2016 race (1 Viewer)

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Everybody's decided Warren is not running.

It's just that we have had Ted Kennedy in 1980, Dukakis in 1988, Tsongas in 1992, Kerry in 2000 & 2004, Romney in 2008 & 2012.... I mean MA does seem to pretty much offer up a presidential candidate every single election term, don't they?

Deval Patrick seems more likely to run than Warren.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Everybody's decided Warren is not running.

It's just that we have had Ted Kennedy in 1980, Dukakis in 1988, Tsongas in 1992, Kerry in 2000 & 2004, Romney in 2008 & 2012.... I mean MA does seem to pretty much offer up a presidential candidate every single election term, don't they?

Deval Patrick seems more likely to run than Warren.

Well that would make sense. I think he's managed by Axelrod too.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hillary Needs Competition Five Democrats who should challenge the presumptive nominee.

Amy Klobuchar, former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, Sen. Sherrod Brown, former Mayor of New York City Michael Bloomberg, and Sen. Ron Wyden.

Hillary Clinton is not doomed. One terrible press conference won’t mean the end of a long, storied political career. As of now, it is far more likely that she will win the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, then win the White House, than it is that she will fade quietly from the political scene.

One nevertheless wonders whether the latest Clinton miniscandal will lead at least some Democrats to think, Hey, why not run for president? What exactly do I have to lose? If nothing else, a 2016 presidential campaign would lay the groundwork for a future run, when there will be no Clintons blocking the way.

With Clinton as the prohibitive favorite for the Democratic nomination, only a handful of no-hopers are willing to make a go of it. Vice President Biden seems eager to make a third attempt at winning the top job, with an eye toward forever cementing his role as America’s Mortifying Uncle. Bernie Sanders, the beloved cranky socialist from Vermont who caucuses with Senate Democrats, has expressed interest in running in a Democratic primary or two, presumably to ensure that his brand of left-wingery is adequately represented. Ex-Republican Jim Webb, a loner polymath and decorated veteran who served briefly and unhappily as a Democratic senator from Virginia, has also made noises about running as an economic populist. Sadly, no one seems to care. Martin O’Malley, the former governor of Maryland, is similarly trying to carve out a place to Clinton’s left. Unfortunately for O’Malley, he is perhaps best-known as the inspiration for one of the more oleaginous characters on The Wire. It’s widely believed that New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo would like to run for president, but he now finds himself under a cloud of suspicion as federal prosecutors investigate corruption in the Empire State. So you can scratch him off the list. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren is the most formidable of the potential primary challengers we hear about from time to time. Yet Warren insists that she’s not running, and there’s good reason to believe that she means it. For one thing, Warren might actually be better off as the Democratic Party’s chief ideological enforcer than as an also-ran presidential candidate.

So who should get in the mix? To run a successful primary campaign, you have to either have or be able to raise money. Before you even get to that point, however, you have to have something to say. That’s the really tough part. Ideally, you have something to say that is distinctive and that resonates with a decent-sized swath of the primary electorate. The Democratic Party has changed since the Bill Clinton years: It is less white than it was then, for one thing, and as conservative Democrats have left for the GOP, it’s also become more consistently liberal on social and economic issues. With all of this in mind, I give you my wish list of Democratic presidential contenders:

Any contest for the Democratic presidential nomination needs an earnest, nerdy liberal technocrat who appeals to the intelligentsia. Bill Bradley played this role in 2000. Howard Dean put a brilliant spin on earnest, nerdy liberalism in 2004 by also being full of rage. There have been rumors that Russ Feingold, the former Wisconsin senator known for his civil libertarian streak and his devotion to stringent campaign finance regulations, might enter the fray, and he’s certainly an interesting possibility. My pick for this role is Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden. His steadfast opposition to dragnet surveillance has won him many friends among civil libertarians, and that’s no small thing in a Democratic primary, particularly in dovish, independent-minded states like New Hampshire. A Pew survey from January found that 31 percent of Democrats hold an unfavorable view of the National Security Agency, which is not a bad little foundation for a Wyden campaign. Moreover, Wyden has proposed a universal health care plan more ambitious than Obamacare, and he’s championed the idea of allowing states like Vermont and Oregon to build their own single-payer health systems.

While Wyden woos the nerds, Sherrod Brown, the gravelly-voiced, tousle-haired senator from Ohio, could step in as the red-meat populist, who’d bash China for its unfair trade practices, offer a blueprint for revitalizing organized labor, and demand that the big banks be brought to heel. He’d back Medicare for all and big increases in the minimum wage, all while ferociously attacking Beltway Democrats like Hillary Clinton for their coziness with Wall Street. Though Brown is a solid social liberal, he’s managed to win over Ohio voters by appealing to their nationalism. In Rust Belt primaries, Brown could rail against “Benedict Arnold CEOs” for outsourcing jobs to great effect. Building on the American left’s recent bout of Pikettymania, he could make the case for a progressive wealth tax, a measure that Clinton, who’s grown quite wealthy since leaving the White House, would find awkward to oppose. Though it’s hard to see him defeating Hillary Clinton, he could certainly push her to the left, which should be motivation enough for a true believer like Brown. Alas, Brown has sworn off any interest in higher office. But he has an avenue should he choose to pursue it.

One of the more notable political subplots of last summer concerned how national Democrats would react to the shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, and the protests that followed. At a speech in San Francisco, Hillary Clinton spoke of “the inequities that persist in our justice system,” and she asked whites to empathize with blacks who feel targeted by the police. Though Clinton took some time to respond to the events in Ferguson, her remarks were generally well-received on the left. It’s also true, however, that Ferguson galvanized many black progressives, and it’s easy to imagine that black Democrats will welcome a nonwhite candidate willing to speak directly to issues of racial justice. The awful news in Ferguson on Wednesday night serves as a reminder that the Kulturkampf over racial bias in policing is not about to go away, and Democrats who’d prefer to avoid the issue are out of luck.

More than one-fifth of self-identified Democrats are black, and black voters play a large role in Democratic primaries in the Deep South. Barack Obama defeated Hillary Clinton in 2008 in part because he was able to unite college-educated white liberals with black voters, a coalition that could re-emerge. But who could match Obama’s appeal? New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker is arguably as charismatic as Obama, but his star has dimmed. His friendliness with Wall Street conservatives marks him as an unreliable friend to the hard left, and his devotion to school choice has earned him the enmity of the teachers unions, which are an extremely important Democratic constituency.

Deval Patrick, the former governor of Massachusetts, is a better bet. Though Patrick failed to prevent a Republican, Charlie Baker, from succeeding him, and though he has denied any interest in running for president in 2016, he has a sterling liberal résumé, having worked as a civil rights lawyer for much of his career. While Obama spoke cautiously about race during his 2008 presidential campaign, the conversation has changed. Patrick would, in theory, have the freedom to press harder on the theme of racial justice. Like Obama in 2008, Patrick has been dismissed as an empty suit. During his first run for governor in 2006, however, Patrick turned these attacks against his critics. When his Republican opponent accused him of being better at making speeches than offering specifics, Patrick replied with the following: “Just words. ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.’ Just words. ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself.’ Just words. ‘Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.’ Just words. ‘I have a dream.’ Just words.” Barack Obama himself seems to have been inspired by the rhetoric.

To be sure, not everyone is a Patrick fan. Having served two terms as governor, he’s had to make compromises, and some critics to his left see him as more of a cautious, corporate type than an inspiring liberal firebrand. Yet his time in office also means that he could go toe to toe with anyone, Clinton included, on executive experience. I can see why Patrick might want to wait to run for president, but he has an excellent opportunity to make a mark.

So far, most of Clinton’s would-be challengers have been coming from the left of the party. There might, however, be some room to her right. Bill Clinton ran as a moderate New Democrat who could appeal to middle-class white suburbanites. For a brief period, former Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh tried to occupy this role in 2008, and Virginia Sen. Mark Warner flirted with doing the same. Warner, still quite popular in his home state despite a near-defeat at the hands of GOP lobbyist Ed Gillespie, could fill this role tolerably well. Andrew Cuomo could as well, the threat of corruption charges notwithstanding.

But I like the idea of Mike Bloomberg running as the sober centrist. Yes, Bloomberg ran for mayor of New York as a Republican, and he now identifies as an independent. Even so, it’s fairly clear that Bloomberg is a moderate liberal, albeit of the Wall Street variety, and that his decision to run in New York as a Republican was first and foremost a matter of convenience. Bloomberg’s brand of centrism would be quite different from Bill Clinton’s ’90s version, not least because Bloomberg is, if anything, less culturally conservative. He would present himself as the turnaround artist America needs—kind of a pro-choice, anti-gun Mitt Romney. It’s easy to imagine Bloomberg, like Ross Perot, saturating the airwaves with detailed discussions of how he’d fix America’s roads and bridges, and how he’d put our entitlement programs on a sounder footing. If this idea doesn’t thrill you, you are dead inside.

And then there is Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who, despite having served eight years in the Senate, still counts as a fresh face. Klobuchar is one of America’s most popular senators, and she’s cultivated a reputation as an indefatigable, impeccably bipartisan problem solver on issues ranging from combating drug abuse to fighting sex trafficking. She also worked closely with moderate Republicans to put an end to the 2013 government shutdown. On most issues, she fits neatly in the Democratic Party’s liberal mainstream. Yet as a product of the politically competitive Upper Midwest, she makes a point of appealing to more conservative voters at every opportunity. Klobuchar’s nonconfrontational vibe makes her the mirror image of Wisconsin’s Scott Walker, something many Democratic voters might appreciate. Just as Barack Obama promised to move America toward a less divisive politics, perhaps Klobuchar could do the same. And to state the obvious, Klobuchar can speak to the struggles of working mothers, a crucially important part of the Democratic coalition, from experience. Who better to make the case for the liberal dream of universal child care than a temperamentally moderate Minnesotan? It’s unlikely that a candidate with Klobuchar’s profile would gain much traction in a race against Hillary Clinton. But in a race without her, Klobuchar could go very far.

Consider this list my sincere plea that Democrats (and quasi-Democrats) with a national profile not allow next year’s Democratic presidential contest to become a coronation. Hillary Clinton is more vulnerable than many Democrats seem to think, and it would be a shame if other Democrats who represent the party’s future rather than its past failed to make a go of it.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/03/hillary_clinton_campaign_deval_patrick_ron_wyden_amy_klobuchar_and_other.single.html

 

[timschochet]

HILLARY was invited to the White House yesterday for a private meeting with President Obama. The two spoke alone for around 30 minutes...

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

HILLARY was invited to the White House yesterday for a private meeting with President Obama. The two spoke alone for around 30 minutes...

"Ok Hillary, where'd you put that damn server?"

 

[eoMMan]

HILLARY was invited to the White House yesterday for a private meeting with President Obama. The two spoke alone for around 30 minutes...

You think they hooked up?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

HILLARY was invited to the White House yesterday for a private meeting with President Obama. The two spoke alone for around 30 minutes...

You think they hooked up?

"Now, Hillary, let's talk health care, as you know.... [pause] .... Hey, where did Bill and Michelle go?"

 

[Todd Andrews]

Warren-Webb 2016? No thank you.

But I could really get behind Webb-O' Malley or Webb-Huntsman or Webb-Warner.

 

[HellToupee]

Everybody's decided Warren is not running.

It's just that we have had Ted Kennedy in 1980, Dukakis in 1988, Tsongas in 1992, Kerry in 2000 & 2004, Romney in 2008 & 2012.... I mean MA does seem to pretty much offer up a presidential candidate every single election term, don't they?

Deval Patrick seems more likely to run than Warren.

Poor Deval has taken a public beaten on his Boston Olympics $7500 a day consulting job since he's left office

 

[HellToupee]

The Republicans best chance is facing Warren in the general election.

 

[snogger]

Warren-Webb 2016? No thank you.

But I could really get behind Webb-O' Malley or Webb-Huntsman or Webb-Warner.

My eyes open just a bit wider any time someone mentions Huntsman

I tried to find out more information on Webb's positions.. But his official site doesn't have a lot of substance in regards to his positions and the wikipage isn't that much better..

Any links for him that you can provide?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Yeah, I'm also interested in hearing more from Todd Andrews, Jim Webb superfan. How confident are you that Webb would appoint lefty pinkos to the bench if he were President? I have some concerns he might be sort of squishy on judicial nominations. It's an important issue to me.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Some stuff on Webb.

A speech he gave at the Nat Press Club last Fall.

Webb generally has a somewhat libertarian view on social issues. He is pro choice, against all affirmative action except for african-americans based on historical reasons (my position on aff action, too), and fiscally conservative. He applauds the forward progress on gay marriage and calls it a needed evolution, or something like that. I saw one article call him the "Democrats Rand Paul" because of his non-party line positions. I dont know if that is fair because Webb is a far more accomplished and serious man than Rand Paul.

One thing I like about him is that he is for real economic fairness and not another corporate stooge Wall Street Dem like Hillary.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Anybody but Hillary? The case for Warren-Webb in 2016

Time for Democrats to start rethinking this whole Hillary-is-inevitable thing.

Don't get me wrong: I admire Hillary Clinton. When her supporters claim she may be the most qualified person ever to seek the presidency, they have a point. Lawyer, children's advocate, first lady of Arkansas, first lady of the United States, head of the Task Force on National Health Care Reform, senator, secretary of State — what else could you possibly want or expect from a first-tier presidential candidate? A stint on the Supreme Court?

When it comes to ideology, her centrist instincts don't repel me. Indeed, they come pretty close to making her my ideal candidate (at least on domestic policy).

But, but, but…

As any number of critics have pointed out since the State Department email imbroglio broke earlier this month, Clinton is a candidate with an enormous amount of baggage, and too many signs of questionable judgment — all of them arising from that distinctive mixture of entitlement, paranoid defensiveness, and petty corruption that are now her family's stock-in-trade. Add in her slightly pissy attitude when faced with unwanted questions by the press, and you have a pretty charmless candidate.

Then there are her myriad entanglements with Wall Street and foreign governments — and the members of both who trade donations to the Clinton Foundation for access to two of the most powerful people in the United States. You know what's the one thing that will inoculate the GOP nominee against looking like a sop to the super-rich? Running against a Democrat who's even more enmeshed with and beholden to the global elite than the most plutocratically inclined Republican.

I can't think of a candidate more out of step with the country's populist mood — or desire for a fresh face in 2016.

Finally, there's international affairs. Everything we know about Hillary Clinton — from her long-term foreign policy positions, to the stances she took while (and after) working in the Obama administration, to the calculations she's likely to make as the first female commander-in-chief — point to her being a very hawkish candidate. Who will almost certainly be running against a typically war-drunk Republican. (Rand Paul's candidacy isn't going anywhere, and even he has backed away from his boldest anti-interventionist statements.) America desperately needs a choice, a debate, about the U.S. role in the world — and someone who can and will push back against Republican warmongering. Clinton certainly isn't going to do it.

It would be one thing if there were no viable alternatives among the Democrats. In that case, I'd join liberals in circling the wagons around Clinton, convinced that, for all of her flaws, we'd be far better off with her in the Oval Office than with just about anyone from the party that produces candidates like the Frank Underwood protégé who chose to announce his presidential candidacy this week at a bastion of Protestant fundamentalism.

But there is an alternative, and a damn good one. Two of them, actually: Elizabeth Warren and Jim Webb.

Guys first.

Jim Webb is a genuinely intriguing candidate — a war hero and former secretary of the Navy who actually views our country's militaristic foreign policy with skepticism, a champion of the American working class against globalization and "boardroom liberalism," and a passionate advocate for criminal justice reform. On top of that, he voluntarily retired from the Senate after one term, showing that he's far less enamored of political power than most people who run for the presidency. If he can get people to pay attention to his message, Webb just might succeed in wooing back a large chunk of the white (Scots-Irish) middle class to the Democratic Party.

But he's unlikely to do so on his own. Webb's idiosyncratic policy positions combined with his bristly unwillingness to jump through the right "likability" hoops give him limited appeal at the head of a ticket.

More PerspectiBut as Elizabeth Warren's running mate? In that role he'd be fantastic.

I almost can't believe I'm arguing in favor of Warren jumping into the race. She's at least a few clicks to my left. Her populist rhetoric makes me uncomfortable. And she's said very little to indicate that she diverges from the bipartisan Washington consensus in favor of endless warfare.

So why do I find myself hoping that she'll run? Because she would actually give Americans a choice.

Since the economic crisis of 2008, Warren's been the country's foremost critic of the excesses of the financial sector and the banking industry. She makes a compelling case in favor of regulating Wall Street more aggressively, and speaks with passion about surging inequality and the dangers of privately held debt (especially student loans). She's dropped hints that she favors a single-payer health-care system — which might make a whole lot of sense if the Rube-Goldberg contraption that is the Affordable Care Act comes crashing down.

Yes, I worry that a government with Warren in the White House and the Republicans in charge of Congress just might grind to a complete halt. But would that be worse than four or eight years of Clintonite triangulation and scandal? I'm not so sure.

As for foreign policy — well, let's just say that given her left-leaning preferences in every other area of policy, I don't fully believe Warren's wan statements in defense of the status quo. I think she's probably given foreign affairs little thought, and she's picking her battles. And anyway, in my dream she'd have Jim Webb around to try and convince her to revisit her conventionally hawkish positions.

Purely on ideology, I'd probably prefer a Webb-Warren ticket. But the reality is that Warren beats Webb on charisma and charm any day, and as regular readers are aware, I care quite a bit about the U.S. electing its first female president. Clinton's ambition to shatter this highest of all glass ceilings will give her huge advantages in the race for the nomination and the presidency. If someone is going to challenge her, it needs to be a woman.

And that woman is Elizabeth Warren.

Hillary Clinton has dropped 15 points in the polls since the email story broke. If her numbers continue to soften, she's going to start looking seriously vulnerable. With Republicans in control of both houses of Congress, there's too much at stake for Democrats to put all their chips on a candidate with clay feet. They need to start looking for other options.

And Warren-Webb 2016 is the way to go.

http://theweek.com/articles/546124/anybody-but-hillary-case-warrenwebb-2016

 

[Steve Tasker]

I can't believe that the best the Ds can do is Hillary and the best the Rs can do is a giant pile of garbage candidates. Sad.

 

[humpback]

I can't believe that the best the Ds can do is Hillary and the best the Rs can do is a giant pile of garbage candidates. Sad.

I can't believe that you can't believe that.

 

[snogger]

I can't believe that the best the Ds can do is Hillary and the best the Rs can do is a giant pile of garbage candidates. Sad.

I can't believe that you can't believe that.

The "Good" Candidates can't win the party nominations as they are "Too Middle" for the primaries..

Then when it comes to the actual election both sides try to claim that their person is "Middle" while the real "middle" candidate is stuck on the sidelines..

 

[Steve Tasker]

I can't believe that the best the Ds can do is Hillary and the best the Rs can do is a giant pile of garbage candidates. Sad.

I can't believe that you can't believe that.

It was a figure of speech . I can certainly believe it.

 

[snogger]

Some stuff on Webb.

A speech he gave at the Nat Press Club last Fall.

Webb generally has a somewhat libertarian view on social issues. He is pro choice, against all affirmative action except for african-americans based on historical reasons (my position on aff action, too), and fiscally conservative. He applauds the forward progress on gay marriage and calls it a needed evolution, or something like that. I saw one article call him the "Democrats Rand Paul" because of his non-party line positions. I dont know if that is fair because Webb is a far more accomplished and serious man than Rand Paul.

One thing I like about him is that he is for real economic fairness and not another corporate stooge Wall Street Dem like Hillary.

he seems to contradict himself .. in that article above he says:

On immigration, Webb said he believes that President Obama has the legal authority to postpone the deportation of about 5 million people for three years.

But on his main site he says:

He blames both parties. The American system, he argues, increasingly resembles Britain’s parliamentary process. The prime minister sets the agenda, and his party in the House of Commons dutifully falls into line. Webb sees similar things happening in the United States. Republican legislators tolerate from Republican presidents what they would not tolerate from Democrats. The same equation applies to Democrats in Washington. As a consequence, presidential power grows under Republicans and Democrats alike. He criticizes President Obama’s penchant for unilateralism.

So he is against Unilateralism, except when he is for it

 

[NREC34]

I can't believe that the best the Ds can do is Hillary and the best the Rs can do is a giant pile of garbage candidates. Sad.

I can't believe that you can't believe that.

The "Good" Candidates can't win the party nominations as they are "Too Middle" for the primaries..

Then when it comes to the actual election both sides try to claim that their person is "Middle" while the real "middle" candidate is stuck on the sidelines..

Romney was more middle wasn't he? Then he had to pretend to be "severely conservative".

 

[Riversco]

I can't believe that the best the Ds can do is Hillary and the best the Rs can do is a giant pile of garbage candidates. Sad.

A competent executive is more likely to be CEO of his own company instead of begging for votes to hold an office where even if he wins he has to beg other people to pass his legislation, no?

 

[humpback]

I can't believe that the best the Ds can do is Hillary and the best the Rs can do is a giant pile of garbage candidates. Sad.

I can't believe that you can't believe that.

The "Good" Candidates can't win the party nominations as they are "Too Middle" for the primaries..

Then when it comes to the actual election both sides try to claim that their person is "Middle" while the real "middle" candidate is stuck on the sidelines..

It starts much earlier than that. The system is such a mess that many people who would likely become a very good POTUS want nothing to do with it.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Some stuff on Webb.

A speech he gave at the Nat Press Club last Fall.

Webb generally has a somewhat libertarian view on social issues. He is pro choice, against all affirmative action except for african-americans based on historical reasons (my position on aff action, too), and fiscally conservative. He applauds the forward progress on gay marriage and calls it a needed evolution, or something like that. I saw one article call him the "Democrats Rand Paul" because of his non-party line positions. I dont know if that is fair because Webb is a far more accomplished and serious man than Rand Paul.

One thing I like about him is that he is for real economic fairness and not another corporate stooge Wall Street Dem like Hillary.

he seems to contradict himself .. in that article above he says:

On immigration, Webb said he believes that President Obama has the legal authority to postpone the deportation of about 5 million people for three years.

But on his main site he says:

He blames both parties. The American system, he argues, increasingly resembles Britain’s parliamentary process. The prime minister sets the agenda, and his party in the House of Commons dutifully falls into line. Webb sees similar things happening in the United States. Republican legislators tolerate from Republican presidents what they would not tolerate from Democrats. The same equation applies to Democrats in Washington. As a consequence, presidential power grows under Republicans and Democrats alike. He criticizes President Obama’s penchant for unilateralism.

So he is against Unilateralism, except when he is for it

Obama may have the legal authority to act on immigration, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't think Congress shouldn't be deciding that and other things and that something has gotten screwed up in our political culture, at least in DC.

 

[snogger]

Some stuff on Webb.

A speech he gave at the Nat Press Club last Fall.

Webb generally has a somewhat libertarian view on social issues. He is pro choice, against all affirmative action except for african-americans based on historical reasons (my position on aff action, too), and fiscally conservative. He applauds the forward progress on gay marriage and calls it a needed evolution, or something like that. I saw one article call him the "Democrats Rand Paul" because of his non-party line positions. I dont know if that is fair because Webb is a far more accomplished and serious man than Rand Paul.

One thing I like about him is that he is for real economic fairness and not another corporate stooge Wall Street Dem like Hillary.

he seems to contradict himself .. in that article above he says:

On immigration, Webb said he believes that President Obama has the legal authority to postpone the deportation of about 5 million people for three years.

But on his main site he says:

He blames both parties. The American system, he argues, increasingly resembles Britain’s parliamentary process. The prime minister sets the agenda, and his party in the House of Commons dutifully falls into line. Webb sees similar things happening in the United States. Republican legislators tolerate from Republican presidents what they would not tolerate from Democrats. The same equation applies to Democrats in Washington. As a consequence, presidential power grows under Republicans and Democrats alike. He criticizes President Obama’s penchant for unilateralism.

So he is against Unilateralism, except when he is for it

Obama may have the legal authority to act on immigration, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't think Congress shouldn't be deciding that and other things and that something has gotten screwed up in our political culture, at least in DC.

yea, I get that.. Just wish instead of saying "He has the legal right" he had said what he says on his Main site..

Something along the realm of "He may have the legal right to do so, but he shouldn't"

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I think this is an interesting development on the GOP side that hasn't been discussed much:

In 2010, the Republican National Committee, hoping to capture the excitement of the coast-to-coast Democratic primary competition between Obama and Hillary Clinton, introduced new voting rules that required many of the early voting states to award some delegates to losing candidates, based on their shares of the vote. The proportional voting rules would encourage struggling candidates to stay in the primaries even after successive losses, as Clinton did, because they might be able to pull together enough delegates to take the nomination in a convention-floor fight or at least use them to bargain for a prime speaking slot or cabinet post.

This shift in incentives did not go unnoticed by potential 2012 candidates, nor did changes in election law that allowed billionaire donors to form super PACs in support of pet candidacies. At the same time, increasingly widespread broadband Internet access allowed candidates to reach supporters directly with video and email appeals and supporters to send money with the tap of a smartphone, making it easier than ever for individual candidates to ignore the wishes of the party.

Into this newly chaotic Republican landscape strode Mitt Romney. There could be no doubt that it was his turn, and yet his journey to the nomination was interrupted by one against-the-odds challenger after another — Cain, Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul; always Ron Paul. It was easy to dismiss the 2012 primaries as a meaningless circus, but the onslaught did much more than tarnish the overall Republican brand. It also forced Romney to spend money he could have used against Obama and defend his right flank with embarrassing pandering that shadowed him through the general election. It was while trying to block a surge from Gingrich, for instance, that Romney told a debate audience that he was for the “self-deportation” of undocumented immigrants.


At the 2012 convention in Tampa, a group of longtime party hands, including Romney’s lawyer, Ben Ginsberg, gathered to discuss how to prevent a repeat of what had become known inside and outside the party as the “clown show.” Their aim was not just to protect the party but also to protect a potential President Romney from a primary challenge in 2016. They forced through new rules that would give future presumptive nominees more control over delegates in the event of a convention fight. They did away with the mandatory proportional delegate awards that encouraged long-shot candidacies. And, in a noticeably targeted effort, they raised the threshold that candidates needed to meet to enter their names into nomination, just as Ron Paul’s supporters were working to reach it. When John A. Boehner gaveled the rules in on a voice vote — a vote that many listeners heard as a tie, if not an outright loss — the hall erupted and a line of Ron Paul supporters walked off the floor in protest, along with many Tea Party members.

At a party meeting last winter, Reince Priebus, who as party chairman is charged with maintaining the support of all his constituencies, did restore some proportional primary and caucus voting, but only in states that held voting within a shortened two-week window. And he also condensed the nominating schedule to four and a half months from six months, and, for the first time required candidates to participate in a shortened debate schedule, determined by the party, not by the whims of the networks. (The panel that recommended those changes included names closely identified with the establishment — the former Bush White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, the Mississippi committeeman Haley Barbour and, notably, Jeb Bush’s closest adviser, Sally Bradshaw.)

Grass-roots activists have complained that the condensed schedule robs nonestablishment candidates — “movement candidates” like Carson — of the extra time they need to build momentum, money and organizations. But Priebus, who says the nomination could be close to settled by April, said it helped all the party’s constituencies when the nominee was decided quickly. “We don’t need a six-month slice-and-dice festival,” Priebus said when we spoke in mid-March. “While I can’t always control everyone’s mouth, I can control how long we can kill each other.”

All the rules changes were built to sidestep the problems of 2012. But the 2016 field is shaping up to be vastly different and far larger.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/magazine/how-do-you-solve-a-problem-like-ben-carson.html

 

[timschochet]

So in other words, all of my Republican friends in Orange County are going to get screwed again.

OC is one of the great bastions for conservatism in the country. Whenever a GOP candidate needs cash they come here begging. But when it comes to decide the winner, California, the most populated state in the Union, has NO say. And if the race is going to be decided by April, that's not going to change. Why even bother to have s Califotnia primary? What's the point?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So in other words, all of my Republican friends in Orange County are going to get screwed again.

OC is one of the great bastions for conservatism in the country. Whenever a GOP candidate needs cash they come here begging. But when it comes to decide the winner, California, the most populated state in the Union, has NO say. And if the race is going to be decided by April, that's not going to change. Why even bother to have s Califotnia primary? What's the point?

And it's not just California. It was pretty cool how the Obama/Clinton race actually stretched almost to the convention. If the Clintons had wanted a convention fight they could have had won.... and they may have even won, but the result could have been so ugly and damaging it might have been unrecoverable.

It's funny that Dixville Notch has more impact on a presidential race than say Houston or Portland or L.A.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Rubio will be joining the fray:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/rubio-confirms-april-13-announcement-2016-campaign-expected-article-1.2168129

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Daily Kos seems to have a piece on Liz Warren almost daily, but it must have been 2 weeks since they had a diary on Hillary.

Here is today's:

Sen. Elizabeth Warren has been saying for a long time that she's not a candidate for the presidency. Those who know her, who call her friend, have always believed that, unlike so many run-of-the-mill politicians, she wasn't being coy about running. They know she is not a typical politician, which happens to be one of the many reasons she's so popular.

Some people have parsed her claims of not being a candidate, arguing, among other things, that she used the present not the future tense when she answered the question and was thus cleverly, sneakily leaving the door open. Even when she said a flat "no," a few claimed she still wasn't absolutely ruling out a presidential campaign.

On the Today Show Tuesday morning, she said it again. Made it utterly clear. Left no room for doubt. No linguistic crevice for parsing:



Savannah Guthrie:
You didn't think you would get away with this interview without my asking you point blank: Are you going to run for president?


Warren:
No. I’m not running and I’m not going to run. I’m in Washington. I’ve got this really great job and a chance to try and make a difference on things that really matter. [...] There's a lot to fight over right this minute."


Guthrie:
Let me make sure that we underscore this and maybe bold it and put it in all caps. Because I have to tell you I have read every single interview you've done in the last year where people ask you 'Will you run for president?' and it has seemed that you were hedging a little bit in the past. I don't hear that hedging now. Are you unequivocally and categorically saying "I'm not running for president in 2016"?


Warren:
I'm not running. I'm not running.
She couldn't make it any clearer if she slammed her fist on the table. No doubt we—Democrats, progressives, leftists, Americans—would be well-served by having Sen. Warren or a candidate like her running for president next year. We could also use 50 more like her or further to the left in the Senate. And a few hundred in the House. Not to mention thousands in our state legislatures as well as the stunning number of other elected posts. We need to focus energy on filling those seats so that when the day comes that an Elizabeth Warren does make it to the White House, she has a deep bench of allies—elected representatives from city councils to Congress—fighting for the interests of working-class Americans, which is most of us.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/31/1374654/-Warren-on-the-Today-Show-bold-and-underscored-No-I-m-not-running-and-I-m-not-going-to-run

It's weird, they don't even mention Hillary's name at Kos.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

arch 31, 2015 - Clinton Down But Still Up In Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Quinnipiac University Swing State Poll Finds PDF format

• FLORIDA: - Bush 45 - Clinton 42
• OHIO: Clinton 46 - Paul 41
• PENNSYLVANIA: Paul 45 - Clinton 44

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's margins are down in matchups with possible 2016 Republican presidential candidates in three critical swing states, Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, and in no state do voters say she's honest and trustworthy, but she still runs best overall of any candidate, according to a Quinnipiac University Swing State Poll released today.The closest contests are in Florida, where former Gov. Jeb Bush gets 45 percent to Clinton's 42 percent, and Pennsylvania, where U.S. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky gets 45 percent to Clinton's 44 percent, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University Poll finds. The Swing State Poll focuses on Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania because since 1960 no candidate has won the presidential race without taking at least two of these three states.

Clinton's favorability rating is down in each state, but she still does better than Republican contenders, except for Jeb Bush and U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio in Florida.

Clinton is not honest and trustworthy, Florida voters say 50 - 41 percent and Pennsylvania voters say 49 - 44 percent. Ohio voters are divided as 47 percent say yes and 46 percent say no.

Matchups between Clinton and her closest Republican opponent in each state show:

• Florida: Bush at 45 percent to Clinton's 42 percent;
• Ohio: Clinton over Paul 46 - 41 percent;
• Pennsylvania: Paul at 45 percent to 44 percent for Clinton.

"The good news for Hillary Clinton is that the e-mail controversy has not done huge violence to her presidential chances. But the matter is taking a toll on the former secretary of state's public image," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac Poll."On the plus side, Secretary Clinton is considered a strong leader - a key characteristic for voters when picking a president, more so than her leading, but lesser-known, potential GOP opponents," Brown said. "But about half the voters in all three states question her honesty and trustworthiness.

"Majorities in each state think Clinton still has questions to answer about her e-mails. Voters in each state are evenly divided on whether Congressional hearings are warranted although a majority thinks such a hearing would be politically motivated rather than justified."

The gender gap remains wide as Clinton leads among women in every contest, by margins of 7 percentage points to 28 percentage points. Her margins among men range from a 3 percentage point lead to a 23-point deficit.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/2016-presidential-swing-state-polls/release-detail?ReleaseID=2180

Breakdowns by state follow.

Actually I think of Rand Paul as a fringe candidate so the fact his numbers are playing so well makes me wonder what a mainstream guy (if there is one or if one emerges from the GOP) would do.

 

[timschochet]

Add George Pataki, apparently.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Another Hillary poll, this one from New Hampshire, where she is obliterating any other name mentioned among Democrats:

http://www.bostonherald.com/sites/default/files/blog_posts/FPU-BH-0315-Dem.pdf

The takeaway here is that Hillary will blow the doors off any opposition in NH, the only interesting nugget is that only a quarter are "firm" in their choice of her but then again it is extremely early:

Voters were asked if they have made a firm choice in the race, or whether they could change their mind between now and the time of the election. As expected, most voters indicate that they could change their mind (74%) while only one-fourth report that they have made a firm choice (25%).

Here's another one. The headline is she is dominating at 49%...

Hillary R. Clinton is the choice of 49 percent of the 427 Democrats polled, said Doug Kaplan, the managing partner of Gravis Insights, the Florida-based political consulting firm that conducted the poll.

http://gravismarketing.com/polling-and-market-research/current-new-hampshire-primary-political-poll/

... but that is down 21 (-21) from just the month before when she was at 70%:

http://newscms.nbcnews.com/sites/newscms/files/new_hampshire_february_2015_annotated_questionnaire_nbc_news-marist_poll.pdf

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Add George Pataki, apparently.

George Pataki Says Bet on Him to Run For PresidentGeorge Pataki, the former three-term New York governor, has a tip for gamblers: Place your chips on his running for president.

Pataki has traveled to New Hampshire six times since September and two weeks ago appeared at the Republican National Committee’s donor retreat in Boca Raton, Florida. In an interview with Rita Cosby on WABC in New York, Pataki said he’ll probably run, suggesting that the only hold ups are campaign-finance laws that would limit his fundraising once he formally declares…

“If I were a betting person, I would bet that I’d make the decision to go,” Pataki said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-03-30/george-pataki-says-bet-on-him-to-run-for-president

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Carly Fiorina: Now a 90% chance I'll run for president in 2016

http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/30/technology/carly-fiorina-2016/

Really two Hispanics and a woman running in the GOP race is probably a good thing for America, regardless of the policies involved.

 

[snogger]

Anyone hear if someone declared today



Hey Admins.. Might be time to Pin this one so as to avoid the 1st page looking like it looks like today every time someone declares

 

[Sinn Fein]

Can we move this to the Politics forum. please.

 

[snogger]

Can we move this to the Politics forum. please.

this IS the politics forum.. it is just disguised as a thread

 

[Jack White]

HILLARY was invited to the White House yesterday for a private meeting with President Obama. The two spoke alone for around 30 minutes...

How do you know they weren't shooting a porno?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Who's ready for some Lincoln Chafee?!!!

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/04/09/lincoln-chafee-explores-presidential-run-as-a-democrat/?_r=0

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Anyone hear if someone declared today



Hey Admins.. Might be time to Pin this one so as to avoid the 1st page looking like it looks like today every time someone declares

Whaddawehave so far?

GOP:

Paul

Cruz

Everson

Prolly:

Rubio

Fiorina

Demos:

Chafee

Prolly:

O'Malley

Mrs. Clinton

Webb

[edited]

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Chafee is running as a Dem, not a Republican. Lots of additional names you could add to the "prolly" for Republicans -- Scott Walker, Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, Ben Carson, Lindsey Graham, etc.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

List from wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_candidates,_2016

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Chafee is running as a Dem, not a Republican. Lots of additional names you could add to the "prolly" for Republicans -- Scott Walker, Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, Ben Carson, Lindsey Graham, etc.

Wow, that's interesting. Good for him.

I'm just tabbing who's announced and who have actually said they are probably running. The others are still committed to saying the "exploratory" line from what I've seen, even if we know they are likely in.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Chafee is running as a Dem, not a Republican. Lots of additional names you could add to the "prolly" for Republicans -- Scott Walker, Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, Ben Carson, Lindsey Graham, etc.

Wow, that's interesting. Good for him.

I'm just tabbing who's announced and who have actually said they are probably running. The others are still committed to saying the "exploratory" line from what I've seen, even if we know they are likely in.

If that's your intent, use the wikipedia link. You have some people in the wrong categories.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Chafee is running as a Dem, not a Republican. Lots of additional names you could add to the "prolly" for Republicans -- Scott Walker, Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, Ben Carson, Lindsey Graham, etc.

Wow, that's interesting. Good for him.

I'm just tabbing who's announced and who have actually said they are probably running. The others are still committed to saying the "exploratory" line from what I've seen, even if we know they are likely in.

If that's your intent, use the wikipedia link. You have some people in the wrong categories.

Ok I just checked, added Everson, excluded Fuller.

I think I was right on Rubio and and I think wiki is missing Fiorina because as posted further up she's said she's 90% likely running.

I looked at the Demo link too and I think I did ok. I could have sworn O'Malley announced but maybe not, I will move him. I am just putting in "Probably" people who have actually come out and said they will announce or admitted they likely will soon.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

"[TRUMPET BLARE]: The Queen Approacheth!"

SOURCE: Hillary Clinton will announce her 2016 campaign this weekendA source with knowledge of Hillary Clinton's plans has confirmed that she will officially announce her 2016 presidential bid on Saturday or Sunday. This will be imminently followed by campaign travel.

A spokesperson for Clinton's campaign team did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider.

Clinton has long been expected to enter the 2016 race. Polls show her well ahead of all her likely Democratic and Republican rivals.

She has been ramping up her presidential preparations including leasing office space for a headquarters in Brooklyn, New York, and hiring key staffers.

On Tuesday, CNN reported Clinton's official announcement was "likely only days away."

Two Democratic challengers to Clinton, former Virginia Senator Jim Webb and former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee have also officially launched 2016 presidential exploratory committees.

Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley is also considering entering the race.

On the Republican side, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) have both formally launched campaigns. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) has a "big announcement" scheduled for an event in Florida next Monday.

Clinton's plans to kick off her campaign this weekend could complicate Rubio's kickoff. Both Cruz and Paul enjoyed substantial coverage after their announcements. Cruz also saw his poll numbers improve following his official launch. Coverage of Clinton's announcement and subsequent trip could diminish the attention give to Rubio's kickoff because of her status as a strong frontrunner.

In a message to Business Insider, an operative for one of the other 2016 campaigns teased Rubio about being "overshadowed."

"Poor Marco, overshadowed again," the operative wrote.

http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-will-announce-her-campaign-this-weekend-2015-4#ixzz3Wr4wsQIu

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

New poll numbers for Mrs. Clinton:

COLORADO: Paul 44 - Clinton 41

IOWA: Paul 43 - Clinton 42

VIRGINIA: Clinton 47 - Paul 43

...Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s lead is wilting against leading Republican presidential candidates in three critical swing states, Colorado, Iowa and Virginia, and she finds herself in a close race with U.S. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky in each state, according to a Quinnipiac University Swing State Poll released today. In head-to-head matchups, every Republican candidate effectively ties her in Colorado and almost all Republicans effectively tie her in Iowa.

Secretary Clinton has lost ground in almost every matchup in Colorado and Iowa since a February 18 Swing State Poll by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University. The Swing State Poll focuses on key states in the presidential election.

One bright spot for Clinton is Virginia, the largest of the three states, where she leads all Republicans, including 47 – 40 percent over Bush, compared to a 42 – 42 percent tie in February.

Voters in each state say Clinton is not honest and trustworthy. Her overall favorability has dropped significantly in Colorado and Iowa, while Virginia is unchanged. ...

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/2016-presidential-swing-state-polls/release-detail?ReleaseID=2184

Of course the favorability of the GOP candidates continue to lag also, so Hillary's main attribute continues to be that she is running against the Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Rubio is in:

http://news.yahoo.com/u-senator-rubio-says-hes-running-president-2016-145402627.html

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Carly Fiorina announces on May 4th, followed by a press conference, which of course Hillary still has not done...

http://www.ibtimes.com/who-carly-fiorina-former-hp-ceo-jumps-presidential-race-gop-candidate-1894274

http://www.wsj.com/articles/carly-fiorina-to-launch-presidential-campaign-on-may-4-1429732381

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder might be joining the fray.

http://www.newstimes.com/news/politics/article/Fund-for-Michigan-Gov-Rick-Snyder-hints-at-6207554.php