The numbers don’t lie. The percentage of self-described liberal Democrats who have a problem with Hillary Clinton being the next presidential nominee for the party is actually quite low. I think I may know (by name, at least) every individual in the country who is expressing doubts, misgivings, or worse.
I’d like to think there are more people like me, but even I don’t see the point in fighting this tide if no one is going to take up the banner. You know, I didn’t oppose Clinton last time around because of the war. I opposed her because of people like Dick Morris, Mark Penn, Lanny Davis, and Doug Schoen. That problem hasn’t changed.
Who would you prefer the Democratic Party support for President?
Please give your reasons for choosing them as well
Thank You All in advance.
OK I’ll bite. Like Oscar up there I favor not thinking about it right now. The more the party makes an early decision, especially before this November, the more likely it’s a bad decision.
There’s a difference between not making a commitment right now and not thinking about it right now.
It’s a big problem for Democrats if they can’t list off a half-dozen solid potential candidates to replace their current standard bearer. If you can’t name them now, they probably won’t be competitive in 2016 and then your choice will be made for you.
No time to write more now, but I’m with you & Oscar on this. Don’t know why Booman’s playing into this obvious, well-worn Clinton media strategy.
Martin O’Malley
Here’s my link to a diary as to why I support him – http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/25/1309473/-Gov-Martin-O-Malley-for-2016-yes-it-s-too-early-fo
r-this
Watched his Iowa speech. If he plans to try to soar, he needs a great speech coach — now. On the plus side, he has no negatives which is good because tics and stumbles are difficult to break. And he has a nice smile. What he needs is rhythm, timing, and appropriate displays of authentic passion.
He can’t rely on beating Hillary in debates and don’t expect she’ll agree to more than three or four this time. Holding his own against her or performing marginally better won’t be good enough given her huge lead in name recognition, public approval, and fundraising prowess. A boring white guy governor persona fares poorly in POTUS primaries even if the policies they advocate are attractive to a large portion of the primary electorate. Palenty and Brownback were forgettable before they even withdrew from the race. Romney only held on in 2012 because the competition was various shades of crazy, but McCain beat him in 2008.
While I’m partial to thoughtful, liberal, and somewhat boring candidates, they don’t win if the competition is the least bit interesting. Hillary is also boring (and for me tedious when she talks), but as a woman with the chance to win the Presidency, she’ll be considered interesting.
Also let’s face it, O’Malley is either a gender choice for those who can’t stand a woman as boss, or a pure anti-HRC vote based on personal dislike.
His actual politics cannot possibly be described as that different from Clinton’s.
(Course, that was the case 2008 as well – but I don’t think Martin O’Malley – God love him – is another Barack Obama).
Since you’ve declared that there are no public policy differences between the two, guess that leaves you with only two reasons why anyone would choose O’Malley over Clinton: misogyny or an irrational dislike of Hillary.
At this point I don’t know if the public policy differences between O’Malley and Clinton are even less than the differences between Clinton and Susan Collins. Equally important is how important those public policies are to the candidates seeking office. Anyone can mouth the right words that appeal to a demographic. Bill Clinton did that for years and then gave the country DADT and DOMA. And on economic equity, stability, and fairness, he was a long-term disaster for 80% of the population.
All things being equal — a fantasy proposition — I’d go with the woman. The problem with Hillary for me is that she represents too much of what I dislike about current politics and public policy. Plus I don’t much respect serial, blatant liars and the “poor me” act that she not infrequently adopts.
Another reason. He has experience as a Governor and a Mayor. That tells me he knows how to make executive decisions and how to bend people to his will. No, he’s no Barack Obama. Thank God! We don’t need another Hamlet equivocating on action, We don’t need another inexperienced President paralyzed by the task.
I only have your quote and what I read on wikipedia, but I’m willing to look deeper.
He seems decent enough, but so far not getting a clarity, passion, and commitment to more than decency, and that’s just not good enough for what’s needed today.
Like I said, going to look deeper.
BTW, who are #2 & #3?
Clinton and Warren.
Ah! Well at least Clinton seems OK on women owning their own bodies. That beats 95% of Republicans. It beats 100% of Republicans who have a shot at nomination.
Loking like O’Malley or Warren. I’d go with experience.
Or how about both? Warren as VP.
If one is to use a “T” word in response to the Hobby Lobby decision, I’d suggest “travesty.” Choosing “troubling” is so Cintonesqe and frankly should trouble all liberals. As much as “the Mubarak regime is solid.”
If throwing women under the bus to win the Presidency were an option, have no doubt she’d do it.
He’s not the only one with a dull convention speech. Clinton’s (nominating?) speech in 1988 was panned as a snoozer, but he turned out to be a dynamite sump speaker.
Besides minimum wage, what are his other economic plans? Is he going to do anything about income inequality and trade, besides making it worse like HRC would? Has he put any big businessmen in jail or just taken their money? As former Mayor of a big city he must have some dirt in his background. How much?
If Jerry Brown wasn’t so old he would be ideal.
In blind taste tastes, Pepsi always beats Coke. If Pepsi did no advertising at all, it would fall to a far distant 2nd if it survived at all.
In politics, ordinary people wear blinders (because it’s all too complicated to figure out) and choose the most familiar name/face. Redact the name and faces wrt to the Hobby Lobby decisions and which speaker would Democrats prefer:
Or this:
Or this:
I like all three. Preference for #1 & #3. Lean toward #1 for aggressiveness. I hope when you have enough replies, you will reveal the identities.
And I agree with Booman that the Clinton staff shouldn’t be anywhere near the White House. Nor Chicago City Hall!
#1 was Martin O’Malley. Oh look, the person I support is the most forceful.
Not polite to do a reveal before others have had a chance to weigh in. Sort of like screwing up a blind taste test.
I didn’t see that’s where you were going until Voice said something; apologies…
No apology necessary — we all let our enthusiasms get ahead of us on occasion.
Booman you can delete this post if you see it. All of them.
It’s really not that big of a deal.
Just read about him at wikipedia. Looks good to me. Want to know more about his economic beliefs, hopefully they are to the Left of Hillary.
The Hobby Lobby decision is at least two decisions in one. 1) Corporations (some) have religious rights that trump (some) federal legislation and 2) Employers can deny women federal mandated health insurance coverages under their employee health insurance plan based on the employer’s religion. Hobby Lobby didn’t invent #2 and the religious exemption already denies certain employees this coverage; so, it’s technically an expansion and therefore, may in the long-term result in less harm than #1. However, the general public can more easily and quickly hear #2 than #1 and be outraged. Savvy political PR goes to #2 and keeps it simple and direct. #1 is for a long-term campaign — and flows back into the notion that corporations aren’t people.
In the blind test number three is a better writer, not necessarily a better thinker. (But I couldn’t figure out what you were up to until I googled them all.)
Then you went beyond the initial responses to the decision to form your opinion.
#2
Surprisingly 2.
My missus said that her facebook comments particularly from her old sorority sisters (demo: college educated white women in the upper midwest but lower middle class at best) were most upset about a corporation having a right of religious freedom over actual people having rights to their own body.
#3 also mentions corporations. Women that were in sororities are a demographic that regardless of income level think more like upper middle class professionals than working class.
An important demographic to make inroads in then considering the tie between the parties in regards to white women.
In point if fact all but 2 were liberals when I knew them in college with bumper stickers and signs during presidential years.. So in a base off year election getting them energized enough to vote is a good thing.
It may seem like an odd thing, but I would prefer for us to wait a couple years until primaries and caucuses have actually been conducted before we crown Hillary as our next sovereign. Of course, if the idea is to suck up all of the air time so that nobody considers challenging the declared-by-everyone-who-matters truth that nobody can beat Hillary then please proceed.
as you note, taking up all the air is part of her claiming inevitability. Der Farm commented here a year ago hillary probably won’t run because of health reasons. imo her rollout was terrible. but I think ppl are carried away with the idea of her landslide – as it appears now. hence few objections.
With no Democratic competition, Hillary does run. The primary is physically grueling and favors the young. It also favors those not prone to gaffes and making shit up on the fly.
The general election is more mass media, advertising, and prepared speech driven. Plenty of rest and staff for the candidates. Some of what bit Romney in the butt during the general election were things he said during the primary season. Not that short of a black swan, he was ever going to beat Obama.
Totally with you, Oscar.
With each post like this, why does it always seem like you enjoy pointing it out?
I’m not the only one to interpret it like that, either. Oscar frequently does, if he hasn’t commented already.
Numbers don’t lie? I didn’t get past the paragraph in the article where the opinion that Hillary is invincible is based on TEN PHONE CALLS! And YOU set this up as “No one on the ramparts”? You is trolling us. Yep. It worked. Infrequent poster sez yet again, I DO NOT LIKE Hillary. I don’t hate her but I don’t like her AT ALL. When primary time comes around I’ll be looking for anyone but… This is how we “found” Obama and he has certainly been a better president than she would have been.
It was always the war for me, but now that she’s met my conditions I see the problem with those horrible friends of hers.
I was for anyone but Hillary in ’08 because I hate aristocracy. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton…Bush
If that is where we are as a country, none of our political opinions really matter. It’s done, we’re an aristocracy. Suck up to wealth to earn your place at court, or go home.
I am not a fan of electing people because they have a familiar last name, but let’s not confuse this with aristocracy.
Aristocracy is a system of government where certain families have earned special political privileges because of the past military contributions of male members of their clan. These families are allowed to have votes in some kind of parliament or king’s counsel, and the royal family is simply the first among equals. Earls and Dukes are created not by any intrinsic merit or experience, but simply by birth.
The Clintons and the Bushes are not among the only families allowed to vote or offer advice to our leader. They are influential families who have close experience with power and may or may not produce children who are suited to lead. They don’t have special privileges under the law beyond what all wealthy people enjoy, and they don’t have extra votes.
Aristocracy worked as well as it did because despite the occasional idiot, families with power tended to produce heirs who had good education and experience in the relevant fields required for governance. That remains true.
It is not an easy thing to be the president of the United States. Hillary Clinton’s experience counts for a lot. There are many things we don’t have to worry about with her because she has been in those situations before.
The case against her should be made on her record, not because she has been in the arena.
First, notice that I said I hate aristocracy, not that our political/economic system is already 100% in-the-bag aristocracy. We’re already a pretty idiotic nation for electing personalities rather than policy makers, and the more USians get used to voting for last names only, the closer we get to a real aristocracy, which is what the oligarchs want, by the way. Neo-feudalism is their goal. I’ve said this 1000+ times. Everything the fascists do points directly at that.
But, a question: Do you honestly believe that Congress listens to regular people 1/100th as much as they do to corporations / lobbyists / wealthy oligarchs? Do I need to go and find multiple links, many of which you’ve probably already read and linked to, that shows that regardless of what the vast majority of Americans want, politicians pretty much ignore it and do what the wealthy want them to do? Often because they are…wait for it…wealth themselves?
Aristocracy is rule by the wealthy. Full stop. The rulers aren’t all necessarily equal with equal voting, equal land, power, all nicely ensconced in a legislative body. Monarchy is almost always paired with aristocracy, with the power of the aristocrats waxing and waning inverse to the monarch’s power. Hell, in a way, aristocracy is much better than a pure monarchy, but those have very rarely existed without an aristocracy sitting alongside the monarchy offering money and support to retain their own wealth / power.
Aristocracy and the aristocrats who live under that system have various degrees of wealth / power / land / influence with the monarch. Others are on the outside and have their own designs for getting more power / wealth and then going from there. Transitions occur where some aristocrats move higher and higher and eventually become King. Other transitions have aristocrats loser power and wealth and become just another serf.
Aristocracy itself is a system where the aristocrats own their land and have serfs work it for them. The aristocrats retain almost all of the profit and pay their serfs the very least amount possible to keep them alive and working. Think of it as pure Rentier-ism.
This is what the oligarchs want. They want to get rid of the “death tax” because they want their kids to be aristocrats, and for their legacy to be as the founding member of that dynastic family. They don’t mind the infrastructure of the country falling apart if they can acquire more wealth / power through it. Besides, they’ll be fine behind their gated communities, with their private police, and their unmitigated wealth.
Aristocrats also have their own army. Knights, in medieval Europe. Now, they get nice and close with county sheriffs, state police, and through Stand Your Ground laws paired with Conceal-Carry and Open-Carry laws, they have their own police force…their own army. And note well: Stand Your Ground is a law designed to provide limited liability to the oligarch who pays that private police force. That idiots are using it to outright kill each other is just icing on the cake.
Again, I’m not arguing that right at this very second there is a secret king and a secret aristocracy voting on things.
But that doesn’t change the fact that we literally have had since the founding of this country political families that move up and down in power and wealth. While this isn’t necessarily evil, at the same time, I see it accelerating.
Let’s see, we have a Latino Bush in Texas who is going to be moving on up that ladder, just as we’re just about to start the primary process where perhaps Jeb Bush plans on being the THIRD BUSH PRESIDENT in 28 years. Oh, and he might just run against Hillary Clinton…whose daughter gets paid hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, because she’s a journalist or whatever reason a corporate-owned media outfit has decided to throw outrageous amounts of money at her…and maybe someday she’ll run for President too!
My original point is that had Hillary run in 2008 and won (which I think she would have) it would have went like this with Presidental succession:
Bush: VP-POTUS 1981-1993
Clinton: POTUS 1993-2001
Bush: POTUS 2001-2009
Clinton: POTUS 2009-2017
That’s a K̶i̶n̶g̶s̶h̶i̶p̶ E̶m̶p̶e̶r̶o̶r̶s̶h̶i̶p̶ Vice-Presidency/Presidency passed between 2 families for 36 years. And maybe more importantly for their long-term plans, close to TWO GENERATIONS of Americans who have been trained to accept a few families as “Royal”.
I don’t believe this is the correct definition of aristocracy. I also don’t think it worked as well as you think it did.
Aristocracy is generally to be avoided. But can’t honestly say that I would have been opposed to Eleanor Roosevelt had she run for President in 1952.
“Never been done before” is why people were shocked that a Catholic was elected in 1960 and an African-American in 2008. Both came far later than they should have and I would have preferred that the first Black President rose up from the Black community.
My problem with Hillary are the policy positions that she supported while First Lady, Senator, and SOS. Most of which have been very bad for this country, but apparently a majority in this country don’t much mind them. At the practical political chops level, she’s weak. A poor speaker. Plus all too willing and able to lie when she thinks it’s advantageous for herself. The Kosovo sniper fire fiction was simply one of those where she got caught.
Don’t forget the shit that swarms around her. Rahm Emanuel, Robert Rubin, et cetera. Rahm just had a big fundraiser for her.
It’s “Team Clinton” — been there, done that, and should have gone away in 2000.
As the two major decisions nullifying the ACA contraception for religious objections hinge on RFRA, Hillary is whining that “we didn’t envision that it would be used for that.” Well, as I’ve long noted those two are singularly lacking in the vision thing.
However, what the hell was a DEM POTUS and Congress doing crafting and passing a Restoration of Religious Freedom Act in the first place. I sure didn’t vote for that to put on the agenda.
” I sure didn’t vote for that to put on the agenda.”
Amen!
Precisely.
Only it is not an “aristocracy,” exactly.
It’s a mediocracy. It’s media-driven. The real aristocrats…call them the .01% for want of a better term…don’t run for office. Instead they hire surrogates to do it for them.
From one of my fairly recent posts:
Believe it.
When HRC said that she and Bill were “broke” after the presidency ended, that’s what she meant. Compared to their owners they were broke.
Believe that as well.
Later…
AG
Inverted totalitarianism, for sure. The end result is neo-feudalism.
I’d love to see a 28th Amendment that requires any Federal Office holder to be worth less than $10M, with the ability to qualify if you give the excess amount to (a real) charity.
After holding public office, the person would be precluded from working as a lobbyist and would also be required to file their taxes publicly for the next 10 years.
Are you laughing out loud yet?
If she is the nominee, I’ll support her and vote for her too, but I’m not a fan. One Clinton in the White House was enough. I’m worried about her age as well. I hope to hell we have a contest for the nomination and that someone younger comes out on top, but that is just me.
Hillary was destined for the White House in ’08. It didn’t happen.
I’d bet money that it won’t happen in ’16, too.
We deserve a younger, newer face with better ideas and better advisers.
That said, I’ll vote for whomever gets the nomination, since Unicorn/Rainbows 2016 won’t even crack 2% of the vote.
She’s still not my favorite, but if today proved anything, it’s that a Dem in the White House choosing Justices is of prime importance. If the people want her, I will vote for her.
You don’t need Hillary. You just need a Democrat.
Which goes against the Hillary as the Savior meme.
Agreed. I’ll vote for whichever Dem wins. I just have no sympathy for Dems who refuse to vote for Hillary because she isn’t perfect enough. Primary the hell out of her. It’ll do her good. But if she wins, we all have to work together.
It looks like time to remind people that, in 2008, there was not a dime’s worth of difference between Obama and Clinton on ideology and policy: the primary was decided on organization and personal style.
Fast forward six years and we have a gang wild eyed crazies screaming like a brayton cycle that Obama is a sellout while Clinton is a neocon. They are wrong on the facts, and they are a tiny minority that needs to be silenced before they sabotage the Senate elections coming up in November.
How tiny a minority are they? Even in that left wing hell hole at dailykos.com they failed to break the 8.45% in a straw poll that gathered over two thousand votes. That’s pretty much the fringiest of the fringe, way out in the fetid swamps of firebaggerland.
Lol, so we’re out to sabotage the Senate elections now?
Yes. You are.
We can see right through you, and we are making plans accordingly.
Spoiler alert: you and gang will not be getting any ponies any time soon.
I wasn’t aware that we had such substantial powers. Tell me more.
QOD
“If I read one more liberal dude bro making this a morality lesson on the importance of voting (with or without the corollary that we should be sure to ‘do something useful’ with this outrage), I might fucking scream. Why don’t you do something with your concern besides schooling me on how you’re so much smarter than I am, motherfucker?”–Shakesville Moderator Hallelujah_Hippo, in an email. Published with her permission.
let’s just mention two: first, the war, a big difference, then Hillary’s “southern strategy”; no way to make up for either of those
Hogwash. To listen to projections such as yours, Gore should have blown away the inarticulate Gore, the DLC managed by Terry McAuliffe should have resulted in Congressional wins for Democrats in 2002 and 2004, and Kerry should have won in 2004.
Events — mostly the rank hubris of Bush/Cheney — turned the tide in 2006 and 2008. However, had Democrats been conceding certain races far before the general election and/or running the same old tired, boring corporate sounding candidates the results wouldn’t have been as strong for Democrats.
Back in 2007/08 it was not apparent that there wasn’t a “dime’s worth of difference” between Hillary and Barack. Possibly not Hillary won. It was a chance taken for possibly better but would be no worse than Hillary. While policy wise it didn’t end up being too much different, style still makes it the better choice.
The Senate isn’t going to flip this year. Unfortunately, the DNC is replaying its 2002-04 and 2010-12 strategy for the House. Hell, if it had been up to the DSCC and DNC, they would have passed on challenging Scott Brown in MA.
There is more than a dime’s worth of difference between Obama and Hillary on foreign policy. They hold vastly different viewpoints and Obama’s aligns with mine.
There is also a huge difference in character between the two. Hillary is too willing to put what is in her career’s best interest above the country’s best interest. She knew her Iraq War vote was a bad decision but at the time it played well with voters.
Hillary was his SOS; so, it’s not easy to tell where her foreign policy positions end and his begin. His most definitely are not aligned with mine and suspect Hillary’s are even less so. Not sure her character for honesty and non-self-serving are worse than Obama’s or she’s just had more years to display hers. Both lack that vision thing and operating staff hires more or less suck. (Excluding election staff for Obama where he either did better or was luckier.) Both led with “marriage is between one man and one woman” until more than half the country said baloney; then they followed.
Same old leftiness circle jerk.
Meanwhile, back at the main brewery they’re making sure that all the name brands are filled with the same Pisswater Lite brew.
Just as it’s always been…at least that’s how it has been since the 1968 DemRat convention. Prior to that they just killed motherfuckers who got in the way. Since HumptyDump Humphrey?
Since then?? It’s been Pisswater Lite up and down the line.
Anybody with even a hint of flavor gets “Arrrrrghed” right out of contention before they can become…troublesome.
WTFU.
AG
My uncle was born with very severe Down’s syndrome in the mid 1940’s, when their life expectancy was very low. The doctors said he would be dead by age 15. He never learned to speak well, and only my grandmother could understand what he meant, to the rest of us it was gibberish. Because of the never ending love and care of his parents, Vernon lived into his 50’s, and died of heart failure surround by friends and family.
He was a gentle man, who was completely incapable of harming a fly. But he sometimes freaked me out when I was young because he had a habit of laying on his back in his underwear and patting the bulge his penis made, all the time explaining why it gave him such joy to do so in a language I could not understand.
You remind me of him.
.
Maybe you should make an attempt to learn the language.
Who knows?
It might be angels talking.
Y’never know until you make a sincere effort at trying to understand.
Aum.
AG
I understand you very clearly, AG. You’re a radical conservative who wishes to engage in elaborate masquerades. Your love for the Pauls is no coincidence.
That photo of Ron Paul reminded me of something. Oh, yeah:
The South Was Right! Even an obscure abolitionist who in no way represented the abolitionist movement said so!
And yes, Arthur, you can ask us to IGNORE THE CONFEDERATE FLAG behind Ron as he claims here that the Union used slavery as a false pretext for the war. This rejects the historical record, up to and including the fact that the South fired the first shot.
I look forward to your fantastical and/or evasive response.
So I guess you take away from that video that Ron paul is pro-slavery, right? That’s what he is talking about? That he wants to return to slavery days, that he is a anti-black, brown and beige racist?
I would use the word “unbelievable,” but it is all too believable.
So it goes.
Go vote for Hillary. See where that gets us.
My guess?
Right here.
Good luck.
We’re gonna need it.
AG
I’ll concede that Ron Paul is not supportive of the re-establishment of slavery. Doesn’t POLL well, you know.
Would you concede that Ron Paul is extremely opposed to allowing workers to have real power in the marketplace and in politics? Would you recognize the fact that median income decline in the U.S. has tracked very tightly with the decline in Union density?
“Of course, government should not regulate internal union affairs, or interfere in labor disputes for the benefit of employers.” But right-to-work laws do each of these things, in a most extreme fashion.
It’s not slavery, but Ron can see slavery from his ideological house…
Add this one to the list:
Rand Paul statement
God save us from these fetus fondling, religious nutcases.
Does Arthur agree with the majorities in the recent Hobby Lobby, Harris v Quinn, and Planned Parenthood SCOTUS decisions? Why or why not?
His PermaGov blanket defense is bizarre and dishonest. He uses it to attempt to hide the fact that he AGREES with States’ rights to drive working people into even more extreme poverty and ill health, and to deny women equal and reasonable access to health care and family planning. He is too much of a coward to say that outright, so he usually holds his views closely. But he’s too proud of his own rhetoric to truly hide these horrible views of his.
You asked and he refused to answer the question wrt to women’s reproductive rights; so, we know he stands with Paul.
All the CPAC faux liberatarian Paul fans are dishonest. As someone mentioned, reality interferes with their half-baked (sophomoric) theory.
From someone who works with numbers every day: they may not lie, but they often don’t say what you think they do.
Especially political poll numbers.
Precisely.
How do you know when the media is lying? (And big-time poll organizations are part and parcel of the media. Bet on it.)
When they are saying something.
AG
You don’t know my name.
For starters:
I don’t believe in dynasties.
I won’t trust my vote to any politician who “misjudged” the Bush/Cheney representation of just war in Iraq.
HRC didn’t “misjudge” anything, Palli. She attempted to sign on for the fix. The fixers mistrusted her, so they went w/Obama. He had less experience at the federal level and was therefore much easier to control.
Bet on it.
Why is she in the running now?
She earned her bones as Secretary of State.
Bet on that as well.
AG
MIsjudged was in parenthesis.
In quotes, actually.
Sorry if I didn’t get your meaning.
AG
brought about by well founded fears of modern rightwingnuttery, ignorance, the increasing apathy from Huxlian influences, or the Orwellian stuff she has hidden up her skirt.
Hopefully we’ll see another intervention in 2016 by a less corporation friendly dem, or it may be the first pres election I sit out in over four decades.
I grow weary of making the lesser of two evils decision. http://mydd.com/users/campaignmonitor/posts/cluster-bomb-ban-opposed-by-mccainclinton-passed-by-100-
countries
Indeed.
And there is one year to create a viable alternative from the grass roots.
If we’ve learned anything over the past decade, it is the advisers are more important than the views of the candidate.
Come primary season, I will support the dem with the best chance of winning. Period. That currently looks like it might be Clinton, but given her previous campaign’s fairly mediocre performance it could very well be someone else. I just hope she doesn’t suck all the air out of the room in the meantime, so that we have some decent choices in the primaries.