According to the Washington Post’s Matea Gold, Team Clinton wants to raise a billion dollars for the campaign. And if Jeb raises more, they’re not really worried about that.
Without a strong primary challenger, Clinton will have the luxury of amassing huge sums of money this year while Republicans duke it out in a costly primary fight.
This comes at a time when support for Hillary among Democrats has softened a bit, although it is still remarkably strong by historic standards.
Support for Clinton’s candidacy has dropped about 15 percentage points since mid-February among Democrats, with as few as 45 percent saying they would support her in the last week, according to a Reuters/Ipsos tracking poll. Support from Democrats likely to vote in the party nominating contests has dropped only slightly less, to a low in the mid-50s over the same period.
Even Democrats who said they were not personally swayed one way or another by the email flap said that Clinton could fare worse because of it, if and when she launches her presidential campaign, a separate Reuters/Ipsos poll showed.
The polling showed that nearly half of Democratic respondents – 46 percent – agreed there should be an independent review of all of Clinton’s emails to ensure she turned over everything that is work-related.
The email flap, by itself, is probably only a ripple. The bigger issue is going to be a lack of desire by progressive organizers to engage in an eighteen-month slog of defending the Clintons against attacks, both legitimate and delusional.
I know I have no energy to lift even a pinkie-finger to defend the Clintons. And I know I am not alone.
By contrast, I have spent ten solid years fighting the Republicans every single day, including weekends. My energy for defending Democratic candidates against them has never flagged.
It may be true that there will be no strong primary challengers for Hillary, but I find that prospect deeply enervating.
On the other hand, with a billion dollars, I’m sure she can buy plenty of defenders.
I’m struggling to figure out how the Republicans can be beaten with less than a billion dollars. And I’m struggling to figure out what other Democrat could raise close to that amount.
It’s a godawful system. The only hope to change it, ever, is to prevent the next president from putting four Federalist Society judges on the Supreme Court. Sy what you will about Hillary, but she won’t do that. And every Republican in the race will.
Which is why I simply shake my head when I hear the hue and cry about Hillary and how some people on the left say that if she is the candidate then they are just going to sit this one out in 2016.
The only hope to change it, ever, is to prevent the next president from putting four Federalist Society judges on the Supreme Court.
The Democratic Party rallying cry in presidential elections since 1980. Carried a bit more weight back when Democratic Senators refused to consent to Haynesworth, Carswell, and Bork. Since Thomas, the GOP is confident that as long as they don’t nominate a drunk or blatant racist, the confirmation is assured.
The reality is that the GOP will not allow a Democratic President to change the current balance of the court. Democratic Senators have the power to do the same if a Republican is in the WH.
This is exactly why both the Ginsberg (96-3) and Breyer (87-9) nominations failed. With even one, or both houses of Congress in GOP hands, Democratic nominations are doomed.
Please try to read more carefully and not offer information that doesn’t refute my statement.
Ginsberg and Breyer didn’t change the balance on the Supreme Court. With three solid and two close to solid justices in the pocket of the GOP, there was no need for the GOP to pick a fight on the replacement justices for White and Blackmun. (It was also in the days when Orrin Hatch had pretensions of being a reasonable conservative and had signaled that he was fine with Ginsberg.) Just as there wasn’t a fight over Sotomayor and Kagan replacing Souter and Stevens. (Sotomayor is demonstrating that she’s slightly more liberal than Souter was but based on her past record she was expected to be similar. Kagan was and is more conservative than Stevens but has plenty of time to grow in office.)
Where Democrats/liberals lost major ground was replacing Thurgood Marshall with Clarence Thomas. But really dodged bullet with Brennan’s replacement. O’Connor’s replacement shifted the balance from one close to solid conservative to one more in the solid conservative faction.
If Kennedy were to retire tomorrow, do you seriously think that any nominee more liberal than Kennedy would have a chance of confirmation?
Yes. Absolutely. An 8-member court would leave too many decisions from increasingly liberal lower courts intact. The GOP would have their choice of ways to lose. They might be better off rolling the dice on a 9th vote.
Well, you can’t really talk about it in the abstract, like it doesn’t matter who they nominate. No amount of money is going to make Rand Paul president, for example.
I’m from California, so I just think of Meg Whitman. No amount of money was ever going to make her governor.
If Hillary is the Democratic choice I am all in. My main reason for voting for her is the Supreme Court. Anyone that claims to be a Democratic Party member and does not vote in 2016 is Lying to themselves as well as everyone else. After seeing all of the harm that the TP/GOP has placed upon average Americans and their plans to cause more harm in the future.
I’m with you. And I’m surprise Booman isn’t. A Republican president would be a catastrophe.
It would be just the bracing tonic this nation needs, to steel its courage, clarify its choices, and drive it into the hands of real progressives — which most Americans are — they just don’t know it.
It may take a while, and there may be some collateral damage, but it must happen. The ineluctable processes of history demand it!
She already has millions of defenders, and the historic qualities in her campaign for be the first woman President surely outstrips the unhappiness among some in the progressive wing.
So while’s you’re no alone Booman – and I also know plenty of folks like you in the progressive wing – you are in a relatively small group of the Democratic base.
Also, you might cite the CNN poll, which has numbers at odds with Reuters.
For what? Is she going to campaign for House candidates? Is $500 million not enough for someone with her name ID? Tell the stupid donors to give the other half billion to House candidates. What’s the point of being the first what ever and not doing shit once you get into office?
Looking over all the things that got done during the second term of the first Clinton presidency, “not doing shit” in a third term would be preferable to doing more of the same.
This would be the first Hillary Clinton presidency.
Hence the “joy” millions might feel during this campaign.
Such a short memory. Clinton twofer’s high price
Nobody knows better than Al Gore that the “twofer” wasn’t just a campaign joke.
Yeah, yeah yeah.
There’s only seat in the office.
There really are no co-presidents.
News to Dick Cheney. Probably GHW Bush as well when he filled in behind the scenes for the ga-ga POTUS.
On the other hand, with a billion dollars, I’m sure she can buy plenty of defenders.
And spend it in tools like Lanny Davis? Wouldn’t it be better if she told her donors to direct half that billion on House candidates? Otherwise, it will be 4 years, at least, of nothing getting done.
Wouldn’t it be better if she told her donors to direct half that billion on House candidates?
Ha ha.
With no primary challenger, team Clinton can hold back on spending the bulk of the money in the primary campaign fund until a Republican has secured that party’s nomination. Like Gore in 2000 and Romney in 2004, the GOP nominee will be broke at that point and poorly positioned to respond to a relentless and targeted attack by team Clinton. OTOH, GOP primary voters could thwart that battle plan by settling on “the one” before Iowa.
The GOP nominee isn’t going to be broke. Hell, I wouldn’t be surprised if the actual GOP doesn’t raise much money and instead all the money is spent on outside groups.
A contested primary election sucks up a lot of money. As Clinton in ’08 learned all too early when she was essentially broke after Super Tuesday. How much did she personally loan her campaign at that point? If not for dumping $40-$50 million of his own money into his ’08 campaign, Romney was in even worse shape than Clinton. McCain would have been dead if not for agreeing to accept matching funds in the early going and later when his standing improved, allowed to reverse that decision.
Would a gazillion dollars in outside funding elect a candidate with virtually no campaign operation? Possible. Not likely.
Cheney was sui generis.
Modern veep is much more Gore-Biden.
And no one can legitimately claim that a First Lady has really been co-president since the days of Woodrow Wilson’s stroke.
But I AM looking forward to actually having a First Lad.
Our local little crackpot came up with the story that Clinton was opening up her campaign office in Brooklyn with the tag that she would only pay her women workers $.72 on the $1.
The tenacity to tap into small mindedness of voters equates to the difference of fighting ‘state sponsored’ enemies and terrorists. Small minded people cherish their status, loving each and every scrap of garbage.
On the other hand, interesting to hear that Glenn Beck declared yesterday that he’s given up on the Rep. Now all his lemmings are waiting faithfully to see which cliff he asks them to jump off.
Ah, Matea Gold. I recall how she covered the Bradley campaign against Gore in 2000 for the LAT as if she and the paper were on the Duller Bill campaign staff.
Not good news therefore if the WaPo — also no stranger to going after Dem frontrunners with made up scandals and nontroversies — is going to assign her to the Hillary campaign.
Unless of course MG has grown up since then, seen the error of her unprofessional ways, and pledged to become a legitimate straight reporter of campaign news. I’m skeptical, and I’m not even close to being a huge backer of Hillary this time.
Exactly. Spending that amount of time diverting resources from dealing with the overall culture of government by shitstorm and hissy fit seems unproductive and too focused on one candidate and one office. Change the cultural environment and you change it for multiple candidates and offices across a wider range of geography.
The current political environment is fundamentally corrupt, cynical, and resistant to change. The Clinton candidacy by itself even under the best of behavior and circumstances cannot change that reality and in fact is forced by competitive pressures to compromise with that reality.
The 2016 Presidential Race is Hillary’s to lose! Nothing the GOP can conjure up (money, candidate, message, “October” surprise, etc.) will even register a blip on the radar. The public has seen the GOP (and is seeing it @ it’s “naked” best RIGHT NOW!!!). Nay — even the rubes in the hinterlands will no longer allow the John Boehners to strut around the stage full of sound & fury BUT signifying absolutely NUTTIN’ The economy, infrastructure is out of the ditch (compared with 2008) and changing electorate (Latino vote/woman vote/assertive Independent vote) promises to hand the 2016 election to Hillary, should she actually run! God, the angry old white guys are going to have infinite hissy-fits over the next 4 years! Thank God for Fox News!
The term ugly campaign now having been officially deemed redundant, there can be little doubt that this one will be particularly so. I’ll support HRC but will not spend time in defense mode either.
Well if the presidential campaign is going to be such a drag, why not focus on Congress? Who wins the Congressional elections in 2016 is going to be at least as important as who wins the White House.
I guess you could say that the Republicans will still control the House because they always win because gerrymandering and they always win, but there’s this too: Right now the main thing going on in our country is that our Congress is fucked up beyond belief. That can be made a major issue in the next election: The Democrats must control both houses, because look how badly the Republicans have fucked things up. (And remember, we still have a year and a half of clusterfucks to look forward to.)
Because Democrats believe that Hillary will have mega-coattails.
And the proof of that is, what? Wolf beat “Two-timing” Tom Corbett here in PA like a rented mule yet the GOP picked up seats in the legislature. Candidates do matter.
Need I be more explicit in my comments? Surely you didn’t need me to say, Because ‘Ready for Hillary’ troops believe she will have humongous coattails?
I know. I’m just wondering where their proof of such a concept is. What is their belief centered on. Hope and a prayer? Do they realize how many state parties or either a mess, or actively working against their constituents(see Illinois).
I’m much better at recognizing phenomenon and synthesizing trends and data than I am at explaining certain forms of mass psychology and delusions. Fandom is one of those forms that totally escapes me. Why do teen girls scream, cry, moan, and moon over rock stars? Haven’t a clue. Why were there crowds of people in DC yesterday eager to catch a glimpse of the UK Prince Charles?
Similarly, didn’t understand all the fretting by Obama loyalists in 2008 and 2012 over the election. Both elections were easy to call and call very early. OTOH those loyalists missed that congressional Democrats were in trouble in the 2010 midterms as early as the summer of 2009 because they and Obama weren’t focused on and delivering what people needed most.
Clinton’s staunch loyalists are truly blind to all her shortcomings. That doesn’t mean that she will lose in a general election, but it’s not a sure thing. If the Democratic Congressional challengers are as weak as they have been in the last three election cycles, she won’t carry any of them over the finish line.
So does off-year v. presidential year elections.
Sometimes that matters, you know.
The bluest state in the union elected a Republican senator in 2010, and replaced him with Elizabeth Warren in 2012.
Yeah, elected him in a special election. Against a dreadful candidate. And don’t forget what likely is the Massachusetts Democratic Party elites sexism too. The electorate might be progressive, the party elite certainly aren’t.
I’d like to hope that a party as experienced as the Dem Party can do both — concentrate on winning the presidency AND be aggressive about trying to win back Congress or at least the senate.
But we can’t be so complacent as to assume our nominee can just give away half of her potential campaign chest just because some online pundits think it’s going to be a breeze.
For instance, among other possible major roadblocks to the WH, the GOP state lege in Michigan is currently trying to tinker with the system of allocating EVs so that, in that blue state in presidential election years, the GOP nominee, undoubtedly a second-place finisher, will get either a sizable plurality of EVs or even an outright majority despite losing the popular vote. Two bills before the lege would allocate EVs according to who wins a cong’l district (the total favors the GOP) or, a so-called compromise bill, allocates proportionately according to the popular vote.
Probably other blue states currently with a GOP lege and gov are also considering such ways of stealing the WH, while no red state to my knowledge is trying to split up its winner-take-all rule.
Stuff like this, in addition to the usual GOP vote suppression/voter ID laws, convince me that we can’t take anything for granted, despite some friendly polls at this early juncture.