I’m inclined to agree with Nate Silver that Hillary Clinton doesn’t have an ideological problem emanating from her left. The left-wing of the party, when polled, has tended to show modestly more support for her than the center wing. However, the circles I run in are kind of elite left-wing opinion-leader circles: writers, editors, professors. Among this group, there is a pretty widespread skepticism about Hillary Clinton, Clintonism, New Democrats, the Democratic Leadership Council, and the Clinton entourage (see: Lanny Davis, Mark Penn, Dick Morris, etc.). Add to this a couple of more things. First, with the world such a mess, foreign policy is going to be an important topic in any competitive Democratic primary. That’s why Hillary decided to “hug it out” with President Obama. Because, secondly, if she gets on the wrong side of President Obama’s supporters, then she will see that strong support from the left dry up in a hurry.
So, without overestimating the influence of the people on the left who write and publish about politics, Clinton runs the risk of raising the ire of left-wing opinion leaders, and she runs the risk of alienating the rank-and-file left, too. While she has a lot of room to run to the middle, as Silver correctly assesses, if it is done prematurely, she could discover that there really is a threat from the left.
If she wants to avoid a tough primary contest, she should keep the president in a bear hug for the next year or so.
Just see what happens in Iowa in the next 6 months. O’Malley has laid the groundwork there already and Harkin has been raving about him. Personally, I think Iowa will be Hillary’s unraveling again. They didn’t like her the first time around and is a very anti-war state and Hillary is a hawk.
I’ll buy January 2016 O’Malley puts at the market.
As many as you’ve got.
I’m sorry, but I don’t understand what that means.
it means Davis will happily bet against O’Malley.
I wouldn’t bet on O’Malley winning the primary at this point either, because there’s still the possibility of Warren or Brown jumping in and he’s weaker candidates than they are.
However, he is definitely running; certainly as hard as Edwards and Obama was at this time in 2008. So a sorta-worst (absolute worst would be him chickening out with no leftist replacement) case scenario there’s still a backstop on leftist candidates. Which is important because it kills that idiotic ‘but there’s no one on the horizon to challenge Hillary, now is there?’ talking point.
Molly Ivins once talked about how political reporters bet on election outcomes. She boasted that she’d made good money on her bets over the years. Her secret was never to place a bet earlier than six weeks before the election.
I wouldn’t put any money on Malloy at this time either. He’s a better speaker than Clinton but not enough better to excite enough people to raise the boatload of money and volunteers that it will take to beat the DEM Party elites’ choice.
running against both republicans AND Obama seems smart.
I will vote for Hillary over any Republican, but I’m not excited about it.
Taking swipes at Obama for separation is the kind of gamesmanship I’m worn out with. And I’m like many others…how could she even tolerate the company of people like Dick Morris or Lanny Davis, much less seek them out for advice. That tells me a lot about the quality of her judgment.
Six years into the Obama administration has been a long frustrating haul, but I’m afraid six years into Hillary’s presidency I will be really frustrated with her.
I console myself with what I read here…maybe Hillary will have such long coattails she will enjoy a wave election, with enough Dems in office to help her keep her priorities in order.
Any idea where the maybe Hillary will have such long coattails meme originated from? Fantasyland or the Clinton Camp?
She has that potential, but it’s only a potential.
If she can hang on to Obama’s coalition and gain back a chunk of her husband’s coalition that has been lost and gain some people unique to her coalition (mainly women of a certain age), she could put together something much bigger than any other known Democrat.
But, if she can be beaten down to Kerry levels of support, none of this will materialize.
It’s there for her, but she isn’t the most skilled politician and could easily screw it up.
But, if she can be beaten down to Kerry levels of support, none of this will materialize.
Don’t worry. We can do that… we don’t even need any help from the GOP.
Or Democrats could remain silent and let the GOP do it as they did in 2004 when warrior Kerry reported for duty.
Can’t wait to see Hillary dressed in designer camos out shooting something.
God! You reminded me about her lying about being under fire in Bosnia!
It reminded me of her downing shots in some bar on a campaign stop.
That was bad politics. Looked really low class. “Elect me, I’m a bar fly”?
coalition with the way she is talking now. Young people aren’t interested in more war. AAs don’t want a nominee who is going to shit all over the first AA president. Hispanics aren’t going to like her cruel policies on refugees.
Hillary’s camp, the media and the netroots seems to think Obama’s coalition will automatically transfer to Hillary. That isn’t going to happen.
You’re kidding yourself with this, Boo.
Those “women of a certain age” are already Dems. She might pick up a few who aren’t, but that’s marginal.
She can most certainly win, and pretty soundly. But she doesn’t have the same broad swing-state appeal as Obama had. She might pick up Arkansas or something, but we’re going to be playing defense in VA, NC, CO, etc. Better than the alternatives, electorally? Perhaps, but nothing to write home about.
If that interview with Goldberg showed anything, it’s that Hillary has learned nothing. She’s still an imbecile on matters of foreign policy. And she’s not much better on economics.
Same old Clintstones.
This stumps me:
Lost to whom and when?
I assume he means areas like Louisiana, Kentuckistan, and West Virginia.
I don’t know what he’s on about either.
It’s 2014. That ship has sailed.
The Desert West and the Upper South are the areas for expansion for the foreseeable future.
Except for AR (and LA in 1996), his numbers in “red states” that went blue foretold what would happen in a two person 2000 contest for Gore in those states.
It comes from assuming that her current polling levels won’t drop off too much from where they are when 2016 rolls around. If she can beat the Republican Presidential candidate by 6% or so, that all but gets us the House — Obama beat Romney only by 4% and that would’ve gotten us the House without grotesque gerrymandering.
Hell, just from the minority share of the vote growing by about 2% every four years (which easily translates into an extra +1.5% advantage for the Democrats), Hillary Clinton could pull it off just by running the same playbook Obama did and not hoping for any positive or negative black swans.
July 1988 poll – Dukakis 55%
November 1988 election – Dukakis 45.7%
In case nobody remembers, Obama was good on the stump and Clinton was as tone deaf as Romney.
Hillary didn’t run the greatest Presidential campaign in 2008, and the advice/support from people like Penn and Davis was infuriating.
But, good Lord, even with those campaign millstones around her neck she came very close to beating the most talented politician of our generation, a politician who did assemble an outstanding campaign team. There’s this desire among some to tell the story of the 2008 Democratic Primary as a runaway where Hillary got clobbered. She kept on winning State primaries all the way to the end. And she was graceful in keeping the Party together and not putting up a trace of a floor fight at the 2008 Convention. Entering Barack’s nomination on the floor earned her some affection- that was a loyal Party act at a crucial and difficult time. Let’s not get ahistorical here.
I will repeat that I’d prefer other Democrats in 2016, policy-wise. I’d also repeat that all of this horse race consideration remains WAY too early. We’re 18 months out from the first primary. That’s not too early to begin setting up campaign infrastructure and gaining Party leader support and money, but it is too early for all these declarations based on polls.
I’d agree that the far left is not effectively mobilizing support against Hillary for an alternative Dem candidate right now, but there’s time. BooMan’s point that the polls show that the vast majority of the far left remains in approval of Hillary is an important one. And it appears to me that those in the far left who disapprove of Hillary are almost entirely the same ones who disapprove of Obama. That doesn’t make me feel very confident that they will be the ones to pull the Party away from Hillary. The Democratic base loves Obama, as they very well should, despite his flaws.
Considering that Clinton entered the 2008 race with virtually 100% name recognition, in excess of ten million dollars (transferred from her Senate campaign; none of which counted towards donor limits for her POTUS campaign) and pledges of support from a large number of superdelegates, and was beaten by a virtual unknown, black man with the name Barack Hussein Obama, how is that not being clobbered?
Team Obama worked the caucus states very well, but the first one, Iowa, is more like a primary election than a caucus and she had plenty of Iowa heavy hitters working for her. She came in third. She was losing in NH until Bill played the race card. NH became a hollow victory because that stunt cost her SC.
If Obama had been white, she would have been done after Super Tuesday, if not before. She was broke at that point and had to loan herself several million dollars.
Her campaign may not have been as objectively slick as Obama’s was, but she lost it by saying dumb stuff, lying, and appearing inauthentic. Qualities that she has retained — “we were dead broke when we left the WH” — except for the two multimillion dollar houses they’d purchased in the previous year, Bill’s pension, her new job, and her multimillion dollar book contract. “Great nations need organizing principles, and `don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle.” “Just to clarify: `Don’t do stupid stuff’ means stuff like occupying Iraq in the first place, which was a tragically bad decision,” David Axelrod tweeted today. And wait until a campaign opponent begins listing all her “stupid stuff.”
As for Obama being “the most talented politician in a generation,” have to disagree. He’s better than most, but the bar isn’t all that high. Elizabeth Warren is more articulate and speaks to a wider audience. And with almost no name recognition, she took down a sitting Senator in her first campaign without big financial industry money. Obama’s Senate opponent was Alan Keyes — and that was his fifth election campaign.
Deval Patrick is probably more talented — but he wasn’t in the right place at the right time to vault to the top of the national heap. Sherrod Brown is at least as talented but not as ambitious. Kamala Harris, and probably many more that don’t get the lucky breaks.
I’ll have to say Obama’s a tad better than Warren as a politician right now. Her instincts aren’t quite as sharp as the President’s. She talks about legalizing weed like it’s still the “just say no” era. Does she have the kind of energy for the kind of campaigning Obama does? As for substance they’re saying the same things. Does she have the savvy to reach out to non white audiences? How will she deal with the GOP in its current state? I remember her margin of victory in the state of Massachusetts vs Obama’s margin of victory(he didn’t even campaign in the state). Scott Brown had no business being a Senator. She’s probably forgotten more about finance than anyone on the eastern seaboard knows, but how does she handle other issues?
Sherrod Brown vs Obama in a primary would’ve been embarrassing. Obama would’ve kicked his ass. Brown would probably do better than Edwards because Brown’s more serious about policy. Obama’s fundraising prowess would’ve overwhelmed Brown.
Who says Patrick won’t run in 2016? He’s relatively young, smart, has a good record as Governor, and he’s best positioned to use Obama’s play book.
As for Obama’s talent, it takes something special to take down the Clinton machine after two years as a Senator. His upbringing forced him to be a diplomat long before his first office run. He had to navigate a world where he was always an outsider. I also noticed that he sought the most difficult environments to work in. I’ll say he was successful. He made Hillary look slow and flat footed. He had Bill talking like a damn redneck. As President he forced the right wing into the stupid corner. Some of the bills he got through were pretty impressive. So I’ll say Obama’s on another level. His mistakes stand out because in his position they’re fatal.
Patrick says.
Isn’t that what they all say? Then “After much thought and talking to my family I’m running for POTUS!” No one should be surprised if he jumps in.
It would be very unusual, and very surprising.
When was the last time someone surfaced this late? Because it is late.
Obama didn’t announce till February of ’07, but was clearly running from the winter of 2005/06 onwards — he had a PAC, and was out supporting Democratic candidates in the 2006 mid-terms, for example.
He does have a PAC and is supporting candidates. He isn’t on camera but he’s doing a little traveling here and there. It’d be a shame if someone as gifted as he is didn’t run. He’s better than a lot of people out there now. He could cause problems for the Clinton machine like the last guy did.
But, good Lord, even with those campaign millstones around her neck she came very close to beating the most talented politician of our generation, a politician who did assemble an outstanding campaign team.
She didn’t come ‘very close’. She didn’t do so poorly as to embarrass herself, but the writing was on the wall not too far into the contest. Remember the endless angsting over PA and how it would be a game-changer even though it was almost impossible for the state to rescue her candidacy? Remember Nate Silver showing how it was almost mathematically impossible for her to win after Super Tuesday?
The vote margin between Obama and Hillary was almost exactly equal to that of Dukakis and Bush Sr. I don’t remember anyone describing that particular election as close.
The delegate count was exquisitely close, close enough so that the superdelegate discussion became a thing for a while. Yes, the polls after Super Tuesday showed Hillary to be in a very poor position, but she kept her campaign team together and motivated, and they kept on beating Obama in primaries all the way to the end.
There’s a difference?
zzzzzzzzzzzzz
Where’re the Presidential candidates building their coattails by campaigning with challengers and building a win? Don’t pols do that anymore?
Because if it all comes down to just who can amass the most money….
zzzzzzzzz Why bother if you have no money.
Where’re the Presidential candidates building their coattails by campaigning with challengers and building a win? Don’t pols do that anymore?
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/despite-clinton-omalley-iowa-amid-2016-talk
Also, not to put too fine of a point on it, but the Clintons are helping out Allison Grimes in KY.
I mean, I’m not totally on board with Sen. Clinton either but it is a data point.
Concerned that that may have been a misstep for Grimes.
Also, not to put too fine of a point on it, but the Clintons are helping out Allison Grimes in KY.
So is Elizabeth Warren. And Warren will be in that Obama-loving hotbed of WV. She could have already been to both. Besides, Bill was the one of the people who pushed Ashley Judd out of the race. He’s close to Grimes’ father I believe.
Hillary doesn’t get credit for Bill doing the work.
HRC has made several missteps on her book tour. Comments about her income were not good. Her defensiveness regarding gay marriage during an interview with Terry Gross(!) also displayed her tendency to obfuscate the topic. Folks aren’t paying much attention now, but, during the campaign these things will be big. Add Bill’s often ill advised comments and you create some momentum – and not in a good way.
Because people will forget who she is and her proclivity to do stupid stuff? We’ll see if that works out for her.
A few months ago I visited my local See’s to get a tiny sugar fix. Not seeing Summertime #72 in the display case, I had to inquire. The candy lady said that they had yet to arrive this year. Stopped by again last week and still no Summertime, but the candy lady knew why. There is a problem with hazelnuts and there would be no summertime this year.
No exaggeration. There’s a major problem with hazelnuts Fans of Ferraro Rocher and Nutella will notice it.
Almonds are also going to get more expensive. (Maybe that will depress the silly almond “milk” fad.)
I’m writing this from Ireland where we know little or nothing of US politics and yet I am amazed that people are still talking about Hilary running a campaign more or less like last time with a little dash of Obama support and an added sprinkling of more numerous Hispanic voters.
Has the world changed not at all over the last 8 years from a US perspective? Has Afghanistan, Iraq, torture, the financial crash, climate change and Republican scorched earth policies towards a semi-reasonable President taught nobody nothing about anything?
Does returning to a Presidential candidate who supported financial deregulation and the Iraq war represent progress for most people? What planet are you guys on?
What hasn’t changed is what politics is about. WINNING
When you win you get to hand out the pork – road contracts, supply contracts, take envelopes to help certain bidders. Your campaign people get makework jobs or appointments as ghost payrollers. Everybody wants to do business with your law firm or insurance company (like the Daley’s Heil Inc, interesting name, no?). Lest you think that it’s only Democrats, Illinois Republican ex-Governor Thompson got a $90,000 fee for a half sheet legal opinion from incoming Republican Governor George Ryan, who made his bones selling driver’s licenses when he was Secretary of State.
That’s what politics is all about. Not policy. Policy is incidental. Policy is for rubes like you and me. The old shinola to get the rubes to vote, Left or Right. And if you can sell out your entire country for millions, well that’s politics. Think Hamid Karzai and his regular suitcases of cash. The same goes on in Chicago’s City Hall, Springfield and Washington. As AG says, bet on it.
Anybody who doesn’t concede that even the most right-wing version of Hillary would be many multitudes of better than any imaginable GOP Presidential candidate on domestic policy, foreign policy, Federal judicial nominations, and so many other crucial policy issues, has gotten carried away with themselves.
I get the problem with asymmetrical polarization. But that is a separate issue from these very, very harmful declarations that Both Parties Are The Same. That is quite apparently untrue, and it undermines support for the liberal/Left/progressive movement.
No, both parties are not the same. They differ radically on social issues. They do agree 100% with keeping the 0.1% in power. There is no knight in shining armor out there wanting to save the American people. The best we can hope for is someone who sees no profit in ruling an America that has become a Third World country.
Yes, Dodd/Frank, the ACA, the CPFB, the NLRB, the Justice Department, Federal Judge nominations, and on and on…exactly the same.
So what, exactly, is all this incredible amount of Congressional GOP obstruction all about? All the filibusters and unwillingness by the GOP Senate caucus to move forward on the President’s nominations? All the preposterous, rankly offensive bills and budget proposals coming out of the House?
I agree that parts of the Democratic Party has been infiltrated by the oligarchs. But the Democratic Party didn’t tear down campaign finance laws. The President calls out the Supreme Court for their Citizens United ruling, and you wish to claim that Bush=Obama. Bizarre.
TARP TARP TARP
No, both parties are not the same. They differ radically on social issues. They do agree 100% with keeping the 0.1% in power.
You have drank the Kool-Aid. Rahm Emanuel would be proud of you.
But isn’t that the problem? To win, it seems, you have to double down on previous mistakes and propose policies somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun…
First-past-the-post elections really fucking suck.
Sounds like another planet, eh? I agree but she has the bucks and is the lesser of the evils, so she is seen as the lead candidate. It is probably hers to lose, but then don’t put that past her.
we’re on a planet where the opinions of ordinary voters don’t matter much. We’re allowed to vote, but the people we’re allowed to vote for must be approved by a higher power first.
I wonder what planet we’re on sometimes as well. Or maybe I should wonder what timeline we’re in. Maybe this is the darkest timeline.
I’d say, she thinks she can but reality is she can’t. situation has changed so much and her responses aren’t cutting it, they’re showing her to be confusing, lacking a “center” and bizarrely distancing herself from Obama’s foreign policy by talking like a warmonger- as if she didn’t know why we “didn’t leave troops in Iraq”. all not a good rollout imo.
I stand by belief.
Hillary’s support is a mile wide and half an inch deep.
Is there any more poignant example of the decline of the GOP than the fact that so many Democrats assert that Clinton would be be better than any conceivable Republican candidate? I wouldn’t give a crap who was president if we had solid majorities in both houses of Congress. As it stands, we can elect Clinton, elect O’Malley, or elect any Democrat and if the Republicans hold onto the House (A foregone conclusion) and we either lose the Senate or totter on with a thin and often unreliable majority, our president will be unable to pass any kid of palatable Democratic agenda and he or she will not get any Supreme Court Justice to the left of John Roberts confirmed.
It’s a poigniant testimony to party loyalty, and I’d imagine the numbers aren’t any different now than they’ve been for a generation, maybe more…. that’s where John Anderson came from in ’80, and that’s getting on for 35 yeara ago.
Good advice, Booman. It’s Richard Nixon’s (and, to be fair, lots of other candidates’) basic campaign strategy: Run to the base (left for Dems, right for Reps) in the primaries; run to the center for the general.