Bold, innovative loss mitigation

D.R. Tucker, weekend subbing at Political Animal, muses on Republicans using Mitt freaking Romney and 2016 in the same sentence.

Seriously, what is the question to which Romney is the answer…?” Who trusts Romney? Who likes him? Who thinks he could actually govern successfully?

You could lose a lot of money and a lunch trying to guess what goes on in some Republicans’ heads. If someone forced me to guess I’d think they probably want to rally behind whoever will lose to Hillary Clinton in the least embarrassing way. Granted even Warren Buffett wants to give Mitt a wedgie when captain zero self-awareness channels the resentments of the 1% and douchey, but put yourself in the not-so-crazy GOPer’s place. Christie and Scott Walker, the obvious next in line and his understudy, somehow ended up in a fast race to first indicted. Jeb has that plutonium last name. Paul Ryan might be doing something if anyone gave enough of a crap to check, but no one cares about Paul Ryan. That leaves Pete King of New York to carry the sane banner, and everyone loves it when a guy who looks like a grouper tells the base to PULL YOUR PANTS UP AND EAT YOUR DAMN VEGETABLES.

Now revisit who excited the base in 2012, a year when the slope of wingnut madness had not reached a second derivative inflection point.

graph

At various points a national primary vote would have anointed Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Romney, Hermann Cain, Newt Gingrich, Romney, Santorum (in brown, ha) and Romney. With FOX pushing the base on one side and Cantor madness driving Reps to serve every nutty flight of id, What caliber of shiny objects do you think the primary voting base will run after in 2016? Mitt might lose to a turnip but you know he will not flame out in some way that humiliates the whole party and sends an unwashable stink far down the ballot.

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit






233 replies
  1. 1
    Violet says:

    Noisemax headline over on the right column:

    Do You Think Romney Should Run Again? Vote Now

    That’s just sad. They really are desperate to find someone who won’t completely humiliate them. And destroy the Republican “brand”, I guess. That’s a risk if they nominate, say, Christie and then he’s indicted. Or Ted Cruz and he teabags all over everything and ends up making people hate him and the party.

  2. 2
    Steeplejack says:

    @Tim F.:

    Slight fix recommended:

    “muses on how Republicans keep using Mitt freaking Romney”

    or

    “muses on Republicans keep using Mitt freaking Romney”

  3. 3
    Jewish Steel says:

    Rick Perry: Tanned, Rested, Times His Dosing Better

  4. 4
    Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name) says:

    @Jewish Steel: There’s always Zombie Reagan.

  5. 5
    dmsilev says:

    At least it’s more plausible than John McCain running again.

  6. 6
    gnomedad says:

    Because, if you unskew the polls, Mittster actually won in 2012, so what’s not to like? Now, if we can just confine the vote to Real Americans in 2016 …

  7. 7
    Betty Cracker says:

    @Jewish Steel: Perry also has glasses now. Smart people wear glasses, you know.

  8. 8
    dmsilev says:

    @Violet: In the interest of Science, I clicked on the link. (a) not surprisingly you have to provide an email address in order to vote, so it’s really just about harvesting sucker-IDs. (b) here’s the list of potential candidates we’re supposed to chose from:

    Gov. Bobby Jindal
    Dr. Ben Carson
    Gov. Chris Christie
    Gov. Jan Brewer
    Gov. Jeb Bush
    Gov. John Kasich
    Sen. Marco Rubio
    Gov. Mike Huckabee
    Gov. Mitt Romney
    Gov. Nikki Haley
    Rep. Paul Ryan
    Sen. Rand Paul
    Gov. Rick Perry
    Gov. Sarah Palin
    Gov. Scott Walker
    Sen. Ted Cruz

    That’s …not an impressive set of people.

  9. 9
    Joel Hanes says:

    rally behind whoever will lose to Hillary Clinton

    Maybe whatever fraction of the party leadership retains some sanity thinks that way, but it seems to me that movement conservatives are convinced that a national revulsion for the Usurping Kenyan Muslim Lawless Tyrant will elect whichever R is nominated as our next President.

    God, I love the smell of Republican overreach in the morning.

  10. 10
    dmsilev says:

    @Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name): Doubtful. Zombie Reagan will desire BRAINS, and that simply won’t do for the South Carolina primary.

  11. 11
    amk says:

    third time is the harm?

  12. 12
    Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name) says:

    @dmsilev: Holy crap, you are right. Even Zombie Reagan is a RINO.

    ETA: Zombie Calhoun?

  13. 13
    p.a. says:

    Can’t imagine the big money that tries to control the Rethugs would allow a mouth breather to be the nominee if they can avoid it; an open election, no incumbent, a poor campaigner if Hillary is the Dem, someone who surrounds herself with the Lanny Davis Mark Penn wing of the party. Their best shot to win for a while.

  14. 14
  15. 15
    Bobby B. says:

    And tomorrow Romney will be on Meet the Press. Due to FCC regulations David Gregory will not be fellating Willard on camera.

  16. 16
  17. 17
    efgoldman says:

    @Jewish Steel:

    Rick Perry: Tanned, Rested, Times His Dosing Better

    FSM doesn’t love us that much.

    GOBP has two choices: Totally let the freak out, go fully TeaHadi wingnut, and go down in flames after they’ve alienated everyone except some angry white men, take the Senate and probably the House down with them, and go even farther into the wilderness.

    Or nominate someone sort of sane, lose anyway, save the House and enough of the Senate to block things, and continue the “not nutty/conservative/racist/anti-women/theocratic enough – we wuz betrayed” act they’re engaged in.

  18. 18
    Jewish Steel says:

    @Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name): Ghost Reagan has run in every election since 88. And will do until he passes from living memory.

    Unless you take this wooden stake up to the old abandoned farm of a full moon.

  19. 19
    Baud says:

    @Bobby B.:

    David Gregory will not be fellating Willard on camera.

    What he’ll be doing will be much more sickening.

  20. 20
    Violet says:

    @p.a.:

    someone who surrounds herself with the Lanny Davis Mark Penn wing of the party.

    Speaking of wings of the party, today I was behind a car that had a bumper sticker that said, “I’m from the Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic party”. Apparently you can get them here.

  21. 21
    Jewish Steel says:

    @Betty Cracker: All I can picture is Homer Simpson’s glasses with the eyes painted on.

  22. 22
    The Dangerman says:

    @Bobby B.:

    …David Gregory will not be fellating Willard on camera.

    The Green Room will need to be steam cleaned, however.

    ETA: Mitt’s got a problem, however; the wife said no fucking way to any more campaigns and it sounded like she meant it.

  23. 23
    Violet says:

    @The Dangerman: When did she say that?

  24. 24
    Jewish Steel says:

    @efgoldman: Yes, that 2nd option is the most likely right? And certainly the smartest thing they can do. But, fingers crossed, they have a way of being delightfully unpredictable when it comes to the smart move.

  25. 25
    Wag says:

    Maybe the GOP should run Karl Rove. Skip the middle man.

  26. 26
    a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q) says:

    @The Dangerman: I thought for the Mormon folks the men made all the decisions and the women smiled and said “that’s nice, dear.”

  27. 27
    Gin & Tonic says:

    @dmsilev: Not an impressive list, perhaps, but a list of 16 people who have run for high national office or have a profile that could let them do so. What’s on the other side? “It’s my turn” and crickets. Where’s the bench, where’s the farm team?

  28. 28
    Baud says:

    I wonder if this is a good time to become a GOP grifter consultant.

  29. 29
    Morzer says:

    @The Dangerman:

    But what does Rafalca think?

  30. 30
    David Koch says:

    Wednesday night on Charlie Rose, both Rose and Halperin were pushing for Romney to run in 2016, saying with sincerity, that “he was such a good campaigner in 2008”.

    No really, they actually said that.

  31. 31
    max says:

    Seriously, what is the question to which Romney is the answer…?” Who trusts Romney? Who likes him?

    Mitt trusts Mitt! Zilionaires trust Mitt!
    Mitt thinks Mitt is exactly the right height to be President!
    Mitt thinks Mitt is exactly the right shade of white to be President!
    Ann agrees!
    Mitt thinks Mitt is trustworthy, and honorable and decent and pretty gosh darn handsome, and you know what, zillionaires agree!

    Only untrustworthy moochers think Mitt is unPresidential.

    And let’s face, Mitt’s pretty bored going up and down the car elevator all day, so he needs to launch a crusade of freedom! A crusade that will liberate the world’s money to be free! Free! Free to flow into Mitt’s wallet (and also Mitt’s shell corporations, concealed offshore accounts, and many many mutual funds) and into the wallets of Mitt’s friends. The country’s economy needs a 40,000 volt jolt to the heart… the sad and lonely hearts of rich people! Who like Mitt! Because Mitt is one of them!

    Mitt can go on TV and say, ‘Look at all this lovely happy money and how the money is in my wallet! And over here is my happy equity fund look! It’s holding on to the happy happy money which is safe and secure to enjoy its newfound freedom to be mine! And here’s my dummy corporation with lots of happy money. And here we’ll put the happy offshore bank accounts with lots of happy happy money… be sure to make a little happy face with the happy money so everyone knows how happy the money is… and no, we won’t add in any unhappy taxes or ferocious mean tax collectors! In my world only the happy things like happy bullion or happy jewelery or happy CDO’s or happy stocks or happy bonds belong. And look, we’ll just add a car elevator so my money can go up and down, safe and happy inside my happy car…’

    What caliber of shiny objects do you think the primary voting base will run after in 2016?

    All of them! All the shiny nut-flavored fried pork skins that Fox can dish up.

    max
    [‘Mitt’s money is happy to feed the base all the pork skins until they just explode with happy delight at all the tax cuts Mitt’s money will be enjoying after the Day of Monetary Liberation.’]

  32. 32
    The Dangerman says:

    @Violet:

    When did she say that?

    For example:

    http://www.politico.com/news/s.....82581.html

    I think she said the same after the election but I’m too tired/lazy/intoxiccated (choose all correct answers) to go look for it.

  33. 33

    Apropos of nothing but apparently the RWNJs and Palinistas are telling everyone that the State of California has banned the sale of Confederate flag tchotchkes. This is not true. They’ve just banned the sale at state-owned gift shops. And I’m not sure why they would have been there to begin with, California had jack to do with the Confederacy.

  34. 34
    Violet says:

    @Gin & Tonic:
    People keep bringing up Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland. And there’s Senator Gillibrand. Joe Biden. Gov. Andrew Cuomo. Deval Patrick.

    People like the Castro brothers–Julian and Joaquin–are still another cycle out but they’re part of the bench or at least in the minor leagues at the moment.

  35. 35
    David Koch says:

    HA!

    Aqua Buddha might with the nomination after all……. and then proceed to lose 45 states.

  36. 36
    SiubhanDuinne says:

    @dmsilev:

    Did they really list them alphabetically by first name?

  37. 37
    Baud says:

    @Southern Beale:

    So by banning, you mean “decided to stop selling.”

  38. 38
    BenW says:

    @efgoldman: yeah, I agree with your option b, which is the same point Tim is making, I think. In that case, Romney is a surprisingly reasonable option as a re-tread. He proved he can win the wingnut primaries and then veer to the center in and after the 1st debate against Obama, and that was enough to scare the Democrats and get the press swearing that Romney was an ass-kicking winner. That seems a lot better than nominating a real whack-job. Seriously, Romney’s 47% speech was a perfect revelation of 0.1%er arrogance, but it wasn’t *explicitly* racist or misogynistic, which is what they’d be dealing with if Christie or Jindal got nominated. You could even argue that if Romney learns from his mistakes and runs a tighter campaign and the voters want a “change”, then he could win!

  39. 39
    Violet says:

    @The Dangerman: Meh. I wouldn’t believe anything she said at that point in time, nor just after the election. If she said it now with the same certainty it might mean something. In October, 2012 she was probably trying to say “Vote for my husband or you’ll never get the chance again and you’ll be so sorry if you don’t get him to be your president.”

    If Mittens wants to run again, she’ll support him.

  40. 40
    Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name) says:

    @Gin & Tonic:

    Martin O’Malley
    Kirsten Gillibrand
    Hillary Clinton
    Sherrod Brown
    John Hickenlooper
    Bryan Schweitzer

    Just off the top of my head. I would not be supportive of all of these people, but they are people who could credibly run.

  41. 41
    Morzer says:

    I am a little disappointed that the title of this post wasn’t Loss Leader. Not enough to vote for Rand Paul, or anything, but still….

  42. 42
    Gin & Tonic says:

    @Violet: Come on. Biden would be 74 right after Election Day 2016. Deval Patrick would be 60, Cuomo would be practically 60 (and half his party despises him). That’s a bench? “It’s my turn” will be almost 70. What, 90%(?) of the Noisemax list is younger.

  43. 43
    TriassicSands says:

    Who thinks he could actually govern successfully?

    What sane person thinks any modern Republican could govern successfully as president?

    What is success? Number of wars started. Trillions of dollars wasted. Unnecessary deaths from lack of health care.

  44. 44
    efgoldman says:

    Just remember, at this point in the 2008 cycle (i.e. Spring 2006, before the midterms), I don’t think there were 100 people in the country who thought some Chicago guy named Obama would even be the nominee, let alone elected.
    Ms. Clinton was inevitable then, too.

  45. 45
    Russ says:

    They are seeking a candidate. Their bubble prevents them from offering a President.

  46. 46
    🌷 Martin says:

    The GOP will push for a woman. They’re now entirely convinced that identity politics is impossible to overcome.

  47. 47
    Mandalay says:

    @Gin & Tonic:

    “It’s my turn” and crickets. Where’s the bench, where’s the farm team?

    Well this odious self-serving prick is obviously going to give it a go. But I think the Clinton team are paying him to run. He instantly makes Clinton look like an awesome choice.

    If its a farm team we’re running then Schweitzer is the pig shit.

  48. 48
    Jewish Steel says:

    @Southern Beale: California abounds in ironic hipsters maybe? Protecting them from themselves. I support this.

  49. 49
    Gin & Tonic says:

    @Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name):

    Schweitzer’s remarks Friday afternoon were all over the map — from life lessons he learned as a boy leading his steer at 4-H club showings to his disagreements with the Affordable Care Act and the war in Iraq to sharp criticism of President Obama’s energy policy. And he said the one elected official with whom he agrees on some issues is Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.).

    Be still my heart. That’s a bench?

    I’ll have some of what you’re smoking.

  50. 50
    Violet says:

    @Gin & Tonic: It’s definitely an issue for the Democrats. You asked who they had–those are people who are being mentioned. You didn’t comment on O’Malley or Gillbrand, both of whom are younger.

    I don’t think the Democrats have been developing younger candidates very well. I think the visuals are going to be a problem. When the Republicans have their debates the candidates will mostly be younger. When the Democrats have their debates it seems the candidates will be older. I think the images will be striking in contrast and not in a good way for the Democrats.

    I’m more concerned about the 2014 midterm elections right now, though. One of the best ways to develop the Democratic “bench” is to get out and elect good Democrats in 2014 so they have a chance to gain experience and move up the ladder.

  51. 51
    Morzer says:

    @Gin & Tonic:

    More of a plank than a bench, IMHO. I seem to remember that Not-Albert is also in close and tight with the NRA.

  52. 52
    Baud says:

    @Mandalay:

    I can’t figure out what’s wrong with him. He was well positioned to be a player, but he’s just made the strangest decisions of late.

  53. 53
    Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name) says:

    @Gin & Tonic:

    I would not be supportive of all of these people

    When I said that, Schweitzer was the person I had in mind. Nevertheless, that list provides a pretty good spectrum of the party and the people have a high enough profile right now that people will recognized their names.

    What’s wrong with the rest of the people I named?

  54. 54
    efgoldman says:

    None of the women on @dmsilev:’s list above is without baggage.
    Haley has the infidelity question.
    Brewer couldn’t get a Latino vote to save her life (in fact, the party has gone so far in alienating AA and Latino voters, none of them could get more than 10-15% of either group, and any of their nominees might act as a great GOTV device for Dems.)
    Palin is – well – Palin: too involved in the grift, too lazy, too stupid.
    Martinez of New Mexico might be acceptable to a wider public, but does she want to? And would the true believer TeaHadis support her?

  55. 55
    David Koch says:

    Schweitzer just cut his own throat.

    Schweitzer’s remarks Friday afternoon were all over the map — from life lessons he learned as a boy leading his steer at 4-H club showings to his disagreements with the Affordable Care Act and the war in Iraq to sharp criticism of President Obama’s energy policy. And he said the one elected official with whom he agrees on some issues is Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.).

    “I don’t know why you lost the election, Mitt, but I know this: I was watching you on TV and I didn’t see the Mitt Romney that I knew,” Schweitzer said. “You are a fun guy and you’re easy-going and Obama is not. I’ve been in the room with him a little, too. He’s stiff as a board and you’ve got it going on.”

    Romney’s got it going on — not exactly a winning slogan for a politician hoping to persuade the Democratic masses.

  56. 56
    Violet says:

    @Gin & Tonic: I think your reading comprehension needs some assistance. You said this:

    What’s on the other side? “It’s my turn” and crickets. Where’s the bench, where’s the farm team?

    People are listing candidates with experience who could credibly run. That’s way more than “crickets”. Maybe you don’t like the possible candidates for various reasons, but they are potential candidates with enough of a national profile or experience or both that they could run. It’s not “crickets”.

  57. 57
  58. 58
    gene108 says:

    @Violet:

    That’s a risk if they nominate, say, Christie and then he’s indicted.

    Christie’s pushing hard to rehabilitate his image and with time bridge closure will be a distant enough memory that it may not be much of a drag on him, especially if no one can pin anything directly on him.

    Also, being able to do nasty things to your opponents and not get caught is basically how the Republicans have been handling the Presidency, since Nixon. My one hope for the future is the current crop of criminals Republicans are too young to learn from Tricky Dick Nixon directly and may not be up to the challenge of leading a criminal Republican Presidency.

    Though dodging any serious trouble from George Washington Bridge closure will actually endear him to the Republican party, as that would show Chritie has potential to be a criminal Republican President, like his last four predecessors.

    @p.a.:

    Can’t imagine the big money that tries to control the Rethugs would allow a mouth breather to be the nominee if they can avoid it; an open election, no incumbent, a poor campaigner if Hillary is the Dem, someone who surrounds herself with the Lanny Davis Mark Penn wing of the party. Their best shot to win for a while.

    Meh…I do not share the Hillary hate, but what worries me is that though the populace is repulsed by Republicans, they are not in love with Democrats and the whole liberal idea that government can help our society out.

    I really think a clever* Republican, who can get away with a “wink and nod” to the racist wing of their Party, like Reagan did with his states rights speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi, without expressly advocating for “legitimate rape” and an “aspirin between your knees as birth control”, while speaking out against a bit of the post-9/11/01 police state or show some ability to have “bi-partisan appeal” or “make tough decisions”, while governor, can win over quite a few people to make 2016 very interesting.

    *There are still some damn sharp Republican operatives out there or else 2010 would not have gone so badly for Democrats. Operation Red State was planned and executed and caught Democrats totally off guard, especially at the state and local levels. The evil geniuses are not many, but when they put their minds to it they can do some lasting damage to this country.

  59. 59
    Violet says:

    @efgoldman: Susanna Martinez used to be a Democrat. No way she’d get through the teabagger primary with that baggage.

  60. 60
    Gin & Tonic says:

    @Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name): I’d bet not one person out of 100 would recognize Hickenlooper. Sherrod Brown doesn’t give any indication of wanting to run for higher office. So we’re left, just as in Violet’s tally, with O’Malley and Gillibrand. Neither seems at this point willing to go up against the Clinton machine. Who knows what will happen in two years, but really, that’s it? Two people?

  61. 61
    Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name) says:

    @Violet:

    People are listing candidates with experience who could credibly run. That’s way more than “crickets”. Maybe you don’t like the possible candidates for various reasons, but they are potential candidates with enough of a national profile or experience or both that they could run. It’s not “crickets”.

    Exactly.

  62. 62
    gene108 says:

    @Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name):

    I personally want to see if Kathleen Sebelius would try and run. She was a governor and rolled out the ACA, despite whatever setbacks the ACA had, she seems very capable and has won state wide office in a strong Republican state.

  63. 63
    Jewish Steel says:

    @Mandalay:

    Early the next morning, Schweitzer called a Washington Post reporter to say, “Halfway through my speech, I was thinking, I feel like a gladiator just waiting for the tiger to eat me.”

    Christ, what an asshole.

  64. 64
    Violet says:

    @Gin & Tonic: I agree with your general premise that the Democrats lack of credible younger candidates is a problem. I’m not terribly excited about the Dem other-than-Hillary choices and I’ve got reservations about Hillary for various reasons that have been covered here at length.

    As I said upthread, the best way to make sure we’ve got a good “bench” is to get out and elect good Dems in 2014 so we’re developing them and they can move up. I’m much more concerned about the 2014 midterm elections than who might or might not run in 2016. Let’s focus on that.

  65. 65
    Baud says:

    @Gin & Tonic

    Go away. You complety respected a GOP list with Sarah Palin and Jan Brewer on it, while finding excuses to kick every Dem that people are mentioning. I get it. You think we suck. So do a lot of folks. Welcome to the party.

  66. 66
    Baud says:

    @Violet:

    This. How much deeper would our bench be if it weren’t for 2010?

  67. 67
    efgoldman says:

    @gene108:

    like Reagan did with his states rights speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi

    Preceded these here intartrons by a decade or two. Nothing – nothing – that a candidate said or did in the last 10 years can be restricted to the immediate audience or local press any more. “New Nixon” worked because the press didn’t follow him around to all the rubber-chicken dinners before the nomination fight heated up. Pretty much can’t happen now – 47% speech and all.

  68. 68
    Hill Dweller says:

    @David Koch: Schweitzer has awful political instincts.

  69. 69
    Hal says:

    If someone forced me to guess I’d think they probably want to rally behind whoever will lose to Hillary Clinton in the least embarrassing way.

    It would be interesting if 2016 became a redux of 1996’s Clinton Vs Dole, in which Bob Dole seemed to be the choice because no one else wanted to run, and what the hell, he’ll be dead soon anyway, so why not?

    In regards to Romney, I’m genuinely blown away that anyone would want him to run again. Romney’s appeal on the right was never more than an “at least he’s not Obummer!” Still, I would love to hear all the positions he’s flopped on since 2012.

    Also, Romney ran and lost in the primary, ran and won in the primary, then lost in the general election. Has there ever been another candidate who came back for a third time in this way? Just the possibility of the embarrassment of losing a third time overall, the the general election a second time in a row would be enough to ward off all but the most delusional. So yeah, Romney it is.

  70. 70
    Violet says:

    @Baud: Exactly. We need to elect good people THIS YEAR so that in the coming years we’ve got credible candidates for higher offices.

  71. 71
    gene108 says:

    @Violet:

    don’t think the Democrats have been developing younger candidates very well.

    Maybe it is a problem with holding the Presidency. With incumbency, maybe the party in the White House does not have an incentive to get a strong group of candidates together, as they would have to really wait a long time – which 8 years is for politicians – in order to run.

    The Republicans had it for 12 years and lost in 1992 and then ran Dole against Clinton, in 1996.

    In 2008, they had McCain, who had lost whatever appeal he had in 2000 and Romney in 2012, after 8 years of incumbency, with Bush, Jr.

    Rarely does one Party hold the Presidency for more than a couple of terms in a row, for the last 100 years or so of U.S. history, with the glaring exception being the 20 year run of FDR-Truman and the election of Bush, Sr. after Reagan.

  72. 72
    Morzer says:

    @Violet:

    She’s also got quite a few corruption issues to deal with and her reputation isn’t as shiny as it was. I still think she’s the most likely VP pick for them.

  73. 73
    Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name) says:

    @Gin & Tonic: Want to play the same game with the GOP list? Jesus, you asked for a “bench” and people named 7-10 people who are indicating interest in running or are potentially subject to being lured in. It is 2 1/2 years prior to the damned election. We have people; they will run. Anyone of them – even Schweitzer – would be better than anyone on the GOP list.

    Also, one of the Castro brothers could have a breakout year. Or someone else could come out of nowhere.

  74. 74
    Gin & Tonic says:

    @Baud: Come on. Where did I “completely respect” that list? All I’m pointing out is that the bench on the Dem side is thin, and we are not developing young players at all. Sure, sure. O’Malley and Gillibrand, OK. Beyond that? You tell me.

  75. 75
    Hill Dweller says:

    @Violet: I don’t care who the Dems roll out for their debates, they’ll never be a problem relative the Republicans’ debate. It is widely acknowledged the debates in 2012 really hurt the Republicans. Consequently, they’re reducing the number of debates and picking their own moderators in 2016.

    The Republican party is f’n crazy. When people get to see it in debates, without the Village filter, they recoil.

  76. 76
    Violet says:

    @gene108: I read somewhere that when a two-term president from one party is followed by another president from the same party, the second president is more likely to have only one term in office. Like Reagan (two terms) and Bush the Elder (one term).

    So it’s apparently more likely that if a Democrat is elected president in 2016 they will only get one term.

  77. 77
    Jewish Steel says:

    @Violet:

    As I said upthread, the best way to make sure we’ve got a good “bench” is to get out and elect good Dems in 2014 so we’re developing them and they can move up. I’m much more concerned about the 2014 midterm elections than who might or might not run in 2016. Let’s focus on that.

    You would make a good AA or AAA coach.

  78. 78
    Baud says:

    @Gin & Tonic:

    Where did I “completely respect” that list?

    Here’s you.

    Not an impressive list, perhaps, but a list of 16 people who have run for high national office or have a profile that could let them do so.

  79. 79
    Violet says:

    @Jewish Steel: I don’t know what that means. Is that a good thing or not?

  80. 80
    🌷 Martin says:

    @SiubhanDuinne: Proper alphabetization is elitist.

  81. 81
    Gin & Tonic says:

    @Baud: That’s respect?

  82. 82
    Jewish Steel says:

    @Violet: Meaninglessly small sample size. I wouldn’t sweat that.

  83. 83
    Baud says:

    @Violet:

    So it’s apparently more likely that if a Democrat is elected president in 2016 they will only get one term

    What’s odd here is that the GOP hasn’t made any more to recapture the middle. They’ve moved further away from it.

  84. 84
    Baud says:

    @Gin & Tonic:

    It’s more than you’re giving the Dem names people have suggested.

  85. 85
    🌷 Martin says:

    @Violet: “Just like Ronald Reagan, it took a bit of wisdom to realize that the Republican Party was right all along.”

    Easy.

  86. 86
    Jewish Steel says:

    @Violet: it’s crucial!!! Ask any White Sox fan (oy!)

  87. 87
    Ruckus says:

    @max:
    The mittster is not really, really rich. Yes he’s not bad off, makes more in a month than I probably have my entire life, but filthy stinking rich? Not really. He wants to be, that’s the part he thinks he deserves to play in life, filthy, stinking rich but he hasn’t managed to make it there yet. The fact that he had to spend any of his own money to run, that says it all to me. He may have been the last standing the last time republicans played musical primaries but the filthy, stinking rich of the right aren’t sold. They would have spent another one millionth of a percent of their money to buy him last time if they had been. A winner they can purchase? That’s the big question.

  88. 88
    gene108 says:

    @efgoldman:

    Preceded these here intartrons by a decade or two.

    Sure it was easier to say nasty things behind closed doors, but we had Republican candidates, in 2012, saying shit like they’d put poor elementary school kids to work as janitors to teach them how not to be lazy bums like their parents.

    That sort of crazy was never openly on display, even prior to the internet, by anyone on the Right. Maybe Pat Robertson would have come the closest, since he’s said a lot of hateful things over the years, but other than that I can’t think of any Republican candidate, in a debate, who’d go on a full bender of derp like they did in 2012.

  89. 89
    Violet says:

    @🌷 Martin: Reagan couldn’t get nominated in today’s Republican party. I don’t know how well that would work. I think there’s a better chance she’ll get picked for VP after not running. Just like Palin and Ryan were in the last two elections. That way people just get excited about her being a Latina without her having to answer questions about whether or not she’s sufficiently pure.

  90. 90
    Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name) says:

    @Gin & Tonic: Well, people gave you lists with Dems who fit the same criteria. Are those the criteria for having a bench or are they not?

  91. 91
    Corner Stone says:

    @Gin & Tonic: Awesome. This is awesome.

  92. 92
    Hal says:

    @Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name):

    Anyone of them – even Schweitzer – would be better than anyone on the GOP list.

    I have never been a person to not vote because someone wan’t my ideal cup of tea, but it would take a lot to get me to vote for Schweitzer. If his strategy is going to be to talk about how terrible Obama is, he’s already lost. You’re not going to win over progressive dems by trashing Obama, or Clinton for that matter, and I can’t imagine an enthusiastic vote from the black community either.

    Honestly, I don’t get Schweitzer’s strategy. He slams Obama’s energy policy, and talks climate change, but supports keystone. He praises Romney’s personality, saying Obama is stiff as a board, while sucking up to Republican donors. He’s political instincts seem entirely wired to white libertarian leaning Montanans and no one else.

  93. 93
    🌷 Martin says:

    @Baud: Yeah, the closest historical precedent we have to the last 8 years kept FDR and Truman in office for 20 years. The GOP now has one of their longest sitting Senators trying to win a primary race by appealing to the beastiality demographic. So long as we aren’t electing corrupt Dems or degrade to infighting, I don’t see any reason for a GOP resurgence until the Tea Party is exterminated.

  94. 94
    Jewish Steel says:

    @🌷 Martin: Why for do you get a flower next to your handle anyhow?

  95. 95
    Mandalay says:

    @Baud:

    but he’s just made the strangest decisions of late.

    Like repeatedly bad-mouthing the President, and dumping on Clinton for her Wall Street connections while fellating Mitt Romney?

    Not really the best way to get the nomination.

  96. 96
    Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name) says:

    @Hal: Oh yeah, I agree. If he does throw his cockring into the hat, so to speak, and chooses to run, he will be one of the early casualties.

  97. 97
    Violet says:

    @Hal: If he wants to appeal only to Montanans, why didn’t he run for Senator? If it’s just ego that made him skip that race and go for President then he’s an idiot.

    Speaking of idiots:

    The 2003 invasion of Iraq is not to blame for the violent insurgency now gripping the country, former UK prime minister Tony Blair has said.

    Writing on his website, he said the violence was the “predictable and malign effect” of inaction in Syria.

    “We have to liberate ourselves from the notion that ‘we’ have caused this,” he wrote. “We haven’t.”

    He said the idea that the current crisis was a result of the toppling of Saddam Hussein in 2003 was “bizarre”.

    Motherfucker.

  98. 98

    I think any support for Romney probably ties into the Kenyan usurper covering up Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! and busing poor takers with melanin from district to district to steal the votes in states without Voter ID laws and the media covered it all up to screw over conservatives.

  99. 99
    Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name) says:

    @Violet: I remember being happy in 1997 that he won. Jesus. Worst Labour leader in British history.

  100. 100
    Comrade Nimrod Humperdink says:

    Biden will probably run hoping to be the anti-Hillary. I still wouldn’t be shocked to see fucking Cuomo drop his hat in the ring. O’Malley basically announced he was running in 2012. I’m not sure Gillibrand will want to battle Hillary, and I don’t think Warren will be convinced to no matter how many people want it to happen (ditto Sherrod Brown, but those two would be a dream ticket). Bernie Sanders may run in the primary just to make an issues statement, and it would be nice to see somebody that wasn’t Kucinich making more liberal arguments. Schweitzer is too in bed with coal for me to want to vote for him. It’s a shame Granholm is a Canadian, but she’d be fun to watch in a debate with Cruz. Al Gore still lurks in the background but I wouldn’t expect to see him.

    On the Republican side I still think Christie and Walker will run unless they’re actually indicted, but I think their issues will be too much to overcome. Among traditional Republicans it’s looking like either recycled Romney or Jebbers, but those are not ideal options. I wonder why I never hear much about Martinez in New Mexico. She seemed less crazy than most at the convention last time around, certainly less crazy than Nikki Haley. I know Santorum will run again, and if the base is determined enough, he might just win. Paul and Cruz will both to throw a hat in the ring, and having those two sharing a dais with Ricky would give us a delicious level of crazy. Perry and Huckabee may try again (the former more likely than the latter) but Huck is the only one I would give a real shot to; Perry will flame out again just like last time. Rubio will run but I don’t see him having much more luck than Perry. Kasich is a real possibility if he chooses to run. He understands TV and he’s not a full-blown whackadoodle.

    What I expect is a field of Santorum, Christie (barring indictment), Paul, Cruz, Rubio, and Perry as locks. After that are a group of maybes, most of which have a better shot of being packaged as less unacceptable to the public at large than the first group. Of all these, Kasich is probably the one to watch out for if he runs. Hillary would roll him, but she’d probably roll any Republican no matter how much they convince themselves otherwise, and any group of Democrats splitting the vote against her beyond the first few primaries. Somebody would have to emerge quickly to be the anti-Hillary standard bearer, or she could roll over the whole field in both parties.

  101. 101
    efgoldman says:

    @Violet:

    So it’s apparently more likely that if a Democrat is elected president in 2016 they will only get one term.

    Presumes that the GOBP, at every level from state legislature on up, returns to where they can at least see sanity from where they are now.
    Too many headlines like “GOP State senate candidate not opposed to stoning gays” or “Put an aspirin between your legs…” or “A few dead kids is the price of our second-amendment freedoms.” plus the presence of Klowns like Aqua Buddah, Rih Savonarola, and Carson in the debates, is going to mean the eventual nominee will have to spend time disavowing and denying. And any competent campaign team(*) will constantly be putting up reminders.

    (*)Which, of course, means concern about Clinton.

  102. 102
    Mandalay says:

    @gene108:

    Christie’s pushing hard to rehabilitate his image and with time bridge closure will be a distant enough memory that it may not be much of a drag on him

    I don’t think the bridge issue is going away for a long time. It’s just on a low boil at the moment. But the legal stuff will drag on, and any underlings that end up getting skewered will squeal like piglets. I think (and hope) the worst is yet to come for Christie.

  103. 103
    Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name) says:

    @Comrade Dread: Authentic frontier gibberish.

  104. 104
    Comrade Nimrod Humperdink says:

    Two other possibilities I forgot: Deval Patrick for the Dems, and John Thune for the Republicans. If Christie and Walker are both indicted I think the Ken Doll might see his opening.

  105. 105
    🌷 Martin says:

    @Violet:

    Reagan couldn’t get nominated in today’s Republican party.

    The GOP has steadfastly whitewashed everything about Reagan to preserve his image. Anyone can come along and co-opt that image and if the GOP decides they need that individual they will contort themselves and their policies to ease the cognitive dissonance. That’s what people do.

    Reagan isn’t just a stick to measure candidates against, he’s one that is malleable enough to make the chosen candidate exactly the right size. If Martinez ran, and they decided they needed boobs to beat Hillary, then she’d be the perfect candidate because Reagan signed immigration reform and amnesty.

  106. 106
    beth says:

    So this is Mitt’s third annual “ideas summit”. Does anyone remember any ideas that came out of the first two? If Mitt wasn’t filthy rich and able to introduce people like Christie, Paul and Ryan to other filthy rich people, would anyone even attend?

  107. 107
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name): by the same token — not my own personal enthusiasm, but their passing the sniff test — you’d have to add Mark Warner, Steve Beshear, John Kitzhaber, Jeanne Shaheen. For the bench, Kamala Harris, maybe Antonio Villaraigosa. I like what I’ve seen of Sen. Chris Murphy.

  108. 108
    Anoniminous says:

    @efgoldman:

    Two Problems with Martinez:

    1. She isn’t ready for the national stage. Get her off script and the derp rises ever higher.

    2. Ain’t no way, in hell, the GOP base votes for a Hispano woman.

  109. 109
    efgoldman says:

    @Comrade Nimrod Humperdink:

    I know Santorum will run again, and if the base is determined enough, he might just win.

    As I said above re: Perry, FSM doesn’t love us that much.

  110. 110
    Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name) says:

    @FlipYrWhig: Yep. My list came out of a +3 post-futbol state of mind and was assembled without any research. The D. bench is plenty deep. If we get five or six of the people named to actually run, we will get a a good primary season.

  111. 111
    Hal says:

    @Comrade Nimrod Humperdink:

    Two other possibilities I forgot: Deval Patrick

    Why doesn’t Deval Patrick get more talk? He’s a very popular Governor of a state that’s doing great. I can’t help but think the attitude is that we can’t have two black Presidents running back to back, so Patrick’s name isn’t even mentioned. I should say from what I’ve read of him he’s going back to private practice post Governorship, and that is something he and his wife wanted, so at the end of the day maybe he has not presidential aspirations, but it’s odd how his name never gets mentioned.

  112. 112
    Comrade Nimrod Humperdink says:

    @FlipYrWhig: Warner may try but the guy has very little presence on a big stage. Man did his “how I got on the ground floor in the cellphone industry” convention speech suck balls. Jim Webb can at least hold people’s attention. Beshear is an interesting name. I know little about him, but a Dem from Kentucky certainly knows how to handle incoming fire. My first thought though is the same one I have with Schweitzer: coal. Loves him some coal.

  113. 113
    Mandalay says:

    @Violet:

    I read somewhere that when a two-term president from one party is followed by another president from the same party, the second president is more likely to have only one term in office. Like Reagan (two terms) and Bush the Elder (one term).

    Apart from Bush the Elder, are there any other examples of that scenario arising in the last hundred years?

  114. 114
    AxelFoley says:

    @Mandalay: This bastard proved himself to be a piece of shit.

  115. 115
    Comrade Nimrod Humperdink says:

    @Hal: And he’s got stage presence; he can give a speech and get people excited. That counts for something when so much of what you’re doing is televangelism in different packaging.

  116. 116
    Violet says:

    @Mandalay: Yeah, I don’t think it’s going away either. There are too many underlings who want a deal. The dirt will come out and it’s still long enough before the election that there’s time for it to come out. If the election were happening this year then I don’t think we’d find out in time. But there’s still plenty of time.

    Christie did some “dad dance” skit with Jimmy Fallon the other day. I randomly happened to see it. I guess it was kind of funny but I couldn’t take my eyes off the still-obese Christie’s heft jiggling all over the place as he danced around. He may have had lap band surgery or whatever it was, but he’s still heavy. It wasn’t a good look, especially next to the normal-weight Fallon.

    Unless Christie loses a lot more weight, I think his weight and health will be an issue. Hillary’s getting called on her age and health issues. It’s going to be a problem for Christie as well.

  117. 117
    Suffern ACE says:

    @Violet:he is right you know. Had we been involved in pushing the radical groups out if Syria so we could focus on Assad, I’m sure those radical groups would never appear. Ever. Because if there is one constant of the way that the gulf states handle foreign policy, it’s the pacifist moderates they employ when we say “no crazies allowed because we’re here.”

  118. 118
    Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name) says:

    @Comrade Nimrod Humperdink: Again, we ain’t naming people we would necessarily support in a primary, but people who could credibly run.

  119. 119
    Jewish Steel says:

    @Hal: He gave a great speech at the 2012 convention. He was my top choice for next in line. And then he faded away. :(

  120. 120
    Mandalay says:

    @🌷 Martin:

    If Martinez ran, and they decided they needed boobs to beat Hillary, then she’d be the perfect candidate

    If that’s the criteria then they wouldn’t need Martinez at all. The Republican Party may be short of women, but they already have a surfeit of boobs.

  121. 121
    efgoldman says:

    @Hal: @Jewish Steel:

    I forgot: Deval Patrick

    I like Patrick a lot, but I don’t think he’d want to put his family through a presidential campaign. His wife has had well-documented mental health issues.

  122. 122
    Violet says:

    @Hal:

    Why doesn’t Deval Patrick get more talk? He’s a very popular Governor of a state that’s doing great. I can’t help but think the attitude is that we can’t have two black Presidents running back to back, so Patrick’s name isn’t even mentioned. I should say from what I’ve read of him he’s going back to private practice post Governorship, and that is something he and his wife wanted, so at the end of the day maybe he has not presidential aspirations, but it’s odd how his name never gets mentioned.

    From my original post comment on the subject:

    People keep bringing up Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland. And there’s Senator Gillibrand. Joe Biden. Gov. Andrew Cuomo. Deval Patrick.

  123. 123
    Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name) says:

    Actually, the real Dem bench is any senator, governor, representative, or mayor of a large city who is between the ages of 40 and 60 at this point.

  124. 124
    Violet says:

    @Mandalay: I haven’t any idea. It’s something I read. Do Nixon and Ford count?

  125. 125
    Suffern ACE says:

    @Mandalay: Hoover and Van Buren.

  126. 126
    Comrade Nimrod Humperdink says:

    @Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name): Sure, and I think we’ve tapped most of them. I grew up in Washington State and my dad always wanted Gary Locke to run after his governorship was up. He did a gig as the ambassador to China but he may just fade away now. I don’t hear a lot of bad things about Inslee so far but I have no idea if he’s the sort of fellow that could make a run for the big job.

  127. 127
  128. 128
    Comrade Nimrod Humperdink says:

    @Jewish Steel: Oh Rahm. If there was anyone in the party that deserves a nice thorough curb-stomping, it’s that fucking guy.

  129. 129
    BBA says:

    The problem is, almost nobody with the temperament and intellect needed to be President would be willing to deal with all the bullshit involved in running for President. I’m surprised Obama did so well, considering.

  130. 130
    Joel Hanes says:

    @Jewish Steel:

    California abounds in people who recently moved here from somewhere else.

  131. 131
    efgoldman says:

    @Comrade Nimrod Humperdink:

    If there was anyone in the party that deserves a nice thorough curb-stomping, it’s that fucking guy.

    Cuomo the Younger, also too.

  132. 132
    Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name) says:

    @Jewish Steel: Honestly, he is on bench of people who could run. He, like Schweitzer, would be an early exit from the field.

  133. 133
    Jewish Steel says:

    Hasn’t the Northeast gone 0-fer since Kennedy? Are NE politicians even viable as national candidates?

    (I don’t count Connecticut born, I think, W. Because people bought his bullshit Texas act.)

  134. 134
    The Other Chuck says:

    Perry just recently compared being gay to alcoholism.

    In front of the Commonwealth Club. In San Francisco.

    He may look smarter, he might be able to speak in complete sentences now, but that man still makes Shrub look like a mensa.

  135. 135
    Mandalay says:

    @Violet:

    Unless Christie loses a lot more weight, I think his weight and health will be an issue.

    I guess he may have other weight related health issues, but if he can shed a lot more weight he may even be able to turn that to his advantage. And I’m sure the dancing skit was just to help him shed his “nasty bully” image.

    And that is his biggest problem: he really is a nasty bully. If Clinton can lose her cool in conversation with Terry Gross, there’s no way Christie will survive the campaign trail without repeatedly revealing himself as unpresidential material.

  136. 136
    nellcote says:

    @Gin & Tonic:

    t the bench on the Dem side is thin, and we are not developing young players at all.

    Ahem, Kamala Harris

  137. 137
    Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name) says:

    @Mandalay: And there is a difference between getting snippy with repeated questions on the same issue and losing it at a waitress in Iowa for bringing strawberry instead of blueberry pancakes. Clinton might do one, but Christie will do the other.

  138. 138
    Anoniminous says:

    The Bench:

    Any Democratic Govenor has the potential to run. (For me Mark Dayton is of particular interest.) And there are some good people in the Senate. And Biden cannot be counted out.

    Chop, slice, and dice and end-up with about 20 people who could run IF they wanted to. (Which 20 is left as an exercise for the student. :-)

  139. 139
    Jewish Steel says:

    @Joel Hanes: Fair enough! I’ve got a few more right here in town I’d like to send your way.

    @Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name): Could. True. But even he cannot be that dense.

  140. 140
    aimai says:

    @gene108: I don’t understand this notion that the party grooms possible candidates for the presidency. The Republicans self nominate–no one wanted Santorum, or Gingerich (other than adelson) and Cruz, Rubio, and Rand are just young and vicious Senators out for themselves. It might be the case that the Republicans at this moment have more young Senators who are jonesing to make the jump but the other unnoticed fact is that the Democrats have more women Senators and Gin and Tonic simply dismisses them out of hand because he thinks they don’t have something something to make them realistic possibilities.

    The other thing is that the Democrats don’t have a dedidicated news channel to push all hteir party members. You simply don’t see younger Democrats or older Democrats on the Sunday shows. So you have the illusion that they don’t exist or don’t count. Well, they do exist but it will take a lot to push them into the public eye because we don’t have fox news.

  141. 141
    Joel Hanes says:

    @Violet:

    I don’t think the Democrats have been developing younger candidates very well.

    For the last six years, the national party has concentrated its efforts on electing to Congress candidates that could be controlled by the national party, because they were beholden to the national party (and its bigcorp deep pocket owners) for the campaign funds needed to get elected. Such corrupt, biddable officeholders are not leaders, and are poor candidates for leadership positions. Hoyer, Israel, Wasserman, and their lesser spawn are punks, and seek to fill Congress with punks like themselves.

    It’s the old story: second-rate employees seek to hire third-rate employees, lest they be shown up.

  142. 142
    Anoniminous says:

    @Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name):

    Rahm has been a terrible mayor. The teacher’s union hates him. He’d lose Iowa, lose New Hampshire, and be out.

    de Blasio is interesting but I think he wants to be mayor of New York City.

  143. 143
    Joel Hanes says:

    @Violet:

    Every such pattern goes on indefinately.

    Until it doesn’t

  144. 144
    Kay says:

    @Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name):

    “I have a hard time finding people who like him,” said Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass.
    According to the polls, whites keep Rahm in the running and rich, white businessmen, many living in the suburbs, help keep his war chest fat even if they can’t vote.

    I think I’d narrow it a little to “someone likes the potential candidate in their own city or state” :)

    http://www.foxnews.com/politic.....m-emanuel/

  145. 145
    Jewish Steel says:

    @efgoldman: Aw. Well, that’s quite noble and sweet. Now I want him to run even more.

  146. 146
    Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name) says:

    @Joel Hanes: Oh, bullshit. A good number of people have named credible candidates, a lot of whom are quite progressive. The average Congressperson is not a presidential candidate.

  147. 147
    Petorado says:

    Why would Republicans really care about winning the presidency? By having a Democrat that riles up the base in the Oval Office, the right can milk their base for all they’re worth, while still having the ability to keep Congress hogtied and ruling the majority-insane Supreme Court which is really pushing their agenda. Republicans controlling local government is where they can most effectively do their damage, so there’s not necessarily a benefit to having a Repub president who can turn the tide against their party a la GW Bush. They’ll be happy to coast this next presidential election and effing things up for whichever Dem gets into office, just as they’ve done with Obama.

  148. 148
    Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name) says:

    @Anoniminous: Oh, for fuck’s sake. I have been trying to stay within the definition of a “bench” provided by G&T. I am not advocating for any of these people; I am simple noting the Dems who have the appropriate profile.

    @Kay: More politely for you, I am just applying G&T’s standard. Rahm has no chance of winning a Dem primary, but he is a person who fits the definition of the “bench.”

  149. 149
    🌷 Martin says:

    @nellcote: Indeed. People outside of Cali don’t know what’s coming.

    @Kay: Rahm is in trouble. The solutions to Chicago’s problems are going to kill off many politicians.

  150. 150
    Violet says:

    @aimai:

    I don’t understand this notion that the party grooms possible candidates for the presidency.

    I don’t think it’s that the party specifically grooms candidates for the presidency. What a good party should do is work at local and state levels to find good candidates, encourage them to run for office and if they prove to be capable, encourage and help them to run for higher offices. Of course the person has to want to do it too. You can’t make someone run for office and keep running for other offices if they don’t want to.

  151. 151
    scav says:

    @Petorado: The big money guys probably want to maintain tight control of the Supremes though, which might complicate matters. Evangels can keep their bases agitated and money flowing (if not faster) with contrary rulings, but financial ratchets might be harder to recover from, especially with increasing rancor in all sides of the lower hoi and groundlings making the news.

  152. 152
    Violet says:

    @Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name): I think what’s happening is you’re bringing up people who count as Democratic “bench” based on G&T’s original assessment of the Republican list. And then people have opinions about those people and start talking about them. They may be our “bench” but it doesn’t mean we like them!

  153. 153
    Jewish Steel says:

    @aimai: Was there not a dedicated liberal radio network at one point? Radio America or something? Went tits up pretty fast, if I recall. I guess we don’t like that kind of thing.

  154. 154
    Suffern ACE says:

    @Jewish Steel: specifically, nominating someone from Massachusetts isn’t a good sign. It’s actually a sign that your party has settled for the least offensive candidate possible.

  155. 155
    Mandalay says:

    @aimai:

    Well, they do exist but it will take a lot to push them into the public eye because we don’t have fox news.

    The audience for Fox News isn’t that large; it’s only large relative to CNN and MSNBC, and in any case Fox is preaching to the choir.

    I think a much bigger problem (in terms of reaching hearts and minds) is that the supposedly neutral Sunday talk shows on the major channels primarily have primarily white conservative male guests. And that won’t change because the viewers are primarily white conservative males.

  156. 156
    nellcote says:

    @The Other Chuck:

    Perry just recently compared being gay to alcoholism. In front of the Commonwealth Club. In San Francisco.

    Analysis in the Chron. said he was looking to get bragging rights to being booed in SF.

  157. 157
    Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name) says:

    @Violet: That is what is happening. OTOH what do you think is going to happen to that GOP bench from their side? In my view, a 5-6 person pool out of the people we have been naming will be enough to have a good primary and produce a good candidate. Further, my original point in this discussion – proving G&T wrong – has been accomplished.

  158. 158
    Jewish Steel says:

    @Suffern ACE: Was Dukakis picked from a field of no-hopers? I honestly don’t remember.

  159. 159
    Violet says:

    @Mandalay: And Washington is wired for Republicans, as Josh Marshall said a long time ago.

  160. 160
    Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name) says:

    @Jewish Steel: I don’t like talk radio. At all.

  161. 161
    Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name) says:

    @Jewish Steel: No. Biden, Gary Hart, and other serious people played. Duke beat them.

  162. 162
    Anoniminous says:

    @aimai:

    Media environment has changed over the past 10 years as the technology of communications have changed. The major media companies are no longer the middle men and gate keepers they were in 2004. Campaigning itself has moved from mass marketing to niche marketing using deep voter cost/benefit analysis. What happened in VA-7 is an example. Even Fox News itself is an example of the change: the average age of their day time audience is 83, of their total audience half is 68+. Even the majors aren’t “major:”

    Numbers for the week of June 2, 2014:

    Total Viewers:
    NBC 7,705,000, ABC 7,471,000, CBS 5,937,000

    Ages 25-54: NBC 1,857,000, ABC 1,936,000, CBS 1,387,000

    People are getting their news and information from other sources which may be triggered by the MSM but the follow-on discussion is no longer controlled by the MSM.

  163. 163
    Mandalay says:

    @Jewish Steel:

    Was Dukakis picked from a field of no-hopers? I honestly don’t remember.

    Come to that, how much was Obama being touted as being the next president in June 2006, when he’d only been a senator for ~18 months? If I ever knew, I certainly don’t remember now.

  164. 164
    Violet says:

    @Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name): I hope so. I hope it’s not a coronation. I loved the 2008 primary season and would like to see a competitive field that allows for discussion of ideas.

  165. 165
    Kay says:

    @🌷 Martin:

    The solutions to Chicago’s problems are going to kill off many politicians.

    I don’t think that’s it: “tough choices.” My son lives in Chicago. He and his GF love the place, although neither of them are from there. They bought a place, they’re planning on staying, etc. They don’t think he cares about anyone but wealthy people, and they’re not vulnerable or all that dependent on city services.

    My son is a somewhat politically disinterested mainstream younger Democrat. He always liked Al Gore, for example, and Al Gore was never a wild-eyed Lefty. He wasn’t even old enough to vote for Al Gore when he ran.

    The sense I get from them is “does this guy even live here?” I think maybe that’s a really big jump, the House and presidential administrations to mayor of Chicago. It’s two different worlds.

    Why is he coordinating what was a reality tv show with CNN? They would just jeer at that there. It’s not that kind of place,

  166. 166
    Jewish Steel says:

    @Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name): Actual text exchange between me and my wife

    Apropos nothing at all, my wife: Bowe Birddog.

    JS: You have got to give up right wing radio. It’ll rot your brain.

    JW: I was listening to NPR!

    JS: My point stands.

    And...scene.

  167. 167
    Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name) says:

    @Violet: If you think there aren’t another 4-5 Democrats besides HRC who think that they don’t deserve to be the next POTUS, you are naive. Politicians, as a rule, are ambitious.

  168. 168
    Jewish Steel says:

    @Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name): Gary Hart! Of course! How could I forget?

  169. 169
    Violet says:

    @Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name): That’s not what I was saying. The primary season can be interesting and competitive and get people talking about the various ideas and policies and differences between candidates (and parties). Or, it can all be over quickly with one person emerging as the victor pretty quickly–a coronation, if you will–and a pivot to the general.

    I like the primary season to go on because I think it allows voters to get to see more of who the candidates are. I don’t want the “coronation” version.

  170. 170
    Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name) says:

    @Jewish Steel: Monkey Business. But for that, he may well have been the candidate.

    And, fuck me to tears, I did not mention Jesse Jackson. He should have been on my initial list. Sorry.

  171. 171
    Jewish Steel says:

    @Mandalay: Not the next president, that I recall. But a serious candidate eventually, definitely. America was not ready to elect a black man named Hussein quite yet! Maybe 2020…

  172. 172
    mai naem says:

    There’s Gov Malloy, Gov Jay Inslee, Patty Murray, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen(former governor), Mark Warner,Tim Kaine, Mark Udall, Jeff Merkeley, Janet Napolitano,Hickenlooper. For old farts there’s Steve Beshear , DiFi and Jerry Brown.

  173. 173
    Anne Laurie says:

    @Hal:

    Why doesn’t Deval Patrick get more talk? He’s a very popular Governor of a state that’s doing great.

    Leaving aside that ‘very popular’ assessment (the feeling among my fellow Massholes seems to be ‘well, ya don’t hear much about him, which is probably just as well‘), Patrick’s wife has had serious problems with clinical depression and he’s publicly promised her he’ll get out of the public spotlight. Which, of course, is a promise many politicians have made & broken in the past, but there you have it.

    Also, a lot of his gubernatorial campaign consisted of “Just like Barack Obama, but in a convenient state-sized package!” This was a winner in Massachusetts, but maybe not so much outside the Commonwealth.

    Finally… lots of professional Dems still use Dukakis as a curse-word (I’m not among them), and not a great many people give Kerry high marks for his campaign, either. Any candidate from Massachusetts has to demonstrate a level of tv-friendly “charisma” that Governor Patrick, IMO, has not yet felt a need to show us.

  174. 174
    Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name) says:

    @Violet: I know what you were saying. I was saying that you will get what you want. I was just saying why I thought it would happen.

  175. 175
    max says:

    @Ruckus: The mittster is not really, really rich.

    For all practical purposes, 250 mil is really really rich. Now I’m sure Mitt doesn’t feel that way, and I’m sure Mitt thinks he’s an ordinary well-to-do guy, but 250 mil is high enough up in the sky to be in vacuum – in a country with 310+ million.

    Yes he’s not bad off, makes more in a month than I probably have my entire life, but filthy stinking rich? Not really. He wants to be, that’s the part he thinks he deserves to play in life, filthy, stinking rich but he hasn’t managed to make it there yet. The fact that he had to spend any of his own money to run, that says it all to me.

    Eh? That says to me he can buy the damn thing (the primary campaign) if he wants. He wants donors to help of course, because he wants to keep his money and run like he’s spending billions of his own dollars, but his spending his own money is the only thing that kept him in the 2012 primary campaign.

    He may have been the last standing the last time republicans played musical primaries but the filthy, stinking rich of the right aren’t sold. They would have spent another one millionth of a percent of their money to buy him last time if they had been. A winner they can purchase? That’s the big question.

    Yeah, he’s not a billionaire. But he’s close enough that the billionaires are happy to use him as their errand boy because he’s one of them. Which is what makes him acceptable to them even though he is a known loser. If it was somebody else without hundreds of millions, they’d write that person off near-instantly if even the slightest taint of Not Winning attached to them.

    Donor level Republican politics is all about MORE MONEY FOR RICH PEOPLE and being GOOD FOR BUSINESS and THIS GUY I KNOW and absolutely nothing else. Normal-people level Republican politics is about about the hate objects.

    max
    [‘The donors want one of their own, but they need someone to feed the animals. And lots of people want to feed the animals. So we’re going to get a bunch of candidates.’]

  176. 176
    Kay says:

    @Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name):

    Sorry, Omnes, I was just teasing you. I get what you’re doing. I do look if they’re popular though, myself. They can’t be loathed in their own area :)

    It’s a low bar! I like primaries! “candidate cannot be actively disliked”

  177. 177
    🌷 Martin says:

    @Kay: Those things aside, Chicago is going to require very tough choices. They may get a free revival as California often goes through (legislature trying to figure out what to do with an extra $2.5B) but I wouldn’t expect it there. Only NYC ever seems to get that among cities.

  178. 178
    Jewish Steel says:

    @Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name): Oh, yeah. Definitely Jesse Jackson. Was it the 88 convention when he gave that barn burner of a speech? Or 84?

    I guess I remember more than I thought.

  179. 179
    🌷 Martin says:

    @Jewish Steel: Because Obama visited me today. I should update that…

  180. 180
    Kay says:

    @mai naem:

    Malloy isn’t popular enough in his own state to make my list.

    Gov. Malloy remains deadlocked 43 – 43 percent in a reelection battle with Republican challenger Tom Foley

    Strong governors, we need :)

  181. 181
    ⚽️ Martin says:

    Emoji update…

  182. 182
    ⚽️ Martin says:

    Moderation needed on post 181, please.

    Signed, a loyal sharecropper.

    (Shit, I should have realized it would do that.)

  183. 183
    Jewish Steel says:

    @max: Do we really know with certainty how rich Mitt really is anyway? How much Mittwealth is parked offshore?

  184. 184
    Mandalay says:

    @max:

    but his spending his own money is the only thing that kept him in the 2012 primary campaign.

    Huh? My recollection is that Romney didn’t spend a dime of his own money in the 2012 campaign. He did for 2008, but not for 2012.

  185. 185
    Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name) says:

    @Kay: I just get tired of Dems suck memes coming from my side. We have people. One of them will be the candidate in ’16. If one a had a preference as to who that person is, one should jump the fuck in.

  186. 186
    nellcote says:

    @Mandalay:

    Come to that, how much was Obama being touted as being the next president in June 2006, when he’d only been a senator for ~18 months?

    Quite a lot after the 04 convention speech. He really knocked it out of the park.

  187. 187
    Anne Laurie says:

    @Anoniminous

    : de Blasio is interesting but I think he wants to be mayor of New York City.

    Yeah, I think he needs to complete at least one term in his current office before looking too eager for his next job. He’s young enough to wait for 2020, or 2024 — assuming he even has such aspirations — and by then, his kids will be old enough not to get sucked into the pressure cooker, which I’m sure is important to him.

  188. 188
    Anoniminous says:

    O/T: Here’s the Top Sheet for the Pew Research report “Political Polarization in the American Public.”

    Quite interesting

  189. 189
    Jewish Steel says:

    @🌷 Martin: pshh! I voted for him 4 times and what did I get?

  190. 190
    Kay says:

    @🌷 Martin:

    They see it as that he’s giving perks and subsidies to business interests in the hopes it will eventually trickle down. It’s just not the deal they thought they were getting. They’re not trickle-downers. “We’ll subsidize the stadium and then something, something, market magic happens, potholes get fixed”

    When the new mayor of Detroit was elected he said the first thing he was going to do was get the streetlights working. They live there. They need stuff every day, not in ten years.

  191. 191
  192. 192
    Kay says:

    @Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name):

    I get that. I think we could do a lot better on governors. We don’t have enough women governors, for one thing. Women in Congress are great but they should also be in executive branch positions. It’s a real missing piece on the D side. It doesn’t have to be a farm team for US President, either. It’s valuable in its own right.

  193. 193
  194. 194
    Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name) says:

    I wonder why, in the face of a GOP that is going balls-out insane, so many Dems and/or allegedly left of center folks are acting like coolers at a [place where games of chance occur]. We managed to elect a funny looking, non-white, big-eared guy to the presidency. Who is too afraid to try to do it again? Jesus, they have no-one who isn’t bug-fuck crazy. Can we, maybe, use that?

  195. 195
    Mike G says:

    @Violet:

    “We have to liberate ourselves from the notion that ‘we’ have caused this,” Bliar wrote. “We haven’t.”

    No, WE didn’t, Tony the Pony. YOU did.

  196. 196
    Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name) says:

    @Kay: In my view, there is a difference between “we could do better” and “we suck.” More or less. In my view, I have been trying to counter the we suck view.. My success may be arguable – or entirely absent.

  197. 197
    Anoniminous says:

    @Jewish Steel:

    Yeah. It’s a goddamn shame he was born in 1941 instead of 1961.

  198. 198
    eemom says:

    @Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name):

    Jesus, they have no-one who isn’t bug-fuck crazy. Can we, maybe, use that?

    Forget it, Om, it’s BJ.

  199. 199
    Mandalay says:

    @Mike G:

    “We have to liberate ourselves from the notion that ‘we’ have caused this,” Bliar wrote. “We haven’t.”

    I can understand how Blair has to lie to himself that he doesn’t deserve to be tried for war crimes in the Hague. If he didn’t do that the guilt would kill him. But to write a column asserting “We have to liberate ourselves from the notion that ‘we’ have caused this” shows a lack of self-awareness that is simply astounding.

    While Bush may not be popular on this web site, he is not hated, reviled and despised in this country anywhere near as much as Blair is in Britain. I wonder why?

  200. 200
    trollhattan says:

    This smells of another Bundy incident, only taken to the next level.

    A Bureau of Land Management ranger, a California Highway Patrol officer and a suspect were injured Saturday during a shootout in a remote area in Nevada County, 10 miles north of Nevada City, authorities said.

    The officer was responding to the ranger’s call for assistance shortly after 3 p.m. in the Tahoe National Forest when they encountered a gunman, CHP Officer Greg Tassone said.

    The BLM ranger sustained a gunshot to the shoulder. The CHP officer went to a nearby hospital with a laceration to his leg.

    The alleged shooter and the ranger were flown to Sutter Roseville Medical Center with injuries that were not life-threatening, Tassone said.

    The circumstances surrounding the shootout are under investigation.

    http://www.sacbee.com/2014/06/.....rylink=cpy

    FWIW Nevada County is in the Sierra Foothills, west of Lake Tahoe. Rural, eclectic mix of rednecks, the super-rich, retro-hippies, and folks who want to be far from the gummint so they can do freedom stuff. Fights are generally with the Forest Service, not the BLM.

  201. 201
    max says:

    @Jewish Steel: Do we really know with certainty how rich Mitt really is anyway? How much Mittwealth is parked offshore?

    250 million is the estimate I have heard. It’s probably closer to 300 now. Beyond that, you are absolutely correct – there’s no telling how much he’s actually worth and as a practical matter I doubt he himself can get no closer than the nearest 100k rounded. As an estimate.

    @Mandalay: Huh? My recollection is that Romney didn’t spend a dime of his own money in the 2012 campaign. He did for 2008, but not for 2012.

    He wrote himself several big loans. One in August 2011 (I think), one before Iowa at some point and one after New Hampshire. I think it was Weigel who was talking about it – he needed some money to go on air all the time before SC, I think. (18 million?) Then he had to turn around and do something hinky with his financing to get through June and July. I know he paid the entire mess off with donor money.

    max
    [‘It’s been awhile and it’s in the blizzard of campaign finance info somewhere back there.’]

  202. 202
    Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name) says:

    @eemom: Yeah, maybe I should just order a pizza and then go to bed.

  203. 203
    Jewish Steel says:

    @Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name): We’ll block our own cocks thank you very much!

    @Anoniminous: Too true.

  204. 204
    askew says:

    @Gin & Tonic:

    Young, qualified Dem candidates:
    O’Malley
    Gillibrand
    Klobuchar
    Patrick
    Hickenlooper
    CT. Governor Malloy
    Cuomo
    Schweitzer
    MT. Governor Bullock
    Cory Booker
    Michael Bennet

    Now, I would not be thrilled with a lot of these choices, but we have a deep bench of youngish talent that could easily take on Walker, Cruz, etc. in 2016.

  205. 205
    Joel Hanes says:

    @Anoniminous:

    It’s a goddamn shame [that Jesse Jackson] was born in 1941 instead of 1961

    It’s a goddamn shame that he has never been willing to run for a lesser office, to legislate or to be a mayor.

    No one who aims for the Presidency as his firs-evert elective office should be taken seriously (*cough*Nader*cough*).

  206. 206
    Mandalay says:

    @max:

    He wrote himself several big loans.

    Gotcha….so Romney personally loaned The-Romney-Campaign money to bury the opposition (especially Newt), and then when he got the nomination, and donor money poured in, the Campaign repaid Romney? Is that the deal? If so I despise him and everything he stands for even more.

  207. 207
    askew says:

    @Anoniminous:

    The Bench:

    Any Democratic Govenor has the potential to run. (For me Mark Dayton is of particular interest.) And there are some good people in the Senate. And Biden cannot be counted out.

    Chop, slice, and dice and end-up with about 20 people who could run IF they wanted to. (Which 20 is left as an exercise for the student. :-)

    I think Dayton has done a phenomenal job as Governor and I can’t wait to vote for him again, but no. The guy has negative charisma and weird speech tics. Plus, he had some weird moments as Senate. Great governor though.

  208. 208
    Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name) says:

    @askew: That doesn’t mean he is not on the bench as defined in this thread.

    ETA: Hell, there are a good 20 people who qualify as a Dem bench. I certainly hope that G&T is now satisfied.

  209. 209
    askew says:

    @Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name):

    Oh, I’d put him on the bench as defined in this thread, but I was just saying he’s not going to get a serious look and there isn’t a chance in hell that he’d run for President. He’d make a great cabinet secretary in O’Malley’s administration though.

  210. 210
    max says:

    @Mandalay: Gotcha….so Romney personally loaned The-Romney-Campaign money to bury the opposition (especially Newt), and then when he got the nomination, and donor money poured in, the Campaign repaid Romney? Is that the deal?

    That’s it. That’s a very popular thing to do – you write a loan to your campaign and when the campaign is in the red after election, you run around poor-mouthing about how broke your campaign is because the campaign owes all these loans – unspoken: to yourself. (Hillary had to pay off a bunch of debt after the 2008 primaries.)

    If so I despise him and everything he stands for even more.

    His much beloved happy money got him through that whole thing about not being very popular with the Republican base or Sheldon Adelson. I expect he thinks he can do so again. And if Rubio is a major opponent, he is almost certainly correct.

    max
    [‘Happy happy, money money!’]

  211. 211
    Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name) says:

    @askew: If we are going to play the everyone who is possible game with the right, we should do it with the left. Who knows who can be talked into running in ’16.

    Now can we try to get a majority in ’14?

    ETA: I am just waiting on my pizza.

  212. 212
    askew says:

    @Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name):

    He’s over 60 years old. I thought the list was just for 40-60 year olds? If he was younger and less of an odd duck, I’d be running a Ready for Dayton PAC. He’s that good of a governor.

  213. 213
    Jewish Steel says:

    @Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name): Majority in 14? Well, I’m gerrymandered (by the democratic majority no less!) into heartthrob Aaron Schock’s district. So my congressional vote is toast.

    But I’ll vote for old Dick Durbin. Saw him speak locally once. He’s a charming little powerhouse.

  214. 214
    Anoniminous says:

    @Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name):

    We managed to elect a funny looking, non-white, big-eared guy to the presidency. Who is too afraid to try to do it again? Jesus, they have no-one who isn’t bug-fuck crazy. Can we, maybe, use that?

    Sure.

    But we need somebody willing to put themselves and their family through hell 24/7 for two years and who can get sufficient backing at the national and state party levels. Here’s a – almost certainly incomplete list – of national and state people who backed Obama when he was the longest of long shots and there were real political risks:

    Senator Richard Durbin
    Former Majority Leader Tom Daschle
    Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller
    Oprah Winfrey
    Iowa Treasurer Mike Fitzgerald
    Former Iowa Democratic Party Chairman Gordon Fischer
    Ted Sorensen
    Virginia Governor Tim Kaine
    Alabama Rep. Artur Davis
    New Hampshire Rep. Paul Hodes
    Dan Hynes, the Illinois State Comptroller
    Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak
    Washington Rep – Adam Smith
    Former Secretary of Commerce Bill Daley
    George Soros
    George Clooney
    Matt Damon
    (Last three were important for seed funding)

    So don’t look at what people are saying. Look at what they are doing. For instance, Senator Gillibrand was out in Northern California about a month ago. NoCal is a big pool of money and talent waiting to be tapped for 2016. Gillibrand has said she wouldn’t run if Hillary did but Gillibrand is also making some moves that can be interpreted as doing the preliminaries should Hillary not run.

  215. 215
    Jewish Steel says:

    @Anoniminous: You left me off that list. But I forgive you.

    @Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name): I like my pizza with cheese only, please. Thanks!

  216. 216
    Anoniminous says:

    @askew:

    OK & thanks

    Oh, well. On to the next possibility.

  217. 217
    jl says:

    @askew:

    ” [Dayton] has negative charisma and weird speech tics. ”

    Maybe compared to Democratic hopefuls. But suppose he ran against Romney. Dayton at least comes off as a human being.

    I looked at some youtube of Dayton and I didn’t see any weird tics that jumped out. Actually, what jumped out at me were the odd tics of MN state politics. The gubernatorial debates seemed to have a game show segment? And everyone was kind of polite and actually discussed the issues (what is up with that)?

    I agree that some BJ commentators are overly glum about the Democratic bench. You have HRC, Biden, Webb, and O’Malley. Compare that to the crazies and grifters in the GOP. And someone currently not very prominent may enter who does unexpectedly well in the primaries (hmmmm… that ever happen before? Nahh. Never).

  218. 218
    Anoniminous says:

    @Jewish Steel:

    I thought about you but … “Jewish Steel?” Too WWF.

  219. 219
    jl says:

    @Anoniminous:

    ” Gillibrand has said she wouldn’t run if Hillary did but Gillibrand is also making some moves that can be interpreted as doing the preliminaries should Hillary not run. ”

    That is good news. I thought Gillibrand said she would not run, unconditionally.

  220. 220
    max says:

    @max: [‘Happy happy, money money!’]

    Monty Python – The Money Program (‘…the world should hunger/for the butchness of a banker/accountancy makes/the world go ’round!’)

    And for rank & file Republicans:
    Monty Python – The Prejudice Show

    max
    [‘Nuthin’ new under the sun.’]

  221. 221
    max says:

    @Anoniminous: Gillibrand has said she wouldn’t run if Hillary did but Gillibrand is also making some moves that can be interpreted as doing the preliminaries should Hillary not run.

    Personally I was thinking back in 2000 & something that Gillibrand might would be our first female Prez. Only problem with that is that I don’t know that she’s that different from say, Cuomo. She might be. Dunno.

    max
    [‘It’s hard to inherently learn things about our people & decide if they any good or not – unless those people are people who aren’t going to run, like Pelosi.’]

  222. 222
    rikyrah says:

    @Kay:
    I can’t wait to vote against Rahm…..again. He is down to single digit approval in the Black community, and low teens with Latinos.

  223. 223
    askew says:

    @jl:

    I looked at some youtube of Dayton and I didn’t see any weird tics that jumped out. Actually, what jumped out at me were the odd tics of MN state politics. The gubernatorial debates seemed to have a game show segment? And everyone was kind of polite and actually discussed the issues (what is up with that)?

    He has a stutter that causes him problems at times and he just looks so uncomfortable speaking in public. He’s gotten a lot better since his days as Senator. But, I just can’t see him running for national office. He really is a great governor though.

    And yes our candidates for the most part follow the Minnesota Nice rule. We don’t like rude, abrasive politicians or tons of mudslinging. One of the reasons Hillary did so poorly here.

    I don’t think most people here are negative on our possible candidates. It’s just so early and Hillary is sucking up all of the media attention so it makes it hard to see what the other possible candidates are up to.

  224. 224
    rikyrah says:

    @Kay:
    You…me…could go on for quite awhile about Rahm. Born in Chicago, and outside of college and graduate school, lived there my whole life. I can’t begin to explain the depth of my Rahm hatred.

  225. 225
    dance around in your bones says:

    @Betty Cracker:

    Perry also has glasses now. Smart people wear glasses, you know.

    Perry in glasses always makes me think of this.

    One of them understands irony.

  226. 226
    Ruckus says:

    @max:
    You actually made my argument for me. You said he isn’t one of them, the really, really rich. And he’s not. He’s close, he’s comfortable, OK way more than comfortable, but I’ll bet he’s not actually satisfied with what he’s got. Because most of the really, really rich aren’t. But he did spend some of his own money. Had a very wealthy great uncle who told my dad that the way to get wealthy was to never, ever use your own money to make more. Look at the really, really rich and that’s one of the big things they do, Other People’s Money. It was a movie about real life, not mine, probably not yours but it was about how the really wealthy make money. Mittens just isn’t there. He’s the guy they use to make real money, not the one with the real money. And he’ll never reach that level. He knows how to pillage and plunder but he doesn’t know how to not spend his own money for what really would have been a vanity exercise.

  227. 227
    Anoniminous says:

    @jl, @max:

    Please note my weasel words.

    Gillibrand was an example. For all I know she was in NoCal as a Hillary surrogate. She has consistently said she would not run if Hillary does. All her statements I’ve read assume a Hillary run. If she has categorically ruled-out a 2016 run if Hillary doesn’t, well I haven’t heard that. Wrong, she has:

    “Q. You’ve said you won’t run in 2016 if Hillary Clinton runs. If she doesn’t run, would you consider a bid?

    No. I feel so privileged that I get to serve in the Senate.

    Q. So you wouldn’t consider it at all?

    No.

    Q. Ever?

    No, I don’t think so.

    Q. Not ever ever?

    [laughter]

    I will consider it someday, I’m sure, but not any time in the near future.”

    My guess is nobody “serious” is going to go public until Hillary announces, one way or the other. That doesn’t mean people aren’t exploring sub rosa. I’d bet some people are. Who? No idea.

  228. 228
    WereBear says:

    @Violet: Thanks! I’ve Facebooked that out.

  229. 229
    Aimai says:

    @Anoniminous: yes but the point people have been making is this ” bench” point by which they seem to mean ” republicans put up a lot of candidates ghe last few times and we can easily name them. “But we can name them primarily because we are political junkies and they had roll outs and publicity through a conservative press that they get for free. There is no murdoch on the left giving free publicity and even financial support to the likes of gingrich and santorum.

  230. 230
    SRW1 says:

    @David Koch:

    Foreplay for a Fusion Ticket!! The 3rd wayers are gonna love it.

  231. 231
    Joel says:

    @aimai: the reason for the invisibility of democrats on air is that democratic voters don’t watch those snooze and bullshit festivals that count as editorial tv coverage.

  232. 232
    WaterGirl says:

    @Anoniminous: Ted Kennedy. I was in Iowa volunteering for the Obama campaign when Ted Kennedy came out in support of Barack Obama. We all got goosebumps watching Ted’s big speech.

  233. 233
    Matt McIrvin says:

    @🌷 Martin:

    So long as we aren’t electing corrupt Dems or degrade to infighting, I don’t see any reason for a GOP resurgence until the Tea Party is exterminated.

    I think there are multiple ways it could happen.

    A new recession before the economy gets much better could easily make the Republican nominee a shoo-in for 2016 (and I’ve been seeing a bunch of economists saying ominous things about how we’ve basically gotten all the recovery we’re going to get).

    Or the crazy stuff happening in the Middle East could suddenly turn it into a foreign-policy, vote-for-the-tough-daddy election, and Republicans usually win those through superior craziness.

Comments are closed.