|
Hillary Clinton seems like such a lock for 2016 that I want to do a contrarian argument against it. I don't remember any time a candidate felt so sure to win four years in advance since, well, Clinton. For a non-incumbent you'd have to go back to the 1960s for such an easily predicted election. Does anyone else feel this way?
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 19:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 08:47 |
|
|
SirKibbles posted:I'd argue it'd would force them to be politically active. People are so apathetic in the black community especially here in Wisconsin and Walker's batshittery finally got people out of the everything is hosed anyway mindset. On the other hand, Republicans still control the state in Wisconsin. And for all that talk about outreach, token outreach is just that, token.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 20:32
|
|
|
Chamale posted:Hillary Clinton seems like such a lock for 2016 that I want to do a contrarian argument against it. I don't remember any time a candidate felt so sure to win four years in advance since, well, Clinton. For a non-incumbent you'd have to go back to the 1960s for such an easily predicted election. Does anyone else feel this way? The only conceivable way I see her getting screwed out of the nomination, assuming she wants it, is if Cory Booker wins a Senate seat and then pulls an Obama. And the chances of that happening are astronomically low.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 03:35
|
|
|
api call girl posted:On the other hand, Republicans still control the state in Wisconsin. And for all that talk about outreach, token outreach is just that, token. Yeah yeah but baby steps,better than nothing etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 04:26
|
|
|
SirKibbles posted:Yeah yeah but baby steps,better than nothing etc. From what I see these aren't baby steps forward, they're gigantic leaps backward.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 04:57
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:The only conceivable way I see her getting screwed out of the nomination, assuming she wants it, is if Cory Booker wins a Senate seat and then pulls an Obama. And the chances of that happening are astronomically low. I get the feeling Booker is playing the long game, in that he seems to wants to get things done along the way rather than just jumping along to the next higher office. Though perhaps I'm just buying into a false image. And he's not so great on some things anyhow.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 05:06
|
|
|
ReidRansom posted:I get the feeling Booker is playing the long game, in that he seems to wants to get things done along the way rather than just jumping along to the next higher office. Though perhaps I'm just buying into a false image. And he's not so great on some things anyhow. I really like him personally; he's politically meh. But in terms of electoral politics it would take someone with the kind of image he has (kind of like what Obama had in 2008) to best Hillary, and I don't think she'd fall for it the second time around. Like I said, that's just the only way I could see her losing it; that doesn't make it likely in the slightest.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 05:39
|
|
|
The NYT hit piece on Booker today was pretty harsh. Ouch.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 06:08
|
|
|
Petey posted:The NYT hit piece on Booker today was pretty harsh. Ouch. Hm. By this article's reckoning, it looks like he would be a better Senate whip or I guess VP than he would a Governor or President.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 06:20
|
|
|
Chamale posted:Hillary Clinton seems like such a lock for 2016 that I want to do a contrarian argument against it. I don't remember any time a candidate felt so sure to win four years in advance since, well, Clinton. For a non-incumbent you'd have to go back to the 1960s for such an easily predicted election. Does anyone else feel this way? If she runs she'll get the nomination. The only complication would be if Biden throws his hat in (and I really, really hope he doesn't) because I have a feeling that she would bow out if he did. We also need to keep in mind that the latest info directly from Clinton is that she isn't planning on running. I'm really hoping that's just a tactic so people will leave her alone for a couple years but she's made the statement on more than one occasion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 06:37
|
|
|
Petey posted:The NYT hit piece on Booker today was pretty harsh. Ouch. Ouch is right, but it does seem to make some pretty valid points.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 06:39
|
|
|
ReidRansom posted:Ouch is right, but it does seem to make some pretty valid points. Also I think we need to remember this was the same guy who came out and defended hedge funds and venture capital during the campaign. He's just as much of a DLC neoliberal as Obama or Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 07:43
|
|
|
A lot of the criticisms of Booker's administration underestimate just how big of a clusterfuck he inherited from two decades of the openly corrupt Sharpe James, and the decades of even more incompetent crooks preceding Sharpe. I think essentially all of Booker's cozying up to elements that the left would prefer a fight with results from a desperate need to bring money and business into a city that is both barely solvent and has terrible machine elements deeply embedded in all parts of the government. In that regard I think writing him off as a "DLC neoliberal" because he's played reformer against a bad system in his mid-sized city without seeing what he does on a statewide level is myopic. And I don't think anyone is going to deny Booker's immense talent as a retail politician, which is why we're talking about the mayor of Newark with no obvious path to higher office in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 08:05
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:A lot of the criticisms of Booker's administration underestimate just how big of a clusterfuck he inherited from two decades of the openly corrupt Sharpe James, and the decades of even more incompetent crooks preceding Sharpe. I think essentially all of Booker's cozying up to elements that the left would prefer a fight with results from a desperate need to bring money and business into a city that is both barely solvent and has terrible machine elements deeply embedded in all parts of the government. I think the more damning critiques in that article, however, said that his retail politics were more marketing politics in that the products were pitched well but deals rarely closed. The last paragraph was particularly painful and clearly intentionally so. The booker as stealth DLC critique is somewhat different than the booker as brand critique.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 08:23
|
|
|
Petey posted:I think the more damning critiques in that article, however, said that his retail politics were more marketing politics in that the products were pitched well but deals rarely closed. The last paragraph was particularly painful and clearly intentionally so. Eh, I think the constituent services stuff is mostly sour grapes from his political enemies. As noted, it's a hit piece, and the two people quoted for the record are both longtime Newark machine players. And the Times hitting Booker for spending a night ten miles away from the city considering they write biannual positive puff pieces about how Mike Bloomberg basically lives in Bermuda and commutes to Manhattan is more than a bit rich.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 08:33
|
|
|
Somebody obviously thinks he's got a serious shot at governor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 12:03
|
|
|
Lotta Clinton certainty in this thread when Biden is running, Booker might say gently caress it and run and half a dozen other big names can be Booker stand-ins. It's not going to be an unopposed Clinton run. Even Gore had to get past Bradley, who was a pretty serious challenge for him. This will be going on in the Internet era, with a large logjam of stars at the top who can all fund raise well. At the very least, she'll have to face down a sitting veep, and who knows which way the party leadership goes in that fight? PS: if Booker, Deval Patrick, etc. run she *certainly* loses the black vote again and none of the first four states are anything remotely resembling a strength for her.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 18:05
|
|
|
Adar posted:Lotta Clinton certainty in this thread when Biden is running, Booker might say gently caress it and run and half a dozen other big names can be Booker stand-ins. Woah, when did Biden ever say he was running? I don't think he's offered any indication, and most people think he's too old to consider a run.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 18:14
|
|
|
And if there's at least one "serious" candidate other than her in the race the debates will include the issue candidates and partisans. There's always a handful, so you'll get events with Clinton, Biden and Grayson on the stage.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 18:14
|
|
|
Butt Soup Barnes posted:Woah, when did Biden ever say he was running? Biden has hinted at it a billion times including a few to donors.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 18:15
|
|
|
The one thing against Biden besides the whole age thing...I wonder if he really has a built in base for donors. There are Clinton donors who'll support the Clintons and candidates that the Clintons like, there are Obama donors who'll live on after he's out of office, and a bunch of other people have loyalist donors. But does Biden really have a base of donors that he can go to, say "I'm running", get some serious financing and quickly assemble a team? Hillaryland certainly does, but does Biden? Or is Biden's path pretty much hope Clinton doesn't run, and then use up her resources?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 18:24
|
|
|
notthegoatseguy posted:Or is Biden's path pretty much hope Clinton doesn't run, and then use up her resources? That's how I see it. Although Biden is certainly preparing to run, at the end of the day I don't think Biden's going to be taking yet another underdog shot at the nomination. Even if you think he's got a plausible shot in a clash of the titans style primary against Hillary, he's certainly not anything resembling a favorite in it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 18:28
|
|
|
There are a number of Senators who don't get along with the Clintons that probably like Biden from his years there. They would introduce Biden to donors. That's how Obama's campaign happened.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 18:30
|
|
|
Joementum posted:There are a number of Senators who don't get along with the Clintons that probably like Biden from his years there. They would introduce Biden to donors. That's how Obama's campaign happened. I would imagine that Biden long ago got those introductions, if only as part of fundraising work for Obama. He's no neophyte. I still don't see him winning. He lacks Obama's manifest competence.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 21:04
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I would imagine that Biden long ago got those introductions, if only as part of fundraising work for Obama. He's no neophyte. All else being equal, he's a moderate underdog. They won't be equal. Hillary has the second biggest donor and activist list in the party, but Obama's is unmatched and it's going to Biden even if Obama is publicly neutral (what's he going to do, say no?) It's not 2008 where he was a fourth tier also-ran; he'll have a hundred million dollars to throw into Iowa and will live there as much as anybody with VP for a title. I think it's a toss-up today if they ran a two person race. Throw a Booker/Patrick/Schweitzer/Malley/all of the above in there and who the gently caress knows.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 22:25
|
|
|
Joe Biden has had consistently lower approval ratings that Obama despite only ever being a soft news guy, has had two presidential campaigns, the first of which he flamed out spectacularly and the second of which he was a non-entity, and he will be 74 years old in 2016. He is not a serious candidate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 04:05
|
|
|
Quasimango posted:Joe Biden has had consistently lower approval ratings that Obama despite only ever being a soft news guy, has had two presidential campaigns, the first of which he flamed out spectacularly and the second of which he was a non-entity, and he will be 74 years old in 2016. He is not a serious candidate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 04:38
|
|
|
Joementum posted:And if there's at least one "serious" candidate other than her in the race the debates will include the issue candidates and partisans. There's always a handful, so you'll get events with Clinton, Biden and Grayson on the stage. Oh god, please let this happen. The pure entertainment value of this combined with whatever the gently caress the GOP throws together??  Guys, don't forget about Cuomo. I wouldn't be surprised if he exceeded expectations as well. The Democratic party is a lot less predictable than the GOP. 4 years is a lifetime for someone to sweep the nomination out from under Hilary, assuming she decides to run.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 04:52
|
|
|
The netroots if already fighting HARD against Cuomo. Every progressive in the party will fight so hard against him if he has the gall to run.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 05:59
|
|
|
Adar posted:Lotta Clinton certainty in this thread when Biden is running, Booker might say gently caress it and run and half a dozen other big names can be Booker stand-ins. I don't know if we could compare Hillary to Gore so easily, though, because Gore was running a rather shoddy campaign - "we can't let Clinton stump for us, he's still EMBROILED IN A SCANDAL that nobody gives a poo poo about" - and didn't have the whole "possibly the first female President" thing going for him. That, and Clinton's administration was still a fresh memory in 2000 since Clinton was, after all, the incumbent. Flash forward sixteen years, and Clinton has presumably learned from the mistakes of 2008, will conceivably inherit a formidable campaign apparatus from the Obama Administration (Obama may not care about the future of the party all that much, but I think he cares enough about his whole legacy thing to want Clinton in power as a good successor to his policies), and still has the whole "possibly the first female President" thing going for her. Additionally, the Clinton Administration will be old news - almost an entire generation will have gone by, and all kinds of fresh voters will be around who get the sunshine-and-roses description of the '90s instead of the shrill "Clinton is a womanizing liar" early 2000s version. Biden won't run; he knows the party itself isn't gonna back him over Hillary even if Obama might, and he'll be seriously old by then. I think he'll understand that his time has passed, and that Hillary is the better bet. Also, given the description in this thread. gently caress Cuomo. gently caress him forever. I don't care how he's like as a person, he sounds like a politician who's even worse than the Republicans: he's the kind that moves the Overton window to the right, rather than just taking advantage of its current position.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 07:47
|
|
|
The two term sitting vice president of a likely relatively popular administration is automatically a serious candidate whether you want him to be or not, and 'the party convincing him not to run over the wishes of Obama' is a rather naive statement.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 09:47
|
|
|
Quasimango posted:Joe Biden has had consistently lower approval ratings that Obama despite only ever being a soft news guy, has had two presidential campaigns, the first of which he flamed out spectacularly and the second of which he was a non-entity, and he will be 74 years old in 2016. He is not a serious candidate. VPs always have lower approval ratings because not as many people know what to think about them. A small but significant percentage don't even know who they are.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 10:40
|
|
|
The key thing with the Democratic primaries is that, if she does run, those who are politically close to the Clintons will not challenge her and will instead internally campaign to be her running mate. We know for sure that Cuomo and Gillibrand are firmly in this inner circle. I suspect that O'Malley and the Castro brothers may be as well seeing as they originally supported her in 2008 as a superdelegate and through their contributions (well, Julián originally supported Edwards, but Joaquin was 100%). However, O'Malley did switch to Obama once he became inevitable so who knows, though he seems deferential when talking about her in recent days. Julián won't run in 2016 unless Obama picks him up for something or he somehow magically becomes governor of Texas in 2014, but that's not going to happen (by the way, the next Democrat who does becomes governor of Texas may very likely be president soon after). Senator Cory Booker is not going to run one year into the job, but Governor Cory Booker may. My feeling is that he won't though. Joe Biden though. Who knows what that crazy guy's gonna do next.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 11:11
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Biden won't run; he knows the party itself isn't gonna back him over Hillary even if Obama might, and he'll be seriously old by then. I think he'll understand that his time has passed, and that Hillary is the better bet. As much as I love the fact that I have the NY accent, I'm so glad that will prevent Cuomo from actually having a real shot at the big seat. Petty, it really is, but I really...REALLY do not like that man. Then again, as I get older, I track further and further to the left.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 15:27
|
|
|
Hillary became unwell, passed out, got a concussion. Time for questions about her health and ability to physically lead a country to come up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 18:33
|
|
|
H. Clinton's health seems to be a bit irregular.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 19:00
|
|
|
TyroneGoldstein posted:Petty, it really is, but I really...REALLY do not like that man. I remember him being stationed right outside of one of the exits at Penn Station back in 2006 when he ran for NY Attorney General and he came off as being incredibly sleazy even back then - he did not fail to disappoint in the following six years.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 19:07
|
|
|
I most certainly think Hillary is not going to have anything to do with politics for a long, long time. She's tired, and she's had enough of waking up at 3AM and flying somewhere to deal with the world's problems. She just wants to relax and be an ordinary person for a while, especially after this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 17:14
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:I most certainly think Hillary is not going to have anything to do with politics for a long, long time. She's tired, and she's had enough of waking up at 3AM and flying somewhere to deal with the world's problems. She just wants to relax and be an ordinary person for a while, especially after this. I'm guessing that she will: -do nothing to burn any bridges to a 2016 run -take at least a year if not two to make a decision.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 17:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 08:47 |
|
|
She won't have a whole lot of time to actually rest. Romney spent the entire time between 2008 and 2012 campaigning while not officially campaigning, with his only real job was sitting on Marriott's board. Which is a do-nothing job that easily lets him go around to write books and gives speeches and raise funds for Republicans, which he did. He filed his exploratory committee in April 2011. Now unlike Romney, Clinton will at least have surrogates at her disposal to do the whole supporting-Democrats-in-2014-thing for her. But if she takes a job that keeps her busy and out of the public eye, it probably means she isn't running. If, however, she writes a book, gives speeches, and sits on some not-for-profit boards with an honorary title, that means she's keeping her schedule open.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 17:50
|
|