|
Bicyclops posted:That said, even Hillary Clinton's experience may not help her get past the vitriol the right have for her. I just can't think of another likely to run candidate who's better right now. The vitriol will be the best part. You know the crazies are going to pull out Vince Foster and the old conspiracies from the 90s and go absolutely batshit insane when she is running. This combined with the guaranteed Republican primary clown show is the perfect recipe for quality entertainment.
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 01:45 |
|
|
Nuclearmonkee posted:The vitriol will be the best part. You know the crazies are going to pull out Vince Foster and the old conspiracies from the 90s and go absolutely batshit insane when she is running. And it will make the valid questions about the truly horrible people she and her husband have surrounded themselves with seem crazy too. mcmagic fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Jan 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
Nuclearmonkee posted:The vitriol will be the best part. You know the crazies are going to pull out Vince Foster and the old conspiracies from the 90s and go absolutely batshit insane when she is running. It'll be great political theater for sure, but so has the 113th Congress, and I don't think another eight years of it will be particularly helpful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:The answer to your question is Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Considering that Clinton's SCOTUS process was so hosed up that he basically let Orrin Hatch pick the nominee, the argument that "Clinton governed as a liberal because he appointed Ginsburg" has only a little more credibility than "George H.W. Bush governed as a liberal because he appointed David Souter." Clinton's first inclinations were white guys like Bruce Babbitt and Mario Cuomo. Clinton also signed the Unholy Trinity of '96, which at best was trying to pretend that lovely right-wing ideas were his own all along and at worst were actually his lovely right-wing ideas all along. Given that the increasingly critical role that voters of color play in the Democratic Party's continuing vulnerability, I'm still hoping we can stop fielding candidates whose records are checkered with various attempts (many successful) to throw communities of color under the bus. My biggest concern in a hypothetical Hillary Clinton administration isn't that she's going to appoint stealth conservatives, but that the process is going to be such a clusterfuck that we end up with "compromise" nominees.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:IDK to me an actual on the record vote in the senate carries more weight than what you're describing. The same vote Biden, Kerry and Edwards made. Anyone running for President in 2016 will have been an active public figure in spring 2003, there should be a record of where they stood and if you can't make a credible case that you'd have made a different vote how are you going to criticize Hillary? Certainly there are Democrats who can credibly make the claim but I can't think of any who are also viable Presidential candidates. Obama is a preternaturally gifted politician but he also succeeded due to an inordinate amount of luck, given his later policies it is difficult to imagine Obama wouldn't have made the same vote as all the other ambitious national politicians in 2002 but at the time he was still only an ambitious state politician.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
Bicyclops posted:It'll be great political theater for sure, but so has the 113th Congress, and I don't think another eight years of it will be particularly helpful. Well I don't think productive is really on the table at this point. I'm just hoping for more left leaning supremes and no possibility for the Rs to push through the worst of their agenda.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:Might want to check your math there. Whoops, fudged that one. Though Gore got 10%, Kerry 7% and 7% to other named candidates in that December poll so the combined opposition did outmatch Hillary. In today's poll Biden and Warren are the only other candidates to break 1% support, and the total opposition support tops out at 21%.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:My biggest concern in a hypothetical Hillary Clinton administration isn't that she's going to appoint stealth conservatives, but that the process is going to be such a clusterfuck that we end up with "compromise" nominees. I can't imagine a scenario in which nominations aren't clusterfucky from now on, though. Is a Biden nominee going to face any less opposition from the obstructionist GOP?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
mdemone posted:I can't imagine a scenario in which nominations aren't clusterfucky from now on, though. Is a Biden nominee going to face any less opposition from the obstructionist GOP? I think I was unclear: I mean the process leading up to the nomination, not the confirmation process. When it comes down to brass tacks, a Supreme Court nominee is probably going to get through unless they just totally screw the pooch like Miers did, and if the GOP held the line on a Supreme Court nominee filibuster we'd have another rules change in a minute. The problem is the internal process that leads to that nomination. The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Jan 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
Oh, I see what you mean. I agree in that case.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I would love for someone to explain her appeal to me. Especially to people who consider themselves liberals. Hillary Clinton seems so inevitable at this point that I think a lot of people have been trying to convince themselves that she'll be a good president as a way of trying to make themselves feel better about the future in general...
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
Math Debater posted:Hillary Clinton seems so inevitable at this point that I think a lot of people have been trying to convince themselves that she'll be a good president as a way of trying to make themselves feel better about the future in general... This is probably as good as it's going to get explanation wise.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:This is probably as good as it's going to get explanation wise. Well that and I don't really see anyone who's that much better from the list of likely Democratic hopefuls.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:This is probably as good as it's going to get explanation wise. She's also not a Republican, which these days days gotta count for something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:Washington Post/ABC polling: You forgot to post the republican half of the poll: 
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
mastervj posted:She's also not a Republican, which these days days gotta count for something. This is a big factor. Even Third Way Democrats are preferable to actual republicans. I think someone said it best up thread, I'd vote for a Democratic Ham Sandwich if it could nominate liberal Justices I accept that my positions on the Clintons and other third way folks are likely coloured by my various privileges (white, straight, male, bourgeois family). I'd obviously prefer President Sanders but the odds on him winning tho nomination are a mite long
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
Clinton will have the same centre-left neo-liberal policy platform as ever other Democratic candidate in the past quarter century, she'll have the opportunity to govern slightly to the left or right of that, and with existing evidence it's hard to say how her presidency would shake out. Hillary has never for one moment been a political clone of Bill. She was among the left flank of her husband's advisors in office and she did not run her 2008 campaign with the same explicit centrist rhetoric as Clinton 92. The trade off for having a strong woman candidate poised to hold the White House for the Democrats after 8 years in office (by no means a historic likelihood) is against the vanishingly small chance of electing someone who runs to the left of her, can get elected and would actually and effectively enact a more left wing agenda. The fact that no one can even point at anyone who could hypothetically carry those expectations is telling.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
I can't conceive how hard the right wing will double down if Hillary is elected. After 8 years of Obama they must be closing in on an asymptote.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
mastervj posted:She's also not a Republican, which these days days gotta count for something. Pretty much. For all of Hilary's problems, she's going to be our only alternative to someone who thinks that having a minimum wage is communism, that there should be zero tax on corporations and that we should imprison/shoot all people who are not straight white men. It's a choice between brussel sprouts and cyanide, so you take what you can get.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:
I know DOMA and the Glass-Steagall repeal, but what was the 3rd?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 22:06
|
|
|
The X-man cometh posted:I know DOMA and the Glass-Steagall repeal, but what was the 3rd? Guessing the Telecom Act, though Gramm-Leach-Bliley was in 99.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
Clinton's welfare cuts were in 1996 as well and those were huge. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Act
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
The X-man cometh posted:I know DOMA and the Glass-Steagall repeal, but what was the 3rd? Nah, the Unholy Trinity is PRWORA, AEDPA, and IIRIRA. Welfare "reform," habeas/prisoner litigation "reform," and immigration "reform." All three bills were incredibly hosed up and damaging.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
fermun posted:Clinton's welfare cuts were in 1996 as well and those were huge. The bill was an utter disaster.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
Also: NAFTA.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
It's definitely an open question how much of Bill Clinton's record meaningfully reflects on Hillary on a political or policy level, though I think the 2008 campaign shows that it's certainly something she's willing to say shows her suitability to lead, plus the inevitable role that Bill would play in any Hillary administration.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
FMguru posted:Also: NAFTA. He also seems to have paid no price for being 100% wrong on financial deregulation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:He also seems to have paid no price for being 100% wrong on financial deregulation. Clinton benefits a lot from his successor being W
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
Bicyclops posted:That said, even Hillary Clinton's experience may not help her get past the vitriol the right have for her. joeburz posted:I can't conceive how hard the right wing will double down if Hillary is elected. After 8 years of Obama they must be closing in on an asymptote. It's not like they're gonna behave with any other Democratic candidate. Whether or not you believe that race is a factor here with their reception of Obama or history feeds into their Clinton fetish, the fact is that there's no turning this boat around. Too many people have buried themselves too deeply in the hate machine and too many folks are making too much money off it to just pack up shop once Obama's gone. But the flip side is that there's a limit on how much trouble they can cause. Even if there's no limit on how crazy they can get, unless you think they're not going to blink on budget/debt ceiling again, it's not like they can get more obstructive. Yeah, sure they can impeach, hire a dozen special prosecutors, or turn up the rhetoric, but it's not like we'll get less done legislatively. Ditto the campaign side - they're going to be throwing hundreds of millions of dollars worth of mud no matter who the nominee is, and the way our media rolls the Dems could nominate Pope Francis and we'd have a "both sides differ on whether Francis is the Anti-Christ" debate on Meet The Press.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
Also just from a pure electoral standpoint, Hillary will be able to raise more money than any other potential Dem candidate, and probably most of the Republicans if her old Wall Street friends pour cash into her Super PACs (even if it's just because they're sure she'll win and want to be on her good side). And I think we're underestimating the draw she's going to have among women voters, which could grow as the GOP candidates can't help themselves from saying sexist things that will inspire backlash. On the flip side of that, men for whatever reason (sexism, generally being more Republican) respond poorly to her so the gender gap is going to be huge. I still think she draws enough white women that would usually vote Republican to make it a big net plus though. The media will play up the historic nature of her candidacy as it gets closer to the general election and it could become an overpowering narrative by election day.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
I'd personally love to see a Ryan/Romney ticket.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
Sad Banana posted:Also just from a pure electoral standpoint, Hillary will be able to raise more money than any other potential Dem candidate, and probably most of the Republicans if her old Wall Street friends pour cash into her Super PACs (even if it's just because they're sure she'll win and want to be on her good side). I think we're past the point of any major party nominee having serious trouble raising funds. The only real variable is who they raise funds from.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
Cheekio posted:I'd personally love to see a Ryan/Romney ticket. Bonus points if Romney interrupts a Ryan chant to make sure it's Ryan/Romney.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
notthegoatseguy posted:I think we're past the point of any major party nominee having serious trouble raising funds. The only real variable is who they raise funds from. That's quite the supposition. A major party nominee is going to be able to raise large amounts of money sure, but that doesn't mean they can't easily be outspent. All other factors being equal, post Citizens United, generic Republican is going to swamp generic Democrat. Obama was always a strong fundraiser even while he was polling far below Hillary in '08 but the only reason he could pull close to even with Romney in 2012 (a guy who basically self-financed his 08 campaign) is because he enjoyed the natural advantage of being an incumbent president polling consistently above his opponent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
I'm still hedging my bets on Russ Feingold and Steve Beshear. The Democrats, party of old white guys!
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 00:49
|
|
|
Steve Beshear is like one of those delicate tropical fishes that won't survive outside its native environment. I'm not sure if Democrats really wants a socially conservative, fiscally kleptocratic presidential candidate (and I like and have voted for the guy twice).
Old Kentucky Shark fucked around with this message at 01:28 on Jan 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
Don't forget Brian Schweitzer. He's probably as good as we can do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
I'm torn because Clinton's past record is dodgy, but at the same time, the personal vitriolic attacks toward her by all manner of Republicans may sour her on compromising with them. She's not the type that forgives and forgets the Benghazi bullshit, that much is clear. That, AND seeing how they treated Obama when he tried to make Grand Bargains. A lot of people believe she'll be more of a fighter than Obama, and I just hope they're right. There is probably no electable Democrat of any prominence that is NOT a corporatist to some degree. Let's be realistic here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
You'd have to be seriously delusional to think a red state governor is going to be more progressive than a blue state Senator. Schweitzer knows his only path to the White House is to try the left wing insurgency routine but it's a poor fit, hence his total lack of traction.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 01:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 01:45 |
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:You'd have to be seriously delusional to think a red state governor is going to be more progressive than a blue state Senator. Schweitzer knows his only path to the White House is to try the left wing insurgency routine but it's a poor fit, hence his total lack of traction. Everything they have both done in public life makes it clear that Schweitzer is better than Clinton on pretty much every issue so unless you think he's been bullshitting since 2005 when he became governor and for the 8 years he was governor, I'm gonna have to disagree with you. And just because someone is a blue state senator doesn't mean they are worth anything. Look at my state of NJ for example. If anything they are more likely to come out of a corrupt political machine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 01:51
|
|