HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Had Clinton not run, who ...

Mon Sep 7, 2015, 03:50 AM

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

This is more hypothetical, since it's been known for years that Hillary Clinton would be seeking the party's nomination in 2016. But it does bear asking, had she not been seen as so inevitable, or had the backing of most of the party's machine, who would have emerged as potential candidates?

1) Sanders -- He was likely in no matter what. His message is unique, and Elizabeth Warren would be the only other candidate to rival his message.

2) Cuomo -- From New York, but hated by liberals in New York. Would have received a well-justified Lieberman treatment.

3) Gillibrand -- Also from New York, a female, and ambitious enough to run for president.

4) Warren -- Maybe she runs if not for Clinton's perceived strength.

I support Sanders and his message, but something troubles me about the lack of youth in upper-levels of the Democratic Party. For a Party so popular with younger voters, it seems like O'Malley is the only fresh voice in the party. I like Castro of Texas, but was turned off with his characterization of Sanders as anti-Hispanic.

45 replies, 5141 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 45 replies Author Time Post
Reply Had Clinton not run, who would have been on the DNC bench? (Original post)
TSIAS Sep 2015 OP
jfern Sep 2015 #1
hifiguy Sep 2015 #16
Live and Learn Sep 2015 #22
salib Sep 2015 #2
Warren DeMontague Sep 2015 #3
Hortensis Sep 2015 #15
Warren DeMontague Sep 2015 #20
Hortensis Sep 2015 #21
Warren DeMontague Sep 2015 #27
Hortensis Sep 2015 #30
Warren DeMontague Sep 2015 #31
Hortensis Sep 2015 #32
Warren DeMontague Sep 2015 #33
Raine1967 Sep 2015 #36
Warren DeMontague Sep 2015 #37
Raine1967 Sep 2015 #38
Live and Learn Sep 2015 #23
Vinca Sep 2015 #4
kath Sep 2015 #34
Vinca Sep 2015 #41
SheilaT Sep 2015 #5
Chan790 Sep 2015 #8
SheilaT Sep 2015 #9
Garrett78 Sep 2015 #13
Live and Learn Sep 2015 #24
Garrett78 Sep 2015 #40
hifiguy Sep 2015 #18
Skwmom Sep 2015 #6
askew Sep 2015 #7
SheilaT Sep 2015 #10
Chan790 Sep 2015 #11
karynnj Sep 2015 #14
Mnpaul Sep 2015 #35
L0oniX Sep 2015 #12
Buns_of_Fire Sep 2015 #43
MisterP Sep 2015 #17
hifiguy Sep 2015 #19
fadedrose Sep 2015 #25
leveymg Sep 2015 #26
VanillaRhapsody Sep 2015 #29
VanillaRhapsody Sep 2015 #28
TSIAS Sep 2015 #44
VanillaRhapsody Sep 2015 #45
stevenleser Sep 2015 #39
Garrett78 Sep 2015 #42

Response to TSIAS (Original post)

Mon Sep 7, 2015, 04:01 AM

1. Sanders doesn't run if Warren does

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jfern (Reply #1)

Mon Sep 7, 2015, 02:56 PM

16. Nope.

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jfern (Reply #1)

Mon Sep 7, 2015, 06:24 PM

22. Exactly, Bernie isn't running for himself. He is running for us!

Last edited Mon Sep 7, 2015, 07:30 PM - Edit history (1)

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TSIAS (Original post)

Mon Sep 7, 2015, 04:11 AM

2. Maybe the point is that Sanders will open up the process and youth will enter.

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!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TSIAS (Original post)

Mon Sep 7, 2015, 05:50 AM

3. Agreed, hypothetical. I think the assumption of Clinton running has delayed some overdue party-wide

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #3)

Mon Sep 7, 2015, 02:20 PM

15. Soul searching? Search this: ONLY 46% of Democratic MEN want a woman president--in their lifetime.

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hortensis (Reply #15)

Mon Sep 7, 2015, 04:37 PM

20. That's not really relevant, at all, to what I posted.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #20)

Mon Sep 7, 2015, 06:07 PM

21. Please read again. The overriding relevance of an unexamined factor was the whole point.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hortensis (Reply #21)

Mon Sep 7, 2015, 07:10 PM

27. The central point of my post was that we need to expand our bench beyond E. Coast baby boomers

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #27)

Mon Sep 7, 2015, 08:07 PM

30. Agree, we'd do far better if we could accept that we never were and will never be in control.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hortensis (Reply #30)

Mon Sep 7, 2015, 08:11 PM

31. At least you had your moments. My people have spent our lives sandwiched between

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #31)

Mon Sep 7, 2015, 08:31 PM

32. Yes. I just wish we hadn't trashed the bus. I've often wondered if we aren't going to be known

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hortensis (Reply #32)

Mon Sep 7, 2015, 08:34 PM

33. I wouldn't be so hard on yourselves. A tremendous amount of positive change can be attributed to the

boomers.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #31)

Mon Sep 7, 2015, 10:02 PM

36. AS an aside: what is the date on that graph? (source?)

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!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Raine1967 (Reply #36)

Mon Sep 7, 2015, 10:05 PM

37. good question, I was looking at it and wondering the same thing myself.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #37)

Mon Sep 7, 2015, 11:11 PM

38. LOL! yup, sounds about right!

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hortensis (Reply #15)

Mon Sep 7, 2015, 06:28 PM

23. I think you are extrapolating the percentage that don't want a woman President.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TSIAS (Original post)

Mon Sep 7, 2015, 07:59 AM

4. I thought Cory Booker might have run.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinca (Reply #4)

Mon Sep 7, 2015, 09:52 PM

34. Meh. Isn't he another Third Wayer?

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)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kath (Reply #34)

Tue Sep 8, 2015, 06:46 AM

41. I didn't say I was a fan of his . . . I just thought he would run.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TSIAS (Original post)

Mon Sep 7, 2015, 10:46 AM

5. If Clinton had not run O'Malley and Webb would be getting

 

a lot more attention from us and the media.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SheilaT (Reply #5)

Mon Sep 7, 2015, 01:27 PM

8. I don't think Webb would.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chan790 (Reply #8)

Mon Sep 7, 2015, 01:31 PM

9. My including Webb is predicated on the idea that

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chan790 (Reply #8)

Mon Sep 7, 2015, 01:50 PM

13. I think Biden would have run.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #13)

Mon Sep 7, 2015, 06:29 PM

24. I think Biden would have been their pick too but I don't think he would be winning. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Live and Learn (Reply #24)

Tue Sep 8, 2015, 05:50 AM

40. That would depend on who else was 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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SheilaT (Reply #5)

Mon Sep 7, 2015, 02:58 PM

18. O'Malley certainly would be.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TSIAS (Original post)

Mon Sep 7, 2015, 10:56 AM

6. Bernie is attracting the youth vote. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TSIAS (Original post)

Mon Sep 7, 2015, 01:05 PM

7. Who would have run:

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to askew (Reply #7)

Mon Sep 7, 2015, 01:33 PM

10. You nailed it.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to askew (Reply #7)

Mon Sep 7, 2015, 01:34 PM

11. Hmmm.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chan790 (Reply #11)

Mon Sep 7, 2015, 02:03 PM

14. you ignore that people GAIN name recognition as they run and especially as they win

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to askew (Reply #7)

Mon Sep 7, 2015, 09:56 PM

35. I don't think Klobuchar would do well on the national stage

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TSIAS (Original post)

Mon Sep 7, 2015, 01:45 PM

12. Vermin Supreme?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #12)

Tue Sep 8, 2015, 08:34 AM

43. Alas, the first victim of the Clinton Juggernaut.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TSIAS (Original post)

Mon Sep 7, 2015, 02:57 PM

17. here's the current age of everyone we're talking about

Last edited Mon Sep 7, 2015, 03:40 PM - Edit history (1)

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MisterP (Reply #17)

Mon Sep 7, 2015, 03:01 PM

19. O'Malley is just 52

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TSIAS (Original post)

Mon Sep 7, 2015, 06:52 PM

25. The problem is Obama

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fadedrose (Reply #25)

Mon Sep 7, 2015, 06:58 PM

26. Who can match him? Michelle is in many ways a better natural talent than Barack.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #26)

Mon Sep 7, 2015, 07:40 PM

29. Guess who has Michelle Obama's publicist?

 

HRC!

hahahahahahaha!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TSIAS (Original post)

Mon Sep 7, 2015, 07:39 PM

28. why?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #28)

Tue Sep 8, 2015, 09:27 AM

44. I was just curious

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TSIAS (Reply #44)

Tue Sep 8, 2015, 09:33 AM

45. what?

 

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...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TSIAS (Original post)

Tue Sep 8, 2015, 12:10 AM

39. So far no one has mentioned Biden? Chances are 100% Biden runs if there was no Hillary running.

 

And he would win too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #39)

Tue Sep 8, 2015, 06:55 AM

42. I mentioned him.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread