|
Armyman25 posted:I think the idea that Hillary just latched onto a guy who was going places is just a way to devalue her abilities and accomplishments. Neither of them would be where they are without the other. It's not unfair to point out that the driving reason for their marriage and relationship was raw ambition and a thirst for power on both of their parts. They never really bothered to hide it. There are tons of quotes about how she knew he was going to be president and a huge portion of their campaign drove home that we were getting two for the price of one. One of the more off putting things about them that allowed the right to rally people against them was the fact that their ambition and love of power was blatant as all hell, and their entire relationship was obviously entirely about that and little else. They've been humbled a bit in life and are older so it's not on display nearly as much as it was back in the 90s, and I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but they are both truly power mad individuals with a relationship based entirely on their ambition.
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 14:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 21:44 |
|
|
SilentD posted:Neither of them would be where they are without the other. It's not unfair to point out that the driving reason for their marriage and relationship was raw ambition and a thirst for power on both of their parts. They never really bothered to hide it. There are tons of quotes about how she knew he was going to be president and a huge portion of their campaign drove home that we were getting two for the price of one. One of the more off putting things about them that allowed the right to rally people against them was the fact that their ambition and love of power was blatant as all hell, and their entire relationship was obviously entirely about that and little else. "Successful woman as soulless robot" is not exactly subtle.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 04:22
|
|
|
I'm really torn about Clinton. Part of me thinks maybe she's the best we're going to get in this situation. Another part of me really hopes the Democrats can do better, but I got no idea who. Anyone cool would not be "electable" in the sense they couldn't get past Biden or Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 05:25
|
|
|
Spatula City posted:I'm really torn about Clinton. Part of me thinks maybe she's the best we're going to get in this situation. Another part of me really hopes the Democrats can do better, but I got no idea who. Anyone cool would not be "electable" in the sense they couldn't get past Biden or Clinton. Best in terms of what? She's the embodiment of the status quo for 20 years now. The GOP is going to run a frothing lunatic in 2016, we can afford to go with someone who isn't a member of the Wal-Mart board of directors.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 07:35
|
|
|
The problem with Hilary is that the presidency will have gone Bush, Clinton, Bush, Other Guy, Clinton and I just think that there's got to be something better.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 12:20
|
|
|
That's always my biggest objection. If we're down to where it's just legacy legacy legacy then we are Europe, but without all the socialist goodies. If we're going to just keep electing a stream of the same names then at least can we have healthcare? On the flip side, Hillary herself has grown on me quite a bit. I still don't like a lot of her politics, but don't like a lot of 99% of Democrats' politics. I do like her, personally, much more than I used to. Moyers '16!
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 12:35
|
|
|
Spatula City posted:I'm really torn about Clinton. Part of me thinks maybe she's the best we're going to get in this situation. Another part of me really hopes the Democrats can do better, but I got no idea who. Anyone cool would not be "electable" in the sense they couldn't get past Biden or Clinton. We really can't do better. Not in the current climate. There's few people on the bench who would qualify as 'better', and all of them have their issues. Plus 2016 is a wasteland of a year - you've got two obvious high powered front runners (Clinton and Biden) who are going to suck up the vast majority of endorsements and money. You've got very little room in there for a dark horse candidate to gain traction, and they're probably going to be busy fighting each other. The smart ones are probably waiting for 2020 to see if Clinton/Biden go for re-election in spite of their ages. 2016 is a 'suck it up and vote for Hillary' year, because the alternative is going to be Ted Cruz or something and I think we'd all choose dental surgery over a shotgun to the face.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 14:21
|
|
|
Tempest_56 posted:2016 is a 'suck it up and vote for Hillary' year, because the alternative is going to be Ted Cruz or something and I think we'd all choose dental surgery over a shotgun to the face. That and if you get a high D year in 2020 it means you can reverse a lot of gerrymandering that happened.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 14:22
|
|
|
Tempest_56 posted:
Would Biden be worse than Hilary then? I'm not wholly familiar with his stance on issues, I must confess.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 17:13
|
|
|
Martin Damnyankee O'Malley 2016. Biden is old-ish and I'm not entirely sure what happens if he and Hillary are both adamantly running. (Diamond Joe Biden loses but runs on the Bull Moose ticket, Ted Cruz gets elected, the seas turn to blood and fire rains from the heavens.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 17:35
|
|
|
Junior G-man posted:Would Biden be worse than Hilary then? I'm not wholly familiar with his stance on issues, I must confess. Biden would probably be a bit better than Clinton (given my understanding of his legislative history), but he really doesn't stand much of a chance. He's going to be 74 come 2016, has been crushed the other two times he's run and isn't going to be getting Obama's nod of approval to boost him this time. Without Hillary in the race he'd be a strong contender but would likely eventually fall to someone like Cuomo or the like. With Hillary, he's got a Don Quixote shot at best.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 20:16
|
|
|
Tempest_56 posted:Biden would probably be a bit better than Clinton (given my understanding of his legislative history), but he really doesn't stand much of a chance. He's going to be 74 come 2016, has been crushed the other two times he's run and isn't going to be getting Obama's nod of approval to boost him this time. Without Hillary in the race he'd be a strong contender but would likely eventually fall to someone like Cuomo or the like. With Hillary, he's got a Don Quixote shot at best. I'm just gonna say what I've said ITT for a year and will probably say for two more: A sitting veep who has spent eight years perpetually campaigning, has the organization of Candidate Obama fully behind him (yes, yes he will), and has been a key part of the most polarizing administration of the modern era is not a dog to "Skim Hillary" Cuomo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 20:20
|
|
|
Adar posted:I'm just gonna say what I've said ITT for a year and will probably say for two more: A sitting veep who has spent eight years perpetually campaigning, has the organization of Candidate Obama fully behind him, and has been a key part of the most polarizing administration of the modern era is not a dog to "Skim Hillary" Cuomo. I'd say this is the key element, and not necessarily one Biden is guaranteed to hold. While it's inarguable that Obama was one of the best presidential campaigners we've seen in decades and had a very slick and modern organization behind him, it's not yet been shown that that organization is one that will outlast his own presidency. In other words, the organization of Candidate Obama may not really exist except in rump form once Obama leaves office. Not to say that it's necessarily got a 2016 expiration date on it, but I'm not yet convinced it can or will transform from "fantastic organization to get Obama elected" into "equally fantastic organization to get some other Democrat elected." EDIT: Arg, you edited in "yes, yes he will" while I was typing. I'm not so certain, myself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 20:26
|
|
|
Tempest_56 posted:Biden would probably be a bit better than Clinton (given my understanding of his legislative history), but he really doesn't stand much of a chance. He's going to be 74 come 2016, has been crushed the other two times he's run and isn't going to be getting Obama's nod of approval to boost him this time. Without Hillary in the race he'd be a strong contender but would likely eventually fall to someone like Cuomo or the like. With Hillary, he's got a Don Quixote shot at best. As it's been said a bunch of times it's Hillary's if she wants it since her only competition is Biden who age will be a concern and Christie if he makes it past the horror show that will be the GOP primary. With that being said... Tempest_56 posted:With Hillary, he's got a Don Quixote shot at best. There is no need for Sorkin to be brought into this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 20:26
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:I'd say this is the key element, and not necessarily one Biden is guaranteed to hold. While it's inarguable that Obama was one of the best presidential campaigners we've seen in decades and had a very slick and modern organization behind him, it's not yet been shown that that organization is one that will outlast his own presidency. In other words, the organization of Candidate Obama may not really exist except in rump form once Obama leaves office. Not to say that it's necessarily got a 2016 expiration date on it, but I'm not yet convinced it can or will transform from "fantastic organization to get Obama elected" into "equally fantastic organization to get some other Democrat elected." Let me put it this way: Biden will certainly have Obama's donor list, he already has the GBLT activists 100% behind him regardless of what anyone else does, has the Delaware finance industry squarely behind him as well, and he's going to live in Iowa whenever he's not doing on camera veep things. This is a man who will have the support of every major player in Iowa -even if Clinton runs- and a hundred million dollars to put into the state for a year. He'll win it vs. Hillary, never mind Cuomo. Past that, you just have to look at the primary calendar to know he's got a much better shot at the D nom right now with HRC undecided than any two individual Republicans combined.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 20:35
|
|
|
As awesome as Joe is I really am uneasy about electing a 73 year old president, I imagine a lot of the electorate is too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 21:43
|
|
|
Adar posted:I'm just gonna say what I've said ITT for a year and will probably say for two more: A sitting veep who has spent eight years perpetually campaigning, has the organization of Candidate Obama fully behind him (yes, yes he will), and has been a key part of the most polarizing administration of the modern era is not a dog to "Skim Hillary" Cuomo. I'm not as sure of that as you (though I do admit that Biden would at the very least put up a solid battle and it would certainly not be a cake walk for his opponents), but it really doesn't matter. Hillary is running and I haven't seen any real evidence that there's a person in the Dem field who has a shot against her. She's what we've got unless someone has an Obama-esque rise out of nowhere over the next two years.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 21:52
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:As awesome as Joe is I really am uneasy about electing a 73 year old president, I imagine a lot of the electorate is too. Like Romney, Biden neither looks nor sounds anywhere near as old as he actually is. If he starts stumbling around the campaign trail, there might be a problem.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 21:58
|
|
|
Tempest_56 posted:I'm not as sure of that as you (though I do admit that Biden would at the very least put up a solid battle and it would certainly not be a cake walk for his opponents), but it really doesn't matter. Hillary is running and I haven't seen any real evidence that there's a person in the Dem field who has a shot against her. She's what we've got unless someone has an Obama-esque rise out of nowhere over the next two years. Hillary is probably north of 50% but under 80% to run. I think the most likely case is that she sits down with Biden one weekend and the two of them toss a coin. The next most likely is that they both run. The third option includes sudden death(s) and/or a military coup so let's just say both of them staying out is not a significant possibility. If they both run I think he is a small to moderate underdog. Yes, really, that high. He'll start out well behind nationally and close to tied in Iowa. That turned out well for his boss a while ago.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 22:35
|
|
|
Any idea on who Biden's VP pick might be, if ever? I imagine that would matter as much as McCain's did, given their ages.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 22:40
|
|
|
Adar posted:Hillary is probably north of 50% but under 80% to run. I think the most likely case is that she sits down with Biden one weekend and the two of them toss a coin. The next most likely is that they both run. The third option includes sudden death(s) and/or a military coup so let's just say both of them staying out is not a significant possibility. I have no inside information but since she is raising money and is hiring a staff to start working in places like Iowa and NH (her fund raising letter) I assume barring some disaster that she is definitely going to run.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 22:42
|
|
|
The danger for the Democrats is that any Hillary vs. Joe primary campaign runs the very real risk of friendly fire on issues that only the fringe right would otherwise attack them on. This is especially problematic in the age of super PACs that the candidates don't control. I don't think Democrats want to see the pro-Biden PAC putting up Benghazi ads or the pro-Hillary PAC hitting Joe on his advice to Obama during the bin Laden raid.gradenko_2000 posted:Any idea on who Biden's VP pick might be, if ever? I imagine that would matter as much as McCain's did, given their ages. Beau, natch!
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 22:44
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Any idea on who Biden's VP pick might be, if ever? I imagine that would matter as much as McCain's did, given their ages. Absolutely no idea and I'm not going to even try to handicap it with any degree of accuracy for 2.5 more years. I imagine it'll be some third tier contender for the nom or somebody who looks like a rising star. If I had to pick three people to put 100:1 bets on right now, they'd be Booker, O'Malley and Gillibrand in roughly that order, but this is some serious tea leaf reading poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 22:44
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Any idea on who Biden's VP pick might be, if ever? I imagine that would matter as much as McCain's did, given their ages. That's probably going to be shaped by the electoral battleground in 2016, so it's really difficult to say. But I wouldn't be surprised if someone at least gives lip-service to a younger, more dynamic female, if only for the "Well, suppose Biden can't run in 2020" argument, especially if Hillary runs and loses again. So... Gillibrand? But that's different from saying that Gillibrand would work from a political perspective (depends how much help/hurt her brand of liberalism would give Biden) So in short, what Adar said, but with a faint hand-waving argument that Gillibrand might end up in the running. EDIT: vvv also true. I was thinking about that when I made the suggestion. Like I said, I agree largely with Adar that it's pretty much tea-leaves at the moment. ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 22:49 on Aug 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 22:46
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:But I wouldn't be surprised if someone at least gives lip-service to a younger, more dynamic female, if only for the "Well, suppose Biden can't run in 2020" argument This strategy has an interesting track record of success.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 22:47
|
|
|
What would be the GOP line of attack on Biden? The only thing I remember them trying was loudly claiming he'd make lots of gaffes which fell apart so badly by the time of the first VP debate they were reduced to saying he'd win so handily it would be mean to Palin. I will also use this as an opportunity to post this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=no0e-mkhhbs
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 22:53
|
|
|
ut755ln posted:I have no inside information but since she is raising money and is hiring a staff to start working in places like Iowa and NH (her fund raising letter) I assume barring some disaster that she is definitely going to run. She has to do that to reserve the right to run because Biden's already living there. She's definitely serious about having the option. I'm not sure that it means she'll go through with it. Joementum posted:The danger for the Democrats is that any Hillary vs. Joe primary campaign runs the very real risk of friendly fire on issues that only the fringe right would otherwise attack them on. This is especially problematic in the age of super PACs that the candidates don't control. I don't think Democrats want to see the pro-Biden PAC putting up Benghazi ads or the pro-Hillary PAC hitting Joe on his advice to Obama during the bin Laden raid. Agreed. As I said, odds are they will make a joint call and one will cede to the other. The wildcard here is going to be Biden. If it turns out that Biden is not a huge Clinton fan (whether Hillary or Bill is up to the reader) and simply isn't going to put his 30 year fantasy away for Hillary's sake, it will get interesting quickly. Or maybe he's just gonna Trans Am a campaign because it's a 30 year fantasy and why the gently caress not. Either way, the so far almost completely unseen but gigantic anvil that'll become obvious for Hillary supporters around October, 2015 is that Iowa is her worst state. If Biden runs it'll be his best. That still makes him the second biggest star in a binary star system, but much darker horses have beaten Hillary for nominations before. PS: if you think Cuomo beats Biden in Iowa, South Carolina, or Nevada, good luck with that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 22:55
|
|
|
ReV VAdAUL posted:What would be the GOP line of attack on Biden? Being Vice President in the administration of B. Hussein Obamacare.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 22:57
|
|
|
Adar posted:Absolutely no idea and I'm not going to even try to handicap it with any degree of accuracy for 2.5 more years. I imagine it'll be some third tier contender for the nom or somebody who looks like a rising star. If I had to pick three people to put 100:1 bets on right now, they'd be Booker, O'Malley and Gillibrand in roughly that order, but this is some serious tea leaf reading poo poo. The one thing I would bet is that he wouldn't pick another white dude from the megalopolis, which would take out O'Malley (and Cuomo). Booker and Gillibrand would be my two best bets, but it could really be anyone; Biden himself wouldn't have been on a 30 deep list of potential Democratic VPs in 2005 before he acquitted himself extraordinarily well in his quixotic presidential campaign.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 22:58
|
|
|
Biden has been in Washington since 1973. I don't know how effective it would be but there would certainly be a contrast with the GOP candidate. Rubio was 2 years old, and Christie was 10.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 22:59
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:Biden himself wouldn't have been on a 30 deep list of potential Democratic VPs in 2005 before he acquitted himself extraordinarily well in his quixotic presidential campaign. From all the campaign retrospectives I've read (and I've read them all because I am insane) Obama picked Biden almost entirely because they got along well during the primaries and at debates, and it was over the objections of most of his advisers. This is actually the best reason to pick a particular person as Vice President and is one of the very, very few good staffing decisions Obama has made. Hillary at State turned out to be another one of those rare good decisions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 23:04
|
|
|
Adar posted:PS: if you think Cuomo beats Biden in Iowa, South Carolina, or Nevada, good luck with that. If Cuomo's running that means Hillary's definitely out and it's Biden's to lose.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 23:04
|
|
|
whoops sorry
pangstrom fucked around with this message at 23:16 on Aug 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 23:13
|
|
|
pangstrom posted:I think this is the thread where NYC mayor stuff has been going You're looking for the 2014 midterms thread. Though Bill de Blasio running for President would certainly shake things up in the race! (until people start casting votes at least)
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 23:15
|
|
|
Joementum posted:From all the campaign retrospectives I've read (and I've read them all because I am insane) Obama picked Biden almost entirely because they got along well during the primaries and at debates, and it was over the objections of most of his advisers. This is actually the best reason to pick a particular person as Vice President and is one of the very, very few good staffing decisions Obama has made. Hillary at State turned out to be another one of those rare good decisions. And he's trying his darndest to make up for thos sensible decisions by appointing Larry Summers as Fed chairman...
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 00:23
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:Biden has been in Washington since 1973. I don't know how effective it would be but there would certainly be a contrast with the GOP candidate. Rubio was 2 years old, and Christie was 10. Given the petulant behaviour of the GOP of late, giving the Dems an opportunity to openly call them children might just backfire.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 00:40
|
|
|
Joementum posted:This strategy has an interesting track record of success. I don't think you can really hold Ferraro responsible for Mondale's loss.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 00:48
|
|
|
Tempest_56 posted:The smart ones are probably waiting for 2020 to see if Clinton/Biden go for re-election in spite of their ages.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 01:07
|
|
|
Joementum posted:From all the campaign retrospectives I've read (and I've read them all because I am insane) Obama picked Biden almost entirely because they got along well during the primaries and at debates, and it was over the objections of most of his advisers. This is actually the best reason to pick a particular person as Vice President and is one of the very, very few good staffing decisions Obama has made. Hillary at State turned out to be another one of those rare good decisions. I don't think Obama's made as many lovely staffing calls as you do, what with Holder at Justice, Susan Rice and then Sam Power at U.N. Ambassador, and then Rice at NSA. I also liked Solis at Labor, and though I haven't seen enough of Perez to comment I've heard good things.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 01:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 21:44 |
|
|
The Warszawa posted:I don't think Obama's made as many lovely staffing calls as you do, what with Holder at Justice, Susan Rice and then Sam Power at U.N. Ambassador, and then Rice at NSA. I also liked Solis at Labor, and though I haven't seen enough of Perez to comment I've heard good things. You left out  Ray LaHood
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 01:16
|
|
