Skip to main content

View Diary: Daily Kos Elections Morning Digest: The backstory to Bill Clinton's New Hampshire endorsement (94 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ron Thompson

    Clinton rewards Dems who were loyal to him and his wife. It's not like he's going out endorsing GOP candidates to spite people who didn't endorse HRC. I find loyalty an admirable trait and he shows more of it than Obama from my observations.

    Language professors HATE me!

    by Zornorph on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 07:05:37 AM PDT

    •  Obama is the President (10+ / 0-)

      aside from incumbents who request his endorsement, he doesn't get involved in primaries as a rule. Did Clinton pick sides when he was in office? My guess is no. And loyalty is all well and good, but it's annoying when he goes to bat for backstabbers like John Delaney and conservadems like Marty Chavez.

      Voting in RI-01, went to college in IL-01.

      by sapelcovits on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 07:12:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Also (6+ / 0-)

        Clinton will back someone who supported his wife, even though the other candidate was leagues better both electorally and ideologically. (See Andrew Romanoff and Kathleen Kane.)

        Republicans and the Tea Party: Wrong for America.

        by ehstronghold on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 07:14:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes. It's about personal loyalty (5+ / 0-)

          to the Clintons, not loyalty to the Dem party nor loyalty to what is best for the specific district, state or whatever.

          I had more or less forgotten about the whole fiasco over the Clintons' attacks on Obama for being "weak on choice" and misleading people about the "present" votes -- which were in fact an example of Barack Obama putting loyalty to the party, to the cause, to the outcome over his own personal gain... it was explained at the time that the pro-choice groups involved had specifically lobbied him to vote "present" as it was a needed part of their strategy to get other Dems on board, and so he agreed to do it to ensure the right outcome. He put loyalty to the cause and outcome over his personal standing. This was a great thing he did, and the fact that the Clintons used it against him and blatantly lied about it to the voters made me sooooooooooo angry at them both. I still think it was an extremely low tactic. And I do not consider Bill Clinton's loyalty to one of the participants in that to be a positive sign regarding his character.

        •  Kane is the better candidate (0+ / 0-)

          since she beat Murphy in the primary handily. Her electoral profile is much better IMO. Clinton can endorse whoever he wants. A lot of people including Obama want him to fundraise and campaign for them.

          •  oh boy (5+ / 0-)

            back to the "winning the primary makes you more electable in the general" argument. I guess by that logic we should just run Alvin Greene everywhere.

            Voting in RI-01, went to college in IL-01.

            by sapelcovits on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 08:18:21 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I agree (3+ / 0-)

              In fact, from what I can tell, there is not much of a correlation between primary electability and GE electability. And if there is a correlation, it is a negative one. The primary system in the united states leads to the most extreme candidates on the left and right to win primaries, but they are conversely much less effective at winning general elections when the voters aren't diehard partisan activists.

            •  Kane didn't beat a nobody in the primary. (0+ / 0-)

              She beat an Obama preferred  (through
              Axelrod's endorsment) former Congressman who also had the Philadelphia/Rendell endorsements and union machine.  This wasn't a hopeless race against a sitting Senator. Kane has money and can raise money. She won in  areas that Democrats need to win in November. Murphy took the race for granted and Kane simply beat him. Clinton's late endorsement certainly helped.

              •  Money (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                definitely moves way more votes in a primary (especially for a downballot race) than it does in a general. Remember, for the general election, most people will vote their partisan inclinations and the battle is over a mushy middle. In a primary, almost everyone is the mushy middle. I've never seen any evidence that Murphy took the race for granted, only that Kane blasted him out of the water with her self-funding.

                Voting in RI-01, went to college in IL-01.

                by sapelcovits on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 08:49:11 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Yout forgot the number 1 rule: (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          OGGoldy, Zornorph, pademocrat

          The Clintons always pay their debts.

          NC-06/NC-04; -9.00, -8.41; progress through pragmatism

          by sawolf on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 08:28:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Very well said, sapelcovits. (0+ / 0-)

        There is a reason things are done a certain way. The results aren't always ideal, as your Marty Chavez example indicates, but it shouldn't be a big mystery.

        "The election of Mitt Romney and a supporting congress this November would be a...disaster for America. Think of the trainwreck that has been the Conservative government in Britain since 2010. And square it."--Brad DeLong

        by bjssp on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 05:04:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Must be why Obama pushed hard for Corzine (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Big Clinton '08 supporter.

      "What do you mean "conspiracy"? Does that mean it's someone's imaginings and that the actual polls hovered right around the result?" - petral

      by conspiracy on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 09:04:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site