I don’t know what it is going to take to convince the Republicans that they will lose if a national election takes place that motivates the bases of both parties. Their base isn’t big enough to win a national election, so they can only win if the Democrats are unmotivated to go to the polls. That is a common occurrence in midterm elections, but it not going to happen in 2016 whether or not Hillary Clinton is the Democrats’ nominee. It’s true that Hillary will motivate the right to give money and volunteer and to show up at the polls, but that won’t help them defeat her. They will lose, possibly in historic, devastating fashion.
There is really only one way that a Republican can win in 2016, and that is by not running as a movement conservative. The party has tried nominating people who aren’t really part of the movement, but they have not allowed those candidates to separate themselves from the movement. Both John McCain and Mitt Romney might have won the presidency if they had been allowed to run as moderates, but they both had to sacrifice that label to win the nomination.
With each passing year, movement conservatism becomes less viable as a national ideology. But the party is firmly in control of the movement’s adherents. Hillary Clinton may fire these folks up more than any conceivable alternative, but this will not help the GOP one iota.
Hillary Clinton does not fire me up at all. I do not understand how/why people seem so certain that it would be a blowout if Hillary Clinton runs.
Yes, I will vote for her if she is the democratic nominee, but I am surely not going to dig deep to contribute (I sold possessions and went into debt to help fund Obama in the 2008 primaries), nor am I going to travel to multiple states to work for her in the primaries and I did for Obama, and I don’t see how I can enthusiastically make phone calls when I think she’s a neocon foreign-policy-wise.
I agree that Hillary will not be as inspirational as far as candidates go, but she will have Bill and that could be enough to get many dems motivated. It won’t be the same height of motivation that we saw for Obama’s campaigns, but Hillary seems to be less polarizing on the right, so the Dems should not need as big of a turnout. Although there is still a lot of misogyny on the right, it is not as much of a driving force as the outright racism. After all, these people voted for Sarah Palin.
With the exception of Elizabeth Warren, are there any Democratic candidates that will create as much motivation for Dems to come out? O’Malley? Schweitzer? Biden? Granholm? It will be tough for just about any candidate to follow Obama’s campaign footsteps.
Fortunately, I think most Democrats have realized that giving power to the Republicans is far worse than putting up even a moderate/semi-neocon Dem. We should be very worried about moderate-sounding Libertarians that can appeal to the center.
Granholm is ineligible. Born in Canada, to Canadian parents.
You are correct. Good catch.
Bill will be there for any Dem candidate so that’s really a wash. We won’t know who will excite people until candidates actually begin campaigning, so I’m willing to withhold judgement on who can and can’t do it until they actually hit the campaign trail. Once upon a time I thought Bob Graham could get it done – that didn’t work out all that terribly well so I’ve grown rather humble in my prognostications and I’d recommend the same for everyone else.
I’ve also given up on the “electability” BS and moved to a position of simply supporting who I like and letting the chips fall where they may.
A shame that Democrats still don’t get what a disaster Clinton was for working and middle class folks. Not to mention that he was the bridge between GHWBush’s and GWBush’s Iraq policy.
Could it possibly be that whatever concern Democrats express for “working and middle-class folks” is mostly just lipservice?
Not possibly, but rank and file Democrats are still buying the lipservice and just can’t figure out why their wages are stagnant and their college educated kids with tens of thousands in student debt can’t get a job that pays more than minimum wage.
That’s true, but most people aren’t moved by actual policies, positions and issues, otherwise the Democrats would have veto-proof majorities in both houses and a lock on the presidency. Bill Clinton is one of the most talented speakers in the last couple generations and he has an uncanny knack for getting people to love/forgive him. His record is nothing to applaud but he will be useful as a surrogate to get out the vote for whomever wins the Democratic nomination.
I just hope that the nominee isn’t Hillary.
So it’s been said for a couple of decades. The reality for many of us is that he’s a long-winded and boring speaker. When they were “on,” Jesse Jackson and Al Gore were better.
Nothing to applaud? It was like GHWB on steroids. Lucky for the Clintons that the public is mostly ignorant and not too bright.
Jesse, for my money, is the best speaker since MLK. Gore, not so much. I liked Gore more on content than style, but he often put me to sleep. It’s probably a personal preference.
Gore when he was “on,” but he didn’t go there very often.
And oh so lucky for us that you have the time to remind us of the flaws of the Clinton and Obama presidencies day after day after day after day. Now we can look forward to two years of you exposing the potential flaws of Hillary. Day after day after day.
.
Clinton got SCHIP passed, a substantial increase in the minimum wage, and a meaningful increase in taxes for the rich. And his was the only administration in 40 years to see substantial increases in the real median wage.
In constant 1996 dollars the federal minimum wage peaked in 1968 at $7.21. Do you give GHWBush credit for the 1989 increase (after no increases during Reagan’s tenure) that was worth $4.90 in 1991? The 1996/97 increases took it to $5.03 in 1997 and was only worth $4.69 in 2000.
Other than the funding mechanism and reliance on private insurance administrators, S-Chip is fine.
Not fine PRWOP:
The 1993 tax increase was mostly okay, but most of those in higher income tax brackets got it all back and more with the 1997 capital gains tax reduction.
US census bureau report shows that real median wages increased from 1953 to 1973 and very slightly from 1998 to 2001 for men and from 1953 to 1977, 1983 to 1989, 1995 to 2001, 2005 to 2008 for women. So not getting where you’re getting that “forty years” from (unless you didn’t mean to include women) or “significant.” Median family income did bump up in the late 1990s (not that you made that claim), but periods of low unemployment tend to do that.
I see significant flaws in the record for the Clinton Presidency, but you certainly skate quickly over the fact that unemployment became extremely low during his terms.
It’s also important to credit Bill for putting forth two Supreme Court Justices who have remained solidly with the liberal wing of the Couty. Hell, if not for the Clinton Presidency, we would have been in a judicially enforced libertarian/theocratic hellscape for decades.
The 1993 tax increase (a major reason I voted for Clinton), that I’ve already said was a good move, likely contributed to an improving economy and higher employment. However, the recession was ending before his election; so, some of that employment would have happened anyway. As Josef Stiglitz has written about, the rest of Clinton’s economic policies did nothing to improve employment. Major drivers, cheap oil and the American love affair with SUVs and the maturation of the personal computer industry. Neither of which were Clinton’s doing.
Two very solid nominations. Were we to expect less than that from a Democratic POTUS? We’re supposed to praise doing the minimum? Also note that those appointments didn’t change the balance of the court and it was O’Connor that prevented the worst of rightwing/liberation rulings for a number of years. But she was with that gang when Bush v. Gore came down. Another point, Republicans have been nominating young men to the court because they are more likely to remain in power for longer. Rehnquist forty-eight, O’Connor fifty-one, Scalia was fifty, Kennedy fifty-two, Thomas forty-three, Roberts fifty, and Alito at fifty-five was their oldest recent pick. Ginsburg was sixty (thank goodness she’s tenacious and brilliant) and Breyer was fifty-six. Kagan is the youngest a Democrat has nominated.
Wow, you really hate the Clintons.
You admit Bill’s tax policies, which he barely pushed through in the face of vicious Congressional GOP opposition, helped spur job growth, you admit. BUT HE DIDN’T DO NOTHIN’ ELSE!
You fail to recognize that the other major policy priority President Clinton tried to push through in his first Congress, the only one where the Dems held Congressional majorities, was a universal health care initiative. What was it called? Yeah, Hillarycare. This proposal was to the left of the ACA, and it would have done quite a bit to improve the economy. It also would have improved the health and morality of our nation. So, he should get some credit for keeping a campaign promise and taking on what he knew would be a difficult political fight.
As far as your responses re. the SCOTUS, well: Overall, women live longer than men. Neither you nor I would want to lose Ginsburg’s voice of clarity on the Court. And I’ll gladly take Breyer’s very, very slightly older age upon his nomination, since he has consistently been a liberal Justice. David Souter was 51 when nominated by G.H.W. Bush, but I’m sure conservatives were not pleased by his lengthy time on the Court; he ended up being a frequent ally of the liberal wing. Same with President Ford’s nominee, John Paul Stevens- his 35 years on the Court infuriated conservatives more and more as the years went on.
So, yeah, it actually was a pretty big deal that Clinton’s aim was true with his Court nominees. If just one of them had gone as right as Souter and Stevens went left, it would have been hell to pay for you and I.
One more point, whatever good one wants to credit Clinton with, it’s dishonest not also to recognize all the destructive legislation and policies that he supported. Even his “streamlining government” initiative led to gutting government oversight of contracts, etc. that made it so much easier for Bush/Cheney to hand out no-bid, no management of contracts to their buddies and the decimation of banking regulators and justice department attorneys in the corporate fraud section.
“Dishonest” is a strong word that I don’t believe I’ve earned. I’ve conceded numerous times, including on this thread, that Bill left things to quarrel with on his record. NAFTA, repeal of Glass-Stegall, welfare-to-work, others…sure. Note that I haven’t quarreled with your litany of legitimate complaints.
However, we deserve a fair and accurate reading of Bill and Hillary’s history, and their policy strengths and weaknesses. Our movement loses credibility and power when we don’t give credit where credit’s due, and when we don’t concede to political realities. Republicans had substantial control of Congress in 6 of the 8 years of Clinton’s Presidency.
Keep in mind I don’t like Hillary that much. I happily voted for Obama in the 2008 primaries. I want Hillary to be credibly pushed from the left in the 2016 primaries. But I can see that Hillary would be preferable by many multiples to any Republican nominee. Much talk here implies that Hillary would be just as bad as a Republican. That is untrue, and is simple hatred getting in the way of the facts.
It’s extraordinarily important for us to keep the Executive out of the hands of today’s GOP.
Yesterday’s GOP wasn’t any less destructive or dangerous. But yesterday’s elected Democrats weren’t bent on destroying all the progressive legislation beginning over a hundred years ago and continuing in fits and starts through Nixon. There was still work to be done including getting this country off a war footing. Instead, with some exceptions that mostly were without dollars attached to them, we’ve regressed and are on the path to undoing the 20th century progress that we as a nation made. Perhaps it no longer matters as we seem determined to cook the planet.
Today’s GOP is substantially more destructive and dangerous than it was in 2008, and holds many times more malevolent policy and legal positions than it held in 1978. I mean, come ON, we’re not just losing access to choice, we’re losing access to contraception. Just one of many examples. Cheney’s 1 Percent Doctrine, for another. And that was an inters
Republicans were careless about the fate of the poor when I was young. Today’s GOP actively wants them to suffer and die, and implements policies which speed the poor as quickly as possible toward those fates.
The Democrats in the Executive and Legislative branches are rather desperately interested in passing laws, instituting policies and constructing alliances which will help us avoid “cooking the planet.” States where Democrats have control have made meaningful progress on this issue.
You quickly dispense with “getting this country off a war footing” as if it’s a trivial accomplishment. That’s huge.
Citations, please, for how the current Congressional Democratic agenda is “bent on destroying all the progressive legislation beginning over a hundred years ago and continuing in fits and starts through Nixon.”
You think nothing of the accomplishments of Obama’s first Congress? For someone who cares to represent themselves as well-informed, there’s some willful blindness going on here.
The parties are NOT the same on this and a dozen other issues. Fight for better Dems? Absolutely with you. I see plenty of blemishes on Obama’s record as well. I’m sure not with you on most of the rest of these characterizations, however.
Personally, I don’t think that being inspirational is that big of a deal in the end. Or rather, it is, but it’s a quality completely subordinate to surrounding circumstances.
I’m sure that the current generation 18-22 year olds find Obama less inspirational than Obama of 2007-8. But that has less to do with his own rhetorical skills than reality knocking people flat on their ass.
A lot — certainly not all, but most — of what people call inspirational is mere survivor bias. Of course people found Jimmy Carter and Mike Dukakis and Al Gore uninspiring candidates; it’s because they lost!! However, their successes in the public sphere before and after their election shows that much of their perceived lack of charisma stems from their lack of electoral success.
I agree with you. I really hope we get a good alternative. But there is one aspect of a Hillary campaign that I find compelling. In the communities I run in, identity politics is everything. Particularly, I know many white women who have no interest in politics unless it’s a women’s rights issue. Hillary, with her background in the women’s rights movement, will absolutely catch their attention. If she can get these women involved, and maybe help them believe that politics matters to them, it would change the world. If I see that happening, if my girlfriends are fired up, that would be enough for me to be willing to fight at their side. It could be glorious.
There were definitely as many people “fired up” for Hillary Clinton in 2008 as for Obama, and they were deeply disappointed to miss their chance for a woman President.
If there was as many Obama wouldn’t have won the nomination since by definition the nomination process mostly cpnerns fired up people.
Hillary easily won my town, county, and state (despite my own efforts) so I assume your comment means you really agree with me.
Furthermore, the national vote was essentially even (the one with the most votes depends on which contests you include and how!) so I’m right nationally too. There were as many people enthusiastic about Clinton as Obama, his campaign strategy and tactics won out.
Whatever complaints I have about Obama (and my list is very long), where he gets respect from me is that it was his talents and skills and not his name or inherited political privilege that got him to the WH. Neither he nor Hillary had much of a political resume of accomplishments, but then and since then he’s exhibited slightly better judgment than Hillary.
And in the years since then, the “war on women” has only become more obvious. In ’08, a woman president would have been cool. Today, it’s a powerful weapon in the fight for equality. I think she will have even more support among women now than she did then.
No! No! Women will take one look on her position on Iraq, and stay home.
I read it on the internet.
That was intended as snark, but, don’t be so sure that the Iraq situation isn’t going to blow up in her face again. If shit REALLY starts circling the drain in Iraq like, say, a government coup + ethnic cleansing then she and the rest of the people who say that Iraq is old news are about to have a rude awakening.
Iraq is old news.
We’re not recommitting any ground forces there.
What happens in the air won’t be any more extensive than the no-fly-zone era.
And that’s irrespective of who the President is.
The country as a whole won’t stand for it. We had a referendum — the 2006 mid-terms.
That’s not how these things work. The Jeremiah Wright controversy was over 6 years ago and Obama’s connection with the man since then has been minimal — however, if it turns out that Wright was a black supremecist terrorist or he was arrested for the murder of a couple of people then it’d be naive to expect none of that stink wouldn’t cling to Obama. No matter how minimally culpable he was.
She does not get to say that she’s washed her hands of the issue. The media, the competence of her opponents, and ultimately the voter decides this.
There aren’t enough people to whom it still matters to swing the nomination, never mind the general election.
Even if it goes all pear-shaped, the actual gamut of possible real-world US responses go all the way from A to A.
There aren’t enough people to whom it still matters to swing the nomination, never mind the general election.
That’s what it looks like now. Sure, the current degenerating state of Iraq isn’t going to swing anyone’s vote in 2014 that it wasn’t in 2013. Unless you pay very close attention to international news it seems that things are in an indefinite stalemate of ‘not-quite failed state’.
However, if you don’t think that, say, Baghdadi quadrupling his militia and taking over the capital while Sunnis in Syria and surrounding countries start voicing support for his new Pan-Islamic state won’t put the issue back in the fore of American consciousness then you’ve got another thing coming.
Osama Bin Laden was boring old news and his importance was but Clinton trying to wag the dog near the end of his lame duck Presidency. Until he wasn’t.
Even if it goes all pear-shaped, the actual gamut of possible real-world US responses go all the way from A to A.
Again, that’s not how these things work. So what if you’re removed from the stream of consequences and there’s nothing that can be done about it? That doesn’t mean that the stink of scandal won’t cling to you.
America politics calls history old news. Can’t learn from old news.
Doesn’t Deathtongue require an umlaut over the o? That means without a German keyboard you’d spell it Deathtoengue.
Kidding. Seeing that name brought a smile to my face from the memory.
I know Davis! Also, the average American actually cares about foreign policy!
Must be true, because I read it on the Internet all the time!
.
I’ll cross that bridge when the time comes. Why concede early and give up the only power you as a voter have?
iirc correctly I once voted for a Republican for a minor state office, but he was a good guy and the Democrat was truly dreadful. Otherwise, I’ve always voted for the Democrat and never third party. However, it would be extremely difficult for me to vote for a known DINO.
if you’ve managed to hold your nose and vote for Dianne Feinstein, is Hillary any worse?
Feinstein didn’t run for POTUS. And I just couldn’t hold my nose long enough to vote for her for Governor in 1990. She’s also ever so slightly better on (or a little bit further towards the front of the parade) on equal rights than Hillary.
Feinstein (and Boxer of course) did vote “nay” on the 1996 DOMA.
I’m still not exactly sure why a lot of Democrats think that those numbers of hers are going to hold up. I’d like to remind people that Gore and Dukakis, the latter by 20%+ points even, commanded huge leads in the polls at one point as well.
At the very least I demand that the Democratic Party tests those numbers through a couple of credible primary challenges. If in the absence of ratfucking from her or her opponent those poll numbers deflate or the other candidate is able to match her then it’s time to shop around for a new candidate.
Because Democrats always 1) assume that the GOP nominee will be weak (which is generally true) 2) forget to evaluate the political chops of their favorite candidate, and 3) don’t place nearly enough weight on the point in political cycles when the Presidential election will take place.
If the GOP heeds your advice – and I pray that they do – then we will most certainly see simians slinging $#!^ from the right, followed shortly thereafter by a third party run from the Right. If nominating Hillary Clinton “will motivate the right to give money and volunteer and to show up at the polls” then it seems logical that nominating anyone other than Hillary should produce fewer GOP volunteers, donations, and voters at the polls. It would seem that the perfect storm to ensure that the GOP loses, possibly in historic, devastating fashion, would be for the GOP to nominate someone left of Robert Bork and for the Democrats to nominate someone other than Hillary Clinton.
Here’s hoping that actually comes to fruition.
The GOP is not going to disappear unless or until Big Money totally owns the Democratic Party. That’s getting close, but it’s still convenient to keep it around as the laboratory for the new foreign policy and economic ideas for “New Democrats” to implement after the GOP has sold the crap to 50%+1 of the public.
It’s true that Hillary will motivate the right to give money and volunteer and to show up at the polls, but that won’t help them defeat her.
Honestly, this is old conventional wisdom. The wingnut base is already so fired up that nothing will stop them from voting in every election.
There are two flavors of this theory. One is that the Democrats have some influence over how motivated the wingnut base is … that perhaps by nominating a centrist or not saying bad things about conservatives then some wingnuts may not vote or even may change sides. No way. First, any centrist will immediately be painted as a left wing extremist (as they did to Gore, Kerry, Clinton (both of them) and Obama) and the wingnuts will believe every word. Second, even if the Democrat doesn’t actually say or do anything – for example, Obama’s only gun-related action during his first term was to remove the restriction on loaded weapons in national parks – the wingnuts will still believe that the Democrat secretly plans to implement Soviet-style policies, and any counter-evidence just shows how fiendish the Democrats are with their planning.
The other flavor of the theory is that wingnuts won’t show up to the general election if the GOP candidate isn’t sufficiently wingnutty. I’m still waiting for the first piece of evidence supporting this theory. They hated Romney and voted en masse for him anyway and were convinced he’d win because everyone they knew was voting for him. Ditto McCain, although the Palin pick kind of masked that.