Here's my issue...Clinton is OK... I guess... I am far from enthusiastic about the Dem slate

[Chitown Kev]

is this the best field that the Dems can field?

Where is the Democratic bench of candidates that could run for president and be viable other than Clinton.

O'Malley would be on that list, yes. So would Deval Patrick. Cuomo (ugh!) and/or Gillibrand might have run if Hillary didn't. Why have the Dems not prepared a bench and viable alternatives that can win a GE other than Hillary Clinton?

I mean, if the GOP voters hadn't gone all anti-everything, Kasich, Bush, Christie, (or even Suzanna Martinez and Scott Walker) would be a pretty solid slate, actually (and I'm not talking about their politics, per se).

Where is a comparable list of Dems that can actually run right now...I mean, even if you want to run someone to the left Clinton... aren't there better choices available?

The 2008 slate of candidates was infinitely superior to this...

[bravenak]

1. I think Hillary has been working to sew this up since 08.

If they run against her and get beaten, they will probably never win. Second place finisher rarely make president these days. Who was the last one, Bush 1? And he was VP too, and only one term. In eight years if she wins the field will be packed with candidates. Strange to say this but it's almost like they agreed that it was her turn without her saying so.

[elleng]

2. 'They,' tptb, DID agree it was her turn, imo.

[bravenak]

3. Whoever it is made sure not to seek out and fund others, imo.

Their ideas and aspirations died of neglect. It's just impossible to beat her this time without a miracle.

[JonLeibowitz]

28. Or votes.

Oh wait, nobody has voted yet.

[bravenak]

34. Voting will go on for a while after it starts but I think by March we will know the winner.

[JonLeibowitz]

35. Perhaps. But at this point nobody has won any votes.

[bravenak]

36. Some have won many endorsements which helps bring voters.

People just like to join the winning team.

[JonLeibowitz]

39. Hitler won elections too.

Hopefully people make their decisions based on policy instead of voting for the perceived winner.

[bravenak]

40. What does Hitler have to do with Hillary?

[JonLeibowitz]

42. Nothing specifically, just that you said "People just like to join the winning team."

[bravenak]

44. Ok. I hate when folks go Godwin on me. I am talking about American politics this day. Today.

[JonLeibowitz]

47. Sure. But well, going godwin isn't a fallacy. It's an attempt to invoke the historical record.

[bravenak]

49. Um?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

[JonLeibowitz]

53. Indeed.

Although falling foul of Godwin's law tends to cause the individual making the comparison to lose his argument or credibility, Godwin's law itself can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate. Similar criticisms of the "law" (or "at least the distorted version which purports to prohibit all comparisons to German crimes&quot have been made by Glenn Greenwald.

[bravenak]

54. Nice try!

There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself)[3] than others.[1] For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.[8] This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's law.

Godwin's law applies especially to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one's opponent) with Nazis – often referred to as "playing the Hitler card". The law and its corollaries would not apply to discussions covering known mainstays of Nazi Germany such as genocide, eugenics, or racial superiority, nor, more debatably, to a discussion of other totalitarian regimes or ideologies,[citation needed] if that was the explicit topic of conversation, because a Nazi comparison in those circumstances may be appropriate, in effect committing the fallacist's fallacy, or inferring that an argument containing a fallacy must necessarily come to incorrect conclusions. Whether it applies to humorous use or references to oneself is open to interpretation, because this would not be a fallacious attack against a debate opponent.

[JonLeibowitz]

55. .

So? If the comparison is apt and illustrates a worthwhile point then who cares about Godwin's law?

You haven't refuted the basic point I was making. You only ran to "Godwin!" and trusted that to be the end of the conversation. It is not. Using the rise of Naziism as a piece of historical record isn't a fallacy when making an argument.

It is just intended as a humorous observation. The original Godwin's law just said that internet discussions would eventually devolve into a situation where one party mentioned Hitler. It makes no judgement about the relative merits of the arguments.

[bravenak]

56. The point is that it was not apt. It was hyperbolic. The epitome of Godwin's Law in practice.

[JonLeibowitz]

57. So you say. Others may differ. Better to offer a proper rebuttal. n/t

[bravenak]

58. Better than going Godwin?

[JonLeibowitz]

59. Perhaps. :-)

Still waiting on the rebuttal, at your convenience.

[bravenak]

60. Hitler ended the discussion for the day.

[riderinthestorm]

61. Be careful

That poster has admitted to trolling

http://www.democraticunderground.com/128075924#post5

Don't get a hide

[JonLeibowitz]

62. I'm aware. Thanks for the heads up though!

I also heard there were even worse PMs sent, that aren't public (yet).

What a time to be alive.

[riderinthestorm]

64. Oh Would you like a sample? Mines a doozy?

Since Jack Green's PM was hidden in the protected Bernie Sanders Group, I can't post it here without risking a hide.

[JonLeibowitz]

67. That would be indeed interesting. Please, if you feel comfortable sharing.

[Chitown Kev]

68. Margaret Thatcher? David Cameron?

Hugo Chavez? Silvio Berlusconi?

[Starry Messenger]

41. Whut?

[bravenak]

45. I know.

[Starry Messenger]

46. There isn't enough wine for this.

And if I just keep sitting on my hands, it's hard to pick up the glass.

[bravenak]

48. I know what you mean.

I have to use my bong today. Keeps me calm.

[Chitown Kev]

50. lol, oh, I don't know

I get the giggles and the munchies watching some of the ignorant things people have the stunningly unmitigated gall to type at times.

[bravenak]

52. Oh, good.

I'm glad it's not just me over here snorting and shit. My poor child came to check on me earlier, said bless you, lol.

[NorthCarolina]

10. Sure, they don't care. Her turn, his turn...doesn't matter.

All they require is an obedient stooge open to graft style politics and with a propensity for winning votes by pandering or whatever means necessary...along with considerable corporate money and corporate media support of course.

[JustAnotherGen]

76. ITA. n/t

[Chitown Kev]

5. Actually, if Hillary wins

I could envision her serving only one term and handing it off to someone else...the Dem bench will be strong in 4 years and even stronger, IMO, in 8 years.

Clinton seems to be more necessary to keep a Dem butt in the Oval Office chair.

Remember, Cuomo (ugh!) and Gillibrand actually did want to run. Cory Booker really would like to run in the future (more so than Patrick, IMO) and O'Malley (assuming he loses now) may want to make another run for it.

[bravenak]

8. I just do not see her giving it up after one term unless she has to.

But anything is possible these days. We have good Dems. The loss of political goodwill from the Clintons was not worth the risk. Better to have them campaign for you than against you. Politics.

[jeff47]

29. Clinton has been working on this since about 1996. She's not going to give it up after one term. nt

[Chitown Kev]

30. You are probably right.

Clinton still "does" politics as if this were the 1990's, though.

Granted, there are some consistencies as to how politics should be "done", I really am asking myself, "is this the best that the Dems can do, right now"?

It's not really a lot of shade against Clinton or Sanders but it is a lot of shade against the Party, though.

[NorthCarolina]

4. Bummer for you.

For me personally, I'm happier than a pig in shit to have the rare opportunity to vote for someone of the caliber of Bernie Sanders. The Clinton era is dead. We've outgrown triangulation politics along with trickle-down economics. That's the past. Bernie is the future.

[Chitown Kev]

7. I'm glad that someone with Bernie Sanders "politics" is running

I'm not so impressed with the candidate and his campaign (although I am more impressed with the candidate than his campaign).

and most people would have dropped Sanders in a NY minute if Elizabeth Warren wanted to run, let's be honest about that...although with Warren, I do think that there may be a "Massachusetts" thing going on there.

[NorthCarolina]

18. Well to me

Bernie offers a new direction, and a better way forward. There is not a single issue that I can think of from the environment to foreign policy that Bernie doesn't come out on top from my perspective. A true peoples advocate and an honest politician. It doesn't get any better than that. I've been voting in every election since my first vote for Jimmy Carter back in 76. This is the first time since then that I have been so touched by a candidate.

Oh, and yes I like Elizabeth Warren as well and would likely be a supporter were she the challenger of the establishment candidate instead of Bernie. But I certainly do not believe that Bernie takes a back seat to Warren in terms of policy, intentions, or honesty. Warren is besides the point though anyway since she is not running. Bernie is the candidate of that political stripe that we have in this race, and I for one will damn sure be supporting him in any way I can.

[juajen]

66. bullshit!

Hillary is remarkable. Bernie charming, but unschooled.

[madamesilverspurs]

6. We can be damned proud of our field.

ANY one of them would be preferable to anyone today's GOP could offer. And that's in terms of experience, philosophy, vision or any other parameter. And no, it's not a matter of lesser evils. It's about people who have what it takes to govern instead of dominate. It's about people who can actually discuss policy rather than quote jingoistic talking points. It's about people who have visible records of showing up to help when the going gets tough rather than condemning those who are experiencing tough circumstances.

Just to be clear, I'd be pleased to vote for ANY of our candidates, and will be proud to vote for whichever is chosen as our nominee. Once more with feeling: WE CAN BE DAMNED PROUD OF OUR CANDIDATES.

[Chitown Kev]

9. I agree with regard to the GOP as it now stands

I mean, they are floundering all over the place, quite frankly...I'd vote for any of our candidates over the GOP...but I will confess that I am not at all enthusiastic about our choices.

Comparing this field with the mix that was running in 2008...

[reformist2]

11. You can thank all the Big Money backing Hillary for scaring away so many other candidates

Thank our lucky stars Bernie jumped in. Otherwise it would be a coronation.

[Chitown Kev]

13. I don't see Bernie stopping anything there

but where is our bench for 2016?

[gwheezie]

12. I agree 100%

I've been saying this for a year. One thing the right-wing loons have been doing for the past 8 years is building their bench at the local level and moving them up.
I'm going to vote for HRC I like her for many reasons but I am not feeling it. What was the dem party doing for the past few years? This will certainly sound ageist but when I saw it was coming down to Bernie and Hillary, I thought really the only person dems can come up with who can compete against these 2 old farts is OMalley. Well yes that is ageist but I would have liked to have seen a few younger folks in the mix. These people are the past, it is very hard for me to view either of them as the future of the party.
I am an old fart by the way, there is something to be said for older and wiser but the thing I liked about Obama was he was closer to the issues of the future in his experiences outside of politics.
Bernie and Hillary are both out of touch with issues that concern the people who are our future. How can they not be? I would rather turn the country over to someone who has a closer stake in it.
I appreciate the focus on ss and mcare. Trust me without either program I would have no hope of survival. But the future of our country is not going to depend on how we treat people my age.
And I don't think either of them will win the GE but if the dems prevail I hope the grassroots starts bringing people up so they're ready to lead at the end of who ever has the next 8 year term.
The reason I support HRC by the way is a big factor in my decision is the ability of the president to handle the thing no one sees coming and throws them off their agenda. That was so clear to me when Obama became president. He was more than able. I think HRC would be better than Bernie when the shit hits the fan.

[Chitown Kev]

14. I agree with you 100%

I will say that the Dems are now just getting around to doing that...Booker, the Castro brothers, Kamala Harris, even O'Malley...and there are more will fill out the Democratic bench in the future...so it's there but we need to keep doing this and keep doing this and keep doing this.

I know for a fact (because I'm situated where I observed it) Obama didn't come out of nowhere...

[pangaia]

20. "Bernie......is out of touch with issues that concern the people who are our future?"

You have got to be kidding, !!

[gwheezie]

24. Nope not kidding

Do you think he's going to get the Obama coalition because that is what he needs to be nominated and win the GE.
I could be wrong lord knows it wouldn't be the 1st time but he's not appealing to enough of the voters he'll need to win.

[pangaia]

27. But that is not what you posted.

You said he is.. "...s out of touch with issues that concern the people who are our future?"

That is NOT the case.

[gwheezie]

32. Well then he's not getting it across

I know he's been consistent for decades but not every issue is based on income inequality. I think a big part of Obama's appeal to younger voters and people who were not politically active was he was able to speak to the direction to move the country forward on several different avenues so if your issue was social injustice or the environment or our foreign policy he was able to address it without reverting to one agenda that frankly may not be the most important concern of voters. So I brought up the Obama coalition as why it was so important for a campaign to appeal to many issues to voters who are looking forward.

[jeff47]

43. Sure! That's why he polls better among millennials.

Oh wait...

(And if you want to point to the recent poll touted about "younger voters", you should notice they threw out anyone younger than 26, and defined "younger voter" as younger than 46)

[Recursion]

15. I wish Schweitzer had run, and Villaraigosa (nt)

[Chitown Kev]

16. I think Schweitzer was ready for a run

I believe that as far as the gun issue, he may have been in the same place as Bernie, but I would not have had a problem with Schweitzer in this field.

Villaraigosa...if you can run a city as diverse and big as Los Angeles...maybe, but didn't he lose in a primary to Jerry Brown (now if Jerry Brown were younger, he might be a great candidate...even though he lost the nomination before)

[Recursion]

21. Yeah, Brown's problem was that he first campaigned for John C. Fremont

Hell, the man's literally building an aquaduct right now. That says a lot, to me.

[pangaia]

17. Your obvious intentional failure to list Senator Sanders

is rather telling, wouldn't you say.

And then there is your presumption that Secretary Clinton is the starting team and all the rest are the... bench...

[Chitown Kev]

22. Obviously Clinton has "the star power"

in the field as it now stands.

The only comparable Dem with Clinton's "star power" is Warren.

[pangaia]

25. "STAR POWER"

You know what, with all due respect, I just can not take you seriously.

[Chitown Kev]

26. Then don't

Bye, Shaniqua.

[bravenak]

73. .

[madfloridian]

19. Our party did not build its "farm team" as Howard Dean suggested we do.

That was his purpose as DNC chair, and at DFA, to encourage and support candidates at local levels even down to the city commissions and school boards.

I don't think there has been much of that lately, at least not where I am.

It seems the goal is a strong presidential figure with not so much emphasis on building from the ground up.

[Chitown Kev]

23. This is what I am talking about

We will have this type of "farm team", I think, in 2020 and 2024 ( and we need it for 2018).

[jeff47]

31. We abandoned GenX to apathy.

The gap you speak of would normally be filled by the younger half of GenX (The older half trends conservative, the younger half trends liberal).

When we came of age, our attempts to get the Democratic party to address our issues were ignored. For example, it's not like high tuition and student loans are new problems.

Unfortunately, small generation size meant we were not needed to form a winning coalition. Democrats could win with older Boomers and younger WWII voters. Also, younger GenX is significantly more "liberal" than those two groups, so holding that tent together would be harder.

If you don't need it to win, and it's harder to do, why do it? So the party didn't.

With GenX's issues being ignored, we basically wandered off in apathy. There was no point in voting because neither party gave a damn. Republicans were busy screwing us over, and Democrats were busy "trading" our issues to Republicans as part of compromises for things Boomers wanted. So turnout among younger GenX is abysmal to this day.

That voter apathy also led to far fewer GenX members entering politics. And if you never go into politics, you can't be groomed for higher office. So our "bench" is shallow now that older Boomers are stepping down.

But that's OK, we're in the process of doing the same thing to Millennials. I'm sure it won't have any long-lasting effects.

[riderinthestorm]

33. Tammy Duckworth, Julian Castro, Corey Booker, Gavin Newsom, Martin O'Malley

are ready for prime time now. They'll be even more powerful in 4 years.

Kathleen Sibelius, Hilda Solis, Deval Patrick, and yes even Elizabeth Warren also stand out.

That's just off the top of my head.

There's other outliers like Tom Steyer who've been behind-the-scenes heavy political players who wield enormous clout and dollars and could step up.

There's also "legacy" children who are maneuvering - Jason Carter and Joe Kennedy III who are being groomed.

I don't think it's that hopeless

[Chitown Kev]

38. Duckworth, no

Castro...needs more experience...Newsom...if he can become governor of California, yes, gotta put him there...Booker, O'Malley, Warren...yes...When I lived in Mass., I had the sense that Patrick didn't want to run for any more offices...I might even throw Bill DeBlasio in there (the opposition against DeBlasio in NYC seems to be largely along racial lines)

It WILL be a very deep bench for 2020 and 2024...

[riderinthestorm]

51. Duckworth is very compelling. Don't dismiss her

I helped both her campaigns - her first against the despicable Pete Roskam and her second run when she actually won.

I've met her and she's all that. Besides she's backed and groomed by the Dem PTB - Rahm Emanual plucked her out of obscurity and turned her onto politics.

HRC was anointed imo. None of the Dems I've mentioned would have ever risked alienating the powerful DNC to challenge her. It's obvious her present opponents are outliers and posed no real threat.

O'Malley is interesting. He went against the anointment and has racked up some recognition despite a pointed campaign by the PTB to disempower him. He's definitely someone to watch.

Great question!

[one_voice]

63. Good names there!

[Ino]

37. Clinton sucked the air out of this election....

no one dared to wanted to run against her, except an Independent beholden to no one, and O'Malley who probably had no real expectations for this year.

[Autumn]

65. Democratic leadership wants Hillary so Hillary it is.

[ecstatic]

69. Just saw Gavin Newsom on real time with Bill Maher

Is there a reason why he's not running? I really like his style/delivery.

[Chitown Kev]

71. Was Jerry Brown the last California Dem to run for President?

Newsom, if he can get elected governor, is a possibility (and the right doesn't have the power to squeeze Newsom as they did Gray Davis) as well as Kamala Harris.

[jfern]

70. The Clintons have enemy lists

Most Democrats don't want to be on that list, so they don't run against her. Instead they hold her nose and endorse her.

It also doesn't help that the election last year was brutal for Democrats. Not good for Presidential candidates unless we want some Santorums who lost their last election by 18 points or whatever.

[Chitown Kev]

72. But then you would think that the Dem "farm team"

would come from the 2006 election and 2008 elections?

[jfern]

74. Well, Bernie, Hillary, O'Malley, and Webb all won an election in 2006

And Chafee would have too if he had switched parties by then. So that seems to be what who we had running this time.

[Chitown Kev]

75. I guess I should be grateful, then

that the Illinois governor who won re-election in 2006 wasn't running...talk about a hot mess.