|
Whoever of the Clinton/Biden duo runs next term will shut out everybody else. There might be one viable candidacy slot available besides that one, but not two. Most of this list will never run because of that, especially somebody like Warren that would have to start campaigning way too soon (and is probably not good enough a politician to beat a Clinton). Note that the ONLY reason Biden wouldn't run is if Clinton does, and he might anyway. The GOP will do their best to murder each other for months so it's way too early to tell.
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2012 21:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 10:55 |
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:^^^ I'd bet anything that Rubio or Martinez or any other Latino is on the GOP ticket, prolly as veep, given current demographics of the country and given that 75 percent of yesterday's Latino vote went to Obama. I would have (and came close to) betting a lot of money that this cycle's pick would be a minority. Instead, the choices wound up Christie and Ryan. Never underestimate the ability of the GOP to shoot themselves in the head on this point.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2012 05:41
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:True--but given the country's demographics and trends their only option is to cede the presidency to Dems for the foreseeable future. Obama's best play by a mile is to do immigration reform early next Congress. It'll probably happen. How the GOP reacts to that determines whether there's any chance of a Hispanic nom or if picking a Hispanic veep would have any effect. It's certainly clear that the civil war will be in full bloom the minute that bill hits Congress. Apart from that, I wouldn't worry too much about Rubio. There's even some chance the reason he wasn't picked is that he didn't pass vetting. Even assuming the sane wing wins, everybody else gets three years to polish themselves, so like I said, way too early. e: I keep hearing that about Cuomo but I'm out of the loop; can you link me to an article or two?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2012 06:28
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:Y-Hat, while I generally agree with your general thrust that Cuomo is center-right on fiscal issues, I'm greatly amused that you've tried to throw New York Senate Dems and "progressive legislation" in the same sentence. As you well know, the chamber is effectively (and perhaps technically too) now going to be run by the Independent Democratic Conference (which will probably get conservative "Democrat" Simcha Felder added to it) which is substantially more conservative than the actual Republican caucus. I suspect the state was actually better off in terms of progressiveness having Skelos running the Senate. facepalm.gif If that's what he meant, yeah bring back the good old days of Joe Bruno.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2012 06:34
|
|
|
The bottom line is that she'll be a two year politician who isn't very good at it, who would have to either beat a Clinton, a sitting VP or a laundry list of big names to get there, and who would have to start in Iowa because NH isn't as useful to her (if she polled too well everyone else would just skip it). She can't do it. One person in our lifetimes could, and he's in a completely different league.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2012 10:09
|
|
|
Joementum posted:And I suppose we should say something here about Michael Bloomberg whose term is up soon and who has plenty of money to throw at a 2016 race and who would be adored by the media and Wall Street if he did, but who does not appear in my list on the first page. Fortunately, Mayor of New York is a dead end job. The compromises that people have to make in that position, the people they have to befriend and the positions they have to take poison them for larger seats. Bloomberg may very well try for it, and I will enjoy watching him shake hands in Iowa diners and stump in South Carolina fields, but he won't take it. In fairness, and I say this as a guy who likes him a lot more than anyone else here is willing to admit, Bloomberg has never compromised on anything so your point is moot. Hieronymous Alloy posted:It all depends. If the Republican base triples-down on the crazy, he's toast. If over the next four years there's an awakening to reality in some form or fashion, he's got a GREAT shot because he now has impeccable bipartisanship credentials. Fully agree, with the caveat that I doubt he was aware of that at the time. It's much lower downside than it looks, because if this makes him unelectable in the primaries, the GOP is still pulling in 25% of Latinos and white men are still 3% less of the electorate than this year. If it does not, he looks really, really good in a likely gentler, nicer election campaign. But...way too early.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2012 19:23
|
|
|
She's done a good enough job at State that she's not as polarizing as she used to be and the spectre of a general election fight about Hillarycare is sort of...not an issue now. There are probably a bunch of insiders who do still hate her and vice versa, but she's a Clinton and doesn't need them. With Bill making $100M a year or whatever ridiculous number he's racked up on speeches this whole time and his capability to raise money by breathing, she doesn't even need a huge outside primary warchest as badly as Biden or some other people are going to. Caveat: if they both run, yes, all of those people will flip to Biden, Obama will not be able to take a side himself and the fight will be a bruiser.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2012 06:23
|
|
|
Whether it was a random pattern or a rule, the next in line is Santorum so I doubt it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2012 01:50
|
|
|
He likes micromanaging everything and thinks he's smarter than every other politician in the tri-state area, which is probably true but doesn't make people like him.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2012 02:48
|
|
|
On behalf of a lot of people, I am extremely thankful this didn't happen a month ago. But as much as it seems they've sort of brought it on themselves, and as relieving as it is that at least most the election money's undoubtedly already been withdrawn, this is almost as tooth-grating as poker's Black Friday. Yet again, people I know are going to have to leave the country over this. Don't worry, though, Betfair will probably pick up most of the slack if you're not an American.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2012 00:05
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:That is taking the closing of intrade a little to hard don't you think? US customers may find it harder to get their money out than non-US ones, which doesn't help the situation.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2012 01:04
|
|
|
+21 four years out is fine. Look at the rest of the field: Ryan and Rubio aren't exactly teflon, Bush has an unfortunate last name, Paul spent his first week in office coming out against the CRA and Santorum won't win. It's not a stellar rating, but it's nothing disqualifying. It's the fat that's the problem there.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2012 20:07
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Fat-based attacks on Christie will backfire. Attacks absolutely will. Nobody will need to make them because if he's up on stage and doing campaign events at his current 400, the media will run a thousand manufactured controversy stories. None of them will be individually effective, either, they'll just stick in people's heads and culminate in a hundred thousand Stay Puft image macro chain email forwards every time he gets attention. When you're on TV every day for a year, that stuff matters. It's especially bad when combined with debates, because he'll be standing behind a podium that's literally too skinny to contain him and the contrast between him and everybody else on stage will be huge. I don't see him as unelectable, but if he wants to max his chances he's got two years to drop a couple of hundred pounds. hobbesmaster posted:I wouldn't say it was childish, yelling "YOU ARE GOING TO loving DIE IF YOU STAY IN YOUR HOUSES ON A BARRIER ISLAND IN A MAJOR HURRICANE, DONT LISTEN TO YOUR FUCKTARD OF A MAYOR" seems pretty reasonable to me. Yeah, that was fine. If AC residents had followed the mayor's advice there'd be a dozen more dead people in that city. He was entitled to be pissed. Adar fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Dec 10, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2012 18:59
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Prime Sinister posted:This is true, but this happening again would probably require her to be caught off guard once again by a campaign as well-run as Obama's. Even if Biden doesn't run, all it would require is for her to try to win Iowa again she won't and/or one of the several possible black challengers to take first in South Carolina they would. She's not going to have some walkover of a campaign just because of her name. Romney all but cleared the field out four years early, had only one brand name challenger who turned out to be on pain meds the entire campaign, and still almost lost to the three stooges. The presumptive field in '16 is a few orders of magnitude tougher than that. Lightning Knight posted:So, wait, question: I wasn't politically aware in 2008, so I don't know one way or another, but was Hillary's campaign shoddy because they were bad at their job or because they didn't think it would take effort to win the primary because it was goddamn Hillary Clinton? They mostly did exactly what this thread is doing now and anointed her early, not waking up until she finished third in Iowa because the grassroots weren't there and Iowa is a horrific state for her. It took her tearing up 48 hours before the NH vote to even get her back in the race, and by then Obama already had a huge systemic edge. They *were* bad at their job and didn't figure out that Obama was playing the game correctly in time to do anything about it, but after making the single early mistake of going after Iowa she was already a huge dog. She'll also probably have to repeat it because in a primary with a Biden or even a Schweitzer in it, she can't just concede a state without a fight.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2012 20:33
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Adar are you trying to drive her price down or something? I really cannot see a scenario where Hillary isn't head and shoulders above the rest of the field. Experience matters and, oddly enough, she now has the most of the kind that counts. Trust me, I remember that whole campaign extremely well. Obama was definitely a once in a generation candidate. At the same time, Hillary finished behind John freakin' Edwards in Iowa, has no built in base in the same way that Obama does, and has still never run a successful campaign of her own. Her other disadvantage is the map. The First Four (IA/NH/SC/NV need a name so let's go with that) are a very bad deal for her. Iowa may be her worst state in the union, with demographics and activists that are all wrong for a Clinton. NH is good but not stellar. SC is okay if nobody running is black and may as well be a skip if they are. NV may be the best of the four, but she blew that last time and a viable Schweitzer-type would probably beat her there. That starting point does not scream lock. With that said, she visibly improved over the course of the campaign. If she runs, she'll be a favorite. *But*, how big of a favorite she is grossly depends on the caliber of the other candidates, and the pool potentially looks very deep with the current VP at the top. I give her something like 80-20 vs. Biden alone with Obama staying completely neutral, but 60-40 with Biden getting the type of support he probably thinks he'll get and 50-50 if Obama actually leans on people. Add in Schweitzer, one or both of the Booker/Patrick duo, one of the NY delegation and a couple of other fringe guys and she probably winds up third in Iowa again. Or, Obama could simply stand 100% behind her and she sweeps the field, whichever. Still not a lock right now, though.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2012 00:12
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:It would be nice if the Democratic primary doesn't end in one candidate running for a mathematically impossible nomination for months. Fortunately, there's now a website for this kind of thing that will probably stop that from happening 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2012 01:14
|
|
|
Ammat The Ankh posted:If you mean 583, that was around in 08 as well. Hell, most of the major news networks pointed out on their own that it was almost mathematically impossible for Hillary to win after North Carolina I'm aware (I made most of my money that cycle shadowing Nate when he was called poblano) but he's going to have a lot more influence going forward, to the point where he can probably single-handedly kill a campaign in a similar situation by making enough talk show rounds. Remember, the media love controversy, so if you take the 2008 campaign and apply it to '16 you'll get Nate being invited on MtP solely to go full Monty Python on some poor campaign hack. Re: '16, right now they're trying to draft Jeb, but there are plenty of state level heavyweights that have the credentials (that's what having 30 governorships does for you). The field will be pretty strong on that side, as well. The better question is who wins the civil war. At the moment, the early money is on the establishment, but the TP still has three years to find some Huckabee clone who can compete. Adar fucked around with this message at 18:58 on Dec 17, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2012 18:49
|
|
|
Joementum posted:"Sources" say that Booker will run for Senate in 2014 rather than Governor. Makes a lot more sense for him; he can take a crack at a suddenly really popular Christie with no guarantee of victory, or he can grab an open seat where he starts off with a default 60% of the vote. The last two Dem candidates were senators and the one before that went Senate -> VP, so it's not even a big deal these days.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2012 16:57
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:As expected, Cory Booker filed to run for the Senate today, a day after Politico threw out another hit piece on him, this time because he wrote an article describing his hatred of gays. I'd have said Hillary, but six months in office before running for Pres has to be a little soon. Maybe she just wasn't aware of his plans yet and wanted to cross the t's?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2013 20:19
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/02/04/hillary-clinton-exits-politics-her-enduring-legacy.html If you listen really carefully you can almost hear a Trans-Am revving its engine
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2013 00:51
|
|
|
Joementum posted:From that article: Trans-Am still revving, undeterred quote:If she does it, it’s hard to see how the nomination won’t be hers for the asking. It's like our pundit class has learned absolutely noth oh
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2013 01:06
|
|
|
Joementum posted:It doesn't much matter how good you are at speechifying, you're following the biggest act in political speaking. You're going to look small and come off bad in comparison. This is especially bad timing because nobody's watching and Obama is done running, so Rubio's options are to bury himself with funny yet terrible volcano monitoring quotes or somehow come off as a solid counterpart to an excellent orator who's not actually his primary or GE opponent to the 17 people who give a poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2013 00:16
|
|
|
If Biden were a marathon runner, he'd have run the NYC marathon after it was cancelled. I don't mean symbolically run the route the next day waving to onlookers. He'd have kidnapped an organizer and forced her to hand him a numbered jersey at gunpoint, ran the 26 miles through traffic hurdling over cars and knocking down passerby along the way, and made sure to call the media in the middle of the race to make sure that his run would be officially scored. But seriously, he's going to run if Hillary runs or if Al Gore runs or if Obama amends the Constitution and runs or if Zombie Jesus arises from the dead and declares tomorrow. Okay, *possibly* not if Hillary runs, but it's gonna take more than one private talk or PresidentHillaryClintonchat on the Internet. I expect PHRCchat from Wolf Blitzer, not here.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2013 16:30
|
|
|
Naet posted:What exactly would Hillary Clinton bring to the table that would be at odds with the typical liberal criticisms of Obama or Bill Clinton? I think there are a lot of people who compared Candidate Obama to President Obama and decided Hillary was the real magic leftist in the race. She served on the board of Wal-Mart and is almost definitely in agreement with 100% of Obama's foreign policy and 95% of his domestic policy, but once upon a time she championed a public option (that never got to a vote) so she's further left by proxy.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2013 16:36
|
|
|
The truth is somewhere in the middle <TM>. Section 5 going down will be problematic in a few states, though the changes themselves to cause a decent amount of backlash. The demographic shifts are not a lock, though also very likely a factor (I basically think the Obama coalition is here to stay *if* the recovery holds up, but the candidates themselves are less of an issue.) And the bench is much deeper than Joementum gives it credit for - any time the sitting popular veep who's raring to go is polling a distant #2 and there are 3-4 people who can raise a billion dollars tied for also-ran, the party's in good shape. It's more about who wins the GOP war and just how serious a candidate emerges from the wreckage. If it's a Christie, a Cantor (yes really), or somebody of that nature, anybody not named Hillary or Joe will be an underdog. If it's one of the trainwrecks, one of the backbenchers could win in their sleep. Chances are the sane wing will win so the Dems will 'need' a good candidate, but there's a 20% chance the Dems are locks, if that makes any sense.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2013 23:17
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:Yeah, I thought I'd read that the Iowa Caucuses are on the Democratic side are a lot more reflective of liberal activist Democrats than the national average. Friends of mine who live there, campaigned hard for Obama in 08 and 12 and are delegates who attend the DNC fall under this category, they strike me as the type who would care about an issue like fracking. Iowa is not PA so the issue isn't even local, though.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2013 22:12
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:What percentage of the democratic party is that though? 10? How are you a regular D&D poster and serious about th...oh, right, D&D's a giant bubble. Biden will run so this isn't an issue, but if Biden and Hillary were both out of the way he'd be an early favorite with Cuomo right now. First President ever to kinda sorta volunteer to work with another country's army 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2013 01:19
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Rahm doesn't have any more of a chance to get the nomination than Kucinich did. Calm down guys. So many people would have to bow out for him to be involved, and I'm not even sure he could beat out all the others who are waiting for that scenario to pop up as well. The number is exactly 2. Fortunately, one of them will ride a sports car into every drivethru in Iowa for the next four years, so yes, this is pretty much inside fantasy.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2013 00:05
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I think in the case of Cruz it's likely people here are calling him stupid because people here call everyone who espouses Paulite / lolbertarian rhetoric stupid. Technically speaking, Bachmann has impeccable credentials too. Bachmann has degrees from Winona State, the first graduating class (poo poo numbers ahoy) of Oral Roberts Law and a W&M tax LLM (a tax LLM used to be the traditional way to fix graduating from a bad law school with bad grades). Her pedigree is terrible and she is genuinely Palin-level not very bright. Cruz isn't remotely in this group. Neither is any other serious contender for the '16 nomination.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2013 19:16
|
|
|
Gentlemen, allow me to present what Intrade's shutdown makes  miss out on.Yes, those are 15 to 1 odds on Biden winning the nomination. Along with 2.75:1 on Hillary, for that matter:
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2013 14:37
|
|
|
FMguru posted:Hilary crushes all possible Republican candidates in trial heats by double digits, even in states like Texas. In polling, she gets 25% support from Republicans. All signs are that she will steamroller the GOP in 2016. They don't need to bother with that; if she runs, her ratings will drift down over time anyway, and she's not even close to invulnerable (she's arguably in a weaker position right now than 2007). The reason it's happening right now is not because anyone wants to knock her down two years from now. Instead, it's because she's the frontrunner and no one behind her has declared yet so there's no real reason to ran anti-Mike O'Malley hitpieces (and also because nobody gives a poo poo about Mike O'Malley). The viable alternative is to run anti-Biden stuff instead but it's tough to smear a sitting veep with anything that isn't already out there. Nevertheless, when he spends another six months in Iowa while she keeps on...not being in Iowa...you'll start seeing little reminders that Biden loves his financial services sectors.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2013 21:58
|
|
|
Brigadier Sockface posted:His name's Martin Case in point
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2013 22:21
|
|
|
spoon daddy posted:if she plays into the OFA world, the nomination is hers. Barring hilarious cuts in line, the first four states are Iowa, NH, SC, and NV. If more than one person is running (as opposed to selling books or vanity campaigning or whatever), Hillary will lose SC, probably lose Iowa and NV is an open question. Against a sitting veep from the Obama administration, if she loses Iowa she loses all three. In 2007, she had one serious opponent (whose name, in case anyone's wondering, was John Edwards) and one sort of plausible dark horse who would not have been serious at all had he run any other kind of campaign. The main advantage for her at the moment, and a point where I disagree with Warszawa, is that we do know everyone important who's probably running in '16 and Obama II is not one of those people. The disadvantage is that there are half a dozen quite serious dark horses in the race already and if she begs and pleads Biden out of the race, it'll just mean support will gather around one of them instead. There is already a tangible Hillary vs. Not Hillary dynamic in the air, and we all know how easy a path she wound up having the last time this happened. Her best case scenario for the nom as things stand is Mitt Willard Romney '12.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2013 09:22
|
|
|
Joementum posted:I'm just downplaying a bit of the stuff about Obama's success coming from organization or early state strategy. He had substantial support within the party during the invisible primary stage, which made the difference. As you just said, this will be more difficult for a non-Hillary, non-Biden candidate to lock down in 2016 because it is likely the Clintons have stopped trying to freeze people out and, even if they do, Joe is waiting with open arms. I'm not as versed with the 2006 and 2007 Obama campaign as I'd like to be - is Game Change the best source for this? - but one thing about Obama is that he was Barack Obama, First Ever Viable Black Candidate, on top of being the most charismatic possibility the Dems had had since Clinton. Obama was the best Not Hillary possible (though Edwards had a shot for a while there!) None of the current crop is close to him. There are a few possibilities: -O'Malley is maybe the best of the lot, but a total no name. If Hillary doesn't run, he could maybe kinda sorta be viable as a non-Biden. But then he gets to face one of the following three + Biden and is a nationally unknown governor of Maryland facing off against a popular two term sitting veep from Delaware and whoever inherits the Hillary camp. There's no way he winds up with money before proving himself, so he'd have to win Iowa. Not happening. -Rahm Emanuel/Cuomo/Gillibrand are three completely interchangeable (in national campaign political terms) people who will be fighting for leftover Hillary money if she doesn't run. Biden is probably 80/20 vs. any of the three and 95/5 if more than one run. -Patrick is Corey Booker Lite, sort of like Booker except worse in every way -Warren won't run and can't campaign if she did -Schweitzer won't run and won't play well enough nationally if he does -If you're not on this list, nobody cares what you do exquisite tea posted:I remember reading some '08 postmortem with Plouffe or Axelrod about how they really were putting all their election hopes on Iowa, which may or may not be an exaggeration, but in retrospect I think you can say that Obama needed a win in IA way more than Hillary, who was playing the inevitability game. While it's certainly true that Obama didn't come out of nowhere and had plausible party support prior to the Democratic primary, he really did need Iowa to raise his profile as a credible alternative to Clinton. I guess what I'm trying to say is that while Iowa is not the end-all-be-all of presidential elections, it is still really important! If Hillary'd won Iowa, she'd have won by another 10 in NH, written off SC/refused to campaign there and cruised in NV as a pre-ordained candidate. It's hard to overemphasize just how much winning Iowa meant for Obama in terms of big party figures and donors alone. Hillary teared up 2 days before NH and the polls failed to reflect a shift back to her that resulted in her win, so the story afterwards was how wrong they were. But the story before that was the 20 point swing in three days when Obama proved he could beat her. It was soft support (which was why Hillary's tears proved the difference) but Obama absolutely needed to win Iowa to get that support in the first place.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2013 18:04
|
|
|
Nobody is challenging Hillary from the left and winning, though. Like, Biden and/or whichever of these third tier guys emerges as a possibility *could* take Hillary on and could definitely win, though she's the favorite. But none of them are explicitly left wing and none of them are going to run to her left. I've heard a lot about the left wing in D&D, looked at the results going back about a decade now, and have come to the conclusion it doesn't actually exist in the US to any appreciable degree. O'Malley is kinda sorta there, I guess, but he's not getting elected via that route any more than Cuomo is. How is a left wing proto-socialist or even generic lefty going to emerge out of Iowa/NH with a first place finish vs. a Clinton [yes, she could lose Iowa, but to a Kucinich type???] What is (s)he going to do in SC (skip it lol) or NV (I'm assuming they're not pro-gaming)? It doesn't add up. e: Warren isn't even remotely left wing except for the bankruptcy stuff Adar fucked around with this message at 20:23 on May 15, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 15, 2013 20:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 10:55 |
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Oh, I'm not saying "proto-socialist," I'm saying "further left than Hillary Clinton," which leaves a lot of room. Obama and Edwards both ran largely to the left of Clinton but they hardly occupied the proto-socialist space. Now, part of this was because Clinton was running a general election campaign nine months too early, but you see my point. But none of the handful of people who could beat her in a race she chooses to run are best served by running to her left. They're all much better off just being the generic Democrats they mostly are.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2013 20:35
|
|