|
FMguru posted:When considering the value of polls this far out from an election, remember that at this point in the cycle twelve years ago, the polls showed that Joe Lieberman had a lock on the 2004 Democratic nomination. Yeah, I think the Gallup 2005 poll for 2008 looked like this: 
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 19:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 05:29 |
|
|
Lieberman in a three way tie for third is where he's the most dangerous. By the way, Adar, good points on that article!
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 19:17
|
|
|
While I think many of Adar's points are decent, I also think that to expect someone as competent as Hillary Clinton to have learned nothing from the last go-around is absurd. I suppose it's possible that she's so arrogant she thinks it was a fluke and she can do the same thing again, but I'd think it's more likely she's got people analyzing every aspect of what she did wrong (and most of it is sufficiently obvious that there are discussions of it all over the internet) and will correct it next time. I think she took far too much for granted, and had some weaknesses exposed last time around, but I just don't believe she'll make the same mistakes again. I think that gives her far too little credit. In the same way that you can't read too much into the polling at this point, I also don't think you can read much into her campaign strategy at this point. Adar, I know you're going pretty heavily in on Biden. Are you expecting to use that later to arbitrage when people suddenly realize he's a lot more viable than they thought, and his odds shorten, or do you really think it's a good bet that he'll take the whole thing?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 00:53
|
|
|
Hillary hasn't had a strong political organization really at any point ever and the tea leaves on Hillary 2016 are that it's going to be the same insular Hillaryland gang back together, only turning over a few of the names at the top. I don't think replacing Howard Wolfson and Patti Solis Doyle with Philippe Reines and Huma Abedin (or whatever the exact shifts ultimately are) in the inner circle really heralds a different campaign, and many of the problems are specific to Clinton as a candidate more than flaws in her campaign or strategy itself. Maybe Biden implodes and nobody else emerges and it doesn't matter. Maybe her support gets deeper. But there are real reasons to be skeptical.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 01:04
|
|
|
Majestic posted:While I think many of Adar's points are decent, I also think that to expect someone as competent as Hillary Clinton to have learned nothing from the last go-around is absurd. I suppose it's possible that she's so arrogant she thinks it was a fluke and she can do the same thing again, but I'd think it's more likely she's got people analyzing every aspect of what she did wrong (and most of it is sufficiently obvious that there are discussions of it all over the internet) and will correct it next time. My bet placement over the next two years will be something like break even if Hillary wins / win big with O'Malley or Gillibrand +1-2 other hedges TBD / win house if Biden wins / lose house if anyone else does. Arbitrage will be a key component (it's two freaking years, have to think long term here) but I'm completely fine with risking big to get vast amounts of EV when I see it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 01:13
|
|
|
I think you're all ignoring the real dark horse candidate. I am speaking, of course, of Evan Bayh.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 01:55
|
|
|
crowfeathers posted:I think you're all ignoring the real dark horse candidate. I am speaking, of course, of Evan Bayh. Who?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 02:06
|
|
|
notthegoatseguy posted:At least the Daniels and Jeb stuff was known and published in mainstream media sources. Shame, he coulda really killed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 02:09
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 02:23
|
|
|
crowfeathers posted:I think you're all ignoring the real dark horse candidate. I am speaking, of course, of Evan Bayh. Ahahahahaha. That would be amazing if he did throw his hat into the ring. He's way too much of a Hillary booster to challenge her though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 03:27
|
|
|
Hillary didn't exactly flame out in 2008, she competed in all 50 states and won 21 of them and 48% of the raw vote, racking up 46% of the delegates. She's had more Democratic Primary voters cast a ballot for her than anyone alive and more than all the other candidates eligible to run in 2016, combined. jeffersonlives posted:Hillary hasn't had a strong political organization really at any point ever and the tea leaves on Hillary 2016 are that it's going to be the same insular Hillaryland gang back together, only turning over a few of the names at the top. I don't think replacing Howard Wolfson and Patti Solis Doyle with Philippe Reines and Huma Abedin (or whatever the exact shifts ultimately are) in the inner circle really heralds a different campaign, and many of the problems are specific to Clinton as a candidate more than flaws in her campaign or strategy itself.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 03:35
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:Where are you getting this from, how can anyone know who is going to be on a non-existent campaign team? I'm sure there are meetings going on and hacks a plenty positioning themselves but there's no set team yet, no one's drawing a salary for Hillary 2016. For all I know it will be the exact same team or a completely different one. Huma Abedin will surely continue to be Hillary's Reggie Love but she's probably not getting a higher profile as long as she's married to Weiner. Hillary's political operation has been gearing up ever since she left Foggy Bottom, realistically even before that. Do you really think stuff like the "Ready For Hillary" shadow campaign just sprouts up on its own? This is not a politician that brings in outsiders to run her poo poo. Abedin got seriously elevated in Hillaryland after the 2008 campaign and is now one of Clinton's top advisors, perhaps the single top one other than WJC. She is not a body person anymore and she's not going to get dumped by Hillary loving Clinton of all people because her husband has wandering eyes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 04:30
|
|
|
Haha, I only just googled "Aqua Buddha", and I have finally seen the light. All this time I assumed it was someone misspelling a name or something. I'd have actually respected Paul if he loving owned those shenanigans, even if he went "I am no longer a witch" on us.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 04:47
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:Hillary's political operation has been gearing up ever since she left Foggy Bottom, realistically even before that. Do you really think stuff like the "Ready For Hillary" shadow campaign just sprouts up on its own? This is not a politician that brings in outsiders to run her poo poo. jeffersonlives posted:Abedin got seriously elevated in Hillaryland after the 2008 campaign and is now one of Clinton's top advisors, perhaps the single top one other than WJC. She is not a body person anymore and she's not going to get dumped by Hillary loving Clinton of all people because her husband has wandering eyes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 04:49
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:Hillary's political operation has been gearing up ever since she left Foggy Bottom, realistically even before that. Do you really think stuff like the "Ready For Hillary" shadow campaign just sprouts up on its own? Her gaze pierces cloud, shadow, earth and flesh. DynamicSloth posted:Ready for Hillary by legal necessity can't be run by the people who will end up running Hillary's campaign, in all likelihood Hillary and some of the people who will be heading the campaign made decisions about how it would be set up but none of their names are going to be attached for good reason. This contradicts anything jeffersonlives said?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 05:12
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:This contradicts anything jeffersonlives said? To the extant he asserted it to explain why he thinks he knows who will be running Hillary's 2016 campaign. I'm not saying their aren't people who aren't meeting with Hillary right now about strategy some of whom will end up on the letterhead in a year and half when she declares but there is no way to know who those people are let alone which ones are going to end up on staff (other than that you can rule out most of the names attached to Ready for Hillary).
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 05:23
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:To the extant he asserted it to explain why he thinks he knows who will be running Hillary's 2016 campaign. I think everyone who has been paying even nominal attention to Hillary Clinton over her three decades in politics can make a very educated guess as to the rough outlines of who will be running Hillary Clinton's campaign if such a campaign arises. The Clintons are famously insular with this stuff, Hillary even more than Bill. It's also pretty naive to suggest that the "main" campaign superPACs aren't a part of the campaign structure. The laws on coordination have gotten threadbare thin here, and the Romney campaign especially funneled key Romney people to "independently" run Restore Our Future; the Obama campaign even reversed course and had to do the same with Priorities after a spell.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 05:34
|
|
|
In my fantasy world, she lures Carville out of retirement and Pennebaker films a sequel to The War Room in which a now-dated Carville is constantly, colorfully bitching about The Gawddamn Twittah and Th- th- this squirrely fuckin' Youtube rigamarole and so on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 06:34
|
|
|
In my fantasy world, Pennebaker just follows Carville around for several years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 06:37
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:In my fantasy world, Pennebaker just follows Carville around for several years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 07:30
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:I think everyone who has been paying even nominal attention to Hillary Clinton over her three decades in politics can make a very educated guess as to the rough outlines of who will be running Hillary Clinton's campaign if such a campaign arises. The Clintons are famously insular with this stuff, Hillary even more than Bill. There's no reason to believe Hillary won't be trying to poach talent from other corners of the party particularly since (unlike in 2008) there manifestly are more talented people who've run previous Democratic Presidential campaigns outside the Clinton orbit. To the very limited extent any information on who is being looked at is possible it seems like that orbit is growing. Bill Burton's Priorities USA PAC is also moving to back Clinton, and he's certainly an Obama Democrat. jeffersonlives posted:It's also pretty naive to suggest that the "main" campaign superPACs aren't a part of the campaign structure.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 07:49
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that regardless of whether or not that's true (the black primary vote wasn't nearly as overwhelmingly one-sided until a) Obama showed viability in Iowa or b) Clinton doused those bridges in gasoline and lit them up), Obama winning Iowa was critical and about as far from dependent on black primary voters as possible. Obama winning Iowa was very important for a variety of reasons, but the idea that Clinton somehow "lost" the black vote has roughly zero connection to reality. While Obama winning Iowa obviously didn't have much to do with the black vote, it still was a favorable environment for him from both geographic and organizational perspectives.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 08:48
|
|
|
Noted truck-haver Scott Brown trucked it over to Iowa last night to not talk about his truck.quote:We’ll just have to see where all this leads — that’s my attitude. And here’s a little tip for Iowa political observers: You’ll know things are serious when I show up in my pickup truck. Thankfully, nobody. Also, this: quote:I ran on issues, and I fought clean. Which is an interesting statement from the candidate whose campaign brought us the nickname "Fauxcahontas". The rest of his speech was about how Obama is a tyrant and we need to return to the days of Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan selling out the country. Not a bad stump speech, actually.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 13:56
|
|
|
Is it wrong to want it to come down to Clinton vs Paul just on the off chance the Political Kombat guys do a surrogate fight round of the Southern Avenger vs Carlos Danger?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 14:07
|
|
|
ReindeerF posted:In my fantasy world, she lures Carville out of retirement and Pennebaker films a sequel to The War Room in which a now-dated Carville is constantly, colorfully bitching about The Gawddamn Twittah and Th- th- this squirrely fuckin' Youtube rigamarole and so on. Only if Robert Downey Jr. makes a sequel to The Last Party as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 15:45
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Noted truck-haver Scott Brown trucked it over to Iowa last night to not talk about his truck. It is awful having to deal with the flocks of northern conservatives that elected him, since his late father's residence was right down the street. You'd expect Brown to have gone down to D.C. in a superman costume the way people have created such a delusional tale of his greatness and exploits in his partial term. The only saving grace is that there is a large liberal contingent in the nearby "city" of Newburyport so there is a steady supply of Warren bumper stickers that cause Brown supporters to flip their poo poo regularly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 16:37
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:Hillary didn't exactly flame out in 2008, she competed in all 50 states and won 21 of them and 48% of the raw vote, racking up 46% of the delegates. She's had more Democratic Primary voters cast a ballot for her than anyone alive and more than all the other candidates eligible to run in 2016, combined. Looking at this statement made me wonder what would happen if you considered Jimmy Carter as eligible to run. Turns out he'd make the second part not true.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 17:14
|
|
|
JakBauer posted:Looking at this statement made me wonder what would happen if you considered Jimmy Carter as eligible to run. Turns out he'd make the second part not true. Yeah that probably should have been with the caveat *going back to 1990, but of course Hillary still had more people vote for her than Carter did in both of his successful primaries (combined).
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 17:21
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:Hillary didn't exactly flame out in 2008, she competed in all 50 states and won 21 of them and 48% of the raw vote, racking up 46% of the delegates. She's had more Democratic Primary voters cast a ballot for her than anyone alive and more than all the other candidates eligible to run in 2016, combined. Hillary ran the worst presidential primary campaign since at least Thomas Dewey. Plenty of no-hopes have run bad campaigns, but it takes a special breed of failure to squander an overwhelming advantage twice, the second time through literally not understanding the rules under which she was running. She also came within a hair of losing her campaign in the first three weeks. In the world where the cameras don't pick up her 7 AM diner tears, she loses Iowa, loses NH, gets swept in South Carolina and Nevada and then goes into Super Tuesday dead in the water. After NH, she went on to pick up an overwhelming percentage of her votes in areas where Obama purposefully didn't sink resources (because he was busy picking up caucus delegates and uncommitted supers for free) or Appalachia. Her campaign was embarrassingly bad. It's difficult to accurately portray just how bad because most of that stuff is lost to the Wayback Machine now, but those of us who remember that race very well because we had a fiscal interest in it knew it was over three months before she conceded. She took the biggest structural advantages that any candidate has had in the modern era and pissed them down a well. dilbertschalter posted:Obama winning Iowa was very important for a variety of reasons, but the idea that Clinton somehow "lost" the black vote has roughly zero connection to reality. Iowa is by no means favorable for a guy like Notably Not Entirely White Male Barack Hussein Obama under normal circumstances. It had two very big things going for him: -he was perceived as the liberal alternative to Hillary; -he was perceived as an alternative to Hillary, who is possibly the least suited person to run in the 6 to 12 month continuious meet and greet at the county fair campaign that Iowa represents. This last part has not changed. On the other hand, Notably Already Living In Iowa Joe Biden could probably retire to Iowa and be elected Mayor of Being Cool in Des Moines for life.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 18:31
|
|
|
Adar posted:Hillary ran the worst presidential primary campaign since at least Thomas Dewey. Plenty of no-hopes have run bad campaigns, but it takes a special breed of failure to squander an overwhelming advantage twice, the second time through literally not understanding the rules under which she was running. She also came within a hair of losing her campaign in the first three weeks. In the world where the cameras don't pick up her 7 AM diner tears, she loses Iowa, loses NH, gets swept in South Carolina and Nevada and then goes into Super Tuesday dead in the water. Your definition of worst is curious, certainly when I say she didn't run the worst campaign (or even a particularly bad campaign) I mean it as suggestive of her future prospects, Bill Buckner may blow the biggest play of his career that doesn't make him a worse ball player then a minor league washout. Her errors certainly had higher cost but only because she was in the running in the first place. I can think of a half dozen Biden and Gingrich gaffes that would have totally derailed their campaigns if anyone had been paying attention to them at the time. Hillary gathered a huge advantage, if not quite the lopsided advantage you're portraying (i.e. the money race was always tight) that's not a tick against her, it's step one in becoming President. Contrasting with Biden who ran twice and never really managed to compete. He's gone to live in Iowa before and it didn't help him then either, you go to live in Iowa when you have no money to compete elsewhere and need a win to get in the game.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 19:44
|
|
|
I'm closer to agreeing with Adar than not on this one. I remember clearly just how inevitable Hillary first appeared during the early primary campaign, and how very, very badly she got shook up when Obama took Iowa. I had any number of conversations, both here and in real life, pre-Iowa about how I personally hoped Obama would pull of something as I preferred him to Hillary because of the Iraq factor (and yes, not a little  as well if I'm being honest), but that I didn't think it particularly likely he could stop the Clinton machine (Bill and Hillary). To be honest, I half-figured at the time he and Edwards would end up fighting it out for "most likely VP pick," and it's hard to exaggerate just how badly Hillary's campaign flailed about after Iowa, trying but failing to understand and counter this new campaigning style.She had the whole thing close to all sewn up in the conventional wisdom at the primary's start, and utterly blew the massive advantages no other candidate had starting out. And that's charitably leaving out all the laughable Mark Penn stuff.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 19:54
|
|
|
I think "worst" is tougher when you're weighing primaries. I mean we did just live through 2012. Still, he means in reference to real candidates who shot out of the gate with a huge advantage and not NINE NINE NINE. Not understanding the rules for winning really is evidence of monumental mismanagement, as was the constant publicized drama and infighting. What that means for her in 2016, should she run, is less clear. Hillary's an incrementalist. She's not a natural politician, but she got better at it. She's not a natural public speaker, but she got better at it - and so on. I could see her bringing forth a much better campaign this time. It's really down to the rest of the field. Who is the upstart next-wave political machine-builder who we haven't heard of yet? Obama's people and Clinton's people represent all the known knowns. Who are the unknown unknowns and who do they support? Hopefully Joe The Biden will run, though, so I can support him again ^__^ It's worth it for that moment when he lands in India for a summit and asks where the 7-11s are and whether they're run by Americans there, but earnestly and excitedly - not in that mean Dubya way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 20:01
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:I'm closer to agreeing with Adar than not on this one. I remember clearly just how inevitable Hillary first appeared during the early primary campaign, and how very, very badly she got shook up when Obama took Iowa. I had any number of conversations, both here and in real life, pre-Iowa about how I personally hoped Obama would pull of something as I preferred him to Hillary because of the Iraq factor (and yes, not a little I was definitely cheering against Hillary in 08 as well but the fact is she did turn it around after a stunning Iowa rebuke, she won New Hampshire after momentum had swung and she was down in the polls. Her plan B strategy slapdash as it was almost worked as well, if she'd managed to climb maybe 5% more by Super Tuesday she could've had a very credible argument that she'd edged out Obama on delegates rather than the vice versa. Remember Super Tuesday was unprecedentedly large that year and Clinton was definitely gaining up ground going into the voting, unfortunately the team had bet everything on winning big and had never taken a clear eyed looked at what would happen on a split decision. Certainly this was political malpractice of the highest order but not totally unexpected given that very rarely have Primaries been anywhere close to competitive after Super Tuesday and the scale of this one suggested it was even less likely in the 08 cycle. ReindeerF posted:Not understanding the rules for winning really is evidence of monumental mismanagement, as was the constant publicized drama and infighting. And another high profile Obama Democrat has moved to the Hillary camp.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 20:08
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:There's never been a losing campaign that wasn't portrayed this way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 20:13
|
|
|
But let's pretend Biden and Hillary both run. In what way can Biden really be the liberal alternative to Hillary? I cannot think of any definitive issue where Biden is much further to the left of Hillary. Obama benefited from really having a fairly short time in the national spotlight. Biden and Clinton have been around for decades so we know exactly where they stand.
notthegoatseguy fucked around with this message at 20:16 on Nov 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 20:13
|
|
|
In actual policy terms it's drat near a wash with all of the big names. Biden, you might get a bit more realistic foreign policy than Hillary's hawkish tendencies and with Hillary you might get a little less pandering to the credit card companies than Biden, but it's the peas and not the steak, frankly. Gore, Biden, Obama, Hillary, Dean, Clinton, you name it, they're all center-right. Love the gays, happy to sell out regulation to the financial industry for donor dollars. One question I've been wondering about - how does McAuliffe's new role affect his ability to carry out his duties as a Clinton/DLC bag man? EDIT: I was so proud when Moyers also called him a bag man last week.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 20:16
|
|
|
Biden is more locked into his positions though, he can't run away from anything the administration will have done in the past 8 years since his entire candidacy is premised on his membership on team Obama. Clinton if she wants to (and she may not) can carve out a little room to criticize Obama from the left on some safe issues.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 20:19
|
|
|
Lots of "Obama Democrats" will move to the greater Hillary camp, especially the ones like Messina that signed on after the 2008 primaries. The interesting questions are whether any of them pierce the inner circle, and also whether one of the Obama 08 primary campaign powerbrokers like Plouffe or Axelrod decides to go find their own candidate, whether that's ultimately Biden or someone else.notthegoatseguy posted:But let's pretend Biden and Hillary both run. In what way can Biden really be the liberal alternative to Hillary? I cannot think of any definitive issue where Biden is much further to the left of Hillary. Biden would be perceived as more liberal on issues like gay rights and immigration due to past actions even though they're functionally going to have the same 2016 platforms. Hillary's also always hittable from the left on foreign policy in a Dem primary.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 20:20
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:Biden is more locked into his positions though Like I said, I think she's an incrementalist and would run a better campaign, but I won't accept whitewashing the undisputed facts of why she lost or who she is. She's a well-known public figure with 20 years of highly public votes, advocacy and controversy under her belt. Biden's the same, but with an even longer record. Neither is pure as the driven snow like Obama was, so arguing on that basis is moot, frankly. Neither will win or lose based on the inability of their opponents to box them in on their past positions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 20:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 05:29 |
|
|
ReindeerF posted:One question I've been wondering about - how does McAuliffe's new role affect his ability to carry out his duties as a Clinton/DLC bag man? Unless there's some Virginia law on it, probably nothing. But I don't know if it is likely he'd be an actual figure since he has a full time job now. But he can still fundraise all he wants, either through his own or someone else's PAC. The major advantage Hillary has right now is she, unlike Biden, has actually won an early primary or caucus state before: New Hampshire. Biden hasn't. He's camping out and sucking up to everyone in these states because he's still trying to figure out where he can win and win big. Iowa' a good bet but then again, he's got a horrible electoral track record when it comes to running for President. notthegoatseguy fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Nov 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 20:26
|
|