Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Hillary can only benefit from a primary challenge [View all]Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)28. I strongly disagree re 2000
An acrimonious primary can hurt the eventual winner, but the Bradley vs. Gore duel was quite civil. If anything, Gore would've been better off if there'd been more fireworks on his road to the nomination, to get him more publicity despite the ongoing fierce battle on the Republican side. Even as it was, it helped get him some exposure, some recent debate experience, some warmup for his staff and volunteers, etc.
Media matters pointed out in months when the primary was run for Gore, that was the time when the corporation media smeared Gore with silly lies.
Is it your argument that, if Bradley hadn't run, silly lies that were thrown at Gore would never have surfaced? I'd think it more likely that they would have come out anyway, but in the fall, when they would have been more damaging.
I don't understand your conclusion. This part seems to suggest that Chafee, O'Malley, Sanders, and Webb should just abandon any idea of campaigning and wear their Ready for Hillary lapel pins 24/7 until Election Day:
A primary would only leave the corporations in charge of the election:
let support our candidates Hillary has been a loyal democrat for almost
thirty years: We all know her, we need to spend out time helping her and
win the Senate and House back.
let support our candidates Hillary has been a loyal democrat for almost
thirty years: We all know her, we need to spend out time helping her and
win the Senate and House back.
But then you write:
Let's leave the primary up to democrats to decide....
I agree with that part. Let Hillary run, but let her face an opponent from the more progressive win of the party, and let Democrats in primaries and caucuses around the country decide who'll be the nominee.
As for Citizens United and the Kochs, I don't foresee lots of corporate money flooding into television ads attacking Hillary as too conservative. To the contrary -- in the general election, we'll certainly see any Democrat attacked as being too liberal. If Hillary is the nominee, she'll be better positioned if she can point out that she was the more conservative candidate in the primaries. "You call me a socialist? Ha! I ran in the primaries against a real Socialist and I beat him! I'm in the sensible middle."
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
31 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
There MUST be at least one challenger. This allows progressive ideas to be seen by the public.
TheBlackAdder
Apr 2015
#1
Exactly! There are going to be challengers, and I hope for a rigorous debate among them.
BlueCaliDem
Apr 2015
#4
Hillary the is only non-coward: It didn't help Gore to have a primary Challenge
lewebley3
Apr 2015
#7
All recent non-incumbent victors have emerged from contested nomination fights.
Jim Lane
Apr 2015
#26
So you see a primary challenge for Hillary as just a little PR exercise? Nothing that would
djean111
Apr 2015
#9
Oh, I am shattered. Why on earth would I care what you think? I am answering a point in the OP.
djean111
Apr 2015
#14