Regardless of what happens in the midterms next Tuesday, do you consider yourself on the Hillary Clinton bandwagon for 2016?
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
No.
Depends on how you define “on the bandwagon.” Like most of the commenters on this and similar sites, I have many, many problems with Hillary: she’s bought and paid for, she’s a hawk, etc. I would support other candidates in the Democratic primary, depending on who those candidates are. But whatever Hillary’s shortcomings are as a politician, she would still be a far better president than any of the Republicans being mentioned as 2016 candidates. Frankly, the Republicans have become so dangerously radical that I shudder to think what would happen if they gained the presidency at this point. As bad as the DLC, neo-Bourbon Democrats are, there is still a real difference between them and today’s dominant Republicans. I would never want to do anything that would jeopardize the election of a Democrat in 2016. I imagine I speak for a pretty large segment, if not a majority, of today’s Democrats when I say that.
I would like to amend and extend my comments (below) to include a hearty endorsement of Dumbspear Osparrow’s.
very strongly no. I won’t say anybody but Clinton but she represents everything I don’t like about the Democratic party.
Me too. And I will support her if nominated, donating money to her campaign and providing boots on the ground. It’s not about Hilary. It’s about making the best choice (from the choices available) so we can maintain some semblance of rational government.
I suppose you’re right, but to me the point is, she is not the nominee, so it’s a hypothetical question. I think a more significant question is, would we support serious rivals for the nomination. I sure would, if they were better than she is. Which is what I hope will happen.
I’m not. I’ll vote for her if she’s the nominee, but I am hoping a plausible alternative will turn up.
Back in 2007 I often thought she would make a great Senate Majority Leader because of her organization and management abilities. Her 2008 campaign disproved that thesis. I worry that she is a conventional thinker in a time when we need leaders who can find or accept unconventional solutions to problems (see how I avoided saying “think outside the box?”).
The Hillary bandwagon?
No.
Not even if they pay me to play on it.
AG
P.S. Unless of course they pay me really a lot. And even then I won’t play good. On purpose. Bet on it.
No hopping on the bandwagon like I did in the 2008 primaries. I would like to see some competitors nudge her a bit to the left on FP at the very least.
We can’t afford another four years of Obamaesque semi-hawkishness. The situation demands a sharp reversal of muddled policy and bombing numerous foreign countries. And a true and sincere Re-Reset with the Russkies. Otherwise we’re headed to WW3 against the grown ups.
Now, if it comes down to Hillary vs the Jebster — which I predict will be the race — the decision is easy. I’ll not only jump on her bandwagon but probably offer to fill up the gas tank.
Hell no.
Beat me to it!
I’m a Democrat, so of course I’m not.
I am so against the political royal families the idea that we could have another bush vx a clinton as the choice is truly awful.
That said she is better than any of them.
Really would like someone to step up and either outright win or at least pull the debate left. Senator Warren would be a good conversation starter here.
I will vote Dem, but Hilary means holding my nose while doing so.
Perhaps a better question is which groups of very powerful people will definitely be on the bandwagon?
All of them.
Speaking of Hilary bandwagon, I just received and email telling us that Hilary all be in NOLA to stump with Mary Landrieu. il. be heading out on vacation as HRC is heading in and I’ve never been happier to leave NOLA for a week.
primary. If she wins the nomination, she gets my vote and nothing else. She’s going to be a walking disaster as a general election candidate and a president.
Disagree about “disaster as a candidate” but agree with all the rest.
Whoever the Democratic nominee is, he or she represents the potential for super majorities in both houses of Congress. Right now, it seems like Hillary will probably have coattails, so if that’s true, I will enthusiastically campaign for her. It’s not about her (just like 2008 wasn’t about Obama all alone). I have no problem for a presidential candidate whom I find imperfect if it means bringing in a huge majority for Democrats in Congress.
Why would she? She’s an uninspiring campaigner, speaks language designed for some mythical “middle way” of corporatists and warhawks with a dash of feminism circa 1965 “liberal” Republican women, and her sense of entitlement leads to frequent so-called gaffes. She only looks good to some Democrats right now because the MSM and GOP are keeping their power dry wrt to Hillary. Even Romney like his chances against her.
Romney liked his chances against Obama.
Probably true. But if it were a bunch of experienced, qualified, and charismatic fifty-something year olds lining up for the DEM nomination, doubt a) the MSM would give Romney the time of day and b) Romney would think he had a chance (not with his track record of three losses and one win for a single term as a governor). POTUS elections don’t favor the senior citizen in the race. Reagan was the exception, but he was an actor and all he had to do was read his lines. As we’ve never seen an all senior citizen POTUS contest, have not idea how it would turn out — but have difficulty imagining that it would inspire and motivate anyone under forty.
No. I’ll vote for her if she’s the nominee, but doubt I’ll be able to bring myself to do any GOTV.
She’s running as a democrat, yes?
Then I’m in.
Here’s another question- Would you rather have Hillary with large congressional majorities or anyone but Hillary with narrow congressional majorities?
That’s a real head scratcher for me.
That’s a good way to put it. Of course Anyone But Hillary will not be as well positioned as her to win the election either. Senator Warren has slightly softened her dismissal of a run, and I would get excited if she did. But Warren, or anyone else, would have a lot of ground to make up that Clinton has already covered. I am dreading the next election.
Not “anyone but Hilary” but a sound Progressive with narrow majorities, yes definitely.
As a liberal Democrat, of course I am. Easy choice. Holding the White House is crucial. Added bonus of electing one of most prominent women in US history, will drive GOP (farther) around the bend.
I’m on the Democratic nominee’s bandwagon, whoever it turns out to be.
Not on the bandwagon but will support the nominee, holding my nose if it’s Hillary. I’m looking at you, Elizabeth Warren.
There is no way that I would vote for anyone that the GOP would offer. If Hillary can bring in numerous amounts of Democratic winners with her then I will vote for her. But I am open to someone else if they can do the same and are more to the left. What matters right now is clearing out as many GOP members from Congress as we can.
Bandwagon? I don’t think it’s a matter of being on a bandwagon. For me, personally, it seems fairly straightforward. I am going to be for whoever can maximize the overall Democratic margin. After next week, I’m not sure there is going to be any Republican out there in the political universe who is preferable over any Democrat, no matter how frustrated I might feel about the particular slant a Democrat might have to take in order to win among their constituency. I think we are rapidly approaching the point where the GOP’s alternative is going to be very plain to everyone. And I, for one, don’t want a single one of those motherf@#$ers anywhere close to a state or federal office. We are bordering on massive crazytown in Washington, and if they roll into town with all the Tea Party guns blazing, it is going to be the closest to anarchy in the Capital that one can imagine. We have to dismantle this Tea Party Hydra. We have to start cutting off heads quicker than it can grow them back (figuratively, of course). I’ll hold my nose, stand on my head, do cartwheels if I have to. We have to begin to turn the rudder back in the direction of at least a minimum of sanity in our political process. This isn’t the time to settle scores or to pull punches. I’m not under the illusion that just because someone has a D next to their name that they are going to be anywhere near perfect. But one thing is for certain, any bastard with an R next to their name is either a fucking lunatic or has underwear so soiled from fear of the lunatics that they absolutely will never stand for anything I would ever ponder supporting.
Absofuckinglutely
If she’s nominated by the Dems. There’s no hope now for a third-party and I can’t vote for Republicans. Maybe something will happen (illness, a change of plans at the top) to put a marginally Democratic Democrat up for nomination.
When has there EVER been hope for third-party candidates, especially in presidential elections?
BullMoose party.
Only if she’s the nominee. I’ll be hoping someone else emerges with a better chance, since 1) I don’t much care for HRC and 2) she’s going to lose to whoever the GOP nominee is.
Here’s a fun thought game: who would her running mate be? Can that person be President? Why can’t they run for the nomination on their own then…?
Mental ju-jitsu! You’re welcome!
Going to lose to anyone in the GOP? No way. Chris Christie is dog meat. Ted Cruz is a dog turd. Neither will ever be President. Nor will some Bible-thumper shouting “Hallelujah”. Jeb Bush, yeah maybe, but I think the memory of the ’90s will propel her over Bush. Wall Street won’t care which one wins.
V-P? Well a friend of mine favors Richardson on ethnic grounds, but I don’t think so. I like Clinton-Warren, but two women may not fly either.
My best guess is the odious Rahm Emanuel.
I want to say Julian Castro as a play for the Hispanic vote but I don’t think they will run a woman and a minority on the same ticket. Besides that he is only 40 so he has time.
Better chance than the woman-woman ticket of Clinton-Warren. No need to cater to the white male vote anyway. Hillary will bring in the old white woman vote and many of the younger women too. Black voters may resent the 2008 primaries but would much rather vote for Clinton than any teabagger or even Christie. Comments on this from black denizens of the Frog pond are
invitedencouraged to comment on this. Nail down the Hispanic vote and you’ve got a winning combo.Would O’Malley go for the slot to enhance his visibility?
Yeah, Black will voter for HRC, I don’t expect Obama numbers though, but I do expect the regular Dem numbers for Black voters.
And if HRC can keep Bill from making the same stupid mistakes vis a vis 2008 campaign in regards to critiquing or discussing Obama, she will be fine, but she really needs to keep the Big Dawg on a leash in those areas.
He’ll be fine chewing on Jeb.
Look at her clumsy attempt to be populist ‘corporations don’t create jobs.’ Policy aside a HRC campaign would be a disaster.
She’s actually quite popular. She’d mop up Kentucky, Arkansas, and lift dem tickets in numerous states. Just because you don’t like her doesn’t mean she’s not a competitive candidate.
Competitive does not equal victory. I honestly will have to see it to believe it that she can win Arkansas and Kentucky.
Absolutely not.
NO!! apologies for shouting; i couldn’t seem to help myself.
It depends if there’s a Democratic Party left after next Tuesday. According to the media (according to the blogs’ reporting of what it being reported in the media) the Democratic Party is going to get beaten like the Whigs were.
Until something about the US political culture dramatically changes, electoral politics as effective policy of spectator entertainment is doomed. That means that pollsters, color commentators, and pundits will have smaller and smaller audiences until something real happens in politics.
That goes beyond a single candidate.
In fact the whole notion of a bandwagon (as in the lead wagon of a circus) is both quaint and suspect.
Time to figure out what the new metaphors for political activities around elections need to be to shape effective political action.
The current ones that aren’t corrupted are either trite or misdirecting. Even the old trusty military metaphor as the seeking of an election being a “campaign” is losing its usefulness.
Wake me on November 6, 2016, if I’m still around. Then I’ll have more than enough time to consider whether to get on the Hillary bandwagon. My guess is that Ms. Inevitable sinks her campaign again with a poor choice of campaign staff and a persistent blend of neoliberal neoconservatism. But I suspect she’ll take a try at regalvanizing the Ohio Valley for her candidacy. A bus tour reunion.
Cuomo’s out, even as a Republican candidate; he can’t deliver New York.
Jerry Brown now has the experience, but not the fire in the belly.
Jay Nixon earlier sabotage whatever crossover appeal he might have had..
Quinn, Hickenlooper need to pull off wins to even think about it.
Dayton is unknown.
O’Malley is nibbling around the edges.
Patrick would have to wow the white barbershops in Neshoba County, MS, to even get a start, given the media forcible restraint of Barack Obama. Until there’s some substantial change in media ownership, that’s a rigged game.
And then you have the Senators, all of whom need records to run on and not a Senate that has been dead in the water since it passed Obamacare. On issues, if anyone listens to issues anymore, you have Merkley and Warren. If you want old guard, you have Schumer and Durbin. You also have Gillibrand, Baldwin, Stabenow, Landrieu, McCaskill and Hagan.
And then there’s Al Franken.
For surprise candidates, there’s Warren Buffet and Bruce Springsteen, But these folks are too classy to act like Trump and Duck Dynasty with a guitar and gun.
Rahm’s done nothing good, and DeBlasio’s done nothing yet.
And Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania have been pretty much clearcut of Presidential timber.
Anybody got an idea of who to draft?
“beaten like the whigs”?
Seriously?
Unless they lose the popular vote in the house and senate by a lot, quite frankly, all we’ll be looking at is the result of gerrymandering. And that requires a more serious solution than drafting Bruce Springsteen.
Caught me a bit by surprise too. I guess I really need to leave my cubicle a bit more often and read more than the headlines. Was under the impression that the Dems were going to end up underwater in the Senate, but that was expected, and that they weren’t going to sustain more than minor losses in the House.
Who ends up among the potential challengers for HRC? Hard to say. I’d still prefer Bernie Sanders among those who coalition with the Dems. “Serious People” will have none of that, of course, but he’d tackle income inequality to a degree unseen since probably my parents’ lifetimes.
Bernie will be 75 years old in 2016. And while he appears to be healthy and have more stamina than many younger men, campaigning for the WH is physically grueling.
Not so sure that Democrats will lose the Senate. And they may pick up a few totally unexpected seats in the House.
Is that not the media narrative about the fate of Democrats this election? Is that not the purpose of the culture/political no limits campaign for a permanent Republican majority? And is that not the trap that blue-dogging and no labels and phony bipartisanship has led Democrats into?
Where Republicans can attack Democrats for Republican ideas like cutting Medicare and Social Security while Republicans continue to advocate cutting Medicare and Social Security?
Have you noticed how old Jerry Brown is? And most of those you’ve listed are or will be in their “golden years” in 2016.
If there’s anyone worth drafting it’s Sherrod Brown. Although he’s only slightly younger than many of those you’ve listed or have expressed interest. A Brown-Gillibrand ticket would work for me. (A plus is that both aren’t up for re-election to the Seante until 2018.)
Have you noticed how repeated incumbents soon tend to be? Yes, I’ve noticed. It’s why primaries were invented. And retirement is why incumbents want primaries suppressed.
I like what I’ve seen and heard from O’Malley so far. If HRC sees this through to nom, I could see O’Malley as VP.
When Seward was grousing to Lincoln about the deficiencies of all the Union generals (including the incumbents), he pointed out that every one had major flaws. Lincoln, while not disagreeing about the challenges, said something like “Well, it’s fine for you to complain, but I have to have somebody.”
Like the GOP, if we don’t have anyone better than HRC, we’ll go with what we’ve got. But I doubt she’ll beat any GOP nominee. She’s simply too unlikable (a la McGovern, Dukakis, Mondale, and yes, Gore), and the GOP will run someone like Bush who will be accepted by the media as likable. The silver lining will be that her defeat will help the Democrats purge her brand of conservatism/anti-populism from the party for good.
If she’s the nominee, of course. I”m still not convinced she’s going to run though.
O’Malley is going to run. If Hillary is in the race he runs as friendly opposition and ends up as the the veep. If not he’s going to be the front runner with a lot of chits to call in. I’m on HIS bandwagon unless Liz Warren decides to run– and maybe even if she does. I think he would stand a better chance of winning by a big margin.
Nah.
IF she is the Dem Nominee, I will make sure to vote for her.
But,
so, doing anything extra outside of voting for her?
Um, no