Would you be in favor of a vigorous primary challenge against Hillary from the left,

[Nye Bevan]

even if you thought that her challenger would be less likely than her to beat the Republican candidate?

48 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes. I would be in favor of a vigorous primary challenge against Hillary from the left, even if I thought that her challenger would be less likely than her to beat the Republican.
	41 (85%)
	No. I would not be in favor of a vigorous primary challenge against Hillary from the left if I thought that her challenger would be less likely than her to beat the Republican.
	7 (15%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[morningfog]

1. Absolutely. It would force her to the left. It would raise issues and positions that would otherwise

not be raised.

[arcane1]

3. Exactly.

Here in California, I'd like to see that happen with our congressional candidates too.

[pnwmom]

17. Oh, yes. That worked so well with Hubert Humphrey.

Who these days would be considered a huge liberal.

But thanks to the challengers on the left, we ended up with Richard Nixon. That worked really well.

[MADem]

27. The vocal population here isn't representative of the party as a whole.

Good thing. We'd be laboring under McCain-Palin's 2nd term were that the case.

[nomorenomore08]

33. "Challenger" doesn't have to mean "winner" necessarily.

Ultimately, I want the Democrat mostly likely to beat the Republican, to win the nomination. But as others have said, a primary challenge might have a positive impact on Hillary's campaign.

[MADem]

35. She's a talented debater and public speaker.

She really doesn't need any more practice.

She has more experience and cred than any other potential candidate.

And a primary fight doesn't make a candidate stronger--it just provides potential points of difference for the opposition to try and exploit.

[pnwmom]

45. Please name a single Democratic President in the last 50 years

Last edited Mon Nov 11, 2013, 06:37 PM - Edit history (1)

who ended up stronger as a result of a primary challenger.

[BeyondGeography]

51. Obama

Then again, he needed the practice. Hillary doesn't, in general. Where she's out of practice, judging by her recent insipid speeches, is articulating why the Republicans are the source of our problems and must be defeated. She'll get a challenger from the left. Better that it's a quality challenge than someone easily dismissable like Grayson.

[pnwmom]

60. Except President Obama didn't have a primary challenger.

When he was in the primaries in 2008, he wasn't the President yet.

[BeyondGeography]

63. I thought we were talking about Hillary, who is not President

Whatever. She's better off with a legit challenger from the left.

[pnwmom]

73. You're right, of course. I was used to people arguing this about

Obama (during the last election).

It will be interesting to watch how this goes.

[ancianita]

69. The only challenger I'd accept is Sanders, who she'd then choose as her running mate in the General.

[Chan790]

84. He'd almost certainly decline such an offer.

If you listen to his rhetoric, he clearly considers her and her ilk to be every bit the enemy of the American people he considers the wealth hoarders pulling the conservative strings to be.

Why would he say yes unless she was dumping her economic positions for his?

[JDPriestly]

44. Actually we are representative of the party as a whole.

I for one criticize Obama regularly, but there are very few people who worked harder on his campaigns than I did. I think that many of us want the best for America. When it comes to an election, we try to get the best choice available elected. He or she may not be our first choice, but may be the best of available choices.

I think we can do better than Hillary. I think we can get a candidate with broader appeal and fewer negatives than Hillary. I think we can get a candidate will less NAFTA, repeal of Glass-Steagall, Walmart association and many, many other negatives that will haunt Hillary.

[pnwmom]

46. You think we can pick a candidate who will do better in the general?

What possible candidates have begun to shape their campaign organizations? They should have already begun by now.

[Chan790]

85. Since I consider a Clinton nomination to be a foregone conclusion we will lose the GE? Yes. n/t

[pnwmom]

90. Why do you think any Rethug will beat her? n/t

[davidpdx]

71. Well put

[bemildred]

37. It worked quite well, we got reforms.

1968 Convention Sparked Reforms For Democrats

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93937947

[winter is coming]

57. Wow. Now there's an amazing oversimplification of 1968. n/t

[ZombieHorde]

32. Only rhetorically.

She will rule how she rules, regardless of whether or not she is forced to say more liberal things.

[RichGirl]

49. Of course...it'll force her to the left...

...and once elected...she can tip toe back to the center.

I love Hillary and will support her 100% if nominated. BUT...I'd like some fresh blood and someone who is already on the left.

With all the extreme right craziness...this may be the time to sneak in a real liberal. My guess is that by 2016 Obamacare will be running beautifully and people loving it and perfect time to start with a fresh face without decades long baggage.

[winter is coming]

2. If Hillary is too weak to handle a vigorous primary campaign, she's too weak to be a nominee. n/t

[Whisp]

78. She is too weak. She can't take surprises and can't think on her feet.

she goes unhinged weird.

Tuzla is bad enough but her 'how many angels dance on the head of a pin' vid (can be googled by that) - when she was asked a very, ahem, sensitive question. . .

... that describes her inability to be leader of the free world right there. She loses it. Loses it in such an extraordinary way when confronted with surprises.

[NYC_SKP]

4. Worse, I would be irreversibly defeated and depressed if Hillary Clinton goes unchallenged.

We have to do much better than that.

"Settling" doesn't even begin to describe a Clinton run in the GE.

Totally hopeless and defeated would be more like it.

[bunnies]

56. Me too.

All the damn inevitability threads are already having that effect on me. So many act like its a done deal already. If she runs unchallenged... hell... I hate to think how Id react to that.

[HappyMe]

61. I think that this early 'groundswell' of

rah-rah Hillary stuff may backfire. I'm already nearly sick of her.

I also wonder if the ptb won't run anyone against her because they are afraid she would lose again. I certainly won't be a happy camper if she is the only choice I have.

People better remember that 2016 is a ways off, and that she doesn't have it tied up just yet.

[bunnies]

91. I agree with you.

And she hasnt even announced that she's running yet. Hell. Living in NH, Ive never been depressed about about a primary vote. But Im already wondering if I'll even bother next time. And we're going to have three more years of this?! Kill me now.

[HappyMe]

92. There are people here already calling her

'president' Clinton. I haven't heard any announcement, or anything about her platform. Maybe it was hidden in a Goldman Sachs speech.

If there isn't any primary, there isn't much to get excited about for 2016.

[bunnies]

93. FFS.

Thats ridiculous. Oh & it doesnt matter what her platform is. She could support killing a kitten a day and some would swoon. She's Hillary! Wonderful, marvel of the world! (insert hearts and flowers here).

[HappyMe]

94. I heard she cured cancer last night!!1

I'm seriously considering dumping her into the key word trash can for a year or so.

[Fumesucker]

5. How could that be?

Hillary is already the most leftistist potential candidate what ever thought about running for political office in America.

Just ask the Republicans and the M$M.

[Laelth]

53. They will, of course, say that about whomever we nominate.

They're very predictable in this regard. I figure that if they're going to paint our candidate as a socialist no matter what, we lose nothing by running a real liberal.

-Laelth

[WorseBeforeBetter]

6. I'm not convinced that...

"her challenger would be less likely than her to beat the Republican candidate." So, yes, bring on a vigorous challenge. I'd volunteer and vote for Warren or O'Malley in a heartbeat; Hillary, not so much.

[Loudly]

7. Any such campaigns will need to manifest themselves pretty soon.

And it seems like a very thin field.

[Half-Century Man]

8. Ms. Clinton is carefully watching the media for clues to increase her base

A hard push from the left will steer her left. Keep the pressure up.

[nomorenomore08]

34. +1

[HappyMe]

62. Well there's the fact that she can

say anything she wants to get campaign money.

[Chan790]

86. You know what would increase my opinion of Hillary?

A declaration she was not running and retiring from political life. Beyond that, there's nothing for her to say or do.

[brooklynite]

9. What a waste of time...

"Would you be in favor" is lazy passivity. You should be asking "Would you be willing to do the hard work"? Because the supporters of Hillary are organizing, raising money and promoting their effort. The opponents of Hillary are.....posting web polls. If you're serious about a liberal challenge, you'll need to agree on one that's acceptably pure (sorry, that lets out Dean) and who WANT'S TO RUN (sorry, that lets out Warren), and start working hard to get a campaign underway. Otherwise you're just indulging a fantasy.

[sabrina 1]

13. I'm working to draft Alan Grayson. What are you doing? Other than posting on the internet assuming

you know what everyone else is doing?

[brooklynite]

18. I've been very public about what I'm doing...but then, I'm not a Hillary hater

If Hillary runs, I'll support her, and I've been in touch with "Ready for Hillary" about helping. If Hillary DOESN'T run, I've been in personal touch with Brian Schweitzer to encourage him to run.

Best of luck with Grayson; I've met him, and I'm inclined to think that he won't take on Hillary Clinton in order to prove a liberal point.

[Fearless]

30. I don't think Hillary Clinton will play any role in deciding if Grayson will run.

Just saying. She isn't an incumbent. That is the only reason why there wouldn't be primary challengers (and indeed sometimes there still are).

[MADem]

31. If Grayson gets a thin dime from any Congressional PACs to finance his

campaign efforts, he will discourage any draft attempts, or convert them to GOTV machines for a candidate (most likely HRC) that can actually win.

I know he's one of the wealthiest people in Congress, but even the rich ones often don't use their OWN money to finance their reelection ambitions. Also, he's been motivated lately towards working across the aisle, he's the only one who is getting any sponsored legislation passed. It's "meet in the middle" stuff, but it's something.

[JDPriestly]

43. Could you post some information about Brian Schweitzer? Thanks.

[sabrina 1]

83. When Hillary voted for Bush's Iraq War she disqualified herself as a candidate for the WH.

I don't hire people who make such huge errors in judgement, errors that cost so many lives. At least some of the others who were so wrong, apologized, too late for all those who are dead. But at least they acknowledged how wrong they were. This was an easy decision, yet she made the wrong decision. And worse, she, unlike some of the others, has never acknowledged it. That is the reason I supported Obama and I will never support anyone whose judgement on something as important as the LIVES of HUMAN BEINGS was so tragically.

You assume you are the only one working on getting decent candidates elected. You have no idea obviously of just how motivated people are now that they have seen the whole system play out over the past decade or so. If you were active in the Progressive movement you would have known how much work people are doing to try to get actual Progressive Dems elected from now rather than the same old DLCers with the same old corporate agenda that has so failed a majority of human beings.

Grayson would take on Hillary in a heartbeat. He has the guts needed in a leader. But the party leadership will do what they did to him the last time and he's smart enough to know that. Hillary needs the party machinary behind her as she is not at all popular among a majority of Americans. Money will work for her, that is what always has worked unfortunately. Put that money behind Grayson and he would win the nomination. But we progressives know that isn't going to happen. So, we'll work against the money which won't be easy.

[MADem]

28. +1 nt

[msongs]

10. or even from the center nt

[Warren DeMontague]

11. I want our candidate to win the White House. That said, I think that prognostication

prior to the election is misguided and often wrong.

For instance, "conventional wisdom" had Kerry as the smart, strong choice in 2004. "Conventional Wisdom" early on in 2008 said that an African American man with a name that sounded like "Osama" couldn't possibly stand a chance at winning the White House.

So trying to game the general by picking the "stronger" candidate often doesn't get the results one wants. Far better to vote for the person you support, and follow through.

[Warren DeMontague]

12. Also, it's not a "Primary challenge" to Hillary, since she hasn't won anything yet.

If she runs, she'll be a Primary Candidate, same as all the OTHER Primary Candidates.

A "Primary Challenge" was when Teddy Kennedy ran against Carter in 1980.

[sabrina 1]

15. I think 'primary challenge' means to challenge her in the Primary, not to let her be the only

candidate. I won't be supporting her regardless. I swore on the night she voted for Bush's war in Iraq along with anyone else who did that, that I would never support them for any office again. Anyone who made such a tragic and irresponsible decision, deadly decision, is not fit to be the WH. That was my opinion then and I haven't changed my mind.

I will focus on Congress completely and try to help as many Progressives as possible into Congress.

For president, I would support Alan Grayson, but the party leadership won't allow him to run or if he does, they will work against him.

[Warren DeMontague]

19. The IWR is still a sticking point for me, to be sure.

But I haven't thought that far ahead. I'll support our nominee, don't know beyond that. I'd like to see Al Gore run again.

[JDPriestly]

41. Why aren't you a party leader? Are you active in the party in your state?

The party leaders have to come from somewhere. They are just ordinary people who have maybe or maybe not run for office but who have stepped up to the plate and taken responsibility for something. I think many more liberals need to get active in the party leadership. It isn't so difficult to do from what i can tell.

[JDPriestly]

42. Good point!

[JackRiddler]

14. I enjoy the assumptions here...

Such as that HRC is as good as set up for 2016. In no way! No more than in 2008...

[Agschmid]

16. I'd like to get through December without doing this...

[Eleanors38]

21. Oh, but you must. Enjoy, enjoy!

[Chan790]

87. too bad.

Any viable candidacy for the White House starts this far out, not after midterms.

[Rowdyboy]

20. I have no problem with primary challenges to Sec Clinton from both the left and right. The race

should be wide open with all points of view represented and I imagine she'll still kick ass. Since you don't offer that option in your poll, I can't vote.

A good primary fight is necessary preparation for the onslaught that will come in the fall. Bring 'em on and lets see what happens.

[hrmjustin]

22. Anyone should be allowed to run in the primary no matter what side of the party they are on.

If there is a primary I hope it strengthens her and she wins.

[99Forever]

23. In favor of?

I insist upon it. In fact, I want her defeated by a challenge "from the left."

[longship]

24. Artificial poll. A contrived and useless dichotomy.

[Nine]

50. +1

Who's stopping anyone from running? Any candidate is free to throw his or her hat into the ring. This is just an excuse for bashing. And, as others have said, let's focus on 2014 for now.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. It would have to be from the left. Who could be more from the right than her?

Other than those with an (R) after their names?

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

[daleanime]

26. +1

[Fearless]

29. Without a doubt.

She will need to cater to OUR base and not the Republican base for votes.

[JDPriestly]

40. My suspicion is that she will cater to the left base during the primary campaign, make

all kinds of campaign promises that we support, and then turn on us if she is elected. It would be best not to give her a chance to betray us like that. It has been tough enough with Barack Obama. Hillary would really be a problem in that respect.

[grahamhgreen]

36. Yes. BECAUSE progressive policies are actually favored by the majority of all Americans.

[B Calm]

38. Hell yes I would! I would like to see her pushed more to the left.

[Rectangle]

70. +1!! And, have her on the record-stating progressive policy

positions!

[JDPriestly]

39. K&R. Thanks for asking.

The right is going to put signs on Hillary that say "Benghazi?" Silly and meaningless but hard to respond to. Then there will be one that says: Nafta. Another that says repeal of Glass-Steagall (but Republicans won't take responsibility openly for that sign. They will pin it to her in a backhanded way.)

She will be carrying a lot of signs, a lot of baggage.

She is a strong candidate now because she has not been placed under Republican pressure yet.

I think that in the end, she would be a very weak candidate.

[Douglas Carpenter]

47. it has been decades since a progressive or even a New Deal liberal has mounted a viable campaign

for the Presidency - At the very least we need to have someone raise the flag in a credible way for the progressive cause

[MadrasT]

48. Pass because I am concentrating on 2014 first.

There are a lot of democrats that we need to elect between now and 2016.

Case 1 being my next governor (to replace gasbag Corbett in PA) and Case 2 being lots of congresscritters.

We need to give our next president more democrats in congress or we are going to waste another 4 years spinning our wheels in DC.

[Laelth]

52. I support a primary challenge from the left ...

... if for no other reason than to keep the debate focused on the issues that matter to the left.

I don't think a primary challenge is likely to affect the near certainty that a Democrat will be elected President in 2016.

-Laelth

[RKP5637]

54. Yes! I think something like this is necessary to nudge the political pendulum more

to the left and to stop the pandering to the right by both D's and R's.

[fredamae]

55. We need a strong candidate that has

an actual Record of being Progressive. People can say whatever they want (NAFTA/CAFTA/DOMA/FCC/Glass-Steagall etc) and make it sound good.
It's what they DO that matters.

We heard/saw what we wanted to hear and see before. Are WE going to bury Our heads again? Why? Because it's the Easiest path of least resistance?

[peace13]

58. Why do you consider it a primary against Hillary?

Isn't the point of the primary system to get the best candidate by listening and learning. Are you asking , should Hillary be deemed the Democratic candidate without having to go through the process? Why does someone running for the Democratic nominee have to be an attack on Hilary?

[Douglas Carpenter]

59. in the spirit of openness I support Hillary's right to challenge any candidate to the left of her

or to the right of her - for that matter - in the primaries. She has just as much right as anyone else to seek the Democratic Party nomination.

[RagAss]

64. I yawn.

[Jamaal510]

65. HC has claimed that she won't run again,

but if she were to change her mind, then of course I would support a primary challenge. The question I have, though, is who exactly is going to step up to challenge her? Warren has already ruled out a run, and nobody in the party has really hinted at a run. To me, a perfect challenge would be somebody who can match the support HC has, and her charisma, just like how Obama stepped up in '07. It also helps to have name-recognition.

[Zorra]

66. Hjllary is not running. nt

[HappyMe]

67. Uh oh!

Now you will be in trouble with the people who are already calling her president, and the 'inevitable' crowd.

[ancianita]

68. I'm not because I don't want to give the idiot party of the century sound bites for the General

Election. We should really be united and broad in our attack, all with one voice for the greatest good for the greatest number. I know her flaws, based on the last campaign, but she is more qualified now than ever. Most importantly, I'm not in the mood anymore to go for the "debate theater" that can only be used by mainstream media to raise doubts about her and keep the money machine flowing toward corporate opponents.

[davidpdx]

72. It is disappointing that there are still so many who think we should simply consider the primary

over three years before the GE even occurs. Go figure!

[bigwillq]

76. It's a discussion board where you discuss things.

Even things that may happen far in the future. Nothing wrong with it.

Hide thread and ignore work if you're sick of it.

[davidpdx]

88. I would, but then what would be the point

Every other thread is pretty much about the same thing.

If we went back to November 12th 2005, how many people do you think could have correctly chosen both nominees and who would win?

We were a little over a year off a very stinging loss to an incumbent president who was (is) and idiot and a few months prior a huge hurricane hit the Gulf Coast.

Barack Obama was not the name on even 1 percent of people's minds at that point.

[lumberjack_jeff]

74. She's "challenging" for the nomination too.

I'd support a vigorous primary campaign by someone from the left.

It's not hers.

[Marr]

81. Well put!

"Challenging" Hillary from the left.

I'm OK with Hillary challenging a liberal Democrat from the right.

[bigwillq]

75. Yes (nt)

[treestar]

77. Why in the world is there anyone who would prefer someone less

likely to beat the Republican?

[Chan790]

89. In explanation, I present the mental exercise known as "Monty Hall's Trash Sandwich"

It's an excellent tool for teaching why it's better to take a lower chance for a better outcome over a 100% chance of a poor outcome even where that poor outcome represents an improvement over outright losing and getting nothing.

"Let's Make a Deal! I'm your host, Monty Hall."



"I'd like to introduce today's contestant."

"Are you ready to play Let's Make a Deal?"

:

"What do we have behind Door #1? It's a sandwich made out of dumpster remnants!"

:

"Now, you have a choice to make. You can keep the trash sandwich or we can make a deal. Behind one of the remaining two doors is a brand new Corvette, but if you choose wrong, no car and no sandwich. Or, you can stick with the trash sandwich."

: "I'm going to go with Door 2."

"Are you sure? Remember, if you choose wrong, no sandwich and no car."

: "Yes. I'm going to go with Door 2. I simply don't want that sandwich."

"Oh. I'm sorry. You've won nothing at all. It's an empty box. You've lost."

: "Well. You know, Monte...at least it's not a trash sandwich. Besides, I still had a 66% chance at a Corvette and that made it a worthwhile decision. Much better than 100% odds I left with a sandwich made from garbage."

[Marr]

79. LOL, how did I know you'd qualify it with some defeatist centrist nonsense after the title break?

"Even if you thought that her challenger would be less likely than her to beat the Republican candidate..."

LOL, uh-huh.

[JackRiddler]

80. Clinton is not an incumbent, thus it is not a "challenge."

I reject your framing of the question.

She is not the presumed nominee, she is merely one of many possible primary candidates. She is as much a "challenger" as anyone else running.

Also, her economic and foreign policy views place her on the right and so I would favor almost anyone over Clinton for president, yes.

[polichick]

95. Hell yeah - the Dem Party is irrelevant if...

it's just a corporate/1%/mic mirror of the republiCons.