Casting the Ideal Challenger to Hillary Clinton

[Capt. Obvious]

Jim Webb, the former Democratic senator from Virginia, stirred the political pot this past week, saying he was considering a presidential run in 2016. Webb was a moderate when he was in the Senate, and he strikes a different ideological chord than other potential contenders that have been put forward as alternatives to Hillary Clinton, such as liberal stalwarts Howard Dean and Elizabeth Warren.

Political analysts seem to be using a 2008 template. That year, then-Sen. Barack Obama upset Clinton from the ideological left, going after her, for instance, on her Iraq War vote. But early polling suggests that a candidate fitting Webb’s profile may be more likely to give Clinton (should she run) the stronger challenge in the 2016 Democratic primary.

....

Put it all together, and you start to get a picture of what a Clinton challenger might look like: probably male, moderate and anti-establishment.

Who matches that profile?

Webb, for one. He has been both a Democrat and Republican. Maybe Brian Schweitzer, the former Montana governor who mixes liberal and conservative positions and is not a fan of the Washington, D.C., establishment. A candidate like Joe Biden, who has been in Washington for over 40 years – probably not.

Meanwhile, more liberal candidates like Dean, Warren and independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont match the anti-establishment part of the equation. They may, however, be too liberal to take advantage of Clinton’s “weakness” among moderate and conservative voters.

538

A hell of lot more number crunching and polls at link that an excerpt does not do justice to.

[bigtree]

1. I love how Dean gets to sidestep all of the 'third way' nonsense thrown around here

. . . all of the candidates mentioned, save, perhaps Warren (do we know enough about her politics outside of economics?) are all folks who would get absolutely torn apart here at DU (as Obama and Clinton are now) for their stands on one issue or the other. All are establishment politicians who have embraced one form of political pragmatism or the other in matters of the military or in matters of economics.

(Here's a presentation) of candidates who 'mix liberal and conservative positions'. That's what we have now. That's what we have in a Clinton candidacy. What is the point of such a viral opposition to Clinton and the embrace of candidates who will likely not stray far from the D.C. orthodoxy?

Now, if (the author) is just talking about folks who have a chance of winning . . . that would mean the author recognizes the limits of a progressive campaign in expecting enough support from a nation of voters to reach the WH. I never lose sight of that. I don't believe we have the luxury of enabling a republican candidacy by clinging to a politically weak candidate, no matter how close they adhere to progressive principles. There IS a difference between parties on the presidential level. We should never forget that.

I can't tell you how disappointing (that list is), to someone who has heard and absorbed all of the criticisms of moderates and even liberals here on this board. Whoever that person may be to challenge these established choices, they'd better do more than complain about some lock Clinton has on the nomination and begin to traverse the miles she has already and capture the support she's already garnering through her early efforts.

[Capt. Obvious]

2. In case Harry Enten doesn't respond to you

You can contact him here

[bigtree]

3. you just picked a random article and posted it?

. . . inspiring

[Capt. Obvious]

4. No. As per custom - articles one reads that you think should be discussed here are posted.

Don't you have some picture threads to start?

[bigtree]

5. do the picture threads bother you?

. . . tell me all about it.

In the meantime, let's keep this thread kicked so folks can get a look at these 'ideal' challengers to Hillary' you've presented.

[Capt. Obvious]

6. Maybe Obama took Bo for a walk today

that would make for a lively DU discussion.

[bigtree]

7. you want a lively discussion? You got the beginnings of one with my first post

. . . which you responded to with several attempts to avoid a 'DU discussion' about the contents of the article you posted.

You really don't want to discuss that article. You ran from it like it was a Ready-for-Hillary campaign brochure.

[Capt. Obvious]

8. The first post making accusatory

swipes at me as if I wrote the article?

Gee, why didn't that go anywhere?

[bigtree]

9. I must have missed the part where you disagreed with the article you posted

. . . silly me. Obviously, I assumed you must agree with the article you posted.

I guess that's the risk you take when you post these things without comment. I'll take out the part where I express surprise and assumed that you'd agree that those are 'ideal' candidates.

. . . why don't I think that'll make any difference to you?

[bigtree]

10. let me start fresh with a random pic that I think should be discussed here

. . . or not.



. . . this thread's really going somewhere now!!

[Capt. Obvious]

11. As insincere as you are

sure, let's talk about the article.

Do I agree with it? No real opinion as this is just predictions based on current polling.
This prediction tends to shatter the "conventional wisdom" that her challenge will come from the left.
I find that prediction fascinating but definitely a possibility.

There's also some good meat about polling among self-identified Democrats and Democratic leaning indies/non-affiliated - Clinton crushed the SID's last time (as she is in current polling) but got clobbered by Obama in the other category and was a major factor in his win.

Who will gobble up the non SID's will probably be just as the article states.

[bigtree]

12. will a serious challenger emerge from the left?

Put Warren and Sanders aside (because, who knows what they'll do and their decision to run seems like a longshot to me)

ANY challenger will have to, either, craft a campaign that appeals to all of the disparate interests out there - strike a workable balance - or, they'll need to begin the process of garnering the support needed for whatever progressive ideals they want to promote. That support-garnering effort can come from capitalizing on some galvanizing attitude or event. But, ideally, the candidates, themselves, will need folks to respond to the strength of their personality, almost as much as folks respond to the issues they're presenting.

Right now, the level of interest in a Clinton campaign is built on the strength of the public's identification with her on a personal level, more than it's based on some policy position or some ideology. Of course, with folks who are more attuned to policy and ideology, the political lines are already drawn for a Clinton candidacy.

Rank-and-file voters - those who vote regularly (sids, if you will) - look for someone who they believe will defeat the opposition challenger in the general when they vote in the primary. Even folks who care deeply about the advancement of progressive issues can be motivated, in the end, to vote for an 'electable' candidate. That's what motivates these 'moderate' candidates to hedge their appeal and to avoid offending someone they feel is important to their election.

If there is no force of personality (like in the Obama and Clinton candidacies) which can get voters to believe in these folks personally, they stand little chance of overcoming the 'electable' vote and achieving anything revolutionary - even in their own party's primary. We all love to debate issues here, but these elections don't normally rise and fall on the issues.

We should never loose sight of the responsibility these candidates have for their rise or fall. They either toe a predictable and safe line; or, they craft a new, challenging one that appeals to a broader set of voters, in most cases, changes their minds.

Hillary is the status quo. That's not as unpopular among Dem voters as some would have you believe. It's not going to be easy to knock her off of that perch. It's going to take a strong and forceful personality; not just another batch of establishment folks who've made a career of adhering to the norm.

[Armstead]

13. For once I almost agree with you

I agree that much of it boils down to personality and "image." And unless someone comes along with both an appealing image and a fresh message, we're probably going to go for yet another ride on the DLC Express.

For example, in the issues, I think Sherrod Brown would be a great candidate. He is a clear liberal who looks out for the working class and is a fighter but also has a sensibility that could appel to moderates as well as progressives.....and he comes from Ohio.

But unfortunately he's "charisma challenged." So it aint gonna happen with him.

But then again if we're talking about Jeb on the other side, he too is charisma challenged, so maybe personality will ultimately be less important.

I just wish tat at some point as a party and a nation, we'd actually take a step back, look at the direction the country is going and decide that the most important thing we need is someone who is serious about reform and a course correction away from the New Gilded Age we are headed towards.

[bigtree]

15. I'd be almost giddy for a Sherrod Brown candidacy

. . . I think folks would be attracted to the strength of his convictions and his 'fighter' persona.

[Capt. Obvious]

14. Several points

1. There is a lack of a galvanizing issue where one candidate could pull huge swaths from the left on. The 99% issue doesn't do it. If there was such an issue to drive voters away from the status quo and towards one candidate that most likely spells doom to the D's because we occupy the WH at the moment and that's the status quo. It would mean a large enough chunk of our party is unhappy with the status quo in a unified way.
They can be unhappy with the status quo but that's what the primaries are for. In the end they come home and most go beyond just voting.

2. Big personality is correct. Clinton blocked out the sun last time and will again if she were to run. Anyone standing a chance to knock her off has to be big enough to pull that sun's orbit enough to get some light. In this day and age that someone needs a book deal and tour, and have a friendly enough line to Wall Street. They can campaign as a populist out of one side of their mouth and wink at the banksters. It's the way our system works now. The populists will fire up the base and pull votes in the primaries but only for the first few - unless there is one giant populist that everyone coalesces around... and that Wall Street doesn't hate.

[Armstead]

16. I think there is a galvanizing issue -- It's just a matter of packaging it correctly

A huge chunk of the SAmerican public is unhappy with the state of the nation on many levels. It gets expressed differently, but it boils down to the fact that peope feel powerless, and they see the economy being hollowed out and our governmnt being bought and paid for.

Maybe the "1 percent argument" isn't the greatest packaging, but the country is in a "malaise" (as Carter said in the 70's) and people see and feel the cumulative effect of "trickle down piss on" economics and Special Interest Big Money Politics in their own lives and communities.

If there were the right candidate who expressed a true progressive populist message, and if the Democratic Party could somehow break free of the grip of the Goldman Sachs/Comcast/Citibank crowd, such a platform would resonate as a reverse version of the Reagan Revolution.

I realize that's asking for a some major changes in business-as-usual, but I think people are ready for that, if the center-to-left could ever get its act together.

[Capt. Obvious]

19. It's a predetermined outcome

To run on an anti-Reagan platform would be popular for a good chunk of the electorate but less than 50%.
Now, some big personality could run on that and pull it off but the money would not allow them near the White House. They won't even allow them to get the nomination - they prefer the two candidates be both slices of the buttered bread.

The best you could hope for is someone to run on that but not really and occasionally throw some invisible crumbs.... or run as a blank slate and let everyone just assume he's running on what you believe in.

I don't believe people are ready for it. We are too tied into distractions that are also run by the big money.
And that's just the people who vote.

[Armstead]

20. IMO we're a country in which elections have generally been very close and up for grabs

I would say about one third of the population range from reasonable but committed conservatives to right-wing nuts and corporate fascists. Another third range from liberal-leaning moderates to committed progressives to ultra lefties.

The remaining third (sometimes called the swing voters) are generally on the fence, and capable of swinging in either direction, depending on current conditions, specific issues and the persuasive ability of particular candidates and campaigns.

The mistake i believe is that we assume that the "swing middle voters" are inherently conservative, and will automatically reject liberalism. And, to your point about "the money," we have relied too much on money from the wrong sources. I reallllllllllly hate the fact that Democrats like the Clintons (and I must say, President Obama) are basically employees of big corporations like Comcast and investment bankers like Goldman Sachs.

Money is a means to an end, and the end is getting enough votes to get people into office.

IMO a more broadly based and sincere progressive/liberal Democratic Party (and those who support basic liberalism) could mount winning campaigns and candidates if we stop enabling and supporting the wing who either is in the tank for Big Money or who are "pragmatic" and believe we can't be seen as, God forbid, even slightly liberal.

[Capt. Obvious]

21. With Democrats eating from the same trough

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Can't beat 'em, join 'em.
If I don't take this money, my opponent will and crush me.

Left to their own devices I don't believe the middle would lean conservative. Getting all of their info from NewsCorp, General Electric, Disney, etc tends to tip them that way.

[FSogol]

17. I like how all these article ignore the actual liberal with an exploratory committee & an on-ground

organization in Iowa and some other early States for pie-in-the-sky fantasy liberal candidates like Sanders.

Know who I am talking about?

[Capt. Obvious]

18. Vermin Supreme doesn't stand a chance

[Armstead]

22. Gov. O'malley?

pardon my spelling

[FSogol]

23. Ding,ding ding! Yup, Gov. Martin O'Malley n/t