I can’t help but wonder if the Clintons are done as a Democratic Party power. Were they simply a transition from the conservative ideology to the developing progressive ideology? Their connections to the corporations being a necessary evil during Bill’s terms and an albatross that hung around Hillary’s neck?
For all her rhetoric about economic equality her speaking at corporate events seemed to really hurt her in this election.
It’s already known at the national level that it was a bad election night for Dems. It would be interesting to see an analysis of down ballot races, especially at the state level. It’s my guess that more Dems lost than Repubs. How much power in the Repub party do the Bush’s have today? As the saying goes, “the king is dead, long live the king.”
The party put all its eggs into the Hillary basket with the operating assumption that her landslide would have mega-coattails.
And then her campaign did not work to build those coattails as a way to ensure her election. The unity campaign sucked resources into Brooklyn.
Coattails aren’t built; they’re worn by the highest ranking party nominee in the election cycle and the down-ticket nominees grab hold of them.
A lot of number crunching still to be done to see how well that worked in this election. Minimal change in the House and Senate — favoring Democrats — but whether or not that is indicative of anything much not yet known.
Not channeling resources to downticket races in a strategic manner hurt the top line.
That’s what the DSCC and DCCC are for.
Wasn’t it the charge of the Clinton campaign that Bernie wasn’t raising money for House and Senate races; whereas, she was raising oodles for them? Some of it surely trickled down to candidate committees.
You believe a Clinton press release?
Do you mistake me for the 50+% of Democratic primary voters that believed anything in a Clinton press release. I noted long ago that even when I knew Clinton herself was speaking the truth, she still spoke as if she were hiding something or lying. Truly exhausting to have to fact check everything a candidate says.
wrt the claim that the HVF was raising money for state Dem parties, I was only able to check on that claim through it’s first two FEC reports, specifically 9/30 and 12/31, and to a much lesser extent from the 3/31 report due to the increased length of the reports. As I detailed in a diary (that few here bother to read, much less care about), her claim as of 12/31 was false; it was a ruse to get more into the DNC that as we suspected and later could verify were for the benefit of HRC. After that some of that money did get and stay with state Dem parties, and I’m sure that it was only coincidental that it arrived just in time before the primary election where the state’s Super-Delegates were in the tank for Hillary. And all those big-bucks donors (corporate, Wall St, Silicon Valley, Hollywood) had only one interest, electing HRC because she was one of them.
(I’ll post a specific example of that last point later today or tomorrow.)
I apologize for the insult. It was meant to be said with incredulity.
I know — I was just playing along with it and I apologize for assuming that you would get that.
OOps! Missed that. Too bad there’s no tone of voice in text.
Is Chelsea Clinton going to run for Congress in the Chappaqua district?
http://nypost.com/2016/11/10/chelsea-clinton-being-groomed-to-run-for-congress/
During an anti-establishment era, political dynasties are dead. Political dynasties were never popular in this country, even in establishment times. Look at the Kennedy dynasty–it isn’t there–and they came the closest of anybody. The Clinton’s are done, even if Chelsea wins a congressional seat.
Many have hung around for a surprisingly long time considering the dynastic performance in office.
Bush: 11/52 — 1/09. (And Jebbie wanted to do another eight years in the WH. George P. is TX land commissioner and as the only Bush to endorse/campaign for Trump, his star may be rising (or perhaps it was the family hedging their bets.) And wouldn’t rule out any of the other younger ones who may still get the itch for a well-paying, easy gig.) With George P – the family is now into it’s fourth generation. That may be unique.
Kennedy: 1/47 — Ted Jr. elected 1/15 (seems to be the only one currently in office). Except for 2011-2015, at least one Kennedy held elective office and more than one during several time periods.
Taft: 1909-1953 (1921-30 W.H. was Chief Justice and jr. held a seat in the OH legislature)
Edmund Brown (CA): 1951-current governor (both ran for POTUS)
The list of father to son or daughter elected officials isn’t short and many have dominated state government for decades.
True. I didn’t know George P. had endorsed Trump. However, that may come back to haunt him. Name recognition does have some advantage, but it seems there is a critical mass point and then it’s Humpty Dumpty time.
Surely it was strategic, the Family hedging their bets. They are amoral. All they care about is the game of thrones.
>> Edmund Brown (CA): 1951-current governor (both ran for POTUS)
well we’re done with them at least, since Jerry has no kids. His sister’s already tried and failed.
True — but I was only pointing out how long they manage to stay around. Not always a bad thing if the original was good and the descendants are as good or better. Can’t say that about Jerry. Or Evan Bayh.
I would recommend that Chelsea stick to he current career path. The knives will be out the moment she announces.
We are in a moment when the public longs for people who understand their experiences in trying to pursue the American Dream and hold to American symbols at the same time. There is a lot of negotiating of contradictory elements in that formulation but that is where Trump built his attraction even as one born with a silver spoon in his mouth.
Reparative or restorative justice is the trigger for extreme resistance right now. It is going to take more of an event than we have seen to trigger repentance for American history in those whose education taught them none of that history but was the mythology of the rise of Western Civilization of goodness, freedom, and equality. Or whatever the state legislature mandates for American History, History of Western Civilizaion, and Civics say. Oh yes, “and the free enterprise system.”
Well, Liz Cheney won in WY. Why not go for double-barf.
Now do you really think Chelsea, after a lifetime of family campaigning, thinking about campaigning, fundraising for campaigning, etc… wants to get into that mess?
No, the consultants, pollsters, media specialists and general hanger ons see the gravy train pulling into the final station and want to make sure their income stream has a chance to continue.
R
She seemed to really like being out there in this election cycle (unlike in ’08). That much attention and hob-nobbing with wealthy elites and celebrities is intoxicating for many.
More generally, I don’t discount a revenge, get even, or restore the family honor motivation either. Wasn’t that GWB in 2000?
Or to exceed her mother! A common goal of young women.
She doesn’t live there, she’s in Manhattan. But let’s hope that Bill and Hillary are only surrogates from now on.
Unless she moves into the new digs next door to mommy and daddy that they purchased a few weeks ago.
Sure. The Clintons didn’t live in NY state until suddenly did and the Mrs. became Senator.
At ages 70 and 69, yes they are. They will be given the respect that Herbert Hoover was in the 1950s in the Republican Party.
But their active political days are done.
And with Obama’s end of term, the two enemies that the GOP could most focus on in the Democratic Party are gone.
The public and their own maneuverings have taken a number of enemies away from the GOP machine. It is gloating in victory at the moment.
But dividing the spoils will also divide the party.
It will take a while, but any attempt to make permanent the Republican revolution will, I hope be resisted, and any attempt to institutionalize it fail.
You write:
Please define your terms.
How do you define “progressive ideology?”
While we’re at it, how do you define “conservative ideology?”
AG
Both Clintons are smart enough and sane enough to know their time in politics is now past. In fact, I would counsel Hillary to take a very long vacation from the public view. She needs it and so does the public. Could work wonders to enhance her image.
(this assumes of course there are no prosecutorial shenanigans by the incoming group of thugs.)
Chelsea is another matter. She’s poised, intelligent, well spoken, and seems to have developed a rather thick skin. More personality it seems than her mother. Maybe a little more feisty even.
If she can fine tune some of her mother’s DP positions in my direction, and ditch all the hawkishness in FP, I might be interested in 5-10 years if she decides to run.
(this assumes of course there is still an intact US of A, no ongoing insurrections of a violent nature, entirely possible as we look towards the next four years.)
Much like Arthur, I find myself wanting some definition of terms like progressive ideology. Are you talking about the sort of neoliberal style progressivism that has characterized places like Daily Kos forever? In other words some sort of heavy emphasis on “empowerment” and “social justice” and perhaps some minor effort at reforming economic institutions to slow down the transfer of wealth from the poorer among us to the 1%? Do you mean in the democratic socialist style that folks like Bernie Sanders here and Jeremy Corbyn in the UK represent? Do you mean something else entirely?
As for the Clintons? Forget about them. Chelsea may be able to leverage a legislative career, but I’d be a bit surprised if she succeeded in a run at a Presidential nomination. Bill and Hillary will slowly fade into the background.
My hope is that business as usual at the DNC is now officially over. That particular party institution has begun to receive a well deserved hiding, and there is more to come. It appears Sanders supporters plan to make a go of taking over some of their respective state party organizations, and I wish them well.