According to a recent Marist poll, 89% of Iowan Democrats and 94% of New Hampshire Democrats have a favorable view of Hillary Clinton. In both states, at least 70% of Democrats expressed their support for a Clinton candidacy over a Biden candidacy.
Obviously, it is still very early in the process, but it’s hard to imagine a politician being in a stronger position than Clinton currently enjoys. It’s very intimidating. I could launch a very full-throated progressive crusade against a restoration of the Clinton dynasty based on the record of Bill Clinton’s presidency and Hillary Clinton’s term in the Senate. But who would listen and what good would it do?
Byron York wants to make trouble by highlighting that Hillary Clinton is offering a resume while Elizabeth Warren is offering a plan. I’m not going to take the bait. Until Warren declares that she is running for the nomination, I see no reason to contribute to divisiveness on the left. I think Clinton should be at least given the opportunity to offer to lead the progressive movement rather than triangulate against it. The coalition that put Barack Obama in office is stronger than ever and appears to be more favorably disposed to Clinton than I expected. Does she want to pick up their banner or does she want to shove Lanny Davis and Mark Penn in our faces and ask us to like it?
If she wants to pick a fight with progressives, there’s a good chance that she’ll see her support diminish substantially, at least in Democratic circles. Yet, she probably has that luxury and it might be too tempting to resist. There is so much room to run in the middle that it probably seems like the logical way to go. It might even maximize the size of her victory and lead, paradoxically, to more progressive outcomes.
This presents a quandary for progressives. Should we resist her coronation with every fiber of our bodies even though only about ten Democrats in a hundred agree with us? Or should we be solicitous of her campaign in the hope that we can have some influence over it? Should we give her a chance to run less as a New Democrat and more as a leader of the actual left-wing governing coalition?
Based on the polls I am seeing, Hillary Clinton doesn’t need us and may even benefit most by marginalizing us. Yet, this could benefit us in the end if she has the coattails to bring in a much more progressive Congress. So, is the right play to make nice and ingratiate ourselves, or is that a sucker’s play?
I can’t really decide, but without a progressive alternative to champion, there’s really nothing for us to do right now but watch.
I can’t really decide, but without a progressive alternative to champion, there’s really nothing for us to do right now but watch.
Martin O’Malley. He wouldn’t be my ideal choice, but, he’s in there and there’s as much evidence of him running as there is Clinton. He might just end up fizzling out like Thompson or Dean, but, he has proven himself in elections and does have a plausible stream of fundraising.
If she wants to pick a fight with progressives, there’s a good chance that she’ll see her support diminish substantially, at least in Democratic circles. Yet, she probably has that luxury and it might be too tempting to resist.
Depends on what you mean by picking a fight. As I mentioned in another thread, while liberal ideology is unpopular liberal proposals are very popular. If she pulls sticks from the bundle by offering weregild like increased minimum wage and lowered Medicare buy-in and increased taxes on the wealthy and so-on then she could probably manage it. However, if Sen. Clinton dismisses liberalism as a whole and sticks to promoting centrism in the abstract it’s going to provide a huge opening for someone on the left. The future of the Democratic party, especially in the primaries, is with racial minorities and the youth and if she decides to stick with neoliberal economics and warhawkery she’s going to see that support evaporate pretty quickly.
Watch.
Things will change in some direction. That’s an ironclad guarantee. Every national politician in the U.S. has his or her own version of Bridgegate just waiting to explode. That’s how they got national in the first place. Some will explode; some won’t.
Watch.
AG
Didn’t see this comment of yours. Thanks for the link to Adolph Reed, Jr., the other day. Interesting guy. He’s sort of the anti-Boo in some ways!
http://prospect.org/article/what-left
I don’t see how a supportive progressive wing would have any leverage. She doesn’t need the favor and so will not even bother. I am think the best bet is to ignore unless someone else steps up and focus on legislative and state races.
” it’s hard to imagine a politician being in a stronger position than Clinton currently enjoys.”
Yes, well might that not have something to do with name recognition plus the fact that no one is running against her?
“Should we resist her coronation with every fiber of our bodies even though only about ten Democrats in a hundred agree with us?”
In my view this statistic is virtually meaningless. Of course we should, because no alternative has even been presented. Obviously Hillary is not going to offer an alternative to herself. Then who else, other than those who do not want her? We need to ask how many of that 90% would support her “with ever fiber of their bodies”? I think she’d be lucky if it was 10%.
The Democratic “disunity” question is ridiculous at this stage. That’s why we have primaries, isn’t it? It almost seems as if Hillary is to be considered the incumbent, or perhaps better, the heir apparent.
As you mentioned in a post the other day, although Hillary Clinton appears very strong against any foreseeable GOP candidate, this would no doubt be true of many other possible Democrats. And you also mentioned that Hillary would be certain to maximize GOP turnout.
Personally, i think it is quite ridiculous that Hillary Clinton should be the Democratic candidate in 2016. She is a relic of the 1990s, has closer ties with Wall Street than probably any other major Democrat, well liked by Rupert Murdoch, is pretty much a neocon in foreign policy, and is a mediocre leader and pliable tool of the masters of the universe. She would bring the Democratic Party back to pre-Howard Dean days, at a much more dangerous moment.
Oh, but she is “a woman”. Actually, if now is the time for a woman candidate, there are other women that would be a lot better. Or perhaps policy might be more important than gender? Perish the thought.
The Clinton campaign machine is doing another head fake on the voting public. The Democrats could probably win the presidency in 2016 with a ham sandwich, but somehow the candidate must be Hillary Clinton. We have seen this dog and pony show several times before, we all know perfectly well how it goes. But this time we’re supposed to just roll over because it’s “inevitable”?
Not really. What’s remarkable is not her name recognition but her favorables. It’s very unusual for somebody so well-known to be so well liked. Actually, Biden is also waving his hat over the ring, and he’s pretty well known, but his favorables are far lower and unfavorables are far higher.
I know there are lots of Democrats who like Hillary specifically and would crawl over broken glass to vote for her in a primary vs. any other Democrat – because I spent most of the 2008 primary season arguing with them. And as late as 2010 some would still try to convince me we’d have been better off with her.
Here’s my deal with her favorability numbers: what are they based upon? They were much lower in 2008 and now they’re back to their new zenith. If they’re based on something concrete like a really popular policy proposal or an act of heroism or kicking ass leading a war, I’d be much more confident in those numbers.
If the reason why she has high favorables is because of a drift in attitude, then what makes people think that they won’t collapse once she starts campaigning and having to take stands on issues again?
It’s more likely due to her show of competence at the State Department. So there is some concrete reason why her favorables are higher.
‘Competence’ isn’t concrete enough, unless it’s tied to a specific project that people right now like and it’s in the forefront of peoples’ minds. Schwarzkopf and Eisenhower and MacArthur and even Powell (the latter two if you’re a conservative, obv.) can/could point to and flog specific events on their resume. Does Clinton have a campaign or event that she could repeatedly bring up that would have people nodding their head in agreement — and would resonate with general election voters?
I don’t know if she does or not, but if she’s smart she’ll find one.
It’s more likely due to her show of competence at the State Department.
Meaning what, exactly? Letting Victoria Nuland muck things up in Ukraine? Being Netanyahoo’s tool(to be fair, so is Kerry)?
average voters don’t see it that way, they see her time there as a success
Personally, I think that you and the people supporting you should be VERY worried if your popularity is based on a misinterpretation of what you did or what you stand for.
If people say that they liked Sen. Clinton tenure as SotS but would disapprove of her specific actions if they were aware of it, she’s just one media expose or election debate or set of negative campaign ads away from having it blow up in her face.
Who says I’m supporting her, you asked a question and I’m trying to give you an answer. The fact that you don’t like what you’re hearing doesn’t change the average person’s perception of her.
I would personally prefer someone else, but I’ve yet to see a plausible candidate. When that changes I’ll consider if I will support that new person based on who they are and what they stand for on the issues.
Right now there is no point in getting shackled to fantasy candidates.
I meant the royal you. 😉
Right now there is no point in getting shackled to fantasy candidates.
Right now, I’m tentatively putting support behind O’Malley. He’s not a barn-burner like Obama but he’s lost a lot of his ‘derp’ that he had in older videos and he has a plausible stream of revenue.
Even if O’Malley fails, I’ll consider his candidacy a success if he manages to extract concessions from Clinton in order to guard her flank. If he manages to get her to realize that the neoliberalism that kept the party afloat from 1992-2002 is now obsolete and warhawkery is still a liability, I’ll be ecstatic.
I’m not entirely sure he’s a strong enough candidate to even do that much right now.
The reason for the Clinton is so strong stories is because she is in a very strong position, better than she was in 2008. It’s going to be tough for any person to move the needle against her, at least enough to make her change her overall strategy.
I’m not entirely sure he’s a strong enough candidate to even do that much right now.
We’ll see. It depends on whether Clinton’s strength depends on something stable or whether it’s a version of ‘famous for being famous’. Not to say that you can’t win out with the latter — people vehemently denounced New Coke despite liking it in taste tests better than Coca-Cola Classic. But the landscape is littered with personalities and products and ideas that looked unstoppable but collapsed under their own weight or from competition.
The reason for the Clinton is so strong stories is because she is in a very strong position, better than she was in 2008. It’s going to be tough for any person to move the needle against her, at least enough to make her change her overall strategy.
That’s what they said about GWHB and Dukakis and Thompson and Guiliani, too. They too looked unstoppable in their campaigns but deflated pretty quickly once the rubber hit the road.
It’s not about her looking unstoppable, she’s a far better politician than any of those you mentioned and in a stronger position than they were. That comparison isn’t a very good one. Plus Thompson and Guiliani weren’t even really candidates.
It’s not about her looking unstoppable, she’s a far better politician than any of those you mentioned and in a stronger position than they were.
Dukakis and GHWB’s peaks were higher than Clinton’s, even post-SoS Clinton. They still came crashing down.
Also, what makes her a better politician than them exactly? She hasn’t had any good publicity stunts (except for her ice burning the Republicans at the Benghazi panel), hasn’t had any sicknasty debate moments, created no small amount of resentment with her campaign style in 2008, and hasn’t really led her peers or superiors on anything. I’m not saying that this makes her a bad politician — I’m just wondering what in your eyes sets her apart from the list I just gave. Why is Clinton a better politician than Dukakis or GHWB?
He’s clearly running. He has a progressive record to run on. If the netroots want to get involved in this at all, they should be championing him. But, it seems like too many have just given up and accepted Hillary.
As for Hillary’s approval ratings, who cares? She’s done puff interviews and given speeches for money. Wait until she gets out on the campaign trail. The American public has always liked the idea of Hillary more than the reality of Hillary. Her numbers fall when she starts campaigning.
At this time, few people know who Martin O’Malley is. I didn’t even hear of him until a year and a half ago. And that’s due to coincidentally catching a Washington Monthly piece.
The netroots attention is currently on Elizabeth Warren. I think she’d be a fine alternative because she has proven her progressive cred and she’s a superb fundraiser. However, if she’s not running then she’s not running and it’s time to find someone else.
How progressive is he, actually? Compared to the center of gravity in the party as it is?
Howard Dean, part 2.
A lot of people still think he was Bernie Sanders with one of those rubber “Mission Impossible” masks…
O’Malley’s progressive credentials are impeccable. Even given that Maryland is a state where the Democratic Party is pretty much untouchable, he’s run a very progressive administration.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/democrat-dominated-maryland-not-quite-as-liberal-as-
its-leaders/2014/06/21/5fff5a3a-f7c0-11e3-a3a5-42be35962a52_story.html?hpid=z4
Beneath that one-party uniformity, however, there are signs that Maryland voters may not be quite as liberal as their state government, which under Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) has raised taxes to expand access to health care, improve schools, hold down college tuition and offset federal cutbacks. Most Marylanders support recent shifts in social policy — the state banned the death penalty, toughened gun controls, legalized same-sex marriage and eased access to college for illegal immigrants — but polls indicate that voters are more troubled by O’Malley’s increases of the income tax on high earners, the corporate income tax, the sales tax and taxes on gasoline, alcohol and tobacco.
If you want to attack him, you’re going to have to say that he’s too liberal for the population of the United States at large. Projecting him as Howard Dean v2.0, in which the only real point of comparison is that they’re white male governors from states where the fulcrum of power is Democratic, is just inapt.
I don’t see the quandary. Your whole point is that progressives are irrelevant in this race, no? If opposing Clinton won’t help, and I agree that it almost certainly won’t, and making nice won’t help–and I see no reason why it would–we should just go back to wallowing in utter irrelevancy. I mean, to trying to elect a more progressive Congress. At least then we can be shocked that that doesn’t work, instead of sticking in our old rut, being shocked that electing a more progressive President doesn’t work. Onward!
Was it AG who mentioned Adolph Reed the other day?
http://billmoyers.com/segment/the-surrender-of-americas-liberals/
Bill Clinton needed to punch hippies to win, Hillary Clinton doesn’t. It’s that simple.
Progressives will always feel betrayed/disappointed regardless of who the nominee is. It’s just how you guys roll.
well, we should just coronate her then. no need for a primary. Coronate her right now!
Yet, this could benefit us in the end if she has the coattails to bring in a much more progressive Congress. So, is the right play to make nice and ingratiate ourselves, or is that a sucker’s play?
As annoying as it may be, we want to ingratiate ourselves. The most important consideration is getting someone with a D after their name in the White House. The next most important consideration is getting as many someones with Ds after their names as possible into the House and the Senate. A progressive insurgency will do little do advance either of these goals, and I doubt a more genuinely progressive candidate, even if they won, would be hugely better than Clinton.
People may argue that this will make the Democratic Party take us for granted. This would be a good change–right now, the liberal wing of the party just isn’t viewed as essential enough to worry about. We need to make ourselves essential, and we can’t do that by refusing to play ball.
“… the liberal wing of the party just isn’t viewed as essential enough to worry about. “
Has any wing of either party made itself essential of late? If so, are there any lessons for progressives there?
Yeah. Look at the way religious conservatives took over the Republican Party.
Which I would argue is a project that took at least twenty years if not thirty to accomplish. We have to be willing to keep our eye on the ball and go the same distance.
Yeah, exactly. We’re gonna have to be doing this stuff for years, and it’s going to be extremely frustrating. I had the dubious pleasure of arguing with a lot of hardcore anti-abortion types during the ’90s, and they were routinely very irked by the way they were taken for granted by the GOP. Man did it pay off for them, though.
How long have we been at it now? Do you think we’re starting from zero? Do we need to focus on issues that generate as much passion as abortion? Do we have issues that generate that much passion? Do we need to become extremists in order to get that pay off? How does that intersect with our desire for pragmatism and being ‘reality based’?
Broadly speaking, I’d say we really haven’t started. There are elements of the larger “progressive” coalition that may be in a position to dictate to the Democratic Party due to a long history of being really committed activists, but that doesn’t generalize.
As for being delusional fanatics, no, I don’t think we need to do that.
I dunno. I think we’ve started, at least as much as the anti-choices had 30 years ago. Far more, actually. Unions, segments of academia, dozens of free-standing groups, those activists you mention. Maybe they’re not unified, and it doesn’t generalize–but neither did it for the right, 20 years ago. Maybe the Sugar Daddies is what it takes, I don’t know.
I actually suspect that delusional fanaticism is probably a relatively effective way forward, but takes a lot of skill to talk yourself into that.
How long have we been at it now? Do you think we’re starting from zero?
About eight years. No, seriously, about eight years.
Before 2006 progressive policies were, with some justification, viewed as a potential political liability. We’re not ‘free votes’ like the Religious Right/anti-abortionists are to the Republican Party; too much agitating about gays or minimum wage were viewed as turning off centrists and unengaged voters. And since the nadir of liberal policy of the 80s, that’s the way it remained for 25+ years.
2006 marks the first year in which progressive politics were potentially less anathema than moderate politics. 2010 if you really want to get precise, since the decimation of the Blue Dogs pretty much shooed out all of the conservative Democrats.
I’m more interested in a progressive Congress at this point than a progressive President. If the next President is a Democrat and the Republicans still control the House, what does it matter how progressive anyone is? Nothing’s going to happen.
But imagine a situation where Elizabeth Warren can actually get something done as a senator. Where she can launch an ambitious legislative program that won’t be killed by Republican obstruction. Then she can have some influence without even having to be President.
Besides being a Clinton, she is just too old in my opinion. That she looks like a shoe in now is obvious. Perhaps we can retake the House on her coattails if she stays healthy enough to run. I wish Warren had the mojo to get the nod though.
You do know that Warren and Clinton are basically the same age, right? Warren is less than 2 years younger.
Yeah, but it’s a long two years.
Congress is the way to go if Clinton is to become President. Both Clintons have always been “go with the wind” types. The direction of a Hillary presidency will be set by her Congress, not by her.
That may be where liberal Democrats should be, but it’s not where the DNC and House/Senate Democratic money and organization are and therefore, it’s a lonely and disorganized turf. The big money/power in the Democratic Party is now on electing Clinton in 2016.
When Booman posted something about the NNation convention a few days ago, my initial thought was that it sounded as if they were in search of irrelevance. Then read Pierce’s Lost Weekend
Today Shannika informs readers that attendance at Rev William Barber’s speech was low and even lower for the NNation co-sponsored march and rally in support of Detroit residents’ battle with Detroit Water and Sewage.
Apparently no “hope and change” exhibit in 2014.
What does that mean, though? That not only is America not a progressive country, but the progressive movement is barely a movement? Is there any take-away other than despair?
At a fundamental level, a majority of USians are progressive. However, a significant portion of that majority aren’t projective thinkers and cling to the status quo until they hear a progressive message that clicks with them. If my take weren’t true, there is no way that same-sex marriage would have become a majority position in less than ten years after the first arguments at the national level were heard.
There is no progressive movement because there’s no “glue” that unites the various progressive interests. To reference same-sex marriage again, a lot of money and effort on that issue came from wealth libertarian/Republicans. Folks that oppose practically everything else that leftists stand for.
Jennifer Pritzker
(Penny Pritzker’s (Commerce Secretary) GOP cousin.)
Who do you think can afford to go to Detroit, or where ever the yearly confab is held? Mostly, the kind of people that could care less about what Rev. Barber had to say. I’d be curious to know the income range of those who attended this year, and the past few for that matter.
They care more than I do. I could afford to go, this year, and I still didn’t.
If we don’t have money that cares, and we don’t have ‘glue’, per Marie, and people cling to the status quo … maybe Boo’s insider incrementalism is the only way.
And what happens when insider incrementalism is woefully short of what needs to be done? Or when outfits like the WFP prefers getting stabbed in the back by Cuomo rather than challenging a corrupt tool?
And what happens when insider incrementalism is woefully short of what needs to be done?
Who cares whether it’s woefully short? How about whether it’s the best plausible alternative? If you can’t posit a better scenario, up to and including secession + revolution if need be, then it’s pointless talking about alternatives.
I’m afraid we’re going to find out.
The point is who ever will be the Democratic Candidate should be supported by all Democratic Party members. All should show up to vote no matter what! See staying home and pouting for lack of anyone’s dream Candidate just helps support the GOP. Low voter turn out on the Democratic party side is a GOP pundits wet dream.
An alternative in the primary would be good, if for nothing else than to provoke nods in our direction. HRC has more than a few weak areas, and, at some point, I guarantee a lot of folks will be wondering if she’s the best we can do.
I take a backseat to no one in my support of Hilary. Having said that, I’d like nothing better than for Warren to campaign in the early states and the south.
Among other things, the experience would be good for her … and would keep Hillary’s feet from straying to the triangulation crap that destroyed Bill’s populism.
How about Jay Nixon for VP????
I’d like to see a poll of the general electorate wrt to the question of political dynasties. For example, all things being equal, are you more or less inclined to vote for the Republican or Democratic Presidential nominee that is a relative of a recent President.
I’d wager that Americans are against political dynasties in polls, and for them in voting booths.
I can think of a dozen politicians who benefitted from family connections. I’m sure there are some who suffer from them–JEB?–but I imagine it’s pretty lopsided. And even those who suffer also benefitted: the dynasty is the only reason we know who JEB is.
I don’t know the answer to the question. Name recognition is a huge factor in primaries and in general elections for offices below that of the President that it’s not surprising to see so many family members elected. The Bush name carried GWB for much of the 2000 election but that was in part because people thought it was his father running again. And at the end of the day, GWB lost the popular vote (and the election if all the FL ballots had been counted). The Gore name undoubtedly helped him get elected to the House and Senate, it shouldn’t be forgotten that his father was defeated in his Senate re-election bid and it’s doubtful that large numbers of 2000 voters were aware of his father and fewer that remembered his father.
The popular vote margin in presidential general elections are generally slim and each percentage point counts. So, the question could be important.
Jerry Brown is living proof that progressives need to shun legacy politicians.
(I think it’s only certain dynasties that are anathema…)
It’s easy to have high favorables and good name recognition when you’re not actively running for anything. Wait until she opens her mouth and starts trashing the Obama administration, then see what happens to her favorables.
If O’Malley tosses his hat into the ring, I will actively work against Hillary’s campaign and for him. Period.
Progressives, if they actually are progressives and want to actually achieve progressive goals, need to do what they (especially the bloggy kind, present host excepted) hate to do the most: organize.
Get together, agree on an achievble goal, figure out how to achieve it, make a PLAN, and execute the plan.
It’s not about ingratiating or not ingratiating ourselves. It’s about building community, constituency, and power.
Even apart from progressive vs. centrist stuff, Clinton needs a serious primary challenge simply to get her political chops in good shape for the general. Based on her history I’m not particularly comfortable with her political instincts nor with her ability to evaluate the people whom she hires work in her campaigns. Sending her into the general untested, with 8 years of rust having accumulated since her last (and unsuccessful) campaign, could be a disastrous mistake.
It’s gonna be some pretty heavy duty rust—and all that work just to get her back into her 2008 fightin’ shape—when she was a woefully weak and insipid campaigner! (IMO)
She’s just too accustomed to board meetings and agency principal’s meetings where’s she’s already been handed the power and position. Simply not a pol, not a campaigner.
All these stratospheric poll numbers can implode in an hour–one corporate media-declared “gaffe”. Remember the first Obama debate? And he’s one of the Smooth n’ Great campaigners! Getting Hillary elected is going to be much more difficult than these numbers indicate, that’s my prediction…
If she’s actually that strong then we shouldn’t need to hear about her until she’s done smashing all comers. If she needs a constant drumbeat of her inevitability in order to win then maybe she’s not so strong after all, and a competent challenger will be able to dispatch her again.
If you think any of us will have any influence over her campaign or potential administration then I have some oceanfront property in Nebraska for sale…
The bottom line for me: The likelihood of a coming Supreme Court vacancy necessitates a strong Democratic candidate.
But the question, as discussed above, is: how strong is she really? The 2008 primary campaign was not very encouraging in that regard.
I didn’t actually see that question in BooMan’s post. Nevertheless, it’s not 2008 anymore. Polling would indicate that things have changed, wouldn’t you say?
Completely meaningless at this point. She was supposed to be the inevitable nominee in 2008, remember? If she runs a campaign that inept, run by the kinds of dumb assholes she employed then, in the 2016 general, be afraid.
I’m more than willing to concede that things have changed, but what has changed and why? Polling numbers is only a part of the story; it’s better than nothing, but the why is also vitally important.
Why are her numbers so high? Is it because she’s tied to a policy proposal that resonates with people, like the Ryan budget or Contract with America? Is it’s because she’s styling herself as an alternate to business-as-usual like Perot? Is it because she has an accomplishment that people respect and admire like King Jr. or Eisenhower? Is it because she’s on a rhetorical rampage that excites people like Warren?
Or is it something more ephemeral like, say, nostalgia for the prosperity of the Clinton years? Or is it passive identity politics? Or is it a combination of the bandwagon effect + pluralistic ignorance?
If Clinton supporters keep resorting to generalities like ‘she’s proven her competence’ or ‘think of the cottails!’ instead of something you can sink your teeth into then I’m going to assume that it’s the latter set of answers. Which then raises the question of why Clinton’s huge polling lead was any different from Dukakis’s and the further question of why it won’t collapse just as badly.
5-4 decisions, it is amazing.
Out of the gate: if the next appointment is a conservative Roe and Obamacare are dead. There others nearly as important.
Not sure about the PPACA, but with the right case, “Roe” could be dead before 2016. And excluding something unexpected, the current conservative majority could hold on for another ten years.
Only if there is a coherent coattails strategy that involves some real power for progressives.
But it is likely, given the barrage of court suits against Obamacare and the corrupt GOP judiciary, that health care will be an issue again in 2016.
If she runs. She has not declared either, despite all the institutional cues that she intends to and all the money Republicans are spending trying to destroy that possibility.
Which is why for the next 10 years, the Presidency is not the important game. It is the Congress and the state legislatures that will turn the tide and collapse the mastodon.
That requires geographically broadbased political infrastructure, which is not what I see the DNC doing.
A functional two-party system requires two viable parties in every jurisdiction and a culture that encourages ticket-splitting and shifting from one party to another among rank-and-file voters. What we have instead most places is a monopoly of one party or the other over long periods of time, the very breeding ground of corruption.
The only cleansing dynamic in the current system is when authentic wave elections occur that turn out a bunch of the corrupt. The bright side of 2010 is that it did that for a bunch of Blue Dog Democrats but we also lost some better folks as well.
No need for any more discussion of Hillary until after November.
Rather than attack Clinton, wouldn’t it make more sense to support Bernie Sanders?
Not really. Why support someone whose personal profile will get him nowhere near the White House? Don’t get me wrong. I love Bernie. But I’m not going to march up the hill with him. Give me someone younger from a swing state who doesn’t have a Brooklyn accent. Let’s see.
Sherrod Brown fits the bill.
Otherwise, I’ll have to see what O’Malley intends to do.
You are exactly right.
I love the man myself, but put Sanders on the ticket and the traditional media will fall over itself with the incest jokes and smears on the other ugly aspects of life in Vermont. It’s not all lattes and Volvos in the cold dark valleys of the north woods.
O’Malley/Brown 2016
I could be comfortable with that.
Great piece – though I’d disagree on your coronation/dynasty frame and HRC’s own political inclinations.
She’ll run as a modest progressive – indeed, she already is. Look at recent statements (though not filled out yet) on inequality, Gitmo, spying on Merkel, Hobby Lobby etc. Outline is coming together.
One thing to remember – with the obvious exception of Joe Biden, she most prominently and obviously has the President’s back. She’s allowed herself about 2% deviation from the Administration, and that’s all. She clearly will not repeat the Al Gore mistake of 2000.
Conservative Media has a playbook that never quits, she won’t like being asked tough questions and she will falter w/ the public.
Let’s not lose sight of this:
The republicans have the advantage if another democrat gets in office, because the Bush phantom floats farther away and you will have close to a decade of democrats in the white house. There will be no way in hell that Hillary has flexibility to move.
The conservative media machine is going to be a nightmare n a half. Why? Because they have the play books w/ other 3 decades of moves from different operatives.
I guess what I’m getting at, you don’t want her in the whitehouse. And if you get her in the whitehouse don’t be surprised if afterwards the conservative machine is sharper & more agile than ever before.
Why? Because the conservatives just know how to train better than democrats. Put the champagne glasses down, why would they not want her in the whitehouse? Just 4 years alone, will get everyone angry and supportive of Right Wing Media in Radio,TV,Print,Web. I don’t see any negative in terms of expanding their brand.
I think the GOP wants her in the whitehouse. Everything is a net gain for republican media. So many millions are going to be made being critical of Hillary all over again. And the genius part, the writers can just update their old opinion pieces.
Senator Warren is too smart to run for president.
She saw what happened to Obama the last time around. Every pretend radical projected onto his shoulders the frustrated hopes and dreams of the Great Lefty Savior. When those shoulders could not bear the load, the first time the president made some compromise with reality, the erstwhile fanatics turned on him like a bag of rabid weasels.
So with all this talk of throwing the elections to the Republicans, to teach the Democrats a lesson, anyone with any sense understands that the self-styled Left is not a reliable base for an electoral campaign.
Thus it is not at all a matter that Clinton might chose to marginalize us for her own benefit: we have marginalized ourselves by allowing our worst elements free reign to act like fucking idiots.
Hillary Clinton needs us (progressives)just as much as we need her. I believe Ms. Clinton will be tilting to the left of the Center. I doubt she will run for 2 terms so whoever is her VP will be very important.
Let coronation begin.