American Dynasty
January 30, 2015 6:30 PM Subscribe
Congressional Democrats for the past six years have lamented their chilly relationship with President Barack Obama. He doesn’t schmooze enough, they say. He is missing the glad-handing gene that makes politics fun. He just doesn’t get it.
But they are starting to see light at the end of the tunnel: the prospect of a Clinton back in the White House.
But they are starting to see light at the end of the tunnel: the prospect of a Clinton back in the White House.
Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush... the Choose Your Dynasty Election
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:40 PM on January 30, 2015 [29 favorites]
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:40 PM on January 30, 2015 [29 favorites]
Draft Elizabeth Warren. Or enjoy 8 years of schmooze. Up to you Democrats.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 6:40 PM on January 30, 2015 [22 favorites]
posted by Potomac Avenue at 6:40 PM on January 30, 2015 [22 favorites]
"not schmoozing enough?"
Smell the racism. And don't worry, we will find out that Hilary Clinton doesn't schmooze enough either.
posted by eriko at 6:46 PM on January 30, 2015 [31 favorites]
Smell the racism. And don't worry, we will find out that Hilary Clinton doesn't schmooze enough either.
posted by eriko at 6:46 PM on January 30, 2015 [31 favorites]
So Obama hates Democrats, too ?
I like the cut of his jib.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 6:51 PM on January 30, 2015 [29 favorites]
I like the cut of his jib.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 6:51 PM on January 30, 2015 [29 favorites]
I like Elizabeth Warren. I also like not losing the election to a Republican. So I'mma gonna vote Clinton anyway.
posted by Justinian at 6:52 PM on January 30, 2015 [12 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 6:52 PM on January 30, 2015 [12 favorites]
If anything can drum up sympathy for this president on the left it's letting us know that congress hates him.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 6:55 PM on January 30, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by Potomac Avenue at 6:55 PM on January 30, 2015 [6 favorites]
I have often wondered if Obama is really an independent who realized long ago he would need to use the Democratic Party apparatus to achieve his goals.
Just imagine what a Ross Perot or Ralph Nader Presidency would have been like. One party would have like... kinda supported them... sometimes. And the other party would have hated them all of the time just for existing. But in the end both parties would have been very happy to see them gone.
posted by Glibpaxman at 6:56 PM on January 30, 2015 [7 favorites]
Just imagine what a Ross Perot or Ralph Nader Presidency would have been like. One party would have like... kinda supported them... sometimes. And the other party would have hated them all of the time just for existing. But in the end both parties would have been very happy to see them gone.
posted by Glibpaxman at 6:56 PM on January 30, 2015 [7 favorites]
I like Elizabeth Warren. I also like not losing the election to a Republican
Yo thats what people said in 2008 too. And we got a black guy with a Muslim middle name elected anyway. If we wanted to, we could do it for someone who actually shared our beliefs rather than just looking they should. But its up to us to first be brave enough to remember that it is possible.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 6:58 PM on January 30, 2015 [68 favorites]
Yo thats what people said in 2008 too. And we got a black guy with a Muslim middle name elected anyway. If we wanted to, we could do it for someone who actually shared our beliefs rather than just looking they should. But its up to us to first be brave enough to remember that it is possible.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 6:58 PM on January 30, 2015 [68 favorites]
100% agree with notyou.
Anybody But Clinton, Democrats
posted by andreaazure at 7:00 PM on January 30, 2015 [6 favorites]
Anybody But Clinton, Democrats
posted by andreaazure at 7:00 PM on January 30, 2015 [6 favorites]
You can't draft someone to run for president. Elizabeth Warren has given zero indication that she wants to run and quite few that she doesn't.
posted by octothorpe at 7:01 PM on January 30, 2015 [9 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 7:01 PM on January 30, 2015 [9 favorites]
I'll write in Brown, with a very smug flourish.
--
Anybody But Clinton, Democrats
You know, y'all, if you're a registered Democrat you can vote in the primary and try to get someone OTHER than Hillary nominated if y'all don't like her that much.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:03 PM on January 30, 2015 [11 favorites]
--
Anybody But Clinton, Democrats
You know, y'all, if you're a registered Democrat you can vote in the primary and try to get someone OTHER than Hillary nominated if y'all don't like her that much.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:03 PM on January 30, 2015 [11 favorites]
Obama is, what, 15% of the president we'd like? That 15% -
- Refused to defend DOMA
- Rescinded DADT
- Put Kagan on the Supreme Court
- Put Sotamayor on the Supreme Court
- Expanded the hell out of Medicare for poor people
Can you imagine what a candidate who's 30% or even 50% in line with what we'd like?
Campaign. Now. For every little municipal election. Swing things our way - the polls prove people actually like what we have to offer. Convince them we have a candidate than can deliver, even at the school-board level, or a ballot initiative we can pass or defeat. Build the bench, and the campaign machine around them.
30% of what we want is not possible next election. 25% may be. It's really fucking worth it to get your voice heard in the Democratic party right now, and you do that by winning small elections.
posted by Slap*Happy at 7:04 PM on January 30, 2015 [68 favorites]
- Refused to defend DOMA
- Rescinded DADT
- Put Kagan on the Supreme Court
- Put Sotamayor on the Supreme Court
- Expanded the hell out of Medicare for poor people
Can you imagine what a candidate who's 30% or even 50% in line with what we'd like?
Campaign. Now. For every little municipal election. Swing things our way - the polls prove people actually like what we have to offer. Convince them we have a candidate than can deliver, even at the school-board level, or a ballot initiative we can pass or defeat. Build the bench, and the campaign machine around them.
30% of what we want is not possible next election. 25% may be. It's really fucking worth it to get your voice heard in the Democratic party right now, and you do that by winning small elections.
posted by Slap*Happy at 7:04 PM on January 30, 2015 [68 favorites]
Yo thats what people said in 2008 too. And we got a black guy with a Muslim middle name elected anyway.
Because Bush the Junior had just gotten done wrecking the country. That's not the case here.
posted by Justinian at 7:04 PM on January 30, 2015 [7 favorites]
Because Bush the Junior had just gotten done wrecking the country. That's not the case here.
posted by Justinian at 7:04 PM on January 30, 2015 [7 favorites]
It's Politico, for fucks sake. They don't want to report news; they want to be the ones who decide what is and isn't news (as in "Win the Morning").
I'm certain that there was a meeting sometime this week where the message was, basically, "We need to start throwing around some shit so that it looks like we're on top of things." They've also got a piece out on Jeb Bush that's on the front page too.
I would love it if we could starve them of the attention they want, so that they don't get to guide the discussion. Ain't going to happen though, is it?
posted by benito.strauss at 7:05 PM on January 30, 2015 [9 favorites]
I'm certain that there was a meeting sometime this week where the message was, basically, "We need to start throwing around some shit so that it looks like we're on top of things." They've also got a piece out on Jeb Bush that's on the front page too.
I would love it if we could starve them of the attention they want, so that they don't get to guide the discussion. Ain't going to happen though, is it?
posted by benito.strauss at 7:05 PM on January 30, 2015 [9 favorites]
... And Obama guaranteed overwhelming black voter turnout in his favor.
I'm sure Warren wouldn't get near those numbers for either blacks or women.
That said, she'd just slay those debates, wouldn't she?
posted by leotrotsky at 7:13 PM on January 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'm sure Warren wouldn't get near those numbers for either blacks or women.
That said, she'd just slay those debates, wouldn't she?
posted by leotrotsky at 7:13 PM on January 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
I have often wondered if Obama is really an independent who realized long ago he would need to use the Democratic Party apparatus to achieve his goals.
I suspect Obama carries a good deal of dislike for his own party based on working in Chicago, where the government is famously corrupt and racist and run entirely by the Democratic Party. I mean, he wouldn't have needed to work as a community organizer in the South Side if the city was taking care of that community, right?
Then he manages to get into office in Illinois while avoiding getting dirty with his Party's Machine. And then he gets elected president by building an origination totally seperate from the DNC.
A lot of his "chilly" relationship with Washington Democrats probably comes from them reminding him too much of Chicago Democrats.
posted by riruro at 7:28 PM on January 30, 2015 [30 favorites]
I suspect Obama carries a good deal of dislike for his own party based on working in Chicago, where the government is famously corrupt and racist and run entirely by the Democratic Party. I mean, he wouldn't have needed to work as a community organizer in the South Side if the city was taking care of that community, right?
Then he manages to get into office in Illinois while avoiding getting dirty with his Party's Machine. And then he gets elected president by building an origination totally seperate from the DNC.
A lot of his "chilly" relationship with Washington Democrats probably comes from them reminding him too much of Chicago Democrats.
posted by riruro at 7:28 PM on January 30, 2015 [30 favorites]
You want schmoozing? We got three men in a room here in New York State. Doesn't get much cozier than that.
posted by monospace at 7:37 PM on January 30, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by monospace at 7:37 PM on January 30, 2015 [3 favorites]
Schmoozing really IS a lot of the fun of politics, honestly. It's not like "networking," which is terrible; it's more like living in a college dorm and getting to talk to people who GET YOUR LIFE until all hours of the morning. And some of them are crazy smart and some of them are crazy weird and some of them are just CRAZY, but you all have in common that you know bizarre minutiae about asphalt and Robert's Rules and obscure corners of state law and you all GET IT how awesome and horrible and exhilarating and exhausting campaigning is. And this is how you end up super-close friends with people whose politics you can't STAND, and who you never say one nice word about in public, and you never vote in concert with once, because they GET YOUR LIFE and know what it's like in the trenches. That is schmooze, and it really IS one of the things that is missing in the current, hyper-polarized Washington -- when Senate old-timers talk about the climate of the Senate and how it used to be more collegial, that's what they're talking about.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:40 PM on January 30, 2015 [41 favorites]
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:40 PM on January 30, 2015 [41 favorites]
I want to see Warren/Sanders vs Palin/Bachmann in 2016. It'd be like the Breaking Madden of politics!
posted by sourwookie at 7:44 PM on January 30, 2015 [11 favorites]
posted by sourwookie at 7:44 PM on January 30, 2015 [11 favorites]
I was surprised to see my representative, Jerry Nadler, quoted in that article in the OP. Nothing he's ever done in Congress while I've lived here would lead me to believe he cares about schmoozing.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:47 PM on January 30, 2015
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:47 PM on January 30, 2015
Potomac Avenue: "Draft Elizabeth Warren."
Please, no, not yet. I like Sen. Warren in the Senate where she can make a lot more waves and directly push for a lot more things than the bully pulpit of the Presidency would allow.
posted by fireoyster at 8:07 PM on January 30, 2015 [22 favorites]
Please, no, not yet. I like Sen. Warren in the Senate where she can make a lot more waves and directly push for a lot more things than the bully pulpit of the Presidency would allow.
posted by fireoyster at 8:07 PM on January 30, 2015 [22 favorites]
I'm glad to see the "both sides are the same" arguments popping up now. Enjoy your seven conservative member Supreme Court.
posted by Joey Michaels at 8:09 PM on January 30, 2015 [29 favorites]
posted by Joey Michaels at 8:09 PM on January 30, 2015 [29 favorites]
Enough with the "dynasty" false equivalency. Jeb Bush is a former Governor who has a brother who was a President and a Governor, a father who was a Representative, an Ambassador, Director of the CIA, Vice President and President, and a grandfather who was a Senator. THAT is a dynasty. Hillary Clinton is a former Senator and Secretary of State who is married to a former President and Governor. That's it. One generation consisting of a married couple who created their status from virtually nothing. There's a compelling argument to be made that Hillary has been in and around Washington too long to cure any of the ills that plague our nation, but she can't even come close to the culture of power and privilege that her potential Republican opponent comes from, and it does her a HUGE disservice to act like she got where she is because of some mythical "Clinton dynasty."
posted by Banky_Edwards at 8:10 PM on January 30, 2015 [127 favorites]
posted by Banky_Edwards at 8:10 PM on January 30, 2015 [127 favorites]
I would expect Hillary to continue the exemplary record of service to wall street that Bill Clinton began.
posted by Ansible at 8:53 PM on January 30, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by Ansible at 8:53 PM on January 30, 2015 [6 favorites]
"Cripes. Not voting for either Clinton or Bush, if it comes to that."
You seem like a more intelligent individual than most... so I'm sure Bush would approve of your opting out of the democratic process if things essentially come down to a Clinton v. Bush race.
"Neither gets a pass on the war."
There is a difference between being pro-war and pro-authorization of the Senate resolution, which primarily encouraged war as a last resort, should diplomatic efforts fail.
Keep in mind that Hillary was a Senator from NY, which, in 2002, was *VERY* anti-terror and which always has been very pro-Israel. Her vote shouldn't be a surprise. Most Democrats voted in favor of the resolution, oftentimes defending it because, based on the not-yet-discredited intelligence that they were selectively fed, they believed that putting pressure on Iraq and on the UN made peace more likely.
Hillary also said the following, even as she voted for the authorization resolution:
"Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform. . . this course is fraught with danger. . . If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us."
Her main argument for the vote was "because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely" but also said "My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world."
So yeah... there's a difference between egging on a preemptive conflict, vs. providing authorization with the intent of putting pressure on the U.N. and Saddam to make a deal... one that, unfortunately, Bush backed away from
The fact is, most Senate Democrats didn't vote against Iraq, in large part because public support for the war was pretty overwhelming.
From a Oct. 10, 2002 poll, taken on the eve of the vote, "When asked if Saddam "can be disarmed but left in power, or do you think he has to be removed from power," 85% favor getting rid of the Iraqi leader." And to put even more pressure on Congress, a document was released that showed that the Bush administration intentionally timed the vote for 30 days before the 2002 elections.
Indeed, most of the debate wasn't whether military action should be taken against Saddam, but whether the President wsa rushing into action, without taking enough time... and even then, only about a third of the public thought the process was too rushed.
By all means, vote in the primaries for your choice of candidate... and if you prefer a third party candidate, by all means, campaign, spread the word, and try to get them in to the debates so that they can have a chance at winning. But on Election Day, once it's obvious that there are only so many viable candidates out there... consider making your vote matter, and voting for the viable candidate who would be most helpful / least harmful to our country... because, frankly, there is a difference.
posted by markkraft at 9:00 PM on January 30, 2015 [37 favorites]
You seem like a more intelligent individual than most... so I'm sure Bush would approve of your opting out of the democratic process if things essentially come down to a Clinton v. Bush race.
"Neither gets a pass on the war."
There is a difference between being pro-war and pro-authorization of the Senate resolution, which primarily encouraged war as a last resort, should diplomatic efforts fail.
Keep in mind that Hillary was a Senator from NY, which, in 2002, was *VERY* anti-terror and which always has been very pro-Israel. Her vote shouldn't be a surprise. Most Democrats voted in favor of the resolution, oftentimes defending it because, based on the not-yet-discredited intelligence that they were selectively fed, they believed that putting pressure on Iraq and on the UN made peace more likely.
Hillary also said the following, even as she voted for the authorization resolution:
"Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform. . . this course is fraught with danger. . . If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us."
Her main argument for the vote was "because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely" but also said "My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world."
So yeah... there's a difference between egging on a preemptive conflict, vs. providing authorization with the intent of putting pressure on the U.N. and Saddam to make a deal... one that, unfortunately, Bush backed away from
The fact is, most Senate Democrats didn't vote against Iraq, in large part because public support for the war was pretty overwhelming.
From a Oct. 10, 2002 poll, taken on the eve of the vote, "When asked if Saddam "can be disarmed but left in power, or do you think he has to be removed from power," 85% favor getting rid of the Iraqi leader." And to put even more pressure on Congress, a document was released that showed that the Bush administration intentionally timed the vote for 30 days before the 2002 elections.
Indeed, most of the debate wasn't whether military action should be taken against Saddam, but whether the President wsa rushing into action, without taking enough time... and even then, only about a third of the public thought the process was too rushed.
By all means, vote in the primaries for your choice of candidate... and if you prefer a third party candidate, by all means, campaign, spread the word, and try to get them in to the debates so that they can have a chance at winning. But on Election Day, once it's obvious that there are only so many viable candidates out there... consider making your vote matter, and voting for the viable candidate who would be most helpful / least harmful to our country... because, frankly, there is a difference.
posted by markkraft at 9:00 PM on January 30, 2015 [37 favorites]
Everybody knew what that vote really meant. Bush didn't really back away from a deal, he never had any intention of striking one. It was all theatre. The country needs leaders who do the right thing, not just say the right thing.
Would still consider voting for her in a general though.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:06 PM on January 30, 2015 [5 favorites]
Would still consider voting for her in a general though.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:06 PM on January 30, 2015 [5 favorites]
I like Hillary. I do. I wanted to vote for her back 2008. The reason I probably wouldn't have, had she got the nom, I think dynasties in politics are a horrible, gross thing. Dynasties aren't just blood, they're relationships. They're teams within teams within teams. In American politics, that's peddling money and influence to serve a small few. It's a shame this country has gone 'full sequel' on all fronts.
posted by chainlinkspiral at 9:17 PM on January 30, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by chainlinkspiral at 9:17 PM on January 30, 2015 [3 favorites]
four panels: “[T]he prospect of a Clinton back in the White House.”Angels and ministers of grace defend us.
posted by ob1quixote at 9:27 PM on January 30, 2015 [2 favorites]
I don't think she'll win (I think she's horrible, personally), which means the Republicans may sweep all branches and it's back to the dark, dark Bush years, only this time with MOAR DARK. And I wouldn't put it past the current generation of Republicans to put someone like Ted Cruz in, who looks like McCarthy but seems to have all of Greg Stillson's best qualities, too.
posted by Auden at 9:33 PM on January 30, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Auden at 9:33 PM on January 30, 2015 [2 favorites]
Call me a naif, but I really don't think Clinton's going to run. She voluntarily (apparently) left State when she could have stayed on. I'm guessing Kerry runs. I've not yet heard of any really credible alternatives, but then how credible was Obama in 2007?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:37 PM on January 30, 2015
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:37 PM on January 30, 2015
I like Elizabeth Warren. I also like not losing the election to a Republican. So I'mma gonna vote Clinton anyway.
I honestly think Elizabeth Warren would have a better chance against Jeb than Hillary.
Hate to tell you folks, it's gonna be Biden. And he's gonna win. 8 more years of free-wheeling military spending (though of course, any Republican would be worse). we can't win. give up.
i can't believe it got all the way to comment #35 with no mention of Uncle Joe.
posted by mrgrimm at 9:44 PM on January 30, 2015
I honestly think Elizabeth Warren would have a better chance against Jeb than Hillary.
Hate to tell you folks, it's gonna be Biden. And he's gonna win. 8 more years of free-wheeling military spending (though of course, any Republican would be worse). we can't win. give up.
i can't believe it got all the way to comment #35 with no mention of Uncle Joe.
posted by mrgrimm at 9:44 PM on January 30, 2015
The Presidential election won't be that close, as long as the Democratic party runs someone semi-competent, and especially if the current Republican clown show continues.
Congress is gerrymandered into a total incumbent-protection racket. The Senate can't be gerrymandered and so is more competitive, but still close because of those empty red states with the same number of Senators as CA and NY. But the Presidential election is not a close situation, barring an 8 or 10-point swing. It just isn't.
So if you really care about Not-Hillary, the primaries are when you should pay close attention. I plan to. But if I'm lucky enough that the timing works out, I'll be voting in the general for whoever - Hillary, Biden, Webb, a literal donkey - whoever is on the Presidential ballot with a (D) after their name.
(Ted Cruz? Give me a break!)
posted by RedOrGreen at 9:44 PM on January 30, 2015 [2 favorites]
Congress is gerrymandered into a total incumbent-protection racket. The Senate can't be gerrymandered and so is more competitive, but still close because of those empty red states with the same number of Senators as CA and NY. But the Presidential election is not a close situation, barring an 8 or 10-point swing. It just isn't.
So if you really care about Not-Hillary, the primaries are when you should pay close attention. I plan to. But if I'm lucky enough that the timing works out, I'll be voting in the general for whoever - Hillary, Biden, Webb, a literal donkey - whoever is on the Presidential ballot with a (D) after their name.
(Ted Cruz? Give me a break!)
posted by RedOrGreen at 9:44 PM on January 30, 2015 [2 favorites]
That said, she'd just slay those debates, wouldn't she?
As long as they talk about banking policy and only banking policy. I don't remember any debates touching on any other topics, though, so I'm sure she'd be *great.*
posted by jpe at 9:55 PM on January 30, 2015
As long as they talk about banking policy and only banking policy. I don't remember any debates touching on any other topics, though, so I'm sure she'd be *great.*
posted by jpe at 9:55 PM on January 30, 2015
You know, if Obama could run this time, he'd still be the youngest or one of the youngest candidates in the pack, which makes me wonder where are all the up and comer Democrats that are actually around or below 45-50 years old!?
posted by FJT at 10:02 PM on January 30, 2015
posted by FJT at 10:02 PM on January 30, 2015
The big problem with Obama is that after winning the primary battle against Hillary, he went ahead and hired most of the Clinton Machine anyway. And Geithner and Summers and the rest of those triangulating DINO asshats are really the cause of all of Obama's biggest failures. Seriously - he's been at his best everytime he ignores or fires one of those shitbrained cockscrobblers.
I fully expect Hillary intends to Put The Band Back Together and party like it's 1995.
The bigger problem is that although the Dem bench isn't dominated by crazies, it's still not altogether deep. In theory, I could totally get behind a Hillary run - in practice that means all of the Clinton Machine bullshit all over again.
I don't think there is enough hot water in the world to wash all that stink off.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 10:09 PM on January 30, 2015 [8 favorites]
I fully expect Hillary intends to Put The Band Back Together and party like it's 1995.
The bigger problem is that although the Dem bench isn't dominated by crazies, it's still not altogether deep. In theory, I could totally get behind a Hillary run - in practice that means all of the Clinton Machine bullshit all over again.
I don't think there is enough hot water in the world to wash all that stink off.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 10:09 PM on January 30, 2015 [8 favorites]
"I don't think she'll win (I think she's horrible, personally), which means the Republicans may sweep all branches"
It's actually pretty hard to imagine her not winning... largely because she has apparently retained some of the most talented people who worked for the Obama campaign.
She's running alright. Of course she is. If she weren't, the Democratic Party would be hustling like crazy to set up other candidates and boost their visibility. You can absolutely bet that someone within the party has already asked her if she intends to run or not, viewing it as essential knowledge that they *MUST* have in order to design their election strategy.
The thing is, I don't need to be that excited about Hillary Clinton as a person, in order to be excited about the prospects of her winning the next election. Specifically, there are three recent polls that all agree that she has a 13+ point lead against the likely Republican candidates. This consistency suggests a major victory is likely.
Oh, and it *WILL* make all the difference to have the Obama campaign people telling her what to talk about, rather than having Mark Penn, who was arguably the most incompetent, overpaid campaign manager in modern history.
posted by markkraft at 10:14 PM on January 30, 2015 [11 favorites]
It's actually pretty hard to imagine her not winning... largely because she has apparently retained some of the most talented people who worked for the Obama campaign.
She's running alright. Of course she is. If she weren't, the Democratic Party would be hustling like crazy to set up other candidates and boost their visibility. You can absolutely bet that someone within the party has already asked her if she intends to run or not, viewing it as essential knowledge that they *MUST* have in order to design their election strategy.
The thing is, I don't need to be that excited about Hillary Clinton as a person, in order to be excited about the prospects of her winning the next election. Specifically, there are three recent polls that all agree that she has a 13+ point lead against the likely Republican candidates. This consistency suggests a major victory is likely.
Oh, and it *WILL* make all the difference to have the Obama campaign people telling her what to talk about, rather than having Mark Penn, who was arguably the most incompetent, overpaid campaign manager in modern history.
posted by markkraft at 10:14 PM on January 30, 2015 [11 favorites]
Oh, and the main reason I am excited about a 13+% victory is that it would guarantee a huge turnout for Democrats nationwide, potentially putting the House and Senate back under Democratic control.
We seem to think that the POTUS and what they believe ultimately decides what happens in this country, policy-wise. Perhaps we should reconsider this assumption. The Democratic Party, as a centralized entity and institution, is quite powerful, and creates its own platform.
I would suggest that there are two very important factors:
1> The kind of ability you have to pass legislation. Do you need to make devil's bargains with the enemy? Just how compromised and cconservative / corporate is the deciding vote you need to pass any given piece of legislation? The more Democrats you elect, the more likely it is you'll get to pass legislation without watering it down and giving away the farm.
2> Will the POTUS sign it.
Recently, the GOP had a meeting, where someone mentioned that it didn't matter much which of their candidates won, so long as they'd sign whatever garbage was put on their desk. Not great PR, but pretty much the truth, really.
posted by markkraft at 10:31 PM on January 30, 2015 [3 favorites]
We seem to think that the POTUS and what they believe ultimately decides what happens in this country, policy-wise. Perhaps we should reconsider this assumption. The Democratic Party, as a centralized entity and institution, is quite powerful, and creates its own platform.
I would suggest that there are two very important factors:
1> The kind of ability you have to pass legislation. Do you need to make devil's bargains with the enemy? Just how compromised and cconservative / corporate is the deciding vote you need to pass any given piece of legislation? The more Democrats you elect, the more likely it is you'll get to pass legislation without watering it down and giving away the farm.
2> Will the POTUS sign it.
Recently, the GOP had a meeting, where someone mentioned that it didn't matter much which of their candidates won, so long as they'd sign whatever garbage was put on their desk. Not great PR, but pretty much the truth, really.
posted by markkraft at 10:31 PM on January 30, 2015 [3 favorites]
I have often wondered if Obama is really an independent who realized long ago he would need to use the Democratic Party apparatus to achieve his goals.
Eh, having read Dreams From My Father, if anything Obama originally was pretty far to the left and with much more working/labor oriented concerns as compared to mainstream Democrats.
I mean I suppose you could say that he dumbed down his politics to fit into the Democratic big tent, but I wouldn't at all peg him as someone like Ross Perot.
What it comes down to, though, is that Obama doesn't have an extensive political career prior to his first Senate term. Members of Congress are in it for the long haul. Schmoozing and making deals is what they do. Often to the exception of actually accomplishing anything out in the real world. This is where the term "beltway insider" comes from and why Republicans love running as outsiders to Washington.
I suppose members of Congress imagined that, as someone without that history, but with a Senate pedigree, he'd be their boy in the White House, learning to wheel and deal and collaborating heavily with them.
When they managed to somehow get zero done during a fucking supermajority, though, I'm pretty sure Obama's intention to work closely with congressional Democrats dried up.
posted by Sara C. at 10:54 PM on January 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
Eh, having read Dreams From My Father, if anything Obama originally was pretty far to the left and with much more working/labor oriented concerns as compared to mainstream Democrats.
I mean I suppose you could say that he dumbed down his politics to fit into the Democratic big tent, but I wouldn't at all peg him as someone like Ross Perot.
What it comes down to, though, is that Obama doesn't have an extensive political career prior to his first Senate term. Members of Congress are in it for the long haul. Schmoozing and making deals is what they do. Often to the exception of actually accomplishing anything out in the real world. This is where the term "beltway insider" comes from and why Republicans love running as outsiders to Washington.
I suppose members of Congress imagined that, as someone without that history, but with a Senate pedigree, he'd be their boy in the White House, learning to wheel and deal and collaborating heavily with them.
When they managed to somehow get zero done during a fucking supermajority, though, I'm pretty sure Obama's intention to work closely with congressional Democrats dried up.
posted by Sara C. at 10:54 PM on January 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
If not Hillary, then who?
Martin O'Malley can't even get his Lt. Gov. elected in the bluest state in the nation. The Larry Hogan victory sunk O'Malley's chances.
Jim Webb is a good candidate on paper. But he is a difficult person who quit the senate because he hated to schmooze. He's a poor fundraiser and doesn't have much any pull with the DNC.
Elizabeth Warren can't be drafted into it if she doesn't want to give it a try.
I love Joe Biden, but he is too old to win the photogenic beauty contest that the presidential election has turned into.
Brian Schweitzer is even more so handicapped by photogenic nature of our elections.
Ed Rendell has most of Biden's disadvantages and none of his advantages.
Jerry Brown, despite his track record, is even older than Biden and Rendell. And he doesn't want the job anyhow.
Bernie Sanders has his loyal fans, but he's unlikely to win over anyone new.
Tim Kaine and Mark Warner both look like they're taking a pass for the moment.
Vermin Supreme is looking as good as ever.
Who else is there on the Democratic bench? Andrew Cuomo? Howard Dean? George Clooney?
posted by peeedro at 11:04 PM on January 30, 2015 [6 favorites]
Martin O'Malley can't even get his Lt. Gov. elected in the bluest state in the nation. The Larry Hogan victory sunk O'Malley's chances.
Jim Webb is a good candidate on paper. But he is a difficult person who quit the senate because he hated to schmooze. He's a poor fundraiser and doesn't have much any pull with the DNC.
Elizabeth Warren can't be drafted into it if she doesn't want to give it a try.
I love Joe Biden, but he is too old to win the photogenic beauty contest that the presidential election has turned into.
Brian Schweitzer is even more so handicapped by photogenic nature of our elections.
Ed Rendell has most of Biden's disadvantages and none of his advantages.
Jerry Brown, despite his track record, is even older than Biden and Rendell. And he doesn't want the job anyhow.
Bernie Sanders has his loyal fans, but he's unlikely to win over anyone new.
Tim Kaine and Mark Warner both look like they're taking a pass for the moment.
Vermin Supreme is looking as good as ever.
Who else is there on the Democratic bench? Andrew Cuomo? Howard Dean? George Clooney?
posted by peeedro at 11:04 PM on January 30, 2015 [6 favorites]
They don't want to report news; they want to be the ones who decide what is and isn't news
What is and isn't "news", you mean. Tiger Beat on the Potomac. Schmoozing, my ass. This is thin gruel even for them.
Hillary is a cinch for the nomination and the win and everyone knows it. I'm active in my local Dems and I'm sure there a couple of quiet Joe fans who are devoted to the (actually fairly modern) tradition of giving the VP the next swing at bat. There are some Warrenites who are progressive enough to like her but not progressive enough to have fled the party machine. But otherwise it's HRC '16 all the way.
I don't think we're entirely wanting for up-and-comers, either. My money is on Julian Castro for running mate.
posted by dhartung at 11:38 PM on January 30, 2015 [2 favorites]
What is and isn't "news", you mean. Tiger Beat on the Potomac. Schmoozing, my ass. This is thin gruel even for them.
Hillary is a cinch for the nomination and the win and everyone knows it. I'm active in my local Dems and I'm sure there a couple of quiet Joe fans who are devoted to the (actually fairly modern) tradition of giving the VP the next swing at bat. There are some Warrenites who are progressive enough to like her but not progressive enough to have fled the party machine. But otherwise it's HRC '16 all the way.
I don't think we're entirely wanting for up-and-comers, either. My money is on Julian Castro for running mate.
posted by dhartung at 11:38 PM on January 30, 2015 [2 favorites]
Here's how I'm inclined to take this piece. The DC press wants everything to be all chummy and cocktail party circuit-y and to get goosed with leaks from the Vice President's office again. And it's the Republicans who are good at things like that. Since they can't say that out loud, expect more pieces like this, speculating about things like the frustrated desires of Congresspersons who are sad that the President won't play poker with them.
Seriously, go back and read the press coverage from 1989, of Bush's arrival in office. They were in ecstasy. Same deal in 1980, with barely concealed contempt for the previous occupant of the White House. They were actually running stories about "class" returning to DC.
Maybe it's cultural. The country, until Obama's first term, hadn't elected any non-Southern Democrats to the Presidency since 1960. I'm not sure if the powers that be in the Washington social circuit care for Southerners as much as voters seem to.
posted by thelonius at 12:04 AM on January 31, 2015
Seriously, go back and read the press coverage from 1989, of Bush's arrival in office. They were in ecstasy. Same deal in 1980, with barely concealed contempt for the previous occupant of the White House. They were actually running stories about "class" returning to DC.
Maybe it's cultural. The country, until Obama's first term, hadn't elected any non-Southern Democrats to the Presidency since 1960. I'm not sure if the powers that be in the Washington social circuit care for Southerners as much as voters seem to.
posted by thelonius at 12:04 AM on January 31, 2015
I'm glad to see the "both sides are the same" arguments popping up now. Enjoy your seven conservative member Supreme Court.
Let's say Hillary gets elected. Do you grant us permission to then pursue alternatives in 2018 and 2020? Because a vote for Hillary is going to be a vote for four more years of war, four more years of illegal surveillance, and four more years of bailouts to Wall Street — and I'm sure we both know it, even if the Supreme Court looms like an apparition.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 1:08 AM on January 31, 2015 [5 favorites]
Let's say Hillary gets elected. Do you grant us permission to then pursue alternatives in 2018 and 2020? Because a vote for Hillary is going to be a vote for four more years of war, four more years of illegal surveillance, and four more years of bailouts to Wall Street — and I'm sure we both know it, even if the Supreme Court looms like an apparition.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 1:08 AM on January 31, 2015 [5 favorites]
Eh, having read Dreams From My Father, if anything Obama originally was pretty far to the left and with much more working/labor oriented concerns as compared to mainstream Democrats.
I don't know... I think Adolph Reed had a pretty accurate assessment of Obama when he wrote back in 1996:
“In Chicago, for instance, we’ve gotten a foretaste of the new breed of foundation-hatched black communitarian voices;
one of them, a smooth Harvard lawyer with impeccable do-good credentials and
vacuous-to-repressive neoliberal politics, has won a state senate seat
on a base mainly in the liberal foundation and development worlds. His
fundamentally bootstrap line was softened by a patina of the rhetoric of
authentic community, talk about meeting in kitchens, small-scale
solutions to social problems, and the predictable elevation of process
over program -- the point where identity politics converges with
old-fashioned middle-class reform in favoring form over substance. I
suspect that his ilk is the wave of the future in U.S. black politics,
as in Haiti and wherever else the International Monetary Fund has sway.
So far the black activist response hasn’t been up to the challenge. We
have to do better.”
“The Curse of Community,” Village Voice, January 16, 1996
posted by Auden at 1:12 AM on January 31, 2015 [14 favorites]
I don't know... I think Adolph Reed had a pretty accurate assessment of Obama when he wrote back in 1996:
“In Chicago, for instance, we’ve gotten a foretaste of the new breed of foundation-hatched black communitarian voices;
one of them, a smooth Harvard lawyer with impeccable do-good credentials and
vacuous-to-repressive neoliberal politics, has won a state senate seat
on a base mainly in the liberal foundation and development worlds. His
fundamentally bootstrap line was softened by a patina of the rhetoric of
authentic community, talk about meeting in kitchens, small-scale
solutions to social problems, and the predictable elevation of process
over program -- the point where identity politics converges with
old-fashioned middle-class reform in favoring form over substance. I
suspect that his ilk is the wave of the future in U.S. black politics,
as in Haiti and wherever else the International Monetary Fund has sway.
So far the black activist response hasn’t been up to the challenge. We
have to do better.”
“The Curse of Community,” Village Voice, January 16, 1996
posted by Auden at 1:12 AM on January 31, 2015 [14 favorites]
Great. This is where the status quo Democrats act all superior for supporting crappy candidates.
posted by univac at 1:17 AM on January 31, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by univac at 1:17 AM on January 31, 2015 [6 favorites]
A while ago I predicted Scott Walker would win the presidency (pre-molotov), but I'm beginning to think Lindsey Graham could be the ideal Cinderella candidate.
posted by Golden Eternity at 1:18 AM on January 31, 2015
posted by Golden Eternity at 1:18 AM on January 31, 2015
Mod note: One comment deleted. Please don't drag in members you want to fight with who are not even participating in this thread.
posted by taz (staff) at 1:20 AM on January 31, 2015
posted by taz (staff) at 1:20 AM on January 31, 2015
When they managed to somehow get zero done during a fucking supermajority
So ACA is considered "zero," by the left as well? What a disaster.
posted by Golden Eternity at 1:24 AM on January 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
So ACA is considered "zero," by the left as well? What a disaster.
posted by Golden Eternity at 1:24 AM on January 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
Who else is there on the Democratic bench?
Deval Patrick.
posted by Slap*Happy at 2:31 AM on January 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
Deval Patrick.
posted by Slap*Happy at 2:31 AM on January 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
And don't worry, we will find out that Hilary Clinton doesn't schmooze enough either.
It won't be a problem because she'll have Bill to pick up the slack for her. He's a schmoozing machine.
posted by fuse theorem at 4:05 AM on January 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
It won't be a problem because she'll have Bill to pick up the slack for her. He's a schmoozing machine.
posted by fuse theorem at 4:05 AM on January 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
and it does her a HUGE disservice to act like she got where she is because of some mythical "Clinton dynasty."
I wonder whether we will ever see Chelsea run for office. There have been rumors in the past that Nita Lowey would step aside and let her run for that seat in the House.
posted by Area Man at 4:54 AM on January 31, 2015
I wonder whether we will ever see Chelsea run for office. There have been rumors in the past that Nita Lowey would step aside and let her run for that seat in the House.
posted by Area Man at 4:54 AM on January 31, 2015
My take: Obama is, for all intents and purposes, a moderate Republican. Hillary is more of the same. Either is about as far left as we're gonna get for a while, anyway.
My guess is that Hillary is a walk in 2016, with the very important side-effect of pulling a lot of new Dems into congress. That's the important thing.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 5:20 AM on January 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
My guess is that Hillary is a walk in 2016, with the very important side-effect of pulling a lot of new Dems into congress. That's the important thing.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 5:20 AM on January 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
I will vote for the candidate I believe in the most in the primaries, and hope fervently that they get the nomination.
Then I will almost certainly vote for whatever Democrat is running because we have a first past the post electoral college system, the Supreme Court isn't getting any younger, and pretty much every possible Republican candidate I can think of is, at least policy-wise, a soulsucking demon in a suit and tie.
posted by kyrademon at 5:30 AM on January 31, 2015 [14 favorites]
Then I will almost certainly vote for whatever Democrat is running because we have a first past the post electoral college system, the Supreme Court isn't getting any younger, and pretty much every possible Republican candidate I can think of is, at least policy-wise, a soulsucking demon in a suit and tie.
posted by kyrademon at 5:30 AM on January 31, 2015 [14 favorites]
Obama is actually trying to do something about carbon emissions. It isn't as much as I'd like and I think he should have started earlier, but he's doing more than Clinton, either Bush, or anyone the Republicans would ever nominate. I think we need another democratic President to protect and continue what the EPA has started, and we need more democrats in congress. Hillary Clinton isn't my favorite, but I will certainly try to get her elected if she gets the nomination and I don't see any viable alternatives in the party right now. Elizabeth Warren isn't interested.
posted by Area Man at 5:36 AM on January 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Area Man at 5:36 AM on January 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
When they managed to somehow get zero done during a fucking supermajority, though, I'm pretty sure Obama's intention to work closely with congressional Democrats dried up
There was no Democratic supermajority, please stop saying that.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:06 AM on January 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
There was no Democratic supermajority, please stop saying that.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:06 AM on January 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
As some sports commentator pointed out, dynasties last between generations. (Yankees Ruth-Gehrig to Yankees Dimaggio to Yankees Mantle-Berra, etc.)
The Clintons are not a dynasty. The Bushes are.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 6:32 AM on January 31, 2015 [3 favorites]
The Clintons are not a dynasty. The Bushes are.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 6:32 AM on January 31, 2015 [3 favorites]
There was no Democratic supermajority, please stop saying that.
Yes, there was. Not for as long as some people believe there was, but the cloture vote for the Affordable Care Act was passed with a 60 vote supermajority of Senators who caucused as Democrats.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:39 AM on January 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
Yes, there was. Not for as long as some people believe there was, but the cloture vote for the Affordable Care Act was passed with a 60 vote supermajority of Senators who caucused as Democrats.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:39 AM on January 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
Hillary is a cinch for the nomination and the win and everyone knows it.
I don't know it. I think she could be one of the best presidents ever, but as much as a segment totally loves her, no on *likes* her. Bill was a scummy two(many)timing closeted scumbag in many ways but everyone *liked* him. The republicans hated him but they still liked him as a person and would be happy to go for a beer and schmooze.
The likability factor is a huge element in the presidential popularity contest and don't for a minute discount that element. I'm hoping Liz can work on her L-quotient for '20.
DRAFT LIZ 2020
(...so that she can quickly extricate us from Jeb's 2018 Iraq peace excursion)
posted by sammyo at 6:58 AM on January 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
I don't know it. I think she could be one of the best presidents ever, but as much as a segment totally loves her, no on *likes* her. Bill was a scummy two(many)timing closeted scumbag in many ways but everyone *liked* him. The republicans hated him but they still liked him as a person and would be happy to go for a beer and schmooze.
The likability factor is a huge element in the presidential popularity contest and don't for a minute discount that element. I'm hoping Liz can work on her L-quotient for '20.
DRAFT LIZ 2020
(...so that she can quickly extricate us from Jeb's 2018 Iraq peace excursion)
posted by sammyo at 6:58 AM on January 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
Because a vote for Hillary is going to be a vote for four more years of war, four more years of illegal surveillance, and four more years of bailouts to Wall Street — and I'm sure we both know it, even if the Supreme Court looms like an apparition.
Wait. Stop. Are you inferring that a Republican president will save us from four more years of Wall Street bailout? And spare us from four more years of illegal surveillance? And war?
Sometimes I miss sarcasm. Is this the case here?
posted by notreally at 6:59 AM on January 31, 2015 [10 favorites]
Wait. Stop. Are you inferring that a Republican president will save us from four more years of Wall Street bailout? And spare us from four more years of illegal surveillance? And war?
Sometimes I miss sarcasm. Is this the case here?
posted by notreally at 6:59 AM on January 31, 2015 [10 favorites]
I remember with glee all the shenanigans Bill Clinton got into when he was President.
I can only imagine the shit he will get into once he is back in the White House WITHOUT ANY REAL RESPONSIBILITIES.
posted by Renoroc at 7:10 AM on January 31, 2015 [9 favorites]
I can only imagine the shit he will get into once he is back in the White House WITHOUT ANY REAL RESPONSIBILITIES.
posted by Renoroc at 7:10 AM on January 31, 2015 [9 favorites]
The actual articles in the fpp were pretty interesting too. My mom recently spent a long time in the hospital and it was fascinating to watch her connect with everyone - nurses, doctors, aides etc. I am not wired that way. I'll talk to people but I'm not driven to connect like that.
I'm not sure about the premise of the article, that Hillary is a natural connector like her husband rather than an aloof intellectual like Obama. She strikes me as smart, but someone who can connect with people, not someone who needs to connect with people.
posted by TheShadowKnows at 7:14 AM on January 31, 2015
I'm not sure about the premise of the article, that Hillary is a natural connector like her husband rather than an aloof intellectual like Obama. She strikes me as smart, but someone who can connect with people, not someone who needs to connect with people.
posted by TheShadowKnows at 7:14 AM on January 31, 2015
Hillary Clinton is a former Senator and Secretary of State who is married to a former President and Governor. That's it. One generation consisting of a married couple who created their status from virtually nothing.
I don't know about you, but I'm counting Chelsea. Hell, she turns 35 this year, so she's eligible to throw her hat in the ring right now. Probably my favorite Clinton.
posted by escabeche at 7:20 AM on January 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
I don't know about you, but I'm counting Chelsea. Hell, she turns 35 this year, so she's eligible to throw her hat in the ring right now. Probably my favorite Clinton.
posted by escabeche at 7:20 AM on January 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
But schmoozing can be learned, like any skill. If Webb and his wife are truly motivated - and he should be a strong candidate; his life experience covers all sectors - they can make this effort. Their daughter is about the age Chelsea was back when, and she survived just fine.
posted by mmiddle at 7:21 AM on January 31, 2015
posted by mmiddle at 7:21 AM on January 31, 2015
peeedro: "Who else is there on the Democratic bench? Andrew Cuomo? Howard Dean? George Clooney?"
I'm surprised and disappointed there hasn't been any buzz about Russ Feingold as a potential 2016 presidential or VP candidate. He was such a proud, principled, and progressive senator (not to mention relatively photogenic), but he hasn't made much of a peep since losing to that creep Ron Johnson back in the 2010 wave. For his instrumental role in campaign finance reform alone he'd make a powerful case for rolling back the electoral corruptions of the last few years.
posted by Rhaomi at 7:55 AM on January 31, 2015 [3 favorites]
I'm surprised and disappointed there hasn't been any buzz about Russ Feingold as a potential 2016 presidential or VP candidate. He was such a proud, principled, and progressive senator (not to mention relatively photogenic), but he hasn't made much of a peep since losing to that creep Ron Johnson back in the 2010 wave. For his instrumental role in campaign finance reform alone he'd make a powerful case for rolling back the electoral corruptions of the last few years.
posted by Rhaomi at 7:55 AM on January 31, 2015 [3 favorites]
I think Webb is a good man and a good candidate. He's probably a bit provincial to appeal to the whole country, though. He gets a bit tongue-tied, too. I heard him interviewed yesterday, and his big point was that the Democratic party has been ignoring the white working man. While I don't necessarily disagree with that point, that can be very incendiary if it's not handled perfectly. He didn't do that yesterday.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 7:55 AM on January 31, 2015
posted by Benny Andajetz at 7:55 AM on January 31, 2015
Hillary will get the nomination because there is currently no other viable option. I'll (reluctantly and while gritting my teeth) vote for her in the general, but I doubt she'll win. She's disliked by too many people on both sides and she gives no impression of having an ethical center. If so, it would be a tragedy because the GOP candidate is guaranteed to be worse, but it's the dems' fault for not having better candidates at least at this stage.
posted by Dip Flash at 8:13 AM on January 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Dip Flash at 8:13 AM on January 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
I think Webb is a good man and a good candidate. He's probably a bit provincial to appeal to the whole country, though. He gets a bit tongue-tied, too. I heard him interviewed yesterday, and his big point was that the Democratic party has been ignoring the white working man. While I don't necessarily disagree with that point, that can be very incendiary if it's not handled perfectly. He didn't do that yesterday.
White men make up 32% of the electorate, and most of them vote Republican and always will. Jim Webb has actively opposed affirmative action and women in the military. He would be a disaster as a nominee, as he would alienate the 68% of the electorate that actually vote for Democrats.
For the past 20 years, I have voted in every single election. I held my nose and voted for Al Gore and John Kerry when I knew there were much better candidates out there that the establishment had rejected. I could not hold my nose hard enough to vote for Jim Webb.
posted by hydropsyche at 8:39 AM on January 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
White men make up 32% of the electorate, and most of them vote Republican and always will. Jim Webb has actively opposed affirmative action and women in the military. He would be a disaster as a nominee, as he would alienate the 68% of the electorate that actually vote for Democrats.
For the past 20 years, I have voted in every single election. I held my nose and voted for Al Gore and John Kerry when I knew there were much better candidates out there that the establishment had rejected. I could not hold my nose hard enough to vote for Jim Webb.
posted by hydropsyche at 8:39 AM on January 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
@ hydropsyche:Point taken about Webb's weaknesses, but one of those issues - women in the military - is a done deal now. He has a great chance with that 32% - he carried southwest Virginia, for Petes sake. And a wrong call on affirmative action years ago beats Hillary's platform easily, for me.
posted by mmiddle at 8:58 AM on January 31, 2015
posted by mmiddle at 8:58 AM on January 31, 2015
Re: Jim Webb, Charlie Pierce points out the problem with his rhetoric about "broadening the base" by making appeals to white folks. Yes, the Democrats have done a bad job of marketing themselves to "working class whites", but, as Pierce says:
It gets worse from there. The Politico link says there's "nothing scandalous.. that would disqualify him..." and that's probably right given that this open Confederate apologia will probably pick up some votes from fellow travelers, but... yeah, this alone would be enough for me to look elsewhere.
I mean... Surely we can do better than a guy who says that affirmative action is:
Sooner or later, it's up to the voters to decide to stop being stupid about their own self-interest, and to stop falling for scams about how the Poors and Browns are the ones stealing all their money.The reason it's not simply up to the Democrats to sell better to these people is because there are tradeoffs associated with reaching out with these "Reagan Democrat" type appeals, and make no mistake about it, he is "More Reagan Democrat than Progressive Populist":
Jim Webb voted with Republicans and Joe Lieberman to oppose the Democrats' plan to extend the Bush tax cuts for only the first $250,000 in income. Webb wanted millionaires to get their full tax cuts, too.I'm guessing some people reading will think that those summaries from a Daily Kos diarist overstate the claims, but I think they hold up. With respect to being "unabashed Confederate apologist", it's been scrubbed from his site, but:
Jim Webb thought that the problem with the Affordable Care Act was that it wasn't bipartisan enough. You see, Obama should have tried harder to win over some Republicans. Never mind that Senate Republicans were involved in the process of crafting the bill.
In 2012, Jim Webb was the only Democrat to vote against extending reduced interest rates for student loans. He was a staunch [opponent of] student loan reform in general.
His record on the environment is spotty. Jim Webb voted in favor of voiding the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard for power plants, authorizing the Keystone XL pipeline, and significantly expanding offshore drilling. And he voted against closing tax loopholes for big oil companies and extending clean energy tax incentives.
Jim Webb is an unabashed Confederate apologist.
Unsurprisingly, then, he strongly opposes affirmative action.
And Jim Webb is a strange choice for an "anti-war" candidate. The former senator believes in the rightness of the Vietnam War and regards the anti-war left with dripping, red-baiting contempt. He supports keeping the option of pre-emptive military strikes on Iran on the table. He does a lot of saber-rattling toward China. When he opposes a war (e.g. the Iraq War), it is not out of a vision of a cooperative, pluralistic, humanitarian internationalism. It is out of a foreign policy realism that views such a war as a strategic error. Now, that's better than supporting such a war. But it's not an anti-war position, nor an anti-imperial one.
In a June 1990 speech in front of the Confederate Memorial at Arlington National Cemetery, posted on his personal website, he lauded the rebels' "gallantry," which he said "is still misunderstood by most Americans."OK, suspicious, but not damning. However...
"Most Southern soldiers viewed the driving issue to be sovereignty rather than slavery," he said. "Love of the Union was palpably stronger in the South than in the North before the war - just as overt patriotism is today - but it was tempered by a strong belief that state sovereignty existed prior to the Constitution and that it had never been surrendered."Shorter Webb: "ACTUALLY, it was about [something other than slavery]".
It gets worse from there. The Politico link says there's "nothing scandalous.. that would disqualify him..." and that's probably right given that this open Confederate apologia will probably pick up some votes from fellow travelers, but... yeah, this alone would be enough for me to look elsewhere.
I mean... Surely we can do better than a guy who says that affirmative action is:
a permeating state-sponsored racism that is as odious as the Jim Crow laws it sought to countermand.On the question of "who else", I say Sherrod Brown deserves a look. Working class white guy appeal without Webb's many liabilities. Actual progressive. I don't know if he's interested, but there's some speculation that the "draft Warren" movement is taking some of the oxygen out of the room for a guy like Brown:
That, of course, is because all the attention has been heaped onto another, fresher-faced member of the Senate: the progressive rock star from Massachusetts, Sen. Elizabeth Warren. Just last week, Oscar nominee Mark Ruffalo hosted a party at the house of Al Pacino's daughter, urging New York artists to urge Warren to run. Brown may have been Elizabeth Warren before Elizabeth Warren was cool, but there's scant evidence that the Ruffalos of this world even know who he is.posted by tonycpsu at 8:58 AM on January 31, 2015 [10 favorites]
"I don't see it as a competition," Brown said in an interview at his Senate office. "I'm always looking for allies, so was thrilled when she ran and am thrilled to have her in the Senate."
But why, Senator, why do you think people are so into Warren when you have been around saying the same stuff for years? Does it not sting a little?
"I don't play games about it," he said. "I don't say, `I'm not running now.' I don't know what it is. I know you don't believe this, but I don't really think about it all that much."
Truth of the matter is, everyone does believe him. That's why some progressives feel like Brown may be forfeiting a chance to have a bigger impact this election cycle.
Wait. Stop. Are you inferring that a Republican president will save us from four more years of Wall Street bailout? And spare us from four more years of illegal surveillance? And war?
Sometimes I miss sarcasm. Is this the case here?
Just to recap your logic in comedy form: "One in twenty people is been a victim oov crime. That means 19 out of 20 are criminals. No woonder we need police."
posted by a lungful of dragon at 9:17 AM on January 31, 2015
Sometimes I miss sarcasm. Is this the case here?
Just to recap your logic in comedy form: "One in twenty people is been a victim oov crime. That means 19 out of 20 are criminals. No woonder we need police."
posted by a lungful of dragon at 9:17 AM on January 31, 2015
I don't know about you, but I'm counting Chelsea. Hell, she turns 35 this year, so she's eligible to throw her hat in the ring right now. Probably my favorite Clinton.
I mean, I guess, but that's a low bar. Chelsea made millions upon millions as a hedge fund manager (not to mention the millions thrown at her just for having the last name Clinton) and is married to a hedge fund manager, so there goes your Wall Street reform. Really, the only ways she's not as bad as her parents are that she hasn't, as far as I know, cheated on her spouse and she didn't (again, AFAIK) vote for or stump for the Iraq War.
All this is a moot point, though since it seems like she has no interest in running for -- oh, Goddammit.
America didn't get rid of the monarchy, just privatized it.
posted by dirigibleman at 9:25 AM on January 31, 2015 [3 favorites]
I mean, I guess, but that's a low bar. Chelsea made millions upon millions as a hedge fund manager (not to mention the millions thrown at her just for having the last name Clinton) and is married to a hedge fund manager, so there goes your Wall Street reform. Really, the only ways she's not as bad as her parents are that she hasn't, as far as I know, cheated on her spouse and she didn't (again, AFAIK) vote for or stump for the Iraq War.
All this is a moot point, though since it seems like she has no interest in running for -- oh, Goddammit.
America didn't get rid of the monarchy, just privatized it.
posted by dirigibleman at 9:25 AM on January 31, 2015 [3 favorites]
> Just to recap your logic in comedy form:...
Cunk's failure of logic* is to assume that everyone is either a criminal or a victim of crime, ignoring the large number of people who are neither.
Your failure (of prediction) is to base your objection on the possibility that the winner of the 2016 presidential election will be someone other than either the Democratic or Republican candidate. I will bet you $100 that it will be one of them. I am also willing to go higher on that.
*It was very fun writing that phrase.
posted by benito.strauss at 9:29 AM on January 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
Cunk's failure of logic* is to assume that everyone is either a criminal or a victim of crime, ignoring the large number of people who are neither.
Your failure (of prediction) is to base your objection on the possibility that the winner of the 2016 presidential election will be someone other than either the Democratic or Republican candidate. I will bet you $100 that it will be one of them. I am also willing to go higher on that.
*It was very fun writing that phrase.
posted by benito.strauss at 9:29 AM on January 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
Hillary Clinton will run and win by a landslide that includes the highest turnout of women voters in history.
(Unless Bill fucks it up. Which I honestly think could happen.)
posted by sallybrown at 9:45 AM on January 31, 2015
(Unless Bill fucks it up. Which I honestly think could happen.)
posted by sallybrown at 9:45 AM on January 31, 2015
(Also, I saw Chelsea speak a couple years ago and she completely lacks her parents' charisma and presence, imo.)
posted by sallybrown at 9:46 AM on January 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 9:46 AM on January 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
(Also, I saw Chelsea speak a couple years ago and she completely lacks her parents' charisma and presence, imo.)
I saw Hillary Clinton speak a decade or so ago and at that point she didn't have a lot of charisma either.
Hillary Clinton will run and win by a landslide
If that means she beats her opponent Crackpot McRepublican I'm all for it, but I'll be really surprised if that actually happens.
posted by Dip Flash at 10:49 AM on January 31, 2015
I saw Hillary Clinton speak a decade or so ago and at that point she didn't have a lot of charisma either.
Hillary Clinton will run and win by a landslide
If that means she beats her opponent Crackpot McRepublican I'm all for it, but I'll be really surprised if that actually happens.
posted by Dip Flash at 10:49 AM on January 31, 2015
notreally: Wait. Stop. Are you inferring that a Republican president will save us from four more years of Wall Street bailout? And spare us from four more years of illegal surveillance? And war?
That doesn't seem like a fair reading of the original comment:
So I read the original comment as more of a criticism of Hillary (and everyone pressuring others to shut up and get on board the Hillary train, quit dissenting) than a compliment to Republicans. Everybody expects the Republicans to be pro-war, pro-surveillance, pro-banks. A lot of us would like to be able to vote for a Democrat who is against those things.
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 10:50 AM on January 31, 2015 [4 favorites]
That doesn't seem like a fair reading of the original comment:
Do you grant us permission to then pursue alternatives in 2018 and 2020? Because a vote for Hillary is going to be a vote for four more years of war, four more years of illegal surveillance, and four more years of bailouts to Wall StreetNowhere did a lungful of dragon imply that electing a Republican candidate would spare us from those outcomes. I think the issue is that a lot of us would prefer a Democratic president who would distinguish him or herself from the Republican candidate in those areas, e.g. favor peaceful alternatives, oppose illegal surveillance, oppose more Wall Street bailouts. Hillary Clinton has at least come out in favor of surveillance reform (after initially defending the NSA's tactics), but so did Obama when he was a candidate—weeks before voting for the FISA Amendments Act that he promised to boycott—so I try to remain skeptical when conservative Democrats talk about reforming the NSA. Hillary is extremely pro-military intervention and has said lots of troubling things about nuking Iran and about how national security is more important than human rights. And although she hasn't spoken as much about big finance, it's worrisome that big bank execs are shoveling money at her and angling for spots in her administration.
So I read the original comment as more of a criticism of Hillary (and everyone pressuring others to shut up and get on board the Hillary train, quit dissenting) than a compliment to Republicans. Everybody expects the Republicans to be pro-war, pro-surveillance, pro-banks. A lot of us would like to be able to vote for a Democrat who is against those things.
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 10:50 AM on January 31, 2015 [4 favorites]
peeedro: “If not Hillary, then who? ”Tammy Baldwin.
posted by ob1quixote at 10:52 AM on January 31, 2015
kyrademon: "I will vote for the candidate I believe in the most in the primaries, and hope fervently that they get the nomination.
Then I will almost certainly vote for whatever Democrat is running because we have a first past the post electoral college system..."
It's interesting, really. There's a sort of "Democratic Centralism" (the old Bolshevik political theory) at play with this. I first thought of that with markkraft's statement earlier in the thread:
The Democratic Party, as a centralized entity and institution, is quite powerful, and creates its own platform.
The party is what sets the platform from the top, not below. Then to say that we pick the people in the primaries, and then whoever is chosen MUST be unified behind after the democratic process had its part (in this case, the Primaries). Once the candidate has been chosen (or policies, etc...) The debate is over, and the will and power must be unified to move full force and hand in hand to implement this move.
So - if the Primaries indicate Hillary and she gets the nod, then, by the very nature of the electoral system in the US, if one hopes to have a chance at winning, one has to convince a majority of the electorate within that party, that even if they do not like the results of the primary, that it is incumbent upon them to support the winner, as the wont the vote, and the party rule must continue.
If we didn't have a FPTP system, perhaps this sort of quasi-Democratic Centralism wouldn't be in play, and more diverse set of democratic methods could be employed within a given party. But as it stands now, it seems that this is the way things are done in the good ol' USSA.
posted by symbioid at 11:23 AM on January 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
Then I will almost certainly vote for whatever Democrat is running because we have a first past the post electoral college system..."
It's interesting, really. There's a sort of "Democratic Centralism" (the old Bolshevik political theory) at play with this. I first thought of that with markkraft's statement earlier in the thread:
The Democratic Party, as a centralized entity and institution, is quite powerful, and creates its own platform.
The party is what sets the platform from the top, not below. Then to say that we pick the people in the primaries, and then whoever is chosen MUST be unified behind after the democratic process had its part (in this case, the Primaries). Once the candidate has been chosen (or policies, etc...) The debate is over, and the will and power must be unified to move full force and hand in hand to implement this move.
So - if the Primaries indicate Hillary and she gets the nod, then, by the very nature of the electoral system in the US, if one hopes to have a chance at winning, one has to convince a majority of the electorate within that party, that even if they do not like the results of the primary, that it is incumbent upon them to support the winner, as the wont the vote, and the party rule must continue.
If we didn't have a FPTP system, perhaps this sort of quasi-Democratic Centralism wouldn't be in play, and more diverse set of democratic methods could be employed within a given party. But as it stands now, it seems that this is the way things are done in the good ol' USSA.
posted by symbioid at 11:23 AM on January 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
I might consider a vote for Hillary on the condition that Chelsea puts on a uniform and gets stationed in harm's way.
Which could also flesh out Chelsea's sheltered rich kid, degree grubbing, Wall Street CV with a little quality time among the 99%. In case she ever decides to run for office.
posted by IndigoJones at 11:39 AM on January 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
Which could also flesh out Chelsea's sheltered rich kid, degree grubbing, Wall Street CV with a little quality time among the 99%. In case she ever decides to run for office.
posted by IndigoJones at 11:39 AM on January 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
For his instrumental role in campaign finance reform alone
BCRA was a disaster whose always-obvious overreach made something like Citizens United inevitable.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:48 AM on January 31, 2015
BCRA was a disaster whose always-obvious overreach made something like Citizens United inevitable.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:48 AM on January 31, 2015
The Democratic Party, as a centralized entity and institution, is quite powerful, and creates its own platform.
There's no such thing as a centralized Democratic Party (or Republican Party). There's the DNC, but the DNC is not the boss of the DCCC or DSCC, much less state parties. The only time a nationwide Democratic Party has any meaningful existence is during the presidential nominating convention. Even then, candidates at any level are entirely free to ignore or oppose the platform chosen by any layer of party "above" them.
Parties in the US are, compared to international norms, shockingly weak. They don't even control access to their own party labels.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:52 AM on January 31, 2015
There's no such thing as a centralized Democratic Party (or Republican Party). There's the DNC, but the DNC is not the boss of the DCCC or DSCC, much less state parties. The only time a nationwide Democratic Party has any meaningful existence is during the presidential nominating convention. Even then, candidates at any level are entirely free to ignore or oppose the platform chosen by any layer of party "above" them.
Parties in the US are, compared to international norms, shockingly weak. They don't even control access to their own party labels.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:52 AM on January 31, 2015
Who else is there on the Democratic bench? Andrew Cuomo? Howard Dean? George Clooney?
I would be embarrassingly enthusiastic about Clooney for President. Especially if Joel and Ethan Coen get to be the top advisors.
posted by kaibutsu at 12:57 PM on January 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
I would be embarrassingly enthusiastic about Clooney for President. Especially if Joel and Ethan Coen get to be the top advisors.
posted by kaibutsu at 12:57 PM on January 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
America didn't get rid of the monarchy, just privatized it.
Maybe this is a derail (although maybe not, with the word "dynasty" flying around), but it's worth actually taking a look at this statement.
One thing that I've realized over the past few years, especially from reading about Roman history, is that the different flavors of centralized authority all have very different downsides. Specifically, I'm pretty sure most of us here share a distaste for political systems where power is centralized into one person. But if I absolutely had to live in a system like that, I'd drastically prefer that it was configured so that the transfer of power wasn't strictly hereditary.
That's a big part of what sucks about monarchy, outside of the centralized-power thing - every time the king dies, the whole system rolls the dice on the capabilities of the next in line for genetic succession (the works of George Martin boil down to a big fictional examination of the hows and whys of this suckage). King's oldest son's an idiot, you're all hosed. Succession isn't clear, you're hosed.
Imperial Rome drifted through a couple of different succession patterns. Sometimes it was hereditary, but for some stretches the sitting Emperor would pick a successor on merit, giving the job to the man* best suited (of course, this transition would generally be made by the Emperor formally adopting the successor, bringing a element of hereditary succession into it, but still).** The classic example here is the string of emperors from Nerva to Marcus Aurelius, all chosen on merit, known as "the Five Good Emperors." Their stretch is widely agreed to be the height of the Imperium in terms of prosperity and stability. Then Marcus Aurelius leaves the throne to his incompetent shithead son Commodus and it all goes down the drain.
I guess where I'm going with this is that even if modern America isn't exactly the shining wide-open democracy we'd like it to be, it's still not a hereditary monarchy. We've had only two father-son President combos (and yeah, one was recent), and neither of them were back-to-back. The pool of possible Presidents is a hell of a lot smaller than the rhetoric suggests, and families like the Bushes, Clintons, Kennedys, Adamses, and Roosevelts have their stretches of prominence, but at any given time the pool is at least larger than the sitting president's immediate family. Our system is still a shit sandwich, but it's not really a privatized-monarchy shit sandwich.
*So, yeah, built-in sexism seems to be one of the recurring problems of monarchies, too.
**Of course, Roman succession also often drifted into being based on which ambitious general had the biggest army and the fewest scruples, so it's not like they didn't have their own giant pile of very bad failure modes.
posted by the phlegmatic king at 12:59 PM on January 31, 2015 [6 favorites]
Maybe this is a derail (although maybe not, with the word "dynasty" flying around), but it's worth actually taking a look at this statement.
One thing that I've realized over the past few years, especially from reading about Roman history, is that the different flavors of centralized authority all have very different downsides. Specifically, I'm pretty sure most of us here share a distaste for political systems where power is centralized into one person. But if I absolutely had to live in a system like that, I'd drastically prefer that it was configured so that the transfer of power wasn't strictly hereditary.
That's a big part of what sucks about monarchy, outside of the centralized-power thing - every time the king dies, the whole system rolls the dice on the capabilities of the next in line for genetic succession (the works of George Martin boil down to a big fictional examination of the hows and whys of this suckage). King's oldest son's an idiot, you're all hosed. Succession isn't clear, you're hosed.
Imperial Rome drifted through a couple of different succession patterns. Sometimes it was hereditary, but for some stretches the sitting Emperor would pick a successor on merit, giving the job to the man* best suited (of course, this transition would generally be made by the Emperor formally adopting the successor, bringing a element of hereditary succession into it, but still).** The classic example here is the string of emperors from Nerva to Marcus Aurelius, all chosen on merit, known as "the Five Good Emperors." Their stretch is widely agreed to be the height of the Imperium in terms of prosperity and stability. Then Marcus Aurelius leaves the throne to his incompetent shithead son Commodus and it all goes down the drain.
I guess where I'm going with this is that even if modern America isn't exactly the shining wide-open democracy we'd like it to be, it's still not a hereditary monarchy. We've had only two father-son President combos (and yeah, one was recent), and neither of them were back-to-back. The pool of possible Presidents is a hell of a lot smaller than the rhetoric suggests, and families like the Bushes, Clintons, Kennedys, Adamses, and Roosevelts have their stretches of prominence, but at any given time the pool is at least larger than the sitting president's immediate family. Our system is still a shit sandwich, but it's not really a privatized-monarchy shit sandwich.
*So, yeah, built-in sexism seems to be one of the recurring problems of monarchies, too.
**Of course, Roman succession also often drifted into being based on which ambitious general had the biggest army and the fewest scruples, so it's not like they didn't have their own giant pile of very bad failure modes.
posted by the phlegmatic king at 12:59 PM on January 31, 2015 [6 favorites]
Martin O'Malley can't even get his Lt. Gov. elected in the bluest state in the nation. The Larry Hogan victory sunk O'Malley's chances.
This is just beltway chatter of the moment. No one will care. O'Malley has his own weaknesses, but no one cares about Larry Hogan. He can't beat Hillary Clinton. I doubt he'll try.
Jim Webb is a good candidate on paper.
In 1996. He's totally out of step with the party now.
Elizabeth Warren can't be drafted into it if she doesn't want to give it a try.
She doesn't want to give it a try because she can't win. She's not all that great of a campaigner, and the adorning left really doesn't know that aside from Wall Street issues, she's a firmly middle of the road Democrat. If the Left was disappointed by Obama, Warren offers them nothing. They're just enamored of a "fresh face" that's 18 months younger than Hillary Clinton,
I love Joe Biden, but he is too old to win the photogenic beauty contest that the presidential election has turned into.
This isn't why Biden can't win. He has no constituency in the party and he knows it.
Brian Schweitzer is even more so handicapped by photogenic nature of our elections.
He's already disqualified himself with some pretty terrible public statements.
Ed Rendell has most of Biden's disadvantages and none of his advantages.
Agreed.
Jerry Brown, despite his track record, is even older than Biden and Rendell. And he doesn't want the job anyhow. Bernie Sanders has his loyal fans, but he's unlikely to win over anyone new.,
Both total non-starters.
Tim Kaine and Mark Warner both look like they're taking a pass for the moment.
Mark Warner is just Evan Bayh II; he seemed like that's what the Democrats needed when everyone misdiagnosed the Democrats' problems during the Bush era. Democrats aren't going to win Reagan Democrats, and they don't need them.
Kaine is a viable VP.
posted by spaltavian at 1:06 PM on January 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
This is just beltway chatter of the moment. No one will care. O'Malley has his own weaknesses, but no one cares about Larry Hogan. He can't beat Hillary Clinton. I doubt he'll try.
Jim Webb is a good candidate on paper.
In 1996. He's totally out of step with the party now.
Elizabeth Warren can't be drafted into it if she doesn't want to give it a try.
She doesn't want to give it a try because she can't win. She's not all that great of a campaigner, and the adorning left really doesn't know that aside from Wall Street issues, she's a firmly middle of the road Democrat. If the Left was disappointed by Obama, Warren offers them nothing. They're just enamored of a "fresh face" that's 18 months younger than Hillary Clinton,
I love Joe Biden, but he is too old to win the photogenic beauty contest that the presidential election has turned into.
This isn't why Biden can't win. He has no constituency in the party and he knows it.
Brian Schweitzer is even more so handicapped by photogenic nature of our elections.
He's already disqualified himself with some pretty terrible public statements.
Ed Rendell has most of Biden's disadvantages and none of his advantages.
Agreed.
Jerry Brown, despite his track record, is even older than Biden and Rendell. And he doesn't want the job anyhow. Bernie Sanders has his loyal fans, but he's unlikely to win over anyone new.,
Both total non-starters.
Tim Kaine and Mark Warner both look like they're taking a pass for the moment.
Mark Warner is just Evan Bayh II; he seemed like that's what the Democrats needed when everyone misdiagnosed the Democrats' problems during the Bush era. Democrats aren't going to win Reagan Democrats, and they don't need them.
Kaine is a viable VP.
posted by spaltavian at 1:06 PM on January 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
The problem is Obama brought a lot of new voters to the polls who aren't going to show up for someone that doesn't excite them. I'm not sure the Dems will be able to reproduce Obama's effective ground campaign. If they don't, their voters may stay home again.
posted by Golden Eternity at 1:42 PM on January 31, 2015
posted by Golden Eternity at 1:42 PM on January 31, 2015
I'm not sure the Dems will be able to reproduce Obama's effective ground campaign. If they don't, their voters may stay home again.
That effective ground campaign was a lot about getting people to have conversations and bring each other out to vote. So.. have conversations and urge people to vote?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 2:16 PM on January 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
That effective ground campaign was a lot about getting people to have conversations and bring each other out to vote. So.. have conversations and urge people to vote?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 2:16 PM on January 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
Sorry, that may have come across snarky. What I mean is "The Dems" can only reproduce the machine if people are willing to be part of it. And, yeah, the Dems-as-a-party do need in a philosophical sense to come up with something better than "at least we're not Republican," but as things stand these days it seems probably wisest to push from the primary level if your specific views are that far off from likely candidates--it's exactly what the Tea Party has been doing and it works.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 2:35 PM on January 31, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 2:35 PM on January 31, 2015 [4 favorites]
Hillary will get all of the worst people in America United against her (misogynists, the Tea Party, people who talk a lot about Benghazi, people who still hate Bill Clinton, people who never hated Bill Clinton but hated her throughout his presidency, GamerGate [outside of them being just anti-woman in general, she has definitely used violent video games as an easy target in the past]).
She may bring out an unprecedented number of women, but she strikes me as another Democrat who's taken the black, Latino, LGBTQI, and union parts of the base for granted. If she's an ally in any area of civil rights, she's a terribly weak one.
She's going to have to reach a lot of undecided centrists, because her record is not going to win the Occupy Wallstreet or serious anti-war crowd out, even if she is better than Jeb (which of course she is and will be, but that doesn't make her good)
posted by elr at 2:37 PM on January 31, 2015
She may bring out an unprecedented number of women, but she strikes me as another Democrat who's taken the black, Latino, LGBTQI, and union parts of the base for granted. If she's an ally in any area of civil rights, she's a terribly weak one.
She's going to have to reach a lot of undecided centrists, because her record is not going to win the Occupy Wallstreet or serious anti-war crowd out, even if she is better than Jeb (which of course she is and will be, but that doesn't make her good)
posted by elr at 2:37 PM on January 31, 2015
even if she is better than Jeb (which of course she is and will be, but that doesn't make her good)
Yeah but literally any even remotely credible Democrat would be better than Jeb, especially with a gerrymandered House and a shaky Senate.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 2:40 PM on January 31, 2015
Yeah but literally any even remotely credible Democrat would be better than Jeb, especially with a gerrymandered House and a shaky Senate.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 2:40 PM on January 31, 2015
Kaine is a viable VP.
Totally agree with this. He's sharp, affable, competent and a reasonably good Democrat.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 2:42 PM on January 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
Totally agree with this. He's sharp, affable, competent and a reasonably good Democrat.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 2:42 PM on January 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
She may bring out an unprecedented number of women....
She's going to have to reach a lot of undecided centrists, because her record is not going to win the Occupy Wallstreet or serious anti-war crowd out
There are a lot more women than there are members of Occupy or the serious anti-war crowd. Purely numerically, if Democratic women show up in large numbers to vote for Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton is President.
posted by escabeche at 2:58 PM on January 31, 2015 [4 favorites]
She's going to have to reach a lot of undecided centrists, because her record is not going to win the Occupy Wallstreet or serious anti-war crowd out
There are a lot more women than there are members of Occupy or the serious anti-war crowd. Purely numerically, if Democratic women show up in large numbers to vote for Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton is President.
posted by escabeche at 2:58 PM on January 31, 2015 [4 favorites]
Additionally I'm guessing the Occupy Wallstreet crowd is a lot more likely than the average Democrat to waste cast their vote for a third party candidate whether or not Clinton is the nominee. They're the kind of folks who voted for Nader.
posted by Justinian at 3:11 PM on January 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 3:11 PM on January 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
Don't they always complain that the President doesn't schmooze the insiders enough? I feel like I heard similar rumors about Bush2 and Clinton; they were too insular and didn't socialize enough. When I'm elected President, this will not be a problem. I will schmooze the fuck out of everyone. I will be the last schmoozer standing. They'll wonder what the hell else I do all day. Answer? Nothing. Vote for me, #1 schmoozer.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 3:26 PM on January 31, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 3:26 PM on January 31, 2015 [4 favorites]
Hillary will get all of the worst people in America United against her (misogynists, the Tea Party, people who talk a lot about Benghazi, people who still hate Bill Clinton
Hmmm. This could be a good thing, though; it might frighten otherwise less interested people into voting against the crazies.
But anything could happen during the campaign. Remember how much the polls went down after Obama's bad debate with Romney? And two years is a long time: there's a good chance the economy could suffer or the Obama administration could be faced with a crisis that could affect the democratic candidate negatively. I think it's hard to be too certain on the election. I wouldn't give the Dems much better (or worse) than 50/50 at this point.
posted by Golden Eternity at 3:34 PM on January 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
Hmmm. This could be a good thing, though; it might frighten otherwise less interested people into voting against the crazies.
But anything could happen during the campaign. Remember how much the polls went down after Obama's bad debate with Romney? And two years is a long time: there's a good chance the economy could suffer or the Obama administration could be faced with a crisis that could affect the democratic candidate negatively. I think it's hard to be too certain on the election. I wouldn't give the Dems much better (or worse) than 50/50 at this point.
posted by Golden Eternity at 3:34 PM on January 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
If she's an ally in any area of civil rights, she's a terribly weak one.
She was pretty late to the same-sex marriage party, but then so was Obama. Most right-centrists don't particularly care too much for a clear stance on civil rights matters, unless polls suggest taking a particular stand will pull in swing voters, maybe.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 5:58 PM on January 31, 2015
She was pretty late to the same-sex marriage party, but then so was Obama. Most right-centrists don't particularly care too much for a clear stance on civil rights matters, unless polls suggest taking a particular stand will pull in swing voters, maybe.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 5:58 PM on January 31, 2015
(For Obama, even, he waited until he became a lame duck president before making a clear statement on his position, after half of the country had moved on the subject, and it was safe to state agreement with the majority.)
posted by a lungful of dragon at 6:00 PM on January 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by a lungful of dragon at 6:00 PM on January 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
If she's an ally in any area of civil rights, she's a terribly weak one.
As Secretary of State she directed HR to find every benefit they could possibly extend to employees in same-sex relationships without outright violating DOMA, and she gave a big-deal speech in Switzerland on the theme that gay rights are human rights.
posted by Blue Jello Elf at 6:10 PM on January 31, 2015
As Secretary of State she directed HR to find every benefit they could possibly extend to employees in same-sex relationships without outright violating DOMA, and she gave a big-deal speech in Switzerland on the theme that gay rights are human rights.
posted by Blue Jello Elf at 6:10 PM on January 31, 2015
For Obama, even, he waited until he became a lame duck president before
His announcement was in May 2012. Even with the massive expansion of the term from it's original meaning, 6 months before an election where you're on the ballot is not a "lame duck".
posted by spaltavian at 8:40 PM on January 31, 2015 [5 favorites]
His announcement was in May 2012. Even with the massive expansion of the term from it's original meaning, 6 months before an election where you're on the ballot is not a "lame duck".
posted by spaltavian at 8:40 PM on January 31, 2015 [5 favorites]
Well, many people were acting like he didn't have any presidential powers starting from February 2009. Something about trying to stuff a lame duck through an Overton Window.
posted by benito.strauss at 8:22 AM on February 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by benito.strauss at 8:22 AM on February 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
Yeah, it wasn't a lame duck move. It was a cynical "I can fire up the base with this because it is now politically safe for me to say gay people should have equal rights."
Craven and soulless as hell and commendable at the same time.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:39 AM on February 1, 2015
Craven and soulless as hell and commendable at the same time.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:39 AM on February 1, 2015
I doubt she'll win. She's disliked by too many people on both sides and she gives no impression of having an ethical center.
As opposed to Jeb Bush, Scott Walker and Chris Christie?
posted by Gelatin at 9:24 AM on February 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
As opposed to Jeb Bush, Scott Walker and Chris Christie?
posted by Gelatin at 9:24 AM on February 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
Hillary will get all of the worst people in America United against her (misogynists, the Tea Party, people who talk a lot about Benghazi, people who still hate Bill Clinton, people who never hated Bill Clinton but hated her throughout his presidency
But the Venn diagram here approaches a perfect circle.
posted by Gelatin at 9:46 AM on February 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
But the Venn diagram here approaches a perfect circle.
posted by Gelatin at 9:46 AM on February 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
Hillary will get the nomination because there is currently no other viable option. I'll (reluctantly and while gritting my teeth) vote for her in the general, but I doubt she'll win. She's disliked by too many people on both sides
She's one of the most popular politicians among Democrats; she's posting ridiculous 40 point poll leads in Iowa. (This was not the case in 2008, she was not showing this kind of lead at any point that cycle.) And it's not hard to imagine why: in 2008, she was on the wrong side of the most important issue to Democratic voters. It's actually impressive how well she did with the Iraq vote on her record. In the coming cycle, she's orthodox on every important issue to the bulk of Democrats.
But even if her "inevitability" in 2016 is just as weak as it was in 2008 (and again, it's not); these kind of numbers would still show a tremendously lasting approval from Democrats. If she gets the nomination, she'll have no problem with Democratic votes. Whether she can get minority turnout to Obama levels is an open question, but it won't be an issue of them "disliking" her.
Her problem is certainly not that she's "disliked by too many people on both sides". She's liked by Democrats, and she's going to be as hated on the Right as any Democrat who gets the nomination. (Perhaps you've forgotten how many Republicans were saying things like "Hillary is at least tolerable" once Obama started to prevail in the primary; just like they were saying Obama is at least reasonable a year before when Hillary looked like the winner.)
The kind of left-of-center people who pine for Warren are passionate, but they're not the base. When the most liberal Democrats say something like Hillary can't win because no one likes her, it's like the old (apocryphal) line about Nixon: "How could he have won? No one I knew voted for him."
posted by spaltavian at 12:11 PM on February 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
She's one of the most popular politicians among Democrats; she's posting ridiculous 40 point poll leads in Iowa. (This was not the case in 2008, she was not showing this kind of lead at any point that cycle.) And it's not hard to imagine why: in 2008, she was on the wrong side of the most important issue to Democratic voters. It's actually impressive how well she did with the Iraq vote on her record. In the coming cycle, she's orthodox on every important issue to the bulk of Democrats.
But even if her "inevitability" in 2016 is just as weak as it was in 2008 (and again, it's not); these kind of numbers would still show a tremendously lasting approval from Democrats. If she gets the nomination, she'll have no problem with Democratic votes. Whether she can get minority turnout to Obama levels is an open question, but it won't be an issue of them "disliking" her.
Her problem is certainly not that she's "disliked by too many people on both sides". She's liked by Democrats, and she's going to be as hated on the Right as any Democrat who gets the nomination. (Perhaps you've forgotten how many Republicans were saying things like "Hillary is at least tolerable" once Obama started to prevail in the primary; just like they were saying Obama is at least reasonable a year before when Hillary looked like the winner.)
The kind of left-of-center people who pine for Warren are passionate, but they're not the base. When the most liberal Democrats say something like Hillary can't win because no one likes her, it's like the old (apocryphal) line about Nixon: "How could he have won? No one I knew voted for him."
posted by spaltavian at 12:11 PM on February 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
Weigel on Warrenmentum: Fighting the Living-Room War with the ‘Draft Warren’ Movement
MoveOn's in-house videos all but declared that Warren could run and win. (Its main video, infamously, ends with Warren appearing to pause when asked if she's running for president. It cuts before her answer–"no.") Ruffalo's message ended with some realism: "If she doesn’t win the primary, she will at least push the conversation." Member by member, the DC Warren group differed on whether this was about beating Hillary or changing Hillary.posted by spaltavian at 7:50 AM on February 3, 2015
she's posting ridiculous 40 point poll leads in Iowa.
I've talked to people who HATE Obama, yet like Hillary. It's kind of baffling. I wonder if it is not just the women's vote but a segmant of the White/middle class that could give Hillary an advantage.
I love the fact that Obama beat Hillary in the 2008 Iowa caucuses when he was virtually unknown. There might not have been an Obama presidency otherwise. (There was a three-way split with Edwards). Thanks Iowa!
posted by Golden Eternity at 4:48 PM on February 3, 2015
I've talked to people who HATE Obama, yet like Hillary. It's kind of baffling. I wonder if it is not just the women's vote but a segmant of the White/middle class that could give Hillary an advantage.
I love the fact that Obama beat Hillary in the 2008 Iowa caucuses when he was virtually unknown. There might not have been an Obama presidency otherwise. (There was a three-way split with Edwards). Thanks Iowa!
posted by Golden Eternity at 4:48 PM on February 3, 2015
I've talked to people who HATE Obama, yet like Hillary. It's kind of baffling. I wonder if it is not just the women's vote but a segmant of the White/middle class that could give Hillary an advantage.
Most people around here despise Obama, but love Hillary because Hillary is married to Bill and Bill gutted welfare. There's no small amount of racial animus involved. OTOH, I have an aunt who mainlines Fox News and used to love Hillary until Benghazi.
posted by dirigibleman at 12:06 AM on February 4, 2015
Most people around here despise Obama, but love Hillary because Hillary is married to Bill and Bill gutted welfare. There's no small amount of racial animus involved. OTOH, I have an aunt who mainlines Fox News and used to love Hillary until Benghazi.
posted by dirigibleman at 12:06 AM on February 4, 2015
“A Profound Waste Of Time: The Working Families Party Feels A Draft,” Charles P. Pierce, Esquire Politics Blog, 09 February 2015
Just stop it, OK? [Senator Professor Warren] is not going to run. She doesn't want to be president. And it's better for all the issues she cares about if she stays right where she is and continues to gather power within a now Republican-run Senate. There is a perfectly adequate progressive alternative out there named Bernie Sanders. This apparent monomania on the Left about the Senator Professor is not only unseemly -- Leave the poor woman alone, will you? -- but it's also counterproductive. If people keep yeckling at her to run, and she doesn't, the issues she cares about will look like little more than a vanity project, and not a recommitment by the entire Democratic party. If she runs and loses, which she likely will, those issues disappear for another decade or so. She has work to do. Let her do it, please.posted by ob1quixote at 11:12 AM on February 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
« Older zara zara goro goro poki poki zaku zaku | "It’s a scary a movie. I was not allowed to watch... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by azpenguin at 6:39 PM on January 30, 2015 [66 favorites]