Skip to main content

View Diary: Republican rich people face tough choice between Chris Christie and Jeb Bush (199 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  will 2016 be the battle of the dynasties? (19+ / 0-)

    HRC VS. BUSH 3?  

    I cannot believe that the country is not fed up with ALL these dynasties.  I cannot believe that that would be good for the 99%.

    Why don't we have a serious candidate to AT LEAST to run against HRC?

    Why doesn't Daily Kos promote and encourage a serious progressive or someone who is at least in keeping with some of our world view, rather than someone who is willing to prop up the 1%?

    It is not just the Republicans who have a problem in 2016.... WE HAVE A MASSIVE CANDIDATE PROBLEM AS WELL.

    Come on, Daily Kos.  Let's find and encourage some loyal opposition.

    "The corporate state’s repression, now on the brink of totalitarianism, would with the help of Christie, his corporate backers ... become a full-blown corporate fascism.' http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_trouble_with_chris_christie_20140112

    by SeaTurtle on Fri May 02, 2014 at 07:13:12 AM PDT

    •  gonna need signals that DLC foolishness will not (9+ / 0-)

      accompany an HRC administration

      Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013 (@eState4Column5).

      by annieli on Fri May 02, 2014 at 07:16:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah...lets rally behind...someone! (13+ / 0-)

      Weve already got a strong candidate that beats their entire field, but lets dispense with that in favor of...somebody.

      •  Do WE have a strong candidate,or does Wall Street? (5+ / 0-)

        Should people living paycheck-to-paycheck expect good things from an HRC administration? Try to answer without mentioning Republicans.

        •  They should expect the same things we get from (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sawgrass727, anna shane, Shawn87

          Obama. You voted for him, im sure.

          •  they were okay with him (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TKO333, Shawn87

            and would be okay with her because Obama and Clinton are both competent,  if Wall Street can't get an incompetent who panders to them, then they'll take the most competent who doesn't. Wall street does better with regulations, and with a strong middle class. Wall Street is their own worst enemy, as well as our own worst enemy.

            plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

            by anna shane on Fri May 02, 2014 at 09:05:49 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I'm not sure if that (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SeaTurtle

            is an argument in favor of voting for HRC or against it.

            "More of the same!" certainly isn't a message that is going to motivate a whole lot of people to mobilize.

        •  A big win (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sawgrass727, TrueBlueDem

          For Clinton in 2016 would bring with it down ticket Dems in the House and Senate. She's the Dems best chance. Not only for a win, but a big, wave election type win. A Democratic majority in both houses would then send her many progressive, "beneficial to low and moderate income people," bills to sign. Then she'd sign them. Are we concerned that she would refuse to? There. No mention of R's at all.  

          "Because we are all connected...."

          by Shawn87 on Fri May 02, 2014 at 08:24:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You are much more optimistic than I. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SeaTurtle

            I don't see Hillary bringing a wave with her. Sure, if you ask people right now who they prefer between HRC and an unknown GOP candidate, most sensible people will pick HRC. Most people trust Democrats more.

             But when it gets down to specifics in a few years I think that (absent an absolutely abhorrent GOP candidate like Cruz) we are going to have a VERY hard time motivating people to get out and vote for HRC.

             Throw in some wildcards like a contentious Democratic Primary with a populist challenge from the left that credibly questions HRC's loyalties and/or a more moderate and less scary GOP candidate in the general election, and maybe this isn't such a sure thing after all.

            •  maybe you're not a girl (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              a2nite, coyotebanjo, hawkseye, Shawn87

              I don't think men realize how important it is to us, for the most viable female candidate to get party backing. She'll get a lot of women.  She's viable because she's competent and experienced, I don't agree with everything she's ever done, or with anyone else for that matter.

              The men may be in for a rude shock when they see how many women vote for her.

              plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

              by anna shane on Fri May 02, 2014 at 09:09:12 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I would hope that improving the economy (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                SeaTurtle, anna shane

                would be more important to women voters then the gender of the candidate. Putting Wall Street's chosen one in the White House will not benefit working-class women imho.

                •  in this case (0+ / 0-)

                  it's the same thing. I would never vote for Palin?  It's not just because she's female, it's because she's experienced and competent and a Democrat and far from a slacker, and female.  And that she's done every job given to her, and well.  She has characteristics that are more common in women executives, she doesn't take credit for the work of others, she promotes, she hires talent, doesn't micromanage, anyone's who's worked with her or for her likes her, respects her intelligence.

                  And, she's really nice. Actually, nice.  She had enemies, sure, but she's nice.  That's important to me.

                  plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

                  by anna shane on Fri May 02, 2014 at 11:10:36 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  How important is it to you that she has taken (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    SeaTurtle

                    hundreds of thousands of dollars from Goldman Sachs in just the last few months? They didn't become so wealthy by making bad investments.

                    An HRC administration will be a Wall Street free-for-all.  HRC has spent her entire career in the boardrooms of wealthy and powerful corporations. She was on the DLC. She was on the board of Walmart while they waged war on unions.

                    And even if you like her personally, when you elect her you get a lot more than just one person. You are electing an  administration, and you can be sure that an HRC administration would come entirely from Wall Street and the upper echelons of corporate America. These aren't people that concern themselves with the plight of the poor and working class.

                    •  not at all (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Shawn87

                      taking their money isn't doing their bidding, and it takes money to run a campaign, and it's a good idea to know your opposition.  

                      Yes, she knows everyone, she's made a point of it. I think that's smart, and will help her be more effective.

                      plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

                      by anna shane on Fri May 02, 2014 at 12:31:51 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  It wasn't a campaign contribution (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        SeaTurtle

                        it was direct payment for speeches she gave where she basically assured them that she is on their side.

                        http://www.theatlantic.com/...

                        •  look chuck (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Shawn87

                          you may actually believe all the bad hype against her, and may believe that talking to the enemy and taking their money is being in bed with them, but it's a sexist world and she's stood up to it, and kept going.  She's an inspiration to me.  I look at her actual positions - she doesn't disagree with Elizabeth Warren on anything, and she's done real things to help women and children. She was the one that wrote the children's health care extension when her husband was president.  

                          And she's had experience, her bigger health reform bill didn't get off the ground, because she hadn't involved the 'enemy,' and as far as Ted Kennedy went, she was a girl who was married to a president and had no business working on health care, so the plan didn't fly on our side because she wasn't accepted as a worthy, Ted was competitive, (remember he ran against Carter in the primary), and on the other side for the obvious reasons, but the ones cited were from the 'enemy' she hadn't bothered to court.

                          She's learned a lot.  Some from her failures.  There has never been a more experienced candidate, ever ever.  

                          plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

                          by anna shane on Fri May 02, 2014 at 01:13:24 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I just dont think that DLC/Third Way is the answer (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            SeaTurtle

                            It's not hype, just look at who HRC has associated with. Look at her history. She is beholden to the wealthy malefactors of this nation. If you read the Atlantic article I posted you can see that she is already directly telling Wall Street that she is their candidate.

                            Eight more years of "Wall Street uber alles" policies might not leave us with an economy that even CAN be saved. The real race, the real risk, is happening during the Democratic primaries. We are going to decide the next POTUS during our primary and we MUST get it right.

                            And besides, who says that HRC will be the only woman in the race? We might just get a female candidate that will actually represent the working class.

                          •  that is the hype (0+ / 0-)

                            look who they about Obama and his 'associations?'

                            some mag claims she's directly telling Wall Street?  Gimme a break.

                            plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

                            by anna shane on Fri May 02, 2014 at 02:00:45 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

            •  Women, Dems, Repubs and Indies, will vote for (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Shawn87

              Hillary with passionate determination.  Women know that most women are much better at governing than most men.
              It will be a wave election.  

              Putting the fun back in dysfunctional.

              by hawkseye on Fri May 02, 2014 at 11:28:31 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The populist groundswell is ready to be triggered (0+ / 0-)

                by the right candidate, and when that happens the "wave" will wash HRC (and the malefactors that she serves) out to sea.

                People are ready for real change, and electing the official candidate of Wall Street might not be such an appealing idea once alternatives are presented.

                I'm still betting on "As yet unknown populist candidate perceived to be to the left of HRC" to win the Democratic primary, and I think that there is a great chance that this candidate will also be a woman.

                •  I'd be happy to vote for Warren, but I do not (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  SeaTurtle

                  believe she will be the nominee.  I do believe she can move Hillary to the left.  I also believe the whole country is moving to the left and wants a woman for President.
                  FDR was not a leftist, but his supporters and the needs of the country moved him there.  I think the same kind of thing is about to happen again.

                  Putting the fun back in dysfunctional.

                  by hawkseye on Fri May 02, 2014 at 01:41:22 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I'll be happy if (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    SeaTurtle

                    someone or anyone says what needs to be said during the primary.

                    If HRC is directly and intelligently confronted about her history and where her loyalties lie, and she gives convincing answers, even I could see myself voting for her. But as of right now I'll just say that I am excited to see the field of candidates, because I think there just might be a few really good ones.

      •  bbb, do you really trust HRC's policies? (4+ / 0-)

        a serious contender in the primaries could let her know that she would have another constituency besides Wall Street if she became president.

        Think about it.  All this inevitability stuff with HRC is not going to end well for us.  We are being shooed into a candidacy without that candidate actually stating her positions.

        Mark my words, BBB, this is a recipe for progressive disaster.

        And a Wall Street Wet Dream.

        "The corporate state’s repression, now on the brink of totalitarianism, would with the help of Christie, his corporate backers ... become a full-blown corporate fascism.' http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_trouble_with_chris_christie_20140112

        by SeaTurtle on Fri May 02, 2014 at 07:52:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Wont be any different from Obama's policies, (6+ / 0-)

          except perhaps more aggression overseas. But I suspect the American people will curb that.

          Three things:

          The most important thing to me is holding on to the White House for three terms. It is hard to do even under the best of circumstances as we saw with Gore. That is vital to seeing ObamaCare cemented in place and because were likely to have some dead conservative Justices soon, most likely Kennedy or Scalia. Those two things are top priority to curb this activist court.

          Second, weve got a very favorable downballot in 2016 and id like our energy focused there. We can put the presidency away with Clinton and focus on where the real problems are: Congress and State Legislatures. Clinton will be a boon for that, so we need to make putting up the most liberal candidate who can win a priority that year and not have the presidential primary suck up all the energy.

          Finally, there will be a census in 2020 and I want to be sure its us who is doing the counting during that re-elect year.

          So really, that outweighs anything anybody has told me about Clinton and how shes awful. Weve got a good hand to play so long as we arent stupid enough to nominate a nobody in a 8 year cycle election.

          •  And Supreme Court n/t (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            dylanfan, Shawn87
            •  not at all (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Shawn87

              she will pick the most liberal that can pass the senate.  If you look at what she does for free, it's only progressive, pro-women and children.  She came out first for universal pre-school.  There is a reason Michele backs her, and that Caroline Kennedy got on board, and Elizabeth Warren is far from against her, they see eye to eye on consumer protections.  I don't think there is one issue Elizabeth holds dear that isn't backed by Hillary.

              Since a Democrat has to win, Elizabeth testing the popularity of these positions among voters has been valuable. She is amazing, but she is not running for president and she hasn't relevant experience.

              plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

              by anna shane on Fri May 02, 2014 at 09:15:33 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Jeb is cheaper by the pound and w/a lot less fat. (0+ / 0-)

        Putting the fun back in dysfunctional.

        by hawkseye on Fri May 02, 2014 at 11:22:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I am not fed up with HRC. Happy to vote and (9+ / 0-)

      volunteer for her.

      Why doesn't Daily Kos promote and encourage a serious progressive or someone who is at least in keeping with some of our world view, rather than someone who is willing to prop up the 1%?
      First progressives (and I am one) need to vote rather than stay home in the midterms and get people who benefit the most from the progressive policies to vote in the midterms and every election.

      The sad part is that the country as a whole buys republican and centrist bullshit much more easily than progressive policies when it actually comes to voting. All progressive issues have 70% plus support but that does not translate into votes.

    •  Time to look hard at named alternatives: (4+ / 0-)

      Clinton

      Biden

      Warren

      Cuomo

      O'Malley

      Schweitzer

      Cuomo

      are the names that are showing up in polls.  I had a guess as to who O'Malley is.  If you have a local pol who is undiscovered, well....

      The dossier on my DKos activities during the Bush administration will be presented on February 3, 2014, with an appendix consisting an adjudication, dated "a long time ago", that I am Wrong.

      by Inland on Fri May 02, 2014 at 07:41:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Who on that list has a natural constituency? (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        a2nite, Pilotshark, Shawn87, coyotebanjo

        I can see Warren as the only one. I dont see how any of the others wins a contested primary against Clinton.

        •  Warren could do well in the primaries as a natural (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SeaTurtle, Shawn87

          Democrat.

          Wonder about her in the general, though.

          LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

          by dinotrac on Fri May 02, 2014 at 08:00:46 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  on a pragmatic level, maybe that is all we would (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            dinotrac

            need... someone to force HRC to enunciate her positions in public, not just in smoke filled back rooms or Wall Street corner offices....

            We need to mobilize some opposition to HRC.. We have to have some options.  

            I mean think about it?  What company or business doesn't make contingency plans?  No one who hangs onto a job/position/business fails to do so....  Because ups and downs and unexpected events are just a fact of life.

            WHAT IF during the campaign:

            1)  HRC becomes seriously sick?  
            2)  A crippling scandal -true or untrue - emerges.... the R's have had decades to prepare for this.
            3) HRC goes off the rails, like Mittens in the British/European tour?
            4) What if Bill Clinton goes rogue?  I just cannot imagine that he will be able to keep quiet or uninvolved.
            5)  Etc., etc. etc.

            WE MUST CULTIVATE SOME OPTIONS.  It is just logical to do so.

            If I were a Republican strategist, I would by all means possible encourage the Dems to put all their hopes in one candidate, meanwhile, quietly planning to take that one candidate down and leave the Dems naked swinging in the breeze without alternatives.

            "The corporate state’s repression, now on the brink of totalitarianism, would with the help of Christie, his corporate backers ... become a full-blown corporate fascism.' http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_trouble_with_chris_christie_20140112

            by SeaTurtle on Fri May 02, 2014 at 08:14:05 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  If I were Republican, the Democratic candidate I (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              SeaTurtle

              would most want to face would be HRC.

              Part of that is:

              If the economy kicks into high gear, it won't matter.  Democrats could run a platypus and win.  Always an asterisk, of course, for WWIII or a great plague or something.

              But, if it doesn't and Putin keeps looking scary or some other crisis emerges, a Republican has a good shot to win, especially as Americans seem incapable of keeping the same party in the White House for more than 2 terms.

              In that scenario, not only is HRC old and familiar, but she was a visible part of the current administration and a failed former Presidential candidate to boot.

              In that scenario, Democrats are best served by another Obama -- a fresh face.

               

              LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

              by dinotrac on Fri May 02, 2014 at 08:23:31 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Thats not going to work. (7+ / 0-)

                Whats that Fresh face going to do? Run against Obama? Please...you can kiss Black and Latino voters goodbye. Might get a white liberal vote, but thats not enough to win a presidential primary. Any fresh face is going to have go full in with Obama to have any kind of a shot. And that means a general election nail biter.

                No, the ONLY candidate who will be able to keep the party intact while separating from Obama is Clinton. And thats because shes so big, was big before Obama got here. She has her own name in her own right. Everything has already been thrown at her and here she is still.

                •  Honestly, my expectation is that history will (0+ / 0-)

                  repeat itself and Republicans will win in 2016.

                  I don't stand real firm in my conviction, given the generally quality of GOP candidates and the actions of GOP leaders over the last few years, but, if I had to bet, that's what the bet would be.

                  LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                  by dinotrac on Fri May 02, 2014 at 08:49:59 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  That wouldnt be a bad bet. But, (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    dinotrac, a2nite, coyotebanjo, Shawn87

                    it has been done before. Like H.W. Bush, you have to support the current administration to some extent, but separate yourself but not too much. Its tough for any candidate to do. Really hard. The only other person to do it in the 20th Century was Hoover. Its really hard to hold on three cycles in a row. And those two who did it had popular incumbents.

                    Which is why we must play the best hand we have, rather than risking it all with god knows who.

                    Or, we can go with a true hardcore liberal unknown and just get creamed. There are folks here who think that would be an awesome outcome, but not me.

                    •  So much depends on the lead-in and the opposition. (0+ / 0-)

                      1988 was the year Jesse Jackson scared the pants off the power-brokers, who lined up behind the likable but laughable Michael Dukakis.

                      It was almost like 2004 -- a candidate who fired people up gets KO'd early, and an "electable" candidate goes on to lose.

                      Guess you could say that about the GOP in 2012 -- except it was a string of 1-day wonders.

                      LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                      by dinotrac on Fri May 02, 2014 at 09:12:17 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Jackson wouldnt have won in 88. (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        coyotebanjo, Shawn87

                        He would have been decimated worse than Mondale. Nor would Dean have beaten Bush.

                        The primary is part of the deal, and the most formidable candidate usually always wins. It is very rare that you have a 2008 type situation with two formidable politicians neck and neck, either of whom would have won the general.

                        •  Dukakis didn't win either. He was beaten to (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          SeaTurtle

                          pieces.

                          And, I might add, Kerry didn't exactly light the night on fire.

                          I wonder -- all those young people Kos likes to complain about, the ones who don't show up in midterms?

                          I wonder if short-sighted failure doesn't contribute to longer term problems.  Jackson and Dean both got people excited.  Dukakis and Kerry didn't.

                          LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                          by dinotrac on Fri May 02, 2014 at 09:41:56 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Kerry should have done the "beer tour". (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            dinotrac

                            He should have had some local brew everywhere he went, subtly mentioning now and then that GWB was a teetotaler, but extolling how beer was the great American drink, the drink of the working stiff. He would have won Ohio and the Presidency.

                            Voting is the means by which the public is distracted from the realities of power and its exercise.

                            by Anne Elk on Fri May 02, 2014 at 11:09:04 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Heh. I wonder if he could have pulled that off. (0+ / 0-)

                            He might be better in small groups than in public, but he always seems wooden to me.

                            And W may be a teetotaler, but only after years of party hardy.  That's a different animal.

                            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                            by dinotrac on Fri May 02, 2014 at 02:12:38 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I like your sig. What's that from? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            dinotrac

                            But, yeah, the old joke about Kerry is that people always ask him, "why the long face?" He also always looks unshaven.

                            Voting is the means by which the public is distracted from the realities of power and its exercise.

                            by Anne Elk on Fri May 02, 2014 at 02:55:43 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I found it. Lou Grant. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            dinotrac

                            Voting is the means by which the public is distracted from the realities of power and its exercise.

                            by Anne Elk on Fri May 02, 2014 at 03:08:30 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Lou Grant, but from The Mary Tyler Moore show (0+ / 0-)

                            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                            by dinotrac on Fri May 02, 2014 at 03:54:35 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  Al Gore sure got it wrong, for example. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      brooklynbadboy

                      Maybe that's why so few VP's have made it to the Big Chair.

                      Voting is the means by which the public is distracted from the realities of power and its exercise.

                      by Anne Elk on Fri May 02, 2014 at 11:06:14 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  that's the history (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Anne Elk, Shawn87

                    what is different is the other history, the first woman running.  She's a woman. We like that. My girlfriends who aren't Democrats will vote for her. Anyone have a daughter? Have we not waited long enough, and had our as-qualified candidates passed over long enough, now there is one way more qualified.

                    plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

                    by anna shane on Fri May 02, 2014 at 09:22:43 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  just look at 08 (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Shawn87

              she was very clear, and she'll be clear for '16, once she announces.  

              plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

              by anna shane on Fri May 02, 2014 at 09:19:14 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  And she lost. In the primaries. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                SeaTurtle

                LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                by dinotrac on Fri May 02, 2014 at 09:57:23 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  so (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Shawn87

                  she won half, he's not running again, he's endorsed her, so has Michelle, so has everyone who endorsed him pretty much, and also the ones who endorsed her the first time and moved to him after he became the candidate. She was running against Obama, can't hold losing to him against her.

                  plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

                  by anna shane on Fri May 02, 2014 at 11:01:23 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Two phenomena meet. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Shawn87

                  Which will win? The one with a transformative ground game, that's who. Hillary was out-organized. It wasn't that she was not a great candidate. It was that she just didn't have the sheer organization and consequent donor base Obama had. Even Republican staffers were in awe of the Obama machine. No one had ever seen anything quite like it. So let's cut Hillary some slack and recognize that she stands to inherit that organization.

                  Voting is the means by which the public is distracted from the realities of power and its exercise.

                  by Anne Elk on Fri May 02, 2014 at 11:12:59 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Doubtful. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            dinotrac, TrueBlueDem, Shawn87

            Even if she could get her name ID up to Clintons level, shes going to have to convince Obama's base to abandon Clinton in favor of an unknown. Not likely that Obama, or more importantly Mrs. Obama, is going to stand idly by and watch that happen. Its clear to me they are fully behind Clinton.

            Too much for Warren.

          •  she's not running (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            dinotrac, coyotebanjo, Shawn87

            she wants to be effective, not lose a general election. She wants a president who also cares about regular people.  She's fine with Hillary. They know each other.  She wants to advise policy, as with Obama, who is already on record for Hillary.

            plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

            by anna shane on Fri May 02, 2014 at 09:18:15 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  The dems aren't factionalized like GOP so (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          a2nite, SeaTurtle, Shawn87

          it's harder to see natural constituencies.

          I suppose HRC's natural constituency is everyone who has ever supported HRC.  

          The dossier on my DKos activities during the Bush administration will be presented on February 3, 2014, with an appendix consisting an adjudication, dated "a long time ago", that I am Wrong.

          by Inland on Fri May 02, 2014 at 08:11:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I should specify, "not factionalized AS MUCH AS" (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            a2nite

            I think it's naïve to believe there aren't factions.  It's a big party.

            The dossier on my DKos activities during the Bush administration will be presented on February 3, 2014, with an appendix consisting an adjudication, dated "a long time ago", that I am Wrong.

            by Inland on Fri May 02, 2014 at 08:17:52 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Of course were factionalized. (5+ / 0-)

            By race and gender, of course. Less factionalized ideological differences, but our coalition is not ironclad.

            Her natural constituency is women, obviously. Especially middle aged women who are a key voting block in both parties. We will get gangbusters female turnout with Clinton on the ballot. The GOP wont be able to resist their worst tendencies.

            •  You mean, their OTHER worst tendencies. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              brooklynbadboy, Shawn87

              The GOP has already been unable to resist the racist worst tendencies.  Now it'll be the sexist worst tendencies.

              The dossier on my DKos activities during the Bush administration will be presented on February 3, 2014, with an appendix consisting an adjudication, dated "a long time ago", that I am Wrong.

              by Inland on Fri May 02, 2014 at 08:39:33 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  trust me, there are a lot of women (0+ / 0-)

              who would prefer not to vote for "Margaret Thatcher Lite" as the first woman president.

              Voting for the first black president was historic.  I just don't think HRC could persuade all women to ignore her corporatist allegiances.

              Sorry.  Not the women I know.

              "The corporate state’s repression, now on the brink of totalitarianism, would with the help of Christie, his corporate backers ... become a full-blown corporate fascism.' http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_trouble_with_chris_christie_20140112

              by SeaTurtle on Fri May 02, 2014 at 10:41:07 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Cuomo? And Cuomo again?! (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FindingMyVoice, tb mare, Shawn87

        If you're not happy at the prospect of HRC, the idea of Cuomo should be sending you screaming from the room. He's everything you dislike about her, only more so. And none of her good points.

        "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."........ "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." (yeah, same guy.)

        by sidnora on Fri May 02, 2014 at 08:31:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't know anything about Cuomo (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sidnora, Shawn87

          except that kos hates him, and I suspect that's not all earned.

          But I also think, generically, that the northeast is not the place to run from.  It's a bunch of states already guaranteed democratic.  That would be Warren's problem, too.  

          The dossier on my DKos activities during the Bush administration will be presented on February 3, 2014, with an appendix consisting an adjudication, dated "a long time ago", that I am Wrong.

          by Inland on Fri May 02, 2014 at 08:38:16 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Oh, it's earned, all right. (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Inland, FindingMyVoice, JBL55, Shawn87

            All of it.

             Cuomo's affection for Wall St. makes Clinton look like Trotsky by comparison. Plus, his governing style consists of handing the State Senate, which the Democrats took control of in the last cycle after decades of struggle, back to the Republicans (by getting a few turncoat Dem senators to caucus with the GOP), primarily so that he wouldn't be pushed into signing any legislation that might be too populist for his rich friends.

            He's built his Democratic cred on social issues (marriage equality, gun control) but don't dare get anywhere near taxing the rich. He'll chew you up and spit you out, as he is currently masticating our mayor, Bill DeBlasio.

            I, and most NY progressives only voted for him last time because the alternative was the guy with the baseball bat. We have given up hope that someone will primary him this year, he's got everyone too scared to challenge him. I've heard Democratic elected officials here quietly hope that there will be a third-party candidate in the general.

            BTW, I agree with you about the NE Dem problem. If I had to choose an alternative nominee, it would be Schweitzer. Too bad he's out of office.

            "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."........ "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." (yeah, same guy.)

            by sidnora on Fri May 02, 2014 at 09:04:21 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Also too (0+ / 0-)

        It's understood that if she runs, he won't. Cross him off your list.

        "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."........ "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." (yeah, same guy.)

        by sidnora on Fri May 02, 2014 at 08:33:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I would just point out that Biden (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Shawn87

        has been right about some very big issues. He was right about Iraq (it would have been a great outcome if Iraq had been split into 3 countries as he suggested) and marriage equality (he almost single-handedly change Obama's position). He has been an excellent VP and I think he would be a very good President. Maybe it just emphasizes the depth of the Democratic bench.

        Voting is the means by which the public is distracted from the realities of power and its exercise.

        by Anne Elk on Fri May 02, 2014 at 11:05:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Agree with (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SeaTurtle

      you that

      WE HAVE A MASSIVE CANDIDATE PROBLEM AS WELL.
      It does not speak well for our party.
    •  Power Couple =/= Dynasty (7+ / 0-)

      To be sure, there are very serious problems with Power Couples: look no further than McConnell and Chou. But "Clinton Dynasty" is a GOP talking point intended to minimize the very real Dynasty that is the Bush family.

      There are lots of legitimate reasons to oppose HRC's potential candidacy, but let's not aid the GOP in conflating the marriage of two politically ambitious people and a now well into the fourth generation genuine political dynasty.

      Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle. --Martin Luther King Jr.

      by Egalitare on Fri May 02, 2014 at 08:00:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  not from me (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Anne Elk, Shawn87

      I love Hillary.  From first lady days, when she wanted the white house travel office to be professional (the head guy used his own personal checking account to deposit travel checks) and got smeared for picking on the nice travel agency, early shades of Bundy. And when she got trashed for working, and for not having time to bake cookies. She was the working mom's heroine and the single professional women too.

      She's gotten ahead by doing all the jobs she's given, and inching her way along.  Like other professional women.

      Check out this season of Mad Men, you'll get an idea of how hard it was and still is.  

      plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

      by anna shane on Fri May 02, 2014 at 09:02:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site