Had Clinton not run, who would have been on the DNC bench?

She gave good reasons for not wanting to run this time around, so Bernie picked up the gauntlet because he knew someone had to.

I don't think he really ever wanted to be President which is exactly why he should be President. He wants to save the USA for his grandchildren and the rest of us.

It is most likely that much of the reason we do not have a lot of choices is because Hillary was already anointed. Everyone knew it.

It was meant to be smooth sailing for her, but also means not enthusiasm in the primaries.

Bernie means enthusiasm in the primaries. Bernie will have real and very long coat-tails this primary season.

If you are interested in running. DO IT!

soul-searching.... and bench-broadening. Particularly among younger and more geographically diverse portions of our party.

I think 2 from California; Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris- are ones to watch in the future.

Gender bias is the largest factor by far in the backblow against Hillary Clinton. According to Pew, that figure for Republican men and women is 16% and 20% respectively, and independent men 32% and women 45%. (69% of Democratic women want a woman president -- the only majority.)

So that's roughly
54% of Democratic men and 31% of Democratic women who do NOT want any woman in the oval office.
84% of Republican men and 80% of Republican women who do NOT want any woman in the oval office.*
68% of independent men and 55% of independent women who do NOT want any woman in the oval office.

* Although Pew research also shows higher numbers would vote for a woman who shared their ideology if that was the choice.

In any case, gender bias is huge, so huge that any assumptions should examine it first and then consider other factors. It's huge not just among right and left voters, but among the press. Over 2/3 of TV news directors are male, and management and ownership above them are overwhelmingly male. Biased, strongly negative, and dishonest coverage of HRC in 2008 was widespread and rampant -- and completely unrepentant as it has continued on unabated ever since. It also continues a very strong, continuous pattern of negative coverage of all female presidential candidates from the very beginning.

How about this one:
Both genders rate female politicians far higher in trustworthiness than male.
This is an era when people want trustworthiness more than anything else.
Do the constant attacks on Clinton's probity have ANYTHING to do with this?
How about the success of these tactics in spite of finding nothing truly damaging to attack her with?

Isn't all this worth some thought?

And this one: Who and what is she really if she's not the person the press and political punditry portray?

Seems like you just took my post as an opportunity to lay down a fairly unrelated rant.

I listed two names for up and coming democrats, one being female. The key, of course, is to run the right candidates, regardless of gender.

I'll support Hillary as the nominee, if she wins it, but my first pick these past 6 months or so has always been Elizabeth Warren. So I'm not particularly concerned about "gender bias" being behind my disappointment at the craptastic campaign hillay has run so far.

And I never "rant." Perhaps it was the message that came across as unpleasantly real?

You are only one man among over 75 million male voters. The message is: A majority of all major male voting groups would vote for the right woman -- but only if they HAD to. This is the primary, though, and a large majority of men have both the desire and the luxury of voting against a female candidate (HRC for male Democrats) specifically because she is a woman -- no other reason needed.

But man, if there's one thing ive noticed- as long as we're making demographic generalizations, here- it's that many baby boomers are in DEEP denial about the fact that they're not going to be in the driver's seat of planet Earth, forever.

I think some folks are gonna need the metaphorical vaudville hook, to get off center stage.

two far larger demographics:



But that's the reason, I think, so many boomers are lost and confused by the political landscape today- (even though the big changes the millennials are driving; like gay marriage and pot legalization; are things the boomers ostensibly should support, even if in practice they don't) they don't grok the Millennials at all, but guess what: the Millennials are gonna be driving the bus.

as The Worst Generation. Look at what those who came before created and left us, at often great sacrifice under very trying conditions, and what we did with it. We don't even think to consider what America could have been if we had built on their achievements these past 35 years, instead of mindlessly destroying them.

boomers.

And, you gave the world Jimi Hendrix, John Lennon, and Jerry Garcia, among others. Nothing to sneeze at.

I just turned 48 last Tuesday. There is no way I am a Boomer.

I barely acknowledge being called a Gen-X, didn't know it existed until a few years ago!

My hunch is, add maybe 4-5 years to all the ages, and it's still valid.

I'm almost the same age as you--- definitely Gen X. I remember first hearing the phrase during college, had a friend who was into Douglas Coupland and William Gibson. We were always ahead of our time.

Came of age during the Reagan years, but still said yes to all the shit I was supposed to be just saying no too.

All I ever knew was that my parents we supposed to be Boomers. They were late boomers and so I was a late Gen exer.

And you are leaving out a big percentage of those that just want the best person for the job and don't care if it is a man or a woman.

It's a shame so many people probably got scared off with the "inevitable candidate" stuff.

Like many others here, I have had way WAY more than enough DLC/ThirdWay/DINO/ Neoliberal/TrojanHorse bullshit.

(Apologies if I am mistaken and he is actually an old-fashioned FDR type Democrat)

a lot more attention from us and the media.

His candidacy was never going to resonate with the public or the base...it's an even more conservative platform trying to appeal to a base with Third-Way fatigue. Webb was never going to be "in it"...he wouldn't even be the choice of the party insiders if it was just him and Sanders.

I think if Clinton had never gotten in that O'Malley would be the front-runner now...it's good thing that Clinton and O'Malley are both in though. It pulled him left from where he ran and governed in Maryland in order to stake out his own candidate niche and the resonance of his moving leftward and Sanders having always been well to the left has forced and will force Clinton to run to the left of where she wanted to...but I don't know how much it'll affect how she governs if elected.

Clinton is sucking up almost all of the oxygen in the room. I do think that even if he got more attention, he wouldn't do very well.

Not entirely sure I agree that O'Malley would be the front runner, but certainly he and Sanders would be duking it out, which would probably be a good thing.

In which case Biden would be leading the pack right now. O'Malley can't even garner support in his home state, though you may be right that he'd be the front-runner if there was no big name, establishment Dem running.

I think it's safe to assume a neoliberal party establishment person would be winning. Be it Clinton or Biden or someone else. I've never believed even for a second that Sanders will be the nominee.

He's an attractive candidate who is getting excellent ideas out there.

Nothing but respect for MO'M from this Sanders supporter. He will be a big part of the future.

1. Deval Patrick

2. Martin O'Malley

3. Amy Klobuchar (she was making trips to Iowa in 2014 that looked like testing the water before Hillary decided to run). She is incredibly popular in Minnesota. She won all but 1 or 2 counties in last election. In her first election, she won them all.

4. Kristin Gillibrand

Hillary being in the race has basically frozen the Dem Party's new leaders from moving up. It's a damn shame because not only is she a disaster as a candidate, it is hurting the party longterm because the Clintons won't leave the stage already.

A year or so ago when the only names being tossed out there were Clinton, Biden, Kerry, and Gore, I kept on complaining here that we needed new candidates. While Sanders isn't young in years, he is new to the national scene, and that's good.

1. Doubtful. I think even DP knows the ceiling of capacity at this point of his aspirations. If he wanted to run down the road, he might do well to take a federal position in the Democratic regime. He wouldn't be any more viable than someone like Cuomo or Malloy in 2016...northeastern Democratic governors who govern to the right of their state bases, making them less than popular in their own state.

2.) Is already in anyways.

3.) I don't think she would have any appeal outside the Midwest. I can't find even that many loyal and involved Democrats here in CT that knows who the heck she is. The ones that do say things like "She wouldn't be in my top 5 choices but Sen. Klobuchar is okay I guess." I just don't see her generating a lot of enthusiasm or having established herself on a national stage at a level to be viable.

4.) This. This is whose candidacy Hillary is really hurting.

Consider that few in the East knew much about Clinton in 1991 - few knew Jimmy Carter. If they knew Kerry, it was as a person from 1971.

Both of her opponents were easy pickings. One imploded during the debates and the other was a tea party nut who snubbed the party and had no funding. I think she is running for a VP spot.

He's now polling in the single digits (that's total supporters, not percentages).

But that's okay. People will be laughing out the other end of their bodies when zombies show up at their doorstep and eat their chihuahua because we didn't have a national zombie defense plan in place. He was the ONLY candidate to address this important issue!

Oh, yeah, there was the free pony, too. But I've gotten over that.

Pelosi 75
Reid 75
Sanders 73
Biden 72
Clinton 67
Warren 66
Cuomo 57
Obama 54
Gillibrand 48
Wasserman-Schultz 48
Newsom 47

He has time to be a big player. And I think he will be one.

He's been so effective, and so popular with the party that no one shines when he's around...no one can achieve what this "lame duck" has, and his personality makes everyone seem dull.

Who else can sing, dance, make jokes, speak perfect English as well as slang, and know a "whole bunch" about a whole bunch of "stuff."

And he is effective in delivering a eulogy, and nimble at anything that desires a special touch....

Who could match him?

I mean that only as a high compliment to them both, and wish she would run.

HRC!

hahahahahahaha!

Obviously I like Bernie Sanders, but it's clear very few people in the Democratic Party consider himself a plausible nominee. It's pretty much up to us supporters to make the case.

However, it seemed for years all the hopes were tied to a Clinton candidacy. Maybe everyone was just certain she was going to run, so the others (Patrick, Gillibrand, Biden, etc.) never got serious. But had suddenly she been unable or decided not to run, where would the Democratic Party have turned?

They still are....she has a 74% chance in Primary and 57% in General...she is our best chance...she is not going anywhere anytime soon. They didn't oppose her...because they are endorsing her...

And he would win too.

Go up several posts and you'll find that I mention him. Some big name establishment candidate will win, and if Clinton wasn't running, that person would likely be Biden.