What's plan B for Democrats if....

[Fuzzy Bear]

They really don't have a Plan B.  They don't think that they need one, but they are in denial of the degree to which Hillary Clinton lacks PERSONAL popularity.  Yes, they like the feminist idea of Madam President, but I suspect that many of the feminist leftists that are backing Clinton wish that it could be someone else to shatter the glass ceiling.

Biden is not a viable Plan B.  It's not so much his age as the fact that having clearly been shoved aside as the Dems frontrunner for 2016, he would look like a guy who the party settled for.  The huge frontrunner status Hillary enjoys now hurts Biden in ways no other potential Democrat is hurt.  Biden SHOULD be the frontrunner, but he's not, and that won't make him look good if Hillary actually decides not to run.

Gillibrand would be a viable pick.  Amy Klobuchar would be another possibility, possibly the best possibility.   Warren, IMO, is too inexperienced, and Sanders, whom I admire, isn't just old; he's not really a Democrat, and that will be a huge issue should Sanders run.

Part of me, inwardly, is appalled that America can't go beyond the Bushes and the Clintons to find Presidential candidates.  Obama, for all of his shortcomings, isn't one of THEM.  I've got to believe that there will be a groundswell of discontent that will manifest itself in a significant way should 2016 be about Bush vs. Clinton.  Such a matchup gives the look and feel of a rigged election.  I can't believe that people, in their heart of hearts, are really looking forward to such a spectacle.

[Beet]

They really don't have a Plan B.  They don't think that they need one, but they are in denial of the degree to which Hillary Clinton lacks PERSONAL popularity.  Yes, they like the feminist idea of Madam President, but I suspect that many of the feminist leftists that are backing Clinton wish that it could be someone else to shatter the glass ceiling.

Hillary Clinton has more personal popularity than anyone else in the entire field, and has had it for a long time. She just doesn't have personal popularity with the right groups. Her personal popularity is with low-income, blue collar groups who don't follow politics very closely. (The reason they don't follow it very closely is because they correctly surmise they don't have very much influence in it.) With people who live out in the boondocks that the Democratic party under Obama has forgotten about, like white working class areas of the Midwest or Upper South. With women, sure. With minorities, sure. With young people, to a greater degree than often imagined.

But not with the right groups of people - the activists on the extreme right and left. Not with those who are motivated enough about politics to go online and comment about it. Not with those who Sarah Palin called, in one of her half-witty, half-braindead aphorisms, the "lamestream media". Not with the latte-drinking, Jacobin-reading Manhattan upper middle class environmental activist who attends Netroots Nation and styles herself a member of the "true left." Not with those people. And it's those people who matter in this country. Those are the people who drive the discourse. And those are the people who will destroy Hillary.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think anyone from the moment he was picked thought Biden would run in 2016, let alone be the frontrunner. The Vice President isn't always the frontrunner after a two term presidency - Dick Cheney was never even seriously talked about. Biden's only one year younger than Sanders, so if you thought Sanders as too old, I don't know why he'd be any better.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure, but there have been two Bushes in the White House, and only one Clinton. During Bush Junior's run in 1999-2000 there was no serious anti-dynasty groundswell. Nor was there one during any of the Kennedy brothers' runs or potential runs. In both cases, the men's family names helped them with no serious backlash. And of course, there are political dynasties in all 50 states at lower levels, and no one ever bats an eye. It only seems that when there's an election with Hillary in it, the backlash is huge.

[heatmaster]

I thought Hillary was Plan B, Plan C etc., etc., ☺😉

[Brewer]

If Hillary chooses not to run, I hope, pray, and believe that Gillibrand will become our next option.

[Del Tachi]

Nobody's bothered to make a plan B because Hillary is certainly in.

This.  The reason that no one else is positioning themselves to run in a Democratic primary is because all the Democratic top-brass know that there isn't going to be a primary in 2016.  

[IceSpear]

I thought Hillary was Plan B, Plan C etc., etc., ☺😉

For once you assume correctly.

[IceSpear]

They really don't have a Plan B.  They don't think that they need one, but they are in denial of the degree to which Hillary Clinton lacks PERSONAL popularity.  Yes, they like the feminist idea of Madam President, but I suspect that many of the feminist leftists that are backing Clinton wish that it could be someone else to shatter the glass ceiling.

Hillary Clinton has more personal popularity than anyone else in the entire field, and has had it for a long time. She just doesn't have personal popularity with the right groups. Her personal popularity is with low-income, blue collar groups who don't follow politics very closely. (The reason they don't follow it very closely is because they correctly surmise they don't have very much influence in it.) With people who live out in the boondocks that the Democratic party under Obama has forgotten about, like white working class areas of the Midwest or Upper South. With women, sure. With minorities, sure. With young people, to a greater degree than often imagined.

But not with the right groups of people - the activists on the extreme right and left. Not with those who are motivated enough about politics to go online and comment about it. Not with those who Sarah Palin called, in one of her half-witty, half-braindead aphorisms, the "lamestream media". Not with the latte-drinking, Jacobin-reading Manhattan upper middle class environmental activist who attends Netroots Nation and styles herself a member of the "true left." Not with those people. And it's those people who matter in this country. Those are the people who drive the discourse. And those are the people who will destroy Hillary.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think anyone from the moment he was picked thought Biden would run in 2016, let alone be the frontrunner. The Vice President isn't always the frontrunner after a two term presidency - Dick Cheney was never even seriously talked about. Biden's only one year younger than Sanders, so if you thought Sanders as too old, I don't know why he'd be any better.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure, but there have been two Bushes in the White House, and only one Clinton. During Bush Junior's run in 1999-2000 there was no serious anti-dynasty groundswell. Nor was there one during any of the Kennedy brothers' runs or potential runs. In both cases, the men's family names helped them with no serious backlash. And of course, there are political dynasties in all 50 states at lower levels, and no one ever bats an eye. It only seems that when there's an election with Hillary in it, the backlash is huge.

Good post. This reminds me of how amusing I find the narrative of "big bad Wall Street funded corporatist bitch Hillary Clinton is going to sweep the primary because the elite wants her in. The fix is in, the everyday voters won't even get a say."

In reality, it's the complete opposite. The DC/NYC pundits in their bubbles and ivory towers are Hillary's strongest opponents, and they're fiercely against her. Her core support and the reason she will be the Democratic nominee is her support from regular every day voters that don't think it's the apocolypse because she used a .com rather than a .gov e-mail address.

[Beet]

Good post. This reminds me of how amusing I find the narrative of "big bad Wall Street funded corporatist bitch Hillary Clinton is going to sweep the primary because the elite wants her in. The fix is in, the everyday voters won't even get a say."

In reality, it's the complete opposite. The DC/NYC pundits in their bubbles and ivory towers are Hillary's strongest opponents, and they're fiercely against her. Her core support and the reason she will be the Democratic nominee is her support from regular every day voters that don't think it's the apocolypse because she used a .com rather than a .gov e-mail address.

Haha, so true! It's just like when people say, "Why Hillary doesn't have opposition! She needs opposition! It can't just be a coronation! She's got to earn it!"

Why she's just navigated (and is navigating) the most intense media scrutiny of any candidate in the field in at least a year. Before the first caucus next year, if she for some masochistic reason decides to run, she'll be the only candidate on either side of the aisle to have gotten votes and delegates in all 50 states and the territories. Heck, she might already have more primary votes under her belt than the eventual '16 nominee in either party will have earned by the convention.

Besides the GOP candidates already criticising her, you've got the bulk of the beltway pundit class and political papers lined up against her, and the left wing of her own party ready to jump at every shadow.

You can line up Clinton's opposition head to head against any candidate's. You can line up what she's done to earn a party nomination against any person's. If you really want to know what it's like to challenge an unquestioned assumption and fight a lonely fight, you can just ask me. I know how to do it, and I'm not afraid to do it. But by golly, being a Hillary detractor isn't that.

[Frodo]

Al Gore is always there just in case Hillary has second thoughts.

 

[Mr. Morden]

There are plenty of potential candidates available to run if necessary.  The idea that the Dem. bench is "weak" outside of Clinton is misguided IMHO:

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-12/democrats-have-no-bench-be-serious-

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Simfan34]

Not with the latte-drinking, Jacobin-reading Manhattan upper middle class environmental activist who attends Netroots Nation and styles herself a member of the "true left." Not with those people. And it's those people who matter in this country. Those are the people who drive the discourse.

They are? Such people exist, and are influential in the Democratic Party? For such people to be "upper middle class", live such a lifestyle, and reside in Manhattan, they almost certainly will have to have either inherited the money or, in California, be some "tech mogul". I doubt too many of those are reading Jacobin for that reason. I doubt that too many people read Jacobin, in general.

That is news to me.

[WVdemocrat]

Al Gore is always there just in case Hillary has second thoughts.

I know this post wasn't serious, but I really hope he surprises everyone and decides to run. He would really shake things up. He's always seemed much more passionate and dedicated to the cause than Hillary ever has. I'm perfectly content with Hillary, but whenever people start to mention the possibility of Al Gore in 2016, I start to hope she doesn't run. And I heard about that trip to Iowa he's making. I'm about 119% sure (give or take) that it's nothing, but boy does it give me hope.

On the broad subject of what happens without Hillary in the race or if she flops, then I doubt it would be chaos like everyone else suggests. You'd probably see old faces pop back up again. John Kerry would be hiring staffers, Howard Dean would begin courting donors, Al Gore would be making trips to Iowa. You'd probably see people like that and the fresh faces in the party that people talk about (Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, and so on) forming exploratory committees and talking up the possibility of their candidacy in 2016. So it would be unexpected, but still manageable. People who might have voted for Hillary weren't just going to vote for her because of her name (though admittedly I'm sure it's a factor). They were going to be voting for her because she's a Democrat. And at the end of the day, we can find somebody else if need be.

[Vega]

If Hillary doesn't run then we would see a redux of the past 2 competitive Democratic primaries + some new faces.

It would really be quite awesome to see oldies from 2004 competing with people like Julian Castro or other younger Dems.

[NeverAgain]

Warren2016. Plan E.W.'16 In a go.