|
I don't really know much about Gillibrand but it seems like if Hillary doesn't run (and this is more of a thought experiment because I do think Hillary will run and win the Primary in a cake walk), Gillibrand would be well positioned to fill in some of the vacuum from a Hillary shaped hole in the race.
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 18:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 19:24 |
|
|
Adar posted:I'm not as versed with the 2006 and 2007 Obama campaign as I'd like to be - is Game Change the best source for this? Yes, with all the obvious caveats that entails, but I'm also basing a lot on the hundreds of articles I read during the 2012 campaign that had reflections from 2008 and are hard to source. I'll admit I'm sympathetic to the theory in The Party Decides about institutional support greatly outweighing campaign strategy in party primaries, especially after the Dem primary in 2004, and Republican primaries in 2008 and 2012. It's true that Plouffe and Axelrod think that their strategy to focus on Iowa won them the primary (What a shock! Political strategists believe their strategy was successful!) and it certainly was helpful, but it all might have been for naught if the DNC hadn't announced that they would penalize Florida and Michigan. Or if the Edwards campaign hadn't been collapsing internally heading into South Carolina. Or if there hadn't been infighting between Mark Penn and Patti Solis Doyle before Iowa. Or any number of other issues. Which is to say that there's no reason to believe that Iowa will be Hillary's Waterloo (except for Waterloo, Iowa of course) in 2016. And, yes, it is also true that Obama is particularly good at political campaigns, likely better than anyone in the current Democratic field of candidates. quote:-If you're not on this list, nobody cares what you do Still think my dark horse pick of Pete Shumlin is gonna come through. 
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 18:20
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:I don't really know much about Gillibrand but it seems like if Hillary doesn't run (and this is more of a thought experiment because I do think Hillary will run and win the Primary in a cake walk), Gillibrand would be well positioned to fill in some of the vacuum from a Hillary shaped hole in the race. If Clinton and Biden both don't run, there will be a subprimary between Cuomo and Gillibrand to be "the New York candidate," and the winner of that is probably the frontrunner in what would be a tremendously weak field. But the odds of both Clinton and Biden not running aren't great.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 18:20
|
|
|
Edible Hat posted:Well, looks like we will be hearing about Benghazi until November 2016 (and beyond, probably): 41% of Republicans think Benghazi is the biggest political scandal in American history, according to a PPP poll. If only 41% of the GOP believes this, then I don't think they have much traction yet.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 18:27
|
|
(Also, 39% of those people don't know Benghazi is in Libya.)
|
Joementum posted:Rand Paul addressed the Iowa GOP last night. He got a 25 second standing ovation (video at the link, go to 1:45) for suggesting that Benghazi should prohibit Hillary from higher office. Couple days old, but Limbaugh gave up that game last week too. Said something along the lines of "blah blah blah everyone involved in this Benghazi cover-up should be barred from holding public office again, and that means Hilary Clinton can't be president". It's what the whole thing has been about all along, but it's pretty sloppy for either to just out and actually say it.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 19:01
|
|
|
Edible Hat posted:Well, looks like we will be hearing about Benghazi until November 2016 (and beyond, probably): 41% of Republicans think Benghazi is the biggest political scandal in American history, according to a PPP poll. It'll be important until it's not important. Like whenever the immigration bill comes together.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 19:06
|
|
|
Adar posted:If Hillary'd won Iowa, she'd have won by another 10 in NH, written off SC/refused to campaign there and cruised in NV as a pre-ordained candidate. It's hard to overemphasize just how much winning Iowa meant for Obama in terms of big party figures and donors alone. Hillary teared up 2 days before NH and the polls failed to reflect a shift back to her that resulted in her win, so the story afterwards was how wrong they were. But the story before that was the 20 point swing in three days when Obama proved he could beat her. It was soft support (which was why Hillary's tears proved the difference) but Obama absolutely needed to win Iowa to get that support in the first place. Just to contextualize this in terms of the rest of your post, until Obama won Iowa he was seen as viable for a black candidate, not a viable candidate who was black, which is part of why black support didn't flock to him like it did until after Iowa. Iowa was very much a proving ground; before that, it was a range between "well, yeah, if everything goes right" and "he's too young/jumping the line/uppity." Joementum, I've always been more inclined to see institutional support as a manifestation of campaign strategy as opposed to something independent from it.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 22:11
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Just to contextualize this in terms of the rest of your post, until Obama won Iowa he was seen as viable for a black candidate, not a viable candidate who was black, which is part of why black support didn't flock to him like it did until after Iowa. Iowa was very much a proving ground; before that, it was a range between "well, yeah, if everything goes right" and "he's too young/jumping the line/uppity." Obama would have done crushed among black voters (as in, 90%+), regardless of how well he did in Iowa, but I would say it's true that people were much more willing to donate to him after the victory in Iowa.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 22:35
|
|
|
Adar posted:-Rahm Emanuel/Cuomo/Gillibrand are three completely interchangeable (in national campaign political terms) people who will be fighting for leftover Hillary money if she doesn't run. Biden is probably 80/20 vs. any of the three and 95/5 if more than one run. Is it fair to put Gillibrand in with the other two? She doesn't seem quite so horrible.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 04:59
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Is it fair to put Gillibrand in with the other two? She doesn't seem quite so horrible. It's more that they're distinct Clintonland figures and that all three will be effectively barred from running if Hillary runs, but all three would be amongst the potential first tier Not Bidens if Hillary passes, not really any policy stuff.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 05:06
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Is it fair to put Gillibrand in with the other two? She doesn't seem quite so horrible. She occupies roughly the same slot in terms of donor and voter and manpower appeal.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 05:06
|
|
|
A few PPP national runs for 2016, which really mean nothing except as a snapshot: Democrats with everyone Hillary Clinton 63% Joe Biden 13% Andrew Cuomo 4% Mark Warner 3% Elizabeth Warren 3% Martin O'Malley 2% Kirsten Gillibrand 1% Deval Patrick 1% Brian Schweitzer 1% Democrats without Clinton Joe Biden 38% Andrew Cuomo 13% Elizabeth Warren 10% Martin O'Malley 3% Deval Patrick 3% Mark Warner 3% Kirsten Gillibrand 2% Brian Schweitzer 1% Democrats without Clinton and Biden Andrew Cuomo 25% Elizabeth Warren 17% Deval Patrick 6% Kirsten Gillibrand 5% Martin O'Malley 5% Mark Warner 4% Brian Schweitzer 1% Republicans Marco Rubio 16% Jeb Bush 15% Chris Christie 15% Rand Paul 14% Paul Ryan 9% Ted Cruz 7% Rick Santorum 5% Bobby Jindal 3% Susana Martinez 1% General Election matchups Clinton 47 Christie 44 Clinton 51 Paul 41 Clinton 51 Rubio 41 Biden 40 Christie 49 Biden 46 Paul 44 Biden 46 Rubio 45 I don't really like the construction of some of those primary fields (for instance, Jeb and Rubio are never going to run in the same field, and neither are Clinton and Gillibrand), but in general that pretty much confirms conventional wisdom. If nothing else, this will probably shove Brian Schweitzer a little further towards a 2014 Senate bid.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 17:53
|
|
|
Whelp, looks like we're all way off base, boys. Someone who totally deserves to weigh in on this and shouldn't be automatically laughed out of any room he inhabits knows how 2016 will play out:quote:Mitt Romney's top political strategist predicted Wednesday that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would not win the Democratic Party's 2016 presidential primary if she were to choose to run. Why's that? Well, she's old. Old, you see. Did I mention she's old? Because she is. Old, that is. Old, old, old, the oldest old to old an old. Furthermore, Stevens also thinks she'd be less appealing than the new generation of up-and-coming Republicans who are hip and fresh or whatever you kids say these days: quote:"On our side, we have Paul Ryan, Nikki Haley, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Susana Martinez and more. Who has the best opportunity to win that generational battle?" 
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 20:02
|
|
|
I mean, his conclusions are all wrong but:quote:“Where to begin? I mean, she’s been around since the 70s. She’s pro-war. It took Rob Portman to get her to come out for gay marriage. The whole Supreme Court is trying to undo what the Clintons did with DOMA,” Stuart Stevens told the National Review. “If I were a Democratic hot-shot politician, I’d primary her so fast.” Except for that last part about struggling, none of this is actually inaccurate. If the Supreme Court strikes down DOMA, anyone who wants to challenge Clinton from the left can use that, and while the talking heads and such seem to be falling over themselves about how awesome Hillary is, the race-baiting poo poo definitely didn't sit well with the people who get the people who actually keep the Democrats viable to turn out and it hasn't been forgotten, and if a primary contender shows some muscle I think there's definitely a race. Maybe that's just wishful thinking, though, because after that poo poo I don't want Clinton carrying the standard for the party.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 20:09
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Someone who totally deserves to weigh in on this and shouldn't be automatically laughed out of any room he inhabits knows how 2016 will play out quote:“I think people that don’t like Donald Trump aren’t going to vote for Mitt Romney,” Stevens added. “He did it in Las Vegas. He’s very popular in Las Vegas. The guy’s on television for a reason. People like him.”
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 20:13
|
|
|
I don't see Clinton facing a serious challenge from the corpse that is 'the left' in this country, not when she has a decent number of people already supporting her on day one, and fundraising connections. Elizabeth Warren would be a great choice but she will never make any money in a campaign.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 20:14
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I don't see Clinton facing a serious challenge from the corpse that is 'the left' in this country, not when she has a decent number of people already supporting her on day one, and fundraising connections. Elizabeth Warren would be a great choice but she will never make any money in a campaign. Warren raised approximately $40m for a Senate campaign. I don't think fundraising will be all that much of a problem for her, at least not in the early stages.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 20:17
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:I mean, his conclusions are all wrong but: Oh I don't disagree, but Stevens was basically just using that to preface the "she's stodgy, old, and out of touch, totally unlike the kickin' rad young Republicans!" lines that followed. I mean yeah he's correct that a challenger from the left would have actual ammo to use against Hillary, but barring another dark horse who exactly has the prominence within what's left of the Democratic left to make the attempt? I can't think of anyone (though in wistful-fantasyland there's a certain angry independent senator who comes to mind). Similarly, the whole argument strikes me as more an attempt to sow the seeds of a bloody 2016 Democratic primary fight, hoping for the eventual nominee to come staggering out as battered as Mitt was this time around.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 20:18
|
|
|
Nobody is challenging Hillary from the left and winning, though. Like, Biden and/or whichever of these third tier guys emerges as a possibility *could* take Hillary on and could definitely win, though she's the favorite. But none of them are explicitly left wing and none of them are going to run to her left. I've heard a lot about the left wing in D&D, looked at the results going back about a decade now, and have come to the conclusion it doesn't actually exist in the US to any appreciable degree. O'Malley is kinda sorta there, I guess, but he's not getting elected via that route any more than Cuomo is. How is a left wing proto-socialist or even generic lefty going to emerge out of Iowa/NH with a first place finish vs. a Clinton [yes, she could lose Iowa, but to a Kucinich type???] What is (s)he going to do in SC (skip it lol) or NV (I'm assuming they're not pro-gaming)? It doesn't add up. e: Warren isn't even remotely left wing except for the bankruptcy stuff Adar fucked around with this message at 20:23 on May 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 20:19
|
|
|
^^^ gosh darn you ninja'd that last one in there while I was typing.Adar posted:Nobody is challenging Hillary from the left and winning, though. Of course not, if Clinton gets beat it's because of intraestablishment warfare, not base ideology. As an aside, is Warren even discernibly to the left of Clinton on policy at this point? I get that Warren probably is perceived as a lefty because her focus is generally on social justice issues, but at the end of the day Warren isn't Bernie Sanders or even Tammy Baldwin. Is there really enough light there to call that a challenge from the left?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 20:25
|
|
|
Adar posted:Nobody is challenging Hillary from the left and winning, though. Oh, I'm not saying "proto-socialist," I'm saying "further left than Hillary Clinton," which leaves a lot of room. Obama and Edwards both ran largely to the left of Clinton but they hardly occupied the proto-socialist space. Now, part of this was because Clinton was running a general election campaign nine months too early, but you see my point. You can run left of someone by attacking her past positions from the left even if they're now identical. See the Iraq War.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 20:25
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Oh, I'm not saying "proto-socialist," I'm saying "further left than Hillary Clinton," which leaves a lot of room. Obama and Edwards both ran largely to the left of Clinton but they hardly occupied the proto-socialist space. Now, part of this was because Clinton was running a general election campaign nine months too early, but you see my point. Obama ran to the left on some issues - and I don't dispute that the proto-socialist crowd largely got behind him - but he also ran to the right of her on some too (health care, most notably), and for the most part there wasn't ideological disagreement at all, just tonal and factional disagreement.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 20:28
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Oh, I'm not saying "proto-socialist," I'm saying "further left than Hillary Clinton," which leaves a lot of room. Obama and Edwards both ran largely to the left of Clinton but they hardly occupied the proto-socialist space. Now, part of this was because Clinton was running a general election campaign nine months too early, but you see my point. But none of the handful of people who could beat her in a race she chooses to run are best served by running to her left. They're all much better off just being the generic Democrats they mostly are.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 20:35
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:Obama ran to the left on some issues - and I don't dispute that the proto-socialist crowd largely got behind him - but he also ran to the right of her on some too (health care, most notably), and for the most part there wasn't ideological disagreement at all, just tonal and factional disagreement. Sure, but I was pointing out specific issues (like DOMA, and pulling racist poo poo) where her left flank is vulnerable. In the Democratic primary, I would expect most disagreements to be about small points and tones. I do think that the first person to credibly distinguish himself or herself from the pack by drawing a sharp distinction is going to get some support on the "not-Clinton-still-viable" grounds. Adar posted:But none of the handful of people who could beat her in a race she chooses to run are best served by running to her left. They're all much better off just being the generic Democrats they mostly are. I think there's some value (votes/money/etc.) in a primary by saying "Oh, now you're okay with gay people, where was this when the unconstitutional law DOMA was passed?" The primary problem is that a generic Democrat is eventually going to have to distinguish himself or herself, and the most common way of doing that is to draw a sharp distinction with the most prominent candidate. Again, I'm not talking about an overall to-the-left-to-the-left approach necessarily, though I think there's probably some money and votes in that, but an attack on specific issues is certainly viable. I do think that the distinction is going to be by breaking to the left and not the right, though.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 20:40
|
|
|
Support for DOMA's going to be a moot point by 2016.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 20:50
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:I think there's some value (votes/money/etc.) in a primary by saying "Oh, now you're okay with gay people, where was this when the unconstitutional law DOMA was passed?" The primary problem is that a generic Democrat is eventually going to have to distinguish himself or herself, and the most common way of doing that is to draw a sharp distinction with the most prominent candidate. I honestly think Generic Democrat is where all the votes, money and overall support are. Let's say the economy pulls off a moderate recovery and we don't get any administration killing scandals between now and then...where's the motivation to trash the administration, and on what grounds? Old people in Iowa don't care about dead Middle Easterners so that rules out drones. The activists will turn out for gay marriage, but every single candidate is going to be 100% identical on that in practice except maybe Biden, who will get the Iowa TQ vote (all six of them). Maybe somebody can run on single payer, except it's not passing Congress in this generation and everyone knows it. I do see a possibility out there for a populist. Except none of these people are it. I dunno, I guess I could be wildly mistaken about O'Malley turning into a campaign superhero or something.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 21:47
|
|
|
Adar posted:I do see a possibility out there for a populist. Except none of these people are it. I dunno, I guess I could be wildly mistaken about O'Malley turning into a campaign superhero or something. Schweitzer is, but he has no money, no name rec, and is being pushed into a Senate race that would effectively preclude him from running.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 21:48
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:A few PPP national runs for 2016, which really mean nothing except as a snapshot: So is anyone out of this group likely to be Hillary's VP choice?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 22:09
|
|
|
SpecialK2 posted:So is anyone out of this group likely to be Hillary's VP choice? I hope it's Biden, but that's just so the Onion Biden can keep being a thing.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 22:11
|
|
|
SpecialK2 posted:So is anyone out of this group likely to be Hillary's VP choice?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 22:21
|
|
|
FMguru posted:The HillVeep choice will probably go to whoever makes the most tactical sense in June 2016. If she needs a particular state, she'll pick that state's governor or senator. If she's weak on a particular issue, she'll pick someone who's strong on that issue. If she's behind with a particular demographic or ethnic group, she'll pick someone from that group. If one of her primary contenders gave her an unusually tough challenge and seems to command a sizable chunk of voters, she'll put them on the ticket. Whoever makes the most sense given the situation at the time of the VP choice will get the nod. Alternatively she could always steal a play from Bill and double down on her appeal as he did by naming another Southern Democrat, only instead she doubles down by naming a woman VP. It will be pretty hilarious after the GOP manages to names a couple of white guys again. Of course Hillary will have the benefit of knowing who her opponent picked first.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 22:34
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:Alternatively she could always steal a play from Bill and double down on her appeal as he did by naming another Southern Democrat, only instead she doubles down by naming a woman VP. It will be pretty hilarious after the GOP manages to names a couple of white guys again.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 22:38
|
|
|
FMguru posted:Clinton/Gillibrand or Clinton/Warren would be hilarious The levels of misogyny in the attack ads, both dogwhistle and blatant, would be staggering.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 22:41
|
|
|
FMguru posted:The HillVeep choice will probably go to whoever makes the most tactical sense in June 2016. If she needs a particular state, she'll pick that state's governor or senator. If she's weak on a particular issue, she'll pick someone who's strong on that issue. If she's behind with a particular demographic or ethnic group, she'll pick someone from that group. If one of her primary contenders gave her an unusually tough challenge and seems to command a sizable chunk of voters, she'll put them on the ticket. Whoever makes the most sense given the situation at the time of the VP choice will get the nod. Virginia's a swing state! VP Terry McAullife
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 22:55
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Whelp, looks like we're all way off base, boys. Someone who totally deserves to weigh in on this and shouldn't be automatically laughed out of any room he inhabits knows how 2016 will play out: "It took Rob Portman to get her to come out for gay marriage" I really hope he believes all of this, what a magical world he must live in where the GOP is why everything "good" in the world happens. edit A Winner is Jew posted:I hope it's Biden, but that's just so the Onion Biden can keep being a thing. The best choice, obviously. Or maybe she'll pick Christie, that would be quite hilarious. Sir Tonk fucked around with this message at 23:48 on May 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 23:43
|
|
|
FMguru posted:Clinton/Gillibrand or Clinton/Warren would be hilarious Ohgod I don't want another Senate election. Please, no. Make it stop.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 08:28
|
|
|
jackofarcades posted:Virginia's a swing state! VP Terry McAullife Ugh that's actually kind of likely isn't it.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 12:19
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:"It took Rob Portman to get her to come out for gay marriage" To be fair he may not be entirely wrong there, Hilary spent a long time being opposed to gay marriage, then 'evolving' to dodging the question and then suddenly came out in support of it a week after Portman did. She's always taken a cautious line on the issue and left her 'conversion' as late as she could- once Portman came out in support it became pretty embarrassing for a lot of Democrats who suddenly found themselves to the right of him on this issue. That's only part of it of course- I think more generally she and other Democrats were taken aback by how quickly public opinion shifted in favour of gay marriage and suddenly found themselves scrambling to catch up.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 13:09
|
|
|
Are there any good articles on X factor candidates and X factor fatigue? I think even if the astronaut lesbian supermodel such-and-such runs in the primary the population will still be too burnt out on Obama-mania to vote for such a purple squirrel.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 13:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 19:24 |
|
|
I was under the impression that she never voiced her support for marriage equality until recently because traditionally the Secretary of State does not get involved in domestic political matters (which is also why she did not attend the DNC.) I can not imagine that she was a supporter of same-sex marriage until only a few weeks ago, considering her husband has been public about his support for years and she knows that the LGBT community was one of her strongest supporters in the primary.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 13:17
|
|
