because otherwise there will be no back up.

Yes, I am supporting Bernie right now, but I think
the party big shots should also consider this as a
necessary development. I don't hear a peep or
see a sign in that direction though.

Without a somewhat popular counterpart the
whole thing will smack of "Washington's
decision".

That won't be enough. Not even close. For anyone to have a chance to beat Hillary in the primaries, it will have to be someone with a nationally-recognized name and reputation, along with the power to sway a national audience in his or her direction. People are vastly underestimating the support for Clinton that is already established.

Her polling demonstrates that. Both against potential primary opponents and against likely GOP candidates. It's going to be very tough for someone to move ahead of her in the primaries, and it will have to be someone who is seen as a winner in the general elections. Democratic politics at the national level is not something that can be swayed with weak efforts. Not in any way.

Frankly, I don't get involved in presidential races. I can't really influence them in any way. I work locally at the congressional district level and on state and local campaigns. There, I can actually do something. The Presidential race is on a completely different scale of politics. The only time I've seen a grassroots effort succeed was with Obama. There is no equivalent to Obama emerging for 2016. Not even close, and the time is growing short for one to appear.

Insurgents do well with college-educated whites, the working class and non-whites not so much. Which leaves you with some razor-thin victories in small/smallish states and defeat everywhere else. Obama was the rare Establishment-candidate challenger who could break out of that box.

too, even from the independents. 2016 is going to hinge on turnout, I'm sure, assuming that Clinton is the candidate. Obama got that turnout, and then some. I saw more first-time voters at my polling place than I ever have before. In MN, people can register on election day, and the line to do that was long.

I worry about turnout in 2016, frankly. I think everyone needs to worry about it. Low Democratic turnout could easily give the election to the Republicans, both in Congress and the presidency. That would be a disaster of cosmic proportions, in my opinion. That's why I'm not liking the attacks from Democrats on Hillary Clinton right now. Lacking a powerful primary opponent, it could hurt turnout next year, and I don't like the consequences of that at all in Congressional races, in which we absolutely must gain.

2016 is going to be a pivotal election, in ways I don't think most people understand or think about enough.

That's why I wish Warren would run. I know she's not, but it would have the healthy effect of mobilizing her voters, and the even healthier effect of getting more of them to respect Hillary's political abilities, which are very substantial. Right now, too many of them are completely unreasonable on the matter. An uncompetitive nomination process will not help.

I started out in 2007 very anti-Hillary and I will never really warm up to her the way I did, say, to Obama. But her strengths became quite clear as the campaign wore on (as did her weaknesses, but everyone has them) and, had she not been so ill-served by her campaign team she might very well have won anyway. To her most ardent detractors, I wouldn't detail those strengths, I would just say, you want to find out? Run against her. You might not even mind voting for her when it 's all over.

I expect her to campaign strongly, because she understands how important the congressional elections will be in 2016. Anyone who doesn't understand that is ignoring reality.

I suspect you are correct ... Warren (and no doubt Sanders) will both come out strongly for HRC. I just hope their supporters will follow suit.

Even grudging Progressives who are not "ignoring reality". It's not Hillary's fault we don't have a Progressive who can or will run. But picking Julian Castro for VP would be a master stroke, on her part. His twin is already in DC, and that's where those two Lefties belong.

approach to Hillary and Co unforced errors. She's a weak candidate.

I'm having trouble making sense of your reply. Can you try again?

Except it is quite clear s/he doesn't like Hillary

... trying to give conservatives an out in the anti-Obamacare case.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026312842

Aside from that, I have gained the impression each time I have encountered the poster that s/he does not care much for Hillary. Just an impression; not a full inventory.

less than honorable intent, especially in this context. I hadn't ever read one of the few posts.

I am hoping Martin O'Malley is one who will run. The Democratic Party knows full well not having a primary would be a negative for them and will work to ensure that doesn't happen, imo.

That he has chosen not to run for the Senate in his state seems to indicate that he's planning a presidential primary run. His name recognition on a national scale, though, is weak. He's going to have to ramp up quickly to correct that.

I agree, he has an impressive resume and he needs to get it out there soon.

Hopefully people will heed your advice.

of involvement in Democratic politics.

Yes I support Hillary but I also welcome a primary with debates. There is no "coronation", who ever wins the primary will be our nominee. What is so hard to understand about that?

We're hearing it a lot, but not seeing any groundswell for any other primary candidate. What I'm seeing is a lot of Elizabeth Warren stuff in signature lines on DU, but she doesn't appear to have any plans to run. I'm not seeing any other advocacy, though, for anyone else. Bernie Sanders is not a viable primary candidate, simply because he has no Democratic Party credibility.

I don't deal with presidential politics, really. Out of my league. I'll support whoever gets the nomination strongly, as part of my local election activism, but I have nothing to do with the presidential nomination at all. So, I'm not supporting or opposing anyone for the MN primary election. By the time it occurs, the primary winner will be clearly known already in 2016.

What I absolutely will not do is work against anyone who might be that candidate. That's a lose-lose proposition. It disturbs me to see it, since turnout is so important to congressional and state legislature elections. Anything that depresses turnout is a recipe for disaster at that level. Fighting against Hillary is just depressing turnout for next November's election.

Pisses me off, it does.

Oh "everybody knows" she's the only choice

Who the fuck is everybody?

It's not as if Clinton has made major achievements to win her a whole new bloc of support. Unless the only contender is a rutebaga with a face sharpie'd in, the result will be the same.

Clinton has name recognition, and is the only known candidate (though has you mention, she might not even be a candidate.) That's not actually enough to carry her. She lost in 2008. Democrats told her "thanks, but no," and went with a guy who was, frankly, a long shot when he stepped up.

Anyway, if she was in half as much a hurry as her boosters seem to be, you'd think she'd make a formal announcement.

most importantly they need to do it NOW.

...or something.

Wouldn't the more honest statement be: "I wish folks would stop talking about a HRC candidacy?"

But she's not the nominee yet, and if she's so god-damn invincible and inevitable, her candidacy ought to be able handle the suggestion that maybe someone else might be in the primaries too.

And the polling suggests that, for better or worse, her candidacy would/will handle it.

But that said, as the odds on favorite among Democrats, and with her name recognition and campaign infrastructure, her campaign has all the time in the world before announcing.

That's just recognizing and pressing one's position.

But I don't think they're going to be any better if DU demands everyone support her now. THAT is premature.

I have seen arguments that Democrats should support, but more, vote for her in the general election (should she be the Democratic nominee).

Perhaps, you could link to a post making such a demand?

No, I'm not gonna go link hunting for you, sorry. I call em like I see em, and I'm going to continue to do that on DU. That's what I do!

I know it bugs my fan club, but fuck em.

I'll support the nominee, I may even support HRC in the primaries, but I'd like to see her run on more than just "my most inspirational bible verse". I also hope she doesn't listen to the Bob Shrum conventional wisdom beltway poobahs who tell her the public doesn't want actual leadership on important issues.

I do think that HRC in particular seems to bring up some peoples' personal emotional baggage, totally unrelated to HRC the actual candidate or her actual policies, some of that probably has to do with lingering bitterness over '08, some of it I suspect has to do with other.... issues.

It's that I keep seeing that claim; but, no one seems to want to point one out ... Strange that!

I, too, will support the Democratic nominee; but, if any one of my three preferred choices run in the primary, she will be hard pressed at this point to get my primary vote.

well, if the people who aren't saying what I'm saying they're saying and you're saying they're not saying are right about what they are or are not saying, you won't have a choice.

Sanders (as of this writing) is not registered as a Dem, he by definition has no Dem Party credibility. However, should he change his party to D, he will inspire an 'insurgent' campaign, as evidenced by ardent supporters here and elsewhere. Even though he has been reliably caucusing with Dems in the Senate for several years, I suspect Sanders will not do well among Super Delegates (party insiders and big wigs) until and unless he begins to make inroads against HRC's electoral support.

Two upset wins in Iowa and New Hampshire (where Sanders would be something of a favorite son) would do much to make the race more competitive. Should Sanders lose in one or both states, I anticipate he will quickly end his campaign and endorse HRC. All eyes are now on Sanders.

for the primaries, should he decided to run as a Democrat. There's no question about it. I sincerely hope he does. I do not see him as a viable candidate, though, with any real chance of getting the nomination. I doubt he'll win in Iowa, but may in New Hampshire. Maybe. I expect he'll at least make a good showing there, anyhow. I'm afraid, though, that he doesn't have enough recognition among the rank and file primary voters in other states. Besides, I think some are ignoring Hillary Clinton's popularity in general.

We'll see, of course. Maybe. Sanders is a smart man, and may well decide not to run at all. Campaigning is extraordinarily hard work, and anyone would think hard before launching a campaign. I'm sure he's looking closely at his chances and weighing them against other things.

Primaries are voted on by a broad spectrum of Democrats. That's the factor that militates against success for Sanders, I think.

unlikely eventuality come to pass. That must also sober him a bit, one would think.

Iowa has a reputation for knocking front-runners off their perch, if only temporarily. That and the retail style of politics practiced there would allow Sanders to compete against HRC's organizaitonal and financial strengths on a more even footing. Polls consistenly show that Americans broadly favor progressive policies, when those polices are presented outside the partisan political frame. I think Sanders' advocacy of a progressive policy slate might actually appeal to a broad swath of D voters, esp. were Sanders to couple such a platform with a radical pledge to accept no donation larger than $100. The contrast would send a frisson down many people's spines, methinks.

Minnesota also has early caucuses, although they aren't in any way binding, since we also have primary elections, late in the cycle. Caucus states are interesting, but I'm not sure how important Iowa is in the grand scheme today.

Sanders has unmistakable appeal, certainly.

just "nominal" candidates, it will be seen as a fake.

I suppose this is why HRC is just biding her time,
but it can backfire by showing lousy voter participation.

they'd better get moving, because I'm not seeing any real candidates emerging. O'Malley, maybe, but he may be looking for a VP nod. I don't know.

Hillary hasnt even bothered to announce. Maybe shes not running. What a kick in the pants that would be, huh?

I agree totally with MM...every day no one emerges, she gets stronger.

I think of it as needing the time/name/large donors and campaign framework. That doesn't happen overnight. I suspect that for once, it's the Rs that are chopping themselves up, and the Ds...those at the national level at least...see an opportunity to win and may even privately be discouraging any sign of real competition at this point.

Jeb Bush, who I think is the only candidate who could win, or steal the election, is the second case of the Rs shooting themselves in the foot over ideology. My heart warms at the thought of debates between Hillary and Scott Walker. And Julian Castro (Harvard and I think Yale educated) and whichever other R nincompoop who gets the VP nod.

Our candidates may not be perfect, but they are intelligent and polished.

And yes, she's running. The big Emily's List speech was the public start of shoring up her base.

But she's not the nominee, yet. She may very well end up being the nominee- I'd sure lay pretty good odds on it- but demanding everyone line up behind her now is premature, to say the least.

And again, if she's so unbeatable a vigorous primary season wont matter. But some people seem do awfully afraid that her 'inevitability' is gonna work out as well this time as it did last time, and even without a clear primary challenger YET.

I'd be lost without your advice! Just the other day I tried to put an apple in the toaster!

Really.

Maybe there wont be any other candidates besides Hillary, but that is pretty doubtful.

I really think some of her supporters are so emotionally invested in the "inevitability" meme, they really want to fast forward to the general, and are demanding support now as if it is here already.

After all, remember what happened the last time she was inevitable.

Why are you such a hater?!?!?!11111111111111111

For what it's worth, aside from her time as SecState, I have no gripes with clinton really (and even then she was just following fosilized Truman-era policy, same as every other SecState before - or since.

I prefer a more strongly liberal candidate, because I'm a "fucking leftist" as it has been put on DU. But there's no anti-clinton grudge.

Her fan club on the other hand, usually scare the shit out of me.

Like any other candidate, I would like her to earn my support, preferably by taking leadership postiions on issues that actually matter, and not just play "my most inspirational Bible passage" with the press for the next year and a half.

But I also think some people are dialed in heavily, like I said, emotionally, into her deal, as you put it "it's her turn"... And maybe they see it as payback for '08, or some unresolved issue in their own pasts or personal lives, or something.

Truman's policy was built around 'containment' of the USSR, whereas Brzezinski's vision has been of a post-Soviet pax Americana new imperium.

This round will be slightly more relevant.

Thanks.

So, Hillary's the front runner. Well every good front runner needs a tough competitor to help her get in form for the general election. This is the time when we should be looking at all the other prospective progressive women candidates. We should encourage well-qualified progressive women candidates to run in the primaries. I'd like to see candidacies by Barbara Boxer, Amy Klobuchar, Patty Murray, Maria Cantwell, Loretta Sanchez, Tammy Baldwin, and I'm sure there are some women governors or ex-governors who would be good candidates.

How about it, friends? What other women candidates would you like to see in the Democratic primaries? Should we try to recruit candidates, especially women candidates to run in the primaries to strengthen the Party's appeal? Tell us what you think.