posted
I actually am a little concerned about Obama's African family. While he may not be close to them, they seem like easy targets. I hope they have some security forces out there.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Given the insane popularity that Obama holds in eastern African, I don't think that's likely, and if it did happen, I think the pro-Obama locals would probably attempt a rescue before we even know there was a problem.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Shall we officially close this election season?
66 pages of speculation, analysis, gut reaction, outrage, fury, laughter, struggle, hope, fear, withering sarcasm, frustration and more than a little weariness.
I say good work Hatrack . We discussed issues without attacking each other, got heated without boiling over, and on the whole I think made a good showing of this quadrenniel tradition. I'll meet you all in two years at the 2010 Midterm Election thread. Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can we just get this guy going again so I can be all like LOL GUYS HILLARY CLINTON IS JUST GONNA WIN OK I ALREADY CALLED IT JUST MOVE ON WITH YOUR LIVES
2017-2018 is actually where the bulk of my long time arrogant statements on demographic changes lie so there you go
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Elizabeth Warren is back in the presidential picture a bit.
After years of categorically denying any interest, she said the other day that she can never rule anything out, and never knows where her the road might lead to. But for now she's just a senator.
Words right out of Hillary's mouth.
Frankly no one out there could even come close to giving Hillary a run for her money that has the name recognition and zazzle that Warren has. O'Malley is the only governor even thinking about it. He'd be a dark horse, so would almost anyone else seriously interested that I can think of.
Warren has star power. She's quotable. She's smart, savvy, one of the best campaigners we've seen in years, and she's fantastic with both high and low brow public. Despite being an ivory tower figure, I think she'd clean up with blue collar workers given her populist platform and blue collar history. Plus I think she'd eat up the youth vote.
But more interesting, I think, is the possibility of a Clinton-Warren ticket. I'd vote for Clinton to keep a Republican out of the White House. I'd vote for Warren to put her IN the White House. But I'd be thrilled to vote for a unity ticket. I think they're a good balance of centrist and leftist too, one that might smooth out some ruffled feathers in the party. Plus if Warren can force Hillary's hand before agreeing to the ticket, she can make sure she has the power to get traction on her issues that have been stuck in the muck since she got to the Senate.
Everyone wins, and Millennials finally get a pit bull for their issues in the White House.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've been pretty skeptical of her claim that she had no intention of running ever since she published A Fighting Chance back in April. That didn't really seem like the act of a politician who didn't have their eye on higher office.
I don't think that Warren could beat Clinton in the primaries, but what she *could* do is shift the national conversation toward the issues that are important to her, which would be valuable. A Clinton/Warren ticket would definitely be interesting, but I'm not sure which ruffled feathers that would be likely to smooth out. Are you thinking that those of us on the left would be mollified by Warren's presence on the ticket?
Posts: 1087 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll be bold and say that the democratic establishment is not much more excited about Clnton than they were in 2008. There was a reason she lost big early donors to a complete rookie like Obama. Those reasons have changed a bit, but they're still relevant. She's not the politician her husband is, or was, and while she was an effective senator, she doesn't do a lot for the republican base (putting that mildly). Obama won by absolutely dominating his demographics. Are black and Latino voters going to out voting for Hillary? I don't know yet.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am completely uninterested in Clinton as a president, but would be intrigued by a Warren candidacy.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't like electing family members of past presidents. It seems like we're heading in a rather dynastic direction. I know there are counter-arguments, like that such people have been close enough to learn the job, but for the most part I don't think more of the same is the right answer.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd take more of the same if I thought she would be as effective as Bill was. But then, a lot of his legacy is not as shiny as it once was. He rode a subsiding crime rate into office, then effectively signed into law a prison industrial complex that made us the envy of the world's dictatorships for our ability to imprison inconvenient members of our population. He was the only really sane president when it came to economics for 3 decades, but he utterly failed to strike a health care deal in a time when a deal was in the offing. We didn't make up ground on that for another 14 years or so.
But today, I'd take someone that republicans could at least be begrudged not to despise and hate with the fire of 1000 suns. Race relations are worse than they have been in decades, in many ways, and while I don't think Obama of all people is responsible for that, he is, and so we are, certainly the victim of those circumstances today.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jake: I don't think that Warren could beat Clinton in the primaries, but what she *could* do is shift the national conversation toward the issues that are important to her, which would be valuable. A Clinton/Warren ticket would definitely be interesting, but I'm not sure which ruffled feathers that would be likely to smooth out. Are you thinking that those of us on the left would be mollified by Warren's presence on the ticket?
I think Warren mollifies, to a degree, liberals who aren't excited about Clinton.
But I think her bigger draw is actually youth turnout. Millennials are in love with Warren, but they only so-so like Clinton. Warren has made a political career over speaking about youth issues in a way no one has in, well, my entire life time. If the youth vote stays home, I think the Dems have a hard row to hoe.
If the youth vote turns out and an Old Lady ticket snaps up the women's vote, I think they win in a landslide.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
warren would be an exciting presidency because we have an entire party dedicated to their galloping full-bore consternation at obama's supermegaduperhyperultraextremeonehundredpercent leftism because he's the scariest ultra left leftist megaliberal ever, so what happens when we actually move to a leftist progressive as president? the gop will get the vapors trying to come up with as-yet untrammeled hyperbolic verbiage to describe how warren is now a for reals for seriousies actual the most liberal ever.
and that, that might be kind of cool to watch.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know many young people who love Hillary, but I am exposed to an extraordinary biased population, as she wen to my alma mater.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: warren would be an exciting presidency because we have an entire party dedicated to their galloping full-bore consternation at obama's supermegaduperhyperultraextremeonehundredpercent leftism because he's the scariest ultra left leftist megaliberal ever, so what happens when we actually move to a leftist progressive as president? the gop will get the vapors trying to come up with as-yet untrammeled hyperbolic verbiage to describe how warren is now a for reals for seriousies actual the most liberal ever.
and that, that might be kind of cool to watch.
I think their simple answer will be, essentially "You know she's radical when she makes OBAMA look moderate!!"
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: warren would be an exciting presidency because we have an entire party dedicated to their galloping full-bore consternation at obama's supermegaduperhyperultraextremeonehundredpercent leftism because he's the scariest ultra left leftist megaliberal ever, so what happens when we actually move to a leftist progressive as president? the gop will get the vapors trying to come up with as-yet untrammeled hyperbolic verbiage to describe how warren is now a for reals for seriousies actual the most liberal ever.
and that, that might be kind of cool to watch.
I think their simple answer will be, essentially "You know she's radical when she makes OBAMA look moderate!!"
*nod*
They'll also just point out this proves that the Democrats are shifting left because they keep electing increasingly radical candidates, so of course Republicans have no choice but to be the party of no.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eh. I think this is the cycle that the tether snaps. I think the republicans may now realize that there is no room remaining on the right, and that loony conservatism is not going to win them national elections. They've pulled the national debate so far right already, that a good chunk of liberals are ready for their own insurrection candidates, exhausted as we are with middle of the road policies after Bush.
But democrats have the advantage of being still able to span a wide array of ideologies. People can be religious and liberal. Can they be conservative and atheist? It's getting harder. Pro gay and conservative? Near impossible. I think the republican establishment knows this extremely well, and is terrified of what will happen in 2016 if they can't control their base during primaries. They got a taste of the embarrassment that was Sarah Palin in 2008, and they don't want to go through that again. I would bet we get a fairly middle of the road candidate like huntsman this time around, paired against Clinton. It will be a relatively dull cycle, perhaps, but I don't see how they can hope to succeed any other way.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And, I'll add, that while some of these Tea party republicans might get big press and shake hands, they are despised in the party machinery. A recent piece by the New Yorker (I think it was), polled scores of congressmen and senators on who they hate most, regardless of party. Republican and democrat alike, Ted Cruz was the Runaway victor.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The republicans campaigning here are insisting they are not really republican. If you didn't know, you wouldn't know what party they belonged to. Could be very confusing.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
so i guess one of the reasons why this election gets to be a contest at all for control of the senate stems in large part from that Brownback basically got control of the entire future of Kansas, went full bore on a quintessentially conservative program (including tax cuts for Job Creators as a way to stimulate economic growth, all that laffernomics / trickle down stuff at work) with no democrats to impede him nor to take any blame, and it's all gone belly up
posted
His son (George...doesn't that get confusing at family dinners?) says otherwise. As far as GOP candidates go, he's pretty moderate and I would prefer him over most others.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Believe what you like. He is not going to run. The party and backers have no interest in associating themselves with a deeply troubled administration. Time has not been overly kind to W's legacy, and The last thing they want is to excite the democratic base to the extent that another Bush candidacy would.
All that, and Jeb Bush has no reason to want to run. He risks deep embarrassment if he loses or if republicans desert him, which they will, and he is not likely to win in the general. Now, granted, no republican is likely to win in the general anymore, but Jeb doesn't want to be another Romney.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think an association with W would last past the initial reaction of "Oh great, another Bush!", once people hear him speak. He's well-spoken, doesn't have a Texas drawl, and knows his stuff and is somewhat of a policy wonk compared to his brother.
posted
To be fair, I have a tomato on my kitchen counter who is something of a policy wonk compared to his brother.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually think Jeb is more likely to run than not. Regardless, he's not only NOT tamping down excitement on a potential run, his answers to presidential musings and questions are only heating up the conversation.
Orincoro - Who do you think beats Hillary?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: I don't think an association with W would last past the initial reaction of "Oh great, another Bush!", once people hear him speak. He's well-spoken, doesn't have a Texas drawl, and knows his stuff and is somewhat of a policy wonk compared to his brother.
I think you underestimate a very powerful narrative, that will not just go away in a few weeks. W was haunted by his association with his father, and that would pale in comparison to his own haunting of his brother. Bush, don't forget, is one of the most unpopular people in America. That isn't going away, and people will not forget.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I actually think Jeb is more likely to run than not. Regardless, he's not only NOT tamping down excitement on a potential run, his answers to presidential musings and questions are only heating up the conversation.
Orincoro - Who do you think beats Hillary?
Realistically? No one. And Jeb wouldn't make it through a primary. If he did, I think he would sacrifice any moderation he has to the loss of the narrative against Hilary, that almost any other candidate could use: that she is an establishment figure.
But then, I'm not sure Hillary will win in the primary. Maybe I'm a minority, but I do remember that she was beaten by a complete novice just 6 years ago. What's changed? Perhaps she's more popular now than she was then, but perhaps not.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think she's more popular, I think she learned some really valuable lessons, and I think, other than Warren, no one has the name recognition or money to keep up with her. No one else even seems to be trying. She's scared just about everyone out of even running let alone contending.
Plus I think Obama ruined it for a lot of people. Democrats voted in an unknown over Hillary last time and the vast majority of them have buyers remorse now. I think his presidency makes it very unlikely that most of those people will choose another dark horse in the next election. They all know too well the dangers of an unknown quantity.
The reason i think Jeb does well in a primary is institutional support. I think the party elders will support him as the only choice that has a chance of winning. It's possible they look at Romney and say they didn't win because they weren't conservative enough, but there are still, despite how it looks and feels, a lot of smart people in the GOP ranks. They know conservatives win primaries and lose generals and they know the numbers are against them more and more with each passing year. Jeb is probably their best chance.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I actually think Jeb is more likely to run than not. Regardless, he's not only NOT tamping down excitement on a potential run, his answers to presidential musings and questions are only heating up the conversation.
Orincoro - Who do you think beats Hillary?
Realistically? No one. And Jeb wouldn't make it through a primary. If he did, I think he would sacrifice any moderation he has to the loss of the narrative against Hilary, that almost any other candidate could use: that she is an establishment figure.
But then, I'm not sure Hillary will win in the primary. Maybe I'm a minority, but I do remember that she was beaten by a complete novice just 6 years ago. What's changed? Perhaps she's more popular now than she was then, but perhaps not.
That was a really narrow victory. When was the last time a primary wasn't decided until June?
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I actually think Jeb is more likely to run than not. Regardless, he's not only NOT tamping down excitement on a potential run, his answers to presidential musings and questions are only heating up the conversation.
Orincoro - Who do you think beats Hillary?
Realistically? No one. And Jeb wouldn't make it through a primary. If he did, I think he would sacrifice any moderation he has to the loss of the narrative against Hilary, that almost any other candidate could use: that she is an establishment figure.
But then, I'm not sure Hillary will win in the primary. Maybe I'm a minority, but I do remember that she was beaten by a complete novice just 6 years ago. What's changed? Perhaps she's more popular now than she was then, but perhaps not.
That was a really narrow victory. When was the last time a primary wasn't decided until June?
That's true, of course. But people forget that it happened partially because Democratic donors abandoned the Clintons before she had even managed to lose in New Hampshire. As Obama was projected to win there, quite a few in the party decided it was the perfect opportunity to cut her off at the knees and throw support to someone else. Obama was in a perfect position.
Clinton had expected to lose in NH, mind, but she had no expected the party to abandon her so quickly. It looked like a fight the rest of the way, but she knew as early as the closing polls on super Tuesday that she was done.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The reason i think Jeb does well in a primary is institutional support. I think the party elders will support him as the only choice that has a chance of winning.
What in recent history tells you that the party has been effectual in supporting moderate candidates? Romney was humiliated by the parade of idiots that rose above him in the polls in the last Republican primary. He was soundly beaten in the general, partially because he had been so diminished by the level of debate in the primaries.
Jeb Bush is no different, plus baggage. He'd have a better shot in the general, but a) Democrats will hate him for his family, and b) Republican primary voters will hate him for being moderate. No, I say, Jeb Bush has no business running.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, the Atlantic Wrote about it? Well, it's not like they have an interest in getting you to believe it will happen or anything. So.
Just for some perspective, this is all, and don't doubt it for a minute, carefully orchestrated. Jeb has a few of his proxies test out the idea, and see what the media has to say about it, what the twitters have to tweet, and what the dem response would be. Jeb leaves most of the likely candidates from the GOP far behind in terms of fund raising ability, and electability. That's true. But he won't run because he can't win. His party won't nominate him, and even if they would, his is a ship that sailed long ago. It had a dumber version of him as the skipper, and it sank. And if it's "Clinton v. Bush," in terms of baggage, Clinton wins. And that's saying a lot.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Oh, the Atlantic Wrote about it? Well, it's not like they have an interest in getting you to believe it will happen or anything. So.
I'm not understanding, why would they have an interest in the public believing Jeb will run?
quote: I'm saying that the pronoun "his" would not apply to this tomato.
I meant to add a to the end of my comment
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
. We discussed issues without attacking each other, got heated without boiling over, and on the whole I think made a good showing of this quadrenniel tradition. I'll meet you all in two years at the 2010 Midterm Election thread. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
