Threat from Hillary's Left

[cbannon5]

My guess would be Brian Schweitzer.  He is the only challenger to Hillary who I could see actually winning a number of states.  I would say Schweitzer's ceiling would be Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Iowa, Oklahoma, West Virginia, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Alaska.  Hillary would obviously still win, but Schweitzer could produce a somewhat competitive showing. Plus, Schweitzer seems to be the only of the candidates who could string together both liberal and conservative Democrats who don't want Hillary to be the nominee. 

[Blue3]

You've seen Schweitzer's latest wacky comments, right?

[IceSpear]

You've seen Schweitzer's latest wacky comments, right?

Even considering those, I can see Schweitzer winning a few states in the interior West. I could only see Sanders/Dean carrying Vermont. O'Malley would carry nothing.

[henster]

O'Malley is the most credible candidate against Clinton everyone else is a joke.

[Cory]

O'Malley is the most credible candidate against Clinton everyone else is a joke.

[BaconBacon96]

Sanders and Schweitzer could both pose credible threats to Hillary. I don't think either could win the nomination, but both could win primaries.

[Blue3]

You've seen Schweitzer's latest wacky comments, right?

Even considering those, I can see Schweitzer winning a few states in the interior West. I could only see Sanders/Dean carrying Vermont. O'Malley would carry nothing.

But we have a primary calendar. Iowa first, some get momentum, then New Hampshire, more momentum, etc. And it's not just momentum, your wins will decide your fundraising, if you've invited to debates, how well you poll and if you're included in polls, etc. People like to vote for winners. Who's to say Sanders or Dean or Scheitzer would even make it to Super Tuesday?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

O'Malley is the most credible candidate against Clinton everyone else is a joke.

Kucinich is the only real joke on the list.
Schweitzer's recent comments have hurt himself, but he may be able to redeem himself.
Sanders would take care of the enthusiasm gap.
Dean really proved himself as DNC chair.

[Bull Moose Base]

Warren or Feingold but given Hillary's huge polling lead, Feingold is more likely to run for his old seat, Warren is more likely to just let Sanders run.

Schweitzer's recent comments have hurt himself, but he may be able to redeem himself.

His gun views are also a big problem in a D primary, as he has admitted.

[SWE]

O'Malley is the most credible candidate against Clinton everyone else is a joke.

How is O'Malley not a joke?

[Vega]

Martin O'Malley   .

[Mr. Illini]

I don't think any of them would pose a particularly great threat, so I voted for the one that I would most enthusiastically support.

[Lief 🗽]

Schweitzer would be a threat to Clinton from the right, not from the left.

[cbannon5]

Warren or Feingold but given Hillary's huge polling lead, Feingold is more likely to run for his old seat, Warren is more likely to just let Sanders run.

Schweitzer's recent comments have hurt himself, but he may be able to redeem himself.

His gun views are also a big problem in a D primary, as he has admitted.

Yes, Schweitzer gun views would hurt him in a D primary in most states.  However, if anything, it would help him Western/Rural states where even the Democrats are pro gun rights.   

[Mister Mets]

O'Malley has the conventional qualifications, and seems like a guy who could appeal to national Democratic primary voters.

Rural white voters aren't enough to win primaries, and I don't really see Schweitzer getting support from women and African-Americans. That said, credible showings in Iowa could give him free media. The danger for Hillary will a Schweitzer run is that he might split the vote allowing a third candidate to hit Hillary from another side.

The strongest threat to Hillary would come from another woman, since that would eliminate the "We need a female President" argument. Elizabeth Warren also has the advantage of coming from that big state next to New Hampshire, but I don't think she wants to run for President.

A few primary states are majority African-American, so she might be slightly vulnerable to Booker or Patrick, both of whom have some appeal to progressive voters, although they lack Obama's strengths.

[Suburbia]

Dean or Sanders. Dean still has that anti-war credentials, so as Sanders plus the economic inequality message. O'Malley as well. But Hillary may have to distance herself from the DLC/Third Way message if he runs during the primaries.

[bballrox4717]

O'Malley is the most credible candidate against Clinton everyone else is a joke.

How is O'Malley not a joke?

I understand that O'Malley is the butt of this site's jokes because his candidacy hasn't stuck yet, but we're talking about a guy with 16 years of executive experience and serious insider credentials within the party. Sure, leftists are excited by Warren and Sanders right now, but when the former doesn't run and the latter gets no fundraising because people are going to think he's Kucinich, O'Malley is going to find himself as the most serious threat from the left.

He already can run against Clinton for wafting around on SSM, immigration, and foreign policy. Sure, he's still not going to win (he'll probably end up with Bradley 2000 results), but he's a serious enough candidate that Clinton will have to debate him, respond to his criticism, and take firmer positions on liberal policies.

You don't get that with Schweitzer and Sanders. To mainstream Democrats (AKA 80 percent of the party), they're jokes. Hillary wouldn't even debate them if they're the only ones running. She could literally just ignore them and watch them become protest candidates.

[NHLiberal]

Silver weighed in on this today: http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/hillary-clinton-doesnt-have-a-problem-on-her-left/

[Rockefeller GOP]

Schweitzer would be a threat to Clinton from the right, not from the left.

Being against gun control and making a homophobic comment here and there does not prohibit him from being a liberal, which he clearly is.

[NHLiberal]

Schweitzer would be a threat to Clinton from the right, not from the left.

Being against gun control and making a homophobic comment here and there does not prohibit him from being a liberal, which he clearly is.

Thank you Rocky. Schweitzer is to Hillary's left in nearly every way but people think "guns" and assume he is a blue dog. By that logic, Howard Dean is a "centrist" to Hillary's right.

[Blue3]

Schweitzer would be a threat to Clinton from the right, not from the left.

Being against gun control and making a homophobic comment here and there does not prohibit him from being a liberal, which he clearly is.

But it does make him to Hillary's right. Especially when he's to the right on the issues the Democratic base cares the most about at the moment.

[SWE]

Schweitzer would be a threat to Clinton from the right, not from the left.

Being against gun control and making a homophobic comment here and there does not prohibit him from being a liberal, which he clearly is.

But it does make him to Hillary's right. Especially when he's to the right on the issues the Democratic base cares the most about at the moment.

So the Democratic base doesn't care about health care anymore?

[NHLiberal]

Schweitzer would be a threat to Clinton from the right, not from the left.

Being against gun control and making a homophobic comment here and there does not prohibit him from being a liberal, which he clearly is.

But it does make him to Hillary's right. Especially when he's to the right on the issues the Democratic base cares the most about at the moment.

So the Democratic base doesn't care about health care anymore?

Exactly. Someone who supports single-payer health care, routinely lambasts corporate influence on government, dismisses Obama and Clinton as corporate shills and war hawks, opposes big drug companies, wants to return to trust busting, opposes the military industrial complex and drone strikes, called on a withdrawal from Afghanistan DURING the troop surge and opposes the oil wars, opposes the PATRIOT Act & REAL ID, supports fair trade, and wants to expand collective bargaining is not to Clinton's right just because he opposes some forms of gun control, supports Keystone XL, and wears a bolo tie.

Of course, many Democrats care about gun issues and almost all care about the environment, but there are a whole lot of other issues they care about as well.

Schweitzer will not mount a credible threat to Hillary. But if he were to do it, it would be from the left, not the right.

[H. Ross Peron]

How is O'Malley to the left of Hillary? I sincerely doubt any "Establishment" type Democrat will challenge Hillary.

[Blue3]

Schweitzer would be a threat to Clinton from the right, not from the left.

Being against gun control and making a homophobic comment here and there does not prohibit him from being a liberal, which he clearly is.

But it does make him to Hillary's right. Especially when he's to the right on the issues the Democratic base cares the most about at the moment.

So the Democratic base doesn't care about health care anymore?

Do you think the Democrats are in the mood for another healthcare reform fight so soon, before ObamaCare can even be fully implemented and we can find out what works and doesn't? And do you think Schweitzer could deliver on that, even if they were?