Skip to main content

View Diary: Daily Kos Elections Live Digest: 4/2 (299 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Clinton's campaign foundation to start this year? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike, lordpet8, Losty, betelgeux

    http://politicalwire.com/...

    Interesting thoughts. Is anyone on here 100% sure she will be running in '16, or is it all just a lot of hot air?

    heh, while typing this, I almost said "next year" for her running. Sigh, my minds in '16, but my body is stuck in '13.

    21, Male, NC-02 home, SC-04 School. Majoring in Piano Performance. Progressive Democrat.

    by aggou on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 06:07:48 AM PDT

    •  Sounds like typical McAuliffe bluster... (0+ / 0-)

      He's just pitching a sales pitch to potential donors...

      As to Hillary, no one knows.

      GODSPEED TO THE WISCONSIN FOURTEEN!

      by LordMike on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 06:21:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Tammy Baldwin would kick Hillary's a** (0+ / 0-)

        ...if she ran in a presidential primary against Hillary.

        Polls don't vote, statistics don't vote, history doesn't vote, yard signs don't vote...PEOPLE VOTE!!!

        by DownstateDemocrat on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 09:13:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Tammy Baldwin (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          IndianaProgressive

          Would go on to lose against any Republican no matter how crazy.

          23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

          by wwmiv on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 09:55:44 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Come January 2017... (0+ / 0-)

            ...I have your comment bookmarked so that, when Tammy Baldwin is sworn in as the next President of the United States, I can show you what you said about Tammy's chances of becoming President just to embarass you.

            Polls don't vote, statistics don't vote, history doesn't vote, yard signs don't vote...PEOPLE VOTE!!!

            by DownstateDemocrat on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:10:20 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Baldwin (7+ / 0-)

            I wouldn't go that far. However I will say she is far weaker than Hilary, and likely as weak or weaker than any other candidate being floated.

          •  Funny, that's what some people said (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JGibson, askew

            about her Senate run. And yet, she beat a formerly popular 4 term Governor by almost as much as Obama beat Romney.

            Don't get me wrong Hilary's a stronger candidate, and I doubt she would win a primary if she was stupid enough to run in 2016, with or without Hilary. While her path would be difficult, however I don't think she'd be completely hopeless for winning a general election. As much as republicans want to view her as some radical big city lesbinym, she comes across as very "'sconsin nice." The political landscape is littered with the figurative corpses of people who have underestimated Tammy Baldwin.

            •  Wisconsin is relative progressive (0+ / 0-)

              on social issues.  Less so on abortion because of Catholicism but there aren't that many evangelicals.

              I don't think you can find 50% of Virginia that would vote for a progressive lesbian (it's the combination of the two that does it), and you definitely can't in North Carolina.  That already takes two swing states off the table.  It's really not worth the risk.  Unlike racism against Blacks, which at this point is uncommon among swing voters, anti-gay sentiment is still strong among many who'd consider voting Dem in swing states.

              20, 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. -.4.12, -4.92

              by jncca on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 04:02:42 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I'm not sure where you get the idea (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                nimh, askew

                That Wisconsin is particularly progressive on social issues, but I'd actually say you have it backwards. The marriage / unions ban passed in Every County except Dane in 2006, and PPP on has marriage equality at about 50/50 here now, despite it leading nation wide. If anything, Wisconsin is more socially conservative than it is economically conservative.

              •  it's hard to argue (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                jncca, nimh, askew

                that Virginia is more socially conservative than Wisconsin, seeing as how a recent poll found Virginians essentially split down the middle on marriage equality...not to mention that Virginia's gay marriage ban passed by a smaller margin than Wisconsin's the same very year...well, a progressive lesbian, perhaps, but how much overlap is there between those who will never vote for a progressive and those who will never vote for a lesbian? A lot, I imagine.

                Living in Kyoto-06 (Japan), voting in RI-01, went to college in IL-01.

                by sapelcovits on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 04:31:42 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Nate Silver has Wisconsin 4.5 points to Virginia's (0+ / 0-)

                  left on the issue.  But I do think lesbian, atheist, and Muslim are the three groups that still couldn't get to 50% in a national election, at least not while the parties remain in their present forms.

                  20, 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. -.4.12, -4.92

                  by jncca on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 05:03:30 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  so (0+ / 0-)

                    you think more people support gay marriage than would vote for a lesbian?

                    Living in Kyoto-06 (Japan), voting in RI-01, went to college in IL-01.

                    by sapelcovits on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 08:23:39 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Yes, actually. (0+ / 0-)

                      20, 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. -.4.12, -4.92

                      by jncca on Wed Apr 03, 2013 at 02:32:58 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  don't agree (0+ / 0-)

                        IIRC available evidence didn't show a majority supporting gay marriage in WI last year. and do you think that 59% of people in CA-41 support gay marriage? (unless you specifically mean a lesbian as opposed to an LGBT person in general.)

                        Living in Kyoto-06 (Japan), voting in RI-01, went to college in IL-01.

                        by sapelcovits on Wed Apr 03, 2013 at 07:41:49 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

        •  You have officially gone off the deep end (4+ / 0-)

          Your comments before, while more often than not irritating in their irrelevance to anything, were at least grounded in a legitimate passion for Wisconsin politics and against Scott Walker.

          And your comments on downstate Illinois politics were actually cogent and insightful!

          But primarying Nancy Pelosi and proclaiming Tammy Baldwin President? You've jumped the shark, dude. Please go away now.

          25, Practical Progressive Democrat (-9.38, -8.51), Gay, IN-02 - Defeat Wacky Jackie for 2014!

          by HoosierD42 on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 03:59:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I've got to agree (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            skibum59

            I have no problem with someone being optimistic (as I am a bit of a pessimist), but President Tammy Baldwin in four years is just lunacy.  He is either deliberatly pushing buttons or has really jumped the shark.  Andre Carson has a better chance to be elected statewide in Indiana than Tammy Baldwin has being elected President of the United States.

            •  Baldwin (0+ / 0-)

              Against an average Republican in 2016 I think she'd be 50-50 or better to win all the states Obama won except FL, OH, and maybe VA. That said, I think any of the serious contenders who have been floated (Hillary, Cuomo, O'Malley, Warner, Schweitzer) would do better than that, and I don't see how she would win the primary. She's less electable than the others and doesn't seem to be especially charismatic or good at raising money.

              SSP poster. 43, new CA-6, -0.25/-3.90

              by sacman701 on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 05:05:07 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  I'd far prefer to be in '16 than '13. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      James Allen
      •  senate race wise, totally! n/t (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BeloitDem

        In fact, the occasional victory for the GOP cannot hide the fact that this country is fast heading into another era, not of two-party democracy, but a party-and-a-half system. And the GOP is the half a party- Larry Sabato

        by lordpet8 on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:12:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  anyone who is 100% sure is a fool. (8+ / 0-)

      But it is my belief that she will run.

      ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

      by James Allen on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 07:42:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm in this boat (4+ / 0-)

        It isn't a sure thing, but I'd say it's more likely than unlikely she runs at this point.

        Swingnut since 2009, 22, Male, Democrat, CA-49 (home) CA-12 (college)

        by Ryan Dack on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 08:18:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  yeah (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LordMike, itskevin, JBraden

        Nothing that hasnt't happened yet is 100%. I'd say it's 85-90% likely that Hillary runs.

        SSP poster. 43, new CA-6, -0.25/-3.90

        by sacman701 on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 09:09:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm still of the exact opposite view (5+ / 0-)

          I think all this stuff is really not much at all.  I think she doesn't want to run and is 85%-90% unlikely.  I have no doubt she would love to be President, but I don't think she wants to run for President.  Those are two different things.

          Hillary just strikes me as someone who is happy never having to set an alarm on her clock ever again.

          I'm torn on whether I'd want her to run.  On one hand, she's a perfectly fine generic Democrat in her politics, she'd be the first woman and we should have that, and on paper she's a likely winner and extremely tough for Rs to beat.

          On the other hand, I hate the company she keeps, and that to this day as far as I know she thinks the Iraq War was a good idea but just badly executed.  Those are things I'd like to see changed.

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

          by DCCyclone on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 11:15:35 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, no, no.... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            James Allen

            We're talking about Hillary Clinton here.

            Hillary just strikes me as someone who is happy never having to set an alarm on her clock ever again.
            I think you're thinking of someone who doesn't have massive ambition and a relentless work ethic. Hilary Swank, maybe?
    •  While we're talking about time warps (7+ / 0-)

      April Fool's Day is over, so maybe you should change back your sig.  Unless, that is, you've really switched parties, and if so, welcome to Blue Land.  Once you settle in you'll wonder what you ever saw in the Red territory. :)

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

      by Mike in MD on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 08:05:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  If Hillary wants to run in 2016, she had better (0+ / 0-)

      be out there campaigning like crazy in 2014 to win a Democratic-led house and for the Dems to retain the Senate. If she and her large $$ donors sit on their asses in 2014, it will be remembered when they come knocking for support for Hillary's run.

      President Obama at Madison Rally 9/28/2010 - "Change is not a spectator sport."

      by askew on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 09:01:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  that probably won't matter (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LordMike, James Allen, gabjoh

        If she runs, she would win the primary hands down even if she didn't spend a nickel. In the general, any Dem who got really worked up over congressional races in 2014 will be even more worked up over the presidential election even if they're still pissed at Hillary.

        SSP poster. 43, new CA-6, -0.25/-3.90

        by sacman701 on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 09:13:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I wouldn't put it so much like this (6+ / 0-)

        I'd put it more that she'll have learned her lesson from last time (where she lacked alot of establishment support, because she hadn't built those connections) and that she'll do it differently this time around.

        The fact that she sent out those letters to closely defeated candidate saying they should run again and that Democrats will call on them to do so is a pretty clear sign she's already learned that lesson.

        23 Burkean Post Modern Gay Democrat; NM-2 (Raised), TX-20 (B.A. & M.A. in Political Science), TX-17 (Home); 08/12 PVIs

        by wwmiv on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 09:13:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sending out letters isn't enough to show (0+ / 0-)

          she's learned anything from 2008.  We'll have to see if she actually hits the trail and holds fundraisers for a lot of 2014 candidates and not just candidates that endorsed her in 2008 before I think she's learned anything.

          And an apology for her Iraq War vote would be needed too.

          President Obama at Madison Rally 9/28/2010 - "Change is not a spectator sport."

          by askew on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 09:50:58 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  She didn't lack establishment support (8+ / 0-)

          Hillary was the establishment.

          What she lacked was the favorables that she now has.  She was polarizing, her favorables hovered at or barely above break-even, and that's not a good place for a non-incumbent running for President and scared off a lot of Dem electeds, some (but not all) in tough districts and states, for the same reasons they now struggle straddling the line between supporting Obama and not seeming to do so.

          If you were a Democrat in 2008, you saw Obama seemed better-liked in some red and purple places than Hillary.  There were some red and purple places where Obama was viewed worse than Hillary, but in Virginia or Indiana or Omaha or North Carolina or some other places, it was a no-brainer that general election voters liked Obama more.  So that, too, drained some support from Hillary.

          Her negatives are down to the point that those problems almost certainly are gone.  Plus, she can run either as Obama's successor or as her own brand or both, however best works politically come summer/fall 2015.

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

          by DCCyclone on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 11:20:51 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  a lot* (0+ / 0-)

          Sorry but it bugs the crap out of my when people say "alot"

          25, Practical Progressive Democrat (-9.38, -8.51), Gay, IN-02 - Defeat Wacky Jackie for 2014!

          by HoosierD42 on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 04:01:11 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site