be even happier if our political structure was designed to create choice, not limit it.

We are told, and then ACCEPT, that we only have one choice. The system won't change from the top. It has to come from the people.

But so long as the people think the only way to win is to just go along with decisions made at the top, that is how it will remain.

in this country we have no choice. Big money drives campaigns, and in our system 1 person with $10 million has much more power that 1 million people with $10 each.

used the microphones they all have to make a huge deal out of why money is such a corrupting influence. Make it a huge campaign issue, all Dem Candidates for every office.

Shame Republicans, get teams of volunteers to follow THEIR money and every time there is a debate, make a front and center issue.

I think if the Dem party wanted money out of politics, they could do it.

I know the voters mostly are disgusted by it.

You know it's bad when even my republican coworkers complain about it (big money)

shame that he isn't getting any attention. I will go check it out.

Not just him but all our candidates.

Personally, I prefer him for SCOTUS far more than POTUS.

He'd be an awesome justice.

the Senate and Congress are extremely important regardless of who is in the WH.

I will support him in whatever capacity he chooses. And I mean fully support including personally busting my ass for his campaign.

Looks like he had to resign from the State Dept. before he could get involved in a campaign.

Wisconsin readies for Russ Feingold's Reeturn

She boycotted Smirko McCokespoon's 2000 selection.

know she means it, isn't reading from memos, it's from the heart. I trust her. That's what I want in a president.

Like I said, in the current political atmosphere, with all that money floating around, we can only dream of a President Barbara Lee, but you have to start somewhere!

great Presidents, but the money has already spoken. However we don't have to go along and give up on anyone else. That's the hope, that with this announcement everyone will get in line.

That isn't democracy.

And it's our fault if we don't fight.

the republican form of government, which is citizens voting for representatives who then vote on everything.

Over time, that distinction got corrupted, but it was understood very well by the Framers, who very deliberately chose a republic (and also severely limited those with a right to vote).

With the internet, an actual democracy becomes more and more feasible, so, IMO, that distinction becomes important again.

Mike Capuano is on a par with Lee, IMO, but he could use a little more charisma. Sad that is how we have to weigh our candidates since TV, but there it is. (Today, FDR could may not even have dreamt of running.)

Just one thing to say to supporters of Sanders: He has said he will run if he has support. So do whatever you can to show him you support him. Donate, volunteer, whatever.

Even small donations, if numerous enough, can help convince larger donors to open their wallets.

Early Money Is Like Yeast. It makes the dough rise. (Tip of the fedora to EMILY's List.)

Coakley and then she got precious little support from the Party during the election. But, that's a whole other story, not for this thread.

Good memory, though, for someone not from Massachusetts to remember that.

their lack of support for good Progressive candidates. I was not at all impressed with Coakley but he really impressed me. I was so disappointed when he lost to Coakley.

I focus more on the Senate and Congress now. I think they are far, far more important than the WH race, which as we are seeing, is a done deal by those in power. We don't have much say in it, if any.

But we still have a say in the Senate and Congressional races. I don't intend to be side tracked by the billion dollar WH race. I really believe that Congress and the Senate is where the people CAN still have some power.

and I'm sure he's on Hillary's short list for VP. I think her VP pick could mean a lot to progressives if she chooses wisely.

It appears she may be grooming him for the slot.

And his whole family. Its an interesting story on what grassroots can do.

The whole package for the most part. I could really get behind him. I am happy with Warren where she is at. I would vote for her over Hillary in the primary if she was to get in. I would keep an eye out for Crist. He is currently licking his wounds over his loss to Scott but his ego is enormous. Don't expect the expected when it comes to Crist.

Feingold. I can dream, can't I.

to support him. Big money went after him before, but I think that people are more aware of the poisonous effect of money on our elections now than they were then. Thanks OWS.

In fact, Dems should MAKE it a huge issue.

I will be happy if he returns to the Senate.

Agree regarding Warren. I'm torn, I love having her and Bernie in the Senate and would like to see Feingold join them, AND as someone above reminded me, Mike Capuano. I think he could win a Senate seat now.

Markey's excellent on the environment.

If we end up with just one candidate for the WH, I'm not going to be too excited, so will spend most of my time on Senatorial and Congressional candidates.

ALL THREE!!11!!1!!1!!

I guess HE was the first, not Hillary. He got a cheap rate on ads by starting early! A little too early maybe, Jan, 2013!

Lee Mercer Jr. Is Already Running Television Ads For The Next Presidential Election

It is interesting to consider who, if anyone else, enters the Democratic Party’s primaries. There is unfortunately a very good chance that no serious challenge will be made, now that Hillary Clinton has announced her candidacy. That’s not good for the Democratic Party, for Hillary Clinton, or for the grass roots.

Our party deserves to have a choice between, at very least, two candidates who represent different views on important issues. It would be foolish to imagine that any one person could possibly represent everyone’s values and beliefs. Having the opportunity to identify the candidate that most closely represents our individual values and beliefs is important.

Even if, for example, Ms. Clinton were to get 75% of the primary votes -- or even more -- it still gives voice to the others. In a healthy primary contest, those in the minority will feel connected to the eventual winner’s campaign. This gives roots to their being part of the general election. (In an example of unhealthy dynamics, we saw numerous supporters of a losing primary candidate refuse to support the 2008 candidate.)

Being the lone candidate in the primaries will obviously assure Ms. Clinton the nomination, but it will deny her the opportunity to engage in an important part of a good campaign: the debates. While she is a capable debater, like literally everyone else, she does better when she is engaged in a series of on-going debates.

It is that type of competition, in which people have choices, that would increase the possibility and likelihood of those who are not already firmly in her camp, to be active in the campaign for the general election. A robust Democratic Party depends upon more than people pulling the lever on Election Day -- much more. And while Hillary Clinton might well win the election without the active support of most of the base, she would be in a superior position with that wider support.

It may be that the machine tosses in a punching bag, to create the illusion of a contest. Or, some who hope Clinton will stumble may make an opportunist’s run. But, hopefully, a serious choice will step up to the plate. If not, I hope that various grass roots folks will run “write in” campaigns in their area during the primaries, so that the liberal-progressive wing has at least a whisper, if not a voice.

It’s a giggle to see some in the DU community posting that Clinton is a liberal. On social issues, she is -- and these are definitely important. But on economic issue and foreign policy -- both equally important -- she is in no sense “liberal.” It just goes to show how people tend to project their own being upon a public figure.

That is really important. It almost gets lost too often on DU .....being replaced with the mistaken bit about it being people's responsibility to vote for any and every democratic candidate.

Now, I surely do believe in party loyalty. But it isn't a one-way street. If someone wants my vote -- not to mention my money, time, and energy -- they have to earn it. Over the decades, I've been generous in investing in those candidates who do earn my support. But I do not like being taken for granted.

Thank you for your response.

don't need money because all they have is the voters behind them won't do: they have the "veal pen" to keep the base's requests from becoming policy, and the neoliberal policies they push are great for crippling unions (who have over a century of experience in holding conventions, making alliances, fighting for what they want, and voting with their feet): unions won't be satisfied with rhetoric like "this 'sweatshop' is the best that you have: would you rather be out on the streets?"

therefore there are definitely mechanisms to make sure any Presidential primary challenger can be locked out: Veeps and Secretaries are inevitable unless there's a charismatic Gov or Senator riding a populist groundswell (which rarely gets what it wants or needs once it's served its purpose--1992 or 2008: even mobilization from the left is coopted by now and can't shatter the status quo)

likewise, if state-level candidates that aren't good revenue-stream prospects pull ahead in the polls there's ways to torpedo it--remember that they'd rather *lose* with a conservative than win with a lefty, no matter how obviously and hamhandedly (party money going straight to retiring Senators, anyone?): so during 2010 and '14 they were both frothingly sure that "Dems will WIN" and that they're gonna lose and it's ALL the gays/youths' fault!

another political prestidigitation they have to keep up is that the election perfectly represents what the people want: therefore exactly 56% of Chicagoans are yuppies who want the city burned down for the insurance money, while only 44% want the poor to be permitted to live; Emanuel is NOT running a machine and Cuomo is NOT running on his father's name while betraying it

and she IS TOO to the left of Eugene Debs, so there!

You raise a number of solid points, and with a good sense of humor.

I think that everyone in the DU community recognizes that the republican party is a machine .....most republicans put no more thought into their actions, than a lawn mower does in cutting grass. The party's success depends upon people doing what their told -- including not only voting, but thinking as well -- without question. To be a "good" republican requires one to suspend thinking for one's self. And, in the most literal sense, when one suspends thinking for her/his self, they have betrayed the greatest responsibility that our constitutional democracy requires of citizens.

Fewer here seem to recognize that, for a variety of reasons, the Democratic Party has a current machine nature, too. Indeed, there are numerous historic examples of that, as well .....with the elder Mayor Daley of Chicago serving as an example that illustrates both the good and bad that can result from a machine's nature.

It's funny: many years ago, when I was relatively new here on DU, I was contacted by someone from Emanuel's machine. This was in response to some essays that I had posted about the Plame scandal; it served as one of a few examples that convinced me that aides to various politicians do read internet sites such as DU. Anyhow, I wasn't really familiar with Emanuel at that time, and so I asked a person here for her opinion of him (DUer "Me," who left this site years ago). She told me that he was a petty dictator, and to avoid contact with his people.

I've mentioned that I've long felt that way about Andrew Cuomo. I had the honor of meeting Mario Cuomo, who I always thought highly of, on Native American issues. He was always honest with us. But his son, who served as a top aide, always struck me as cold and ambitious (in the negative sense).I haven't changed my opinion of him in the years he has served as governor. Being friends with his ex-brother-in-law provided me an opportunity, in the context of debates on fracking, to say that he (Andrew) appeared to represent the Dick Cheney wing of the Democratic Party. I was told later that he considered that a "cheap insult." And here I thought it was the truth! Still do.

I'm looking for Eugene Debs' famous quote about his fearing that Clinton is too far to the left to warrant his support. It's gotta be here someplace!

You write: "There is unfortunately a very good chance that no serious challenge will be made, now that Hillary Clinton has announced her candidacy."

I think O'Malley will almost certainly run. Maybe he'll crater early and never even rise to the level of "serious challenge" but I think that's unlikely.

Sanders is a more difficult case to assess. He may well run but draw only Kucinich-type numbers, in the polls and then in the voting (i.e., < 5% in most or all the statewide contests). He might also draw more votes but still not be seen as a serious contender for the nomination.

As for Chafee and Webb, they're both far behind O'Malley and Sanders in preparing for a race. Also, neither has an immediate and obvious base of support within the party, that might catapult a candidacy the way antiwar voters did for a little-known George McGovern in 1972. As to them, therefore, I agree with your prediction.

While I didn't make a prediction -- I noted that there is a good chance of no serious challenger, distinct from predicting that there will or will not be -- I absolutely hope that at least one other serious candidate enters the primary contest.

To not have one or more will do serious harm to our party. That includes to Hillary Clinton. It would be like having Floyd Mayweather not sparring while training for his fight with Manny Pacquiao, while Manny has a dozen sparring partners.

In fact, they're not even the drones you see, you silly.

Hillary is not the anointee. There will be an authentic and realistic primary.

Move along.

(If this gets alerted on, I sure hope the jurors have seen Star Wars.)

voters as voters leave both major parties.

If he did, I would support him.

Otoh, the Dem Party could recruit him, he has sent out feelers, but they don't seem to be biting. But then, he isn't a big fan of Wall St or Forever War, or all that money in politics. So no surprise there.

He understands the lesson of 2000 (even if some DUers do not). He knows that such a run would have virtually zero chance of success and would only work to the benefit of the Republican nominee.

a Dem party member. I think he was waiting to see if they would. So far, they haven't. That is someone I could get excited about, and I know many others would be also.

those countries where the leader always gets 99% of the vote. Does anyone think that this is a leader loved by his people? Lol!

And a party that doesn't encourage many of its good members to run, is veering in that direction, imo.

I deeply resent the perception that now that Hillary has announced, everyone else needs to 'forget about it'. That is not the way healthy democracies work.

I listed some good candidates, all of them very capable of leading this country.

Yet, people have already decided that anyone other than the one chosen by those in power, isn't 'viable'.

Viable has come to mean, Corporate Funded to me.

I'm very wary of candidates who receive huge amounts of money from those who have little interest in the needs of the people.

Hillary is not a Liberal on some of the most important issues. That is a fact, I don't know why anyone would try to deny that. You are correct.

IF we are forced into just one candidate, I will turn my attention and time to the Senate and Congressional races exclusively.

Thank you for your post, nothing much to disagree with there ....

and he's from Ohio, which doesn't hurt anything electorally. I'd definitely like to see him in the race to help frame the debate, and at least force Hillary Clinton to address wages and labor, which are the most important domestic issues for me.

New Democrat Party wants.

Please see Reply 25.

Jim Webb is the ideal challenger. for her, from her standpoint. I've read mixed things about O'Malley on DU. Some say he's very liberal; some say he's another corporatist. I'm confused. If we could have calmer discussions on DU, I'd ask more questions about him. So many seem hysterical these days, though. It's not worth it to me, at least not at this stage. I'll just keep reading up on him and waiting to hear what he says.

It's what I want.

for a while now. He definitely is good on labor and liveable wages and on many other Progressive issues also.

He seems like someone who would make a good President which is why I included him in the OP.

If we had more, we would have more candidates. Of the handful that we have no one seems to want to run or they don't have name recognition. It is unfortunate that we had to "draft" Liz Warren.

We should have a bunch of Liz Warrens already in place that want to run.

counterproductive.




http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026396835#post7


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6411462

And, if you are still willing to read: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026410455#post183

Have you paid attention to the last six years? Obama has been constantly shit on by the left & right and all he did was save America from economic collapse. Unless you're ready to hunker down, why would you run? Elizabeth Warren isn't running because she's smart - she knows exactly what entails if she wins as all she has to do is look at the hell Obama and his family has gone through to see it.

Unless you're a special kind of person, which a lot of people aren't, running isn't worth it to either you or your family.

This myth about no politician in his or right mind wanting to be President seems to have been minted to make this anemic primary season, despite lack of an incumbent, seem normal. It isn't.

Since at least 2012, I have heard every MSNBC anchor and every Dem strategist and every Dem pundit every Dem politician who had a mike asserting that the 2016 primary would be Hillary if she wants it. And not only that, but, if she so much as announced for it, no one else would even bother to run. "She'll clear the field," they'd announce firmly.

That is extraordinary and unprecedented in my adult lifetime. And the links I provided help explain it, not some myth about how no politician in his or her right mind ever wants to be President. That is contrary to my experience.

Besides, Warren came in for a lot of crap from the right, including the Kochs, just going to D.C. as a private citizen/adminstrator and just running for Senator against Brown. Misogyny, accusations she lied about her family oral history, etc. I see no sign that she's ready to give up politics because of any of that. And she's not the only one proving the very odd "prophesies" that began in 2012.

Sorry, just not buying.

In 2008, it took Obama. But you take him out of the equation and it isn't much of a primary. Sure, John Edwards would have been a semi-interesting candidate but he was never going to win, especially when the shit hit the fan. After Edwards, though, the bench got thin really quick - and yes, I'm including Biden, who'd go on to become VP.

It's 2008 all over again but without Obama. I don't think that's the DNC's doing - it's just that we don't have a deep bench right now.

Let's be honest, O'Malley, Biden, Sanders, they're candidates who might bring interest to the race but they're not heavy, heavy hitters like Obama and Clinton were in 2008. Biden might be the heaviest hitter since he's the sitting VP, but the fact he's been a failed presidential candidate twice now, coupled with his age, hurts him. O'Malley is still probably fairly unknown and lacks the foreign policy experience that can elevate certain candidates (think Kerry in '04), and he also lacks the charisma and charm of Bill Clinton (who, oddly, was also not a heavy hitter when he came out in 1992). Sanders is the most intriguing, but again, he's limited in his reach, IMO. He's not entirely charismatic, he's not young or youthful and while his ideas are great, there has to be a reason he's not gaining a ton of traction.

Elizabeth Warren is the only candidate who could match Hillary on buzz and substance and she seems to have no interest in running.

The others? Feingold is a retread who got beat in his last election. Sharrod Brown could be interesting but, like Warren, seems uninterested in running. Al Franken is funny, and smart, but does he want to run - and doesn't he already support Hillary? Jim Webb? Zzz...Lincoln Chafee? Guy was a Republican-turned-independent-turned-Democrat who didn't run for reelection because he was so widely unpopular that, even with his change in party, was going to lose, as an incumbent, in the Democratic primary, so, he announced he wouldn't run.

So, beyond those mentioned, who has it to go against Hillary? Obama was a once in a lifetime candidate who had the background, charisma, youth and just enough experience to take her on and, outside Warren, I don't see that from anyone who could run except maybe one of the Castro brothers but I think they're still four or eight years out from being a true presidential contender.

It really goes back to their bench. They lost a lot of players in 2010 and 2014 that could be viable candidates in 2016 - or viable enough to really take on Hillary.

Had Joe Sestak won in 2010, maybe he'd be more a viable candidate. Had Feingold won in 2010, as well, maybe he, too, could be a player. Same with Mark Udall or even Kay Hagan - and those are just senators. We lost governors in those elections too.

That is a concern for the Democrats. But I do think the next wave is actually impressive and hopefully viable. Kamala Harris is a rising star who, in a few years, could be a viable candidate. So, as I mentioned, are the Castro brothers. But overall, right now, we seem to be stuck between the old and the new. A lot of that was with the decimated ranks in the 90s and early 00s, which saw a semi-comeback in 2008 and 2012, though gains were blunted in 2010 and 2014. But we'll see...

It's also very convenient to look at the 2008 primary only after it got narrowed down to essentially 2 candidates. It sure didn't start that way.

But, you are highly unlikely to sell the official Party line to someone who thinks as I do. For one thing, I don't happen to believe that anyone with two brain cells to rub together takes everything politicians with a lot at stake say at face value. Especially not when it's contrary to common sense and a lifetime of precedent. And I don't see a lot of point in tilling the same half inch of topsoil over and over on DU.

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards were the only three candidates worth anything. Everyone else was basically a Martin O'Malley clone and not a realistic, or viable contender at any point.

There's still a good chance 2016 has a bunch of minor Democrats like 2008. In fact, I guarantee you'll get a few Chris Dodd and Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich-types - you know, candidates most people don't care about.

But there won't be an Obama. There hasn't been a candidate, beyond Warren, who has electrified so many segments of the Democratic Party like Obama did. That's the difference.

It's funny, though, that people act like this is so new and startling. In 2000, guess how many serious Democratic candidates there were? TWO - Al Gore and Bill Bradley and Bradley won ZERO primaries.

Because other candidates you want to run aren't?

to winning big in the next one. See Nixon eg.

There is only one reason why we are getting fewer and fewer choices now and that is MONEY.

Hillary has the money. None of the others I mentioned will be financed by Wall St for obvious reasons.

That alone makes me worry.

I do not trust candidates who are 'chosen' by Big Money.

How to over come that is the problem.

Making it a huge issue in the campaign, raising it in every debate, the corrupting influence of money in our electoral system, would help, but big money can DESTROY challengers because they don't have enough of it to fight back.

However, things are changing and more people ARE aware of money's corrupt influence on this country's politics.

I hope it is an issue in this campaign. No one gives that obscene amount of money to a candidate without expecting something in return.

That's just not true. The choices Democrats have is about equal to the choices they had thirty years ago - in fact, there's more choice today than, say, in the 1960s when the party literally picked the candidate and not the voters, who had little, if any, say in the process.

We're having fewer choices this election because no one wants to run. It's that simple. It's like 1992. But a weird reversal, I guess. In '92, a lot of the bigger candidates sat out because they didn't think they could beat George H.W. Bush. This included Mario Cuomo, who most believe could have won had he ran.

In 2004, a lot of the big named Dems, like Al Gore and even Hillary, decided not to run because they felt Bush probably was unbeatable. That allowed John Kerry, the best name of the bunch to win - but not without a fight from some minor candidates like Howard Dean and John Edwards.

In 2012, no serious Republican candidate ran for the primary because of the same thought. It's why their primary came down to a failed former Speaker of the House, a guy who held the distinction for largest loss for an incumbent senator in election history and a retread who had lost four years prior.

If Elizabeth Warren wanted to run, she'd run. She sees she has the backing and the potential $$$ to go head-to-head with Hillary. But she doesn't want to run. She probably doesn't want to be president. And frankly, I think it's probably good she doesn't run then. In 1980, Ted Kennedy basically ran for the sake of running and it not only damaged his reputation with many Democrats, his running brought nothing positive to the campaign - he did not win and dinged Carter so badly that we got Reagan.

loss to Kennedy is a ludicrous meme. As if Carter would have beat Reagan without a primary.

But his running certainly didn't help.

Even though McCain had been off and running for weeks and Obama was having to divert money, time and energy to pointless primary battles.

How is that meme consistent with with the meme about Kennedy most definitely hurting Carter?

Seems primaries are wonderful when the Party circulates that memo and awful when the party circulates the opposite memo. And, IMO, it too often circulates the opposite memo.

This is a country of 50 states and 350 million people. Everything isn't about the DNC and the RNC and their respective think tanks.

I still have a lot of bitterness associated with the 2008 campaign. Look, I'm hoping someone else runs but I'm also realist and realize Hillary is unlike any candidate we've ever seen before who hasn't been an incumbent. It'd be similar if Al Gore, in 2004, jumped into the race - and there were a few candidates who probably wouldn't have run.

But the reason people aren't lining up to run is probably two-fold:

1) Hillary is a very difficult candidate to beat. She's got the name, experience and war chest to beat most everyone.
2) It's rare a party wins three presidential elections in a row. It's happened just once since the FDR-Truman era ended - with H.W. Bush succeeding Reagan. Nixon lost to Kennedy. Humphrey lost to Nixon. Ford lost to Carter. Gore lost* to Bush. McCain lost to Obama.

I think that pretty much brings us back full circle.

If no one wants to run, why has the party been discouraging primary challengers since at least 2012?

And, BTW, that's not only for the Presidency. It's also for other offices. What about that should be okay with us?

In 1992, most major candidates sat out.

This is a list of candidates who announced, and ran:

Bill Clinton:

A little known governor from a very small southern state whose coming out party was a widely panned speech at Michael Dukakis' convention. At the start, he wasn't seen as a front-runner, though, to be fair, there was a lack of front-runners in 1992.

Jerry Brown:

A retreat governor who lost in his last election leading up to the 1992 election, failing to beat Pete Wilson in his 1982 senate election. He was gone from politics for ten years and not really perceived as much of a national candidate this go around.

Paul Tsongas:

A middle of the road, bland senator from Massachusetts who made Bill Clinton seem liberal. Worse, Tsongas was battling health concerns and had zero charisma.

Bob Kerrey:

Like Tsongas but with an extensive personal story due to his service. Still, Kerrey was hardly a heavyweight at this point - having only served in the U.S. Senate for four years prior to his announcing.

Douglas Wilder:

A historical candidate due to his race but not nearly as inspirational or charismatic as Jesse Jackson or Barack Obama.

Eugene McCarthy:

By 1992, he was pretty much ostracized from the Democratic Party - even having endorsed both Reagan and the Libertarian Bob Clark over Jimmy Carter in 1980.

That's it. Those were the major candidates. Why? Not because everyone thought Bill was inevitable - but because they thought Bush was. It's the nature. Hillary looks very difficult to beat. I don't blame candidates for not wanting to run.

since at least McGovern's run, and possibly even before that.

Oddly enough, I finished drafting this post just before I noticed that the My Posts in my account had gone yellow because of your reply.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12776064

It was run by the city machines who hand-picked their candidates and delivered 'em to the people without much vote. It's why, even if RFK had not been assassinated in '68, he probably would still not win the nomination because he lacked the backroom support needed to win in Chicago.

RFK was running in a primary when he got shot.

I am not much of a conspiracy theorist. I have no clue why Sirhan Sirhan shot RFK and I dont' believe you do, either, however sincerely sure you may feel you do. For one thing, Sirhan Sirhan could have gotten himself out of jail with that info, or at least helped a friend make a bazillion dollars on a book telling the "real" story of the assassination, but, please, let's not divert into that subject.

Back to the topic: City machines did not pick Presidents when RFK ran and they still don't. Sure, they may recommend and support a candidate for POTUS until he bubbles up to national attention. Obama's predecessor in Chicago helped do that for him when she took him around to her donors. But cities don't pick Presidents.

More importantly, I think you may be missing my point entirely. Even if the form in which the fix is in, as it is visible to us, looks somewhat different, the candidates are still handpicked, and earlier and earlier in the cycle. I don't think it's any coincidence that keynote speakers at the convention often end up running for POTUS four to eight years later. I think there's a pipeline. Right now, I'd guess Castro is in it and may have been since before the 2012 convention.

The primaries are less Democratic, not more. The nominating Presidential convention has turned into an overly expensive, overly embarrassing, overly produced show--no more floor fights. No more RFK running around the floor to the head of a delegation to tell him his delegation had to vote JFK on the first ballot, not the second.

Even if you are correct about why RFK got shot, today, no one would have had to risk that some assassin might have a big mouth just to keep RFK out of the the Oval Office. They would just have to keep their donors' money away from him before and during the primary and fail to have party stars show up to campaign for him during the primary. Instead, they would funnel money, endorsements, etc. to their pick, while attacking RFK on behalf of the chosen one.

Bottom line" I don't think you are going to convince me and I don't think I am going to convince you. And I am kind of tired of posting on this same subject. Maybe we can share views about something else some other day. Meanwhile, I'm moving on to other DU threads.

If you think the primaries were open back then, you need a refresher on your history. I said not traditional primaries - they weren't. Most no one voted in primaries back then and if they did, often times it was beauty contests that had no impact on the nomination.

Take the 1968 Democratic Primary. Guess how many states Hubert H. Humphrey carried?

ZERO. He didn't win a single state. McCarthy, Kennedy, Stephen M. Young, LBJ and George Smathers won states, though.

Guess how many states actually held a primary? 13 out of 50.

And those states didn't ultimately matter in the end, as the delegates decided to pick HHH. Imagine if, this go around, Hillary didn't run in a single state, didn't win a single vote, and still won the nomination? That would be the system of old.

The old system was bad. That's why it changed after McGovern. Most states didn't even have a voice in the primary and it often came down to the delegates. It was not entirely rare for a candidate to throw their hat into the ring a week before the convention and seriously contend for the nomination. In 1960, even though he ran in zero states, LBJ did this and forced Kennedy into a debate, even though Kennedy had won the most primaries of that season (only 10, as there were, again, minimal amount of states who even participated). Kennedy ultimately won, but it did help push LBJ on the ticket, something that would never happen in today's system as the party's nominee always gets to select his running-mate now with no real input from the party bosses or delegations (though, the delegates still vote in a ceremonial role).

That last part is important because the old system, the vote wasn't ceremonial. It was the whole ball game. The winner of the Democratic nomination since 1968's fiasco has locked it up through the votes - not by winning rounds at the convention. Kennedy was forced into a convention fight, HHH had one, too, but after McGovern, the convention voting became more and more ceremonial. The last 'fight' was the 1980 Democratic Convention, but that was on the heels of a full primary and Carter won handily over Kennedy - taking 37 states and Puerto Rico compared to Kennedy's 11 (a huge difference between the 10 states JFK carried in his 1960 win).

The winner of the primary vote wins the nomination and becomes the presumptive nominee. It would take a scandal, illness or death to force a candidate who won the most votes to step aside and not win at the convention during the ceremonial delegate count. Even in 2008, the craziest primary in a long, long time, Hillary didn't put up a fight at the convention.

That's the difference between today and the primaries of yesteryear. The delegates actually were more than ceremonial - they nominated the person. Today, the voters have much more say and it's proven historically since - as every candidate who's won the Democratic Primary votes has locked up the nomination in every primary since 1972. Before that, though, and you had huge swaths of the country that didn't even vote and in some instances conventions where a candidate, who didn't even run on any ballot, winning the nomination.

Maybe I'll bookmark it for future reading. Dunno. But I do know I'm done with the back and forth on this topic. We've been either going in a circle or tilling the same square yard of topsoil over and over. This is a hobby for me, not a job, so I can move on.

I'm sorry. As I said, another day, another topic.

I suppose a half-dozen editorials do indeed, speak for the entire Democratic party in much the same way that 1.18% of scientists denying climate change speak for all climate change proponents.

Air-tight logic you've created out of nothing. Well done.

They are relatively shocking statements from people high up in the party. Schumer was head of the DSCC when he said the official policy of the DSCC was to discourage primaries and had been since 2005. Now, he's Senate Party leader. Brown is Governor of California and a very long time leader in the party. Frank is a long time leader in the party too.

Do you really expect to find somewhere an official statement of the DNC stating it's avoiding primaries? Maybe that's coming since some on DU seem very able--and more than willing ---go from scoffing statements like yours to rationalizing away anything and everything once further denial becomes impossible.

For a reasonable and honest person, public statements of the kind Schumer, Brown and Frank made do not say they are only 3 random Democrats who are just being all mavericky and mouthing off about a personal opinion that is totally contrary to Party policy.

and MIC friendly people will be allowed to run.

IF someone with a chance were to run, the smear campaign would be in full swing.

Third Way founders came out of their shells eg, to slam Elizabeth Warren in the WSJ a few months ago.

You could see the ANGER in their OP Ed that ANYONE with her views should even DARE to speak out on what the PEOPLE care about.

They ADMONISHED her, wagged their fingers at her as if she were just a child.

They said 'we've been watching her, but then deicided THIS IS TOO MUCH' So, the outed themselves and decided to lead the smear campaign PERSONALLY.

It backfired so intensely they refused to address it but then got people like Dean to carry on with the admonition that she needs to 'tone down' her rhetoric.

I guess they are so far removed from the LEFT BASE of the party, they thought since they failed in their nasty attack on a Populist favorite, the Left would be sucked in by Dean.

Shows how little they know about the people whose votes they are asking for.

When did Sanders?

Sometimes, that lot is nothing short of creepy.

The Third Way Think Tank views the Left the same way the Right views the Left. You see them using similar taunts, eg, 'you love Putin' when you oppose another neocon war.

But hey, it's our party and I'm not about to let them have it without a fight!

infrastructure, is quite an obstacle. So is organizing and strategizing without lots of experience or experienced consultants. Think I'll stop there.

party were to get behind them?

I don't accept this 'only candidate is viable' nonsense. This is a democracy, well, it's supposed to be, where anyone can run for public office.

We really need someone to represent the working people of this country.

He's my political soul mate.

I'd love to see Feingold and Lee, jump in!

would be my first choice. Any from your list would be better than the current "crop" of declared candidates.

but imo, she is the epitome of what a Dem should be.

I would love to support her and certainly happy to cast any vote for her. She's not afraid to take a stand.

our country could really go places.

including lovely little red-white-and-blue banners and logos

bi-partisanship, the other side has no good ideas so why would anyone 'bi' with them, and committed to Progressive ideals and being willing to FIGHT for them, those are the qualities that matter.

Flags, logos, even if they are red and blue, don't get my attention.

I guess I'm no fun?

but I do have to say that that logo that shows a red (the color of Republicans) arrow pointing right (the wing of the Republican party) superimposed, or should I say, superseding a blue (the color of Democrats) H is a little nauseating.

But I will agree with your assessment of who we should want in a leader. And the lineup you showed looks interesting.

a message you don't realize you are absorbing.

I'm sticking to principles, I know, that is so Bush era, but I'm comfortable opposing forever war and Wall St corruption, and the inequality of our economic system, and the TPP, and cuts to SS even if they call those cuts a fancy name, like Chained CPI.

Can't get out of the habit of sticking to what works. No matter how fun the logos are! Lol!

It reminds me of the Democratic Party I knew in the '70s.

of these principles during the Bush years. But now, not so much. In fact people seem to get angry if you even ask 'what does this candidate stand for, on say, the TPP'. Apparently we are not supposed to discuss ANYTHING anymore.

I'm in a real-life version of "Animal Farm"

"Two legs ba-a-a-a-a-d! Four legs go-o-o-o-od!" Yet when we get to peek into the farmhouse, we see the "two legs" cavorting and having a great old time with the "four legs", yet we're still told "Two legs ba-a-a-a-a-d! Four legs go-o-o-o-od!"

election when we had a chance to replace Christie with a good progressive Dem. The Dem Party stayed out of it, did nothing to help their own candidate. Worse, over 60 Dems endorsed Christie, who btw, was vulnerable at that time. When people asked 'why', we were told that 'Christie was so popular Buono didn't have a chance'. First that was not true, but even if it was, Dems ENDORSING the Republican? And yet, we are told 'to vote for the D no matter what!

People are noticing these things ...

wouldn't even support their own party's candidate

I would love to see a bunch of them toss their hats into the ring.

But any of the above would be appreciated in the debate...

The only member of Congress wise enough to vote NO on the AUMF 2001, NO on the AUMF 2002, and NO on the Patriot Act. NO to the Afghanistan, Iraq, and drone wars. Her prophetic warnings about these travesties have all sadly come true.

If we as a country had any sense, we would be begging her to lead us.

say so with her vote, NOT to believe Bush/Cheney's lies.

There are many Dems I have a lot of respect for, but I can't think of anyone who was more RIGHT throughout the horrific Bush era, and more willing to vote her conscience, than Barbara Lee.

Kucinich comes the closest.

THAT is the kind of leader we need.

And if this was truly a Democracy, it would be more than possible for her to run AND win.

But there is no use pretending. As things are now, it is just a dream.

Maybe after a few decades as the Wall St/MIC 'policies' have played out in all their failure, for the people, it might be possible.

But she is way ahead of her time at this point.