-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Chris Matthews (MSNBC) suggests Clinton might run for Gov. of NY in 2018
- Thread starter Lights and Waves
- Start date
- Status
Ziltoidia 9
Member
I like the idea of a "You're my president, but at least im your governor" attitude.
SlipperyFishes
Banned
She wants to serve the people not self interests. Nothing bad about that.
Cindi Mayweather
Member
They'll settle like they always do. The question is: do NYers consider Cuomo progressive?
NYCmetsfan
Banned
The problem isn't only cuomo, its the state senate which elects shitty dems who caucus with republicans. Hillary isn't going to be able to stop that unless she gets coattails in upstate and long island which seems eh... She'd also have to end the IDC which again, Jeff Kline has no incentive to do. (Dems have only controlled the state senate for like 3 years since the 40s)
This is a nothing story by Chris who just vomits out random stupid comments. This isn't happening and is super ignorant of NYS politics.
If she can win and do some damage to Trump I wouldn't mind this. She is still one of the most qualified and experienced politicians to ever hold office. She could be a real thorn in the side of that bigot.
Can't help but think it might be better for her to just retire and live out the rest of her life in comfort though. She deserves that after all her service.
Can't help but think it might be better for her to just retire and live out the rest of her life in comfort though. She deserves that after all her service.
He's a Democrat. He managed to get us all paid family leave and $15 an hour as the minimum wage last year, it's just that for every good thing he does he does something just as stupid. Plus there's him and de Blasio constantly sniping at each other like fucking children. It'd be funny if it wasn't so sad.
Yup. Albany is a shitshow all around.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Depends. The unions love him, he's been decent on wage, labor and now the university thing. Also gay marriage and immigration.
But he won't rock the boat on criminal justice, truly fixing institutional racism, and housing. He also is an ego maniac who loves stymieing the mayor due to NYS weird power over the city with the MTA, Port Authority, housing (421-a), and CUNY
He's not Jerry Brown and I hate him for being a corrupt slimeball. But the guy can get stuff done when he wants. But that's kinda the problem, its less ideological than just pure glory seeking (most obviously through his desire to rebuild major infrastructure and be the new Robert Moses). Cuomo is out for Cuomo, and in his first term that was much less progressive. Now with Trump and progressive pressure its advantageous for him to move left. Which is good, just not principled.
I mean I feel its hard to argue that Cuomo isn't the second most progressive gov. Who else is even thinking of pushing things like free university or an expansion of benefits in this day and age besides Brown? Dayton?
I'm not saying it would be bad of her to do so, but I wonder if she'll want to do so. I suspect she won't, particularly given that she'd be unseating an incumbent of her own party.
Extra Sauce
Member
Hillary Clinton does not seem to be on her way to irrelevance on account of the Right still having a hard-on about her emails, Benjamin Ghazi and whatnot. They still routinely bring her up during conversations about issues that have nothing to do with her.
Dude's a straight up glory hound, it'd be a lot easier to get rid of him if he wasn't so damn good at getting shit passed the legislature. He's a fuckface but I'm still impressed by how he got gay marriage done.
He's trying to build up his cred for 2020. If he gets college done it will be great for the state, but it'll just make it that much harder to stop him in the primary.
For some reason, my immediate reaction to learning about Cuomo's involvement in bridgegate was to laugh.
It is kind of amazing this thread gained so much traction off of something Chris Matthews said.
It is kind of amazing this thread gained so much traction off of something Chris Matthews said.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
He's a less principled LBJ kind of executive.
TBH I think he'd make a good/great president (he's very good at navigating executive power, legislative and the bully pulpit) if like there was no one running against him. I just can't support him because 1) He's corrupt as shit 2) no chance of winning 3) there are better candidates
FlowersisBritish
fleurs n'est pas britannique
So I've been lurking you and Legacyzero's debate a bit (like all day lol) and I've got to say, one of the worst part of online debates/interactions is no facial features or tone. I was taken aback because I too thought you were cherry picking and the idea you two could agree on something was super shocking.
I kind of want to talk about Identity Politics a moment. 1, good for you that it means progressive and such. Honestly, really good for you, keep fighting the good fight and such. But I think the big problem with Identiy Politics (that I never see anyone mention) is what it means to other people. Like, that's why you vote Democrat, but I know Dems who are iffy on any LGBQT issue and still vote because they've always voted Dem. Same with Republican voters. Similarly, I feel like we pushed an identity of "Republican=Racist" onto republican voters, especially at the end. This election cycle was essentially a battle of scandals when you get down to it, and I think Trumps biggest strength was simply going "I'm not going to call you a racist, say what you want, come to my rallies, its a good high energy time!" Of course people find that way more likable, and I'm not saying need to coddle racists, just maybe not bring up race with them like that one uncle at dinner? The country is big, we can fight multiple fights. I saw I think we Legacyzero is super right and that we (Dems) didn't really balance a message well, advertisements in New York don't work in Idaho if that makes sense?
Lastly: I appreciate the "Don't give them an inch" strategy but that works when you've got land to stand on, and we just lost a lot of land.
Edit: and to bring it around back to the topic, Hilary is New York. That was one of the big things I heard more rural people dislike about her, so I guess that means she has a good chance? I do think a lot of people are greatly underestimating how upset people are about the election and by proxy her for losing? It's not uncommon for candidates that lose big elections like this to more or less fade away.
XGRaViSmOrSX
Member
Cool, replace one unlikable piece of shit with another...Fuck politics. Seriously. Fuck it all.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
I'm saying that Feingold outperformed her in the traditional Democratic strongholds that made the state blue for so long. Sorry that Feingold wasn't appealing to a bunch of suburbanites who want to crush unions and slash taxes. If Clinton had visited those areas and reminded them that Democrats are still on their side, we'd probably have won the state and the senate seat.
And basically every Senate candidate underperformed Clinton, including the winners like Hassan who underperformed her by far fewer votes than Feingold.
If you told me we'd get a Cuomo/de Blasio ticket I'd jump on it. If those two could be bothered to work together they could totally transform what NY looks like politically, but instead they snipe at each other and we get shit like deer-gate.
I think he probably winds up as the VP pick in 2020 so whoever wins the primary can say they have someone with some experience at getting their platform passed.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I used to watch his show, like half of his "analysis" is to spew stories with the idiot ed rendell that had no basis in reality beside an imagined alternate 1980s, 90s where Tip and Reagan were still buds or something.
Cindi Mayweather
Member
That's not bad though. Getting unions to like you is good. New York has some of the toughest unions in the nation, so that's not bad. Apparently according to a quick google search, the NY state union accounts for 1,982,771 workers. But I also recall this. But that was a presidential race soooooo it has completely different stakes. What are your thoughts on the labor union situation post-election in NY?
She got 65 million votes, stop talking out yo ass.
whyamihere
Banned
A ton of other Democrats in those areas were able to run way ahead of the top of the ticket (Peterson, Nolan) and win. Feingold couldn't. That's on him.
This is not true. McGinty and CCM matched Hillary, Gray and Kander ran way ahead. Blumenthal, Schumer, Leahy ran way ahead. Eldridge ran way ahead. Strickland, Ross, and Murphy did worse. It was a grab bag. Not "basically every".
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Well leaving aside trump's affect on labor. The reason unions are vested in the three men in a room is because they trust cuomo to protect them. With split control cuomo decides the agenda, which usually protects labor. A dem senate with Andrea-Stewarts Cousins is going to want to focus on other things, not that they hate labor but it lowers Cuomos leverage.
Also many senate republicans are decent on organized labor and numerically there are still more dems (the IDC caucuses with republicans but are democrats and vote for things like paid leave and gay marriage)
I think this is kind of hard to do when you have a candidate like Trump who is speaking in such overtly racist terms, and his supporters are responding to and parroting that. How do you not bring up race when your opponent is branding Mexicans as drug dealers and murders and calling for a ban on Muslims in the country? Those are racist things to say!
There were plenty of ideological disagreements with McCain and Romney, but I don't recall the Obama camp ever insinuating those campaigns were racist (with possible exception of Romney's self-deportation policy toward immigration, but even then, I don't think Obama actually used the word "racist" to describe it) because they never traded in plainly racist language or ideas.
I'm not really advocating that as a party strategy, that's just a more personal angry conviction I have all my own from time to time. :lol
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
Sure, I'm not saying he was perfect and had a Kander-esque outperformance, I'm just saying that using him as the key to "all the left-wing candidates lost!" is unfair, because all the centrist-leaners lost too and he outperformed her in the counties Trump flipped from 2012.
whyamihere
Banned
There really is no cohesion to who did better than Clinton on an ideological scale.
Cindi Mayweather
Member
Democratic party message was poor. It was all identity politics and in hindsight, far too reactionary to Trump's latest gaffe of the week/day/hour/minute rather than building up a solid coalition that attracts many issues as an alternative.
That's not to dismiss identity politics as not important, but from the Democrats' tone this election, they thought everything was fine economically. And to be fair, Obama's administration did help raise employment after 2008. But the thing is, most of those new jobs are minimum wage and service jobs, and yes, people have jobs but that doesn't mean they're making ends meet or that they're working good jobs. And when you learn people are juggling two to three jobs a day to makes ends meet, that's clearly not good enough. And the Democrats decided that, yes, despite the employment rate boost, that it was.
So they focus on identity politics.
I think it's possible for the party to balance both labor and identity concerns, but I don't actually trust them to accomplish it.
We just have to take it in for what it is: Democrats were complacent and arrogant. The fact they they hedged their bets on this after loss after loss after loss locally and at the state level for a period of 8 years, is the icing on the cake.
The party needs a new strategy from the top down.
Or, you could make Hillary Clinton the governor of New York. I dunno.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
Right, but...
McGinty got ~60k less votes than Clinton did in PA, which is a lot more than Feingold's ~2k loss even when accounting for population differences in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania and McGinty didn't win any counties that Clinton didn't. CCM got about 20k fewer votes than Clinton in a state much smaller than Wisconsin.
I'm only focusing this on competitive senate races, since I don't think there's much to glean from Sturgill slightly outperforming her in Idaho or whatever.
I think she could win. She knows how to campaign in NY, but I seriously doubt she will run. She's had a very eventful and fulfilling career. Relax. Enjoy the remainder of her years.
Hillary Clinton is an embarrassingly shitty candidate but Cuomo is a legit bad guy.
So yeah I'd vote for Hillary. Really says something about the state of the Democratic party though that she even has a future at all after she blew a race that anyone but her would have won. If somebody with a 60% disapproval rating is the best you got it's game over. The fact that she was dueling Trump as one of the most hated general election candidates is pretty incredible.
NY would be her best shot at staying relevant. After good approval ratings when she was Sen. she actually has some support there.
So yeah I'd vote for Hillary. Really says something about the state of the Democratic party though that she even has a future at all after she blew a race that anyone but her would have won. If somebody with a 60% disapproval rating is the best you got it's game over. The fact that she was dueling Trump as one of the most hated general election candidates is pretty incredible.
NY would be her best shot at staying relevant. After good approval ratings when she was Sen. she actually has some support there.
excelsiorlef
Member
This idea that she only focused on Identity Politics is not necessarily factual
/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7657475/HRC_WORDS.jpg)
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/16/13972394/most-common-words-hillary-clinton-speech
I'm going to quote this post by Aaronology because I feel it needs to be engraved on everyone's minds when they talk about this election (ignore the Sanders references and focus on the points and data):
While you're right, the sad truth is the media paid no attention to her speeches. Combined with the content of the majority of her ads, it's not surprising that it felt like her campaign ran primarily on identity politics even if that's not really what happened. Clinton didn't have very good ads and that's what people seem to remember most. That and the poorly conceived "I'm with Her" slogan.
To add to this, I believe Hillary also won voters making under $48,000.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
While this is true, her coalition was on average much richer than Obama's and she won more wealthy suburbanites while losing the WWC by much larger margins.
This is OT but this was the first time I read that WaPo piece and the accompanying CNN article and I had some thoughts. They wrote
which is a little confusing when you add it all up, and definitely misleading when it comes to their conclusion. The first problem I have is that they're comparing data from 27 states when most people contend that Clinton lost the election by ignoring the Rust Belt specifically. It's the same problem you have when arguing about the popular vote - yeah, she won the popular vote but that didn't help her win the election. She still edged out Trump in MI, WI, PA, and OH when it came to the economy but not by as large a margin compared to the other issues. The economy was by far the most important issue according to exit polls for the entire country and was listed as the most important issue for 52% of voters with Clinton having a 9pt advantage over Trump among those voters.
But from what I'm reading, it looks like people polled were given a singular choice on their most important issue without ranking them. Clinton lost by a much larger majority when it came to immigration and terrorism, yes, but even combined, those two were the most important issues for only 32% of voters. So my question would be how many of those same voters would have listed the economy as their second most pressing concern after terrorism and immigration and whether or not Clinton's 9pt lead on the economy would persist if you include those people. Trump beat her on those two issues by a whopping 17 and 31pts respectively among polled voters so I wouldn't be surprised if that 9pt lead evaporated. Once you focus in on those 27 states like WaPo did, her starting lead is even smaller at 7.3pts.
That also leads me to the question what exactly you can say cost Clinton the election according to this poll if not the economy. I don't think it's fair to say she lost on immigration and terrorism when they were the most important issue for only 32% of those polled. I also find it odd that she won by a wide 27pts on foreign policy (most important issue for only 13% of voters) but lost so heavily on immigration and terrorism, two issues that are so closely tied to foreign policy. There's also some overlap I think between immigration and economic concerns (I know they're unfounded concerns but bear with me) that the poll misses by not asking them to rank the four issues by importance.
which is a little confusing when you add it all up, and definitely misleading when it comes to their conclusion. The first problem I have is that they're comparing data from 27 states when most people contend that Clinton lost the election by ignoring the Rust Belt specifically. It's the same problem you have when arguing about the popular vote - yeah, she won the popular vote but that didn't help her win the election. She still edged out Trump in MI, WI, PA, and OH when it came to the economy but not by as large a margin compared to the other issues. The economy was by far the most important issue according to exit polls for the entire country and was listed as the most important issue for 52% of voters with Clinton having a 9pt advantage over Trump among those voters.
But from what I'm reading, it looks like people polled were given a singular choice on their most important issue without ranking them. Clinton lost by a much larger majority when it came to immigration and terrorism, yes, but even combined, those two were the most important issues for only 32% of voters. So my question would be how many of those same voters would have listed the economy as their second most pressing concern after terrorism and immigration and whether or not Clinton's 9pt lead on the economy would persist if you include those people. Trump beat her on those two issues by a whopping 17 and 31pts respectively among polled voters so I wouldn't be surprised if that 9pt lead evaporated. Once you focus in on those 27 states like WaPo did, her starting lead is even smaller at 7.3pts.
That also leads me to the question what exactly you can say cost Clinton the election according to this poll if not the economy. I don't think it's fair to say she lost on immigration and terrorism when they were the most important issue for only 32% of those polled. I also find it odd that she won by a wide 27pts on foreign policy (most important issue for only 13% of voters) but lost so heavily on immigration and terrorism, two issues that are so closely tied to foreign policy. There's also some overlap I think between immigration and economic concerns (I know they're unfounded concerns but bear with me) that the poll misses by not asking them to rank the four issues by importance.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Trump did that. One might argue that he did it disingenuously, but he still did it.
It'd be an improvement from the shitstain we have now.
How would she be prepping for another presidential run? She'd be insanely old in 8 years to run again.
How would she be prepping for another presidential run? She'd be insanely old in 8 years to run again.
SenjutsuSage
Banned
Hillary Clinton is not what we need right now at all. Her chance was winning this election, which she lost, and she lost because of her own inadequacies as a candidate and as the chief executive of her campaign. She struck me as far back as her Primary race against President Obama as someone who largely tries to get by on her popularity and the strength of the name Hillary Clinton, and from there she believes everything else should just fall in place for her.
That, for the most part, has worked for her, but when she faces legitimate challenges from more passionate, seemingly less by the numbers candidates, slowly but surely that armor begins to fall apart. She hasn't demonstrated an ability to properly adjust to real adversity in the heat of a campaign she's the head of, or even the apparent ability to put the right people in place around her, or even that she is actually willing to listen to anyone that isn't in her closest inner circle, presumably full of yes men/women. Might seem I'm being hard on her when I fully expected her to win, but learning about the foolish oversights on her part during the campaign, and thinking back on the things that jumped out to me as strange, that she wasn't out on the campaign trail literally every day talking about some of these things, like the consumer financial protection bureau that Trump wants to get rid of, just really rubs me the wrong way right now.
That, for the most part, has worked for her, but when she faces legitimate challenges from more passionate, seemingly less by the numbers candidates, slowly but surely that armor begins to fall apart. She hasn't demonstrated an ability to properly adjust to real adversity in the heat of a campaign she's the head of, or even the apparent ability to put the right people in place around her, or even that she is actually willing to listen to anyone that isn't in her closest inner circle, presumably full of yes men/women. Might seem I'm being hard on her when I fully expected her to win, but learning about the foolish oversights on her part during the campaign, and thinking back on the things that jumped out to me as strange, that she wasn't out on the campaign trail literally every day talking about some of these things, like the consumer financial protection bureau that Trump wants to get rid of, just really rubs me the wrong way right now.
Unknown Soldier
Member
This seems like a brilliant plan to get a Republican elected as the Governor of New York.
boiled goose
good with gravy
Democrats need new young leadership.
If she cares about the future she shouldn't run. Gotta rake in those Wall Street contributions though.
Democrats have now lost presidency, scotus, house, Senate, local legistures, governer...
The lesson learned is.. let's keep doing the same old shit with the same corporatist Democrats!
If she cares about the future she shouldn't run. Gotta rake in those Wall Street contributions though.
Democrats have now lost presidency, scotus, house, Senate, local legistures, governer...
The lesson learned is.. let's keep doing the same old shit with the same corporatist Democrats!
Super_Cobra
Member
She lost against Obama and trump, I think she needs to go ahead and go away. She has a tainted career now.
Like others have stated, she should help bring young people in.
Like others have stated, she should help bring young people in.
The Last Wizard
Member
No, the people of Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens, Bronx and a few other cities upstate wanted her. Check the state map, shit is completely red save for those few cities which house enough people.
DrForester
Kills Photobucket
And as every Republican knows, city folk's votes should only count 3/5 as much as "normal" folk.
Just as the founding fathers intended.
Yup. History has proven the Clinton name to be completely unelectable by the state of New York.
Not so incredible when you look at the massive campaign of misinformation the media spewed forth in an attempt to keep the horse race close.
Cesare Borgia
Banned
What are you talking about?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked