I want to be cautious about overselling the upside potential of a Clinton candidacy, both because with the Clintons there is always something that undermines their promise and because I am not excited about a restoration. But Steve M. makes a good point about the fact that Rupert Murdoch will quite possibly side with Hillary against any plausible Republican candidate. And it could be only one sign of a major realignment. I’d expect John McCain and Lindsey Graham and the rest of the neo-cons (Bill Kristol, e.g.) to turn to Clinton if faced with a Rand Paul or Ted Cruz candidacy.
It’s hard to predict how public these folks will be about their defections, since it could be hazardous to their brand, their profits, or their political careers. But the sentiment will be there.
One advantage that Clinton has, and I’ve never seen this before, is that she doesn’t have to pander to expand on Obama’s base. All she has to do is hold onto Obama’s base, add her own (which overlaps significantly), and then wait with open arms as people flee the Republican nominee. Obama peeled off moderate Republicans, especially in 2008, winning endorsements from William Buckley’s son, Eisenhower’s kids, and Colin Powell. Those Republicans will probably stick with Clinton, and she could add the whole national security establishment simply by promising to keep the status quo on defense spending and the basics of our foreign policy and obligations. Then there are the PUMAs, the racist Democrats, the racist independents, the women who will be inspired to vote for the first time, etc.
While a Clinton candidacy will turn off a lot of progressives and some people who still harbor bad feelings from the 2008 primaries, this is an insignificant problem when weighed against her potential for growth.
It pains me to have to admit this, but she looks incredibly strong, and it’s an argument that other candidates will struggle to overcome.
I wish I trusted her more on foreign policy. I also wish she didn’t pal around with the likes of Lanny Davis.
Oh well.
hah! Apparently Rinse Preibus wasn’t upset about a Hillary Clinton miniseries; he was upset that MSNBC or CNN was going to do it instead of FOX.
Now that’s changed.
Teagan Goddard has it.
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2013/08/10/fox_may_produce_hillary_clinton_mini-series.html
Preibus, in his typically snotty way, clarified his positioned on CNN today. He said that only the networks who actually broadcast Hillary programs will be held responsible and boycotted. Presumably, if Fox produces the program but it is broadcast on another network, Fox is off the hook in Reince’s view.
Still, the schaudenfreude is tasty.
I could probably list at least half a dozen reasons why I dread a Clinton Presidency. But the possibility of R’s undoing the gains of the Obama era and slowing progress is too scary. Second tier Dems would have a tough fight against Christie or Scott Walker. Rand Paul and Cruz might stir up the base, but the wurlitzer, if it still has any power, will do its best to rally around more credible candidates. That’s what happened in 2012.
I see no way Christie will get the GOP nomination, even with the favorable media he would be likely to get. Walker would/will be a horrible national candidate. But yes, I agree that it is vitally important that we shut the Republican Party off from the Executive until they regain their collective sanity. Their platform right now is toxic.
Christie could win the same way that Romney won. Every alternative is unthinkable.
That’s also basically how McCain won, although Romney at least was a basically acceptable alternative to the Establishment.
Notice the devolution, though.
In 2008, Romney was acceptable to the Establishment, but not to the base. In 2012, he was only acceptable to the base because all the people they actually liked were obviously not serious contenders.
In 2012, it’s not a lock that the GOP will have even a single credible candidate, unless you think Marco Rubio can fill that bill.
If someone like Scott Walker runs, he could win simply because he has executive experience and isn’t a raving loon. But Christie could beat Paul and Cruz simply because he won’t rock the boat they way they would.
Should read “in 2016.”
Walker’s policy positions, and his extraordinarily dishonest, scorched-earth implementations of them, are plenty Raving Looney as far as I’m concerned, and could/would be revealed in a Presidential campaign. Plus, he lacks the charisma we might expect from a national candidate, can we agree? Pierce’s nicknaming of Scotty as “the goggle-eyed homunculus” is only minimally partisan, in my view.
As for Christie, see my 10:09 post below for an extension of my views. I’d concede that it’s possible that either could gain the GOP nomination; I would not concede that they would be strong general election candidates. The bizarre and radical nature of today’s Republican Party, and its warping effect on national politics, does lend an unwelcome bit of unpredictability to all this. I just think the odds are very poor that the GOP can run and win on this national platform, almost no matter who their candidate is. At some point, they’ll have to retreat on some of this horrible, increasingly unpopular agenda.
You’re shifting the goal posts on me, which is fine, but the topic was the winner of the GOP nomination, not the general election.
Now, let’s be honest and start out with two ideas.
Let’s also be frank and stipulate that Paul Ryan and Sarah Palin are not in the same league as a Bob Dole or a John McCain. By tradition, the GOP selects the second place finisher from the prior campaign. So, Poppy in 1988 (second place in 1980), Dole in 1996 (second place in 1988), McCain in 2008 (second place in 2000), and Romney (second place in 2008). The second place guy from 2012 is Rick Freaking Santorum for chrissakes.
The cupboard is completely bare at this point.
Now, the Democrats have been here before. This was the situation from 1984-1992. I think we had candidates in that era that were many degrees more plausible than Herman Cain and Rick Perry, but we had no one with both stature and appeal. And we felt like we probably couldn’t win unless we ran a southerner. We elected Kennedy in 1960 and a northern Democrat wasn’t elected again until 48 years later. The Republicans probably can’t win without a Blue State Republican heading the ticket. They tried Romney, and they are not going to want to try again. But that’s where they are.
So, whether it’s Kasich or Walker or Christie, it makes sense to go with an executive from a Blue State. Second best would be a senator who is at least non-southern, like a John Thune of South Dakota or Rob Portman of Ohio.
We shouldn’t underestimate the GOP voters’ ability to be strategic in their thinking. But, we should also consider the fact that they have really gone crazy and that the nuts are running the asylum these days, and history should provide no comfort.
In any case, the corollary to Christie is not Giuliani, but Romney. He may be broadly unappealing outside of New Jersey, but he isn’t crazy, he has executive experience, and all his likely opponents are either lunatics or radicals. But even Walker, who has pursued some radical policies, is not prone to saying insane things. The GOP voters could erroneously see him as an attractive choice.
I’ll concede that I changed my conclusion on the possibility of Christie gaining the nomination, having gone through my own similar set of thought processes to the ones you chronicle here. I’d also concede that I moved the goalposts on the specific subject, and directly conceded that today’s politics have become more uncomfortably unpredictable.
I’m glad you provided recognition that Christie and Walker would be flawed general election candidates. Myself, I think the amount and degree of lies that Walker spouts do make his movement insane, or at least delusional. But, the current media climate often rewards people willing to repeat outrageous lies, because the lies are essentially never refuted by journalists in real time, and usually never corrected by them at all. So, someone sociopathic enough to repeat Big Lies without retreat displays a certain type of rational recognition of the current media climate, sad as that is. These tactics are proving to be supremely poisonous, but they can bring success.
What are your views of how Christie’s weight, health and temperament would hold up under the stress of a Presidential campaign, and how the public would scrutinize these characteristics?
I’d add that recent Presidential campaigns have shown limits to the Big Lies method. These national campaigns do gain greater scrutiny by the press, and the Democratic general election campaigns and their allies have been well-funded and talented enough to make the Big Liars pay a bit. Unfortunately, lower-tier campaigns, and the elected officials who gain power from them, do not gain enough scrutiny.
I believe Biden checks off each one of those boxes at least as well as Clinton. The one obvious exception would be the women and PUMAs, but I don’t believe that there are a whole lot of untapped women voters (although I’m willing to see numbers to the contrary if they’re out there). In fact, the PUMAs are so small and disproportionately loud that it could work to Biden’s favor in peeling off Pensyltucky voters – the same folk who aren’t fond of the (n-word) aren’t too fond of voting for a woman either, so that could easily outweigh the PUMAs votes for Clinton.
Hillary certainly has some advantages, but I don’t see her as inevitable or even preferable. Then too, I’m not one to easily forgive the unrepentant so take this for what it’s worth – ultimately we’ll see how it turns out by the summer of 2016.
How have those recent GOP “it’s my turn” senior citizen nominees worked out for them?
Reagan was an anomaly and not a precedent. He had acting chops and a decade younger persona than his age. And it’s not as if either Carter or Mondale projected youthful vigor; that elusive quality that general election voters do respond to and Romney lacked despite being several year younger than Reagan was in 1980 and at least as physically fit.
I’m open to Anyone But Clinton – just noting that if the above are the criteria for selecting a candidate then Clinton is no more inevitable than Biden, and as we saw leading up to 2008, both of them could get blown away by Corey Booker or some other new face.
Yes, but Biden doesn’t have “troops” out there continually touting him as the 2016 GOP-slayer and he is older than Clinton.
I’m open to anybody but a neo-liberal, a neo-conservative, a religious nutcase (including members of The Family), and/or warmongering lackey for the US MIC.
Booker will wait until it’s “his turn” and that won’t be all that soon. Sort of like JFK breaking through the Protestant religious hold on the POTUS but after sixty-two years, hasn’t happened again.
Another argument for the quite-Catholic Biden, who’s only 5 years older than Hillary. Is there a Kennedy who might be interested and able? Tammy Baldwin? Kirsten Gillibrand? Who else is out there (without the John Edwards baby-momma drama)?
The Catholics took over the SCOTUS instead.
Biden will be almost a decade past the standard retirement age of 65. Maybe not too late to take up painting like Grandma Moses and GWB, but a new gig as POTUS? However, based on experience and expertise, he’s far better prepared than Hillary. Not that Americans consider that much of a qualification for POTUS; otherwise, there would have been a President Gore.
Too soon to tell if Gillibrand leans DLC or to the left. She does have familial roots in progressivism, but they may be weak. Sherrod Brown ticks off more of the right boxes for me including being good on the stump.
Good luck. That one is a given. What I hope for is someone to reduce the income inequality. Forlorn hope probably.
True, but the question is, does that really matter?
To me, the real question is whether Biden would have Obama’s back. Nobody’s saying, but I kind of think he would.
True, but the question is, does that really matter?
Fuck yeah it matters.
GOP is watching NJ and VA governor races right now. Like rank-and-file Democrats, Republicans rate winning as the most important objective. If Christie cruises and Cuci loses, the baggers will back off in 2016. If Cuci wins, the clown-car comes back.
If there is realignment, it will be available to more than one candidate. And it will reflect Republican weakness more than Democratic strength.
I’m not buying inevitability 3 years out. In 2005, Hillary was the inevitable 2008 winner.
What I’m seeing is a lot of draft Hillary pressure because it seems like it’ll be an easy win for Democrats. That is likely not to be true for any number of reasons that might appear in 2014. Not the least of which is the response of voters to the many voter ID bills in key states.
That’s about as real as the teaparty being a grassroots political movement.
It’s all about sucking up all Democratic public national political space and oxygen and making it virtually impossible for anyone else to run.
A lot of it is the naive belief of the GOP that Hillary is who they want to run against so they can get their jollies by bringing out the dom pictures again. Lots of GOP salivating at the idea of acting out their misogyny the way they’ve acted out their racism for the past five years. Lazy oppo research for them.
And the Wall Street media is playing along.
I’m not yet seeing any institutional signs that Hillary is actually running the way I’m seeing signs of Rand Paul running (not much Christie action down here yet). Not much Jebbie institutional signs either. Dems seem to be gearing up for 2014 in NC, SC, and GA and going for the state races in VA.
But I’m not seeing many signs of realignment yet either, unless the burst of birtherism in my email box represents a last gasp.
Have to disagree again. If there were no DEM action promoting Hillary 2016 and Ms. Clinton words and behavior indicating that she very much wants to run, there wouldn’t be pushback from rightwing anti-Clinton folks. They may be nuts, but they don’t respond to some unconscious or primal loathing absent external prompts.
Somebody in the background very much wants Hillary to run. Has Hillary rested up enough after her SoS stint to be one of them?
We’ll know if she starts helping out Dem candidates, won’t we. Hillary introducing Allison Lundagren Grimes at a Dem rally in Kentucky would be a clue. Hillary helping get Texan Democrats worked up over Wendy Davis for Governor would be another. Hillary stumping with Michelle Nunn in southwest Georgia or central Georgia would be another.
That season is rapidly approaching.
Getting makeovers — at least hair (as can be seen) and diet (as has been reported). Looks as if a few nips and tucks have smoothed out her face a bit (but other than Dolly, Cher, and Phyllis, nobody ever admits to having work done on them and their doctors never tell.) Here
Fundraiser for McAuliffe in September
I’m not so sure those are big indicators.
If you’d spent four years working your tail off like she did, taking care of yourself and getting to the gym is what you’d do when you got a chance to catch your breath.
These are the types of comments that make Tarheel Dem a real value-added commenter.
Yep, exactly right. Watch for it.
And dropping by for a chat with private equity moneybags. Although they did pay her for the privilege of her appearance.
Well that could go either into the personal account as income or the campaign account. Pays for personal staff either way. But it showcases her foreign policy experience for Wall Street vetting. No doubt, even Hillary Clinton still has to do this.
I missed that one. Yep, I think she’s in. Expect the ABCs to crank up in the Democratic Party in a month or two. Watch who goes to Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Texas over the next year.
I think you are absolutely right; the GOP will appeal to the misogyny-crowd exactly as they did the racist crowd, ultimately turning off a large number of female voters and ever reducing their base.
This could mean a big pick-up for the Democrat nominee (if Clinton) but it could also open up a legitimate challenge to the GOP from a 3rd party.
The rift between Christie and Paul is an example of the Conservative rebellion of the GOP establishment.
The Tea Partyists and Libertarians are fed-up with the GOP, many of them held their noses and voted for Rmoney only because it meant getting the black socialist out of office.
The first step for the GOP nominee is unite their own party. Failure to do that will result in a split among the conservatives, which could happen as early as 2016.
Tarheel, if they’re increasing their reliance on birtherism again, the GOP is in trouble. There is zero chance that they can grow their base with that horseshit, and they really need to grow their base.
Agreed. The Dems can suck up all the oxygen. Obama and Biden, unlike Bush/Cheney, will be out campaigning. Keeping our base energized and ready to vote. While Clinton and her VP can spend lots of time and money in say Texas, Georgia, Arizona, and maybe Arkansas becomes a swing state.
I think this is right, assuming nothing goes terribly wrong before 2015.
With it being midterms in 2014 and a pretty gerrymandered House, know knows what can happen.
Assuming the country isn’t in ruins in 2015 (a la the 2016 movie) then I think Obama and Biden campaigning as incumbents who didn’t break shit like the guy who cannot be named before him, then Hillary if she really wants it, can win.
I’d prefer a Grayson/Warren or Warren/Sanders 2016 administration, but if we can totally upturn and start the destruction proper of the Republican party in 2016 with Hillary/White Male, then I can only hope that this is what happens.
Destroy the Republicans, and the next national political party emerges from the left of the DNC.
Yes, please.
Hey, with supporters like Rupert Murdoch, John McCain, Bill Kristol, and of course the PUMAS, Hillary would have even more of a “lock” on the nomination than she had in ’08!
http://www.amazon.com/The-Party-Decides-Presidential-Nominations/dp/0226112373 and all that.
It’s enough to make you want to just end it all.
.
As I understand from your horror scenario, either way Republicans win. The Democratic party keeps moving to the right and mixes in with Republican policy as we have seen under the eight years of Bill Clinton. It’s not the Democratic party that gains more liberal and progressive policy, it’s shaking off more of its feathers to appease the likes of Murdoch, Kristol, Graham, McCain in lock-step followed by Lieberman. Do I hear more Israelites? The Democrats don’t need it to win the state of New York or Florida. Why this transgression to the right?
In comparison to Obama’s policy, the Democrats would be turning the clock back to the 1990s as we have seen on foreign policy during Hillary’s years at State. I knew the window for the Palestinians and a 2-state solution for peace in the Middle-East was closing fast. With your suggestion, the opportunity for a negotiated peace will end with Obama’s second term. The Clintons are beholden to the Israel lobby in New York, Washington DC and our 51st state for federal aid and security guarantee by the US Armed Forces. Thank you Congress. Netanyahu is rejoycing, just three more years!
.
Secretary Clinton Delivers Remarks at the Saban Center for Middle-East Policy – 2012
Her remarks, before negotiations [lasted 3 days under her regime], included Netanyahu’s assertion the State of Israel as a Jewish state. Does Ms Clinton not realize Hamas in Gaza has the support of the Muslim Brothers [Morsi], Turkey and Qatar. She relishes to repeat all lines of PM Netanyahu, pure one-sided propaganda. Living an illusion. She repeated her love for the developments of “democracy” in Morsi’s Egypt. The lady is full of lies as she talks about “Libyan arms” in Gaza and meanwhile the CIA and Qatar have transported Libyan arms and SAM missiles to the rebels and jihadists in Syria through NATO ally Turkey.
President Truman crossed-out
Jewishby founding of the State of Israel.Also, the Clintons are folks who thought that Dick Morris and Mark Penn were good hires.
I also hate the fact that she seems to be overwhelming the rest of the field so that no new and interesting voices are emerging.
That said, I’ll vote for any Dem over any Republican once the choice has been made.
And Greenspan, Rubin, and Summers. And Lanny Davis.
Other than logging an incredible number of miles flying around the world at the expense of the US taxpayer, exactly what did she accomplish as SOS? Or as Senator?
As senator, practically nada, zip. As SoS, she was a faithful servant of the president.
Granted she played it politically safe at the time on Iraq, but generally what did you expect someone like Hillary to accomplish as senator in that time period when Dems either were in the minority or had a bare majority with a weak majority leader (Daschle!) and a Repub president? Something like co-sponsoring an awful NCLB bill like Ted K did? Was there any political opportunity prior to 2007-8 to undertake serious banking industry reform?
Did you expect major progressive legislation to come out of Congress in 2001-8?
As for Rubin, Summers and Lanny Davis, every admin, Dems included, has their share of dogs. Maybe Bill had about as many as Obama has had, or maybe fewer, particularly when we include O’s picks not only on economic policy but in the nat’l security chain of command, and at the DoJ/FBI. And at least Lanny Davis, awful as he’s been in recent times, stayed loyal to Bill during impeachment, at a time when plenty of fair-weather faint-hearted Dems contemplated abandoning ship. Lets also not forget the several former political advisors to O who have recently sold their souls to corporate America as lobbyists..
As for the cheap shot against her for the taxpayers paying her travel bills, sorry but that’s how our system works. If you want those expenses paid by the SoS personally, you’ll need to choose only very wealthy multimillionaires and billlionaires for that position.
Leadership. I expected leadership. One of the reasons I just couldn’t get over Clinton’s Iraq stance in 2004 is that she had a very, very unique opportunity to greatly influence events from 2002 to 2004, and she decided to sit back, not rock the boat, and wait for 2008.
If Hillary Clinton had come out against the war before it happened, that would have automatically destroyed the media’s false image of national unity regarding the war. I doubt that would have stopped the invasion, but it would have ended any idea that it was a bipartisan war and it would have automatically made it untenable for the media to treat anti-war sentiment as a fringe position. If she had done spoken out, quietly principled and letting people like Gore shout (say what you will about Gore, when push came to shove, he showed selfless leadership), I think she could have been President in 2004. Obviously, there’s no way to know that and there are lots of factors, but if Hillary Clinton had come out against the war, does anyone not believe that A LOT of those in the Democratic ranks who didn’t want to support the war but were afraid not to would have joined her? The entire 2004 election would have been different, and not on good footing for Republicans.
She had the knowledge, access, and positioning to be able to run in 2004 on a desperately needed Clinton restoration as the Iraq War was going to shit. Quite simply, she lacked the wisdom and the spine. She could have been a truly great leader, far eclipsing her exceedingly talented but disappointing husband, and she let us down. This is why I just can’t ever get excited about a Clinton candidacy.
Obama is better at sensing a moment and going bold. Clinton isn’t weak, but she sometimes she just doesn’t swing for the rafters, and she really listens to bad advice (hopefully she learned that lesson in the 2008 campaign). I fear she learned the wrong lesson from health care reform’s failure in the 90’s. I respect her performance as Secretary of State, but that doesn’t fix my disappointment.
Not sure that I want to vote for any candidate that Rupert Murdoch would endorse.
He held a fundraiser for Clinton in 2008.
Yeah, that just confirmed for me (and probably a lot of other people) that I didn’t want her to get the nomination.
What would motivate any of the neocons to turn against a paleocon nominee? Certainly not putting country ahead of party, certainly not patriotism, certainly not any concept of the greater good. That whole fleet sailed out of the harbor a long time ago. If they were to support Clinton there would have to be serious personal gain involved (personal gain being a proven and consistent winner whenever examining their motivations for doing anything) otherwise I would expect them to silently sit the election out. So what do the neocons have, that would be worth any of Clinton’s political capital to purchase? And what credible guarantee could they offer that once they were bought, they would stay bought?
If the sentiment is that hard to measure, won’t it be hard to prove it exists at all?
Well, I could easily see McCain, Graham, Kristol being at least as public as Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman were in 2004 going in the other direction. They won’t abide a Rand Paul candidacy. They might not abide a Cruz one either. Rubio they’d stick around for.
And the thing is, Hillary wouldn’t have to promise them anything she wasn’t intending to do anyway. That’s my point. She can run to the left of Obama and still hold all these groups. If the libertarian side wins the argument in the GOP primaries, the party will fall completely apart.
That would benefit any Dem candidate, but she’s starting with a bigger base than any of the others.
If you can destroy the Republican party nationally in 2016, and hold the House to 2020 when we can un-gerrymander the House Districts, the Republican party will slowly die out as a party you want to identify with.
The Republicans who weren’t totally batshit insane will make a switch in time to save mine, and the sane ex-Republicans and centrist/right Democrats become the base and a more progressive and left can become the opposition party.
Before we can get out of the fever swamps and clean up the less regressive party, we have to destroy the Republican party.
Hillary, whether she runs or not, could be that candidate. She has lots of baggage, as any experienced politician has. She isn’t on my top ten list of people to sit as Chief Executive. I’d love to see Warren, Sanders, Grayson, etc, in any lineup.
But she could get enough voters out to break the Republican grip on this country. That might be good enough. Especially if Progressives don’t see Hillary as a loss and sit it out in tantrum. The near-sightedness of some of the Pure’s hurts their own cause in the short term and long term. They need to figure it out.
There are A LOT of seats that a Progressive can get into, even if it isn’t the House or Senate, that can start moving the pointer away from Angry Empire to Starting-to-Civilize Giant. State and county seats offer a lot of actual everyday influence.
Every little bit helps. Some people date the downfall of America in the late 70s. I date it in and around 1946, when we simply replaced most of Europe as the hegemon.
Imagine replacing conservative school boards with progressive ones. It isn’t high profile status, but it has a lot of lasting and meaningful power to it.
Republicans are getting in line to prove how f-ing crazy they are. Democrats, and especially Progressives, should be getting ready for 2016, because if the Dems put up a good candidate, they can crush whichever lunatic wins the nomination for the Republicans.
We need to use those coattails as effectively as possible.
It could be that the change people were looking for in 2008 might have been invested in getting the Republicans to finally hang themselves with the rope they’ve been selling us for the past 8 years. Get them all out in the open being pig-ignorant when there’s a black centrist in office, and then they go up against a popular white woman with experience and finally lose it all.
But, this is politics. So nothing is for certain.
If Hillary is elected in 2016, the victorious Democratic Party will have completed its transformation into the old Republican Party, 2016 style. What’s scary is, that’s a real possibility, and no doubt quite a desirable one to the traditional establishment of this country.
The thing is, there is no “new” Hillary Clinton. Even more than most candidates, she has to be looked at as an institution, not an individual. An institution that has evolved over decades. Any Clinton comes with lots and lots of baggage, there’s just no way around it.
I don’t believe she’s any more “unstoppable” than she was in 2008. It’s just a lot of hype at this point.
Half the statements coming from the Pures seem to center around the Democrats being just as bad as the Republicans.
On certain issues, they’re similar, but on others, they are miles better than Republicans.
So, which right-ish party do I trust more not to totally break everything? The dirty, terrible Democrats.
Destroy the Republicans, and the newest national party emerges on the left. And we have some pretty decent Progressives out there who can lead it.
You’re right when you think of the Democrats as being just as purchased as Republicans. But the real job isn’t cleaning up the Democratic party. It’s making it so that at the very worst, we don’t have regressive, theocratic anti-science lunatics as the opposition party. Imagine if the current Democratic party was the right wing.
Things would be a whole lot better.
Yes, the evil Democrats will continue to back up the banks like Republicans would. They won’t attempt to end Empire, but they won’t be as belligerent and reckless as the neo-cons still circling above would be. But never mind that. If they’re the opposition party, they represent the WORST that the political spectrum can offer.
The opposition won’t be arguing that gays are evil and that women shouldn’t be in charge of their own bodies. They’ll acknowledge science as empirically objective rather than a hoax by greedy, clever scientists, and they’re more likely to help people who need assistance, whether through SS, Medicare, or… Obamacare.
So you know, I agree that Hillary Clinton isn’t the best the Democratic party can put up. But, if she can make it so that the lunatic Republican party is no more, than Progressives should plan on using the momentum, just in case it really does happen.
I guess I’m just trying to comfort the Pures who think that working within the system is worthless. Progressives should be ready to use a strong election for Democrats as an opportunity to put up Progressive candidates in races usually left uncontested. With a large enough turnout, I bet a whole lot of people who spent less than their incumbent opponent have a chance to sweep into office on coattails.
Stack your Boards of Education with actual Progressives. Republicans will be arguing that the next Democratic candidate is just a secret Communist as per usual, so just because a Progressive is in a race doesn’t mean that they will be too liberal.
Coattails.
Whatever your particular opinion of the particular candidates, you have an opportunity to use the possible momentum of HRC. Instead of perching upon high and lamenting the DINO, use it to get more real Progressives in places where they can make a difference.
The national stage can’t be the only focus. We need to get out there and start changing the state and local governments too. Republicans have beaten us there continually, which is how they eventually control the narrative.
Make lemonade if and when the lemon you find sour comes your way.
Good thoughts, but I fear that destroying the Republicans will just give us one Party government.
Impossible.
First: Even if the Democrats controlled every elected position in the country from dog catcher to President, there would still be a two party system: Far-left, and Left-of-Center.
Secondly: There is way too much money to be made from the political circus. The GOP is never going to go away completely, they will likely abandon the crazies and try to go back to the centrist policies thereby giving the crazies a chances to form their own third party that no one in their right mind would vote for.
We essentially have one party government in Chicago.
I guess that’s what I was trying to say. The victorious Clinton party would call itself the Democratic Party, but would be the “Son of DLC” — Republican Lite/not so lite, 2016 style. The crazies would still own the Republican Party, but it would be relegated to the fringe. But anything left of Hillary would also be a fringe faction. even more than they are now.
The argument that Hillary has to be elected in order to utterly destroy the Republican Party is fallacious. Another national Democratic victory by anyone would have a similar effect, but hopefully one that would be led by the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.
By the way, I am NOT a purist by any stretch.
It’s because the national party leaders always always always shoot the local parties in the back and the pocketbook. They want nothing that threatens their power. In fact, certain elements of the democrat party can be just as beligerent and reckless. The Israel-uber-alles crew of course, but also the people who want massive humanitarian intervention. They see every problem as a Kosovo which in itself is probably better than otherwise but you can’t really call it a total success.
And let me add, your assertion that a progressive can win under the radar in a left leaning district that is previously noncompetitive is… well let’s just say that’s when incumbency matters most.
The Democratic Party, please. Go wash your mouth out with soap for talking like a republican.
Frustratingly, because it was 412 am when I wrote the preceding post, I mistyped it as “democrat” party. If Booman or someone else could actually change it to the proper “Democratic” I would mightily appreciate it.
Ohhh! You’ve just outed yourself as a secret Republican operative!
Just kidding…I wish there was an edit function too.
Sorry for the slap on the wrist. I apologize.
Since I’m one of those people who think the framing thing actually matters, I’m just glad you care.
Thank you
Dennis Kucinich. Tanned. Rested. Ready.
And more progressive than you are.
No matter how progressive you are.
A choice, not an echo.
I wish I could still smoke that spliff, Davis.
No one like Kucinich, including Kucinich, would ever be allowed to be President. I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. In 1963 the US suffered a coup led by elements of the CIA and the military and ever since they’ve maintained control over who is in the White House and what they can do. It’s nice to think otherwise, but look at who have been the candidates over the last fifty years. And if someone seems a little too liberal a Lloyd Bentsen gets parked in the second seat. Our current Constitutional scholar is on a short leash and is playing the best he can. If it’s smooth sailing for Hillary it says more about Hillary (not good things) than it does about demographic shifts. Eventually, fascism will resolve our minority problem with a choice between Hitler or Evita.
Until the general population can understand what’s in front of their faces we’ll continue to have what we have.
Davis was joking.
There are some things too serious to kid about.
If having a three-digit UID at Daily Kos and DemocraticUnderground.com taught me anything, it’s that the answer is always “Dennis Kucinich”.
Now what was the question again?
“What do you get when you take Mike Gravel and weaken his judgment?”
He doesn’t even need a leash. He’s still cringing from the wireless shock collar the University of Chicago econ department put on him.
Heard him call on us to expropriate the expropriators? Ever seen him give a speech in front of a tableau of bankers’ heads on pikes? Remind me again, what cabinet position does Cornell West have?
There hasn’t been a real Democrat nominated since William Jennings Bryan. And even he wasn’t sound on race issues.
There hasn’t been a real liberal in the presidency since JFK. And he had an awful foreign policy, come to think of it so…
There hasn’t been a REAL liberal in the presidency since FDR. And he had civil liberties problems and was perfectly fine passing a racist Social Security Act. So come to think of it…
There hasn’t been a REAL liberal in the presidency since Thomas Jefferson. And he owned slaves!
Well America was founded in a conservative revolution. It’s not exactly a surprise when the roots of the country are poised by it.
Actually JFK’s FP was about as liberal as possible for the Cold War time, and a lot of it involved repeatedly saying No to the JCS, CIA and conservative cong’l leaders. And I don’t see what’s not liberal about JFK’s attempt at beginning detente with the Soviets, including a nuclear test ban treaty and a joint mission to the Moon, plus friendly backchannel overtures to Castro towards a new relationship.
No, JFK was your last true liberal president, both in FP and DP. And very popular too among the populace, as well as respected by the populations and leaders abroad.
Of course, his saying no too many times to TPTB in Washington probably cost him his life, and he was not unaware of the political dangers to his presidency for taking the courses of action he did. So the guy had principles and the courage to act on them, knowing some of the risks.
Hi Bob.
(January 2009) “Ailing Cuban revolutionary leader Fidel Castro has called new US President Barack Obama a “honest” person with good intentions, but expressed doubt whether he could transform those into action.”
ttp://www.sify.com/movies/boxoffice.php?id=14843355&cid=14358314
Personally, I’m glad Obama’s president, he’s doing a good job dealing with reality.
Supreme Court.
I have serious doubts about Hilary holding onto Obama’s base. I worked hard for Obama in 2008 and in 2012. Those two words are about all that could persuade me to vote for her.
I hate to keep sounding like a broken record, but the ongoing lack of empirical thinking continues to astound me.
Rand Paul has about as much chance of being the nominee as you do, Booman. We have seen Ron Paul run for president. We know exactly how that goes. His base (and his son’s) are who we think they are.
Rand will squawk and preen and make a nuisance of himself in the debates, his Bircher base will make a nuisance of themselves in various caucuses and state party nominating fights, the mainstream media will mock his far-right isolationism, and he’ll get about 6% of the total vote.
Spare me the talk of Paultard 2.0: DRONEZ Edition going Goldwater on us.
So who does that leave?
Cruz?
Huckabee?
Snyder?
Scott Brown?
Sticky Ricky?
I’m really drawing a blank here.
Scott Brown’s lookin good.
Jeb Bush
On paper, Rand is much stronger than his father and has shown much more willingness to pretend to be libertarian while actually being a standard conservative on just about every issue, thus positioning himself as the candidate to reinvigorate the Republican coalition. McCain et al may not like him, but the positioning is there to paper over differences if it comes to that; it all would depend on how Rand ran his campaign. To me, Rand’s fatal problem is that he has all the charisma of a wet blanket. His old man is charismatic in a loony kind of way, but when Rand talks, he rarely smiles and has a nasally whining quality that I don’t think will wear well, even in a Republican primary. Even if you’re inclined to agree with what he says, sub-consciously you just want him to stop talking. I just can’t take someone so dour seriously as a Presidential candidate.
Cruz has an asshole’s charisma, as does Christie (who is high on something illegal if he truly thinks he has a chance in hell of being the Republican nominee anywhere outside of New Jersey). I still can’t believe we’re even talking about Cruz after all these years of birtherism. Every time I think that the right-wing can’t surprise me, they still find a way.
Scott Brown – He’s a Loser, and not just to anyone but to demon-spawn Elizabeth Warren. And he’s from Taxachusetts, like Loser Mitt Romney! And Loser John Kerry! End of story.
Scott Walker – Remains to be seen if he can keep his job. He’s stepped on enough hornets nests that one would think that a reasonably strong Democratic candidate could definitely take him down.
Paul Ryan – This would be entertaining. This guy is basically the definition of hype. There’s no way he can hold his own in a primary, let alone the general election.
As inept as he appears to be, I think that the smart money, for now, has got to be on Rubio. The Republican Party is going to be fractured, and I think Rubio can position himself as the candidate that every faction can (at least grudgingly) support and at least has a somewhat plausible narrative of widening the coalition enough to win. If Hillary runs, I think the chances of a Rubio nomination get even stronger. It’s like Obama’s bizarre 2004 campaign where the Illinois Republican Party flipped out to such a degree that they imported their (certifiably insane) black candidate from Maryland(!) to take him on. Or the 2008 campaign where McCain flipped out at the prospect of the Obama candidacy and selected Palin in a vain attempt to get female Clinton supporters. Republicans seem to have a strong “me-too” reaction when faced with a strong non-white-male Democratic opponent, so they’ll be desperate to check the Hispanic box.
But no matter what, since there’s no obvious “next in line” with major backing, it’s going to be bloody (heck, last time, even though there was a “next in line” with major backing, it was still very bloody).
It seems like this realignment is the rebirth of the Republican Party with Liberals and the Tea Party shoved to the sidelines. Not a good thing except for Wall Street, professional pols, and their whores. Speaking of whores, the streetwalkers at 42nd and Sixth (NYC) seemed a lot more honest than K street.
Hey, that’s just what I said. Fortunately, it hasn’t actually happened and I’m not convinced it’s going to happen. The most you can say is, it’s what the Clintons and their real backers want to happen.
So you did!
Is this supposed to be a selling point? Rupert Murdoch will side with whoever is the most likely to subscribe to his praise-the-rich, kick-the-poor, bomb-the-Muslims ideology.
That’s probably going to be the Republican. If it’s the Democrat, your realignment might end up going in the opposite direction.
I have several problems with your analysis and Steve’s.
The Clinton not-yet-a-campaign isn’t getting anywhere near Mark Penn this time.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/20/mark-penn-hillary-clinton_n_3305808.html
I certainly hope not. But I was pretty amazed that they fell for his nonsense the first time around. It demonstrated a pretty amazing blind spot about what was important in a political campaign. I’m not sure she’s actually learned that lesson, yet.
Obama didn’t run a perfect campaign but his people were masters at ignoring the idiotic parsing of the electorate and focusing on getting his voters mobilized.
Well, put yourself in Hillary’s shoes. She was using Bill’s old political team, which had put him in the White House and then gotten him re-elected easily. They then put her in the Senate, and made her the prohibitive favorite.
Yeah, in hindsight, they did a terrible job with parts of her primary campaign, but it was not absurd to decide, in 2007, to stick with the team she’d inherited.
A few good points there. As to #4, she certainly can’t run another general election in the primaries, as she did in 2008, and expect an easy time of it. Though arguably 2016 is lining up as a better time to pull that strategy than 2008, as there will be no emerging fresh face superstar pol like Obama to challenge her, or none that I can see, like Gillibrand or Warren, who would want to deny her the nom.
Agree too on #5 — I still see Chris Christie or the Jebster being solid possibilities to get the GOP nom vs a wackjob extremist. This is especially so if Hillary does run and the GOP serious folks begin to see the importance of nominating someone practical who could actually have a chance at stopping her.
As to #6, not a chance at all Penn will be involved in her next run — she learned her lesson in 2008, and even then, Penn having successfully run her 2006 reelect, it wasn’t an entirely unreasonable pick. She just failed to closely monitor the situation, or have someone on board in the campaign, like a campaign chair, who would be carefully overseeing and organizing. When Bill had to step in after Iowa, it was already too late.
As to #1, Hillary is a sort of unique frontrunner in that in her previous unsuccessful run, her loss, and it was a narrow one, wasn’t due to a personal meltdown or scandal, but rather to another candidate the primary voters in early states just slightly tended to prefer. She didn’t implode like Muskie in 1972, nor did she wear out her welcome in the party or seem too much like a shopworn old pol like Humphrey. Thus she survived to possibly fight another day.
Btw, all this isn’t an endorsement. Much too early and I would like to see her speak more extensively and specifically on the FP situation.
I’ll modify an earlier statement I made upthread: it is possible that Big Money could help Christie overcome Paul or Cruz to gain the nomination. But that would lead to a familiar problem for the GOP: they’ll have problems getting parts of their base out and working hard for their candidate.
Another thing we have to confront at some point is that Christie has not lost weight yet. Until he does, I don’t think he’s running. If he doesn’t lose weight and runs anyway, I think it significantly lessens his chance of success, due to the cultural and endurance problems his obesity would cause.
I don’t think Christie’s weight is an issue. To some degree, his girth can provoke a feeling of connection with those of us (pretty much everyone) who struggles with some problem or other. And he handles the topic with the appropriate amount of concern and humor that is appealing. His ability to corral 30% of the Dem vote in New Jersey and large segment of the female vote there either lowers his chances as an R candidate or says something about his ability to communicate with the electorate.
Yes Christie might have problems with the base, but a lot of that could be overcome if he were running in the general against the hated lesbian witch Hillary.
Re weight loss, he had that surgical/band(?) procedure done earlier this year which I thought had led to at least some weight coming off. And even if the situation stays status quo, there is the dominant personality of Christie and his ability at times to make light of his weight working in his favor to reduce that negative, plus a probable identification/sympathy factor among the average blue collar and low information types who would see Christie as one of them.
We’ll just have to agree to disagree. All of the factors you both mention existed in previous elections, yet no obese candidates have moved the needle in Presidential primaries for many, many decades now. Correct me if I’ve forgotten a contender, but even that would be an exception that proves the rule, since they didn’t win the nomination.
The other factor, which I view as even more difficult for Christie to overcome than the electorate’s opinion of his fatness, is his physical fitness for the long, long campaign. Even if Chris managed to avoid major health issues, minor ones would still take their toll. Combine this with his short fuse, and I could easily imagine Christie being seen as taking his straight-talking persona over the edge into unpleasantness, bullying or worse as he insults people on the right and left with even harsher rhetoric than he has used in Jersey. And with his extremely openly expressed ego, just think how fed up he’s likely to become with the media! He’ll be fatigued, frustrated, and dealing with by far his biggest campaign. I don’t believe you can take thematic anti-media rhetoric all the way to the White House.
I am far from convinced that Christie will be a strong national candidate.
I have the same concerns many of you expressed about Hillary being too conservative.
However I absolutely love that the mention of her running and the good polling numbers are jacking up the GOP at the perfect time. ObamaCare is real and coming online. Incredibly the GOP is lying about it when it can be easily checked so more low info, Fox News watchers will have the opportunity to find out they’re being lied to. The GOP is coming apart in congress on the upcoming debt ceiling, defund ObamaCare stupidity. And the President and OFA are making very visible contact with the public which gets around the cone of silence that is the usual MSM response.
It rattles the GOP tree with elections coming up next year. And the GOP has pissed off about everyone including seniors.
Personally I like Martin O’Malley for 2016.