There has bever been an uncontensted Dem presidential primary for an open presidential position

[Renew Deal]

I brought this question up in another thread and decided to look it up. The Democratic nomination process was handled by "bosses" prior to 1952 and to a large degree up until 1968. Primary state elections seem to have come into prominence in 1952. Since then, there has never been an uncontested primary other than when the incumbent Democratic president ran for re-election. Twice the primary was contested even though there was a Democratic president (1968 and 1980). In 1964, Johnson decided late, so there were other candidates.

My point is that if somehow Hillary is the only candidate it would be unprecedented in Democratic politics. With that in mind, her strategy is brilliant. If she doesn't run, she both scares away opposition and cannot be credibly attacked by Republicans and other opponents. It completely screws up her opponents election plans. It inhibits the exposure of potential weakness.

At the same time, I think it shows the overall weakness of the Democratic field. Candidates are both afraid to take her on and insecure about the ability to raise funds.

There are probably a lot of reasons for this. One of them is the overwhelming polling support for Hillary. Another is that Democratic professional campaigners are jumping on board, so there is a shortage of big time professional staff (though I don't think this is a big issue). And another is that sadly there are not enough qualified candidates to take her on. Democrats have lost a lot of seats of power since 2008.

So where does this leave us? Potentially the most powerful non-incumbent in modern election times.

[NYC_SKP]

1. So, we'd have more choices and more power and more democracy if there was no Hillary.

And this is why, in my opinion, if she cared about us, about regular people, she would not run at all and tell us that last week.

The system has devolved into one that gives us the most corporate-friendly candidates in both parties.

And that, by definition, is anti-Progressive and not favorable to democrats.

[Renew Deal]

2. I agree with that last statement

Overall, the citizens united situation is unfavorable to good government (and Democrats overall).

I don't think Hillary can be blamed for her popularity and lack of opposition. Republicans have no problem with lack of competition, though Bush is working on that. He would love to do what Hillary is doing.

[MohRokTah]

12. .

[rug]

3. That is not a bad thing, electorally.

She would be even more formidable then in the general election. Worst case scenario: we'd have a president no worse than Obama.

[TDale313]

4. I would really like to see a contested primary.

Really tired of more liberal ideas being totally frozen out of the conversation.

[Renew Deal]

7. Overall, I don't think they've been frozen out but...

If there is no primary in 2016, and there was none in 2012, and Hillary is elected, there will be no such discussion until 2024. 16 years.

[onehandle]

5. 'I think it shows the overall weakness of the Democratic field'

I think it shows the overwhelming strength of Hillary.

Who can beat her on the Republican side?

No one.

[Agnosticsherbet]

6. If no one else steps in, Republicans will assume and instead of attacking each other they will

spend their entire election attacking Hillary Clinton.

The one that makes the most ridiculous accusation will be the winner.

It doesn't make her unassailable, it makes her the only target.

What it does do is mean that she will spend much less than Republicans, and allows her to make a gigantic war chest.

Since the Koch brothers will spend $800 million on their own, and the winner will probably rise 2 billion, saving money in the primary will be seen as an advantage.

[Renew Deal]

9. Even if Hillary is challenged by Sanders, Webb, O'Malley, and a candidate TBA

she will still receive all of the attention because no one is likely to get close to her.

Republicans will have to attack each other unless the primaries are decided quickly. I doubt the republican primary will into April now that Bush is in the race.

That's a good point about war chest.

[joshcryer]

16. I think Sanders can pull debate wins.

And it could boost him into a potential horse race. He's a very competent speaker and he speaks to a lot of core American values. Hillary can easily flub a debate with Sanders if she's not extremely careful.

Granted Clinton's potential war chest is enviable for the general election, but primary voters don't necessarily take that into consideration (though the media will use that as a "point" for Clinton in any comparisons with Sanders).

[winter is coming]

8. I can't of anything less likely to energize the rank and file Dems. n/t

[Renew Deal]

10. I agree that no primary will be wholly unexciting.

[fishwax]

11. 2000 was close. Alas, that didn't work out.

Bradley went up against Gore, but didn't have much of a shot. I'd be surprised if at least one such candidate doesn't come forward this time around, even though Clinton is, at this point, even ahead of where Gore was in primary polling.

[joshcryer]

14. They had I think 6 debates, too.

Which is what you can expect this go around, depending on how late Clinton decides to run. I'm thinking summer, myself. I think it will be a three way race with Jim Webb, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders.

[joshcryer]

13. It's incompatible with the platform.

You need delegates to vote upon the party platform, if you don't, it is not credible, and the party fractures. In all likelihood the top dogs are making sure that there is at least a couple of credible candidates. Bernie may actually be being consulted behind the scenes to switch to Dem.

There will be a contest and Clinton can still fuck it up badly, so one shouldn't rule out the underdog until after Super Tuesday.

[Fumesucker]

15. There has never been the same inevitable candidate twice in a row before

So this is a historically unique situation.

[Rex]

17. That is why I think the M$M and the GOP are crapping their pants this early out.

She is the most powerful non-incumbent in modern times. However, does that also equal most electable or the best choice? Most people I know think she is a shoe in and that is saying something - this area is a deeply conservative stronghold, admit she cannot be beat.

[oldandhappy]

18. I think it has a lot to do with control.

The Clinton machine seems to have controlled the whole situation from candidates to money. They have somehow made it clear that no one is to challenge her. I am waaaay out of the loop -- smile. But that is my guess.