems too moderate--more like an independent VP candidate.

Joe Biden (I'm not sure he's that obviously not a potential runner)


Too old and too prone to saying dopey things.

Bernie Sanders (obv my favourite but has a snowball's chance in hell)


True on his chances, but if it's just him and Hillary, I think he reveals her for being the corporatist crony that many Democrats think she is.

Of those 9 alternates, I think a few have some promise, but not many. Cuomo is also mentioned, along with Cory Booker and Deval Patrick. They've been popping up in polls (especially the "no-Hillary" polls).


Cuomo has the voice, the passion, and some baggage. I can't see it.

Booker would be interesting. Patrick? No.

The Democrats could do with an alternative. And Hillary could do worse than to be seen to win against a field, rather than by default. She's far from my favourite Democrat - and about my third-favourite Clinton, so I'd like to see a viable option anyway.


The bench is thin. I think that's why Hillary looks so formidable. Let's put it this way: if she had a heart attack tomorrow and withdrew, Democrats would be in a panic.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 20 Apr 2015, 3:01 pm

if she had a heart attack tomorrow and withdrew, Democrats would be in a panic.


Then Warren would run.

Fate
Can Democrats ignore the contradiction between fighting for the middle class and raising $2.5B to run for President?

I think everyone understands the reality when it comes to running for high office and the need for campaign finances . Or are you complaining because she is going to be able to raise the 2.5$ billion?

And since Republicans, many financed by the Kochs and Sheldon, began talking about the need to address income inequality in Iowa, i think its a battleground she will be comfortable upon.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 20 Apr 2015, 3:08 pm

rickyp wrote:
if she had a heart attack tomorrow and withdrew, Democrats would be in a panic.


Then Warren would run.


I think the idea of her running is so much better than her actually doing it. While she may be what some Democrats like ideologically, she has a slightly more deft political touch than Hillary does.

Fate
Can Democrats ignore the contradiction between fighting for the middle class and raising $2.5B to run for President?

I think everyone understands the reality when it comes to running for high office and the need for campaign finances . Or are you complaining because she is going to be able to raise the 2.5$ billion?


Let's see: Obama and Romney together raised less than she will. But, she is going to work for the middle class--not the corporations and billionaires who helped her.

Erm, okay.

And since Republicans, many financed by the Kochs and Sheldon, began talking about the need to address income inequality in Iowa, i think its a battleground she will be comfortable upon.


Oh brother. Democrats raise more money from rich people than the GOP does.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 20 Apr 2015, 3:09 pm

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/blue-billionaires-on-top-114151.html

What does RickyP think of Steyer?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 20 Apr 2015, 4:34 pm



He doesn't exist. :winkgrin:

It's like Harry Reid on Adelson--don't pick on him! Adelson also helps Reid.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 20 Apr 2015, 4:54 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Steyer

Tom Steyer added $30 million into the Yes on Proposition 39 campaign, warning opponents that “it would be impossible to wage an opposition campaign on the cheap.”[44][45]


I think he's a clear illustration of an elite using his wealth to try and control the political agenda. I don't think the fact he's an environmentalist or left leaning changes the base problem.
When money dominates the conversation, only the wealthy get a say.
The only way to really make politicians independent of their wealthy patrons is to figure out a way to either publicly fund political activity OR to place strict limits on both spending and contributions.
Until something like that happens the oligarchs will have their way, comrade.

Seriously, doesn't the notion that Clinton will raise $2.5 billion to get elected and yet she's the one candidate who's raising the issue of a constitutional amendment on political financing make an impression?
She can win whether the money game is open ended or not. And yet she understands that the current situation is essentially corrosive to democracy. For that she deserves kudos.