General Discussion

RadiationTherapy

(5,818 posts) Mon Mar 9, 2015, 01:58 PM Mar 2015

Squatter's Right: Why is there such a thin bench of Democratic presidential candidates?

In my experience in the professional world - companies like AT&T, Merrill Lynch, and BCBS as well as 10+ years at a state university - is that those in powerful positions often stay there well beyond a typical retirement age of 65-70. This dynamic clogs up the "merit ladder" (har-dee-har-har) by which one's career can escalate and evolve. Those at the top squat and those beneath them in the organization get stuck and have to look elsewhere to continue to grow. Furthermore, there seems to be very little grooming or opportunity to show that one can do the job of the "Top Squat." It seems to me that many people have their opportunities and careers stifled by this dynamic. Is it possible that this dynamic has permeated the party? Is it possible the bench is thin because so many resources are being hoarded by an elite few?

Why is the Democratic presidential bench so thin?

15 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Squatter's Right: Why is there such a thin bench of Democratic presidential candidates? (Original Post) RadiationTherapy Mar 2015 OP

As was pointed out in another post a day or two back Erich Bloodaxe BSN Mar 2015 #1

"Why is the Democratic presidential bench so thin?" It isn't. Don't buy into RW memes. FSogol Mar 2015 #2

Exactly dogman Mar 2015 #3

I'll hope for the best. RadiationTherapy Mar 2015 #11

this team has depth RedstDem Mar 2015 #4

Criminy... Oktober Mar 2015 #14

We think the office depends on the person but the GOP sees the office as an avatar. CK_John Mar 2015 #5

2016 would be the 3rd term for the Dems...really tough if you consider history HereSince1628 Mar 2015 #6

There are good potential candidates, but they know they won't get support of Dem leaders and big Dems to Win Mar 2015 #7

This is the dynamic that I see as well. I see people "getting their turn" RadiationTherapy Mar 2015 #8

Sigh. I have mixed feelings about this. I DO appreciate Hillary and her supporters for their help in Dems to Win Mar 2015 #15

There is no big pay-off for being first, second or fifth loser Sen. Walter Sobchak Mar 2015 #9

Wait, what? "Nobody is going to pay Dennis Kucinich to scream nonsense at cable TV land" stevenleser Mar 2015 #12

Let me rephrase that, Sen. Walter Sobchak Mar 2015 #13

Corporate media saturation coverage moondust Mar 2015 #10

Erich Bloodaxe BSN

(14,733 posts)

1. As was pointed out in another post a day or two back

Reply to RadiationTherapy (Original post)

Mon Mar 9, 2015, 02:01 PM

Mar 2015

Republicans have been gaining ground at every level below the Presidency. The 'farm teams' for Dems are much smaller, because you need candidates who have proven their electability at lower levels to promote them upward to higher office. If you're not holding those lower offices, you don't have a lot of folks to promote upwards.

FSogol

(45,527 posts)

2. "Why is the Democratic presidential bench so thin?" It isn't. Don't buy into RW memes.

Reply to RadiationTherapy (Original post)

Mon Mar 9, 2015, 02:03 PM

Mar 2015

dogman

(6,073 posts)

3. Exactly

Reply to FSogol (Reply #2)

Mon Mar 9, 2015, 02:38 PM

Mar 2015

Look at the GOP bench. Is Jeb the most qualified? The truth of the GOP bench is they may win elections locally but their policies are National losers. Do we really want to follow a clown car around the nation?

RadiationTherapy

(5,818 posts)

11. I'll hope for the best.

Reply to FSogol (Reply #2)

Mon Mar 9, 2015, 03:28 PM

Mar 2015

RedstDem

(1,239 posts)

4. this team has depth

Reply to RadiationTherapy (Original post)

Mon Mar 9, 2015, 02:51 PM

Mar 2015

If your looking at potential candidates, there's Biden, Gore, Webb, Clinton, Kerry, Clark, Feingold and dozens more.
The other team has what, one guy?

Oktober

(1,488 posts)

14. Criminy...

Reply to RedstDem (Reply #4)

Mon Mar 9, 2015, 03:44 PM

Mar 2015

You just listed the presidential lovers for the last 20 years...

Maybe someone who can win instead...? OP is right...

CK_John

(10,005 posts)

5. We think the office depends on the person but the GOP sees the office as an avatar.

Reply to RadiationTherapy (Original post)

Mon Mar 9, 2015, 02:55 PM

Mar 2015

A GOP POTUS is just a front for a cabal behind the curtain.

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)

6. 2016 would be the 3rd term for the Dems...really tough if you consider history

Reply to RadiationTherapy (Original post)

Mon Mar 9, 2015, 02:57 PM

Mar 2015

Many may be intimidated.

Politicians never want to lose. They want an unblemished string of victories to build on.

I'd love to see Mark Udall in the primary race but there is that loss thing...

Dems to Win

(2,161 posts)

7. There are good potential candidates, but they know they won't get support of Dem leaders and big

Reply to RadiationTherapy (Original post)

Mon Mar 9, 2015, 02:57 PM

Mar 2015

fundraisers, so they are not stepping forward to run.

Senator Patty Murray, Janet Napolitano, the current governor of Kentucky..... there are good leaders in the Democratic Party that I'd love to see run for president.

The Democratic leadership seems committed to having no vigorous challengers to Hillary.

The Democratic Establishment made the deal with Hillary in 2008 that if she stood aside for Obama, the entire leadership of the Democratic Party would get behind her in 2016. Thom Hartmann has talked about this on his show recently.

Harry Reid encouraged Obama to run in 2007. He's not done that with anyone this time around, and he won't.

No well known potential candidates will run in 2016 because they know they will get no support from Dem leaders or big fundraisers. It's Hillary's turn.

I personally think the party is heading off the cliff like a bunch of lemmings with this strategy, but we'll see how it turns out.

RadiationTherapy

(5,818 posts)

8. This is the dynamic that I see as well. I see people "getting their turn"

Reply to Dems to Win (Reply #7)

Mon Mar 9, 2015, 03:22 PM

Mar 2015

when they have had quite enough opportunities as it is.

Dems to Win

(2,161 posts)

15. Sigh. I have mixed feelings about this. I DO appreciate Hillary and her supporters for their help in

Reply to RadiationTherapy (Reply #8)

Mon Mar 9, 2015, 04:13 PM

Mar 2015

electing and re-electing President Obama. She was a team player, big time, once she ended her campaign in 2008. So, it makes sense that we do owe them, and now it's time to pay up.

But my gut tells me Hillary is going to lose. We couldn't find a nominee with more baggage if we tried. It's pretty crazy to put up a nominee who can't win a competitive primary on her own, whether in New York (party leaders convinced Nita Lowey to stand aside for Hillary) or nationally.

The only good solution is for Hillary to choose not to run. But that's not happening.

I'm really afraid that the price we will end up paying for the unified convention in 2008 and thus 8 years of Obama as president will be the election of Scott Walker. Sorry to be a gloom and doomer.

Sen. Walter Sobchak

(8,692 posts)

9. There is no big pay-off for being first, second or fifth loser

Reply to RadiationTherapy (Original post)

Mon Mar 9, 2015, 03:25 PM

Mar 2015

Nobody is going to pay Dennis Kucinich to scream nonsense at cable TV land. While riding in, on or chasing the Republican "clown car" is just about a guaranteed pay-off in one form or another.