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 All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

NoJusticeNoPeace

(5,018 posts)
Thu Apr 16, 2015, 11:49 AM Apr 2015

Why all of a sudden is it so important Hillary have competition within the party?

Let's look at past election seasons, when a party pushed one person above all, and let's see how many people demanded that MAN be tested by having others run against him in the primaries.


116 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Why all of a sudden is it so important Hillary have competition within the party? (Original Post) NoJusticeNoPeace Apr 2015 OP
I disagree. 2008 had 2 major Democratic candidates, and I don't think there was anyone who thought still_one Apr 2015 #1
And when it was a close race, one was told to get out of it early... boston bean Apr 2015 #3
not really karynnj Apr 2015 #83
Several top tier candidates in 2008... Cheese Sandwich Apr 2015 #78
I don't understand. I'd ask the question in reverse. stone space Apr 2015 #2
Precisely Sherman A1 Apr 2015 #23
it's not sudden cali Apr 2015 #4
Except when it was demanded one get out of it and concede boston bean Apr 2015 #9
yeah, that got absurd cali Apr 2015 #19
really, you want to have the delegate wars again? SUPER DUPER DELEGATES! snooper2 Apr 2015 #29
I remember the calls for her to concede, quite forceful calls.. boston bean Apr 2015 #32
Well, after McCain got the repuke nod, it was well known Obama had it in the bag- snooper2 Apr 2015 #37
2008 was as vigorous a primary campaign as it can get. morningfog Apr 2015 #39
It was, but there were many calls for her to concede and criticisms when she didn't. boston bean Apr 2015 #43
Well at someone point it is reasonable to make the case that a primary candidate should conceded aikoaiko Apr 2015 #53
The calls for it began in January... Whatever... boston bean Apr 2015 #102
and many hillar supporters said he shouldn't challenge cali Apr 2015 #55
That is nothing like where we are today. morningfog Apr 2015 #58
My desire to have competition in the primary is to be able to get the issues out. When we have only jwirr Apr 2015 #50
It works fine. I agree there should be a primary election and debates. boston bean Apr 2015 #51
That was wrong. A candidate should make that decision themselves. But now, are you asking sabrina 1 Apr 2015 #68
the calls were after the primaries when she karynnj Apr 2015 #84
what? after a certain point it was no longer close. Hillary had no chance KittyWampus Apr 2015 #59
You can call me out all day long, since you do nothing but attack Hillary and those who support NoJusticeNoPeace Apr 2015 #10
This message was self-deleted by its author B2G Apr 2015 #14
another delightful and false tidbit from thee cali Apr 2015 #24
I agree, it's not sudden Michael_wood Apr 2015 #92
It's called CHOICE. PassingFair Apr 2015 #5
Suddenly? tazkcmo Apr 2015 #6
Certainly didn't happen in 2000... brooklynite Apr 2015 #7
And how much criticism was heaped upon Hillary for not conceding boston bean Apr 2015 #12
Doubtful Capt. Obvious Apr 2015 #15
Those calls for conceding occurred because it was statistically impossible for her to win. Renaissance Man Apr 2015 #17
They were... I thought it was superdelegates that got Obama over the hump? boston bean Apr 2015 #25
Super delegates controlling the outcome was karynnj Apr 2015 #90
A majority of 2,117 were needed to secure the nomination... boston bean Apr 2015 #94
it made no sense until the primaries were over karynnj Apr 2015 #97
True, but so did Barack Obama and he got the majority of them.... boston bean Apr 2015 #98
The key word is DISPROPORTIONATE karynnj Apr 2015 #101
I guess that all depends on how you look at it... boston bean Apr 2015 #103
As soon as the issue was mentioned, Kerry said that he did not think that the superdelegates karynnj Apr 2015 #107
Why are you asking me these questions?? boston bean Apr 2015 #108
Please provide a link to anyone of any stature saying she should drop out in January karynnj Apr 2015 #109
Here you go.... It's a little difficult to search nearly 8 year old articles boston bean Apr 2015 #110
I'm not limiting anything - and why should I do a DU search for something I don't think exists karynnj Apr 2015 #113
I think your challenging this is bizarre, when we pretty much agree with eachother. boston bean Apr 2015 #114
I thought that was ridiculous. Hell Hath No Fury Apr 2015 #30
I agree. I have no issue with a vigorous primary. boston bean Apr 2015 #34
I agree. Hell Hath No Fury Apr 2015 #46
Bill Bradley never gained traction, but he was karynnj Apr 2015 #86
and the 2012 alternatives are not? brooklynite Apr 2015 #88
I was not commenting on them karynnj Apr 2015 #93
Its not Dwayne Hicks Apr 2015 #8
Untrue. Renaissance Man Apr 2015 #11
Post removed Post removed Apr 2015 #13
oh and you speak for millions? cali Apr 2015 #26
Misogyny has nothing to do with it. Renaissance Man Apr 2015 #27
agreed cali Apr 2015 #35
Remember how she was the person to beat, Clinton POWER! But then came- Iowa snooper2 Apr 2015 #40
It could be true this time treestar Apr 2015 #65
If we're on the misogyny issue then 2008 doesn't mean much treestar Apr 2015 #64
There was a lot of racism during the 2008 primaries tularetom Apr 2015 #48
If you think competition is unimportant, B2G Apr 2015 #16
Pure subterfuge. Hell Hath No Fury Apr 2015 #22
excellent point. cali Apr 2015 #42
The OP made a huge deal out of that pintobean Apr 2015 #54
stinks. : cali Apr 2015 #57
You? A racist?! B2G Apr 2015 #61
yep cali Apr 2015 #71
Wow, this is kind of weird. BeanMusical Apr 2015 #67
If there are any cobwebs left to be cleared better to be done in the primaries LynneSin Apr 2015 #18
Oh horseshit. Hell Hath No Fury Apr 2015 #20
There are both advantages and disadvantages to lack sufrommich Apr 2015 #21
That disadvantage would also be an advantage. The more attention on Repubs and what they believe stevenleser Apr 2015 #31
I would hope so,but I've learned not to sufrommich Apr 2015 #36
Competition has been important all along. It's nothing new. n/t arcane1 Apr 2015 #28
It looks like you're saying Hilary should run unopposed, but you have a Bernie sig Reter Apr 2015 #33
I didn't "demand" but certainly wanted somebody to challenge Bill Clinton in '96. Tierra_y_Libertad Apr 2015 #38
Competition is healthy. Orsino Apr 2015 #41
it's comments like the op's cali Apr 2015 #45
I would say that it tammywammy Apr 2015 #47
the same thought has occurred to me cali Apr 2015 #49
i thought that from the beginning m-lekktor Apr 2015 #70
Oh, how quickly we forget Proud Public Servant Apr 2015 #44
Disagree mylye2222 Apr 2015 #52
Because we don't want to get burned again. Jamastiene Apr 2015 #56
I disagree. A candidate who has no strong opponents applegrove Apr 2015 #60
I don't think it has to do with Hillary. NCTraveler Apr 2015 #62
Competition is healthy and should be the status quo. Nothing sudden about it. Throd Apr 2015 #63
Competition hones your skills DFW Apr 2015 #66
Because it's the election democratic process, that's why. AtomicKitten Apr 2015 #69
It's actually better for Hillary to be contested. herding cats Apr 2015 #72
Easy. '68 and '80 the party pushed one person above all. Many people demanded that MAN be tested. ieoeja Apr 2015 #73
both those years show the opposite to what you are saying karynnj Apr 2015 #96
+1 uponit7771 Apr 2015 #116
Why all of a sudden is it so important to hang on to the past? GeorgeGist Apr 2015 #74
Failed premise. Agschmid Apr 2015 #75
It's not because Hillary is a woman daredtowork Apr 2015 #76
Fair point, but... Mike Nelson Apr 2015 #77
I'm sick of sexim, but a primary is needed. People need to hear it. n/t freshwest Apr 2015 #79
Ok, let's look. Name the examples of past election seasons you have in mind... JHB Apr 2015 #80
Patience. A-Schwarzenegger Apr 2015 #81
I made an edit to my post, but I'm not sure if it's relevant to your reply. JHB Apr 2015 #89
Thanks for the note. A-Schwarzenegger Apr 2015 #91
name the last unchallenged man who was not an incumbent president. karynnj Apr 2015 #82
Where have you been? It's all anyone has talked about for months - TBF Apr 2015 #85
Oh, that's a big fat fail. I've always been an advocate of competitive primaries. winter is coming Apr 2015 #87
For all of the calls for a primary opponent Proud Liberal Dem Apr 2015 #95
Then you don't understand how democracy works. Octafish Apr 2015 #99
"all of a sudden" lol Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2015 #100
Do you have any evidence demwing Apr 2015 #104
It there is no other candidate, then the choice is the candidate that there is. But still... liberal N proud Apr 2015 #105
"All of a sudden" the democratic process is important. lol. nt RedCappedBandit Apr 2015 #106
I support Hillary, but even I want a primary. RandySF Apr 2015 #111
2 recs says it all. PowerToThePeople Apr 2015 #112
A primary challenge in 2008 resulted in control of the White House for eight years. cherokeeprogressive Apr 2015 #115

still_one

(91,949 posts)
1. I disagree. 2008 had 2 major Democratic candidates, and I don't think there was anyone who thought
Thu Apr 16, 2015, 11:54 AM
Apr 2015

That there should not be competition within the Democratic Party primaries

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
3. And when it was a close race, one was told to get out of it early...
Thu Apr 16, 2015, 11:59 AM
Apr 2015

and forever criticized for not doing so.

karynnj

(59,475 posts)
83. not really
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 07:22 AM
Apr 2015

Look at 2008, 2004, 1992, 1988, 1984. Etc. No one was told to drop out before the primaries or before someone was the de facto nominee. 1992 was so close that Clinton did not win until June. In 1984 it was very very close until the end between Mondale and Hart. Even when a candidate ended up dominating the primaries as Kerry did, many people were given considerable media support before and during the primaries.

This election will likely be more similar to 2000 when Gore was pretty much backed by all the party power players before a vote was cast even though Bradley was stronger than anyone against HRC.

 

stone space

(6,498 posts)
2. I don't understand. I'd ask the question in reverse.
Thu Apr 16, 2015, 11:57 AM
Apr 2015

Is it important to not have competition this time around?

If so, what makes this election so special?

Or is there a particular past election that you are thinking about where it was important not to have a primary contest?

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
4. it's not sudden
Thu Apr 16, 2015, 12:00 PM
Apr 2015

You're new here, but du has always had vigorous debate over multiple canddates. Also, it's historically unusual in an election yea without a sitting president running, for there not to be multiple candidates running in the primary.

Your opinion is not accurate or honest and the sexism charge is false and disgusting. I have repeatedly called out real sexism against her. False charges like yours deserve to be called out too.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
9. Except when it was demanded one get out of it and concede
Thu Apr 16, 2015, 12:02 PM
Apr 2015

even though it was one of the closest primary elections ever.

2008... anyone??

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
19. yeah, that got absurd
Thu Apr 16, 2015, 12:10 PM
Apr 2015

But the op is talking about something different. No one ever demanded that she not compete with Obama and others throughout the vast majority of the primary
I do recall hillary supporters saying he shouldn't run against her and that it was her turn and she'd earned it,he hadn't.

 

snooper2

(30,151 posts)
29. really, you want to have the delegate wars again? SUPER DUPER DELEGATES!
Thu Apr 16, 2015, 12:16 PM
Apr 2015

Remember when she kept hanging on and North Carolina was going to PUT HER OVER THE TOP-



Well...not LOL

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
32. I remember the calls for her to concede, quite forceful calls..
Thu Apr 16, 2015, 12:19 PM
Apr 2015

It was a very close election... If people believe in the process of having a vigorous primary campaign, then I do find it curious that it wasn't the case in 2008.

 

snooper2

(30,151 posts)
37. Well, after McCain got the repuke nod, it was well known Obama had it in the bag-
Thu Apr 16, 2015, 12:23 PM
Apr 2015

But NOOOOOOOO


She had to hang on for a while more in the meantime creating the most annoying people to ever exist on the planet-


Fucking PUMAS

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
43. It was, but there were many calls for her to concede and criticisms when she didn't.
Thu Apr 16, 2015, 12:36 PM
Apr 2015

That was the point.

aikoaiko

(34,127 posts)
53. Well at someone point it is reasonable to make the case that a primary candidate should conceded
Thu Apr 16, 2015, 12:52 PM
Apr 2015

so that the focus can be on fighting the putative GOP candidate.

Hoping that the super delegates significantly deviated from their pledged votes was possible, but unlikely.

This OP is questioning the value of primary challenges on the front end, but the push to have Hillary concede was about the back end of the primary season.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
102. The calls for it began in January... Whatever...
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 08:15 AM
Apr 2015

My comments weren't meant to bolster an argument in support of this OP. Many persons wanted the party united way early in the primary process.. And now all of the sudden, feel a different way...

I am commenting on that.

I support as always a primary election.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
55. and many hillar supporters said he shouldn't challenge
Thu Apr 16, 2015, 12:55 PM
Apr 2015

her, they literally said it was her turn, and the op is saying that calls for competition in the primary are illegitimate and founded on sexism. You want to be associated with that rank crap?

 

morningfog

(18,115 posts)
58. That is nothing like where we are today.
Thu Apr 16, 2015, 01:08 PM
Apr 2015

You are referring to the summer of '08 after a long and contested primary. That is not the same issue as whether there should be a primary contest at the outset.

Here, we are saying there should be a contest prior to one even beginning. In 2008, it was after it had been vigorously contested and it was clear who was going to mathematically win that calls were made to end it, for the good of the party in part. The two situations aren't comparable.

jwirr

(39,215 posts)
50. My desire to have competition in the primary is to be able to get the issues out. When we have only
Thu Apr 16, 2015, 12:48 PM
Apr 2015

one candidate do we get a debate? How does that work? If Hillary was a setting president then we would know where she stands. Without debates many will not know. The debate is a tool to hear the questions we want answers to heard.

And I don't think I am the only one who thinks that: Bernie, O'Malley, etc.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
68. That was wrong. A candidate should make that decision themselves. But now, are you asking
Thu Apr 16, 2015, 03:30 PM
Apr 2015

for the same thing you objected to then? Worse, that no one enter the race at all, concede before they begin? I'm not sure if that is what you saying, which is why I'm asking.

karynnj

(59,475 posts)
84. the calls were after the primaries when she
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 07:26 AM
Apr 2015

Had fewer delegates. The idea that super delegates would swoop in and save her nomination was delusional.

 

KittyWampus

(55,894 posts)
59. what? after a certain point it was no longer close. Hillary had no chance
Thu Apr 16, 2015, 01:11 PM
Apr 2015

of getting enough delegates after a certain point and yet she kept running and her campaign and surrogates got uglier and uglier.

Then it turned into a fantasy of delegates switching from Obama to Hillary.

NoJusticeNoPeace

(5,018 posts)
10. You can call me out all day long, since you do nothing but attack Hillary and those who support
Thu Apr 16, 2015, 12:03 PM
Apr 2015

her, I wont lose much sleep over it.

Response to NoJusticeNoPeace (Reply #10)

PassingFair

(22,434 posts)
5. It's called CHOICE.
Thu Apr 16, 2015, 12:01 PM
Apr 2015

I'd like to see at LEAST the illusion of it within our representative party.

I want the issues to be aired.

If you are not so subtly hinting that anyone who wants a proper primary race
is a misogynist....

You are wrong.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
12. And how much criticism was heaped upon Hillary for not conceding
Thu Apr 16, 2015, 12:05 PM
Apr 2015

I think the calls came for it even before super Tuesday.

Renaissance Man

(669 posts)
17. Those calls for conceding occurred because it was statistically impossible for her to win.
Thu Apr 16, 2015, 12:09 PM
Apr 2015

Those calls for her to concede occurred because it was statistically and numerically impossible for her to win, considering poll numbers, prior to Super Tuesday. That is a separate issue from people actually wanting a primary with multiple candidates. By the time those calls for concession came, she'd already put her foot in her mouth multiple times and her numbers were not going to get her the nomination.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
25. They were... I thought it was superdelegates that got Obama over the hump?
Thu Apr 16, 2015, 12:13 PM
Apr 2015

Maybe my memory is not serving me...

edit:

maybe not, upon further review, but it was still mighty close much later than some would like to remember..

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html

karynnj

(59,475 posts)
90. Super delegates controlling the outcome was
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 07:38 AM
Apr 2015

Raised by the HRC people only after she did less well than they gamed on super tuesday. In fact, the Obama surrogates had the easy answer that they did not think it right for the super delegates to alter the choice of the regular delegates. Why? There was no chance if HRC got the most regular delegates that Obama would be given the nomination.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
94. A majority of 2,117 were needed to secure the nomination...
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 07:45 AM
Apr 2015

including the superdelegates... Barack Obama ended up with 1766.5 + 463 delegates. Hillary ended up with 1639.5 + 257 superdelegates.

It was an extremely close race and people should not have been demanding she drop out early.

karynnj

(59,475 posts)
97. it made no sense until the primaries were over
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 07:53 AM
Apr 2015

My point was that she would have needed a very disproportionate number of super delegates to back her to win. I think her campaign feared this as early as super tuesday when they floated that possibility to the media.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
98. True, but so did Barack Obama and he got the majority of them....
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 07:55 AM
Apr 2015

I'm not into re-hashing the primary, just wanted to point out that when there was a rigorous primary, there were people demaning she drop out for the good of the party.

karynnj

(59,475 posts)
101. The key word is DISPROPORTIONATE
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 08:13 AM
Apr 2015

If each got the same percent of superdelegates as they got delegates, Obama wins.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
103. I guess that all depends on how you look at it...
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 08:22 AM
Apr 2015

for instance, here in MA, Hillary won the state by a lot, yet the most of the superdelegates pledged to Obama.

Listen, all I am saying is that things aren't as clear as one would like to think they remember... It's not a simple essay in the math.

There were a lot of factors for staying in the race, and it didn't hurt Obama. He won two terms. Yet there were calls for her to concede as early as January.. look it up if you don't believe me.

That and what we find today, ie for the good of the party we don't need this rigorous campaign... to today.. for the good of the party we do need it.

karynnj

(59,475 posts)
107. As soon as the issue was mentioned, Kerry said that he did not think that the superdelegates
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 08:54 AM
Apr 2015

would overturn the decision of the delegates. This was a very easy thing for him to say because the situations were in reality not parallel. This let Kerry and other Obama delegates argue that this would not be a good ideal. Incidentally, I would infer from that - and it was the thing he routinely said - that had HRC gotten the most delegates, he would not have joined an effort to pull Obama in if he lost the delegate comparison. His endorsement was not equivalent to actually casting his superdelegate vote.

Do you seriously think that if the delegate numbers were swapped that there would have been ANY discussion of Obama winning by getting a very high percent of the superdelegates?

I know that things were not simple - as they were in say 2004, when Kerry won all but 4 contests - losing SC and OK - and later having VT go to favorite son Dean and NC go to favorite son, Edwards after Kerry had really won.

I know the rules were a mess - and both Florida and Michigan defied the rules leading to what really was a not fixable mess. In addition, you could say that putting 22 states on the same day in early February was done to create a wall for anyone without extremely high name recognition. (It precluded what happened in - say 1992 - when the front runner changed a few times as different people led then fell as they progressed thru more states.

It also was- of course - a very close election. However, it is hard to remember when any non incumbent president or veep candidate came in with more party/media support than Clinton 2008 --- surpassed only this year.

The answer to this entire thread is that Clinton is preferred by over 60% of Democrats. If there were people who could more seriously challenge her than those announced, it is very possible that they simply see that as insurmountable. That is their choice. However, to argue that these people should not be out there - at a point where not a single vote has been cast - AND argue as the op does that wanting this is unfair to HRC is silly -- and not the same as what happened in summer 2008.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
108. Why are you asking me these questions??
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 08:58 AM
Apr 2015

You are intimating things, via your questions, that I haven't said.

Listen, you want to argue the intricacies of the primary of 2008 all over again. do it with someone else.

My point is simple... As early as January there were call for her to concede for the good of the party. Simple plain fact of the matter...

The continuation of a rigorous primary did not hurt Obama. Yet there were calls that it would.

karynnj

(59,475 posts)
109. Please provide a link to anyone of any stature saying she should drop out in January
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 09:22 AM
Apr 2015

Until SuperTuesday, she was by far the overwhelming favorite. If there had not been a surge for Obama in the last week of January and the first week of February, HRC would have been the defacto nominee on SuperTuesday. That was their game plan and why allies of hers argued for the unprecedented number of states all on one day.

For example, if HRC had gotten the percent of votes that were predicted in CA, MA, NJ, and NY in early January when the primary occurred, she would have gotten FAR more delegates than she did. I know how the numbers shifted in NJ, where I lived and I had good friends who had expected MA to be far worse for Obama. Mark Penn actually expected Clinton to get a high enough percent of the CA vote that neither Obama or Edwards would exceed the threshold - giving her all the CA votes.

It was not until SuperTuesday that the race was even seen as close -- and even then, there was no call for her to end her run. There were some calls as the season wore down - and I thought them wrong - based on polls and the likelihood it would end up as it did. However, where MOST of the calls came was in the nearly one month after all the primaries were over -- when the effort was precisely to influence the superdelegates.

PS It is strange that you say that you don't want to argue it, but then you make an assertion that people told HRC to step down in January. Did you really think that that was not engaging in a discussion - and that I should just walk away - even though it is clearly at least debatable?

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
110. Here you go.... It's a little difficult to search nearly 8 year old articles
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 09:43 AM
Apr 2015
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/07/us/politics/07cnd-campaign.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

However, why don't you do a DU search? why are you limiting what I can use to show in fact it started early.. It came from somewhere... the drum beats, no?



karynnj

(59,475 posts)
113. I'm not limiting anything - and why should I do a DU search for something I don't think exists
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 10:06 AM
Apr 2015

The article you link to speaks of Hillary Clinton's famous meltdown in NH. It doesn't speak of people speaking of her stepping down for the good of the party.

The closest it gets to that is a reporter who asks obama if HRC should drop out IF she also loses NH -- his response was not a call for her to step down.

Here is that part:
“I didn’t see what happened. I don’t know the context of it,” Mr. Obama told reporters. “I know that this process is a grind, so that’s not something I would care to comment on.”

Before he walked away, a reporter also asked Mr. Obama whether he believed Mrs. Clinton should drop out of the race if she lost the New Hampshire primary.

“I would never presume to say anything like that,” Mr. Obama said. “Look, we’ve had one caucus, this would be one primary. Right now, I’m just focused on tomorrow.

It is bizarre to suggest that I have to disprove a comment you made that you have never proven.

 

Hell Hath No Fury

(16,327 posts)
30. I thought that was ridiculous.
Thu Apr 16, 2015, 12:18 PM
Apr 2015

She had every right to stay in the race as long as SHE chose to. I am old enough to remember when there were MULTIPLE candidates in the race right up to the primary, and that there was actually voting going on for the various candidates on the primary floor. I have always thought the Parties' attempt to have the nomination sewed up by the primaries did a huge disservice to the people of those Parties.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
34. I agree. I have no issue with a vigorous primary.
Thu Apr 16, 2015, 12:21 PM
Apr 2015

but it's curious as damn hell that it wasn't the case in 2008 for many and now all of the sudden is.

karynnj

(59,475 posts)
93. I was not commenting on them
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 07:41 AM
Apr 2015

The op seemed to be saying that it is because Clinton is being treated unfairly that there is a push for opposition. In fact no non incumbent president has run unopposed.

 

Dwayne Hicks

(637 posts)
8. Its not
Thu Apr 16, 2015, 12:01 PM
Apr 2015

I'm fine with Hillary being the only Democrat running. The only other I would welcome is Warren and she is not running.

Renaissance Man

(669 posts)
11. Untrue.
Thu Apr 16, 2015, 12:04 PM
Apr 2015

I remember the back and forth on DU in 2008 during primary season, and it was pretty ugly. This isn't sexism so much as it is members of a political party wanting there to be some vigorous debate among candidates regarding issues that should be addressed, so that voters are informed on who best represents their political interests.

Response to Renaissance Man (Reply #11)

Renaissance Man

(669 posts)
27. Misogyny has nothing to do with it.
Thu Apr 16, 2015, 12:16 PM
Apr 2015

Hillary Clinton was one of the top two Democratic contenders in 2008 for the nomination, and she (and the Clinton machine) was bested by a junior senator with three years of experience in the U.S. Senate at a time during which she should have arguably wiped the floor with all of the candidates.

... and that was after her camp released the Wright videos to the MSM.

Her being a woman has absolutely nothing to do with Democrats wanting other candidates to debate issues in a primary and earn the nomination to represent the party in the General Election. My personal preference is for Elizabeth Warren (first) and then Bernie Sanders (if he should switch his party affiliation and enter the race).

Maybe people are looking at the issues (like 2008 and her IWR vote that tanked her with many Democrats) and actually want someone that can match a progressive record with their rhetoric. No degree of shouting "MISOGYNY!" is going to change that.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
35. agreed
Thu Apr 16, 2015, 12:23 PM
Apr 2015

Again, I'm seeing a lot of entitlement from her supporters along with false claims like the op's. Sad to see long-time duers support the false shot in the op

 

snooper2

(30,151 posts)
40. Remember how she was the person to beat, Clinton POWER! But then came- Iowa
Thu Apr 16, 2015, 12:29 PM
Apr 2015

Oh shit!

people are voting and you aren't just going to get crowned winner...

UH OH




LOL

treestar

(82,383 posts)
64. If we're on the misogyny issue then 2008 doesn't mean much
Thu Apr 16, 2015, 01:57 PM
Apr 2015

Because Hillary was in it. The reasons people wanted her out was that she was not able to win by that point.

So the question on misogyny really is before 2008, was there ever a time there was a candidate who started out in good position but people thought that person needed opposition? Or was there simply opposition?

Did people think someone should run against Gore just to do so?

Although both Gore and Bradley showed comparable success in terms of fund-raising, Bradley lagged behind Gore in many polls from the start and never gained a competitive position. Despite the late endorsement of the Des Moines Register,[8] Bradley went on to be defeated in the Iowa Caucus; Gore garnered 64% of the votes, while Bradley received only 35%.[9] Gore won the primary competition in New Hampshire as well, though by a significantly smaller margin, receiving 52% to Bradley’s 47%. After a resounding defeat on Super Tuesday, with Bradley failing to carry the majority of delegates in a single state, he withdrew from the race on March 9.[10]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2000

Did that help the Democrats win that election? We know how it turned out. It was close enough for the Republicans to exploit the opportunity to get it into the courts.

tularetom

(23,664 posts)
48. There was a lot of racism during the 2008 primaries
Thu Apr 16, 2015, 12:47 PM
Apr 2015

And for a few it continued after the convention.

It had nothing to do with a vigorous debate, it was blatant racial prejudice.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
57. stinks. :
Thu Apr 16, 2015, 01:04 PM
Apr 2015

This poster has also insinuated that I and others are racists- on multiple occasions.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
71. yep
Thu Apr 16, 2015, 03:49 PM
Apr 2015

also she has insinuated that I'm homophobic and Islamophobic. She has told another longtime DUer that she hates liberals.

I'm beginning to wonder what her agenda here is.

LynneSin

(95,337 posts)
18. If there are any cobwebs left to be cleared better to be done in the primaries
Thu Apr 16, 2015, 12:09 PM
Apr 2015

I know with Obama the Jeremiah Wright/Weather Underground was a few skeletons that Hillary pulled out of his closet. Were they reasons to not vote for Obama - of course not, but with the right twist a shrewd campaigner could have turned those into a Willie Horton like Bush Sr did against Michael Dukakis.

I think the fact that they were drawn out during the primaries made them old news for the general election. I know Sarah Palin tried her darndest to make it sound like 'Obama's palin' around with Tera'rists' folksy mannism and no one really cared (because in reality he wasn't. Wright said something stupid and the Obamas stopped attending his Church and Obama just happened to be in the same room as that WU guy but didn't really have anything to do with him).

I think the Clinton/Obama primary covered enough of the dirt on those two that when the election came around people wanted to know 'How are you going to fix this country' and that's what Obama focus'd on which was a key to winning.

We need a primary - it's a good thing and people need choice.

 

Hell Hath No Fury

(16,327 posts)
20. Oh horseshit.
Thu Apr 16, 2015, 12:10 PM
Apr 2015

I haven't seen one election cycle in my life where there wasn't a push by some in the Party for another candidate. You must be VERY young not to have remembered some of the knock-down, drag out fights that went on between Establishment candidates and challengers. Hillary, as the Establishment candidate is getting the very same treatment, no different.

sufrommich

(22,871 posts)
21. There are both advantages and disadvantages to lack
Thu Apr 16, 2015, 12:10 PM
Apr 2015

of competition in a primary.The obvious advantage is she would be running for president instead of party nominee very early on,the disadvantage would be that the hard fought republican primary battle will get much more media coverage until they pick their nominee.

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
31. That disadvantage would also be an advantage. The more attention on Repubs and what they believe
Thu Apr 16, 2015, 12:19 PM
Apr 2015

would be a net plus for whoever the Democratic nominee would be!

 

Tierra_y_Libertad

(50,414 posts)
38. I didn't "demand" but certainly wanted somebody to challenge Bill Clinton in '96.
Thu Apr 16, 2015, 12:24 PM
Apr 2015

I did "demand" that someone run against Hubert Humphrey in '68.

Orsino

(37,428 posts)
41. Competition is healthy.
Thu Apr 16, 2015, 12:35 PM
Apr 2015

Entitlement/anointing isn't, particularly when a dynasty and so much goddamned money are involved. A primary is one of the few tools we have left to build the best possible nominee.

tammywammy

(26,582 posts)
47. I would say that it
Thu Apr 16, 2015, 12:44 PM
Apr 2015

Reflects poorly on someone clearly ignorant of history. Frankly their responses from a so called Bernie supporter are so over the top I would assume it's a person trolling

Proud Public Servant

(2,097 posts)
44. Oh, how quickly we forget
Thu Apr 16, 2015, 12:37 PM
Apr 2015
let's see how many people demanded that MAN be tested by having others run against him in the primaries


Hillary today is in almost the exact the same position Al Gore was in the run-up to the 2000 election. Progressives then, too, worried about the inevitability of Gore (who some now seen as a progressive for his climate change position, but who then was better known as a founding member of the DLC and The Man Who Sold NAFTA). Finally Bill Bradley stepped up, after many more prominent liberals and progressives passed.

So this has nothing to do with gender, nor is it something new.

As for why it's important, I would hope that would be obvious: no one person could ever hope to embody all the voices in the Dem big tent, and a contested primary is a way to make sure all those voices are heard. Plus, it sharpens the inevitable candidate for teh general -- and everybody, including Hillary's own people, agree she could use some sharpening as a candidate.
 

mylye2222

(2,992 posts)
52. Disagree
Thu Apr 16, 2015, 12:50 PM
Apr 2015

It is not a question whenever HRC is a woman. Its on the fact that for many people, there is a feeling that HRC might be nominated without real exchange and the fear that primary season might be meaningless....

Jamastiene

(38,187 posts)
56. Because we don't want to get burned again.
Thu Apr 16, 2015, 01:03 PM
Apr 2015

Primarying her from the left is not sexist. There are plenty of sexist things said and done against her and those irritate me beyond belief, but trying to give someone who leans more left a fighting chance within the party is not sexist.

I'm sick of Democrats licking their fingers and sticking them up in the air to decide how they are going to run. It is disingenuous and leads us further and further right. It's a fucking parlor trick and transparent to those of us who are sick and tired of it.

Some of us just want candidates who believe in what they say they will stand for and ACTUALLY stand for what they say they believe in instead of guessing which way the fucking wishy-washy, middle of the road, apathetic, shallow ass, self centered so-called "moderates" are leaning and running with it. That shallow bunch of spoiled rotten brats and their fucking whims control our entire existence, because they control how the political campaigns and political actions play out. Think about that for a minute and let it sink in. If the latest fad amongst so-called "moderates" or "the center" (which is way to fucking far to the right, as is) is to pretend to care about one issue or another, but really still want not much at all done about it, candidates shift in their seats and switch stances to satisfy them....then still go right wing once they get in office.

applegrove

(118,017 posts)
60. I disagree. A candidate who has no strong opponents
Thu Apr 16, 2015, 01:26 PM
Apr 2015

can have their political skills dulled to a point they don't bring their "A" game to the presidential election. Someone as smart as Hillary has a hard time staying engaged in the repetitive nature of running in an election anyways. The more challenge the better. And if someone else wins the nomination they have earned it.

 

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)
62. I don't think it has to do with Hillary.
Thu Apr 16, 2015, 01:43 PM
Apr 2015

I also think your history might be a little off. In a system where there are two major parties representing the whole country, we better have a robust primary season.

DFW

(54,051 posts)
66. Competition hones your skills
Thu Apr 16, 2015, 01:58 PM
Apr 2015

A free ride does not.

Whoever wins the Republican nomination will do so after having a knock-down fight with a bunch of crazed fanatic rivals. Hillary won't be ready to battle such a nominee unless she has a few skirmishes of her own behind her to remind her what it's like.

 

AtomicKitten

(46,585 posts)
69. Because it's the election democratic process, that's why.
Thu Apr 16, 2015, 03:36 PM
Apr 2015

The privilege of running unopposed in a primary belongs to a sitting president; this is an open field.

Trying to make this a sexist "thing" is either a gross misunderstanding of process or you are playing the gender card. Either way, you are wrong.

herding cats

(19,549 posts)
72. It's actually better for Hillary to be contested.
Thu Apr 16, 2015, 03:50 PM
Apr 2015

For one thing it will take the press out of the roll of vetting Hillary for the Democratic voters. Which is what we're seeing happen now, and we all know that's not a good thing for any candidate. The media couldn't care less when it comes to policy related issues. They're all about drama and easy memes.

It will also bring the issues we want discussed brought forward where we can see who stands for what, and exactly what their views and ideas are on things that matter to Democrats. It gives us a chance to feel out our choices and maybe even force them rethink some of what they've stood behind in the past. It's never a bad thing to have other candidates and their views being put out there for discussion.

It's not as if she's already a seated president who the Democratic voters feel they've already vetted for the job of president. She ran before and lost the nomination. Which is all the more reason why she needs a contested race to get out there and prove to people she's the right person for the job this time around. Or not, whatever the case may be.

This is a moot point, since there will be challengers. How much they're going to change the narrative depends on who they are, and what they think matters most to the voters who align with the Democratic Party.

 

ieoeja

(9,748 posts)
73. Easy. '68 and '80 the party pushed one person above all. Many people demanded that MAN be tested.
Thu Apr 16, 2015, 04:04 PM
Apr 2015

And those two times the MAN was the fucking incumbent. One of whom actually was forced out of the primary.

Too bad you've already been locked out of your own thread.


karynnj

(59,475 posts)
96. both those years show the opposite to what you are saying
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 07:49 AM
Apr 2015

Both years started with an incumbent president and they were challenged.

In 1980, Kennedy lacked the votes but stayed in until the convention. 1968 was a mess after Bobby Kennedy died. Had he not been killed, he would have been the nominee. Between the anger outside the convention and the fact that there really was no consensus candidate, it was a battle in public.

daredtowork

(3,732 posts)
76. It's not because Hillary is a woman
Thu Apr 16, 2015, 04:29 PM
Apr 2015

For me "competition within the party" is just yet another way of saying "I don't want Hillary, please give me a way to vote for someone else!!!"

It sucks that the competition currently at the table seems to be only men. I don't see Draft Warren happening.

Barbara Lee/Bernie~~~

Mike Nelson

(9,903 posts)
77. Fair point, but...
Thu Apr 16, 2015, 04:29 PM
Apr 2015

...I'd like to see 3 or so Dems debate. It will be good for the process and contrast favorably with the Republican clowns!

JHB

(37,130 posts)
80. Ok, let's look. Name the examples of past election seasons you have in mind...
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 07:06 AM
Apr 2015

Odds are they weren't quite as monolithic as you imply.

(edited because original version was hastily finished due to impending loss of signal)

JHB

(37,130 posts)
89. I made an edit to my post, but I'm not sure if it's relevant to your reply.
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 07:37 AM
Apr 2015

Just making you aware that there was one, however, as a courtesy.

karynnj

(59,475 posts)
82. name the last unchallenged man who was not an incumbent president.
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 07:12 AM
Apr 2015

Even AL Gore the vice president was challenged. Given that Johnson and Carter as presidents were challenged the only two not challenged were Obama and Clinton when running for reelection in the time since nominees were no longer picked in smoke filled rooms.

Hillary Clinton has incredible support from the party. It is ridiculous to argue that she has been treated worse because she is female.

TBF

(31,921 posts)
85. Where have you been? It's all anyone has talked about for months -
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 07:28 AM
Apr 2015

the problem though is that Elizabeth is not going to get the nod. She's staying in the Senate. Clinton really doesn't have serious challengers. The big thing will be VP pick. It didn't matter as much with Obama but it will be critical with Hillary. She will only be a year younger than Reagan was if she gets to the point of winning in 2016. She looks younger and is obviously sharp as a tack but at some point people will talk about it She needs a younger male VP with a lot of charisma. I think it will be Julian Castro, but there are others.

winter is coming

(11,785 posts)
87. Oh, that's a big fat fail. I've always been an advocate of competitive primaries.
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 07:31 AM
Apr 2015

There's nothing "sudden" about it, nor does it have squat to do with Hillary's gender.

Proud Liberal Dem

(24,355 posts)
95. For all of the calls for a primary opponent
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 07:47 AM
Apr 2015

There are very few willing to seriously challenge Hillary, at least not any heavy-hitters like Warren or Sanders.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
99. Then you don't understand how democracy works.
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 08:04 AM
Apr 2015

You get to chose for the best person to represent you. Otherwise, someone else decides for you.

 

demwing

(16,916 posts)
104. Do you have any evidence
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 08:32 AM
Apr 2015

that this push for competition is based on sexism, or are you just casting a wide net to see what you can snag?

liberal N proud

(60,300 posts)
105. It there is no other candidate, then the choice is the candidate that there is. But still...
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 08:34 AM
Apr 2015

You have made a choice!


Besides, we don't want to create a clown car like the GOP has, DO WE?

RandySF

(57,632 posts)
111. I support Hillary, but even I want a primary.
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 09:59 AM
Apr 2015

I don't believe in coronations. And Hillary, like everyone else, needs to earn it.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Why all of a sudden is it...