According to Gabriel Sherman at New York magazine, the Clintons are ready to unleash unholy opposition research on Joe Biden if he decides to get into the race. Frankly, though, I don’t think they have much that Matt Yglesias hasn’t already unloaded on him. And if I were to make a similar list of Hillary and Bill’s heresies, missteps, and bad policies, it would look at a lot worse to the average Democratic voter.
You know, I have a lot of friends who seem almost inexplicably dismissive of a Biden candidacy. I’m not sure what explains it.
After all, as Nate Cohn points out, Biden would almost definitely emerge as a stronger challenger to Clinton than Sanders. According to a new field poll out of California, 63% of likely Democratic primary voters want Joe Biden as an option on their ballot. Despite its size, California will likely have no impact on the nomination because their primary is scheduled for so late in the process, but it’s still worth mentioning that the biggest blue state is interested in a Biden candidacy.
I can understand why Ed Kilgore is growing impatient with Biden’s Hamlet routine, but I still think he should take his sweet time making a decision. The filing deadlines will begin soon, so a decision is not too far off.
Now, if you’re already solidly in Hillary’s camp, you don’t want Biden to run and I can understand the desire to try to scare him off. Poll after poll shows that Biden would take more of Clinton’s votes than Sanders’, and that would make for a longer, more expensive and perilous contest for the frontrunner. But I think the people who are obsessed with those numbers are putting the cart before the horse. The polls in New Hampshire are solidifying for Sanders. It’s to the point that articles have begun to emerge suggesting that Clinton should abandon her efforts in the Granite State because it’s a poor investment in a state she is destined to lose. I think that’s bad advice for several reasons, including that she’ll really want to win New Hampshire in the general should she have the opportunity to be the nominee. But there’s a problem here, and you shouldn’t try to dismiss it by suggesting that Vermont’s Bernie Sanders has some big home field advantage in New Hampshire. The two states are less alike than you might imagine. For one, New Hampshire is a swing state and Vermont is about as far away from a swing state as you can get. That ought to tell you something.
Frankly, I don’t care what numbers you look at, Clinton is underperforming and moving in the wrong direction. And if you want to look at those plain facts and argue that everyone should just get out of her way and stop making life difficult for her, then maybe you’re just overconfident about her skills and prospects.
This is by far the biggest “brushback” pitch from the Clinton campaign – and it involves no dark political arts at all:
http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2015/10/07/georgia-democratic-leaders-line-up-behind-hillary-clinton/
John Lewis, Kasim Reed, and the entirety of the Georgia Democratic leadership just signed on for Hillary.
“unleash unholy opposition” – haha!
that’s solid.
Big question about whether the Silent Primary matters, but if it does, Hillary has it sewn up.
I’m not sure why Progressives are eager to label HRC a hawk and not Biden, though.
Because on all the big issues in Obama’s first term where Biden and Clinton disagreed, Biden took the dovish position. On the bin-Laden raid, Biden has to take the heat, but on Syria and Libya, it’s Hillary that has to explain herself.
Biden’s been hawkish though on Ukraine, with the exception of noting the govt corruption in Kiev. On Syria, he has an opening on Hillary’s left on the NFZ at the least.
If he goes further, say endorsing Putin’s recent initiative at the UN to work in alliance with the US to destroy ISIS, going therefore to the left of his boss, I might get interested.
Hunter Biden has sweet business deals with at least one Ukrainian oligarch.
Explain themselves? To whom? I don’t care what polls show, not ten percent of democrats give a shit who gets bombed. I bet the number who want to bomb them all is over fifty percent. Doctors Without Borders just got the shit bombed out of them……and nobly cares. Most will say, they should not be there, in the way of bombs. Obama understands this perfectly, that there is no political downside to drones and bombs, except within a small subset of traitors and pacifiers who will vote democratic anyway. Hawk? It’s only a matter of degree. Christ, do none of you actually talk to coworkers?
It’s the economy. it always has been. But war and guns? Nobody cares.
.
In general I agree. Obama did get play because of his position on Iraq, but that was a generational question. Also he’s a five star politician. The idea that the subtle differences in foreign policy outlook between Hillary and Biden would be significant in a primary race seems far-fetched.
One has to be very principled and/or intelligent and informed to reject the practically exclusive message from those in the highest ranks of both political parties and the MSM that trumpet “US bombs, drones, ‘kill lists,’ etc. are good and keep US safe.”
Such mono-message advertising and propaganda works on at least 80% of the US population. In the shortest term, a scary 90%.
Yes, yes, that’s it!
If only everyone else was as principled, intelligent and informed as yourself they would see through all the propaganda!
.
–OR — not “and”
Young children can be quite adept at seeing through BS. They aren’t informed and almost all of them are of average intelligence. As for principles, they have a cleaner, less muddied, sense of right and wrong.
Did it make you feel tough and hip to attack my perfectly rational and informed comment as to the power advertising and propaganda has over human beings? Or was it but a kneejerk response to slay the messenger?
Sanders’ lead in NH is about as compelling as Harkin’s 1992 lead in Iowa. If it’s not just a backyard effect, why hasn’t Sanders been able to replicate it in a single other state?
And you really can”to think of any critique of Biden – cough – bankruptcy – that hasn’t been mentioned by neoliberal Matt Yglesias but would resonate in the primaries?
You need opposition research to discover that Delaware is a corporate tax haven? Next you’ll inform me that Wall Street is in Manhattan.
As for backyard effect, Sanders isn’t really trying to win anywhere but Iowa and New Hampshire right now. He’s one for two and closing in Iowa.
The California poll I cited shows him closing there, too, not that it matters except as an indicator of a trend.
The question isn’t whether Biden should burn in hell over the bankruptcy amendments. That’s left as an exercise for the reader.
The question is whether there are criticisms to be made of Biden in a Democratic primary that haven’t already been made from his right by Yglesias. That question answers itself. As Scott Lemieux points out today, Biden is also problematic on women’s issues. To name just one example.
And Sanders is too campaigning in other states. Just look at his schedule. He’s not getting any traction anywhere without Subarus, but he is campaigning. I just have this vision of you looking to the NH results in another six months like some Steelers fan living in the 70s.
If I have to vote for another neoliberal, please not one that would place another male Catholic on the SC. Or even another female Catholic. Too easy to find all those state restrictions reasonable. Given how weak minded females are and all.
there’s probably a way to make that argument without sounding like you’re an anti-Catholic bigot.
I wish there were.
He’s raising money in other states, but he’s not really running a campaign in them. The only numbers that matter at all right now are from the first four states, and then the trend line numbers.
You know, just as an aside, people who don’t get political organizing consistently fail to anticipate how these things will unfold. There’s a reason that Giordano and I were the most accurate prognosticators in ’08, and it’s because we were looking at the field work very intensely, and also doing the field analysis work. It’s how we were trained.
It told us very early on that Clinton was going to get clocked in caucus states for example, and also how huge that would be as a delegate neutralizer of Hillary’s advantages in big Democratic states.
I’m telling you right now that Sanders is gaining everywhere that he’s trying to gain. And he isn’t trying anywhere really, but Iowa and New Hampshire right now. The rest is for meta-narrative and fundraising, which he’s also excelling at.
Mr. Longman,
I have a comment concerning Biden and his possible Presidential run. Then, I’m going to play Devil’s Advocate on the topic of Gowdy’s grand jury … excuse me, I meant Special Committee … and I would be interested in your response.
In 2008, before the Iowa caucuses, I knew that Clinton wasn’t going to be the nominee, but I didn’t know who would be. After Iowa, I was certain that Obama was going to win, for many of the same reasons you did. Just as happened with Obama in 2008, especially with where the economy is headed and if there is a war with Russia, Iran and Syria and possibly China, I can see Sanders winning a two-way race with Clinton. With Biden in the race, it’s difficult to see how Clinton loses. Even though Biden’s support comes mainly from Clinton, her support will still be in the low to mid 40’s, with Biden and Sanders in the 20’s. Biden drops out, his delegates go to her, and she wins. In this scenario, Biden is her insurance against a repeat of 2008.
For another Biden scenario, let me play Devil’s Advocate. Let’s assume that McCarthy is telling the truth and that the Benghazi hearings are political and are nothing more than a way to damage Clinton’s candidacy. Do you actually think that they will be just more of the same? What if they really want to destroy her? Here is your nightmare scenario.
There is an old saying among trial lawyers: Don’t get mad, get even. Republicans get mad, then they get even. The single greatest crime, in their mind, that Democrats committed, was the “criminalization of policy” and Iran-Contra and the prosecution of great Americans like Weinberger. They have never forgotten this and they are now going to get even. Your nightmare scenario, if you want a Democrat to win in 2016, is that Benghazi is going to be about arms to terrorists and Clinton lying to Congress to cover up these crimes.
Clinton has already lied to Congress, but let’s talk about arms to terrorists first. For years, Obama has been arming terrorist organizations in Syria. Under US law, it is illegal to aid terrorist organizations either directly or indirectly. Do you know what it means to aid terrorists “indirectly”, Mr. Longman? It’s a term of art and it has a very specific meaning in the law.
Many of these arms shipments went through the consulate in Benghazi to Turkey. One of Ambassador Stevens’ jobs was to co-ordinate these shipments. For all your talk about demographics and how the Republicans are crazy and in disarray, if you run Clinton, her chances of winning the general election depend on your belief that the Republicans can’t prove this. You sure better hope you’re right.
When Clinton testified before the Senate, there was one thing that jumped out. Rand Paul specifically asked her if arms were sent from Benghazi to Turkey. Her reply was interesting. She didn’t deny that this happened. She denied knowing about it. What do you think, Mr. Longman? Do you think that the Republicans can prove she knew that arms were being sent from Benghazi to Turkey, because if they can, you all have a problem. A very big problem.
Gowdy is a former federal and state prosecutor. He has put people on death row. The “Special Committee” is a grand jury. They are bringing her in to give her the opportunity to lie again. Do you think there were no emails about this? No meetings? She may have destroyed all of the emails on her hard drive, but did she also destroy all of the copies from the hard drives of people who received them? You may find that destroying these emails is obstruction of justice. Hypothetically speaking, of course, this is Iran-Contra with a dead Ambassador.
After Clinton testifies later this month, nothing will happen until after the first of the year.
Gowdy will then produce his evidence. It may go something like this.
They’ll have a pilot who flew from Benghazi to Turkey with the arms. He’ll be terrified of what the Clintons might do to him so he’ll testify behind a screen and his voice will be concealed. She’ll call him a liar and deny everything. Then, they’ll produce a witness who remembers receiving an email from her, but didn’t save a copy. You will destroy his character and she’ll deny everything. Clinton Derangement Syndrome! Vast right wing conspiracies! Then they’ll produce a witness who saved a copy of one of her emails and people who were at the meetings with her when it was discussed. All they have to prove is that she knew.
Day after day, week after week, month after month, all while primary and caucus voting is happening. Imagine the press coverage. Breaking news! Bombshell revelations in the Benghazi scandal! New witnesses and documents cast doubt on what Clinton knew! Calls for Obama to prosecute her will grow. You may also find that she was cleared the first time only because she “kicked sand in the eyes of the investigators” by lying and destroying emails.
Obama and Biden know whether arms were sent from Benghazi to Turkey. In this scenario, Biden is who you run when Clinton is forced to withdraw.
I don’t know what’s going to happen, of course, but it’s going to be interesting.
What difference does Yglesias make? What percentage of primary voters even know who he is? Bringing Yglesias in is too blogger inside baseball.
Yglesias attacks Biden for his support for the drug war, including sentencing disparities and civil forfeiture, for botching the Thomas hearings, getting him confirmed, for supporting the Iraq War, for advocating Iraq partition, and for having performed poorly in past campaigns. The last two are not partisan issues, and I don’t see how any of the others constitute “attacks from the right”.
I see you missed the Amtrak critique, which was mainly union bashing. And Yglesias didn’t support partition because he supported the Bush policy.
Amtrack is by far the least important of the political issues raised. And even at that, only one of his three named objections speaks to labor. And even at that, the starting premise – that if you cannot make money selling food on long train rides to captive customers, something is wrong, is correct. It was the defense of the status quo that said prices could not come down without a reduction in staff, and, given how easy it is to make money selling food on trains, this does indeed imply misplaced priorities. Supporting poor services for the sake of creating jobs is left-wing in the Soviet sense. The ultimate purpose of the enterprise has to be to serve its customers or the public, not to provide jobs for their own sake.
And his reason for opposing partition is that it did not have the support of the Sunnis, it did not have the support of the Kurds, and it only had the support of some of the Shia. That would seem a valid point.
New Hampshire is a swing state, but the Democrats there are pretty Vermontish. It’s just that there are surprisingly more Vermonters in Vermont than there are in New Hampshire. Iowa and New Hampshire both have a fair number of rural progressives who make us a sort of natural constituency for Sanders.
I’m not saying ALL Subaru drivers with NPR stickers on the back are Sanders’ voters, but…Yeah, that’s what I’m saying.
New Hampshire has open same-day registration so independents can (and do) vote in the primary. Second, the Boston suburbs are filled with white professionals who are Clinton’s natural constituents. It’s a different electorate than any Sanders has ever faced.
White professionals are the quintessential Sanders voters.
you’re obviously not from New York or Philly.
Tax aversion is the first step towards DLC-ism and away from Oakland-style socialism.
I am. And people who are still that concerned about taxes aren’t voting in Democratic primaries. White Democrats tend to be either highly educated city/suburban types, or single mothers working three jobs (or single women without kids who don’t want them). Three guesses how those groups tend to line up in the primaries.
The polls that were cited on this site a couple of days ago show that Clinton’s highest support is in the top of the three income groups, and her second highest (really the same due to margin of error) in the lowest. Sanders support came from the middle. The cut-off for the top group wasn’t that high, and I think the bulk of “professionals” would fall in that group.
Yes, professionals being a stand-in for “highest income brackets,” the white professional class isn’t a bunch of English majors from Mt. Holyoke that you see at the local farmer’s market. It’s doctors and dentists and lawyers and stockbrokers and middle and upper corporate management. You know, a lot of Democrats in the New York, Philly, Boston suburbs are in this category and they’re not done with the Occupy Movement or soaking themselves with taxes to pay for all society’s inequities.
“down” with Occupy.
Agreed, but I do think Sanders is doing pretty well at trying to align the middle with the poor against the rich, and most of those people are the upper-middle, not the truly rich. And the poll showed half of them support Hilary, but there are a lot of undecideds. Bernie probably can’t win this group outright, but Hillary’s margins may not be as high as she needs.
So in other words, you meant to say “rich people,” not nurses or academics. Got it.
So why is it the state where Kerry broke Dean’s mo’?
Technically, Dean lost his mo in Iowa by coming in a weak third. That flipped the NH switch from Dean to Kerry, who both could claim some affinity to NH. Romney expected that to work in his favor in 2008, but the lingering affinity for McCain from 2000 won out. It worked much better for him in 2012 because he had no “NH natural affinity” competitors. Had he placed third in Iowa behind Paul and Huntsman, NH could easily not have gone his way.
Sanders does have a similar NH risk to what Mitt had in 2008. Lingering affinity for Clinton is probably strong. At this point he’s too far away from having closed the deal in NH to take too much comfort from his current poll numbers.
I’m not an HRC fan, but she did show leadership in putting forward some reasonable gun control proposals. Pisses off the RWNJ, and that is a good thing.
It’s an opening for her on the left, one of very few, against Sanders who backed a bill 10 years ago to eliminate liability for gun mfrs. Satch also opposed the Brady Bill. He’s done better on gun control recently, but those 2 votes will come up again and again. Especially if there’s another mass shooting or two just before voting starts.
I’m as in the bag for HRC as you can get. I’ve been a yellow dog democrat since the late ’60s.
And I don’t give a tinker’s damn about who runs in the nomination. If Hillary can’t beat Joe heads up … too damn bad. That’s how the ball game is played.
Joe Biden is the answer to a question that no one is asking.
If cola soft drink consumers were asked if they would like an alternative to Coke or Pepsi, most would say “sure.” Americans have a strong preference for more choice, but at decision time, we go with what we know or what we think is most popular.
Remember when Fred Thompson was the GOP “great white hope?”
Natural sympathy for Biden’s loss is high at the moment, but that will wane if he’s a candidate (and could become a negative if he or his team make any effort to use it). Don’t think the illiberal white vote is large enough among DEM primary voters for Biden to win in Iowa and NH and SC will be even worse as Clinton as the AA vote sewn up (for reasons that escape me).
I don’t have a strong opinion on whether Biden runs.
But I’ll note that I perceive the way Clinton has run her second presidential campaign to date as underwhelming in the extreme. I’m sure to some degree that perception is colored by how the press covers her – but if anything that’s mild compared to the treatment the press will give her in the general election campaign.
I hope for her, and our, sakes she figures out a way to fix this.
If Biden runs he’ll take more votes away from Clinton, which is good for Sanders. He’s wise to not rush in and get into a debate with Sanders too.
I think that a lot depends on how Sanders handles himself in the debates. Most Dems agree with most of his ideas, and the separation from Clinton will tell.
Actually, not only does how Sanders perform in the debates count, but whether or not the sole reporting is about how old he looks. I had to spend a long weekend with my 90 year-old mother watching Fox. Whenever Sanders’ name came up, it was sort of, “Gee, he’s so old.”
I have to this day never forgotten his Delaware slave state crack. And I find his physical actions in public to be borderline hatassment. So I have personal animosity. That said I think his partition arguments were a better policy than we pursued in hindsight and I dislike Matt Yglesias almost as much (I used to troll him in his comments back in the day) so even if the rest of the items are right maybe I should consider Biden a bit more.
A Clash of the Titans with oppo research enables Sanders’s candidacy.
When does the throw-shit-at-Bernie-and-see-what-sticks campaign begin? The day before January?
I’m still holding out hope for O’Malley.
However,the latest PPP poll has Clinton leading Sanders 51-28.
That’s without Biden in the race. It makes sense to look at this one since Biden isn’t in the race. But even if he is in, the poll shows:
Still a sizable lead.
In the latest Quinnipiac poll, Clinton also has a 24-point lead in Florida, a 19-point lead in Ohio, and an 11-point lead in Pennsylvania.
This constant drumbeat of Hillary doing so poorly would only seem to be true if one were to asscribe a standard to her campaign that no other human politician has ever been held to.
Absolutely true. Some even say what a terrible campaigner she is, even though it took a great politician like Obama to beat her, and then barely. There has been a great deal of talk lately about white privilege, but in this case I think there is quite a bit of overt sexism. She has taken quite a few stances that progressive supposedly were waiting for, yet it is never enough. The yearning for Biden (whom I like) is a great example. His domestic policies are not very progressive at all on abortion, Wall Street, trade, yet many still yearn. I sometimes wonder if the media hype surrounding him is a desire from corporate America for someone more amiable for them. And that is saying a LOT considering how corporate she is.
But then, those types want everything, including the food from your table.
.