Question for Hillary Clinton supporters: Do you want a competitive primary?

[Mr. Morden]

Those of you who want Clinton to win the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016: If you could be guaranteed that she'd end up winning the nomination in the end, would you prefer that she sails through with no serious challengers (thus allowing her to focus on the general election from day 1), or do you think there's actually some benefit to facing some competition in the quest for the nomination (thus, arguably using the primaries to sharpen her skills as a candidate)?

[NewYorkExpress]

It depends... She did push Barack Obama, to the wire eight years ago after people thought she was a spent force... but did being Secretary of State make her rusty?

I think we can have it both ways here, especially if Obama endorses us between Iowa and Super Tuesday.

[bballrox4717]

It would be nice to have a warm-up of sorts. It would be nice to have a guy like Schweitzer, O'Malley or Dean who are serious enough candidates where Hillary would need to debate them, but don't have the strength to actually take her out or seriously harm her candidacy. It gives those who don't like her a voice in the primary and it gives Hillary an opportunity to convince them to turn out for her on election day instead of just staying home.

[IceSpear]

Someone to sharpen her debating skills and push her to the left would be nice. But I have a feeling that anyone that would run against her would be a True Leftist lemming with a suicide bomb (credit to Rep. Nunes), trying to damage her as much as possible in their futile attempt. So I'm going with no.

[Blue3]

She needs a few debating buddies, at least until January 2016.

[henster]

I'd rather her amass her warchest while the pubs are dueling it out to the death. A lack of a primary is one of the biggest benefits of being an incumbent she can raise $$$ and build infrastructure and get on TV early we saw how devastating early ads were for Romney.

[Maxwell]

Someone to sharpen her debating skills and push her to the left would be nice. But I have a feeling that anyone that would run against her would be a True Leftist lemming with a suicide bomb (credit to Rep. Nunes), trying to damage her as much as possible in their futile attempt. So I'm going with no.

President McCain would agree with you.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Of course they don't. All who dare oppose her are now "true leftists".

[Mister Mets]

How do you have a competitive primary with the guarantee of a win?

[Mr. Morden]

How do you have a competitive primary with the guarantee of a win?

What I mean is, suppose the primary was competitive, yet you had some magical foreknowledge that she would win in the end.

Or to put it another way, look at it retrospectively: It's June 2016, and Hillary Clinton is the nominee, yet she had to fend off a strong challenger to win the nomination.  Are you happy that she won that way, or would you have preferred it if she'd coasted to victory unopposed?

[Mister Mets]

How do you have a competitive primary with the guarantee of a win?

What I mean is, suppose the primary was competitive, yet you had some magical foreknowledge that she would win in the end.

Or to put it another way, look at it retrospectively: It's June 2016, and Hillary Clinton is the nominee, yet she had to fend off a strong challenger to win the nomination.  Are you happy that she won that way, or would you have preferred it if she'd coasted to victory unopposed?

I get that. But it seems to me that the biggest problem with a competitive primary is the possibility of a loss.

There are some other potential disadvantages, of course. She might be forced to take positions that please the base, but could alienate the middle. And an opponent might attack her with something that could be an issue in the General Election.

The Gore campaign criticized Dukakis for allowing weekend furloughs to convicted murderers. Although it's also arguable that this could have allowed Dukakis to prepare for Willie Horton's sudden infamy.

[emailking]

If I knew somehow that she would win both the primary and the general, then yes I'd want a competitive primary as it would give her legitimacy in the eyes of more people. Not knowing that, I'd rather not risk it. Some candidates to keep her on her toes would be good, but I don't want her to ever be in any real danger.

[Reaganfan]

I guess Democrats are now Moderates. Smh.

I was just thinking the same thing. Some liberals don't even think Obama has been liberal enough, and I'd venture to say Hillary is to the right of Obama in some respects.

[IceSpear]

Someone to sharpen her debating skills and push her to the left would be nice. But I have a feeling that anyone that would run against her would be a True Leftist lemming with a suicide bomb (credit to Rep. Nunes), trying to damage her as much as possible in their futile attempt. So I'm going with no.

President McCain would agree with you.

What does this even mean?

[Potatoe]

Pushing her to the left on civil Liberties would be nice, as well as being able to sharpen her up on Debates, a Primary Challenge would be pretty fine, just as long as it isn't something stupid (Kucinich)

[Marnetmar]

Pushing her to the left on civil Liberties would be nice, as well as being able to sharpen her up on Debates, a Primary Challenge would be pretty fine, just as long as it isn't something stupid (Kucinich)

[Beet]

No. Any position she is "pushed" to during a primary is worthless. I'm more interested in whether she is naturally inclined to run on anything interesting.

She's going to be 68 years old; saving up as much energy for the GE is probably a good idea.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Quite a few democracy-haters out here. Why the hate for competition?

[Mordecai]

I'm not really a big supporter but I see her as being the best and most viable choice compared to the GOP clown car, except for maybe Jeb Bush.

Those of you who want Clinton to win the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016: If you could be guaranteed that she'd end up winning the nomination in the end, would you prefer that she sails through with no serious challengers (thus allowing her to focus on the general election from day 1), or do you think there's actually some benefit to facing some competition in the quest for the nomination (thus, arguably using the primaries to sharpen her skills as a candidate)?

She definitely should not allow herself to become complacent and arrogant, another 2000-style scenario would be a disaster. She would do well to borrow Obama's advisors and get some debate prep (just not with Kerry, heh).

If the primaries are just an extended coronation I see no point in having token opposition, it would just be a waste of resources that would better be used for the general election.

[ShadowRocket]

I'm not a huge supporter, but I think some competition would be a good thing. It pushes her to the left a bit, but also provides her a refresher on campaigning. Espcecially considering whoever the GOP nominates will have a chance to hone his skills considering the multiple debates they'll have.

[Beet]

Quite a few democracy-haters out here. Why the hate for competition?

Why fight a war when you don't have to?

For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill. ~ The Art of War

[Ogre Mage]

The answer to this depends almost entirely on the campaign strategy of her primary challenger(s).  If they run a campaign which focuses on policy issues, then a primary challenge would be good.  If the main campaign strategy is to attack Hillary Clinton (i.e. Edwards in 2008) then no.