Al Giordano’s call to arms is provocative and somewhat inspirational. And when Al makes a prediction, you best take it seriously. I do have some problems with his analysis, however. I think he’s shoehorning a lot of complicated factors into a too-tight box when he focuses so heavily on the age of various presidential candidates. I really doubt, for example, that age or the youth vote were very big factors in Franklin Roosevelt’s 1932 victory over Herbert Hoover. I’m not sure Jimmy Carter’s age was much of a focus in 1976, either. Ford’s presidential pardon of Nixon and Carter’s strength in the South and among evangelicals were much bigger factors. Even Clinton’s 1992 victory was more influenced by a strong third-party challenge than the spry Clinton-Gore ticket.
I didn’t mention JFK’s victory because I’d have to agree that his youth played an important role, but it didn’t hurt that his candidacy mobilized Catholics, either.
Having said all that, it’s Giordano’s premise that Hillary Clinton cannot rely on getting the same kind of turnout that Barack Obama enjoyed among young voters (because of her age) or African-Americans (because she isn’t Barack Obama). He also insists that Clinton can’t make up the difference with women because they already vote in such high percentages. These are assertions that are worth consideration. Overall, I remain unconvinced that her age would put her at a generational disadvantage against a much younger Republican. Young people are capable of comparing Clinton’s policies to Ted Cruz’s or Marco Rubio’s or Rand Paul’s or Paul Ryan’s and realizing that they prefer Clinton’s. That doesn’t mean that they’ll be excited about Clinton and get to work organizing on her behalf, however. If she’s going to have a problem with the youth vote, it won’t be that they prefer her opponent. It will be that she doesn’t inspire them. And I don’t think age is that much of a factor in that. Perhaps she’s been around too long, but that’s a slightly different issue.
Where Al and I agree completely is on our assessments of Clinton’s skills as a politician. ‘Overrated’ is putting it mildly. That’s not to say she is a bad politician. She’s hard-working, tenacious, smart, understands the issues, knows how to work the refs, has a huge organization and donor base, massive support within the party organization and in Congress, and has more relevant experience than any possible opponent.
But she does say some pretty stupid tone-deaf things sometimes. And she doesn’t have a good track record of picking smart, ethical people to run her organizations. Still, I don’t think the risk with Clinton is that she’ll lose and hand the White House to the Republicans. The risk is more that she’ll show bad judgment in her foreign policy and that she’ll repeat some of her husband’s more egregious cave-ins to big business.
But, again, you ignore Al’s advice at your peril.
Actually, I’m with Al on the ’92 race.
The third party ticket had almost nothing to do with the actual results, which would have been much the same sans the Perot run – most analysis bears that out. Those who wanted to diminish Clinton-Gore (the Republicans and a few on the left) always pushed it, but it’s a canard. In ’92, the two young guys did indeed represent change from Reagan’s VP and a bad economy.
The crappy economy had a fair amount to do with that, and I’ve always seen that while Clinton would have won in ’92, it would have been very, very close, which it wasn’t.
If anything the size of Clinton’s EC victory hid the ongoing partisan re-alignment of Southern Whites.
That said, I think both you and Al significantly under rate Hillary Clinton’s political skills. See 2008, spring.
Ross Perot’s absence would’ve meant a severe ass whupping for HW. 1992 was Clinton’s time. He could do no wrong. Do you really think this guy was going to lose?
http://youtu.be/ta_SFvgbrlY
There are commenters here that have been conveying what Al’s saying here. I remember someone thinking that Cletus and Jethro were going to support Hillary because Professor Blackenstein wasn’t going to be on the ballot. They would feel more comfortable with a white candidate and she would get Obama’s support by default.
I’m pleased when bubbles are popped. If someone can talk some sense to the half wits at MSNBC…
We don’t actually know what would have happened in 1992 if Perot hadn’t entered the race. We only know that he softened Bush up and Clinton appropriated some of Perot’s focus on the economy which team Clinton may not have found if Perot hadn’t been in the mix. The 1992 polling is interesting but doesn’t give us a read on if there had been no Perot.
Charisma goes a long way and he made Bush look old and out of touch. Clinton played up young and hip while Bush was hanging out with Pat Robertson. Clinton also learned from past campaigns and went after Bush.
That got him 43% of the vote. And let’s get real about GHWB, he was always crappy on the stump. He only won in 1998 because his opponent was even worse — and he only got the nomination because Biden got caught up in trumped up and old plagiarism charge and Hart got caught in an extra-marital dalliance. (I was okay with Biden but not okay with Hart.) Jesse Jackson (who I actually like), David Duke, and LaRouche mucking around in the primary didn’t help.
Age was a factor in Bob Dole’s losing challenge to bill Clinton, however.
Thanks for this, Booman. It’s always interesting to read Giordano; and that 2007 Phoenix piece is brilliant. (If you haven’t read it, stop now, click the link and read it.)
One reason, I think, that Clinton seems “inevitable” for Democrats is that there’s no evidence that any of the other potential candidates has absorbed the lessons of Obama’s campaigns—specifically on small donor fundraising, and “Camp Obama”.
P.S. Here’s another reason not to mention JFK’s youth: he was (according to Wikipedia) only four years younger than Nixon.
Yes, only 4 yrs age difference, but Nixon seemed so much older, in a fuddy-duddy old young fogey way. Kennedy was the cool older brother figure. Nixon the square yesteryear father figure.
Difference in that election I think was primarily those first-ever televised debates, not age or the women swooning over Kennedy. Most white women, iirc, voted Repub back then.
I agree that its not so much Clinton’s age. Giordano gets at that when he talks about the difference between she and Warren (who is about the same age). Clinton is the ultimate “insider” and the party faithfuls think its “her turn.” That never goes well…for either party.
Well, she did come awfully close in 2008. With some smarter campaign strategy, she would have won.
And for an alleged “ultimate insider”, it was the newcomer, barely getting his toes wet in the party establishment waters, who garnered more party insider endorsements.
Not to worry: nothing comes easy politically for a Clinton. There is always the unexpected that upsets the early prognostications. As with Bill and the sudden bimbo eruptions and draft-dodging allegations in 92, and Obama in 08.
I don’t know who will challenge her credibly, but someone undoubtedly will if she continues to take hawkish FP stances and doesn’t address the economic 1% issues.
Short of an active war, and one being lost or badly run at that, FP isn’t going to swing a Presidential election.
People.Just.Don’t.Care.
Short of an active war, and one being lost or badly run at that, FP isn’t going to swing a Presidential election.
People.Just.Don’t.Care.
Which is why the Democratic Party should think long and hard about nominating a warhawk.
The Obama-coalition fueled Democratic Party holds the advantage right now, but the two things that could — like the Nixon-Reagan coalition — prove their temporary and even permanent undoing is a President who bungles foreign policy or causes a badly-timed recession.
Sen. Clinton wanting to arm the Syrian rebels was the last straw for me. I’m at the point where I might seriously consider voting and even stumping for the Republican in 2012, so that she and her ilk doesn’t fuck the party in the ass for 2016+. Not to teach her a lesson or anything, but simply because the coalition can’t survive a centrist warhawk fucking things up.
Correction: Republican in 2016, so that she and her ilk doesn’t fuck the party in the ass for 2020+.
Warren carried her ridiculously-blue state in her only Senate election by a smaller margin that the guy at the top of the ticket did.
I don’t know where the default assumption comes from that if she ran she’d be from jump a superior campaingner to Clinton…
Not that that is actually relevant, since Warren has also announced she’s not running…
Whatever deficit Clinton might have (compared to Obama) among African Americans will be overwhelmingly made up in three ways.
White people in the last two elections that refused to vote for a black man, even when they agreed with Democratic positions. I bet that was 10% of white votes cast. West Virginia, Virginia, etc.
The republican nominee will take a position on SSS that is unacceptable to oldsters. IMHO this is what led to a lower white turnout than expected in 2012. Ryan was on the ballot, and he would kill SSS if given the chance, that is why Romney hid Ryan at the end of the campaign. The situation will be worse in 2016. There is tremendous overlap here with #1. Florida is a slam dunk for Clinton because of this.
I think Afican Americans will know EXACTLY what is at stake in 2016. So I think that is overblown. In fact, EVERYONE will know what is at stake.
.
Agreed, in that Clinton will know that her best GOTV weapon in 2016 in African American communities is the guy who tapped her as SoState. And Obama will also know that he crucial legacies are in the ballot in 2016, too.
I bet that was 10% of white votes cast. West Virginia, Virginia, etc.
Ryan was on the ballot, and he would kill SSS if given the chance, that is why Romney hid Ryan at the end of the campaign.
Florida is a slam dunk for Clinton because of this.
Looks like the centrists are about to step on another landmine, what with a triply-blinkered analysis like this.
I’m sorry, that was overly dismissive. Let me be more specific:
I bet that was 10% of white votes cast. West Virginia, Virginia, etc.
A basic electoral analysis of 2000, 2004, and 2008 shows that this isn’t really the case. Obama was certainly hurt by racist whites, but at this point in time it’s more like a nick to the cheek than a stab to the gut. Obama won Indiana in 2008, for pity’s sake.
Ryan was on the ballot, and he would kill SSS if given the chance, that is why Romney hid Ryan at the end of the campaign.
Ryan turned out to be an asset for Romney after the propaganda campaign. See the next point.
Florida is a slam dunk for Clinton because of this.
Not. At. All. Remember, in 2012 the GOP Presidential Nominee was a pension-raiding vulture capitalist who called the vast majority of retirees moochers who are destroying the fabric of the nation. And indeed, the Romney + Zombie-eyed Granny Starver ticket did remain underwater for much of the 2012 Campaign. However, after about a couple of weeks of relentless lying about Obama ‘cut $600 billion dollars from you Medicare!’ they pulled out way ahead among white seniors. That’s unfortunately the basic dynamic in Florida or the senior vote in general. The 2012 Democratic party had a dream ticket to run against… and still underperformed badly among white seniors.
Clinton is not going to change this dynamic. She can play the identity politics card a bit harder, sure, but Democrats winning Florida commandingly via seniors is a task that starts out difficult and can veer into impossible.
…
But anyway, all of this reveals a fundamental error in thought of the 2016 Clinton campaign and her supporters as of yet — they’re taking the Obama coalition for granted. They seem to be under the impression that youth + single women + urban professionals + blacks + Latinos is a given and they can just fish around for extra support while dragging them along. It’s not going to work out that way. The demographics Clinton is going after will be politically weaker in 2016 and also more ideologically hostile than in 2008. The demographics that propelled Obama to victory will be stronger but are notorious for poor turnout.
This isn’t an automatic ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’ — if a genuine economic populist was running like Warren or Brown, then they probably could take the Obama coalition mostly for granted and try to woo people on the pockets of the Republican Party. Unfortunately, Clinton is not a genuine economic populist and without becoming so she’ll end up alienating her supporters if her strategy is centrist nonsense like ambivalence to the corporate sector, ambivalence towards the economic issues of women and queers (they can marry given enough political inertia, that’s good enough, right?), warhawkery, sympathy towards Traditional America’s view on immigration, and gun proliferation.
What makes you think they’re taking ANY of those groups for granted? Why would they? It makes no sense at all…
What makes you think they’re taking ANY of those groups for granted? Why would they? It makes no sense at all…
Do you think warhawkery plays well among the Obama base? What about ambivalence towards labor issues? What about a hard line on immigration reform? Hell, there’s a post on this very blog post which says that she’ll have AAs sewn up just by sending Obama out to stump for her. Nothing about her positions or weregild or even impassioned speechifying, just “bam! And a checkmark for ‘black identity politics!” That’s what being taken for granted looks like.
You mean warhawkery like:
…those kinds of hawks?
People busting their heads open on the pavement by bungie jumping with an unmeasured cord is not permission for you to do the same.
operative word there is “coalition”
It strikes me that the lesson from Giordano’s 2007 piece is to keep an eye on the donations.
If an anti-Clinton arises this time that is anything more than a Sanders-esque messaging exercise, that candidate will be the one who sees a major infusion of small donors excited by their candidacy.
Sorry, I don’t see Marty “Littlefinger” O’Malley being that guy.
The biggest problem that Sen. Clinton has in the 2016 primary is the Latino vote. Or rather, she got a dominating 2/3rds of the vote during the 2008 primary and she still lost.
She simply can’t afford to significantly underperform or even do merely above-average with this demographic in 2016. She has to outright crush her opponent or she’s just not going to have a chance. This will prove problematic if she’s up against an opponent with a strong pro-immigration record. Like, say, O’Malley.
of Latinos. He hit the perfect note on the refugee crisis while Hillary really hurt herself with those comments. And Latino groups have noticed O’Malley’s record on immigration, refugees, increasing diversity in government contracts, etc.
I have seen political courage from O’Malley. But not from Clinton.
Obama got energy from the crowds, and he still does. The campaign sucked energy out of Clinton in 2008, and she was 8 years younger than she will be this time around.
Best possible scenario is that the chooses not to run.
Hillary looked exhausted at the end of her SoS stint and she still seems feeble. I just don’t think she has the energy for the campaign or the presidency. One of the reasons I am excited that O’Malley is going to run is that she’ll know that she won’t get a cakewalk to the nomination. Hopefully, that is enough to convince her not to run.
I really think O’Malley is going to inspire people in Iowa and NH. Yes, he isn’t Obama but he does retail politics really well and he speaks with passion about Democratic ideals. Just look at what he said about the refugee crisis compared to Hillary.
you sound like askew on balloon juice? askew, is that you?
under twodollars and never changed it.
I am a bit of a broken record on O’Malley partially because it is so much easier to talk about 2016 then dwell on the depressing political news of today. So many problems for Obama to deal with without any help from Congress. It’s depressing to watch.
Askew on balloon juice is a bit of a broken record on O’Malley, too. Not that I disagree with anything he’s saying! 🙂
I’m happy O’Malley is putting it out there, not hanging back like everyone else, waiting for a Hillary pronouncement one way or another.
What I think would be good for the party would be for Hillary to announce that she hasn’t made a decision yet about whether she will be running, but that even is she does run, she would welcome a full set of other democratic candidates. THAT is something she could do that would change my opinion of her.
That way no one has to worry about hanging back lest they run the risk of offending her or her donors. But she won’t do that because she seems to want to hang on to the “inevitable” meme once again. It sure worked out for her last time!
I am waiting to see what she does this fall. If she really just does a few private fundraisers and that is it with no big rallies to GOTV, I have to think she isn’t running or she is afraid that she won’t generate the enthusiasm that Obama generated in 2006 for candidates and that leaves an opening for challengers.
In the summer of 2007 I went all in for Barack Obama. I live in Illinois, so I had the added advantage of having seen him close up. I went to Iowa to volunteer in December of 2007 and when I returned in early January of 2008, Barack Obama had won the Iowa primary.
I borrowed some money, sold some possessions and maxed out for Obama in the primary, I went to 3 more states to volunteer. I donated in the general election. I bought 500 obama buttons and handed them out everywhere I went. I made a lot of phone calls.
I trudged through the cold and the snow going door to door. Standing in line waiting for the bank to open. Want an Obama button? And we’d talk about Barack Obama. The guy who has the organic booth at the farmer’s market called me Obama Girl. I BELIEVED IN BARACK OBAMA.
I just cannot get excited about Clinton. I will vote for her.
But I won’t be borrowing money, I won’t sell my possessions, I won’t go to 4 states to volunteer. I won’t spend hundreds of dollars on buttons so I can offer them to people who won’t be thrilled to have them.
Now multiply me by 1 million. That’s Hillary’s problem. That’s a problem for all of us.
Yeah but there are others who will. Last time, her campaign didn’t empower the grassroots, never invested in organizing until very late, tried to run entirely top down.
This time – without any official campaign – there are 2 million people involved in Ready for Hillary and 150K have made donations already. Small donors, doing house parties and organizing trainings.
Lesson learned.
Maybe you’re right.
But I’m with Al on this. I don’t think Hillary’s people get that they don’t get it. Hillary doesn’t seem to have learned anything from 2008 to the present.
I think her campaign will be a disaster, and when people talk about her strong coattails, I think they must live in a completely different world from the one I live in.
You named off all the things that you won’t do. Your main reason- Clinton does not excite you, you say. Well if motivation is what you need to get fired up. Here is a very healthy dose of it for you. Take the time to research all of the policies of the TPGOP. Make a list of what these policies will do to small things. Oh like
Education
SNAP,WIC,Food Stamps
Obamacare
Social Security
Medicare
Infrastructure
Unenployment Insurance
Minimum Wage
HUD
These are a few. Now put the names of the people you personally know use any of these things listed.
Then recognize a TPGOP win for President puts all of these things at risk of being GONE!! This would all happen for you made a choice not to get all fired up! Recognize this the Candidate means very little. The POLICIES that they support are life changing or ending for some. You vote and support all to vote to better this country. Not for the benefit of the running Candidate.
You can’t make the whole ‘I know that this doesn’t excite you, but, give 110% anyway’ argument. Once you ask for more than the bare minimum (vote in every election) under threat of political pain, you may as well tell someone to start an Internet business and then sell your IP for tens of thousands of dollars which you will donate to the SuperPAC. And if they don’t spend the requisite amount of time doing this, shame on them! Their inaction and apathy contributed to the defeat. While technically true, it doesn’t solve the underlying problem.
That’s the GOP playbook though – a campaign of fear. Fear of what the other party will do if they get into office.
Dems tend to perform better when they campaign on hope, not fear. There’s probably a study out there explaining how the typical GOP voter (older, more conservative) responds better to fear and the typical Dem voter (younger, more progressive) responds better to hope.
You’re right. Just look at, usually, who has won versus who hasn’t.
Well, at least you’re being honest. It’s about being in love.
People who are ginning up “electability” arguments are deceitful. Why are we giving Giordano credit for his profound political insights such as “(a consequence of the more common dynamic, in which these core Democratic constituencies do not vote, will be felt this November in the US Senate and House elections, where the only question is how bad the results will be for Democrats)”? Uh huh, on a night when the joke GOP just became odds on to lose both the governor and senate seats in Kansas in eight weeks. You can’t spend 364 days a year calling the Republicans hopeless cretins who will never win a national election again, and then on the last day tear those arguments into confetti because, oh, wait, that would mean Hillary is a shoo-in.
And we can’t have that.
Just say you hate the Clintons. Just admit that you hate that she will be snide to Obama upon his leaving and that she has no use for the mighty obot legion whatsoever. She’d win without your love and enthusiasm. And in fact, her hypothetical victory would drive the final nail into the coffin of the “politics of transformation” and “hope and change” that the 2010 midterms and Republican intransigence got started.
Nobody’s afraid that Hillary will lose to a Republican. They’re afraid she’ll win. And her win will leave their souls empty. That seems like reason enough to oppose her candidacy, without the lies and the hedges.
Nobody’s afraid that Hillary will lose to a Republican.
Actually, I’m very afraid that Hillary will lose to a Republican. In 2020. Centrists have a way of stumbling into political landmines that liberals see coming from a mile away. I like Obama myself, but three areas in which he’s been or has grievously fucked up on was the inadequate stimulus (due to being demagogued on the deficit), acceding to the terrorist demands of the 2011 debt ceiling crisis, and performing record deportations in his administration.
I have no idea why you think I hate the Clintons, or why you would say any of the things in those 2 paragraphs – your attempt at reading my mind has not been a success, so don’t quit your day job.
I did believe that we didn’t have to be red states and blue states, and I did believe that we could change politics as usual. Who knew there were no statesmen or patriots in the republican party, only people who would be willing to burn down our country because we have a black president? But that has nothing to do with Hillary. And if the republican party ever regains its senses, then maybe we can get stuff done.
I don’t want her as president, though. She has no political courage. She showed herself to be a liar during the 2008 primaries. I don’t like her foreign policy – she is way too much of a hawk and a war monger for me. But I sure as hell want her more than I want any republican president, so she’ll get my vote.
I could get excited about Sherrod Brown, though. If only he were interested in running!
No, you don’t have any undisguised antipathy for her at all. What am I talking about?
Are you saying you don’t hate a stupid, incompetent, disastrous, cowardly, lying warmonger? Those all seem like pretty hateable things.
The more of these shrill posts and discussions I see, the more I want Hillary Clinton: Restorationist Champion to become a real thing and turn the Democratic Party on its head. She’s already got people pining for Martin O’Malley aka the inspiration for Tommy Carcetti and the guy whose state had an unfixable meltdown of an ACA website. That’s just great. Can we skip ahead to the Draft Deval movement already?
I really don’t hate her. It’s more that I dismiss her as someone who could be a good president. I don’t trust her instincts and I’m not sure she ever does anything just because it’s the right thing to do.
I don’t care enough about her to hate her, but I don’t think she would be a good president.
You can take that as hate if you want, but it doesn’t register on my hate meter. Do I hate what happened in Ferguson? Yes. Do I hate what Governor Ultrasound and others are doing to women? Yes. Do I hate Mitch burn-the-country-down McConnell? Yes. Do I loathe Romney and Cruz? Yes. Do I hate Hillary Clinton. No. I just do not want her as my president.
Shrill? suppose you were responding to “WaterMale” would you use “shrill”?
and btw your ad hominem verges on troll ratable
Yes, shrill.
The rising panic over Hillary is good fun. It got even Al Giordano to crawl out of the wilderness to shake his finger at clouds and cry out for a generational challenge. That’s amusing, but not particularly pertinent right now with all that goes on in the world.
And if you want to accuse me of being unsparing, you’re right, that’s why I don’t post here anymore. I think the comments section went to pot and it’s the same preening fatalists vs. the same increasingly hangdog administration supporters over and over again with nobody having any idea what they actually want as a next step in American politics anymore. It’s a shame because Booman is back to doing good work this election year after a pretty bad showing in 2012. He was on that Kansas thing early. Him, Sam Wang and Molly Ball are the only three people you need to follow this year to get the right story. There’s a lot to talk about and the world’s changed quite a bit in the last six years, but for the internet, it’s only ever going to be 2008 forever.
I’m not accusing you of being unsparing, I’m accusing you of writing comments that are personal and use sexist language (i.e. that the commenter “hates” the Clintons). How about a discussion of the points to advance the discussion? “shrill” is widely heard as a sexist insult
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2014/06/18/3450175/how-to-interview-a-female-candidate-without-bei
ng-sexist/
“hangdog” administration supporters? I, otoh, am a reasoned administration supporter
take what he says seriously. I think Hillary is really going to struggle to inspire the Dem base in the primaries and if another candidate can excite the base, she’ll lose again.
BooMan, I forgot to say thank you for posting this link to Al Giordano!
I had to think for a minute to remember my name and password on his site. It’s great to hear his take on this!
+1!
I’ve been waiting for Al to re-enter the domestic politics scene. His voice is such a provocative and welcome one (and always well written).
Boo and Al were the dynamic (and reassuring) duo I enjoyed reading so much in the 2008 cycle.
Okay all of you that bring out Clinton’s age. I have a question for you then. What happens to the age issue if good old Mitt Romney becomes the TPGOP Presidential Candidate?
By the way if the young people are unwilling to vote for A Democratic Party member to be President due to age. Then they deserve all of the TPGOP policies their nonvoting supports. Life is hard folks time for these young people to recognize that they had best be out in force in support of any and ALL Democratic Party members or quit whimpering and whining when the TPGOPers start enforcing their numerous negative policies.
Sorry all but I get sick and tired of listening to people complain about the way things are and when asked if they voted-NO- big surprise. Thus if the young people do not vote they deserve the pain that the TPGOP policies will rain down on them.
If we do not actively do all in our power to get ALL to recognize that they must VOTE ALL TPGOPers out of office. Then we deserve what we get ourselves.
Get out and push all to vote!!!
My concern about age is that the presidency is now a young person’s job. It takes a younger person’s energy.
I love Biden and I would vote for him in a heartbeat, but I don’t see how someone that age can keep up with the physical challenges of the job. Not for 4 years, and not for 8.
The vice president’s job is a lot different from the president’s.
As I pointed out in another comment, there has been no Presidential election since 1948 where both candidates were >60 years old. Nor in the elections back to 1916.
A 69 year old v. a 69 year old is completely uncharted territory.
Hillary Clinton cannot rely on getting the same kind of turnout that Barack Obama did for a couple of reasons.
First, I find it nearly impossible to name any Democrat less suited or less likely to deliver a populist message than Hillary Clinton. One of the greatest problems facing America at the moment is the yawning abyss between the rich and the poor. Clinton is going to do everything in her power to avoid addressing it in any meaningful way: the 1% are, after all, her people so goring their oxen is dead out. The lack of a populist message is going to hurt her badly with, among others, the millennial generation as it endures fewer jobs, very few good paying jobs and a shredded social safety net.
Clinton’s lack of a believable populist message combined with her 2008 campaign’s flirtation with racism is not going to motivate people of color to turn out to vote for her. People do remember those kinds of things.
The country should be ready for woman president, I know that I am. I was just hoping that our first First Husband would be married to an actual Democrat.
I share your sentiments!
OT, I saw a new name on balloon juice today and my bleary eyes mistook it for yours. I was so happy to see you back there! (for a minute, until I realized it wasn’t you.) hope you come back soon.
and when the Clinton name was said the crowd went wild. The African Americans around me cheered just as loudly.
I do not think you are right at all about Hillary and the African American vote.
All things being equal, the sanest thing for Republicans to do is nominate someone like NM’s Susana Martinez. Hell, I don’t for Republicans, but I’d consider voting for her regardless of issue or policy, just to put a brown woman in the White House and piss off all the old white people.
But who am I kidding, they won’t nominate her.
say the same damn thing to a group of us in 1982. “Generational Change” and JFK and all of what Al recounts.
Hillary’s weakness though IS her generation, but not for the reason Al writes about. Hillary’s weakness is she is still stuck in 1989 reading the The New Republic Quadrennial Recriminations Issue. The lessons for the ass kickings of the 80’s:
*The “left” doesn’t know anything useful
*We must learn an appreciation for the “miracle” of the markets.
*We must be tough on foreign policy! The Vietnam War is over!
Except:
*If the Vietnam Syndrome were still operational we wouldn’t have invaded Iraq
*The “miracle of the market” lead to disastrous policy like banking de-regulation
*Much of the left critique on the economy has been correct – See Piketty. Or perhaps more accurately the neo-liberalism at the heart of the DLC view of the world has been proven wrong.
Had Hillary voted against the AUMF I have little doubt she would be President. The lessons she learned, forged in the 70’s and 80’s, distort her vision of the world of 2014. Since she cannot read the world correctly, she is likely to make political mistakes.
Put more simply, the instincts she has learned make her a poor candidate.
I can forgive the Third Way Dems who lived from the mid-70s up to the mid-00s for many of their policy positions. Like it or not, conservatism was ascendant after the Nixon-Reagan coalition showed us how things would go short of us getting lucky black swans. So pre-Iraq War foolishness such as DOMA and DODT and the vote for the Gulf War and the MIC build-up I can forgive; much the same way I can forgive undercover detectives for doing blow or smacking around a sex worker to maintain their cover.
However, the days of having to choose between sucking up to Joe Clark (New Deal Dems) and Gekko Gordon (DLC Dems) is over. Bullshit like Simpson-Bowles and the AUMF is no longer Sophie’s Choice; it’s just a flat-out liability. And Dems who honestly think (or are addicted to Wall Street sugar and secretly think) that centrist and conservative policy debacles is the way of the future need to be shown the door.
I don’t forgive any of them. Instead of holding to principles and public policies that had demonstrated their effectiveness over decades and doing the hard work of articulating and selling good government to new generations, they borrowed the GOP cheap thrills of “big business is good and will make everybody rich.”
Totally ignoring that farmers were struggling and losing their farms as they had back in the Great Depression and the giant “Continental Illinois Bank” failure that if not for the New Deal FDIC would have devastated depositors and bond holders. That failure should have been a wake up call for better regulatory oversight of large banks and not looser regulation. They were also asleep at the wheel wrt to the S&L experiment in deregulation.
was so different from the DLC types in many ways.
To me much is forgivable – right up until the Welfare Reform Act. From there, to the unwinding of limitations on the financial sector, the DLC Democrats simply became a tool of forces that wanted to unwind the New Deal.
The suggestion that Schweitzer has any business anywhere near the Democratic Presidential ticket immediately shows Giordano is either clueless or grinding a very large axe.
He’s a successful two-term governor. Can you tell me any politician of his stature actively pushing single-payer(besides the governor of Vermont)? I’m not saying he’s perfect or anything. Just pointing out he’s as viable as anyone of the second tier. Do you feel the same way about Andrew Cuomo? I think Schweitzer is far down on the list of candidates Al would support. He’s just naming the names, except Klobuchar, that most people have thrown out who might run whether Hillary does or not.
Schweitzer is the guy who can’t think of anything good Obama has done. If he’s as good as anybody in the second tier, Clinton is our only hope.
Could not agree more.
Schweitzer would, like two-term President Dean, win the DKos primary going away…
That’s got to count for something.
At least he has more redeeming features than Andy Cuomo, but you’re wrong in any case. Half of TGOS probably doesn’t know who he is.
I agree with you that Schweitzer has no business anywhere near the Democratic Presidential ticket.
I looked askance at Al’s article when I first saw Schweitzer’s name in the list, but then I concluded that the point of Al’s post wasn’t to say who Al wanted to run for president – I took it as Al being deliberately agnostic about WHO the candidates should be. His point is the nomination will be handed to Hillary Clinton at our peril.
Giordano is a bit sloppy in calculating the ages of Presidential candidates:
Wrong. Nixon was 47. A four year age difference is hardly generational.
There is a case to be made wrt the age of Presidential candidates, but I’m not sure Giordano has presented it.
For the period 1948 and excluding incumbents, only one person over the age of 65 has been elected POTUS. (Two others ran and lost.) Including incumbents that number is increased to two (Ike and Reagan).
During that same time period and including unelected incumbents, there were five 64 year old candidates: Truman, Ford, GHWB, Kerry, and Romney. Of the two that won, both served one term; one by choice and the other defeated.
In the five contests where the choice was between >60 and <50, the latter won four out of the five. (The 64 year old incumbent Truman beat the 46 year old whippersnapper challenger.)
There has not been an election where the two candidates were both >60 years old; so that’s unknown terrain. When the age difference between the two candidates was four or fewer years, the slightly younger man won the popular vote by a razor thin margin.
The data set is too small and there are too many confounding variables (incumbency, WWII general, and an actor that could recite his lines and hit his marks) to make any sweeping generalizations, but being and/or looking old isn’t an advantage.
She kept it in generalities, but still interesting I guess.
Sen. Warren Criticizes Washington-Wall Street ‘Revolving Door’
Warren would never criticize a fellow Democrat by name, especially not this issue.
Giordano was the guy who kept me sane through the 2008 election. I think of you, Martin, as being very much like Al was back then — clear headed, rational. But Al stopped writing very much and what he did write became more fuzzy over time. I don’t trust that he got it right this time. Age is one factor and, sure, it’s better to be moderately young rather than old when running for the presidency. But it’s just one factor across an entire range of factors. To say Hillary’s going to lose to someone like Cruz because he’s young and hip is idiotic. There’s nothing young or hip about any of the Republican candidates.
I have nothing but respect for Al.
However, he wrote a similar same piece about why Mitt Romney wasn’t going to win the Republican nomination.
His analysis is second to none (if you haven’t read it, see the linked Boston Phoenix article) and his writing is wonderful, but that doesn’t mean he has a crystal ball.
His point, however, is well taken. “Inevitable” does not mean inevitable. A lot can happen between now and Winter/Spring 2016.
Giordano was the guy who kept me happy through the 2008 selection. I think of you, Martin, as being very much like Al was returning then — obvious advancing, logical. But Al ceased composing very much and what he did create became more unclear eventually. I don’t believe in that he got it right now. Age is one aspect and, sure, it’s better to be reasonably younger rather than old when operating for the obama administration. But it’s just one aspect across an whole variety of aspects. To say Hillary’s going to reduce to someone like Jackson because he’s younger and hip is stupid. There’s nothing younger or hip about any of the Republican applicants. Dukan Diät Plan