|
Is she liked by the left? I thought Obama won partially in that he was seen as the more left to Hillary's center.
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 05:24 |
|
|
He was left on what mattered, which was Iraq.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
Radish posted:Is she liked by the left? I thought Obama won partially in that he was seen as the more left to Hillary's center. Eh, she's viewed as 'rehabilitated' ever since her (largely successful) stint as Secretary of State. And considering that she's perceived as a lock on the presidency right now (and any D is better than any R, even if just for SCOTUS's sake), time has healed most wounds.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
Radish posted:Is she liked by the left? I thought Obama won partially in that he was seen as the more left to Hillary's center. She is incredibly well liked by what constitutes "the left" portion of the general electorate, her approval rating with the general population is as good as it gets for a politician with universal name recognition. In the activist wing there will be a vocal cadre who would like to oppose her but many of those would have opposed Obama in 2012 as well if there had been a viable opponent. It's going to be very difficult for any white male candidate to run a successful leftist insurgent campaign against Hillary.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
HFX posted:In my opinion Hillary would be a terrible choice for a candidate. She carries a lot of negative baggage and negativity left, right, and center. Then again, the Republicans can make even worse choices than Romney. Anecdotal, but I know a bunch of people who voted / worked for Obama in 08 and now are praying that Hillary runs, since they think she's the only one who can keep the White House.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 01:53
|
|
|
While it's true about left and center liking her quite a bit right now, we're also still discussing the idealized post-SoS Hillary that hasn't quite entered the political arena again yet. If she actively positions herself as a Third Way-er, I think the opposition from the activist left could become a lot less theoretical. I don't think she will do that of course, just saying
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 02:01
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:The best Biden was the one that was a hair from leaping over the desk and choking Alberto Gonzales over the torture stuff back in the Bush admin. The best Biden is a tie between the one who wrote the original VAWA and the one who dropped his presidential campaign to kill Bork's nomination.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 02:25
|
|
|
Radish posted:Is she liked by the left? I thought Obama won partially in that he was seen as the more left to Hillary's center. Well the moment the healthcare law passed everyone here started bitching that Hillary would have gotten a better bill through because she has better political experience and she's more dedicated to healthcare so I suppose so.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
I wouldn't count Biden out in the Democratic primary. Hillary is a very formidable candidate, but she has a lot of weaknesses and the Clintons have burned more bridges than Christie's jammed. Biden has a platform and a ticket to any Democratic fundraisers he wants to set up as long as he's got the White House and Senate hall passes. This puts him quite a few steps above what would otherwise be his Schweitzer-esque "straight talkin' white guy" campaign. I don't think Biden would make a particularly good President, even if he is the best Vice President of the modern era (low bar, I know). But the Clintons have never done well in Iowa and Joe'll be first among non-equals there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 02:32
|
|
|
Biden also has a whole list of people who appreciate his kind words on being elected Mayor of Boston.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 02:52
|
|
|
Edwards should leap back in!
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
Joementum posted:I wouldn't count Biden out in the Democratic primary. Hillary is a very formidable candidate, but she has a lot of weaknesses and the Clintons have burned more bridges than Christie's jammed. Biden has a platform and a ticket to any Democratic fundraisers he wants to set up as long as he's got the White House and Senate hall passes. This puts him quite a few steps above what would otherwise be his Schweitzer-esque "straight talkin' white guy" campaign. Hillary is very much the 'early consensus candidate' who the political establishment seems to like. Ask Ed Muskie how well that worked out for him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 03:21
|
|
|
DivineCoffeeBinge posted:Hillary is very much the 'early consensus candidate' who the political establishment seems to like. Or, you know, Hillary herself circa 2008.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 03:26
|
|
|
Well, they both "cried" in New Hampshire. Yup, this analogy is rock solid.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 03:32
|
|
|
Muskie cried in Maine, didn't he? Not that it really mattered, the most damaging fact about Hillary was that she was "undeserving" and only got her senate seat and shot at the presidency because of Bill. Now that she ran that long, public campaign and has served as Sec. of State that is gone from most people's minds, the only ones who remember weren't going to be voting for her anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
DivineCoffeeBinge posted:Hillary is very much the 'early consensus candidate' who the political establishment seems to like. Hillary probably won't have a sitting President hiring plumbers to sabotage her campaign, at least.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
HFX posted:In my opinion Hillary would be a terrible choice for a candidate. She carries a lot of negative baggage and negativity left, right, and center. Then again, the Republicans can make even worse choices than Romney. Most of that baggage would be aired during the primary. I'm not one of her supporters but most of that baggage is hot air, and once you compare it to what everyone else has you still have a candidate that has the most experience out of anyone in a long time. I seriously doubt anyone else will get the nomination, but if she does the GOP will just stick to what has worked so far against her. Which means it will play well to the base, but since they've continued to squander time on things other than establishing outreach they will lose the general.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 03:40
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:Not that it really mattered, the most damaging fact about Hillary was that she was "undeserving" and only got her senate seat and shot at the presidency because of Bill. No, it was that she voted for the war in Iraq.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
Joementum posted:No, it was that she voted for the war in Iraq. I was talking general, not primary.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
DivineCoffeeBinge posted:Hillary is very much the 'early consensus candidate' who the political establishment seems to like. Good job pulling that directly from the Brian Schweitzer interview a few days ago (with the same phrasing too). And of course Muskie never had even close to the lead Hillary does now, though to be sure plenty of that lead is illusory. As for Biden, the problem is that his career, current popularity, and past presidential campaigns simply don't add up to an impressive candidate. It's possible that he takes everyone by storm, but it's worth remembering that hilarious gaffes aren't an asset when you're running for President (they're bad).
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
dilbertschalter posted:Good job pulling that directly from the Brian Schweitzer interview a few days ago (with the same phrasing too). You never know, Biden vs Christie could be a gaff vs gasket-off, which would probably do wonders for voter turnout.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 04:10
|
|
|
DivineCoffeeBinge posted:Hillary is very much the 'early consensus candidate' who the political establishment seems to like. Muskie really? He was a paper tiger who collapsed with one swift kick from Nixonland and the establishment abandoned him for the guy they backed the previous cycle. On the whole being the establishment front runner is almost as valuable in Democratic primaries as it is in the Republican, Humphrey was not the best candidate the Democrats could have come up with in 68, Mondale in 84 or Gore in 2000 (Carter in 80 is also arguable) but winning a primary is as much about connections and allies as it is charisma and raw skill (and Hillary has more of both than any of the Democrats mentioned above).
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
Whats the consensus on Supreme Court appointments between now and 2016/2020. Ginsburg obviously is on the way out sometime this decade and maybe Breyer (trade liberals for liberals, no big change). What would really be interesting If Kennedy or even Scalia (both 77) retire or die under a Democratic President. Fake Edit: Is there a better thread to post about this?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
Ginsberg has been very vocal about not retiring until she's physically incapable of saying the word "retire", but you'll get a better analysis in the SCOTUS thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
It's in Scalia's living will to be kept on life support until a Republican president is inaugurated.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
Lycus posted:It's in Scalia's living will to be kept on life support until a Republican president is inaugurated. I mean I assume not for real, but you never know. It wouldn't really shock me any more.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:Whats the consensus on Supreme Court appointments between now and 2016/2020. Ginsburg obviously is on the way out sometime this decade and maybe Breyer (trade liberals for liberals, no big change). What would really be interesting If Kennedy or even Scalia (both 77) retire or die under a Democratic President. I think its certainly relevant discussion for the 2016 election. However, if you'd like, the SCOTUS thread is here, it falls off the first page inbetween decisions. Scalia is hanging on until he dies, and something tells me that Ginsburg is going to as well, I think she really cares about what she does. By that token, so does Scalia of course. I'd thought Ginsburg might try and let Obama appoint someone, but given Senate gridlock I'm not totally surprised she hasn't, as she is probably one of the farthest to the left, and I don't know if Obama could replicate her very closely.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
Nessus posted:For real? I think they have to sacrifice young law clerks to keep him going now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:Whats the consensus on Supreme Court appointments between now and 2016/2020. Ginsburg obviously is on the way out sometime this decade and maybe Breyer (trade liberals for liberals, no big change). What would really be interesting If Kennedy or even Scalia (both 77) retire or die under a Democratic President. There's a SCOTUS thread so probably, though there is always the implication of the importance of Supreme Court appointments on the presidential choice, any way you slice it though the answer is that it is a very loving important factor. Actuarially the liberals are about even with the conservatives on near term chances of a... forced departure, longer term the conservatives have more to lose but they will also fight like holy hell to never lose their majority. If the Democrats lose control of the Senate next year Obama can kiss goodbye any chance of appointing another justice, as it is Reid will have to go full nuclear option to get anyone through.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
Ginsberg might retire if the Senate is okay following 2014 but she might just as easily hang on until 2016 for the (hopefully) wipe of the Tea Party Senators.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
I highly doubt Ginsberg is waiting for a better Senate or President to retire. Obama already got Sotomayor through. RBG is confident that she can keep doin' her thing and she's going to keep doing it until she can't.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
Going back to the Christie nonsense, it raises the hilarious question of whether or not Romney picked Ryan for VP because he was the least flawed of them all. Let's look at the shortlist (according to Double Down):
That leaves Ryan. He's still got the budget albatross on his neck, but unlike the other's he's (fairly) charismatic and popular among the Tea Party (until he agreed to something that wasn't "Kill every Dem ever"). This is probably a hella wrong view of the events, but it's interesting to think about 
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 11:58
|
|
|
Why did Democrats not include SCOTUS appointments, when they did away with the judicial filibusters, again?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
ufarn posted:Why did Democrats not include SCOTUS appointments, when they did away with the judicial filibusters, again? Because they love being short-sighted that it would be available if they ever needed to, and/or that's a powerful, powerful position that would rightly deserve pulling out all the stops on. As opposed to judicial appointee slot #125 that is being blocked for no good reason.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
Is it pretty likely the googly eyed homunculus Scott Walker is running in 2016?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 16:21
|
|
|
ufarn posted:Why did Democrats not include SCOTUS appointments, when they did away with the judicial filibusters, again? It would also foreclose all possibility of future bipartisan cooperation on SCOTUS nominations which has been the historical norm. It doesn't matter though the precedent has been set that the Democrats are willing to go full nuclear mid session any time the Republicans are being obstinate. In the very likely scenario where the Republicans let Ted Cruz lead the war cry to stop any name Obama puts up for the court it will be easy for Reid to just do it again. Put another way there is zero chance of Republicans holding up a SCOTUS nomination with only Republican votes (unless they take the Senate in which case there is a 100% chance of them blocking any nominee with a pulse for the remainder of Obama's term). duz posted:Fig leaf. DynamicSloth fucked around with this message at 16:31 on Jan 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
ufarn posted:Why did Democrats not include SCOTUS appointments, when they did away with the judicial filibusters, again? Because filibustering that has never been done before and the American public sees manipulating SCOTUS judges as being for inherent personal gain (even going back to court packing in the 30s).
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
ufarn posted:Why did Democrats not include SCOTUS appointments, when they did away with the judicial filibusters, again? Fig leaf.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 16:30
|
|
|
Senators in both parties are not monolithic blocs. Some Democratic Senators probably wanted a lower cloture threshold for SCOTUS nominees, but not all of them. Remember that filibuster reform passed by a single vote. They went with the reform that they could all agree on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 05:24 |
|
|
menino posted:Is it pretty likely the googly eyed homunculus Scott Walker is running in 2016? He might run but I don't think he's smart enough or has enough intelligent backers to really get far unless he is literally all the GOP has by next election.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 16:44
|
|