With Hillary Clinton officially in the 2016 pool, a new Bloomberg poll shows that Democrats and independents would like to see a real campaign for the Democratic nomination, as opposed to a “coronation.” This will serve as the basis for other Democrats to enter the fray, if not for their personal political ambitions, but perhaps to give the party base what it wants.

Report from Bloomberg:

If Hillary Clinton is to become her party’s 2016 presidential nominee, independents and even Democrats overwhelmingly want to see her earn the title, according to a Bloomberg Politics national poll that also shows increasing headwinds for her candidacy.

As Clinton prepared to formally announce her candidacy on Sunday, nearly three-quarters of Democrats and independents in the survey said it would be a good thing for the Democratic Party if she were to face a “serious” challenger for the nomination. Democrats and independents hold the same view, with 72 percent of both groups saying her party would be best served by a robust primary. [Emphasis added]

That presents a potential opening for other Democrats considering bids, including former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley and possibly Vice President Joe Biden.

Facing a serious challenge “would prepare her for debates and things like that against the Republican nominee,” said poll respondent Marc Witte, 66, a Democrat and clinical counselor from Poland, Ohio. Yet Witte, who supports Clinton, isn’t quite sure he wants Clinton to face an overly combative challenger. “That could be a bad thing,” he said.

It would be a very good thing for the Democratic Party, but probably not a very helpful situation for Hillary. If you want to see a robust campaign, look at 2008 and examine how she fared. Long-term day-to-day exhausting campaigning did not suit her well the last time around. Her team, smartly, knows this and is trying to approach it all differently this time. It will be interesting to watch her campaign unfold over the coming months.


  1. Nobody really wants to run “against” Hillary, since she’s seen as the sort of “Queen Mother” of the party. She should use that.

    If I were Hillary, I’d meet with Jim Webb (on the right) and Martin O’Malley (on the left)–making her the “centrist.” I’d discuss Reagan’s “11th Commandment,” and then discuss issues. What would they do if they were president? Then, tell them to hit those issues as her “competitors,” but never actually attack her.

    That way, they could get the Democratic issues into the public discussion, without actually fighting–and see what issues might catch fire for the general election. There would be an understanding that she would co-opt their issues, if elected, so they’d also “win.”

    I’d then promise Webb veep, and give O’Malley Secretary of State–or whatever office he wants. That’s what I’d do.

      • Yeah, “I feel you. . .I mean, your pain.”

        But, seriously, folks, Bill never wants to be “second banana.” My guess is that at some point soon, he’s going to say something she’ll have to apologize for. . . .

        • Hillary Clinton would do well to ask Bill Clinton to advise her in how to bring down the US debt which will be left to her if she wins. Bill Clinton left office with the US owing NO public debt and the general fund exceeded the budget by several hundred billion. No other president was able to do this within the last 100 years so lighten up. With the exceptions of Truman, Ford and Nixon what US president has not had a paramour on the side?

          Hillary’s greatest drawback is simply that she is a woman in a would-be man’s world so she will be subject to a lot of insulting innuendoesthat are meant to degrade her sex. If
          she has to apologize for her husband I’m sure Laura Bush could lend her a page
          or two.

          • I can’t believe Nate didn’t quibble with “Bill Clinton left office with the US owing NO public debt.” You must have worn him down.

            And, as far as paramours, Carter only fornicated “in his mind. . .”

            • What’s the point of arguing when math says otherwise.. Clinton (with help of the GOP congress) added the least of the last 5 presidents, I give him credit. But still added to the debt..

              Reagan: 1980 was 907B – added $2.1T, up 275% in 1988 to $3T
              Bush I: 1988 was $3T – added $1.8T, up 63% in 1992 to $4.8T
              Clinton: 1992 was $4.8T – added $1.2T, up 22% in 2000 to $6T
              Bush II: 2000 was $5.1T – added $6.6T, up 129% in 2008 to $11.7T
              Obama: 2008 was $11.7T – added $4.3T, up 37% in 2012 to $16T

            • William Jefferson Clinton, as president, took advantage of sunny times to plan for a rainy day. No president has done that since.

              When using wacko math a lot of false factors are added in to develop the preordained answers. From:”Financial Report of the U.S. Government,” which reports the governments book in annual reports showed surpluses of $69.2 billion in fiscal 1998, $76.9 billion in fiscal1999, and $46 billion for fiscal year 2000. In the fiscal year 1998, the country reached a balanced budget for the first time since fiscal year 1969. He was able to do this while working with a Republican-controlled Congress during the fiscal
              years when there were surplus budgets.

              Since the US government keeps two sets of books, Clinton only had a surplus in one. The other debt which is the money the government owes itself, this total debt grew by about $400 billion in the same time period. However, the Clinton Administration paid $600 billion to help reduce it considerably.

            • Yes, I don’t disagree with your numbers. It is an example of what happens when the President and Congress work together.

              The national debt still grew 22% under his watch.

              The bar is pretty low now where we measure presidents by who put is in the red the least, because they all keep continuing to do so and out country is on a dangerous, debt-ridden road.

            • On Carter, you mean? Well, yeah! When Carter said he was guilty for thinking about it, I thought, well, hell, why not just DO it if you’re already guilty for thinking about it!!

Comments are closed.