PoliGAF 2014 |OT| Kay Hagan and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad News
- Thread starter bananas
- Start date
- Status
Do what I do when I have to vote for a Dem I don't care for.. close your eyes and imagine the meltdowns from the right when Scalia (and/or Kennedy) has to be replaced. Works like a charm.
Giant Panda
Member
Rush Limbaugh is on to Obama's devious scheme to ensure Democrats winning elections this year: making sure Obama care doesn't work in every way possible.
I kid you not. How anybody can believe what he says I have no clue.
I kid you not. How anybody can believe what he says I have no clue.
JesseEwiak
Member
Vote for a liberal House and a liberal Senate and Hillary will be forced to the left. Nixon didn't sign the Clean Water Act 'cause he was some great environmentalist.
I'm with you there, unfortunately the most likely outcome where she doesn't get the nomination is if she doesn't run.
I'm convinced she's going to blow it for Democrats if she gets the nomination. She didn't get health reform in 1993 despite every advantage, she didn't get the nomination in 2008 despite every advantage, she's never had any real accomplishments, she's a gaffe machine and as she's proven lately on her book tour the more she's in the news the more America is reminded they're sick of her.
She doesn't even want to be President anymore or she wouldn't have taken $200,000 checks to speak to industry groups, so you just know she's going to be terrible on the campaign trail. She'll run only out of obligation.
Angry Fork
Member
Liberals will like it, because for them a woman being president matters more than the woman's actual policy stances. As president however I would not be surprised if she's worse for women's rights than any other democratic nominee.
If liberals really had their way, they'd put someone like Elizabeth Warren in the white house as opposed to Hillary. Not because she is a woman, but because she actually has balls to try to challenge the Tea Party.
y so angry?
The Librarian
Banned
Sellout.
Third Strike
Member
This.
If Hilary is able to last the entire eight years, then this almost guarantees that either Scalia and/or Kennedy will be replaced under her watch. Also, Breyer and Ginsburg could retire if they want, without worrying about their spot being taken by a conservative.
Angry Fork
Member
She's probably not going to run, the rest of the liberals are obsessed with the stupid Clinton legacy more than principles even if she did run. You can already see this in people who are pre-shitting on Warren before anything starts by saying she has too little experience and Hilary is a "shoe-in" thus everyone should support her (despite the fact that Obama won by running to the left of Hilary).
They will give numerous reasons why someone like Warren wouldn't be able to win and to them this is a justification for Hilary. They want to see Rick Perry look dumb in debates more than they want a principled politician representing them. If Warren doesn't run Bernie Sanders probably will and the vast majority of people here will shit on him in favor of Hilary for the same reasons.
She will replace them with other right wing justices. I don't know how this is comforting to you or any other supposed liberal.
PhoenixDark
Banned
But what does that mean, and how will it translate to anything getting done? I can't imagine Warren getting any liberal legislation through the House, or even onto the floor. Ultimately Grover Norquist is right: presidents sign legislation. The goal should be to ensure he's being sent good legislation, which means you want to control the house and senate.
Angry Fork
Member
It means being way more outgoing and fist pumping to the general public about liberal/leftist ideas that would benefit them, compared to someone pathetic like Obama who can't be bothered to defend something as non offensive as single payer.
Apparently a really slow news day at Politifact:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...pelosi-says-supreme-court-five-guys-who-star/
S
M
H
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...pelosi-says-supreme-court-five-guys-who-star/
S
M
H
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Meanwhile you get people like Holder with too big to jail policies, and Wheeler not doing true net neutrality, and I guess Obama had nothing to do with that?
PhoenixDark
Banned
True but I'm talking about legislatively; Warren wouldn't get anything done. An actual liberal president could do interesting things on the issues you listed and others, especially on foreign policy and civil liberties. I'd rather support Hillary who has a higher chance of ushering in a wave election. May not take the house, but to win enough seats to neuter the tea party.
And I'll give Holder some props in terms of civil and voting rights. Obama has a pretty good labor department too.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Slow news day? Isn't this what Politifact does every day?
With Hillary you bring-up a high chance of a wave election (something I agree with), and there is a related hope lingering in the back of my head: if she were to win re-election in 2020 handily, Democrats would be in much better position for drawing Congressional districts for the 20s. Hello, House!
It seems a bit silly discussing these things six(!) years out, but in that regard, 2020 could be a breakthrough year for the Dems. Conversely, it could be the hammerblow to the skull of the GOP as it currently exists.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I don't think Warren is unelectable (who would beat her, Rand Paul? lol) but Clinton would win in a rout. I'd still vote for Biden, Warren or Sanders first, but I wouldn't mind seeing Clinton win in a landslide as long as the House and Senate elections went the same way.
WayneMorse
Banned
People who say Warren can't win probably said the same thing about Obama in 2005.
A real liberal can't be elected to anything other than the House (and the senate in very blue states) for the next 8-16 years since the large majority of voters at this time want both low taxes and a strong government safety net.
That doesn't make sense because you can't have both, but, that's what voters want.
If it was 2008 again and there was a fiscal collapse under the Republicans watch some one like Warren might be able to squeak out a victory. Right now with a mediocre economic recovery under the Democrats watch she wouldn't stand a chance.
Hillary, or someone like her, is the best candidate at this time. Will that hold through 2016? I don't know.
That doesn't make sense because you can't have both, but, that's what voters want.
If it was 2008 again and there was a fiscal collapse under the Republicans watch some one like Warren might be able to squeak out a victory. Right now with a mediocre economic recovery under the Democrats watch she wouldn't stand a chance.
Hillary, or someone like her, is the best candidate at this time. Will that hold through 2016? I don't know.
RustyNails
Member
I'm more worried about 2024 tbh. We are gonna have a sad bench, just like GOP in 2016.
I was mindful of this when I posted above, but still... she's not Barack Obama.
Agreed. I'm going to write in Bernie Sanders in the primary if there isn't anyone else but Hillary. Hopefully Sanders just decides to run in the primary though. He's not going to win, but he could be very effective at dragging the Dem nominee to the left and I'd sure as hell love to be able to vote for the guy.
You sound a bit too salty. I think you're really overstating how much liberals like Clinton. I know a few moderate Dem voters who really like her, but for the most part, liberals are not fans of Clinton in my experience. Pretty much every liberal I know wants to vote for anyone but her in the primary, but agree that we'll all probably hold our noses and vote for her in the general if it comes to that.
Dude, that's literally a decade away. I'm sure plenty of young Democrats will rise to prominence at some point in the next decade. It looks like Castro is being groomed, and I'm sure there will be plenty of others.
.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
By 2024 the demographic changes in southern states will reach critical levels. The entire political scene is going to be drastically different than it is now.
Angry Fork
Member
There is no point in your team winning an election if they're not progressive towards your ideas. Honestly I do not know what people think they are going to get out of Hilary, I'm really curious if anyone can answer. They keep mentioning the supreme court and she is going to put right wing people replacements on there too. What exactly are the positives of a Hilary presidency if you're a liberal? I honestly don't know. Hilary is a right wing politician that would move further right than Obama has on everything.
This isn't me being pessimistic or whatever, it's just simply the facts based on both her words and actions. You can defend being for lesser of two evils only if it's actually going to bring improvements, there will not be, unless you want a right wing agenda.
A leftist populist appeal can and will work for any politician willing to go there, as it did in NYC (deblasio has been selling out of late but that's another issue). Channel the dissatisfaction people justifiably have towards towards a system that does nothing for working people into a genuine alternative plan. The only thing stopping them is faux liberals scared of their own shadow.
I guarantee you if Warren or Sanders was running there would be a sizable amount, maybe the majority, (more so if Sanders because he's old/white), who would say nominate Hilary instead because she has a higher chance of winning. I'm not objecting to hilary vs random repub in final election I'm objecting to choosing her over Warren or Sanders during the nomination process based on name recognition or gender politics rather than principles.
No independent can win at the federal level obviously liberals will have to support the democrat so pick the democrat that's most close to progressive values, and these values do have the backing of the general public.
Aaron Strife
Banned
There will be ten years of elections between now and 2024. Why are we worrying about having a bench?
Hell even without Clinton I think Democrats would have an ok bench in 2016. Cuomo, O'Malley, Biden, Warren would all be better candidates than most GOPers.
Hell even without Clinton I think Democrats would have an ok bench in 2016. Cuomo, O'Malley, Biden, Warren would all be better candidates than most GOPers.
Third Strike
Member
Is there any precedent that Clinton would replace one of the justices with a conservative? I completely understand she's a corporatist Dem, but I don't see her going out her way to nominate someone who is right wing. Breyer and Ginsberg would both appointed by Bill in his first term, and he is as centrist as Hilary is.
I think you also have to take into account the fact that a lot of Democratic voters aren't necessarily liberal. There's a lot of centrists/center right voters who vote in the primaries, so it's not like all, or even a majority of Clinton's support is coming from liberals trading in their ideals for a higher chance of victory.
But I agree with you here for the most part. Especially since I don't think 2016 should be a particularly difficult election for any Democrat, including Warren. Sanders might have some trouble if he made it to the general by some miracle (not necessarily because of any of his views; I agree with you that a populist liberal message can and would be very effective if the Dems put some effort into it) but only because he's self-identified as socialist which is still a very scary and derogatory buzz word in US politics. But even then, the Republican bench is so damn weak/insane, combined with the continuing change of demographics making the GOP path to 270 so narrow that I'm of the opinion that pretty much any Dem should be able to coast to victory.
So there's really no need to hedge your bets, I think, and we should be trying to get the most liberal Dem possible through. If anything this would probably be one of the best opportunities to get a progressive left-wing firebrand nominated who would still have a very good shot at winning the general. Republicans are going to have to moderate and move a little bit closer to the center at some point in the next decade, either after a political crash or as a means to avoid it, and when that happens they'll be a dangerous party on the national level again, but that ain't happening by 2016.
I've been saying this for awhile. The only chance Republicans have is, things going really to shit.
Avon Barksdale
Member
Who the hell was Obama in 2004? A State Senator from Illinois.
JesseEwiak
Member
This is Angry Fork. To him, Breyer, Ginsberg, and Obama's appointees are considered right wing to him.
Julian Castro will be an extremely formidable candidate in a decade, perhaps 2020 if Hillary doesn't win or she declines to run for a second term. He's got executive experience of a big city, is from a red State, excites the most important demographic, has no voting record, has a Cabinet position, has an Ivy League education, is telegenic, has a brother whose every bit as good to lean on in the hard times, and truly loves politics. You seriously don't any better than that. If he's picked to be the Vice-President in 2016 and wins or somehow gets a Senate seat or Governorship then even better.
It is because she is the lesser of 2 evils. And I don't think it will bring about any change for the positive.
A leftist populist appeal cannot work nationally. Like I said above; the majority of voters in this country want both lower taxes and a strong safety net. There is no way a populist leftist can win in such a climate. So, I am in fact arguing that Hillary, or some one like her, is the lesser of 2 evils precisely because such a person would not change much of anything.
The alternative to running a Hillary-like candidate is the very real chance of a Republican/Tea Party president (is there any difference anymore?) with a Republican house and possibly a Republican Senate.
It would be great to sacrifice elections for purity... like the Republicans have done. However, I'm not willing to do that.
bodyofanamerican
Member
To be fair, when he spoke at the DNC that year, my friends and I were like "why isn't THAT guy running for President instead of Kerry?"
I think a Hilary presidency plus retaining the Senate plus a workable congress could provide more results for the left than we've currently seen out of the Obama presidency plus a cock blocking congress from almost the outset, even if Hilary is to the right of Obama.
Certainly the left would be better off with Hilary than any Republican.
Coriolanus
Banned
This is what I can't quite grasp.
Assuming that she'd be able to get the nomination, who would be able to defeat Warren?
Perry? Dude self-implodes. Rand? Same thing. Walker? Good luck. Romney? Come on now.
Any male candidate that they put against her, she can most likely beat (heck, all she has to do is wait until the guy says something about rape), and what woman could the reps field?
Then again, nearly half the country voted for Romney and McCain.
PhoenixDark
Banned
lol
Cuomo and Biden are nonstarters; Cuomo might as well be a centrist republican and Biden is too old and isn't seen seriously. O'Malley has no personality. Warren is really good, apparently she's been a hit on the campaign trail* but I wonder how she'd do in a general race, how people would perceive her. Not to mention her complete lack of foreign policy experience.
*Warren is campaigning everywhere, with absolutely no worries about who might win or lose. Whereas Hillary hides on the sidelines - but if 2014 was looking like a great year for democrats (like 2006) she'd be everywhere. I can't respect that type of cowardly campaigning. Props to Warren.
Walker or Rand who haven't mentioned rape in the popular press that I'm aware of, a slowly recovering economy ("if I were in charge the economy would have grown faster"), and "Obama has lost control of the government" (VA, IRS, Benghazi, etc...) and you have a potent campaign against a Warren candidate. That's without going negative.
RustyNails
Member
Angry Fork is to the left of Bane.
But Hillary is much more closely associated with the Obama admin. than Warren...If anything Warren should be able to criticize and differentiate herself from the negative aspects of Obama's presidency much better than Hillary. The only problem Warren has is her complete lack of FP experience (like PD mentioned), whereas Hillary has a metric shitton of experience in foreign policy.
I honestly think Warren would be be able to beat pretty much any Republican nominee without too much trouble.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I didn't say they would be particularly great candidates.
I said they could beat the Republicans.
Diablos said:
Republicans have a "deep bench" in the sense that they have several elected officials running for president, yes. They're all right-wing lunatics from red states/districts. The only exceptions are Christie and Walker who are both facing indictment. And frankly Walker could still lose his job as governor.
The GOP has not stopped being a joke in the past 6 years.
Rand couldn't handle a non-scandal correctly, the second something goes wrong or he says something dumb he's sunk. Walker will be lucky to not be drummed out of office by the time the election comes around. Christie's got anger issues and will also be lucky not to be thrown out of office by the time it's time for the GOP primary. At this point the entire GOP bench is either incompetent, corrupt or a mix of the two.
Which is exactly why liberals should be trying to push for a true progressive to get the Dem nomination instead of Hillary in 2016. It will not be this easy to beat Republicans once they finally moderate after a collapse of the party within the decade, but for now any Democrat with a pulse could beat any Republican on the national level.
I agree, especially if everything goes the Dems way with Christie and Walker's scandals, and if the GOP primary causing everyone left alive to say the dumbest shit imaginable. That said we have no idea where everything will be in 2016, it's an eternity from now in political terms.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
did anyone watch Meet the Press? They had a really interesting interview with the Foreign Minister of Iran obviously was part propaganda part truth. But the moment they end the interview they go to Jeffrey Goldberg give "reality check" which basically turns into them calling everything foreign minister said a lie and just blatant warmongering.
you can distrust and call into question with the foreign minister said but that segment was just blatant Iraqesque and its grand statements and complete ignorance about history the Middle East's geopolitics
you can distrust and call into question with the foreign minister said but that segment was just blatant Iraqesque and its grand statements and complete ignorance about history the Middle East's geopolitics
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
You're right it's a bit earily. It seems like a lot of the decision of who to pick in the democratic primary will have to do with their confidence in the general, and that will probably be decided by how the public receives all the republican shenanigans over the next two years.
Hell, even in just the next 6 months we may have a result of their silly lawsuit and yet another budget standoff.
It's interesting seeing so many parallels between the discussion here and the discussions which happened in 2008. A lot of people were arguing that Hilary gave them the best chance in the general, and a lot of people were arguing that with Bush screwing things up so royally, anyone the democrats put out there will win, including Obama.
RustyNails
Member
Read the NYT piece on the talks. Neither Mullahs nor Republicans or Democrats want a deal, which is poised to become the most complex piece of international negotiations by US.
Fascinating read, and it's probably the most complex negotiating deal that is being worked on. It would be tragic if it faltered. So far Kerry looks suitable for the job and I'm glad he's sitting on the table rather than Hillary who could be more susceptible to torpedoing the deal to save her political future.
- Status