Skip to main content

View Diary: Daily Kos Elections Live Digest: 11/19 (376 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  MA is bluer and Romney governed more as a moderate (4+ / 0-)

    than Christie governs NJ. Didn't stop Romney from winning.

    However, I agree Christie's not going to win the 2016 primary. From the right, they've had 2 straight elections with a "moderate" choice on their side. They don't think it's working and now have 2 recent cases. I bet they go with a full-bore conservative in 2016. Makes me hopeful for the Dems in 2016 when they arguably should be underdogs since it's rare for the same party to win the WH 3 times in a row.

    •  The 2016 field will be stronger than 2012 (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY

      If Scott Walker wins re-election in 2014, he is probably the frontrunner for the 2016 primary, if he chooses to run.

      Rubio was just in IA so it looks like he will run too.

      And it's more than just Christie's moderation, it's his praise for Obama. Many feel that cost Romney the election, or at the very least, was a disloyal act.

      •  Call the Waahmbulance! (9+ / 0-)

        Seriously, what was Christie supposed to do after Sandy?  Make up some bogus criticism of Obama or tell him "screw off, there's an election coming up and I don't want you to look good so I won't take FEMA help"?  

        Grow the fuck up already, GOP.

        37, MD-8 (MD-6 after 2012) resident, NOVA raised, Euro/Anglophile Democrat

        by Mike in MD on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 09:03:32 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  There's no frontrunner, not Walker or otherwise (12+ / 0-)

        The GOP nomination really has never been more wide-open.  The next-most wide-open was 2008, but as it went McCain had been the unofficial runner-up in 2000, and that proved more important than it seemed until he won the New Hampshire primary.

        The closest thing we have to a "natural successor" this time is Paul Ryan, but I doubt anyone thinks he has any kind of advantage over so many other wannabes.  Being just a Congressman hurts him, and he's no more a golden boy than Rubio or so many others.  Ryan was a Congressman on a losing Presidential ticket, I doubt his natural strength is any greater than Dan Quayle's in '96 (and Quayle was actually VP).

        Regarding Christie, this recent apostasy won't necessarily hurt him at all in 2016.  No one will blame him long-term for Romney losing, they'll all blame Romney directly, and eventually accept/rationalize that Christie was just being a practical Governor after Sandy.

        What's interesting about the GOP in is that it's a given they will nominate someone who has never before run for President.  That's a first in my lifetime.  Their last nominee who never ran before was Barry Goldwater, I think (he didn't run in '60, right?).  I guess you can count Ford in '76, but I don't think that counts since he was the actual sitting President at the time, rendering meaningless the lack of a previous run.

        And I think not having a serious choice with experience running before could be a real liability for the GOP, they won't know what to do.  On our side, every Democratic President in my living memory got elected on his very first try!  But I suspect GOP voters might not choose a nominee so wisely.

        We likely will have someone who's never run before, but of course all the Biden and Hillary talk makes that more dubious to assume at this stage.  I actually think Biden is no worse than 50-50 odds of actually running, he's making it clear he still wants it.  Hillary has made it clear she doesn't, and it will take people close to her aggressively trying to change her mind to make it happen.

        44, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and 2 boys, Democrat, VA-10

        by DCCyclone on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 10:07:17 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I 100% agree with your take (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Zack from the SFV, askew

          Particularly regarding Biden and Clinton. It's always been so weird to me that so many people will simultaneously just assume that Hillary Clinton will run and that Joe Biden won't (especially given that Biden has already run twice now, and even with Clinton running, he's probably still in better shape to win this time around than he ever was in either 2008 or 1988).

          Clinton, as you say, clearly doesn't want to run, and I would even go as far as to say that if she is goaded into running, she'll end up being a lot weaker than a lot of the people who are talking her up think she'll be. It's hard to try to run a campaign if your heart isn't in it (and this is especially true of a presidential campaign). So even if Clinton gets in, I don't think she's the overwhelming favorite everyone thinks she would be.

          Of course, I don't think that Clinton does run, I think she just wants to retire, I've said this before, but she looks tired more than anything else.

          Politics and more Formerly DGM on SSP. NM-01, 26 (chairman of the Atheist Caucus)

          by NMLib on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 10:45:34 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Trying too hard to draft "the perfect candidate" (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DCCyclone

            can really backfire, as we've seen here in Wisconsin this cycle. Mr. (or Mrs.) Perfect starts out way ahead in the polls, and tries to coast to victory. In the case of Thompson, this involved ignoring all sorts of ammo he could have used against Baldwin, not getting his outside groups lined up in time, and not fighting back against a very damaging narrative. We can't afford to repeat these mistakes with a presidential campaign.

            Male, 22, -4.75/-6.92, born and raised TN-05, now WI-02. "You're damn right we're making a difference!" - Senator-Elect Tammy Baldwin (D-Madison)

            by fearlessfred14 on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 10:52:33 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  I think Santorum (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          WisJohn, lordpet8, sacman701, askew

          has seen himself as heir-apparent from the day he conceded the nomination.
          I would NOT count him out.

          •  Who would give him money? (0+ / 0-)
            •  Well I'm sure the social conservative groups will (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Zack from the SFV

              "If you invested $100k for 40 years of Republican administrations you had $126k at the end, if you invested $100k for 40 years of Democratic administrations you had $3.9M at the end" -Forbes Magazine

              by lordpet8 on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 11:41:36 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Try again? (0+ / 0-)

                I think the last two presidential cycles have made it pretty clear that social conservative groups don't have enough money to win without at least some support from within the business wing of the Republican party. And they view Santorum as toxic.

                •  who says that he needs to win? (0+ / 0-)

                  He will probably just act as a distraction for the main nominee and force the other candidates to move to the right, just like he did this last time around.

                  Considering who consersvative the Republican primary electorate is these days, a guy like Santorum will still have some traction. I'm not saying he will the nomination but he still can influence some of the primaries.

                  "If you invested $100k for 40 years of Republican administrations you had $126k at the end, if you invested $100k for 40 years of Democratic administrations you had $3.9M at the end" -Forbes Magazine

                  by lordpet8 on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 11:54:30 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  You should count him out (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY

            Terrible mistake to take Santorum seriously, he is a nothingburger.  If he could be taken seriously, he would've beaten Mitt this time.  He couldn't do that, and he didn't come remotely close, so he has zero chance of primary voters taking him seriously against a stronger field in 2016.

            44, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and 2 boys, Democrat, VA-10

            by DCCyclone on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 05:20:22 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Goldwater did make some rumblings in '60 (0+ / 0-)

          "If you invested $100k for 40 years of Republican administrations you had $126k at the end, if you invested $100k for 40 years of Democratic administrations you had $3.9M at the end" -Forbes Magazine

          by lordpet8 on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 10:45:59 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Can't you feel the Tommymentum?! :P (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          WisJohn, Zack from the SFV
          What's interesting about the GOP in is that it's a given they will nominate someone who has never before run for President.
        •  George W. Bush got elected (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lordpet8, jncca, abgin, DCCyclone

          on his first try.

          28, Male, MA-08 (hometown MI-06)

          by bumiputera on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 11:12:51 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  But Dubya had his family name and Rolodex (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bumiputera

            helping him out

            Gave him an important edge

            •  More than the Rolodex (0+ / 0-)

              He had the Texas financing. That's huge for a Republican. He had all the money he needed and could easily outspend anyone else in the primary.

              (-6.12,-3.18), Dude, 24, MI-07 soon to be MI-12, went to college in DC-at large K-Pop Song du Jour: Miss A's "I Don't Need a Man"

              by kman23 on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 05:30:03 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  I forgot that, which is easy to do because... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY

            ...he's "George Bush," his father's namesake, so that he wasn't remotely unknown in the same way almost any first-time candidate is.

            But in that regard he still fits my thesis, because he was unique, a member of GOP political royalty such that he's held to a lower standard, given the benefit of doubt by his party that he's worthy.  Such is the case also with Jeb.  And on our side, with Hillary.  And before the Clintons, it was the Kennedys who received that benefit of doubt.  And we see the same on the state-level, many states have families who are political royalty where the members are taken for granted as worthy candidates for high office.

            44, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and 2 boys, Democrat, VA-10

            by DCCyclone on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 11:29:48 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Forgot George W. Bush (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DCCyclone

          But good analysis anyway.

        •  I'm 100% opposite of you on Biden and Clinton (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wwmiv

          Which is weird cuz I agree with almost everything else you say. I think the reason Hilary is leaving the cabinet is to re-charge before a Presidential race. I think right now she's tired but she knows deep down she still wants it and she's getting herself ready for a race. SOS didn't satisfy her political ambitions enough to kill her lifelong ambition to become President. I think eventually that plus Bill urging her on plus her huge number of supports plus her wanting to keep the presidency in Democratic hands gets her to run.

          Biden on the other hand has from Day 1 (to his credit) been Obama's biggest supporter and that takes him out of the Presidential running. If he was considering running for President you'd see him want to get some separation from Obama (to the left or the right) just to prove he's his own guy. I also honestly don't think he could win either the Democratic primary (especially if Hilary ran but even without her running) and especially not the general. He got destroyed in 2008 and while he's now the VP and not a career Senator, he has to know that being VP is leaving the game (as a national candidate, I could see him run for Governor one day) at the highest point for him.

          In either case both primary campaigns (assuming Hilary doesn't run) will be wide open and really shape the future of both parties.

          (-6.12,-3.18), Dude, 24, MI-07 soon to be MI-12, went to college in DC-at large K-Pop Song du Jour: Miss A's "I Don't Need a Man"

          by kman23 on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 05:28:55 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Being VP (0+ / 0-)

            didn't sink George HW Bush's chances. The reason I think Biden wouldn't win is that he is just not a good enough candidate. His gaffes will be magnified if he is again a presidential and not a vice-presidential candidate.

            Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

            by MichaelNY on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 09:46:27 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Biden's problem is that he isn't seen as (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              uclabruin18, MichaelNY

              presidential.  He's a very bright guy.  But nobody takes him seriously enough; he doesn't have the gravitas.

              19, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (school)
              politicohen.com
              Socially libertarian, moderate on foreign policy, immigration, and crime, liberal on everything else.
              UC Berkeley; I think I'm in the conservative half of this city. -.5.38, -3.23

              by jncca on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 10:00:19 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  He's not thinking about 2016 (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY

      he's thinking about 2013

      VA-03 (current residence) NC-07 (home)

      by psychicpanda on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 10:37:12 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think Christie does a big mistake (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Zack from the SFV, MichaelNY

        I would not be surprised if he has a well funded primary this year. All the conservative groups want him out for 2016, and if he loses in 2013, that will be game over for him. There are big advantages for the conservative groups challenging Christie in 2013.

        •  I don't agree with you (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jncca

          because the Tea Party is just not that strong in New Jersey. Relative to the rest of the country, Republicans are less extreme in New Jersey.

          Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

          by MichaelNY on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 09:47:24 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yeah (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY

            NJ has one of the five least conservative Republican parties.  To be fair, we once said that about Maine, and LePage is their Governor.  But on the whole, I'd say the five most moderate Republican parties are all in the Northeast.

            19, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (school)
            politicohen.com
            Socially libertarian, moderate on foreign policy, immigration, and crime, liberal on everything else.
            UC Berkeley; I think I'm in the conservative half of this city. -.5.38, -3.23

            by jncca on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 10:02:55 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The question is the outside money (0+ / 0-)

              Unfortunately the presidential primaries in 2012 were too late to see the effect of the real fight. Only Romney and Paul were active.

              And since 2009 we have only a senate race without high profile candidates, but the result of the the 2009 republican primary for governor is not as clear for telling that the extreme right has not room in New Jersey. Then C Christie runs as a conservative candidate, anand he was backed buy people like Carl Rovend the conservative money.

              Now that can change. Karl Rove critizized him publicly.

              •  I don't think you understand (0+ / 0-)

                Only a minority of voters in New Jersey Republican primaries are extremists. It doesn't matter how much money Rove spends if Republican voters won't vote for some extreme person who runs against Christie.

                Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                by MichaelNY on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 02:13:41 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Well, I think the Republican primaries are not (0+ / 0-)

                  about being extremist. I think the Republican primaries are more about being enough conservative, about being the true conservative in the race.

                  And until now, to give some love to Obama has being sign of becoming unelectable in a Republican primary.

                  I expect not an extremist in the style of the south, but the north east has a decent number of primary loser because they were not enough conservative.

                  And all is not about defeating him in the primary. If he has a contested primary he can lean to the right in order to win the primary, but that can make him unelectable in the general.

                  •  Every moderate Republican has been underfunded (0+ / 0-)

                    Every moderate Republican candidate that survived not in a primary has been underfunded until now. Even O Snowe. They raised not enough money for doing a competitive race.

                    It is the same trouble that will have S Collins and it is the same trouble that can have now C Christie.

                    Who in the Republican side will give money to S Collins if she will likely be the first Republican going with the Democrats and helping to Obama in a close chamber? The big majority of the Republican donors will have more confidence in a candidate from Arkansas, West Virginia or even North Carolina trying to unseat a Democrat in 2014.

                    C Christie was well wiewed by the conservative movements in 2009 and even until now, but the last events help not him. I think his fundraising ways can be affected. I think he is vulnerable.

                  •  Then maybe you haven't been watching NJ (0+ / 0-)

                    Republican primaries closely. When was the last time an extremist candidate for state-wide office beat a relative moderate in a statewide primary in NJ?

                    Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                    by MichaelNY on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 12:08:29 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Maybe in the primaries for Governor 2009? (0+ / 0-)

                      Then C Christie run not as a moderate in the primary.

                      And in the general he underperforms comparing with the national numbers of his cycle.

                      •  Just this was his appeal (0+ / 0-)

                        He runs as enough conservative for the extremist groups in 2009, clearly to the right of Snowe, Collins, Rell and others. Even he runs to the right of F LoBiondo. And he wins.

                        Then he was supported by the conservative groups, like S Brown, M Kirk, P LePage and others.

                        •  LePage? (0+ / 0-)

                          LePage wasn't even Governor until 2011. Mark Kirk and Scott Brown are clearly moderates within the Republican Party, and their endorsements - like endorsements from Snowe, Collins, or Rell - would have no important impact on primary voting in New Jersey. The endorsement of Former New Jersey Governor - and moderate Republican - Tom Kean could have had some impact, and perhaps Rudolph Giuliani's endorsement, too (another moderate Republican) could have helped a bit in the New York City market.

                          Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                          by MichaelNY on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 12:48:54 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  No-one of them runs as moderate in 2010 (0+ / 0-)

                            for the higher level office. Only Brown try later to give a more moderate point to his voting record. But not in the way of Snowe, Collins or Rell. If I'm not wrong the voting record of Kirk as senator is to the right of the voting record of Heller as example.

                            LePage was mayor before 2011. A little city, but not as little for Maine standards.

                            The people seems to be moving the sense of the word moderate to the right, following the evolution of the Republican party. Then Brown, Kirk or the Christie of 2009 can be called moderate, but I think this would be not a real calification. Obviously no-one of them runs by the way of Inhofe, but I would not call them moderate.

                          •  Christie is not moderate in the sense that Kean (0+ / 0-)

                            was, but he was the more moderate major candidate in the Republican primary, and I'm saying that he's the right sort for New Jersey Republicans.

                            Kirk hasn't voted many times as a senator but had a moderate record for a House Republican.

                            You now seem to be focusing on the national Republican Party. I'm focusing on New Jersey specifically and telling you that the chances that Christie would be defeated in a Republican primary as a sitting governor seem to me to be vanishingly low.

                            Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                            by MichaelNY on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 10:54:09 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I tell somewhere before (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            MichaelNY

                            that some conservative group can realize that 2013 gives a good chance of eliminating him for the race of 2016.

                            I would not rule out a well funded primary. Even without high chance of winning, because it would be not to win the primary, it can be more about to see Christie losing the race.

                            To primary him would make Christie to move to the right, in order to win the primary, and that can make him unelectable in the state.

                            I think a decent number of conservative strategists can be thinking about this.

                          •  We shall see. n/t (0+ / 0-)

                            Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                            by MichaelNY on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 06:35:10 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  You're wrong about 2009 (0+ / 0-)

                        Christie main opponent was Steve Lonegan, a hard-right candidate, and Christie, running clearly to his left, drubbed him. Christie may not be all that moderate, but he was moderate enough for New Jersey Republicans, who have rejected hard-right underdogs in statewide primaries for Governor over and over again.

                        Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                        by MichaelNY on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 12:44:13 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I give some link to news where Christie (0+ / 0-)

                          appears close to Karl Rove. Lonegan was close to a some dude candidate. His defeat means not Christie was running as moderate.

                          A Karl Rove candidate is not a moderate candidate.

                          •  But Christie did run to Lonegan's left (0+ / 0-)

                            I remember the campaign vividly. I live in New York and heard plenty of campaign ads and media coverage. Plus, Lonegan was Mayor of Bogota, NJ, not a "some dude."

                            Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                            by MichaelNY on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 10:55:31 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Bogota NJ is like a half of the city of LePage ) (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            MichaelNY

                            (Sorry by the joke)

                            It is under 10,000 inhabitants. Not a big political weigth.

                            I re-read my comments, I was telling that Christie runs as conservative, but not that he would be running to the left of Lonegan. I think both things are compatible. But I think that gives not the moderate label to Chirstie in 2009.

                            In the current GOP I have hard time finding moderates. I see a politician with less than 25% in the progressive rating for the lifetime and I can not call him a moderate.

                            More recent events can make him appear as a moderate, but in a false position. Until now the Republicans hate that in the primaries.

                            In a normal cycle (not in a Republican wave), the Republicans have very hard time winning races in D+2 constituencies. For me C Christie is out of the kind of constituency that a Republican can win today, if the race is contested.

                            I think the race will be contested, strongly contested. It is a need of the Democratic Party.

        •  If Christie is primaried this year, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY

          that will be a sign that the base of the party isn't even close to being weakened. Christie seems to be their only chance at winning in the state, and he's the incumbent. If you want to win, you don't challenge a guy like that unless he's plagued by scandal.

          "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 Nov 20, 2012 at 07:07:31 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  my point is that now (0+ / 0-)

            now Christie has some mistake that would make harder for him to be elected, and someone can think that 2013 is the right moment to eliminate him from the 2016 presidential fight, without care too much about losing 2013 race.

            I would not be surprised if he has a primary. That would make the race a lot more difficult for Christie, because he should need to go to the right in order to win the primary with the risk of becoming unelectable in the state.

            Some conservative group can realize that spending now two or three millions they can let out the frotrunner between the moderate bench of the party. In 2016 two or three millions will be nothing.

            I see not Christie as safe. The same about Collins. She is by far the Republican with the less conservative voting record, especially in the last cycle. I think their fundraising sources are damaged. I think they have hard work getting reelected. As hard as Tester as example, or even more because the Republican basis love not the RINOs.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (145)
  • Community (63)
  • Environment (42)
  • 2016 (42)
  • Republicans (37)
  • Elections (34)
  • Culture (34)
  • Bernie Sanders (33)
  • Memorial Day (31)
  • Media (26)
  • Climate Change (25)
  • Labor (25)
  • Education (24)
  • Hillary Clinton (24)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (23)
  • Barack Obama (23)
  • Spam (23)
  • Civil Rights (23)
  • GOP (22)
  • Science (20)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site