The Case For A Populist Challenger In The Democratic Primaries - Robert L. Borosage/HuffPo

[WillyT]

X-Posted From GD:


The Case for a Populist Challenger in the Democratic Primaries
Robert L. Borosage - HuffPo
Posted: 02/18/2015 12:14 pm EST Updated: 02/18/2015 12:59 pm EST

<snip>

A raft of reasons are floated for why someone should challenge the prohibitive favorite, Hillary Clinton, in the Democratic primaries, most of them spurious. Yes, polls show Democrats want a contest, not a coronation for their presidential nomination. The press and talking heads also yearn for a contest, if only to have something to cover. But this doesn't justify a run.

Contrary to many pundits, Hillary (first name used as shorthand to distinguish her from her husband) doesn't need a primary contest to get her campaign in shape. She's already been central to three presidential campaigns, as underdog, incumbent and, disastrously, overwhelming favorite. She has every high-priced operative in the party. If she doesn't know how to put together a campaign by now, an upstart challenger won't help.

Some suggest a challenger could move Hillary to the left, as if Hillary Inc. were a bloated ocean liner needing a plucky tugboat to put it on the right path. But the Clintons are experienced pros when it comes to running more populist than they govern. Hillary found her populist pitch in 2008, when it was too late to save her. She's knee-deep in pollsters and message meisters. She won't need a challenger to teach her the lines.

There are two compelling reasons for a populist challenger to get in the Democratic primaries: a fundamental debate about the direction of the country has only just begun and must be expanded, and a growing populist movement would benefit from a populist challenge to Hillary.

The Deep Divide

This isn't conventional wisdom. Matt Yglesias argues that Clinton is the prohibitive favorite for the nomination not because of name recognition or the Clinton money machine but because no large ideological divisions separate Democrats. New Dems have embraced the social liberalism they once dreaded. Foreign policy differences are minimal. All Democrats sing from Obama's populist songbook. All favor raising the minimum wage, pay equity, investment in infrastructure, bank regulation. Crowdpac, measuring contributors, concludes there isn't much space to Hillary's left.

New York Senator Charles Schumer maintains that the "differences among Democrats are small compared to the chasm on the Republican side." Democrats, he asserts, are united on "fundamental issues," like the minimum wage, pay equity, and paying for college.

The New York Times, reporting that Hillary met privately with Senator Elizabeth Warren, says she's "intent on developing an economic platform that can speak to her party's populist wing and excite working class voters without alienating allies in the business community."

All this understates the deep divide between the party establishment and the democratic wing of the Democratic Party. Yes, all agree -- finally -- that this economy works only for the few and not the many. But the debate about what that means and what must be done to change it has only just begun, and already the differences are immense.

The center of the party...

<snip>

More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-l-borosage/the-case-for-a-populist-c_b_6706264.html