I am sitting here wondering why Hilary Clinton will be

[akbacchus_BC]

the nominee and elected next President of the US! This is so unreal, is there not another person in the US who should be elected? Is this a Dynasty, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton. Come on, there has to be a new person who really has Americans future at heart and not looking to outsource every frigging job!

I am just curious and curiosity kills the cat. We dealing with the same shit here in Canada. Harper not going anywhere until he sells out Canada, fucking mini Bush that he is.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. I think it's too soon to say that she definitely will be.

She has not "officially" declared--yet.

Let's see what happens.

[99th_Monkey]

2. Jeb hasn' "officially" declared yet either, but we both know it's coming

This New Yorker article spells it all out re: if a candidate hasn't "officially" declared their candidacy,
they can raise WAY MORE dark money, with less reporting requirements, and both Jeb & Hillary are
doing just that. http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/jeb-hillary-money-primary?intcid=mod-latest

[CaliforniaPeggy]

4. Ah, thank you; I didn't know that!

[99th_Monkey]

5. You are most welcome

I just learned today, and posted it too, but few seemed to notice.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026251296

2016 is destined to be USA's "first $4 Billion POTUS campaign" .. or so they say.

[Agnosticsherbet]

3. If she is nominated, it will be because American Democrats think she is the best chaoice

among those who are running.

If she wins the general election, it will happen because Americans see her as the best choice of those who run in the general.

We get the candidates that chose to run, not the candidates that we want to run.

John Adams and John Quincy Adams were father and son, and they were Presidents. There have always been family dynasties in our politics. Al Gore's father also served as a Congressman and Senator in his time.

But if you want to glimpse a real family dynasty:

Franklin Roosevelt was related to 11 other presidents
John Adams, James Madison, John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren, William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Andrew Johnson, Ulysses S. Grant, Benjamin Harrison, William Howard Taft and, of course, Theodore Roosevelt, FDR’s fifth cousin. Roosevelt’s famous family tree doesn’t end at the White House. He was also reportedly related to several other historic figures, including Winston Churchill, Douglas MacArthur and two famed Confederate leaders: Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee.

[davidn3600]

6. Doubtful...

It's about name recognition and the idea that many seem to have that she is somehow entitled to the nomination.

It's also about money. No one is going to be able to out-raise her.

Therefore, a lot of people who would want to run won't even bother.

[Agnosticsherbet]

7. People who will not bother to run, will not take the risk, are not qualified for the job.

In the primary, we will get a chance to vote for those with the guts and desire to run.

In the general, we have a clear choice between a Democrat and a Republican.

[davidn3600]

8. No one is going to run if it is certain they can't win

Some even think she may be near being uncontested.

And as far as the general...what you say is part of the bigger problem. Vast majority of voters in this country don't vote FOR a person, they are voting AGAINST a person. Their vote is based on keeping the other side out.

Just look around DU...a lot of people here will be holding their nose while they vote for Hillary. They are not voting for her because they like her. It's because they dislike Jeb a whole lot more.

That's the honest truth.

[Agnosticsherbet]

11. I don't hold my nose. I look at the candidates, the choices, and choose the one best suited to the

job.

But as long people vote for the Democratic nominee in the General election, we have a good chance of making things a bit better for the majority of Americans.

I don't vote because I like a candidate. I vote because I see that candidate as the best of those applying for the job.

I think we will have a least four candidates in the primary.

Bernie Sanders is not going to be able to raise enough money, but he will run in the Primary because he wants a discussion about matters that count. He is not going to come close to winning, but he will run.

There is still time for more people to join who have not counted themselves out.

[DonCoquixote]

14. guts and desire

are worthless when American politics is controlled by MONEY. The reason others do not run, nor are encouraged to run, nor considered "viable" is because everyone knows Wall Street will spend as much as they can to make sure Hillary gets the dem nom, just as they want jeb to get the GOP nom, so that whoever gets in knows job one is to make THEM happy. They want a muddy choice between a dem who is their servant and the GOp who is their servant.

[Art_from_Ark]

15. Either way, the fat cats win,

while the thin cats might get thrown a fishbone or two.

[Agnosticsherbet]

25. Bull. If they aren't willing to put themselves out there, they are not qualified.

Money is a big problem, but it isn't the only problem.

[LWolf]

24. That and the skewed primary schedule,

which is going to begin with two states that always seem to caucus and primary for the status quo, giving that status quo a head start. Meanwhile, some of us won't get to vote in our primary until all the better candidates have been driven out.

The last primary I voted in? There were only two neo-liberals left on the ballot literally MONTHS before my end-of-May turn, and by then it was a done deal for one of them. What was the point?

[sabrina 1]

9. We get the candidates that BIG MONEY wants. BIG MONEY will NOT fund candidates that the PEOPLE want.

Hillary has earned the big money so she is the one they will force on the voters.

I don't care who they are related to, so long as they represent THE PEOPLE.

Both Roosevelts did that.

Hillary is going to have some major problems balancing her position on issues between what those who are paying for her campaign want, and what the people want.

THAT is why we don't hear from her on major issues. They haven't been able to find that balance yet.

Wall St doesn't like it when candidates tell the truth about them. But that is what the voters want to hear. That is why Warren is so popular.

Hillary can't do what Warren does, if she did, she would not get the BIG MONEY.

So we wait to find out where she says she stands on the issues that matter to the people.

[Art_from_Ark]

17. Some potential candidates may be wary about being "Haltered"

Bill Halter was the liberal Democratic lieutenant governor of Arkansas from 2007 to 2011. In 2010, he challenged the incumbent US Senator, Blanche Lincoln, for the Democratic nomination. Enter Bill Clinton and Barack Obama to campaign for Lincoln. In a highly dubious run-off election in which only two polling places (one of which was in a gated community) were open in Halter's home county of Garland County, Lincoln won, only to be trounced by her Republican challenger in the general election.

Four years later, Halter announces his intention to run for governor-- after all, he was a pretty decent lieutenant governor. Lo and behold, the state party apparatchiks decide they would rather have the conservative Congressman Mike Ross as their candidate, and Halter was shown the door. And Like Blanche Lincoln, Mike Ross lost by an embarassingly wide margin to his Republican opponent.

[betterdemsonly]

18. Mike Ross opposed raising minimum wage!

Cotton supported a minimum wage hike. Ross got exactly what he deserved as did Lincoln.

[Art_from_Ark]

20. I still don't understand why the party apparatchiks insisted on Mike Ross

Or maybe I do. The state's Democratic Party establishment seems to have taken a nosedive after the assassination, er, murder, of Bill Gwatney.

[sabrina 1]

30. I remember the Halter disaster. It's almost as if they wanted the Republican to win. Same thing in

NJ when Christie was vulnerable after the way he handled Sandy. A good progressive Dem, Buono, decided to run against him, in a BLUE state. Over 60 Dems ENDORSED the Republican. The party gave the Dem no help, no money, no endorsement from the party leadership. And of course Christie won.

It all makes people wonder, what is going on with this Party?

[Art_from_Ark]

31. Absolutely

In Arkansas, the state Democratic Party seems to have gone into a tailspin after the truly bizarre murder of the state's Democratic Party chairman, Bill Gwatney, in 2008. His assailant was shot and killed before he could say anything, so of course this has led to all sorts of speculation about his motive.

[sabrina 1]

33. I had not heard of that tragedy. I could see why there might be speculation.

[Art_from_Ark]

34. It was pretty bizarre

Gwatney's assailant had come to Gwatney's office in Little Rock from the Conway area, 30 miles away, shot Gwatney, then fled and was shot and killed by the police a little while later. At first, they thought it might have had something to do with Gwatney's car dealership, but I think that was ruled out as a motive a bit later.

At any rate, when Gwatney was calling the shots, the state Democratic Party was pretty vibrant. We had Democrats in nearly all state government offices, two Democratic Senators, and 2 or 3 (out of 4) Democratic representatives. Less than two years after Gwatney's death, both Obama and Bill Clinton were campaigning against Bill Halter in the Democratic Senate primary, and the eventual winner, Blanche Lincoln, got her rear end handed to her on the proverbial platter in the general election. Now we have no Democrats in any national office, and Republicans occupy most state offices and most of the legislature. It is absolutely mind-numbing, what has happened to the party in just the 6 1/2 years since Gwatney's death.

[sabrina 1]

35. Wow, interesting. The Dem party wiped out there! I was being sort of facetious when I said you might

almost think they want Republicans to win. But maybe that is closer to the truth than I actually thought. Eg, the NJ race with over 60 Dems ENDORSING the Republican and leaving the Democrat to fend for herself against all that money. And in Florida, Dems endorsing another Republican airc.

And then they have the gall to talk to us 'little people' about 'loyalty' etc.

[Enthusiast]

22. It's as simple as that.

[MADem]

10. "Dubya" was related to his "deddy," and Franklin Pierce (a drunkard and one of the worst Presidents

by all accounts).



He's got that same "deer in the headlights" look that the Wee Cowboy used to get.

[Art_from_Ark]

21. Hey, Pierce was "The Great Stone Face"

No wonder he had that look

[Atman]

26. Nonsense

The news media and the corporate establishment want a Clinton-Bush race. No different than a prize fight. You don't draw the big bucks, you don't sell the high-priced tickets, with a slate of B-list players. The fight promoters will make the arrangements and we're just to sit back and dutifully cheer. It's a total fucking scam. Both Bush and Clinton would be terrible for the country, but they'll make shitloads of money for their promoters. That's all it's about anymore. The POTUS has little to do with actually running the country.

[Agnosticsherbet]

27. News Media and the Corporate Establishment do not constitute a majoirty of votes unless

Democrats don't fucking show up.

If Democrats don't show up and don't vote, <b>they don't fucking care</b> what government we have, which makes them closet conservatives.

If we elect Democrats in the General election, they will work to make better laws, better programs, and give us better Supreme Court Justices.

It is that simple.

[Atman]

29. But the news media and corporate established choose which candidates we're forced to choose

No, they don't (necessarily) choose who ultimately wins the election, but they sure as hell choose who gets on the ballot. Then we're screwed. Vote for Corporate Player 1 or Corporate Player 2. They win either way.

[McCamy Taylor]

13. If it bothers you that much support another candidate. Moaning does not do much.

[Depaysement]

16. Money

She has enough money to be competitive nationally in a general election campaign. No one else in the Democratic Party can say that.

[ND-Dem]

19. bush surrogates since 1980.

[brooklynite]

23. I see...this is a vent and a response isn't expected.

Carry on.

[PATRICK]

28. The dynamic appears to be historial regardless

of the appeal of the candidates. A successful sitting President(one not in total powerless disgrace) gets his Veep in. As Dems do it at least. A Veep successor really has their work cut out for them to get into this position to begin with in the GOP. Usually some outsider like Reagan and Eisenhower will let in an establishment pol prince. Open runs don't really seem to allow as wide a filed as the dominance of free for all primaries over kingmakers might have suggested. Nothing has been more appalling than the parade of undigestible loons that seems the only thing the GOP is capable of while the Dems barely can whet an appetite for competition. Gore or Bradley. Clinton or ?. We used to be able to play out a list on contenders who were something none of the GOP were(intelligent, competent, dedicated to service).

This leads to carping about the de facto nominee who, no surprise, has a lot of reasons to delay announcing too. in fact the kingmakers are now the big money men, who being non entities themselves could care less that the surest bet of winning is a single charismatic, politically talented "populist"
with fire to do what should, must be done for the nation rather than the donor's self defined bottom line.

The last primary that mattered, the choice of Obama, arguably left little doubt that the party status quo was looking for charism and political acumen
after the Dean/Kerry "failure". This is what two stolen elections can do to kick the establishment out of their stupor and still avoid progressive necessities and political opportunity. We still do not get a field of the qualified but of the chosen and the rich. This is a bigger problem than any one candidate, but one that only the chosen or frozen out can fight from within- if someone would bother choosing to.

Or else some third party equally out in the cold will capitalize on all the thrown aside potential of actual appeal to the masses and their most important desires. Either way it is all invisible except Hillary and now the new Prince of Clowns, Jeb.

[HereSince1628]

32. No option for choice would be bad for the party.

I understand that going for the 3rd term of a party's control is a low probability event and it might discourage some candidates, but it suggests shrinking philosophical diversity. What's the point of having a big tent, if everyone on the dias is from the same philosophical point of view?