Skip to main content

View Diary: Hey, Reince, that's not how presidential elections work (140 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't know - I'd sign that petition ... if (10+ / 0-)

    it were tied to a "Draft Warren" appeal, or something similar.

    •  Yeah, it's really scary when I agree with (0+ / 0-)

      this nutcase.

      Somebody MAKE HIM STOP!!

    •  When I read comments like yours here, (5+ / 0-)

      it overcomes my concerns about Hillary Clinton and makes me want to give her money.  If the loser left is agasnst her, she'll probably win.  

      By the way, Elizabeth warren, a good leftist who wins, endorsed Clinton.

      Why the disconnect?  Because Clinton-hate is the new Obama-hate among the loser left.  No one is ever good enough.  

      Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

      by TomP on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 09:48:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Dont forget to hate Deblasio (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JVolvo, Ahianne

        all the cool kids are doing it.

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

          When I read some comments here, I think of what Obama said about the Republicans.

          "If I said the sky was blue, they would say no"

          We need to stop the circular firing squad.  Just because someone disagrees with you, it does not make them a hater.

          Hitler is Hitler.  Calling someone else Hitler just shows you are not interested in discussion.

          The internet is crazy. It is like people arguing about what kind of cheese to throw at a portrait, in order to destroy it completely

          by GideonAB on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 11:17:44 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I like DeBasio. (0+ / 0-)

          Sorry I don't fit your stereotype.  

          Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

          by TomP on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 07:55:22 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, many of these comments are no different (0+ / 0-)

        than what we see from the bizarre nutty tea baggers.  

        Before I write garbage like "I can't believe I agree with Reince" or "I can't believe I agree with Paul Rand" I would chop both my arms off.    

      •  I'm only "against" her up until the point she (6+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Matt Z, DMentalist, JVolvo, zed, schnecke21, Ahianne

        wins the nomination, if in fact she does.  Until then, I'd like to think we might have a better choice.

        I'm simply afraid that she is too centrist, to ready to try and placate the GOP like Obama has done, to much a career politician with all the baggage and obligations that carries.  

        Once the nomination is in, I will support any Democratic candidate as clearly a much better choice than any potential republican opponent.  On any ticket at any level of government.

        I didn't use to think that way - I've voted republican in the past when I thought it was appropriate.  Now, with the republican party as screwed up as it is and their priorities as wrong as they are, I don't think I can even consider a republican candidate for anything.   Especially when "reasonable" republicans have to switch parties - like Crist in FL.

        •  Hillary is very unlikely to "placate" Republicans (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

              While I respect your right to prefer a different candidate than Hillary, on this one point I think you are quite incorrect.  

               I voted for Hillary in 2008, and when Obama eventually got the nomination, I was really worried that Obama was going to have a Presidency like Jimmy Carter's.  Jimmy Carter was a pure liberal and a pure idealist, and he won as the outsider candidate in 1976 as the result of the backlash of public outrage against the extreme corruption of the Nixon Presidency. Likewise, Obama won in 2008 as the outsider candidate because of the backlash against the extreme corruption and failure of the Bush Presidency.  

               But when Carter actually became President, his idealism and his inexperience with Washington politics made him a totally ineffective leader, and his Presidency was so inept that he paved the way for another backlash and the election of Reagan in 1980.  

               Obama has not been nearly as much of a disappointment as Carter was.  But Obama DID make all of the stupid, rookie mistakes that I feared he would.  He spent his first years in office bending over backwards to get bipartisan support, offering concessions in advance, out of a naive, idealistic belief that Republicans and Democrats could all just get along if everyone would just compromise, while Republicans were planning total obstruction from the start.  Obama wasted precious time trying to get at least some Republicans to like him so that he could fulfill his vain, idealistic goal of being the great consensus builder who "changed the climate" of Washington, time which he should have been using to aggressively pursue a progressive agenda.  In 2010, his time ran out, he lost his Democratic majority, and he's unlikely to get another opportunity to make real progressive change like he had in the first two years of his Presidency.  

               Even if you might prefer another candidate over Hillary, I think one thing you can say in her favor is that she is the ONE candidate who quite likely WON'T make the kinds of stupid, rookie mistakes that any other newly elected President probably would.  Virtually every new President takes office believing that he is the GREAT EXCEPTION, the one who can do the thing which every predecessor has tried and failed, the one who has the intellectual and leadership skills to CHANGE the way Washington works.  The same types of stupid rookie mistakes that Obama made from 2008-2010 were also made by  Bill Clinton from 1992-1994, with similar results.  For that matter, Hillary ALSO made the same rookie mistakes during that 1992-1994 period, with her failed healthcare reform initiative being a prime example.  

               And that's why you WON'T see such stupid, rookie mistakes from Hillary if she wins in 2016.  She's been there.  She's already experienced the disillusion of believing that the "right leader" can "change the tone" in Washington, only to be proven wrong.  She's already experienced the disillusion of believing that if you offer concessions to Republicans in the spirit of compromise, they will offer concessions in return, only to be proven wrong.  She's already experienced the disillusion of learning that no matter how much you try to co-opt Republican support by including Republican policy goals like deficit reduction in your agenda, today's Republican Party will still do everything in its power to ensure the failure of ANY Democratic President.  

               So I don't think Hillary is likely to try to "placate" Republicans.  She's been down that road, and she knows where it leads.  She knows the Republicans will hate her and try to destroy her no matter what she does, so she's prepared to simply accept it and move on with actually GETTING THINGS DONE.  And she won't just WANT to get things done, she'll also know HOW.  If she runs in 2016, her resumé will include experience in a state governorship, two Presidential administrations in the Executive Branch, a Senate career in the Legislative Branch, and foreign policy experience as the Secretary of State.  Few Presidents in history have had such diverse experience in so many branches and levels of government.  

               While I understand the appeal of a fresh face with fresh ideas for 2016, I can also see the appeal of electing a President who, for once, won't spend the first couple of years in office fumbling around, figuring out what the rules are, being disillusioned about what can and can't be done, before possibly stumbling on a realistic way to actually accomplish something.  I like the idea of a President who won't waste a SINGLE DAY of her Presidency just learning the job, because she already knows the job inside and out.   I  like the idea of a President who's had the experience to really KNOW  what she's doing, starting from DAY ONE.  

      •  Gosh, Tom, I usually love your posts. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        But I think your attack on marking time is completely unwarranted. He just mildly expressed his preference for a Presidential candidate without slamming Hillary at all. I support Hillary in the primaries too but we are going to have to have much thicker skins than this.

        Why do I have the feeling George W. Bush joined the Stonecutters, ate a mess of ribs, and used the Constitution as a napkin?

        by Matt Z on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 11:27:20 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  "loser left"? aWes0me PS Congrats! Rove, Luntz (0+ / 0-)

        and Preibus are thrilled you've bought in and are doing their work for them.

        "But I do apologize, JVolvo, for you are arbiter of all that can and cannot be discussed and I bow down to your supremacy when it comes to what can be written on this website." WinSmith 1/22/2014 - "OK" JVolvo 1/23/2014 (sorry, Clive)

        by JVolvo on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 11:45:52 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  There are worse things than President Hillary... (5+ / 0-)

      ...such as, a President Christie or President Paul or President Huckabee or President Santorum or President [insert any potential GOP alternative].

      In the democratic primaries, go ahead and support whomever is on the ballot that you prefer.  Heck, go the write-in route if they aren't on the ballot.

      But once the nomination is decided, IF the nominee is indeed Hillary Clinton, it's time to consider that the only realistic outcome other than Clinton winning the Presidency is for the GOP nominee to win the Presidency, and what the  comparative consequences would be for the latter vs the former outcome.  We have an excellent, and recent historical example to consider - Bush v Gore v Nader in 2000.  Let's concede for argument that Gore's own mistakes as a candidate and the blundering of the democratic-controlled Monroe County board of elections in their ballot design were at least or more so decisive in his narrow defeat than the choice of 100k Florida progressive-minded voters to cast ballots for Nader instead of Gore, and that with a better campaign he should have been able to defeat Bush despite Nader's presence on the ballot.  Let's take that distraction off the table.  EVEN SO, what did your vote for the more progressively pure general election candidate over the establishment-compromised democratic party candidate get you?  Bush as President for eight years, with the vast array of damage he did to the policies, the courts, the financial condition of the government...and so on (long list).  Yes, we all understand the counter-argument that unless we support better progressives with our votes over supposedly more pragmatic impure, more establishment candidates we'll never get the true progressive change the country needs, and which you believe the country would support if it had the choice.  However, the example of 2000 also shows that this is a high-risk choice if you don't actually win elections, and bitter enemies of progressive reform win instead who are hell-bent on not merely blocking progressive change, but on destroying existing progressive achievements all the way back to the foundation of the New Deal and salting the earth (e.g. upcoming Supreme Court nomineees, for just one f'rinstance) to make it virtually impossible for a long time to come to ever ressurect even what we had and took for granted.

      Purity ponies don't come for free.

    •  Draft Warren..... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      ...for Secretary of the Treasury.

      You can't spell "Dianne Feinstein" without "NSA".

      by varro on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 04:58:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site