For those of you who think Hillary is going to blow it again, a few of David Atkins’ posts at the Washington Monthly will fuel your fire. Sample:
Inevitability is bad for candidates. It makes them careful, comfortable and defensive. No modern candidate should want it. If a candidate is fortunate enough to hold a lead in an intra-party presidential primary, they should follow the opposite of their instincts and their consultants’ advice and stay hungry: hold rallies, initiate bold legislative proposals and make provocative statements to win a news cycle or two.
The American people have an intense anger at elites right now, and they feel both culturally and economically insecure. Inevitable candidates run the risk of incurring their anger as the entrenched elites who need to be removed. It’s perhaps the most dangerous position for a modern presidential candidate to hold.
Here are a couple more that detail some ugly recent polls for Hillary.
Overall, I don’t know if I agree with this. Sanders is certainly exciting a core group of progressives and beating Hillary in a couple of polls, but it’s too early to take polls of a generally unengaged electorate too seriously. And getting the hell out of the way of Trump as he heads to his almost certain death from overexposure is probably the smartest thing any Democrat can do at this point. Still, even though I fully expect to vote for Clinton next Fall, I can definitely imagine a thousand ways the Clinton campaign could blow it.
Baud
Who cares if she blows it? If Sanders is the better candidate in the primary, then he is the better candidate for the general.
FWIW, I’m not impressed with Atkins analysis as reflected in the excerpt.
Hunter Gathers
@Baud: Sanders would get destroyed in the general. All that would have to happen is for him to truthfully answer the following question: ‘Are you a Socialist?’. A ‘yes’ ends it. Rick Santorum would kick the shit out of him.
SRW1
The US is gonna do its own Jeremy Corbyn?
greennotGreen
Yeah, I think this is all just naysaying by Dems who worry, not necessarily too much, but worry about the consequences of ever losing another election to the current Republican party. When they see her in the debates, a lot of this negativity will evaporate. “Hey, she’s not so bad! She’s actually funny! And she has some good ideas!”
That being said, I donated to Bernie’s campaign because I want him to drive the conversation to the left where most of the American people actually are. (Unfortunately, too many of them don’t know it, e.g. Obamacare.)
Trentrunner
LOL people worrying about whether Hillary will win the Dem nomination.
Bernie Sanders is no Barack Obama.
Hillary 2015 is not Hillary 2007.
2016 Republicans are not 2012 Republicans.
I’m not worried.
Some guy
David Atkins seems upset that the Hoi Poloi don’t like him and his pals.
NobodySpecial
It’s very simple. Clinton will not allow Sanders to ambush her in the primaries the way Obama did.
Add to that the simple facts that Sanders has nowhere near the money or the organization that Obama built on the ground in all those states, and he’s toast. The polling is, as are most polls this far ahead in time, mere handwaving pretending to tell a story. Horserace media bullshit.
Baud
@Hunter Gathers:
Maybe they both would get destroyed in the general. Or maybe they would both sail to victory. I don’t know (although I currently am more concerned about Sanders than Hillary with respect to electability). But once we have a nominee, I don’t think the second place candidate in the Democratic primary can be said to have had the better chance.
Benw
@Baud: BAUD 2016
oldgold
The GOP wants Sanders. As such, they are giving him a free pass as is the corporate media. If nominated, he would be nuked. The political carnage would Hiroshima-ish. Probably would not win a single electoral vote. Entire Democratic party would be dragged down. Leaving GOP in full control of the federal government. Our only viable geneal election candidate, deficiencies and all, is Hillary.
MazeDancer
Hillary continues to impress most of the time she delivers a speech. She takes solid liberal positions. She seems relaxed and strong.
Have always been extremely skeptical of her wide appeal. Have never, personally, felt an affinity. Truly not the least bit interested in having the Big Dawg back in the White House, and do not know how he will keep from trying to steal the limelight for 8 years.
But with all that reluctance in the background, find myself more and more happy with the idea of Hillary.
I want a woman in the White House. I want a liberal, Democratic, female President. Now, not “someday”. I am very, very, very much not alone. And women vote more than men. There are no other current options to fulfill this desire. But I have gone from well, she’s the only option, to actually feeling that she is a good option. And the more the media savage her, and the more sexist attacks that are flung at her, the more enthusiastic is my support.
So, screw the polls and media. The NY Times may want to destroy her. The media may think it’s fun to beat her up. But actual voters may feel differently. Next year, when it counts, we’ll see.
kped
I think this is more a function of a certain subset of prominent white progressives desperate to make this seem a close race that Sanders can win. And since most progressive blogs are run by young, white progressives, an echo chamber is forming, and article after article about Clinton is written where she is doomed, where her campaign is in a free fall, etc.
But the fact is, Sanders isn’t resonating with 2 huge parts of the base – women and minorities. Those two groups have been consistent in their support for Clinton, and too many left wing blogs are ignoring them in their attempt to help feed the story that they are all circle jerking around.
A couple of weeks ago Matt Taibi, a guy wrote on twitter that the DNC was ignoring their base by not fully supporting Sanders. Saying that basically erases the real base from the equation. But guys like Matt Tiabi are the people who write and dominate the progressive online, so they get to keep writing crap like that (I usually like the guy, he can be hilarious, although I get a real whiff of gold buggery or just conspiracy theory crap from him every time he talks about the fed. “Oh no!, QE3 might happen and we are doomed because reasons!!!”)
Baud
@Benw:
I welcome their hatred.
ETA: in case one doesn’t recognize the reference
http://docs.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/od2ndst.html
Elizabelle
Haven’t read the article, but I am running across (in meatspace) Democrats who should know better telling me they’re concerned about HRC and the emails. No extended discussions yet on particulars, but it’s worrying.
We’re more than a year out, but CNN and the media are so damn repetitive. There’s any story about HRC, they slide “emails” and “scandal” into it reflexively.
Whereas Trump gives them so much fresh meat, they don’t dwell on any particular statement or issue.
And they act like it’s a given that foreign policy is a strong suit for Jeb! Assumes facts not in evidence. Is that them just leveling the playing field, since there’s a former SOState in the race? Plz don’t assume the Bush family name stands for good foreign policy.
Goddamned sick of our dinosaur corporate media.
WaterGirl
@NobodySpecial: Obama did not ambush Clinton in the primaries in 2008. Obama outsmarted Clinton, be bested her, he understood the rules when she didn’t. But there was no ambush.
Cervantes
@Baud:
Not sure about this argument.
Frankensteinbeck
Said polls say that Democrats really like Hillary, and Republicans hate her more and more. I see this neither as a problem, nor surprising.
That Atkins uses those polls as evidence for his lecture about What Hillary Should Do without mentioning that Hillary’s approval numbers are steady (74%) with Democrats suggests that honesty isn’t his priority. His actual advice sounds like the repeated Villager refrain that minority voters don’t count, and Democrats should focus more on white people.
EDIT – Sorry, white men. Among other things, ‘whites’ seems to only mean ‘white Christian men.’ Those are the only real people, apparently.
Baud
@Cervantes:
Why not? Do you think Democratic voters are that out of step with the rest of America?
Lamh36
@kped: speaking of Taibbi
geg6
@MazeDancer:
This. Exactly this. And Atkins’ analysis is worth the paper it’s printed on. I was not impressed, especially since he seems to be basing it on early polling in two of the whitest and mostly rural and fairly small population states possible.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Baud: but would you wear their scorn as a badge of honor?
@kped: Well, god knows we can’t reschedule the Democratic primaries to put more diverse states– you know, ones that actually reflect the national electorate– at the top of the schedule. We can’t do that because… um… because we can’t.
Baud
@Elizabelle:
That’s every Democrat, EB.
Oatler.
She’s like the damned ghost of Jacob Marley moaning “I wear the chains I forged in Corporate Politics!”
Chat Noir
@MazeDancer: I agree with everything you said.
NobodySpecial
@WaterGirl: I say ‘ambushed’ in the sense that it was accepted practice that these small state primaries were valueless in comparison to the Big Four of California, Illinois, New York, and Florida in Democratic primaries.
Still, though, that won’t happen again.
Thoughtful Today
!
I’m voting for the Democratic Nominee.
Period.
the Conster
I just don’t want Bill back in the White House. UGH. The End.
Amir Khalid
I too am unimpressed with Atkins’ analysis.
Jeb has been a surprisingly passive and feeble candidate, which is more than I would pin on becoming complacent from “inevitability”. Hillary’s demise as a candidate in this cycle has been greatly exaggerated. She has been sticking to a game plan, has made no serious blunders, and her campaign organisation remains well ahead of Bernie’s. She remains the clear favourite for the Democratic nomination.
The Donald talks a good fight, but offers no substance. In fact, he runs away from it. He can blow away anyone in this Republican field in a rap battle, I’ll give him that. But at some point, he’s going to have to put up or shut up. And either he will put up nonsense, as he has done on immigration and foreign policy, or he’ll shut up.
Full metal Wingnut
@Hunter Gathers: Show me data or shut the fuck up with this armchair analyst bullshit
Jim, Foolish Literalist
I can’t remember which junior pundit I saw on e.t.l.MSNBC last week saying that every “tranche” of emails is going to create more problems for HRC. None of the other two or three pundits asked exactly what in this latest batch was such a problem for Clinton. I don’t think Sid Blumenthal being (depending on your perspective) either a man who takes his loyalty a bit too far, or a bitter, obsessive crank.
Baud
@geg6:
Regardless of how this primary turns out, the Democrats are going to have to rethink Iowa and New Hampshire’s status for just this reason.
Full metal Wingnut
@oldgold: This is the kind of attitude that will get us nothing but corporate democrats. Self-fulfilling prophecy.
feebog
The never ending email BS is hurting her right now. There is no there there and the Villagers know it but bringing her credibility and numbers down to horserace level is their goal. I think once she testifies in front of the inquisition er, Gowdy circus there won’t be much left to write about. She should quit apologizing for it at this point. Bernie is pounding out a solid message and he has a following, but it is a mile wide and an inch deep. I love the guy, and think he would make a great President, but the Socialist tag would doom him.
Amir Khalid
@the Conster:
Bill might be back in the White House in 2017, but it will be Hillary in the Oval Office. That’s a significant difference.
kped
@Lamh36: He’s usually very good, I read him all the time. Just found his “durr, Bernie represents the base and the higher ups are terrified of that” to be asinine. Since when has the base excluded African Americans and women? Or Hispanics? Or Asians? It’s great that Bernie can get 10,000 white college kids out to see him speak. But that isn’t the base. It’s a valuable member of the coalition, but dwarfed by the rest of the coalition.
Diana
@oldgold: this, except for maybe the last sentence. I will say I’ve talked to guys registered as democrats who hate Hilary and won’t vote for her. I just point out to them that a handful of swing states will decide the election & New York isn’t one of them.
SRW1
@Amir Khalid:
OT: Futbole crisis in Malaysia?
the Conster
@Amir Khalid:
He’s going to be a huge fucking distraction if he is. Yooooooge.
Stella B
By next year the emails will be old news. Ho hum.
If Uncle Joe gets in, the media will suddenly remember that they hate him too.
Princess
I think Bernie wins NH, does about as well as Dean did in Iowa, and that’s the end.
And I’m okay with that. I have never been a fan of Hillary, but I have to admit, she has been constantly impressing me this go round. She is running as a very different candidate this time, and Saunders is not Obama. His appeal is real, but sharply limited.
And the email thing…there is no there there, as far as I can see. Even it turns out there was real wrongdoing, it will be of the kind that is very hard to turn this into a soundbite that will persuade the voters who will begin to tune in in September ’16
Amir Khalid
@SRW1:
Sigh. So what else is new? We haven’t had a decent national side or competent leadership at FAM in, like, 30 years. The only real novelty here is us being on the wrong side of those rugby-like scorelines.
the Conster
OT: PBO killing it in Boston. “Even Brady’s glad he’s got a union. If Tom Brady needs a union, then we all do”.
Mandalay
@NobodySpecial:
“Ambush”? WTF???
Obama was far better prepared, and his organization on the ground was way ahead of Clinton. He and his team had been doing the necessary donkey work at the state level for months while Clinton sat back reading the polls about her unassailable lead, and awaited her coronation.
To state that Obama ambushed Clinton is pejorative nonsense.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Diana: Do they say why? Do these guys (all men?) fit the same demographic? Do they think she’s a corporate sell-out, or are they the type who think the Hillary Nutcracker is the funniest thing since Home Improvement?
I’ve always been lukewarm on HRC, and I can still get angry about the way she acted in 2008, but even as a skeptic I’m kind of gobsmacked by the different ways people justify not liking, even hating her.
oldgold
Look we have seen what these ruthless bastards have done with nonsense like birth certificates and BENGHAZI. Imagine what they will do with with a real SOCIALIST.
When they were just first burnishing their despicable techniques of candidate destruction, I saw what they turned a legitimate war hero, George McGovern, into a traitorous coward. Now, they play this cynical game much better and have more resources at their disposal to play it with. Before the general election most Americans would be convinced Sanders first is Marx.
Bobby Thomson
Thereisnospoon comes out with some clunkers. This excerpt drips with double standard sexism and is just like the people hyperventilating about Obama’s desperate need to channel Jules Winnfield.
Cervantes
@Baud:
Democrats have in the past nominated for the presidency people who simply could not have defeated their opponents. Look again at what happened to their nominees in ’72 and ’84, if you can bear it.
Is that likely to happen again in the near future? I doubt it, but one never knows.
What I said was that I’m not sure about this argument:
You may be sure — but to me it depends on, among other things, who shows up in the primary and who shows up in the general.
DiTurno
@Baud: I usually like Atkins’ work, but that piece was just awful. He cherry picks one poll, asserts incorrectly that both Jeb and Mitt were supposed to be inevitable, ignores the huge differences between the parties and the candidates, and ignores the fact that Hillary was always cautious.
I think almost everything in that piece is demonstrably wrong, which is impressive.
Bobby Thomson
@Frankensteinbeck: also, too, this.
Amir Khalid
@the Conster:
Not necessarily. He hasn’t been a distraction so far.
Cervantes
@Mandalay:
Isn’t that an ambush?
Nothing pejorative about it — at least not about Obama.
msdc
@feebog:
Are you sure that’s not the other way around?
Belafon
I can see ways for any candidate to blow any election (see Bush, Walker, Romney, Edwards, etc). At the same time, we could also be in that time of a basketball game where the starters all take a rest and suddenly the other team is making a comeback, and then the end of the game comes along and it’s not even close.
In other words, we’re in silly season in the really silly part of the election, before anything useful starts.
BGinCHI
HRC is barely trying right now, if at all. As long as she doesn’t MarkPenn herself to death, she will be fine once she starts her game.
But of course, that’s the real question: whether she can avoid the devil on one of her shoulders.
Bernie is going to be great for her if the debates, if there ever are any.
cokane
@mistermix ya i don’t know if i can agree with the thesis that “inevitability” is what hurt Clinton in 08 nor even now. The article makes that thesis, but doesn’t really marshal evidence to prove it. If anything, the thing that hurt Clinton most in 08 was clearly Iraq, and Obama provided a strong contrast on that while pretty much lining up with her on every other issue.
SFAW
@Stella B:
Some might beg to differ.
And the MSM will continue to uncover the Truth.
beltane
@Mandalay: With the way she ran her campaign in 2008, if Hillary had not been “ambushed” by Obama, she would certainly have been ambushed by John McCain.
I’m not really loving any of the candidates this time around. I am motivated to vote just to keep the Republicans out of the White House.
jinchi
@WaterGirl:
All true, but most importantly, Obama had vocally opposed the Iraq war from the start, while Hillary Clinton was one of many Senate Democrats who supported it. This was clear evidence that he was by far the better candidate: that he would have avoided an epic disaster, while she would have walked straight into it. Eight years after GWB’s exit this issue has faded, but it was considered a pretty big deal at the time. It remains my biggest concern about a Clinton presidency.
Mike J
The outsider delusion and the fallacy of ‘getting things done’
Baud
@Cervantes:
That’s not the issue. The question is whether the person who doesn’t win the primary would be the better candidate for the general. It may be that we have no good candidates in a given year.
J.D. Rhoades
This cannot be emphasized enough.
beltane
@jinchi: In 2008, Hillary wasn’t even quite ready to explicitly repudiate her vote for the Iraq war. She has evolved since then, but that that time she was still trying to appeal to center-right voters while dismissing the anti-war left.
Hal
After 2000 and 8 years of Bush, I can’t believe anyone but republicans do not feel the same.
If this election comes down to another Bush or another Clinton in the white house, I think Hillary wins.
Also on the email front: where media analysis fails is in the assumption that thinking badly about her use of the server equals not voting for her. It’s great fuel for Sander’s support and republicans, but at the end of the day, dems will vote for the dem candidate.
SFAW
@beltane:
Hippie/DFH-punching never goes out of style.
SRW1
@Amir Khalid:
From a newspaper report I had the impression that there was an inordinate amount of political meddling at the moment, but I have to admit almost complete ignorance beyond that report.
Gene108
@greennotGreen:
The hatred of the Clintons – from the Left, the media, and the Right – is not rational.
The Left will never trust her because of he Iraq war vote, but love Joe Biden, who voted the same way.
Edit: Do not expect rational answers to work as intended.
benw
@Baud:
It was either FDR or this (youtube).
Belafon
@SFAW: I saw this in the APR at Daily Kos:
Sorry, but here’s a hippie worth punching.
Mandalay
@beltane:
But she wasn’t “ambushed” by Obama. It’s just not true. The world knew at the time that Obama was far better organized on the ground, and I remember reading pundits who were (correctly) warning Clinton that she was in trouble, even while she was ahead in the polls, because her opponent really knew what he was doing in terms of organizing people to come out and vote for him.
An ambush is a surprise attack. There was no surprise, no secret, no stealth, about what Obama was doing. It was completely out in the open – even the dumbest fucking Villagers saw it coming.
Despite all that Clinton, who ran a poor campaign, may have been surprised, but that hardly makes it an ambush.
jinchi
@Baud:
Before we kick them too hard, just remember that Obama won both Iowa and New Hampshire in the general election. Twice.
BGinCHI
The other thing missing here is an analysis of the ground game the candidates have. Obama killed at that and Clinton’s was good too. I imagine it’s even better now.
What happens when Trump and the other GOP dipshits have to mobilize voters and operatives on the ground? I’m guessing they have nothing like the infrastructure HRC has.
Kathleen
@Lamh36: I disagree with his premise. Every single national election since 1968 has been about race. See Strategy, Southern. I’m sick of people saying Trump has made it all about race. Uh, no, Republicans have been at this a long time.
JimGod
@Gene108: The Left doesn’t like Biden either. I know I don’t for his bankruptcy bill nonsense. The Left for this election is with Sanders. Both Clinton and Biden will find it very difficult to peel support away from him, if Biden even runs, which he won’t.
PS: The beginning of this thread is nothing more than concern troll is concerned; I’ve noticed some names I’ve never seen before saying how Democrats would loose every office in the country if Sanders is the nominee. Funny that.
pamelabrown53
@beltane: #56
“I’m not really loving any of the candidates this time around”.
I’m pretty much in the same place as you. However, even though I’m closer to Bernie than Hillary, idea-wise, I do think she’ll make a stronger GE candidate and a better president. She has a breadth of experience, institutional knowledge and support (goes to getting things done) and IMO gravitas.
While she may not be crashing the gates, she can consolidate and build on President Obama’s record while the republicans continue their self-immolation. Plus, she’s not an old white guy…saving the day!
redshirt
I said it yesterday but I find the possibility of Bill Clinton as First Husband intriguing but also troubling. What would his role be? Would it be more political than a First Lady’s traditional role? Or will he stick with gardening, excerise, and saying no to drugs? Would Bill instead subvert the traditional role of VP? Would he negotiate with foreign governments?
So many questions. And also, it will give the press so much to chatter about. Not that this overly matters, but its bound to be highly annoying and frustrating.
oldgold
If the Big Dog could run, I think he would be nominated by acclamation and crush the GOP candidate in the general.
Amir Khalid
@SRW1:
Governments see bad national-team results as a blow to national prestige, and often decide that taking decisive action in such an event is politically advantageous. FIFA sees governments interfering with national FAs as threatening the sport’s autonomy, and often react by suspending a national team. Old story.
Kay
I’d like to see her say something definitive on economic security- a real renunciation of cutting Social Security and a direct comparison with Bush/Kasich on that issue. It’s a good time because Kasich is going to get huge applause from the austerity crowd which will only embolden him :)
I feel like I know what Democrats are doing with nibbling around the edges with things like sick leave- it’s a combo-it’s supposed to appeal to lower income women- but that just seems very studied to me- a very careful effort to mix economics with demographics. Just go right to the money part, Democrats! Enough with the attenuated roundabout route to “wages” and “income” :)
redshirt
Also, Bill Clinton’s role as First Husband is especially interesting because he’s a former President. If the first woman president (not Hillary) had a businessman husband or a doctor or professor or something, it wouldn’t be the same issue.
Mike E
@benw: And, “I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it.”
JimGod
@oldgold: Please show your work. We have a volatile electorate that is demanding econimic populism. Bill Clinton disdains said populism and in the 90s supported policies that helped create the economic problems we have today. I grew up in the 90s and enjoyed that time, but they’re over and they’re not coming back. Clinton the First would be a much tougher sell today.
raven
@oldgold: If a bullfrog had wings he wouldn’t bump his ass when he hopped either.
jinchi
@beltane:
Hillary may have finally come around on Iraq. But given her thoughts on Syria and Libya, she doesn’t seem to have adjusted her foreign policy views at all.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/hillary-clinton-failure-to-help-syrian-rebels-led-to-the-rise-of-isis/375832/
SRW1
@Amir Khalid:
Ah, OK. Maybe there was some space to be filled with that report.
Zinsky
My sense form these comments is that too many Democrats are smug and think Hillary is unbeatable. Sorry to say – she is.
SFAW
@Belafon:
Not sure I agree s/he is a hippie. More like Kaczynski-lite, or Nader on steroids, or Mark Rudd in his younger days.
Still worth punching, however.
catclub
@NobodySpecial:
also lacks the invisible primary endorsements – Obama gota good number of those in 2007-8. Hillary has an overwhelming number already.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
I’m almost tempted to go look for Ron Fournier’s reaction to that snippet from Weigel’s write up. Leaderly Leadership! Getting Serious! He may not be done consulting his physician. I think it would be shrewd for HRC to seize on that, because I think Kasich will be messianic on it and force the others to stammer out some kind of agreement, and Trump will probably put on his new populist wig and make it all uglier and louder
Baud
@jinchi:
Doesn’t matter. The point is not that Democrats or voters in those states make poor choices, it’s that those voters are not representative of the current makeup of the party.
Mike E
@raven: Heh, truly. But they couldn’t come up with a GOPer to beat Zombie FDR, let alone retired Big Dog.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@catclub: and not so invisible. Is there anybody comparable to Ted Kennedy in the Democratic Party these days? or in politics at all.
catclub
@Kay:
I think she will. I think the argument that raising retirement age (and even more so less inflation indexing) is yet another aspect of the war on women – because it will cost women more over their lifetimes. Could also gain effectiveness.
Frankensteinbeck
@jinchi:
I read it. It’s another amazing example of a bullshit ‘Democrats In Disarray’ story. The only significant difference it highlights is that Clinton thought we should have helped the Syrian rebels more. That’s a faaaaar cry from repeating Iraq. But the writer is TOTALLY SURE that ANY DAY NOW Clinton will come out and repudiate Obama’s foreign policy.
Apparently we’re back to announcing social security cuts in the State Of The Union.
Tracy Ratcliff
Something that encourages me about Sen. Clinton’s campaign is the curious fact of the dog barking in the night: the number of articles I’ve seen based on anonymous insiders in the campaign. They have been as rare as in 2008 the number of articles based on insiders in the Obama campaign. I’ve only see two bunches, and they both were “Sen. Sanders is going to do very well in Iowa and New Hampshire, but Sen. Clinton will overtake him in South Carolina and Super Tuesday.” That’s just pointing out reality to the Villagers obsessing on every poll that comes out.
I am so hoping that this means we’ll get a repeat of “No-Drama Obama” as “Chill Hill”.
the Conster
@redshirt:
Yeah. I really don’t want to find out what kind of distraction he’ll be.
catclub
@BGinCHI:
I have heard that some of the ‘not really coordinated’ Super Pacs are doing ground game and mobilization. Yeah, right, totally uncoordinated.
Baud
@Tracy Ratcliff:
Agreed 100%. Bernie’s rise has been an early test of their discipline, and they are doing well so far.
Cervantes
@Belafon:
Because we should punch people with whom we disagree?
Or people whose arguments and assertions we can’t counter?
Or because life is too short and punch-lines are what matter?
catclub
@redshirt:
Only question is: to whom? I can equally imagine it sending the right wing around the bend crazy. (If they were not already.)
jinchi
@Gene108:
Biden? When did the left love Biden? You may remember he was also a contender in 2008 and quit the race because his poll numbers never emerged from the background noise.
FlipYrWhig
@JimGod:
Do we? I think “we” should be slow and careful when it comes to gauging the public mood, especially before jumping to conclusions about what the Trump surge means (or doesn’t) for Democrats. As I was saying on the Atkins posts at WaMo, I suspect that a lot of liberal-to-left pundits are at bottom saying “Republicans don’t want Bush, Democrats don’t want Hillary, everyone wants ‘anti-establishment,’ ergo vote Anyone But Hillary, Bernie for instance.” But I’m suspicious of that analysis because the same pundits would say to vote Anyone But Hillary _regardless_ of who Republicans liked. These guys would never say, “Hey, Bush is doing great, so the public is in a pro-establishment mood, so let’s all vote for Hillary!” This is like how for Republicans the answer is always to cut taxes. For the liberal blogosphere the answer is always to repudiate The Clintons. The “public mood” bit is pure sleight of hand.
Frankensteinbeck
@catclub:
I am totally cool with this. Super PACs have shown a tendency to pay a hundred thousand to each of the ten guys in their management team, then spend another two million on a really great powerpoint presentation of their plan…
oldgold
@raven: Not really. The point is, some, particularly purple state indies, will welcome and be reassured by the Big Dog living in the White House again. He is a huge political asset.
Baud
@Cervantes:
Given that punching is a metaphor for criticizing, isn’t the answer “yes”?
Brother Dingaling
Read these two things and wake me up when the primaries start:
1. https://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/bernie-sanders-youre-no-barack-obama/
2. http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/10/29/poll/
FlipYrWhig
@jinchi:
“The left” doesn’t love Biden, but the whole point of the “Biden’s considering a run!” stories is for the Hillary-skeptics in the party (donors, strategists, etc.) to warn Hillary to take their VERY IMPORTANT AND SERIOUS advice before it’s too late.
Kay
@catclub:
I am a woman and I think they’re tying too much to the war on women. It feels calculated to me. I’d rather she just do a plain “cutting or privatizing Social Security is a bad idea because it’s something all of you can depend on”. I would actually like to see her get really dramatic on it- complete outrage that anyone would even dream of it. If she hedges at all the punditry will eat her alive whining about entitlement reform and she’ll end up closer to Kasich than she was. He’s being bold, in the wrong direction. She can go boldly the other way.
Frankensteinbeck
@FlipYrWhig:
Advice that she’s paying too much attention to minorities (which somehow includes women)?
the Conster
@Kay:
I hate to say it, but Trump is not an idiot. I think the consensus analysis emerging from Trump’s continued popularity is that he knows that the rubes like their government handouts, but feel threatened by all “those people” undeservedly getting them too, and that the GOP donor class can’t win the austerity argument any more because it’s all bullshit, and as dumb as their rube base is, they seem to grok that tax cuts for billionaires is something they can do without if their own handout is safe from those grubby immigrants. Hillary better figure that out too, but I just don’t trust her instincts and ability to thread that economic insecurity/path to citizenship needle. Bill bears a lot of responsibility for getting us into the bubble that burst. UGH. I just hate having to re-litigate the 90s.
Cervantes
@Baud:
Sure, and I know it was an attempt at a joke. (I’ve made worse.)
But there was no “criticism” there; no engagement whatsoever.
Anoniminous
In 2008 the party was generally happy with either Clinton or Obama. Obama had the superior strategy, organized the local efforts, and won the nomination. Clinton is several things but stupid isn’t one of them. She’s hired Jeff Berman and through him several of the top people from OFA have come on board. In a very clever move she’s also hired Stephanie Hannon from Google to be her CTO. She has campaign organizations already in place at both the national and state levels. She has the political endorsements at state and national level which means the official party GOTV organizations are mostly hers.
She is going to blow Sanders out of the water on Super Tuesday and have the nomination sewn up by the end of March.
jinchi
@Baud:
I think the primary calendar games are silly, but no state is representative of the whole electorate. If Democrats started cherry picking states they’d pretty soon find it hard to win national elections.
Mandalay
@pamelabrown53:
Gravitas is the thing that the Village insisted Cheney had by the truckload. But history is showing that while Cheney exhibited seriousness and decisiveness, he was often completely wrong. Ditto Kissinger and William F. Buckley Jr. All oozed gravitas, but were hopelessly incorrect on some really major issues. And Clinton has made some pretty serious misjudgments herself.
Gravitas is a superficial quality which relates to appearance, not actual competence. Anyone picking the person with most gravitas is asking for trouble. You may as well pick the person with the best teeth, or the nicest hair.
Belafon
@Cervantes: Because of his definition of the “left” with the statement:
There are many issues, of which this is one. Did he miss the problems minorities are having, women are having, the poor are having? And if his answer is “We can fix all that with the money we’d save by dismantling the military,” then that’s as clueless as saying that we’ll fix race issues by improving the economy (by the way, this is not an attack on Sanders).
sukabi
@the Conster: “Splishaaasst” the sound of a million heads exploding. Wonder how long it will be before folks actually GET it.
Baud
@jinchi:
I’m sure there are some states that a better than others. But I don’t have an alternative proposal to offer right now, so I don’t have much else to say on this.
Cervantes
@Gene108:
And perhaps as much as she does, he also has a record as a faithful helper of the financial-services industry.
And yet Obama picked him to be VP. Do you recall what “the Left” said about that? (Honest question — but feel free to ignore.)
Baud
@Mandalay:
Gravitas is a thing and it’s important. But it’s not the only thing, as you said.
FlipYrWhig
@the Conster:
Uh, wasn’t the consensus view from the 2008 campaign that Clinton was trying very hard — perhaps too hard or offensively hard — to speak to the anxieties of hardworking white people? Seems like an odd thing to fault Clinton for a lack of interest in.
Kay
@the Conster:
I don’t think Hillary Clinton can authentically portray herself as a populist, so she shouldn’t try it. Instead she should go to her strength which is people feel they know her and people think she’s practical and smart. That is the security she can offer and I think she can credibly defend Social Security not as a raving populist but as a practical person. People DO rely on it. It IS smart to have a base-line public retirement program. I get frustrated with her because I have seen her do this. Her ’08 Ohio primary campaign was very good. She freaking trounced us and Obama had a full-bore field operation. She hit her stride once she can do it again.
beltane
@Kay: It’s not only calculating, it’s way too complicated. Campaigning on the minutia of actuarial tables doesn’t seem like a winning strategy. In general though, the whole War on Women line of attack hasn’t been a resounding success on the campaign trail. If it was, the Democrats would be control of Congress now.
Geeno
Obama ambushed Clinton in a Conventional Wisdom kind of way. I remember back then, Obama was building his ground game – with professionals – for the primaries, a time when such things are usually volunteer work while the candidate marshals his resources. The very few in the CW circles who noticed derided Obama for wasting his money. When the effectiveness of Obama’s strategy started to become apparent, the CW was gobsmacked, and many went into denial for the rest of the campaign.
I was originally a Hilbot in ’07, I became a little skittish with the Penn hire – more and more skittish as I found out more about the guy. The thing that moved me to Obama’s column was sheer relentless precision and effectiveness of his organization. I looked at that and said to myself “That guy knows how to play this game” and went full-on Obot.
One of the reasons I’m much happier with Hilary this time around is that she has embraced the new way of doing things. She learned. She doesn’t blame Obama for her defeat or attribute his success to his unique politcking skills, she saw what he did right and she did wrong and is making corrections.
SFAW
@Cervantes:
There is likely no engagement to be had. The neo-Kaczynski (or whatever shorthand you prefer) has drawn a bright line: “If you are not dedicated to the destruction of empire and the dismantling of American militarism, then you cannot count yourself as a member of the left. ” People that appoint themselves judge and arbiter of who’s pure enough generally have some issues, to put it mildly, and do not appear to be willing or able to discuss things rationally.
Patricia Kayden
@Trentrunner: Preach!! I don’t see how Secretary Clinton will have any problem beating any of the Clown Car Occupants — especially if the one she’s running against has a last name that rhymes with rump.
Instead of prematurely panicking, it would be better for Democrats to focus on what they want Secretary Clinton to do when she’s the President. We should be working at pushing her to the Left as much as possible during the primary season.
JimGod
@FlipYrWhig: Where do I reference the Don Don? I’m talking about polls, the support for mandatory sick leave and a $15 minimum wage. There is a mood out there for economic populism and anti-elitism that goes beyond the Don Don.
Jasmine Bleach
Sanders has a good chance to win the primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire. Current polls show that. That’s when the rubber will meet the road, because then Democrats in every state will have heard of Sanders. That’s when we’ll see what Clinton is really made of, and not before (when and if she’s down 0-2 primaries).
Sanders has been gaining double-digits the past month with African American voters. That will help him. He still needs to gain more traction with women, which will be very difficult because too many women just “want a woman to be president,” and the only option there right now for Democrats is Clinton.
Clinton is not liberal. Sure, just like Obama, she’s campaigning on a progressive/populist set of messages. But her history shows (just like Obama’s did) that she’s a centrist and corporatist. She follows the money, doesn’t come out against the TPP, generally seems to support a hard line in wars and foreign policy, etc. She was (in my opinion) fairly unimpressive as Sec of State, which speaks to her effectiveness. Sure, she’d be better than any of the republicans, but, as always, I have zero doubt that income disparity would continue to increase under her leadership, and warming of the planet would not really be a major concern of hers (despite anything she says otherwise–she’s too easily bought off).
I’d love to see a woman as president. But I’ll never make that the reason why I vote or the overall goal of my voting. That’s just ridiculous in my opinion.
Sanders has the history. He’s the true liberal in the race. He’s no Obama–but that’s a good thing in my opinion. He seems to draw crowds, to make his case convincingly, to counter attacks really well, and he’s believable. I think he’d do well against any republican in the general election. Current polling seems to indicate it.
Guess we’ll see . . .
Cervantes
@SFAW:
As exemplified by the comment I asked about?
Anoniminous
@Kay:
I don’t understand why people think Hillary Clinton is a doofus. She ran an excellent campaign in ’08, actually got more votes than Obama but lost in the caucus states.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@beltane: i don’t have a lot of faith in the American electorate, and I suspect the average Trump voters are latter-day Archie Bunkers and there’s not much point in chasing them, but I think with Jeb? calling for an increase in the retirement age and Kasich potentially going messianic on privatization, HRC could effectively sell “preserve and protect Social Security”.
Cervantes
@Kay:
Yes.
Where are the people who ran it?
JimGod
@Jasmine Bleach: Ultimately, that is all anyone can say at this point. This concern trolling of “Socialist this, not a Democrat that, only white people like Sanders” is getting tiresome. We really just have to wait and see. If he can gain and hold, which is key, support from major constituencies and get them to the polls, he has a shot at doing very well. The nomination is a big if, but if nothing else, a prime time speech at the convention to push economic issues would be an excellent outcome.
catclub
@FlipYrWhig:
Yep. Funny ole world.
beltane
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: HRC can certainly sell “preserve and protect Social Security”, but it should be done in as simple and emotionally compelling way as possible. Tying it too much to a Republican War on Women will just make a lot of people, including a lot of women, tune out.
SFAW
@Cervantes:
As exemplified by the comment I put in quotation marks. In the same comment to which you are replying. It’s in the second sentence, following the colon. I did not blockquote it Consider it blockquoted retroactively, if that makes it easier.
It reads:
“If you are not dedicated to the destruction of empire and the dismantling of American militarism, then you cannot count yourself as a member of the left. ”
That is the comment that indicates (to me, Belafon too I assume) that there is no “engagement” to be had with the author. The author being the diarist (or whatever) from DKos. Which is whom Belafon was quoting, and to which I originally replied (to Belafon).
Which was my reply. (As Miss Anne Elk would say.)
Belafon
@Anoniminous: Because a lot of people on our side have bought into the “inevitable” label. She was supposed to win, but she didn’t, so it must be her fault somehow. Which I find annoying, because the point of the Democrats is that we don’t “anoint” people.
And they’re doing it again. She’s the “inevitable” candidate, and therefore she must be defeated because she’s obviously arrogant, cold, calculating, ruthless, defenseless (the newest theme is that she’s sending out her attack dogs which is suddenly a bad thing), and not aggressive enough.
Doug R
@msdc: Nope. It’s the pony purity unicorn brigade, just waiting for an excuse to self sabotage.
SFAW
@Belafon:
And if she were, she’d be a cold, calculating, ruthless, castrating bitch, no doubt.
Kay
@Anoniminous:
I was actually organizing against her and I was impressed. By then that campaign had this great battle-weary tone that felt authentic to me- like they were really fighting. They were no longer (to my mind) whining about how unfair it was (and parts of it were unfair- the Obama campaign was absolutely brutal to her in Ohio on trade and there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between Obama and Clinton on trade). Anyway, she had dropped that whole thing and was instead just trying to win. I admired her. It was like all those horrible strategists in her campaign had given up or something and she seemed very comfortable as the underdog, just herself, uncoached and less managed.
askew
Hillary is a disaster of a candidate. The more people see her, the more they dislike her. Her favorables and trustworthy #s are tanking fast in Iowa and New Hampshire, where they’ve seen her the most. Her campaign has blanketed the airwaves with biographical ads with her in soft lighting to try to improve her favorable #s. They haven’t even stopped the bleeding. So, they have dumped $4mm more into those ads in Iowa and New Hampshire in the next two months. It won’t help. People don’t like her or trust her.
She is back to relying on endorsements from better liked politicians and using her one advantage in this race, she would be the 1st woman president. She had a huge rally in NH planned for this weekend with Sen. Shaheen to celebrate Hillary’s Beijing speech 20 years ago. They had to down-size the venue and the new venue wasn’t even close to full. In Iowa, she’s booking the smallest venues possible so she can have “overflow”.
Instead of addressing these realities, I see Hillary supporters like Anne Laurie below tear down Biden or Sanders to try to make her toxic candidate look slightly more appealing. Biden and Sanders are both better alternatives to Hillary, because the general public doesn’t actively hate them the way they do Hillary. And because neither of them have her problem of being viewed as untrustworthy.
Anoniminous
@beltane:
The big problem in Congressional races is the 2010 disaster. That election allowed the GOP to create the conditions to ‘punch above their weight’ through gerrymandering.
The second problem is the state parties. There’s all too many people who are still snake-fascinated with the success of the Southern Strategy – call it – and the DLC mindset it created. The result is candidates going full bore for votes they are never going to get and running away from votes they could get. The poster child: Grimes in Kentucky who wouldn’t say if she voted for Obama.
gelfling545
@the Conster: So you’d find Donald Trump preferable? I suspect you wouldn’t.
John O
Sanders gets my primary vote because he’s the Last Honest Man in DC and because if some published reports are true, I’m worth more money than he is. (This does not put Bernie in very good financial company.) I like that. He knows what regular people go through better than most.
But I don’t know if he’d win a general, nor am I sure he would be the best fit politically. Our system is designed to move slowly with all its institutional obstructions and Bernie (and Trump) represent a pretty radical departure from how the whole deal generally works.
HRC has the best resume of anyone I’ve ever had a chance to vote for, little question. I can’t think of anyone who could make for a smoother simpler transition from one POTUS to the next. That being said, she’ll have to prove her “toughness” bona fides and that means more Freedom Bombs which I’m tired of, and she’s basically a corporate shill IMO. Her heart is probably in the right place, but it’s been so understandably calloused by decade of being considered Satan I don’t know that I like what’s in there anymore.
Which brings me to my #1 reason for voting against HRC: 4-8 more years of ridiculous and ancient and boring partisan bullshit, endless fake investigations, more of the same.
I have Dynasty Fatigue.
geg6
@Jasmine Bleach:
When he decides to actually become a Democrat, I’ll be willing to think about voting for him in a Democratic primary. Until then, he’s Ralph Nader II: Electric Bugaloo.
Cervantes
@SFAW:
My “As exemplified by the comment I asked about?” was a rhetorical question … I wasn’t really in doubt as to what comment you were referring to!
MazeDancer
Report of Hillary campaigning in Iowa
@geg6:
Right on, Sister! And there is going to be alot of that old school, new school, every school in-the-trenches Right On feminism for Hillary. Especially if she keeps being the candidate who listens deeply and then speaks about real things. Like bread and butter issues of just making it everyday.
That fed-up-and-not-going-to-take-it-any-more righteous anger thing that makes people like Trump and Sanders is also going to be alive and rallying next year for “Woman POTUS Now!”. Especially if the GOP keeps treating women like some kind of putrid disease that needs to be controlled. And Trump keeps exposing how the GOP is the party of the richies.
It cannot be said often enough that elections are about turnout. That’s it. Horse Race is a media fixation. There are not enough undecideds to persuade. The candidate that gets the most people to turn up at the polls wins. Hillary, thank heavens, seems to know this. Turn out is a long game not win the morning.
dedc79
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: As long as there’s some offense to go along with this defense (of the ACA, social security).
When the Republicans win, it’s because they’ve gotten the support from the base that wants all this stuff repealed/eliminated, but also from a segment of less ideological americans who are convinced (for some reason I’ll never understand) that the GOP won’t ever actually do the horrible things they say they will.
To reach those folks, I think the Dems need a persuasive and attractive affirmative message (We will do X, Y and Z) rather than just (We will make sure that A, B and C don’t get eliminated). Hillary, to her credit, has already put forward some affirmative proposals – the press just has no interest in reporting on them and most voters aren’t paying attention yet anyway.
trollhattan
@the Conster:
Trump succeeds because he demonstrates, daily, the weakness of the Republican field. And to your point he’s youuuugly more talented in front of a camera, having more actual camera time than the rest of that lot combined. Combine that with polished belligerence, which in this century plays better than Saint Reagan’s Hollywood-honed “Aw, shucks” persona, and you have today’s perfect Republican. The portfolio is a bonus.
As to today’s edition of the Democratic circular firing squad, nothing I’ve seen from Sanders convinces me he’d fare well in the general. My question for the Dem leadership is how can they channel the energy he’s able to generate today into votes the November after next?
Baud
@John O:
You should give up in the notion of Democrats holding power then, because the other side isn’t going to stop any of that no matter which Democrat it is.
jinchi
@Frankensteinbeck:
In 2002 Clinton thought we should help the Iraqi rebels more. Saddam was a tyrant who had killed his own people, so she gave the thumbs up to the Iraq war.
In 2011, Clinton thought we should help the Libyan rebels more. Gaddafi was a tyrant who was going to massacre his own people, so she pushed for action there as well.
Those decisions ended disastrously, despite the fact that we technically won both militarily. The people in those countries are worse off than they ever were and violence has spread to their neighbors.
In 2013, Clinton thought we should intervene against the Assad regime in Syria because he is a tyrant who was killing his own people. She considers it a failure that Obama didn’t follow through on his “red-line” ultimatum. If he had followed through and overthrown Assad, ISIS almost certainly would have filled the vacuum.
I don’t particularly care about the Obama-vs-Clinton narrative, but Clinton is undoubtedly far more hawkish than he is. She doesn’t seem to have learned from her experiences.
Cervantes
@geg6:
As pointed out previously, he has been quicker to support (nominally) Democratic priorities than many Democrats have been — the Iran deal being just the most recent example.
What’s that they say about “purity ponies” again?
beltane
@Anoniminous: In 2014 Democrats did terribly almost everywhere, and seemed to take a pretty bad shellacking in places like New York. The problems go way beyond the cowardice of doomed candidates like Alison Grimes.
askew
@Kay:
You clearly aren’t paying attention to either O’Malley or Sanders. O’Malley came out with a detailed, progressive Social Security plan that expands it. Most progressive plan ever pushed by a candidate. If you care about specifics, you should be paying attention to O’Malley. He’s the only candidate offering them on issue after issue.
The only candidate nibbling on the edges is Hillary Clinton. She is hoping that she can get away with running a campaign with zero substance and coast to a nomination win based on name recognition, gender and money. Luckily, Iowa and New Hampshire seem to be unwilling to let her.
SFAW
@Cervantes:
Then why ask your question in the first place? Not every rhetorical question needs to be asked, especially if it adds no additional information or viewpoint.
johnnybuck
Republicans have a real problem with their base, I don’t think Democrats really do. Republicans hate their politicians so much that two non-politicians lead the polls for their party’s nomination. There is nothing remotely like that going on on the democratic side. We should rather enjoy seeing Jeb? sinking like a stone (and taking Scottie with him) than worrying about HRC. I think it makes a lot of sense for her to stick to her plan than be reactive to what amounts to a mountain of bullshit that no one will care about in 6 months.
Baud
@Cervantes:
That’s not really a defense to the concern being raised. Politics involves teamwork, and no amount of correctness on policies can replace that effort.
catclub
@John O:
George HW Bush pardoning all the members of the Reagan admin?
schrodinger's cat
Hillary is going to win the nomination. Sanders is the Howard Dean of 2015-16 campaign. Lot of buzz on the intertoobz but he won’t be able to translate into a victory and win the nom. I think its good that he is running because he bringing up issues that need discussion and above all action.
beltane
@johnnybuck: Republicans might have a problem with their base, but when general election time comes around these people will all come out to vote. With our side, there’s always a good chance of Democratic-leaning voters will stay home picking their noses.
the Conster
@FlipYrWhig:
She’s not a populist, but all candidates need to understand and speak to it, authentically. She was tone deaf (charitably, at the very least) when she made the hard working white people remark running against Obama, and she needs to be very careful again with the same coalition, because Bernie’s support is mostly white. Making populist economic appeals is not in her wheelhouse, and immigration reform really isn’t either. Authenticity isn’t either, really.
Cervantes
@Baud:
Call me crazy. I like “correctness on policies.”
Baud
@Cervantes:
I do too, but it’s a separate category of things to like.
askew
@MazeDancer:
That event must have been the exception because I attended an event with all the candidates in Iowa and Sanders left immediately after he spoke, Hillary sat in the crowd surrounded by Secret Service, local party higher-ups and staffers and barely interacted with the crowd and left immediately after the event. Chafee was the only candidate to go out and meet people before the event started and he stayed way after it ended to meet people. O’Malley was the last person to leave the venue. He stayed there shaking hands and talking with the crowd. His campaign was also the only one that had volunteers outside the exits engaging crowd as they left. Hillary’s volunteers only talked to themselves.
She’s been having unhappy crowds because at many of Iowa events because she is leaving right after her speech and barely interacting with the crowds. I’d suggest reading some of the local accounts from twitter – Iowa Starting Line and Sarah Beckman both attend events all over Iowa and there have been a lot of unhappy people at Hillary events because she isn’t engaging there.
catclub
@dedc79:
But any honest approach says that, given the GOP lock on the House, nothing gets done untill that goes away. This a holding pattern to protect the Supreme Court until 2021. Hence, very little honest messaging. Frankly, it is good that there is no press interest in this fact. instead: ‘Presidential Election: Excitement!’
Cervantes
@Baud:
Sure, if one is more worried about “purity”!
beltane
@schrodinger’s cat: This is how I feel about Bernie Sanders’ candidacy as well. I don’t think of him as a candidate in the general election. I do think it’s important he is bringing up issues that an unopposed Hillary campaign would prefer not to discuss. Just as in 2004, Howard’s Dean’s unequivocal opposition to the Iraq war helped set the stage for Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign, a primary challenge from Hillary’s left could help the Democrats craft a more compelling economic message in the future and maybe win back Congress.
Mandalay
@SFAW:
That’s his shtick. He contributes nothing, but gets his jollies by minutely nitpicking what everyone else posts.
geg6
@Cervantes: fuck that noise. I have spent my entire adult life working within my party to make sure as many Democrats as possible can get funded and elected. Didn’t always work and much of that time has been spent persuading people that Democrats, all down the line, have their best interests at heart. I, and a lot of the people I worked with over the last forty years finally saw it all come to fruition with Obama. So I’ll be damned if I’m handing that organization over to a guy who doesn’t even deign to identify with me in the most basic of political ways. And that’s before we even get to the old white guy who loves him some guns shit.
askew
@efgoldman:
Nope. Hillary’s #s have moved way beyond the standard Dem. She has much lower favorables and her trustworthy #s are so bad that only 1 person has been elected president with #s close to that bad – her husband in 1996. Difference being he was running for re-election and he is 100% the politician Hillary is. They might not trust Bill, but they like him. They don’t like or trust Hillary. And with the drip, drip, drip on the emails, neither of those #s will improve over the next few months.
catclub
@efgoldman: The general public likes them more, after twenty five years of attacks, than when they started. … The village hates them but that matters less than the village would like.
Jasmine Bleach
@geg6:
Except that the real liability of Ralph Nader (to Al Gore) was that he ran as a 3rd party candidate and drew votes from Gore in the general election.
So, fail with reasoning there.
Also, you’re complaining that he’s not part of the corporate bought-and-sold DNC?!? That’s a plus in my book. He’s more of a real Democrat (as far as policies and values) than anybody the DNC has pushed in the last 30 years.
You’re welcome to your opinions, of course. They just don’t make much real sense.
SFAW
@Mandalay:
You spelled “nitpicking” rong.
(Kidding, of course. It was supposed to be ironic. No, pedantic. No, didactic. No, manichean. No …. ah, screw it.)
Loviatar
@NobodySpecial:
What “ambushed” Hillary in ’08 was the people on this site, “independents/former republicans” who make up a good chunk of the Obot contingency. Once Obama decided to run and proved himself a serious viable candidate, he locked a major component of the Democratic coalition; the African American (AA) vote. Only way he loses the AA vote is if he is caught on tape fucking Ann Coulter while bad mouthing Oprah. Even then I know some AA who would vote for him for just the reason that at least hes fucking the man over. Then all he needed to do was garner a plurality of the other parts of the Democratic coalition and he would lock up the nomination. Anyone other than a Clinton and he would have lost, even another woman not named Clinton would have beaten him. As I’ve said before, America’s sexism is only surpassed by its racism.
Hillary ran a straight forward generic Democratic campaign, and she lost because of her last name and the fact that she is a woman. Notice the order, there are woman on this site who hate her more for her last name than like her for the fact of her gender.
Anoniminous
@Belafon:
Agree and LOL’ing at the second paragraph.
The only thing we haven’t heard is the “castrating bitch” attack and I’m sure they’ll get around to it eventually.
@Kay:
Clinton wasn’t well served by her national campaign staff. (“Well served” is me being nice. :-) And she ran into the best political campaigner in Post WW2 America. In any other previous year she’d of won.
Loviatar
Bernie Sanders loses the general election because AA and women will not vote for him in the numbers needed to win the election.
satby
I see someone said “Beetlejuice” 3 times.
the Conster
@Loviatar:
GFY. She lost because she hired a bunch of incompetent back stabbing boobs that she couldn’t or wouldn’t control – not a good sign of executive management skills. I, a woman, soured on her mostly because of that, and the fact that if she had fought against Bush’s disastrous policies as hard as she fought for those Michigan delegates SHE agreed didn’t count, I’d have supported her.
Kay
@askew:
This might not be fair, askew, but O’Malley comes off as a phony to me. I think he’s smart and hard-working and really, really competitive but I thought John Edwards was a bullshit populist and I get the same vibe from O’Malley.
Edwards never took off among the people he was supposed to appeal to either, it’s just that Edwards had this weird media contingent promoting him so he was able to make it appear he had support (plus all the paid labor people).
I think O”Malley is a fairly standard centrist Democrat with a lot of technocratic approaches who (rightly) recognizes he should move Left on economic issues because there’s a space there, between Sanders and Clinton. I’m glad he’s running, I like primaries and I’m not scared of them, but I am just not buying O’Malley as populist. I’m not feeling a lot for Sander’s campaign either because although it’s not negative as far as personalities I think Sander’s world view is too negative for me. I try to avoid relentlessly negative people which may be delusional on my part but works for me. I think Sanders needs some upbeat things to say.
Mike in NC
GOP would be ecstatic if Sanders were nominated. Koch brothers would run hundreds of attack ads using the “S” word, not to mention lots of negative stuff about his age and religion.
Then say hello to President Jindal.
SFAW
@Anoniminous:
Does mine count?
geg6
@Jasmine Bleach:
Yeah, my forty years of volunteering for and donating to political campaigns, whether for candidates or causes or policies, has made me naive like that. Real Democrats wouldn’t actually be a Democrat, amirite?
Jesus, the stupid.
Baud
@Cervantes:
No, not at all. Working with others as part of a party had absolutely nothing to do with ideological purity. Purity is usually what keeps people from working with others.
beltane
@the Conster: A generic, male, pro-war Democrat would have fared much worse than Hillary did in 2008. As a lifelong Democrat, and a women, I do get a kick out being told I’m a male former Republican. PUMAs are so charming when you refuse to worship at their altar.
Jasmine Bleach
@geg6:
Hah! You really have no argument, then. Maybe your Democrats aren’t what I consider to be good Democrats, then. As others in this very thread have pointed out, Sanders has supported Democratic initiatives more often than many supported by the DNC and other groups that control the Democratic money. All you need to do is look at Sander’s and Clinton’s voting history and see what and who they really represent.
That’s just plain facts.
Anoniminous
@beltane:
Grimes was a specific example of a specific problem. There are others.
Here in New Mexico party activists are fighting an old & corrupt & stale Democratic machine that has enough clout to get their candidates nominated but not enough to get them elected.
In 2014 New York had a 29% voter turn out, one of the lowest in the country. I do not know why. I do know it’s not healthy and something people should be taking a hard look at.
Gene108
@Mandalay:
I keep hearing this comment over and over again, but to me someone, who runs a poor campaign would have had Joe Biden level results.
She did not run the most perfectest campaign that ever was, but ultimately what hurt her was the Iraq war vote.
I also think the Left assumes voting for the AUMF was a vote for an invasion, but that was never the sales pitch Bush & Co. made. They never said “vote for this and we will be marching to Baghdad” tomorrow.
Bush & Co said “vote for this and we’ll have a strong enough stick to get Saddam to comply with inspections for the first time in four years.”
I do wonder how many Democrats supported the invasion versus getting inspectors back in.
Loviatar
@beltane:
I was waiting for the first PUMA insult. It took almost 10 minutes, you used to be so much quicker with the insults.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
I don’t feel that strongly about him one way or another, but I am surprised at O’Malley’s all but total failure to launch. I don’t read the D-Kos blog anymore, but isn’t O’Malley pretty much the candidate Kos himself has been seeking for the last decade-plus?
Mandalay
@askew:
That’s not good, but there is little for her to gain, and much for her to lose, if she hangs around afterwards. All it takes is a planted wingnut lobbing a carefully crafted one-liner at her while a FoxNews cameraman just happens to be nearby to catch it all on video, and she is facing negative headlines from a faked “scoop”. O’Malley and Chafee don’t face that problem because nobody is going to waste time trying to entrap them in a gotcha moment.
I’m not defending Clinton, but I can understand why she doesn’t hang around.
dww44
@oldgold:
And, more resources are daily becoming more thanks to the suits at Comcast and NBC deciding to weaken, if not kill, the liberal voices that once dominated their line-up. As Driftglass said over at his blog the other day, he will miss the liberal MSNBC and one of his commenters said that from a business corporate view, the move to corporatize and move right with its programming may turn out to be a bad business view.
Not only because they now have nothing to distinguish themselves from the 2 other Cablenews Channels they are turning their backs on the more thoughtful and educated segment of their viewers who will now find a permanent home on the web and cease their Cable TV viewing altogether. Count me among the latter.
Losing Colbert, and then Stewart, and now those good liberal voices on MSNBC has been and is a bummer.
beltane
@Anoniminous: Vermont had a historically low turnout and came within a hairsbreadth of electing a Republican governor. I do know that the incumbent Democrat, like Cuomo in NY, went after the teacher’s union and tried to eliminate the state EITC so maybe that contributed.
Baud
@Anoniminous:
The state parties are really in need of an overhaul.
Ruckus
@Geeno:
She learned. She doesn’t blame Obama for her defeat or attribute his success to his unique politcking skills, she saw what he did right and she did wrong and is making corrections.
This.
This is the crux of the matter. She has learned. She learned as the candidate, she learned as the SOS and she has learned as a human being.
I was not for her last time because I thought Obama was the better candidate. But now I see her as the best candidate and the major reason is, she learned. No one is perfect and it is a huge waste of time and energy to either look for that or expect someone to be that. She voted for Iraq. So did a lot of people. First, she has apologized and second she has learned. She has far more experience than Sanders and that is important. Sanders has good ideas but can any of them get through congress? For sure not this congress. And that doesn’t take into account his electability in the general which I can’t see is workable. Will Clinton be able to get any of her agenda passed? Probably not much but I see her having a better chance than Sanders.
So, for better or worse, Clinton is the best democratic candidate. Will she make the best president ever? After the current one, that’s a very steep hill to climb and if I were betting, I’d say no.
pamelabrown53
@Mandalay:
Actually, I agree that gravitas can be misconstrued or wrongly conferred but it still is an element of how the general public picks a president.
If the right or best ideas was what picked a president, McGovern would have won in a landslide.
Kay
@Anoniminous:
This is pure speculation on my part but are we maybe finding out that last time she ran Bill Clinton’s campaign and this time she is running Obama’s campaign? In other words, was hiring all the Obama people the best idea? It’s the oldest mistake in the world and everyone makes it “this worked with this other person, once!”
Maybe we need Hillary Clinton’s campaign. I’m not saying the Obama people are disloyal or anything nefarious and complicated like that- I’m saying he is a different person from a different time and maybe “no drama and lots of data” isn’t the best approach for her. When I saw her campaign in Ohio she was kind of blustery and shouty, actually, even a little out of control occasionally and that worked just fine. She ended up making Obama look stiff and off kilter.
beltane
@Loviatar: Sorry you were insulted but Barack Obama has been the best presidential candidate and best president of my life time.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@the Conster: yeah, it wasn’t just her Iraq vote or the increasingly bitter tone her campaign took on as the wheels fell off, it was also that I found the whole notion of “I’m a fighter who’s been fighting for thirty-five years!” not just wrong, but insulting. She sat quietly in the Senate with her hands folded in her lap through the worst presidency since Nixon (if not ever) so that Sister Mary Cokie, Monsignor Russert and Vice Principal Broder would give her a good conduct medal, then became enraged when Barack Obama had the temerity to treat her as just another candidate.
/deep breaths…. deep breaths…. think of the Supreme Court/
The Clintons spent a decade trying to get the Village to love them, and now the Village is convinced that her email address is the biggest scandal since his sex life. And Bubba’s probably still mad at Obama.
Mandalay
@Gene108:
No argument from me. If only she had voted against the war then Senator Barack Obama would be running for president right now, after eight years of President Hillary Clinton.
Baud
@Kay:
I like her campaign so far, but I can’t imagine she won’t ramp it up at some point.
Anoniminous
@SFAW:
After careful consideration I will give you points for the effort yet ’twas lacking viewing with alarm, concern trolling, and the mandatory OHMYGODWEGONNADIE!!! hysteria.
beltane
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: Hillary is a fighter. She will fight for herself to the bitter end, to the death. She will not let a Republican or anyone else walk all over her in the general. If she is willing to fight for anyone else remains to be seen.
Baud
@Mandalay:
I agree. But I think it was probably better the way it turned out (assuming we win next year).
redshirt
@beltane:
Agreed 100%, I’m gonna miss BO so much when he leaves, and I’ll remain proud to the day I die of my efforts at getting him elected.
I love this discussion, but the truth is 90% of the people on this site will vote for whomever the Dem nominee is. I’m one of them.
I like Hillary 2016 better than Hillary 2008, but I was also more than prepared to vote for her back then too. But Obama was just so much better.
This year, there’s no one better than Hillary. Sanders is swell, but he’s a weak general candidate and that’s a risk I cannot take.
The worst thing that could happen to us and the world would letting one of these Republicans win the White House.
Loviatar
@beltane:
Wow, you’re only 14, it must be great to be that young and naive.
beltane
@redshirt: I totally agree with you on all points.
the Conster
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Yup. Every word you said. Her only Senate “accomplishment” was to co-sponsor that ridiculous Flag Protection Act with RWNJ Bennett from Utah. She fought hard alright – if it benefited herself. That’s admirable but not sufficient as a candidate – my candidate. Maybe she’s learned, maybe she hasn’t.
ETA: @beltane: also too.
geg6
@Jasmine Bleach:
You can’t lead those with whom you refuse to identify. Hate to break the news to you, but it’s people like me who vote in party primaries. We are the ones who do the canvassing, man the phone banks and get the funds to who needs them. We are the party. And we aren’t looking kindly on the guy who, despite my support for a number of his policy positions (and deploring others, especially his issues with guns and his cowardice on Gitmo), wants to steal the fruits of the labor we and the Democratic politicians earned.
Kay
@Baud:
Right. I agree. I hope they don’t ramp it up by sending the Clinton people to cable channels.
I got a funny email over the Labor Day weekend, from a Clinton supporter. I went to her house party. She thinks this email thing is overblown :)
I just thought it was funny, how matter-of-fact it was. One sentence dispenses with 5 million words in political media.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@beltane: I actually trust her on domestic issues, am more than a little concerned about her hawkishness, and to me the most important (short term) issue is breaking the Roberts-Alito hold on the USSC. Like I’ve said, I’m a skeptic, not a hater, but when I think back on the last few months of that ’08 campaign…. oy.
redshirt
@Loviatar: Who’s been a better President in your life time? LBJ?
geg6
@Loviatar:
I’m more than four times 14 and I’d say the same of Obama.
the Conster
@Loviatar:
Maybe you should step back and ask yourself if you might be, you know, the delusional one? Because really, Obama’s the most significant president in a generation.
oldgold
Another thing, like it or not, TV ads drive these things. In Iowa TV advertising has not started in earnest. Clinton is going to win that game big time. Mid-summer rallies are for the faithful. Voters are a different and much bigger crowd.
Baud
@Kay:
A Clinton supporter who uses email? She’s probably in on the whole thing.
beltane
I’m old enough to have kids who canvassed for Obama in NH in 2008. BHO is hands-down the best president of my lifetime.
beltane
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: Without a doubt, Hillary would make outstanding appointments to the Supreme Court and the Federal judiciary in general.
the Conster
@beltane:
Obama’s last “lame duck” 3 mos:
#IranDeal
Cuba
Gay marriage
Obamacare upheld
TPP
Strengthened overtime rules
Clemency for non-violent offenders
Amazing Grace/traitor flag lowered
Transgender military
Carbon regs
Denali
Mike E
@satby:
And the dog got a hold of the Kleenex again!
gwangung
@John O:
The Reactionaries are going to do that, regardless who the Democrats put in the White House. That’s no reason to take seriously.
Cervantes
@geg6:
I’ve seen you make those points before. Obviously you’ve done a lot of good work — nor do you need my approval of it and, likewise, you have not the vaguest idea what I’ve done.
I agree that Democrats are generally better than Republicans — but I think this because of what they each do when ceded power. Democrats generally do good things. If others do similar things, or better, with their power, I support them as well because I want those good or better things done. And when a Democrat keeps doing one bad thing after another, I see no reason to support him just because he claims to be on the good side.
Bernie Sanders has a record that’s better in my view than at least ten currently active Democrats I could name. You are free to criticize him on a purely partisan basis but, given the record, I find such criticism hollow. (Other words come to mind but I’ll stick with “hollow.”)
SFAW
@Anoniminous:
Which is as it should be.
I think.
Marc
@redshirt: The troll doesn’t actually care; he’ll say whatever gets a rise out of people.
Cervantes
@geg6:
Same here.
Mandalay
@pamelabrown53: We’ll never know, but I think McGovern would have made a great president.
Republicans are seriously burdened with politicians like Gingrich who claim gravitas but have the brains of a doorknob. In fact politicians with gravitas who aren’t dunces seem rare. The best recent examples I can think of are Pat Moynihan and George Schultz.
Nobody from the past 10 years immediately springs to mind. (Al Franken maybe?)
Amir Khalid
@geg6:
I saw an interview with the actor Norman Lloyd, the oldest actor still working in Hollywood. He’s 100 years old, and he said the same thing about Obama.
catclub
@the Conster:
Wow, that has certainly dropped off the news fast.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Amir Khalid: Olbermann used to have Norman Lloyd on from time to time. That was some good TV. I remember seeing him in Scorcese’s Age Of Innocence (20 years ago? christ) and thinking “Hey Dr Auschlander’s still alive!”
redshirt
The only President who could be considered better than BO in the last 100 years is FDR.
the Conster
@catclub:
The only issue I’m not in agreement with, but, it’s an accomplishment.
the Conster
@redshirt:
Yup, and FDR had almost 16 years to do what he did, and a super majority most of the time, and also managed to inter a racial minority in penal camps.
Anoniminous
@Kay:
I have to run – the RIBS! are calling me to battle – but I want to say I like that.
A Lot.
Applejinx
I’m still backing Bernie. I am poor as shit but have given him hundreds of dollars and I’m actively looking for a time to start driving down to probably Keene and volunteering in a Bernie field office, like I did for Barack Obama.
Obama’s operation felt like what Bernie’s is like. After Obama was elected, all the Democrats wanted from me was money, plus they fed me a load of manipulative bullshit like they were trying to TRICK me into giving them money for things like raffles to go visit Obama or something, and that pissed me off very badly. What I was doing was civic duty and fucking important, not a way to wangle selfies with the President if I was the lucky winner.
I really hate what the Democrats have become, which Hillary represents fairly well, so I am fixing to get Bernie to win the primary so he can redefine them and then only the Republicans can go down the shitter. Quite serious: I am real tired of being trapped with a lesser of two evils and voting/working for Obama didn’t entirely fix that.
Bernie got involved fully intending to lose but to steer Hillary, the inevitable dynastic corporate-dem candidate, towards Left causes. He never intended to win it, that would have been a crazy plan.
The public spoke and they’ve been saying the same thing all along, and the FIRST thing anybody has ever said about him this whole time is ‘Socialist, from Vermont!’. It’s making him more popular, rather than less.
I’d have to be in a real nihilistic bomb-throwy mood to consider picking Trump over Clinton, but the thing about that lineup is that Trump has given money to Clinton. I’m not sure there’s ever been debates where the Republican nominee got to tell the Democrat, ‘you’re a corporate whore for big money, I know because I’ve given you money personally and you said you’d do what I wanted. So now I want you to shut up, for starters’.
At least Bernie doesn’t take money from Trumps ;P
redshirt
@efgoldman: I like LBJ a lot and he got a lot of good done, but hoo boy Vietnam is a stain on that legacy and also leaving the door open for Nixon and the true beginning of our current insanity.
redshirt
@Applejinx: Good points. And in a more perfect world I’d agree with you. But in that perfect world Bernie is 15 years younger and not from Vermont.
Loviatar
@the Conster:
CDS is a documented fact, many of today’s “independents/former republicans” (see site founder) reliably supported and participated in the CDS of the 90s. This group of “independents/former republicans” now make a goodly portion of the Democratic party, particularly the virulent anti-Clinton portion of the party. They were quite active in the run up to the 08 election and made CDS a requirement for the party. Maybe as a lifelong Democrat I’m a little delusional for being disappointed by that fact.
Ruviana
This was Atkins’s earlier post about Clinton which might add some nuance to what’s quoted above. I also agree that it’s far too soon to be worrying about whether ginned-up controversies could derail a Clinton nomination.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Loviatar: I hope you take your energy and conviction with you when you’re out registering voters, and leave the crazy paranoid at home
Joel
If it’s Sanders, we will lose. I know that much.
redshirt
If Sanders wins, it won’t be because he ran the better campaign (like BO in 2008) but rather some scandal has sunk Clinton. That’s the only scenario.
And it’s not likely, even with Emailghazi.
Brother Dingaling
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: But every time I think of him in my mind I see Littlefinger’s portrayal of him in The Wire
Ruckus
It’s all nice at this time in the election cycle to wish for a pony and expect to get one. But it is also useless. I like that we have two candidates that seem pretty decent. But let’s talk reality. T rump is destroying the republican field, by using the tactics that they have used to try to destroy the dems. Will he flame out? No, he has no reason to. Money? No that won’t work. Gossip? After all this time what could possibly hurt him, so no that won’t work. Never been elected? No, to his supporters that’s a plus. Jeb or Walker? All the money in the world won’t help those two. And a lot of it will be spent to try. All it will do is split the party, what a loss. So that leaves T rump against Sanders or Clinton. Which do you think will get more votes in a general election? Clinton ran a crap campaign last time and wasn’t that far out of it. As long as she runs a much better one this time she will do fine in the primaries. What does that leave us with? Winning the general. And that is the thing we need to be focusing on, winning the general. Because we all know that any of the republicans will be a disaster. A yooooooge disaster.
You don’t like Clinton? What’s your alternative for the general? Sanders? He may win, he may not, but for sure he wouldn’t get much if any conservative vote, politics just doesn’t swing that far that fast.
I like Sanders, I like his economic policies. A lot. But they have zero chance of being implemented in the next 20 yrs. People like to talk about Clinton’s experience or lack there of but what has Sanders accomplished in congress?
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Brother Dingaling: Yeah, I didn’t even know who Martin O’Malley was when I read Tommy Carcetti was based on a real mayor of Baltimore. Imagine my surprise when that guy turned out to be, for seven or eight minutes, the great white hope of Real Progressives.
Ruckus
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
About the same length of time as Edwards or Biden the two times he ran.
Kay had it right that O’Malley is the Edwards of this cycle.
pamelabrown53
@Mandalay:
I dunno. For all the push back for his position that he’d negotiate with Iran, he demonstrated gravitas.
IMO, he demonstrated that gravitas, i.e. statesmanship, isn’t a matter of the status quo.
P.S. Who, from the republican side has a chance of being construed as a statesman”?
While gravitas is an ineffable quality, I do believe that people respond to it.
Ruckus
@efgoldman:
Don’t know. I doubt it though. But the idea is sound.
He looks good on first reflection. But 5 minutes of looking at that reflection and that good washes away. And all the rest of the good since can never make up for it. Same symptom, different patient.
JoeShabadoo
A Sanders surge has been inevitable. Once people heard about a non-Clinton candidate many would move in that direction because she has been the only choice out there for too long. Things will normalize as the primaries go on.
I like Sanders policies but I can’t see a 73 old man who looks every bit his age becoming president. Sanders is older an McCain was in his run against Obama.
JoeShabadoo
@Ruckus: In my opinion Trump would give Sanders a lot of trouble. Trump instinctively knew where to attack him in the only shot I am aware he took at Sanders. It was when he called him weak for giving up his mic. Sanders is an old man, someone who shows respect as can be seen at the townhall, a socialist and someone who doesn’t have a persona already embedded in the public consciousness. Attacking him for being weak will be the go to strategy and I see it working. Say what you want about Clinton but calling her weak will never stick even with the Republican base.
askew
@Kay:
It’s completely not fair and uninformed. O’Malley spent 8 years governing as the most progressive governor in the nation and now is running a presidential campaign on taking those actions to the national level. He has been consistent on progressive issues for years.
Edwards was a phony who ran as a progressive while he acted as a conservative Dem in Congress. Hillary is the phony in this election. Her rhetoric, in no way matches her record in office or her past rhetoric.
Personally, I think you have blinders on. You believe anything Hillary says even if it contradicts her actual record or her past rhetoric. At the same time, you have no interest in a candidate whose actions match his rhetoric because you have a “funny feeling”.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@askew: How many delegates do you think are at stake in the Balloon Juice primary?
Frank Bolton
@JoeShabadoo: Every Republican candidate tries to go for ‘the Democrat is a weak-kneed appeaser’ and it by and large works on their base. And because the GOP is hysterical about closing ranks around white privilege, I could see them buying it.
The real question is whether it’d work on the Democratic base. Frankly, I have a hard time seeing it work on members of the Obama Coalition. ‘Sanders, you gave a rowdy and marginalized activist base screentime and integrated the popular portions of their platform in an attempt to appeal to them! You’re so weak!’ Even the white ‘class is everything, race is nothing’ socialists in the Democratic Party aren’t by-and-large opposed to the BLM’s platform. They were just pissed off that they were forced to temporarily prioritize something outside of their bubble. If Sanders had randomly revealed a platform of strong racial justice with no prompting no one would’ve even cared. And to those people, they’re not going to ditch Sanders’ economic leftism for Trump’s blend of fascism.
Both Clinton and Sanders shouldn’t worry about what the GOP, VSP, and the mythical ‘independents’ think about them. The country is more polarized than ever and the only thing they should be thinking about is turnout and appeal to base demographics.
feebog
@askew:
And you have a raging hardon for HRC. Honestly, we get that you don’t like her, but to dismiss her record is simply dishonest. I was very happy to see O’Malley get in the race because I thought he would be a young fresh face of the Democratic Party. But the reality is that he has yet to spark anyone’s imagination while the 73 year old Socialist from Vermont is tearing it up. My bottom line is that I want to see another Dem in the White House. Preferably for 8 more years. I want a Supreme Court that is locked into a liberal majority for the next 25 years. Pragmatically, the best way to get there, at least at this juncture, is on the Hillary Rodham Clinton Highway.
I agree with what Ruckus said upthread; she has learned from her mistakes, and is running a much better campaign this time.
Tom Q
@feebog: askew using the sentence “I think you have blinders on” is the single most flagrant case of the pot calling the kettle black I’ve encountered in 63 years of life.
All askew posts can be summed up as “Hillary is EVILLL!!!!!”
SFAW
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
101 in 2 months, and still acting. I hope I’m doing that well if/when I hit 80, never mind 100.
SFAW
@Tom Q:
How can you say that she’s NOT!! After all, she not only gave the Benghaziiiiii!!!!! terrists inside security information, she also armed them, and personally delivered the RPGs and Stingers to them. In the middle of the night. After piloting her own chopper. And killing all the other crew members with her bare hands, to eliminate witnesses.
And all because she was having an affair with
Vince FosterChris Stevens, and she didn’t want anything to leak out.Everything else is just a coverup.
OK, did I hit all the Rethug talking points?
Ruckus
@SFAW:
You forgot the email time machine.
@feebog:
“If your erection lasts longer than 4 hrs seek medical help.” This one has been what 6-7 yrs?
Betty Cracker
@Tom Q: True, but to Askew’s credit, she (I think — sorry if you’re a dude, Askew!) says she’ll vote for Clinton if she’s the nominee. I’d rather have 100 Askews than one of the short-sighted nitwits who worship Obama but don’t give a fuck about the party after January 2017.
Ruckus
@feebog:
Do you think that if she had run the campaign that she is running now, she might have actually won?
I’ll give my answer and say no. I thought then and still do that she was running on Bill’s record and for me that just didn’t wash. But since then she has attended graduate level political college and done very well. Was she ever they evil caricature that our acquaintance thinks she is? No. If Obama hadn’t run would she have won? I’d bet yes but then we’ll never know.
We are back, OK we never really left, to electing the least objectionable candidate who can win for president. That’s been the decision in every election I’ve voted for president in, since 1971. I wish it wasn’t that way but that’s how politics works, in this country and every other. I’d say, and it’s a rough guess that 95% of the people do the same, knowingly or not. It’s just that sometimes the candidate that we elect can actually do the job.
J R in WV
@Loviatar:
What the hell are you talking about? CDS, for Gawd’s sake? what the hell is that? Use standard English with real words if you want anyone to understand you.
I’m sure your comment is crystal clear to you, and perhaps even the person you addressed it to, but there are hundreds of other folks reading this, so please be more clear about what you speak of.
redshirt
@Betty Cracker:
Wha?! These people exist? I don’t think I’ve come across one yet.
Bobby Thomson
@efgoldman: Tommy Carcetti had a fling with a DCCC operative, which O’Malley objected to more than the stuff about juking the stats.
Austin Loomis
Gravitas… Gravitas… No, don’t help me, I’ll get it in a moment…
Austin Loomis
@J R in WV:
From context, probably Clinton Derangement Syndrome.
Bobby Thomson
@J R in WV: Clinton Derangement Syndrome. Loviatar’s still pissed off about 2008 and clearly isn’t an Obama fan.
Bobby Thomson
@Ruckus: that’s where I was in 2008. It wasn’t inevitability per se, it was the subtext that Bill was the best president ever, that she would effectively be a Bill restoration, and that you were a bad Democrat if you didn’t accept both premises and fall in line.
redshirt
@Bobby Thomson:
And I would have gladly fallen in line in 2008, if there wasn’t a better candidate. In 2016, there isn’t.
My number one goal in all elections is keeping Republicans out of positions of power. Everything else is rightfully secondary.
askew
@Betty Cracker:
I’m a she and I’ll vote for Hillary while holding my nose like I did for Bill Clinton in 1996.
Kay
@askew:
I know it’s not fair and like I said I’m glad he’s in. I just think you do have to look at why he doesn’t have many supporters among Democrats. There was room for an alternative because Sanders is doing quite well, yet O’Malley is not. I have trouble with the theory that Clinton and Sanders are appealing to some older, white version of the Democratic Party while O’Malley would pull in the new Democratic coalition because Obama won Iowa and I never heard “well, obviously, because those are the old Democrats”.
askew
@feebog:
Not dismissing her record. Just saying that her record doesn’t match her rhetoric at all this time around. She has a long history of saying one thing and then doing the opposite once in a position of power. And a long history of lying.
Kay
@askew:
If Clinton really tanks maybe O”Malley can get some traction. I could see that happening. I listened to a long piece about him on the radio and he’s incredibly persistent. He’s also younger, so maybe he’s not playing to win this time out. I don’t know- I do know he should have some support by now in some of these primary states.
WaterGirl
@Kay: I kind of think it was a timing thing. It looks to me like O’Malley made a decision about when he was going to get into the race and then he never recovered after Bernie took him by surprise.
Timing is everything; I think he missed his moment for the 2016 cycle.
askew
@Kay:
He doesn’t have more supporters because no one knows who he is. He’s got no name recognition. Both Sanders and Hillary had a national platform and better name recognition before they launched their campaign.
In a normal year, there would have been 3 debates already and his name recognition would have increased. But, Hillary through her pal Debbie W-W-S has made sure that there are only 6 debates so he doesn’t have the free media attention every other candidate has enjoyed in previous Democratic nomination contests.
Personally, I still back the candidate with the most progressive and detailed platforms. The longest list of progressive accomplishments (which Clinton and Sanders can’t begin to match) and the candidate who has led on issue after issue. Whether it was being the first candidate to speak out on Puerto Rico’s debt and health care crisis, the child refugee crisis on our border, the inhumane treatment of immigrants, and now the refugee crisis from Syria. O’Malley was there first and spoke when it mattered.
O’Malley has called for taking in 65,000 Syrian refugees. Hillary and Bernie have said nothing when asked what their refugee plan is. So, until he drops out of the race, I am backing the candidate that isn’t afraid to lead, has turned campaign promises into action and has been a progressive champion. If others want to back someone because they are doing better in polls, that’s their choice.
WaterGirl
@Kay: Both declared candidates and Biden are all older than I would like to see because the presidency is more physically demanding than ever. I think O’Malley would be crazy not to hang in there and hope to be a VP pick.
edit: or step up if someone else tanks.
redshirt
@askew: Sanders had about zero national recognition prior to this run.
askew
@redshirt:
Not true. He had a national name among progressives. He got more national media exposure than the Governor of Maryland did.
GHayduke (formerly lojasmo)
@oldgold:
Bullshit.
Kay
@askew:
Okay but he does have to show some support and the way to do that is primary wins. I was told Sanders has a one-word plan to get labor union endorsements and it’s “stall”. Hold them off from endorsing so he can show them he can win. They all have to do it. It isn’t exclusive to O’Malley.
If Clinton loses Iowa and New Hampshire Democrats will freak out and bolt. That will be O’Malley’s opening.
askew
@Kay:
O’Malley’s opening is going to be the debates. He’ll get some free media and if he does well, it should bump his support up. He’s got a great organization on the ground in Iowa. From what I’ve seen in Iowa, there’s an opening for him. He needs to get to a close 3rd there and that will be enough to get him through to Super Tuesday.
With the way Hillary is imploding, if Biden doesn’t jump in, there are going to be people looking for a Hillary alternative. I expect O’Malley to pick up a lot of those supporters.
redshirt
@askew:
You don’t have a good sense of things if you think this is true.
samiam
HAhahahahah. “Palin is like totally going to run for president” Markymux has his crystal ball out again and he sees bad things for Hillary BOOGA BOOGA!
Please continue.
Kerry Reid
@Geeno: Yep! I didn’t care so much about his speeches (though he’s damn good at them) — I cared that the guy who was gunning for the top position in the EXECUTIVE branch was clearly an effective and smart manager and strategist and knew how to hire a good team. After Heckuva Job Brownie at FEMA, that was refreshing.
It’s unsexy, but a big part of the job of president isn’t banging the bully pulpit and yelling about how things oughta be. It’s making sure that essential government services that can literally be a matter of life or death for our fellow citizens (and perhaps ourselves) are run by the best possible people. Not those who adhere to a particular set of ideological talking points. That’s something that has been lost on the Emo Left since before Obama’s inauguration.
Kerry Reid
@geg6: Not to mention the guy who said it would be “a good idea” to primary the incumbent Dem president in 2012. Though somehow Brave Sir Bernie’s balls disappeared into his abdomen before he managed to do it himself. Thank god that didn’t affect his ability to run his mouth — the only thing I’ve seen him successfully run, since his legislative record in Congress is pretty unexceptional.
Kerry Reid
@redshirt: The Japanese-Americans might beg to differ.