NYTimes Nate Cohn: "No, Hillary Clinton would not benefit from a primary fight."
It's an argument that we often see around here -- that Hillary Clinton's candidacy would be strengthened by a vigorous primary fight.
Nate Cohn doesn't buy it.
And he makes sense. Having to fight off attacks from the left during primary season isn't going to help strengthen HRC for the attacks she'll face from the right, once she's campaigning in the general.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/14/upshot/hillary-clinton-doesnt-need-a-primary-fight.html?mabReward=CTM&action=click&pgtype=Homepage®ion=CColumn&module=Recommendation&src=rechp&WT.nav=RecEngine&abt=0002&abg=0
Mr. MacGillis argues that it would be better for Democrats to reckon with their true feelings about Mrs. Clinton in the primary rather than in the general election. That may be true on matters of style — on the “hyper-cautious answers” or “disingenuous” efforts to align herself with the moods of the moment that Mr. MacGillis cites. But on the more substantive matters, a credible and vigorous primary challenger would be the single likeliest thing to increase Democratic dissatisfaction with her candidacy. It would involve a full year of a liberal Democrat and allies reminding liberal Democrats of all of the reasons they thought Mrs. Clinton was a problematic candidate in the first place.
Mrs. Clinton has a good chance of fending off these charges with a unified Democratic Party. Republicans won’t attack her for being overly hawkish on national security, and Democrats won’t countenance a Republican like Jeb Bush or Scott Walker attacking Mrs. Clinton on her ties to Wall Street. Controversies about the Clintons — like over the Clinton Foundation or her email account — are far less likely to take hold if Democrats defend her.
But without a unified party, she could face recurring and resonant attacks on all of those issues. Though it probably wouldn’t be as bad as what Mr. Romney faced, it could also be worse. After a year of being characterized as a Wall Street hack, or a warmonger with low-grade corruption issues, Mrs. Clinton could face a Ralph Nader-like third-party challenge, which generally becomes likelier after a party has held the White House for consecutive terms.
SNIP
Her total political experience entering the 2016 contest is probably more akin to that of an incumbent president than anything else. Did Presidents Obama or Bush or Clinton struggle in the general elections in 2012, 2004 and 1996 because they weren’t tested in the primaries? It may have hurt them a little bit in the first debate. But incumbent presidents tend to fare pretty well in presidential elections, and I don’t remember too much talk about the trouble they faced getting back into playing shape.
SNIP
= new reply since forum marked as read
Guess what? It's still BULLSHIT.
We want democracy, not a %$@%# coronation.
This reminds me of the 2000 judicial coup d'etat. The Supremes awarded the election to Junior based on their finding that further vote counting would be detrimental to him. That notion was bullshit then and is bullshit now.
Didn't you get the message?
She's gonna be our "champion".
Democrats don't have to
"earn" voters support.
What are we gonna do?
Vote republican 
<sarcasm>
They put something in your drink, you nod off, and when you finally wake up, Bam! You're shocked to learn the primary is already over.
It's happened to me on a couple of occasions 
Like last time 
And what polls? Not happy or unhappy about it, just curious - which gets me in trouble frequently. Sounds like EW is your choice. One can wish. 
Remember the splitscreen Obama-Hillary spot from 2008?
video @ http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/759670/
---------------------------------------
And Amy Poehler as Hillary Clinton:
video @ http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/message-from-hillary-clinton/n12241
Is that the state of our alleged "democratic process"?
We don't dare raise issues or put forth candidates that might hurt a presumptive candidate?
So this author of the piece is an idiot
As it is, she is totally undefined.
Her video articulated nothing, just that she wants to be our champion.
And I think she won't offer many specific actions or solid positions unless she's challenged to in honest debates.
Somebody running against Hillary, will make Hillary's run harder ???
Wouldn't THAT be the point ???
It called...an opponent.
Don't resist.
Resistance is FUTILE!
Who will be running against her in the primary? He or she has not declared so what will happen if nobody else declares?v And I don't believe in having a primary for primary sake. I want candidates whom are in it to win it, not somebody trying to "make a point".
