Skip to main content

U.S. President George W. Bush (R) and his brother, Florida Governor Jeb Bush, REUTERS/Jim Young
Sorry Jeb, there's no escape.
From the New York Post:
They cite the cool reception Christie has been getting recently from Republican establishment types outside of his home turf in the Northeast, and the fact that many fund-raisers are now looking to former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush as the party’s savior.
Chris Christie, a bombastic fat guy from Jersey collapses under a cloud of scandal. Scott Walker, bland, dry, lifeless and dull, attempts a redux of Tim Pawlenty but with bald spot. Some guy in Ohio nobody knows and looks like a milk delivery man from 1972. Some tiny doofus from Louisiana in a cheap suit that's too big for his 5'9", 140-pound frame. Then there are a murderer's row of crazy people, most of them not even close to having the chops to wage a national presidential campaign.

On the other side, the most famous and admired woman in the entire world.

This is the state of affairs in the 2016 presidential campaign, a situation so lopsidedly in favor of Democrats that it is breathtaking to see. I can't ever remember an upcoming election in which the two sides were so clearly uneven.

Please read below the fold for more on this story.

Hillary Clinton, a global icon, first lady, senator, secretary of state, is outclassing her opponents in just about every category of presidential candidate measurement. Fame? Check. Money? Check. Natural constituency? Check. Qualified? Check. If there were any weakness in her, it could be her ability to manage the sprawling Clinton apparatus. A weakness one Senator Barack Obama exploited with dexterity and agility. But learning from mistakes and bouncing back has always been a Clinton family hallmark. Furthermore, there is no candidate among the Democrats who is a campaigner of the first order like Barack Obama, a man of exceptional ability on the hustings. With one of the toughest, historic national political brawls under her belt, Hillary Clinton has emerged a championship caliber heavyweight. It's so overwhelming, one would think it wise to probably slim down a notch, drop in class, and practice the fundamentals. Taking size for granted didn't do much for Goliath.

If you're a Republican, however, this situation cannot possibly look good. So who can you turn to in a clutch? Who can Republicans call on to retake control of the nation's capitol and steer the ship of government their way? Who among them has the experience, character, and record of accomplishment that will give them the ability to challenge the stench of certain defeat?

The Bush Family!

The name Bush is synonymous with failed wars, wrecked economies, huge deficits, underwater cities, financial crashes, high gas prices, government corruption and corporate malfeasance. That's the best they can do. A Bush.

Far be it from me to predict the 2016 election this far out. But I will say this: If you are a Republican and you were counting on having a "good bench" out there for 2016, I suggest you start looking around. This bench looks terrible considering what they are up against.

Originally posted to Triple-B in the Building on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 07:49 AM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (215+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    catwho, skillet, thenekkidtruth, doroma, Silvia Nightshade, CwV, crystal eyes, Egalitare, Loge, TomP, Crashing Vor, ericlewis0, millwood, Miss Blue, elwior, blueoregon, edwardssl, a2nite, Getreal1246, leeleedee, blue aardvark, Haf2Read, Laurence Lewis, nocynicism, Mighty Ike, MBNYC, Greasy Grant, TheGreatLeapForward, tin woodswoman, Pupmonkey, Involuntary Exile, emelyn, GeorgeXVIII, Tinfoil Hat, Front Toward Enemy, bleeding blue, bbctooman, theKgirls, mattc129, Terre, GAS, AnnieR, OIL GUY, cpresley, FogCityJohn, NM Ray, dochackenbush, ColoTim, howabout, puakev, old mark, Wreck Smurfy, Smoh, implicate order, slowbutsure, wuod kwatch, Mimikatz, Gowrie Gal, Chitown Kev, icebergslim, Liberal Panzer, Texknight, avsp, exNYinTX, edsbrooklyn, mookins, Odysseus, Kathy Scheidel, No one gets out alive, prettygirlxoxoxo, mamamedusa, Nautical Knots, miracle11, ratcityreprobate, filkertom, NBBooks, kerflooey, milkbone, MKinTN, filby, thomask, RUNDOWN, FindingMyVoice, nirbama, flycaster, Drocedus, Sylv, concernedamerican, Tunk, Santa Susanna Kid, MikePhoenix, royce, paulex, chicago minx, dotdash2u, Laurel in CA, indie17, camlbacker, Sandy on Signal, Its a New Day, anodnhajo, Cofcos, atana, jnhobbs, EdinStPaul, Empower Ink, fumie, SaintC, CoolOnion, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, Bob Friend, sethtriggs, Loudoun County Dem, CA Nana, MadGeorgiaDem, rukidingme, Youffraita, FarWestGirl, JamieG from Md, antooo, kenwards, Matt Z, newliberl, TX Unmuzzled, EdSF, sunbro, MarkInSanFran, JBL55, gizmo59, FriendlyNeighbor, Caneel, leonard145b, Railfan, Hohenzollern, mikejay611, BarackStarObama, Liberal Mole, Lava20, MBramble, ATFILLINOIS, LSmith, spooks51, OhioNatureMom, KenBee, Penny GC, rapala, TXdem, Alumbrados, Matilda, Jeff Y, Dodgerdog1, lady blair, pvasileff, native, Shrew in Shrewsbury, WilliamE, Hastur, anna shane, OregonWetDog, Diana in NoVa, rocksout, Lefty Ladig, foresterbob, dandy lion, oceanview, virginislandsguy, Ky DEM, darthstar, Libby Shaw, dksbook, mujr, reflectionsv37, manyamile, Librarianmom, Land of Enchantment, biloxiblues, artebella, where4art, Says Who, katrinka, skybluewater, fiercefilms, enemy of the people, RLF, cosette, MinnesotaMom, Ishmaelbychoice, ichibon, METAL TREK, Esjaydee, ypsiCPA, yoduuuh do or do not, TKO333, cablecargal, BlueZone, Merlin1963, kevinpdx, bobwilk, bloomer 101, salliezoo, raster44, Yosef 52, unclebucky, historys mysteries, Ptown boy in NC, Ubiquitous A, mbh1023, Dave925, wildweasels, Stentor, Obi don, allograft, chrisculpepper, SquirrelQueen, opinionaire
  •  the most admired woman in the world? (24+ / 0-)

    Haha. No.

    She's far better than any of the GOP alternatives but let's not pretend this is her nomination. It's not. We have a deep bench, full of talent. There is almost certainly someone better than HRC there. We'll have to let the process play out.

    Say no to the stench of inevitability.

    •  Clinton's not inevitable....she's what the goopers (2+ / 0-)

      are comparing themselves to.

      •  If you can't beat need not apply. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
      •  Some thought Clinton was inevitable in 2008, (0+ / 0-)

        the GOP and their associated right wing noise machine were all bashing her like crazy early in the campaign season, assuming she would be the nominee.  Many were surprised by her showing in some of the early primaries, where it was expected she'd have a clear advantage.

        I agree many are treating her as inevitable this time. Maybe it will be so. But I'd at least like to have a serious discussion of alternatives. There's some other names that could represent us well, but I wonder who else will decide to run. In fact, HRC isn't even formally declared yet either, for that matter.

        I may support her, but I'm avoiding jumping on the campaign bandwagon yet with the groups promoting her before she's even in the race, I think it's too early.

    •  Name them. (25+ / 0-)

      I keep hearing a lot of talk, but never any names come of anyone. Who is out there waving a hat around? O'Malley. Cuomo. Maybe Sanders.

      LOL. You think ANY of those old white guys is going to beat Hillary Clinton in a Democratic primary? lol. She will beat all of them in their own home states. By huge margins.

      •  Demise of the white race is greatly exaggerated (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Woody, joesig

        Democrats have rather overly convinced themselves that Americans never want to see a white guy again.  Could be that after 8 years of an African American they just might be ready to pause and push back a little, not so fast, doncha know.

        What Republicans need to do is repackage that young Irish Catholic from the middle west into a more consumer friendly candidate.  He's paid his dues.  He's convinced the establishment that he is a true movement conservative.  They can afford to position towards the center and get him a good speechwriter.   He should also practice bounding up the steps looking dashing and youthful.

        •  Apparently you know (13+ / 0-)

          very little about Democratic Primary demographics.

          Most of the Dem voters? Women. Most voters period? Woman.

          You need to be thinking 'women' not 'white race.'

        •  Are you referring to Paul Ryan? (9+ / 0-)

          I don't think he needs much help looking dashful and youthful-- his workout regimen was well-publicized during the 2012 campaign.  Image isn't Ryan's problem-- substance is his problem.  Look at how Joe Biden took him apart in their debate.

          For at least another hundred years we must pretend to ourselves and to everyone that fair is foul and foul is fair; for foul is useful and fair is not. Avarice and usury and precaution must be our gods for a little longer still. --John Maynard Keynes

          by Kurt from CMH on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 08:33:07 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's why he needs the packaging (0+ / 0-)

            My point is that he's paid his dues and proved he is a true believer.  If he's teachable, they can do to him what they did to Reagan and Dubya and make him a more appealing centrist sounding candidate.  You have to be able to do conservatism with a happy face.  I don't know if he can learn to do that but I thought he seemed to be trying to reposition himself a bit after the budget deal.

            Sure, it may be Hillary's election to lose but the fact that she apparently wants ZERO primary opposition means she's not going to be getting much real campaign experience until late in the game so it's not a lock that she's going to connect well with voters.  She may come off as warm, experienced and competent or she may come off as aloof, old, and entitled.

            •  There's (10+ / 0-)

              no way Paul Ryan can be repackaged. He's a losing VP candidate from 2012. Losing VP candidates are extremely hard to change opinions on and if opinions could be changed it would not work four years after him losing with Romney.

              It's the policy stupid

              by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 09:15:21 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Agree on Ryan. Now explain Kasich. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Wee Mama, Buckeye Nut Schell

                I'm with greenbell on many Dems living in the echo chamber of a Hillary landslide, with women politely falling into place.  You don't seem to get that the more people see of Hillary the less they like her.  The more sick they are of the drama.  The bleats of experience! lacking any stories of highly successful experience.  None.  

                To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

                by joesig on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 10:27:11 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Well (5+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  atana, cpresley, sharman, demreplib33, kareylou

                  actually the REVERSE happened during 2008. The MORE people saw her the MORE they liked her. She did town halls actually talking to voters and listening to their concerns. She did the same in NY. She went to every damn county in the state and talked to voters even hostile ones. This is how you change minds.

                  It's the policy stupid

                  by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 11:00:59 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I guess that's why she won. Oh. Wait. (0+ / 0-)

                    I do see Kasich beating her, as I mentioned upthread, and was the point of the comment you responded to with more Hillary propaganda.  Governor of important swing state.  Undercuts all Hillary's "90's economy" arguments by actually having contributed to it.   Fighting his party on a matter of health care and conscience.  Likable.  Not crazy.  

                    To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

                    by joesig on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 11:16:18 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  She won many states. She just didn't win the (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      atana, cpresley, demreplib33

                      majority of primary votes, but it's not like she was a loser across the board like the retreads from the Republican cycles, like Santorum, PArry, Huckabee.  She's also very familiar to voters unlike several  - e.g. Cruz, Rubio, Jindal Rand Paul, Scott Walker, Chris Christie (I know but he's still largely unknown outside of die-hard political junkies, and your example of Kasich.  BTW, for Kasich, this article was forwarded to me by someone replying to a posting I made about Kasich -

                      •  Don't bother to refight '08 (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        Obama is on our side this time. He owes Bill big time for that amazing "Arithmetic" speech at the convention and the rest of his 2012 campaigning for Obama. He will repay the debt, no question.

                      •  Maybe she'll pull off more strategic mistakes... (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Kentucky DeanDemocrat

                        This time in the general.  You gotta admit her analytical ability  is usually pretty bad: Iraq war good, caucuses don't count, go ahead and marry that Weiner fella, Huma.

                        To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

                        by joesig on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 12:34:15 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Good grief (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:

                          You're blaming her for Weiner.

                          It's the policy stupid

                          by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 12:49:27 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  So, you disagree on Huma. Agree on war and '08. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Kentucky DeanDemocrat

                            I guess I can admit I'm being unfair on Huma, since you're been big enough to admit that her judgment on the really big things has been fatally flawed.

                            To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

                            by joesig on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 01:03:59 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So you think (0+ / 0-)

                            she made Huma marry him? That's beyond silly. Obsession over the war vote gave us Obama who folds like a cheap lawn chair. All the GOP has had to do is call him a "socialist" and he begs them to go along with whatever he's doing. Don't you think Hillary will ignore them and laugh at them and not be as thin skinned as Obama has been?

                            It's the policy stupid

                            by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 01:06:17 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Obsession over the war vote? (0+ / 0-)

                            A morally corrupt and intellectually indefensible vote for a war that cost 5,000 American lives and wasted a trillion dollars?

                            And now you're an Obama-hater?  WTF?  Hillary really does make people go crazy.  I've disagreed with many Obama decisions--but I'd never say I've seen him begging.  Fantasize much?

                            To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

                            by joesig on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 01:15:36 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yeah (0+ / 0-)

                            I see the excuses for George W. Bush again. Thanks for the laugh.

                            It's the policy stupid

                            by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 01:37:30 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  He's a no (0+ / 0-)

                      go in the GOP primary. He's not pure enough. And he's a social conservative having put through many of the crackpot  anti-women legislation everybody here seems to think is so bad but I guess it's not bad if Kasich put it through?

                      It's the policy stupid

                      by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 11:55:11 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Kasich has problems on both sides. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      On the one hand, he did, as you say, fight his party on a matter of health care; that hurts him in a primary.  On the other hand, he supported an anti-union bill that was roundly defeated in a referendum, he has supported ridiculous anti-women legislation, he evidently has no problem with his fellow Republicans’ efforts in the state legislature to restrict voting, and he’s now lumbered with at least a mini-scandal involving the Ohio DNR.

                •  That meme is straight from '08 (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Ga6thDem, cpresley

                  "The more people see of Hillary the less they like her".

                  You were wound up for '08 and are still beating the anti-Hillary drums. What are you going to do when Obama campaigns for her?

                  •  Joe is trying to "warn" all of us that (0+ / 0-)

                    HRC is going to be a bad general election candidate for us.   It isn't working, though, nobody is buying.  Virtually everybody is in agreement that she will make the strongest GE candidate we could be fielding in that relatively tough (for us) election.  

                •  Kasich? (0+ / 0-)

                  What's to explain?  He's under 50% re-elect number in his own state.  That's no disqualifying but it sure doesn't look like someone who needs to explained....


            •  She's not going to be getting much real campaign (5+ / 0-)

              experience - what?  Or does 2008 count for nothing in your book?  She's run more than most all of the Republican candidates and her campaign was national - not just the early primary states and then bowing out.  Of the candidates mentioned, Paul Ryan is the only one I can think of who actually has been in a national campaign.

              Hillary has asked for and received millions of votes.  She still would have experienced campaigners flocking to support her, as well as tens of thousands of new volunteers.  

              I have some issues with her likely positions on matters but I have no doubt this is her campaign to lose - if she enters it.  I'm still not entirely sure she does so, because of age and she may have health issues we don't know about.  Still, even if she doesn't enter for herself, she will not be sitting on the sidelines and she would be out there campaigning for the Democrat just like Bill and Barack would be.

              •  2008 is a long time ago and she lost (0+ / 0-)
                •  She still got more votes and more exposure than (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  atana, cpresley, Matt Z

                  any Republican, including Ryan, has gotten since she ran.  She would have Obama's political team lining up to help her, her 2008 team and an army of foot soldiers ready to pound pavement to get her elected.  Still, I guess you're right.  She only knows how to lose and she's a has-been.

                  •  Well, Ryan got more votes than she did (0+ / 0-)

                    running with Romney.  Sure, she'll have a machine. OMG, do I know that.  But she won't get any more African American voters than Obama got.  Will she attract young voters?  

                    I think it's totally unpredictable at this point. Americans tend to like to switch parties after 8 years.  I think people are vastly over estimating how easy it's going to be and that over confidence alone could defeat her.

                    I mean I might even get excited about her depending on where she positions herself.  Or she might run as Margaret Thatcher and I won't even vote for her.

                    •  The fact that Americans tend to switch parties (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      after 8 years is the reason she should be our candidate.  She has the pull, the connections, the network, to pull it off.  How would that be with someone like O'Malley? Or Schweitzer?   Seriously, you can't seriously think any of the other names are going to fare better than HRC in a national campaign?  

                       She has major advantages over the no-name crowd we would have otherwise:  She is extremely popular, 60% of the country likes and admires her.  She has a lot of experience, which counts for a lot.  Also, people want experience in uncertain times, they don't want noobs.  Remember that this time around WE are the ones asking the American people to continue on the path we started on, to "finish the job," on health care, jobs, and a host of other things.  The GOP offers a new direction.  Luckily for us most Americans disagree with them, but it is still fresh, new, by virtue of being different than the direction we have been on.   Only HRC or Biden could credibly sell a "stay the course" theme.  Everybody else would be charting a new way, which would condemn the 8 Obama years as a failure.   It would make it very tough for a new face to win this next one.  

            •  It's not "Hillary's to lose." (3+ / 0-)

              And the minute anyone thinks like that, they're in trouble.

              Over the years I have seen poster after poster here wring their hands and warn us against complacency. This diary — and many of the others promoting Hillary — reek of complacency. The entire way Hillary's potential run is being presented to us embodies complacency.

              It's not even her potential lack of primary opposition. We already saw how she functions with SERIOUS primary opposition — remote, condescending, entitled, presiding over a warring team that couldn't stop from itself from amplifying those attitudes. If I never hear the name "Mark Penn" again, it will be too soon. Yet she never seemed to notice the damage he was doing. Ask her to ask him to explain why, when she carried Ohio in a landslide, she had such a narrow margin in delegates. Have Penn explain delegate allocation to her and tell her why she got NO delegates in my congressional district when our congresswoman was one of her national co-chairs.

              She came across as aloof and entitled too often in 2008, and given that she's spent the intervening years in a job that required no public campaigning, I'm not sure why that would be different. I'll leave the "old" aside, but I will say she won't stack up well to a Paul Ryan. (On the other hand, if they nominate Ted Cruz he's just so nasty and unappealing she'd look good compared to him. But who wouldn't?)

              Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it.

              by anastasia p on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 12:13:42 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I guess you (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Scandalous One

                missed her campaigning for Terry Mac in VA then. People were lined up around the block to see her.

                You're still stuck in 2008. And despite all the problems she had she got 1/2 of the voters. And she even competed in states that Obama wimped out on like Michigan.

                It's the policy stupid

                by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 12:53:09 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  What's your thang with Ryan? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Scandalous One

                He actually looks creepy, like Cruz.  He lied about having run the Boston marathon, made a complete fool of himself.   If someone wants to vote for a pallbearer or undertaker, Ryan is that guy.  He was terrible in the debate with Joe Biden.  He is the guy who proposed to privatize social security, to privatize Medicare.  MEDICARE!   He was an ok VP candidate (supposed to be the bull dog on the stump) but he would make a terrible presidential candidate for the GOP.

          •  The Biden debate (7+ / 0-)

            I got a kick out of watching Biden smirk and snark at Ryan.  It warmed my heart.

            But I think Ryan is a non starter, mostly because he's not the brightest bulb in the pack and it shows too much (a la Palin), and also because he's just a touch too creepy.  There's something about him , that'  Me thinks he has some really ugly skeletons in his closet.

          •  My fear is Ryan COULD beat Hillary (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            if they could somehow keep him from saying anything overtly cruel and callous 47%."or making a blunder like Mittens' " He's relatively articulate, tends not to put his foot in his mouth and is generally coherent. He's young, fit, energetic and pleasant looking enough. Hillary will look like his mom onstage in the debates, and given how she speaks — which often verges on just the tiniest bit lofty and condescending — that's enough for the uninformed voter to vote for Ryan.

            Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it.

            by anastasia p on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 12:07:01 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  huh? (11+ / 0-)
          Democrats have rather overly convinced themselves that Americans never want to see a white guy again
          name one

          I have never seen anyone advocate that, anywhere.

          Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
          Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights to talk about grief.

          by TrueBlueMajority on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 09:07:29 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Young Irish Catholic? Do you mean Paul Ryan? (2+ / 0-)

          He makes my skin creep, and I doubt I'm alone. He looks like a vampire.

          I am not making a policy denunciation because I know everyone here already knows his policies.

          Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

          by Wee Mama on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 10:44:21 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Neither O'Malley nor Cuomo are old (10+ / 0-)

        and O'Malley is probably more progressive than Clinton. I like O'Malley (he's my governor and he's done fairly well by the state), but his problem is a lack of a machine and charisma, not being 'old and white'.

        You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is "Never get involved in a land war in Asia".

        by yellowdog on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 08:27:55 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Male, dude. Male. (5+ / 0-)

          You guys need to never forget that this next election is going to be about WOMEN, not race. That's over with. The next one is WOMEN. Watch and see.

          •  I hear you BBB (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TrueBlueMajority, Sue B, Smoh, Matt Z, kareylou

            but assuming Hillary doesn't run, I think "women" will be fine with a rational male Dem candidate over an R kook.

            I don't know that I would support Hillary in a primary, but the minute the nomination were hers, I'd be behind her all the way.

            •  We face a very tough election environment (7+ / 0-)

              without Hillary Clinton. We simply don't have a top notch campaigner waiting in the wings.

              •  and why is that? Are you (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                KayCeSF, Wee Mama, schumann, Panacea Paola

                stuck with Hillary because there is nobody else? That does not say much about our party if she is the best we have to offer.

                •  Name a candidate. (8+ / 0-)

                  I suppose I stick my head in the sand and pretend there is some liberal obama caliber challenger out there. But errr....there are none.

                  She's heads and shoulders above anybody else. If you can name somebody who wants to run, wants to be president, has the chops, and can win, do so.

                  •  Gillibrand. O'Malley. Schweitzer. (0+ / 0-)

                    I heard Schweitzer speak here in Ohio and he rocked the room. He's folksy AND progressive. I love Sherrod Brown but I don't think he's interested. I'm sure others can contribute other names.

                    Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it.

                    by anastasia p on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 12:18:47 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Not even close. Not on the same level. (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      virginislandsguy, Scandalous One

                      Schweitzer, on his best day, wouldn't win a single vote of people of color. On his BEST day. Sorry, the Democratic western rancher vote, all 9 of em, just aint gonna win a national Democratic primary.

                      Gillibrand wont challenge Clinton. Not in a million years. She's presidential caliber though...but not up against Hillary Clinton.

                      O'Malley isn't even in the same class of campaigner to defeat Hillary Clinton. Nice guy, milquetoast delivery. Can't raise money. No national ID. Meh.

                      Sherrod Brown is good name, probably could make a hell of a run for it if he were interested. He's got the basics solid. But he isn't interested. I still don't see how he cracks the Democratic women's vote from Hillary. Not seeing it.

                      Most importantly, all of these people have national name recognition. All of them spoke at the convention in 2012, none of them impressive on the stump. Running for president aint beanbag. You gotta be built for it.

                      Here is the thing anastasia: Hillary Clinton has 100% name ID. There is nothing new to learn about her. Nothing. You could run negative ads against her all day long, and it wouldn't make any difference. People have already made up their minds about her, and she's 70 points ahaed. SEVENTY POINTS! lol What kind of ad are you going to run against her to bring her down from that?

                      •  Wow (0+ / 0-)

                        Women aren't a hive mind. We aren't going to vote for Hillary because she's a woman. A ton of us women, including myself, voted for Barack Obama back in 2008.

                        And in 2006, most folks had never heard of Barack Obama while Hillary Clinton had 100% name recognition. People had already made up their minds about her in 2007, and she was seen as the presumptive winner. And she still lost.

                        I'm not saying that she will never be president. I think she stands a good chance. I am just saying that your arguments for why Democratic women are apparently never going to vote for anyone else but her in this diary are weak. And I would appreciate it if you would stop talking down to women at this site in the future. We're perfectly capable of deciding who we wish to vote for. You don't need to "explain" to us how and why we'll vote in the manner you have done so here.

                        Time is of no account with great thoughts, which are as fresh to-day as when they first passed through their authors' minds ages ago. - Samuel Smiles

                        by moviemeister76 on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 12:07:16 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  Schweitzer? PROGRESSIVE? The NRA darling? (0+ / 0-)

                      Are you kidding?  He is a left-of-center libertarian, which makes him popular with some liberals, and popular with some right-wing kooks.  NRA president Wayne LaPierre even campaigned for him.  Yep, that's the guy we want.   Geez.

                      Gillibrand calls Hillary Clinton her MENTOR.  She stated that Hillary Clinton inspired her to get into politics.  Also, HRC took Gillibrand under her wings when she was the junior Senator of NY.  She would NEVER run, if HRC is running.   Also, she signed a letter (alongside all 16 female Democratic Senators) urging Hillary Clinton to run.  

                      O'Malley is ALSO a big Hillary Clinton supporter.  He was a major player for her campaign when she ran in 2008.  If he runs at all it would be as a Clinton friend, not adversary.  He would probably have her back when someone like Kucinich lobs volleys in her direction.  At best he can be seen looking to position himself for a VP slot, should he decide to run at all.  

              •  I thought your argument was that GOP sucks? (5+ / 0-)

                Now, against this incredibly weak bench, you're running scared without Hillary to save us against the now suddenly competent GOP that will produce this "very tough election environment"?

                Pick an argument: either GOP bench sucks and we should go with our strongest policy positions, or GOP rocks, and we need to quickly pick a champion and unite against the titans.

                To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

                by joesig on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 10:30:40 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  The enviroment (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  cpresley, brooklynbadboy

                  is tough because of the economy. Everybody else in the party is tied to the Obama economy. Hillary was at state and had nothing to do with any of his economic decisions.

                  Secondly, if the GOP tried to paint her with Obama's economic brush she can point to 2008 and remind them of what Obama said about her and they were not nice.

                  It's the policy stupid

                  by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 11:27:37 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  We face a tough environment PERIOD. (0+ / 0-)

                The Republicans are in ascendancy right now.  Poised to take the Senate, and with the electorate soured on Obama (and by extension Democrats) the tides are all flowing towards Republicans.

                Unfortunate, but there it is...

                •  I believe you are wrong. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  wu ming

                  The Republicans are on the descendant. They have become so extreme they are their own worst enemy — sort of like we are for believing we are already defeated before we begin to fight. No, there it ISN'T. I firmly believe they will find a way to lose the Senate, and they have almost no viable candidates for 2016. The tide has flowed out on the GOP.

                  Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it.

                  by anastasia p on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 12:20:46 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Off year (0+ / 0-)

                    elections are generally better for the GOP than presidential elections.

                    It's the policy stupid

                    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 12:55:07 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  I'm not saying we're defeated... (0+ / 0-)

                    I'm just saying that we need to take a realistic look at the situation on the ground in reality, and that reality is that the Dems squandered every bit of the momentum they gained coming out of the October Putsch attempt in the House with the ACA mess and the Rs have put them back on the defensive.  Dem candidates in some states have blown double digit leads and are now polling BEHIND their R rivals.  Some have been actively distancing themselves from the President in order to try to avoid blowback from the negatives coming off his press.

                    This all has been discussed for MONTHS in various media.

                •  Nonsense (0+ / 0-)

                  They have structural advantages in 2014 -but we still have a huge structural advantage in 2016.   And well, to be blunt the electorate still prefers Democrats to Republicans....

                  •  What advantage is that, chaboard? (0+ / 0-)


                    •  The Electoral College (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      As well as a clear advantage in turnout in presidential elections.   Pretty much the opposite of the structural advantages the Republicans have in off years.

                      •  That's an awfully weak "advantage" (0+ / 0-)

                        to risk everything on...a "win on points" is not going to be perceived as the mandate that is needed to overcome GOP/TEA obstructionism.

                        Getting the White House while leaving one (or both) houses of Congress in GOP/TEA hands will be nothing more than the same crap we've been playing out for over a year now.

                        What we really need is a "sweep" (President and both Houses).  We won't get that with the current anti-Dem tide in the general public.  Dems have GOT to: a)acknowledge where they've screwed up and b) show a sincere commitment towards remedying the mistakes.

                        •  This is why Hillary (0+ / 0-)

                          is our strongest candidate. She already has a constituency, had nothing to do with Obama's economic decisions. Anybody else even Warren can be tied to Obama and his decisions.

                          Part of the problem right now is there is a vacuum of leadership. I really don't think that Obama cares whether anything passes. He's just not that interested in policy.

                          It's the policy stupid

                          by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 03:16:12 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I don't agree about Warren, she's been too openly (0+ / 0-)

                            pushing for more substantive and REAL changes beyond the half-measures we got.

                            You may be right that HRC is the "best we got" (God help us), BUT you can't ignore the anti-Dem sentiment because President Clinton (should she win) needs a cooperative House and Senate or it's more of the same BS we've been dealing with the last year or so.

                            That means we MUST have a stronger Democratic campaign that engages and addresses the "Moderate Middle" as opposed to a campaign that assumes that it will carry those votes "because"...

                          •  I'm actually (0+ / 0-)

                            not ignoring it nor have I ever. Obama has been a big problem when it comes to this. And it's not just his race like a lot of people seem to think. One of the reasons the GOP is so freaking crazy is there is a vaccuum of leadership. He's the one that allowed them to come back from the stinking dead by giving their ideas new life and giving them mouth to mouth recisistation. He doesn't understand these voters and never has nor does he seem to even want to understand them.

                            But if you're worried about the anti-Dem thing going on Warren is a senator from the Dem bastion of MA. That alone would probably disqualify her in a lot of voters minds no matter what she said. It's unfortunate but it's the way it is.

                            Oh, I agree 100 percent with your last sentence. It was one of the big problems I had with Obama back in 2008. He was not adding anybody to the party.

                            But obviously while you and I agree on issues we apparently don't agree on Hillary.

                            It's the policy stupid

                            by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 03:56:51 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  At least, unlike some Progressive sites I know of (0+ / 0-)

                            we can disagree in a civil manner where we disagree.

                            So that's a positive.

                          •  You and I seem (0+ / 0-)

                            to be able to agree to disagree. Others not so much.

                            It's the policy stupid

                            by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 12:00:23 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

              •  Disagree. We face a GREAT environment (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                wu ming

                if we buckle down and work hard and not get as complacent as those supporting Hilary. We have plenty of topnotch campaigners — probably BETTER than Hillary.  And they have a bunch of lunatics. It's a golden opportunity for Democrats to move into the future instead of trying to redo the past.

                Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it.

                by anastasia p on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 12:17:14 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Well Neither Do They (0+ / 0-)

                ...and we have a very favorable electoral map - the GOP hasn't won by more than a single state in 25 years.  And the demographics have moved strongly against them since they even did that. They have to thread the needle to win.   It's not impossible but there's no way our environment is "very tough" unless the economy happens to be in free-fall in 2016.

              •  no we don't (0+ / 0-)

                dems will have a very favorable national environment in 2016, because of the political hangover of the class of 2010's misgovernment and wingnuttery, because of the continued economic recovery, because of the success of obamacare as it moved from abstract debate to concrete thing in their lives,  and because of ongoing demographic, ideological and generational shifts in the electorate.

                the GOP is fucked in the electoral college, because the base of the party is shrinking at the same moment that they are becoming repellant to the rest of the electorate. if they try to court independents and democrats, they enrage their nasty base. if they engage their base, they freak out the swing voters.

                the GOP in the teens is the hippies in the 80s.

          •  BBB, I don't know one single woman who feels that (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Portlaw, anastasia p

            way about it. Do you have any evidence from polls? Because it sure doesn't match my anecdotal experience.

            Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

            by Wee Mama on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 10:47:18 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  BBB, your entire assumption is faulty (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Sure, it will be about women to a degree but NOT ALL WOMEN ARE EXCITED ABOUT HILLARY. Really. Many of us — even those in her key demo — want someone else. And that's just DEMOCRATS. Non-Democratic women definitely are not drooling over a potential Hillary candidacy and there's nothing about this retread race that is going to make them run to the polls to vote for her. You keep saying this, but the evidence isn't there.

            Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it.

            by anastasia p on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 12:15:49 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Cuomo? Cuomo? (7+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tb mare, Woody, ColoTim, cpresley, beaky, jbob, milkbone

          So he supported equal rights.  Other than that, he might be a good choice for the GOP to run.

          "It ain't right, Atticus," said Jem. "No, son, it ain't right." --Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird

          by SottoVoce on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 08:39:52 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Cuomo is a legend in his own mind (8+ / 0-)

          He could never be elected.  He would have zero appeal in the middle west.  What possible reason is there for anyone to support him?  He has nothing.  

      •  No one has ever heard of O'Malley, half of the (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cpresley, Smoh, mamamedusa, Matt Z

        people who have heard of Cuomo really don't like him, Bernie is an old Socialist who I really like, but has as much chance of getting the Democratic nomination as I do, Elizabeth Warren is a very appealing candidate but the Wall Street crowd hates her and would spend millions to defeat her Presidential bid, so who else is there?  I would vote for Dr. Dean again and again, but at this point, I think he has given enough.  I really don't see anyone else on the horizon that has Hillary's stature and standing as a Democratic nominee.  

        And it feels like I'm livin'in the wasteland of the free ~ Iris DeMent, 1996

        by MrJersey on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 10:10:03 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Sanders? (0+ / 0-)

        Seriously? Maybe you should bone up a little before putting out these contentions about what WILL happen in 2016 and the widespread enthusiasm for Hillary. Sanders is in his 70s. He is an INDEPENDENT, which means he can't be the Democratic nominee, and he has no machinery to run on his own, a real fools' errand no man his age is going to undertake. Cuomo and O'Malley are both a decade or more younger than Hillary so if it's AGEIST! AGEIST! to bring up legitimate concerns about Hillary's age, this is off base too.

        Kirsten Gillibrand is even younger, more dynamic, and more progressive. She will not "beat" Hillary because if Hillary runs, she won't. It's this push by the Hillary backers to clear the field and push her into a race she may or may not want to be in that profoundly disturbs me.

        Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it.

        by anastasia p on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 12:00:14 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Please expound (23+ / 0-)

      I've actually been concerned about the shallowness of our bench should something happen to HRC.

      Elizabeth Warren: ain't running. Sorry.

      Biden: We know he's smart and competent. Voters have bought into the GOP "he's an idiot" meme.

      Schweitzer? Maybe. But nobody but us have ever heard of him.

      A Castro twin? Too green for the top slot. VP maybe.

      Jerry Brown? I'd love him, but he's old.

      Next guess? I'm out.

      Yes, DailyKos DOES have puzzles! Visit us here Saturday nights @ 5:00 PDT (easier puzzles) and Sunday nights @ 5:00 PDT (more challenging) for a group solving. Even if you just pop in and comment while watching the fun, everybody is welcome. uid:21352

      by pucklady on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 08:22:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  That deep bench gets almost zero support (7+ / 0-)

      right now from Democrats, whether they are Progressive, Moderate or Centrist Democrats.  If you were right, someone like Biden (the true "Incumbent") or Warren would get a lot more than just 7% support each, the names O'Malley, Schweitzer, Patrick, Gillibrand, Warner and Cuomo would attract more than just 1% or 2% each.  

      Her popularity is at 59% among all Americans.  Aside from someone like Mother Theresa, show another woman who has more popularity?  Especially for someone in politics, with all the polarization, that type of popularity is astounding.  

      •  We need someone to run (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Smoh, joesig, milkbone

        Hate to remind us, but Hillary is almost as old as I am, and Bill too. We are in the high risk age cohort.

        So if Bill has a heart attack in December of 2015, could that affect Hillary in the primaries January-February of 2016? And if Hillary has a heart attack . . . who'll have an organization ready to go?

        Meanwhile, I'm wishing all of us oldsters good health and long lives.

        But if no one else runs in the Democratic primaries, we'll have no televised debates until October? I'd much prefer to have debates among Democratic candidateS early in the year to get OUR issues into the national discussion.

        And yes, I could cheerfully support Biden, O'Malley, Gillibrand, Warner. (Anybody but Andrew Cuomo. No cheer there. LOL).

        I'd be very happy to see Hillary win the nomination after a fair challenge, but preferably from her left (an ample space there, alas).

        •  Of course there will be a primary (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          anastasia p, cpresley, kareylou

          No worries.  Kucinich is going again, IMO.  Schweitzer is likely.  O'Malley, big Clinton friend, might run to be first im line for a VP slot.  Perhaps also someone from her right, like Warner/Cuomo.

          •  Thanks for the chuckle! (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            I assume you are not serious. Kucinich could not even hang onto his district! He even came in third — dead last — in one county. Democrats in Ohio loathe him because he supported the Republican gerrymander and lopsided, voter-silencing representation it brings with it. I loathe him for this reason, since fair elections is my main issue.

            Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it.

            by anastasia p on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 12:29:21 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  I think there will be a full set of primaries and (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cpresley, Woody


          But the contest is for the VP.

          That would actually be a good thing, IMO. Let Hillary win in a walk, and let the second tier get a bit of burn-in to prepare them for 2020 or 2024.

          Yes, DailyKos DOES have puzzles! Visit us here Saturday nights @ 5:00 PDT (easier puzzles) and Sunday nights @ 5:00 PDT (more challenging) for a group solving. Even if you just pop in and comment while watching the fun, everybody is welcome. uid:21352

          by pucklady on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 12:44:45 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  That has to do with the fact (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wu ming, Kentucky DeanDemocrat

        that we are three years out from the election, no one is thinking about 2016 other than us, and the media is making so much noise about Hillary that the other names are drowned out. If Hillary doesn't run — and there's a good chance of that — they will quickly jump in and become known.

        If Hillary becomes a candidate, her popularity will plummet. It's only 59%? Look for it to be in the low 40s once she starts campaigning. That popularity is based on her being a non-candidate with no opposition and being out of public life.

        Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it.

        by anastasia p on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 12:27:13 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The same thing (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          happened to Obama in '08. He went down, he went up. Hillary went down. Hillary went up.

          It's the policy stupid

          by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 12:58:18 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Low 40s? That is not even remotely funny (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Scandalous One, unclebucky

          Why would Hillary Clinton's popularity go down into the low 40s when the Democrats right now are at least at 51% popular vote?  Do you really dislike her that much to push her popularity down into the dumpster like that?   I guess it is silly season.  

          "It's only 59%"?  Thanks for the laugh. Show any political persona (outside of Bill Clinton) that is higher?   She has ALWAYS had high personal popularity, even when she was the Senator of New York, btw.

          Boy, Kos and Dean are right about her detractors on the left.  

           Kos:  "deep minority"

          Dean: "Dean predicted she would "satisfy a large number of Democratic voters, including a large number of progressives."

          "There are going to be issues where there is disagreement on. You can never please everyone," Dean said. "The people who are not going to be pleased are well-organized voices and not a lot of votes."

          •  Absolutely. The opposition to "Clinton" from (0+ / 0-)

            the left is absolutely WRONG.

            I gotta say, should the 2016 election turn GOP because of Greens, Far-Lefts or anti-"Hillary" contingent, I leave the country. And so will a lot of other people give up on this Nation. Washed up, shooting itself in the proverbial foot.

            Ugh. --UB.

            "Daddy, every time a bell rings, a Randian Libertaria­n picks up his Pan Am tickets for the Libertaria­n Paradise of West Dakota!"

            by unclebucky on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 04:51:16 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  She tops (6+ / 0-)

      the polls of most admired women. You may not admire her but many do.

      It's the policy stupid

      by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 08:37:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Deep bench full of talent? Where? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
    •  Tell me who's on that bench, please. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Cats are better than therapy, and I'm a therapist.

      by Smoh on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 10:13:12 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Those "most admired" polls (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wu ming, Kentucky DeanDemocrat

      are ALWAYS about "most familiar." They're not about anything of substance and they're not about actual candidates facing opponents.

      Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it.

      by anastasia p on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 11:55:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Baloney. George W is "most familiar". (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Scandalous One

        Would he be "most admired"?    You are just trying to tear her down on everything under the sun.   Seems rather odd.  She is admired, and it has a lot to do with substance.  Quit describing everybody who likes her as some kind of idiot.  Not everybody shares your opinion here.  But that is fine, opinions differ.   Just quit trying to paint your opinion as superior because you hate her, and everybody who likes her does so because they just want a woman, any woman, or they just liked Bill, so there.   It is unacceptable.  Many have come to a conclusion that does not match yours based on substantive issues.  

        •  Saying a "most admired" poll (0+ / 0-)

          is meaningless fluff is the truth. It is not "hating" Hillary and it is not describing you or others as an "idiot." Your response is unpleasantly personal.  

          "If there are no dogs in heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went." - Will Rogers

          by Kentucky DeanDemocrat on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 09:57:51 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  My post was in response to the entire conversation (0+ / 0-)

            The poster claimed that those who support HRC are merely clueless, ignorant and uninformed.  She is addressing 80% of Democrats and at least half of the posters on this site in that fashion, let alone Kos, Howard Dean, Elizabeth Warren (who signed a letter urging Hillary Clinton to run for President.)    That kind of arrogance deserved a response, and how else to do it than addressing the poster directly?  Opinions differ, that is a fact of life.  Dismissing someone's opinion as uninformed because it does not match one's own appears to be the poster letting her intense personal dislike for someone getting the better of her/himself, and thus appear unreasonable by attacking a bunch of us as uninformed sheep.   It is logical that people who post and read here regularly are plenty informed, after all.  

  •  Except she is a retread, and past losing president (7+ / 0-)

    candidates have not succeeded very often in Democratic Party presidential politics, if at all. Johnson is the only one that comes to mind as a past candidate who lost the nomination yet came back to win election in a subsequent election.

    “Well, when the president does it, that means it is not illegal.” Richard Nixon, 1977.

    by Kvetchnrelease on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 07:58:24 AM PST

  •  Predictions are easy - just ask the Right (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Silvia Nightshade

    They make outlandish predictions every day, and the only thing that's predictable is that they'll be dead wrong as usual.  Nobody, however, seems to care.

    Now then, my prediction :)

    Quite simply, I say that history will show that George Manchild will be the last Republican president.  Not a difficult prediction to make, other than it's now in black and white for god and everyone to see.

    Make Plutocratic influence on the Government so small you can drown it in a bathtub.

    by thenekkidtruth on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 07:59:46 AM PST

  •  Their bench is worse than the Knicks bench! (8+ / 0-)

    And that is last night's bench when Amare was starting!

    Please know I am not rude. I cannot rec anything from this browser. When I rec or post diaries I am a guest at some exotic locale's computer. Ayn is the bane!

    by Floyd Blue on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 08:00:47 AM PST

  •  People love underdogs, but (7+ / 0-)

    they loathe losers.

    Republicans can't afford too many more losses before they'll be regarded as easily dismissible second rate chumps whom no one will get behind.  They need more than one bigtime win, and the sooner the better.

    But it's highly likely they won't get that fervent wish in 2016.

    Make Plutocratic influence on the Government so small you can drown it in a bathtub.

    by thenekkidtruth on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 08:02:33 AM PST

  •  Ryan/Palin in 2016 (5+ / 0-)

    When the starters flounder, send in the second string.

    If cats could blog, they wouldn't

    by crystal eyes on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 08:06:10 AM PST

  •  The GOP bench is so weak that (5+ / 0-)

    Erick Erickson actually tried to float Joe Scarborough to his minions last week.  They would have none of it.

    But watch out for Jon Huntsman - he seems relatively sane and reasonable compared to the rest of the field. However, I don't think the fundies can stomach another Mormon.  

    We are all in this together.

    by htowngenie on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 08:06:49 AM PST

  •  Hillary HAS weaknesses and the GOP will exploit... (12+ / 0-)

    ... them. Probably to no avail for, as our diarist says, the Republicans are weak, in philosophical disarray, and seemingly opposed to being members of any society but their own intellectually gated communities. And they have a penchant for making unforced errors.

    So much for 2016 ... but my calendar says there's a sooner election with a lot of Congressional and Senatorial seats to defend and retain. AND, we can only hope, to buttress our forces.

    I think 2014 is a huge challenge for us. If we can't field worthy opponents and bring the fight to the holders of the GOP's secure seats, we miss opportunities. If we can't fund and support our incumbents fully, we give ground. If we sit on our hands during voter registration drives and don't know how to organize to protect and encourage voters EVERYwhere, we won't deserve to win in 2016 either.

    2014 is HERE. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

    by TRPChicago on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 08:09:54 AM PST

    •  Hillary is... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cpresley, Scandalous One

      a good transition candidate. She'll adequately steer the evolution of attitude in the country. The move towards marriage equality is safe in her care. Abortion is safe under her care. She'll sign immigration reform.

      During her term (assuming 2), we'd get another census, and the demographic decay of the GOP would continue apace.

      Then in 2024, the 18-34 cohort for this years midterms are now 28-44. Indigo states are blue, Purple states are indigo, and burgundy states are purple. New states are burgundy.

      By the mid-2020s, the swing states we talk about could be Arizona and Georgia, rather than Virginia and Ohio.

      "It's almost as if we're watching Mitt Romney on Safari in his own country." -- Jonathan Capeheart

      by JackND on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 10:37:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree with you... (4+ / 0-)

      we need to focus on getting out the vote in 2014.

      Shop Liberally this holiday season at Kos Katalog

      by JamieG from Md on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 01:00:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Palin / Rice 2016 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    red moon dog

    I fear this combo ,
    they are like Starsky & Hutch , Beavis and Butthead , Ponch and Jon .
    You can't beat them with a stick
    no matter how much you might like to .

    "please love deeply...openly and genuinely." A. M. H.

    by indycam on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 08:10:48 AM PST

  •  I enjoy your work. (5+ / 0-)

    It's a bit of fresh air on the back pages here.  Armando also, even when I disagree with him.  

    It now is the front pagers who keep me here.  

    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 25, 2014 at 08:11:08 AM PST

  •  i actually think Paul Ryan (7+ / 0-)

    could put together a respectable defeat, like holding on to Indiana and Texas while losing all the battlegrounds.  He's certainly extreme, but he doesn't entirely play that way.  

    Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

    by Loge on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 08:11:25 AM PST

    •  He couldn't deliver Wisconsin for Romney. (11+ / 0-)

      Despite basically parking himself there for the final two weeks. Mainly defending himself in his own district, but also travelling statewide. Wasn't even close. 7 point blowout.

      But I agree he's probably the best among a sorry lot.

      •  and he won't win it for himself, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sethtriggs, left of center

        but nobody in the Republican party can win Wisconsin in a high turnout race.  He probably helped keep PA and OH somewhat closer, though, as he's good with Catholics and stuff.

        I think he was parked because Romney didn't want Ryan upstaging him, though the state they needed to win the most -- FLorida -- i can see Ryan being a liability.  

        Anyway, yeah, he's the least bad candidate in the general, and also the least unacceptable to each competing faction in the party, so i'd tentatively favor him for nomination.

        Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

        by Loge on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 08:29:30 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  They spent a shitload of money in Wisconsin (11+ / 0-)

          had the Governor and the Legislature behind them, and Priebus is a Badger. Wisconsin was a huge disappointment for them. They really thought with Ryan and their organization they could win it. Reince promised the state to Mitt if they put Ryan on the ticket.

          But then they ran up against the Obama Field Operation.

          •  well, good for us they did that. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            brooklynbadboy, greenbell, sethtriggs

            that money could have been useful to the GOP in Colorado or whatever.  This is a thing with them -- McCain kept trying to win Pennsylvania, remember?  

            The thing with Ryan is that as a Congressman he doesn't really represent Wisconsin, so has very little pull in Milwaukee or Superior or Madison.  At the end of the day, nobody cares he's a badger; Reince controls neither money nor message; and people were sick of hearing from Walker after the recall.  So, I wouldn't necessarily hold it against him as a general election candidate that he didn't hold Wisconsin because I wouldn't have expected him to.  The question is what his influence is in his home state, but in similarly situated congressional districts to Ryan's own -- like exurban districts in the Northeast or other midwest.  Republicans need those to, like, cover the spread.

            This is indicative of the mistake Kerry made in passing over Gephardt because he didn't think Gephradt would deliver Missouri.  He wouldn't have, but he'd have been more useful in Ohio than Edwards was.

            Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

            by Loge on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 08:40:29 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  At that point the election was already over (5+ / 0-)

              They just tried to keep the damage to a minimum.

              If you recall, early voting results had come back with shocking results for the Romney people.   Iowa, Ohio, Florida, Nevada, all showed the same thing.  Obama was making mincemeat out of Romney with early voters.  For Romney to win back any of those states he would have had to win on election day to the tune of 62% to 38% in some of them, something similar in the other battleground states that allowed early voting.    That wasn't going to happen.  

              So, unless they were ostriches with their heads in the sand (not Romney himself, who was in some dazed bubble, believing until the end he was going to win, but the operatives working behind the scenes) they knew this was a lost cause.   Camping out in WI and spending big money in PA as a last-ditch ploy was about as desperate as it got, given the circumstances.  

              •  that's another good point, (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                floridageorge, sethtriggs

                the campaign had to focus resources on where there wasn't this early voting disadvantage.

                From where I sat in Iowa at that time, though, the R's didn't understand what had hit them.  The Obama campaign was turning out sporadic dem-leaning voters early, but a lot were registered indy and had sparse voting histories, and Romney though despite active OFA turnout operations, they were Romney voters, or so they said publicly.  If you modeled early turnout voters based on public opinion poll sampling, you could get to that position, but not if you were really closely examining cross tabs and more sophisticated voter modeling.

                The fact Romney didn't realize he lost tells me the whole campaign never grasped what it is we were doing.  The results should have been shocking, but they weren't.  I mean, they kept doing TV advertising in IA thru the last week, though a good chunk of that shifted to congressional candidates.  That said, I recall they 100% needed Florida, and a triple bank shot of Ohio, Virginia, and maybe Wisconsin to win, per the Nate Silver analysis.

                Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

                by Loge on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 09:12:56 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  What we knew months in advance (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  they had no clue about.  That seems impossible to comprehend, but it appears that Romney paid a lot of money for idiots running the show.  

                  Here threads like these were commonplace:



                  The numbers were clear, and the data was easily accessible for how many registered Democrats and how many registered Republicans and how many Independents were casting early votes.   Yes, there might be some crossover, and we did not know where the Independent vote was going, exactly, but the results were so crushing by party identification alone that it was easy to see where we were headed.    Just not to those bozos.  Rove's befuddled, astonished behavior when Ohio was called for Obama, right there live on Foxnews, was one of my favorite political moments of the season, heck, ever.    

                  •  absolutely, but a big part of their strategy (0+ / 0-)

                    was based on  the belief that disaffected democrats would swing Romney's way, especially white working class voters; and i think they were blindsided by just how badly they lost the Latino vote, by an order of magnitude over the Bush/McCain losses.  

                    Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

                    by Loge on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 09:37:53 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  How could they be blindsided by how bad (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      they lost the Latino vote?  Especailly after the whole self-deportation comments.

                      “To the world you may be just one person, but to one person you may be the world.”-Brandi Snyder (in memory of my Nick)

                      by YellowDogInGA on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 09:48:59 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  well, i'm not responsible for Romney's planning, (0+ / 0-)

                        but i imagine it was a combination of recognizing Obama's deportation policies were unpopular, too, and believing they'd do ok with frustration over the economy.  It turns out, though, that the ACA is just incredibly popular among Latinos.  

                        Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

                        by Loge on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 10:18:54 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  The state-by-state (0+ / 0-)

                      lineup was devastating for them early on, even with polls undercounting Latinos grossly.   So, while the Gallups and Rasmussens national polls had it completely wrong (using terrible voter screens) and likely gave Team Romney some optimism, it wasn't really the national vote that should have given them the jeebies, but the realization in how deep a hole Romney was in the states that counted well before election day(Florida, Ohio, Nevada, etc.)    Again, in the crucial states an impartial reading of the early votes would have meant that Romney would have needed more than 62% of the come-out crowd on Nov. 4, and that just wasn't a realistic and achievable mark.  

            •  Exactly, he could play well in the suburbs (0+ / 0-)

              I think there is a swing vote there that is fiscally conservative and trending socially liberal BUT some of these voters may figure they've done enough already on the social change.  I don't think it's a done deal today how these voters are going to vote.  They're probably not going to swing a state like MN but then again they're the voters that have swung most recently to keep the state blue so they could decide to swing back which would at least make the state more difficult for Democrats to win.  

              •  They're not going back if the Republicans are (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                left of center

                still trying to take away healthcare and are still hung up on gay marriage, fighting immigration and other social issues.  Republicans just can't help themselves - they're mean to everyone that isn't white, wealthy and bigoted.

          •  Exactly. Wisconsin would NEVER elect GOP Gov. (0+ / 0-)

            That's crazy talk.

            To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

            by joesig on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 11:02:28 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  And given the complacency (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      already evident on the Hillary side, he could actually WIN the presidency. More than anything, I worried about this attitude of Hillary's invincible and everyone else sucks" because it's amping up that complacency.

      Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it.

      by anastasia p on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 12:30:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  i don't see any evidence of complacency, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cpresley, Scandalous One

        w/r/t how adept HRC is at lining up endorsements, comms staff, fundraisers, etc.  On some level, it's always possible for horrible republicans to win (GWB), but i would never think Clinton is "complacent."  She underestimated Obama early  in 2008 and had infighting problems, but she was the opposite of complacent.  

        Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

        by Loge on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 01:19:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  After being schooled by Obama in '08? (0+ / 0-)

        HRC might have been complacent then, but now I'm quite sure that Obama's top people's CVs  have been vetted by "Hillary for America"

        "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi

        by IamTheJudge on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 07:29:37 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I find him the scariest of the bunch (0+ / 0-)

      because he usually doesn't come off as completely nuts, he doesn't use foul offensive language (just foul offensive ideas, but they sound good), he's young and attractive, and definitely ambitious. And with the head of the RNC also from Wisconsin, and Koch billions behind him. . . . scary.

  •  His mom won't let him. (8+ / 0-)

    Still, if she does, we can save a lot on focus groups, dial polls and the like. Simply run a million Facebook suggested posts with the question:

    "Would you prefer another Clinton presidency or another Bush presidency?"

    I live under the bridge to the 21st Century.

    by Crashing Vor on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 08:15:10 AM PST

  •  The bench is splintered, one might say. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ColoTim, Scandalous One

    Yet, that is bound to be the case. Look at the idiotic groups they must kowtow to and kiss ass. Teabuggered morons demand complete and total obedience. One misstep and you are a target for attack. One spasm of rational decision-making and leadership, and they will seek a replacement. One compromise with their perceived enemas, the democrat party, and tea baggers will scream for their heads.

    What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

    by agnostic on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 08:18:03 AM PST

  •  not a deep bench with Rubio as the Water Boy /nt (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skillet, MrJersey

    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 Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 08:20:27 AM PST

  •  compare to 1990 (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Portlaw, joesig

    Bush was just winning a war and was riding high in the polls. Top democrats stayed out of the race.

    A leading contender was known as "Govenor Moonbeam"

    A leading democrat contender had so many issues his own campaign invented the term "Bimbo Eruptions"

    You can look unbeatable two years before the election. But some people peak too early. The future has yet to happen.

    •  You can't (0+ / 0-)

      really compare that because Bush was the incumbent.

      It's the policy stupid

      by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 08:53:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  but that actually (0+ / 0-)

        made the deck more stacked FOR the republicans. Incumbancy is an advantage.

        Heck, Hilary was probably considered a shoo in for the nomination at this point in 2006

        •  It doesn't (0+ / 0-)

          matter. There's no one with the star power to challenge her right now. I'm guessing Schweitzer might.

          It's the policy stupid

          by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 09:08:48 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  it does (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            anastasia p

            as my point is what look certain now may not be so in 2 years. Anyone who thinks it 100% certain that Hilary will win in 2016 in a cakewalk is deluded.

          •  Not Schweitzer (0+ / 0-)

            He would not be able to win his own state for us.  Besides, his legacy on gun issues would make it a non-starter.  He is so invested in the NRA (earned "A" rating from NRA, had NRA president Wayne LaPierre actively campaigning for him, passed one of the first "Stand your Ground" laws) that a smart GOP candidate could position himself far to the left of Schweitzer simply by claiming that he would be open to some reasonable gun control measures - closing the gun show loophole being the most likely bone thrown into the ring.

        •  If only there were some way to find out (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          toxin, wu ming

          Yes, if only there were some kind of interconnected network, a web-like sort of thing, having archived information that that would allow a look back at 2006...

          In December 2006 polling, for possible (or announced) Democratic candidates, it was Clinton 39, Obama 17, Edwards 12, Al Gore 10.

          In June 2006, Gallup had, as the preferred candidate among Democrats and lean Democratic, Clinton 36, Gore 16, Edwards 12, Kerry 11.

          When they asked who people would prefer as a president (all adults), the result was Clinton 14, McCain 8, out of a long list of people including many who could not be president at all (GW Bush, Bill Clinton as examples). Obama was at 1%.

          •  These figures are nothing like the ones we are (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            seeing now, though. I think it is very significant that Biden, who'd under normal circumstances be considered a front runner, or least near the top, is getting positively crushed.

            In the Dec. 06 poll, Clinton's support is tied with all the other combined.

            In the 06 poll "Everybody else" actually edges out Clinton.
            Now, she's crushing all others combined, inclulding an incumbent VP, when in history, no sitting VP who has ever sought his partys' nomination has failed to get it.

            •  Let's be blunt. (0+ / 0-)

              Everyone knows Biden is too old to run.  I suspect that's why Obama made him V.P., to mend his fences with the Big Dog after a nasty primary by leaving the 2016 field clear for Hillary.

              But I wear a lot of tinfoil. :)

              "If there are no dogs in heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went." - Will Rogers

              by Kentucky DeanDemocrat on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 10:20:33 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Those numbers were all close (0+ / 0-)

            Now they are

             75% to 7% (Hillary Clinton vs. Elizabeth Warren)

            75% to 1% (HRC vs. O'Malley)

            75% to 1% (HRC vs. Schweitzer)

            75% to 1% (HRC vs. Gillibrand)


            Huge difference.  No comparison.  

  •  most famous and admired woman? Do you mean... (7+ / 0-)

    Angelina Jolie is running?! Wow!

  •  depends on your perspective (3+ / 0-)

    i bet the site's editorial cartoonists think it's great!

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 08:32:06 AM PST

  •  Agreed, but so is ours (4+ / 0-)

    It's why I'm all in for the dreaded bankster/warmonger Hillary.

    My bottom line is NO REPUBLICANS EVER AGAIN in the White House, if at all possible.

  •  They've got Mitt Romney (6+ / 0-)

    Purity is for primaries; in the general, our worst are better than their best.

    by blue aardvark on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 08:37:43 AM PST

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

    the bench for 2016 that the GOP has looks worse than even 2008 or 2012. McCain was somewhat popular with independents. Romney at least had the governorship of MA but this band of yahoos has nothing going for them. The leader is a Randian apostle who thinks that cutting taxes is the solution to every problem in society.

    It's the policy stupid

    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 08:52:44 AM PST

  •  I think perhaps instead of their bench (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chaboard, Ky DEM

    We should refer to it as the Republican Party's Presidential Stool.  It works on a couple different levels and is much more accurately descriptive.

  •  Not A Particular Fan, But I'd Vote For Hillary.... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ColoTim, mamamedusa, Matt Z

    in a heartbeat.  I'm still ticked @ her vote for war in Iraq, the way she treated then Senator Obama ("shame on you, Barack Obama") &
    her ridiculous acceptance of Bill's serial cheating & lying to her thruout their marriage.

    That one burns the most.  It was so disrespectful, but she took it.  Other than that, I'd run to the ballot box to get her in over any Republican on planet earth.  

  •  Republican Dream Team.............. (0+ / 0-)

    Louie Gohmert and Michelle Bachmann

  •  In my pretend world where all things (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    come up roses, I see someone like Jon Huntsman take the reins and tell his part once and for all "stop with the hate and the fear, we have a job to do," and then go on to attempt to do it.  

    You have to be bipolar to run a Republican campaign these days, cow-towing to the likes of Ted Nugent and all the hate groups as well as northeastern conservatives.  It's crazy.  

    But please, Dear (god or goddess) no more Bushes.  They are forever tainted, at least to me, after the devastation W wreaked on us.

    The GOP will destroy anything they can't own.

    by AnnieR on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 09:26:57 AM PST

  •  another Bush or another Clinton? (0+ / 0-)

    If it comes down to that..................we're fine.

    "Legalizing pot won't make more pot-smokers. It will just make fewer criminals. - Me

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 09:35:47 AM PST

  •  asdf (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    left of center, Scandalous One

    here's a slogan for them- 'jeb bush,not as dumb as his brother'

  •  if it's bush, he's gonna get waxed (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
  •  I hope they field 20 candidates, all sniping (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    at each other. Recall the idiotic show of the last primary and expect another round of entertainment by the GOP's top great expense to them and their backers.

    FEMINISM encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians...Pat Robertson, failed lawyer, worth over $100 million.

    by old mark on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 09:52:09 AM PST

  •  ads write themselves for Bush III (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    brooklynbadboy, kareylou

    fade in: Bush I going to war against Iraq

    Bush II attacking Iraq

    Bush III: question mark

  •  Clinton v. Bush ... again (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Portlaw, greenbell

    Well, since the Democratic Party is already crowning Clinton, this really opens up the left flank for the Greens to take advantage of -- if they can pull their shit together -- since the electoral option will be between Insane Asshole and Yet More Neoliberalism.

    Obama: self-described Republican; backed up by right-wing policies

    by The Dead Man on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 09:57:01 AM PST

    •  Oh yeah. Those Greens are a real electoral force. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ky DEM

      Gotta be on the lookout for Jill Stein.

    •  LMAO. The Greens. Are you kidding? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Scandalous One

      Let me guess.  Nader in 2000, right?   Do you REALLY think that the Greens can get more than 450,000 votes?   Highly doubtful.  2016 will be even less than that.  

      Obama did not mention environmental issues much during the 2012 run.  It is likely that Hillary Clinton will talk about the environment as much, if not more, than Obama in 2012.  Then you have the historic nature of this particular vote.  The Green Party is probably going back to something close to their 2008 showing, when they only got 161,000 votes.  

      Why are you wasting your time with the Greens in presidential elections?  The lousy showing of the Libertarian party with under 1% and 1.2 Million votes was much better than what the Greens were able to accomplish in a year in which the environment wasn't a big part of the Democratic party candidate's platform.  

  •  I must disagree. (0+ / 0-)

    The GOP's presidential "bench" is perfect!  Why, I can look any anyone in my town who dares put one of those signs in their yard come 2016, and say with a joyful heart: YOU ARE DEAD TO ME.

    Doctor's order, don't you know; two MIs and three stents demands that I avoid all stress --- and hanging out with anyone who'd support the current incarnation of the RepubliBagger Party is a clear and present danger to my health.

    Now if you'll excuse me, there's a chocolate chip cookie in the kitchen that's calling my name....

    Proponents of gun violence own guns. Opponents of gun violence do not own guns. What part of this do you not understand?

    by Liberal Panzer on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 10:04:54 AM PST

  •  Totally disagree about the bench. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    If you are a GOP nut job you have a list of all stars to choose from. If you are a GOP mainline or moderate you have a  list of sitting or past Governors to choose from. All the names may not be known by the public at the moment but they have records and are capable of getting the votes with swing voters. (its all about the economy)
    The Dem's on the other hand appear only to have one person that will draw excitement and votes.
    Either way you play it this fact is both stupid and dangerous for our side.

    "Love is what we were born with. Fear is what we learned here." Marianne Williamson

    by Canadian Green Card Alien on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 10:10:19 AM PST

    •  Almost all those GOP "stars" (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greenbell, Scandalous One

      are extremists who will defeat themselves or they are sitting on scandal after scandal after scandal. The GOP has almost no viable candidates and we have many. Hillary isn't drawing "excitement" except among the media and her old supporters. The public isn't excited; most of the people here can't be described as "excited," merely acquiescent.

      What is stupid and dangerous for our side is to say things like we only have "one person that will draw excitement and votes."

      Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it.

      by anastasia p on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 12:35:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You need (0+ / 0-)

        to get out of the Dkos echo chamber. Hillary was never popular here nor never liked. Obama was going to be the savior but i see nothing but sheer disapointment. But then that's what you get when you run a campaign on unicorns and ponies.

        It's the policy stupid

        by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 01:00:51 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  The stars are extremist and IMHO have no.. (0+ / 0-)

        chance in 2016. The above mentioned Governors are not and if our only option is HC I still say we loose the WH. I guess I still don't get why we HC seems to be on her way to the nom. Some brave public figure on our side has to stand up and shout we need some alternatives.

        "Love is what we were born with. Fear is what we learned here." Marianne Williamson

        by Canadian Green Card Alien on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 04:06:32 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Are you excited about O'Malley? (0+ / 0-)

        What do you even know about him?  Or Schweitzer?  Apparently you don't know much about his tendency to be extreme right-wing on several issues, or else you would never call him a Progressive.  

        I don't get it.  You are staunchly anti-Hillary, and you pretend to know whether people are "excited" or just "acquiescent."  Then you bring forth candidates you yourself seem to know little about.  Just because they are not Clinton?   You mentioned Gillibrand.  She co-sponsored a bill that would ultimately lead to war with Iran, a bill that sought to impose tough sanctions on Iran, with conditions Iran could never abide by, ultimately leading to war with Iran.  While the Obama administration was trying to bring all sides to the table and go the diplomatic route, she and her Republican co-sponsors (as well as 14 other Democratic Senators) would have none of it, they forged ahead with this shameful bill that would have undermined the diplomatic efforts immediately, stopped them in their tracks, and would have gotten us onto the fast track to war with Iran.    

        The 15 Democratic Senators retreated only after Obama gave a stern rebuke and told them he would not hesitate to veto that bill, and after Hillary Clinton also rebuked those 15 Democratic Senators and sided with the diplomatic efforts.  

        Are you even aware that happened?  With Gillibrand as a co-sponsor?  

      •   They will have to act like extremists (0+ / 0-)

        anyway to get the mouth breather vote, and it is doubtful that they will let another RINO be their candidate

        "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi

        by IamTheJudge on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 07:36:46 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  You left out Liz Cheney n/t (0+ / 0-)
  •  being in Illinois (0+ / 0-)

    I will probably have the liberty of voting for a Green Party candidate in the general

    But then again, I will get caught up in the idea of voting for the first woman president. things appear now for the GOP, they don't have a candidate that can do anything about that.

    That's not tho say that the GOP is dead at the moment but that have noone that can take on Hillary Clinton right now.


    I'm a bombastic fat guy. Rather bigger, in fact, than Chris Christie. Bigger then Limbaugh. Weight has NO influence on intelligence, douchebaggery, political whatever. None.

    It is not okay to shame anyone, even someone you intensely dislike or even hate, for a physical characteristic they may or may not have a lot of control over. It makes you look bad and mean; more importantly, it allows your opponents to point and say, "See? S/he hasn't got anything! They resort to insults and fat jokes!"

    (Never mind that they do they same. Then tend to be damn quick and repetitive with a microphone.)

    Christie is an ass, a bully, possibly a criminal, certainly unfit to be president. Don't even mention his weight, dammit. It's unimportant to the conversation.

    And it makes me wonder what you'd say about other people who, no matter what kind of person they are, have weight problems. Like me.

    Tom Smith Online
    I want a leader who shoots for the moon. The last time we had one, we got to the moon.

    by filkertom on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 10:21:03 AM PST

  •  Are any weaker than GWB? (0+ / 0-)

    No background, no appreciable intelligence, no agenda more inspiring or sensible than bigass tax cuts for the rich.  

    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 Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 10:22:59 AM PST

  •  What about the Democratic bench? (0+ / 0-)

    If Hillary doesn't run, who is there?

  •  Rand Paul is dangerous. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The man is nuts, but he has enough superficial appeal to win. He's the greatest threat to Hillary...or Schweitzer, or Warren (who I still hope will run).

    "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

    by HeyMikey on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 10:31:57 AM PST

    •  No, he isn't. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Scandalous One

      Rand Paul is one of the least likely candidates to be able to control his scary level of Crazy. He's probably the candidate I fear least, except for Ted Cruz, who is hated by other Republicans and who exudes evil.

      Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it.

      by anastasia p on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 12:36:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I hope you're right. (0+ / 0-)

        But I don't think so.

        "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

        by HeyMikey on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 12:56:52 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  He won't make it through the primary (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Kentucky DeanDemocrat, HeyMikey

        But I think a libertarian is the only Republican who could win right now.  A lot of 20-somethings would go for a drug legalization, abolishing the NSA, ending drone strikes, etc.

        Hillary won't do any of that.

        Praxis: Bold as Love

        by VelvetElvis on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 06:13:52 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The GOP won't do any of it either (0+ / 0-)

          no matter how many libertarian fantasies say otherwise. Have you noticed the House GOP voting on any of those issues, in between votes to repeal the ACA and to bomb either Iran, Syria, or (next week) the Ukraine? No, me neither.

          •  Don't be so sure. (0+ / 0-)
            On drug sentencing, a growing number of Republicans are ready to shed the party’s law-and-order image in favor of reform.

            Rand Paul had been talking for 20 minutes, strumming all the familiar chords. He was the gala keynoter for the annual American Principles Project, a 5-year-old social conservative group best known recently for running TV ads against Liz Cheney. (The ads, funded by APP’s political arm, attacked Cheney’s advocacy for “government benefits for gay couples.”) Paul had criticized  the New York Times, defended the now-lapsed cuts of sequestration, and warned that a “Republican-lite” party was doomed to lose. Standard stuff.

            So he started challenging the crowd. “As Christians, we believe in forgiveness,” said Paul. “I think the criminal justice system should have some element of forgiveness.” There are, sure, human terrors who need to be locked up. “But there are also people who make youthful mistakes who I believe deserve a second chance. In my state, you never vote again if you’re convicted of a felony. But a felony could be growing marijuana plants in college. Friend of mine’s brother did 30 years ago. He has an MBA. But he can’t vote, can’t own a gun, and he’s a house-painter with an MBA, because he has to check a box saying he’s a convicted felon.”

            Paul’s audience, consisting of social conservatives, congressional candidates, and radio hosts, listened or nodded along.

            “These are ideas not many Republicans have talked about before,” Paul said. “I think if we talk about these ideas, we take them to the minority community, often the African-American and sometimes the Hispanic community—3 out of 4 people in prison are black and brown! But if you look at surveys on who uses drugs, whites and blacks and Hispanic use at about the same rate. You don’t have as good an attorney if you don’t have money. Some of the prosecution has tended to go where it’s easier to prosecute people.”

            The crowd stayed with him.

            “I think these are things we should look at. I’m not talking about legalization. I’m talking about making the criminal justice system fair and giving people a second chance if they served their time,” Paul said.


            Notice Paul is appealing here to Christians, the business (MBA/entrepreneur crowd), the low-tax crowd (worried about cost of prisons), pure libertarians, people worried about racial justice, and radio hosts. And, implicitly, young voters. This is a powerful, canny coalition-building pitch.

            The GOP will adapt or die. It sure as hell does not intend to die. The only question is whether its adaptations will be successful. They might be.

            "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

            by HeyMikey on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 11:09:27 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  The GOP presidential bench is awful (0+ / 0-)



    ... but in a good way.

  •  Do not be so sure... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    There is nothing "overwhelming" about the Democratic position at this time.  In fact, just the opposite is true.

    There is a ton of "buyers' remorse" about re-electing Obama in the wake of the ACA mess, such that if the election had been held in 13, Romney would have won:

    We're especially in trouble if we lose the Senate, which seems likely to some:

    They've already conceded the House:

    This is no time for complacency.  We need to get the party straightened out, and we need to get it done SOON.

    •  That is (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      why so many people are behind nominating Hillary. She had NOTHING to do with Obama's poor economic decisions.

      It's the policy stupid

      by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 11:39:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  make sure you go to politico for all your info,cuz (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ky DEM

      they're like totally unbiased, and way outside the Washington bubble...

    •  'Romney would have won' (0+ / 0-)

      And if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

      Had Reagan been up in 1982 instead of 1984, Mondale would have won.  Had Nader not been a huge lying egomaniac dildo, Gore would have ...

      You get the idea.

      Done is done.

      •  Go ahead, make the mistake of thinking this is '12 (0+ / 0-)

        or even 08 for that matter.

        The polling data shows that Obama would lose were the election held today.

        You can say "done is done" all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the "ground" on which 16 (and certainly not this years Midterms) will be fought is NOT the Dem-favorable ground that we had previously.

        •  And yet, ALL polls show Hillary Clinton (0+ / 0-)

          beating every Republican opponent, not just beating them, crushing them in many cases.   With Hillary Clinton a well known quantity to all, her numbers will remain solid, it is some of the other GOP candidates that are lesser known (i.e. Huckabee) that can be defined downwards quite a bit once people get to know what craziness he really stands for.

          So, how do you parse your handwringing about what polls show us to be difficult times for Democrats with Hillary Clinton's stellar showing against all of the potential GOP candidates?    It really does not make sense for YOU to dismiss her (given the polls we are seeing) while at the same time you worry about polls that show Democrats with less oomph than in 2012.  

          •  I'm NOT "dismissing" her at all... (0+ / 0-)

            I'm cautioning against this "we got it in the bag" mentality that seems to be pervading the political Left regarding 16.

            If Dems are on the wrong side of the win/lose equation right now, how much worse will it be when HRC gets hit with 10s of millions of dollars of Koch funded attack ads over and over and over and over.

            And those ads won't be direct attacks against HRC.  They'll be the same sorts of ads that Obama himself used in 08:

            "Do you want 4 more years of what we've had these last few?"

             "We're on the wrong course and need to go a different direction."

            "Are you better off now then you were before?"

            And in 16 they'll have (if nothing is done to fix things before then) 2 more years of ACA "gotchas".  2 more years of NSA spying.  2 more years of chronic long-term unemployment.

            It will be VERY fertile ground for the exact same sort of  "We're mad as H*ll and we aren't gonna take any more!" uprising that Obama rode to power.

            That doesn't mean I think that there's NO chance for HRC.  But it's definitely NOT by any means in the bag for her.  She's gonna have to do something that I don't see the Dems doing much of right now: admitting that things haven't gone well these last few years.  Taking ownership of the failing ACA.

            In other words, HRC will have to be HONEST with the voters, and not try to sell them on a load of "We've done such good work!  Elect me and I'll give you MORE of our 'good work'!"

            She's gonna have to reach out to BOTH wings of the Dems.  To the Center/Moderates, she's going to have to come clean (if Obama isn't forced to do so first) and pledge to either fix or replace ACA.  She's going to have to accede to an "enforcement first" immigration policy.

            To the Far Left she's going to have to pledge the same on ACA (ironically).  She's going to have to make a BINDING pledge on re-regulation, and restoring sane levels of taxation, and a bunch of other issues.

            Do you think she can pull that off?

            •  As I said in another post (0+ / 0-)

              They tried this "Are you better off now than before" bit in 2012 and were soundly defeated.  You know what?  We ARE better off economically than we were in 2012, at least marginally.  Unemployment went down, the economy grew more, the deficit has shrunk dramatically, etc.   People are mad at the GOP, first and foremost.  They don't like the obstructionist party, their standard bearers have catastrophic approval numbers, and people are tired of the nuts that show up every week or so, speaking for the GOP (latest examples Ted Nugent and the idiots in Arizona with their anti-gay bill.)  

              I think you are wrong here.  Of course, time will tell.  

              •  In order: (0+ / 0-)

                1) Only on the "wholesale" level (GDP growth).  People are still hurting badly, and things are not getting better.  Prices are up, wages are flat or down, hours cut, etc.

                2) Unemployment is NOT down when measured properly (including all the discouraged workers, expired benefit workers, etc).

                3) The deficit is projected to start rising again (possibly significantly) within a few years at most.  CBO says so.

                4) People are mad PERIOD. At BOTH parties.  And that makes for a "turn the rascals out" mood a la 08.  That means a Republican win if things don't change before then.

                Anyone subscribing to the "We're winning! We're winning!" theory needs to get out of the policy wonk filled conference rooms at Democrat Headquarters and come out here to Main Street USA and really talk to people, or more importantly LISTEN to them.

                •  A Republican? No way. (0+ / 0-)

                  It won't be a cake walk, but we have a lot of advantages, and they continue to grow.  I think you are wrong on several fronts:

                  Unemployment IS down from the high we saw in 2009.  Sure, there are some who back out of the market, but at the same time as the unemployment has gone down below 7% others who had given up and were not part of the job market re-entered the market as well.  

                  People are mad primarily at the GOP, by a large margin.  They understand that the economy we are in is still in recovery mode from the Bush disaster in 2008.  They are also hopping mad that Republicans are not interested in governing at all, just obstructing.  Thus, they are seen as a big reason we haven't fully recovered yet.  

                  The body with the absolute worst approval is the US House, with approval at low to mid-teens, absolutely catastrophic.  So, if the American people are in a "turn the rascals out" mood, they will go after the GOP.  

                  Also, generic congressional ballot, Dems ahead by 4 points over GOP, 2 weeks in a row:


                  It is in the realm of possibilities that a GOPer might win the presidency, but it is highly unlikely.  READ the polls.  They ALL lose big.  Your statement that "a Republican will win if things don't change before then" is ridiculous, based on all the evidence we have.  It makes no sense.

                  •  Read this: (0+ / 0-)


                    According to the results of the survey, conducted Feb. 19-23 and released on Wednesday, 59 percent of Americans said the president did not live up to their expectations, while 40 percent said they were satisfied. That's a decline from August 2012, when the same poll showed 47 percent of Americans disappointed and 52 percent not.

                    And while much of the anti-Obama sentiment is attributed to Republicans — 91 percent say they are disappointed in Obama — nearly a quarter (24 percent) of Democrats say they are at least somewhat disappointed in the president, the poll found.

                    Meanwhile, Obama has seen disapproval among independents grow since August 2012, when 27 percent said they were very disappointed in him; the new poll reveals 40 percent of independents are very disappointed and 60 percent at least somewhat.

                    Not that last paragraph, because it is the all important one.  It will be the Independents/Moderate Middle that makes or breaks the election, and they have turned anti Obama, which will spill over into being anti Democrat.
        •  Polls are fluid (0+ / 0-)

          Every President has a low point in their presidency where the public express some buyers remorse. Reagan got down to 27% approval rating at one point during the height of the Iran Contra scandal.

          We are still way out from 2016 and with ACA enrollments going full speed ahead and the economy slowly improving the landscape will look very different by then. I believe Obama will leave office one of the more popular Presidents in US history.  

    •  Nonsense that Romney would have won in 13 (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      That is not credible at all.  We do have demographic shifts on our side, and that advantage grows stronger every year.  You are seriously overstating the ACA mess here, apparently buying into right-wing spin.  The ACA's popularity and unpopularity has always been relatively close, with, say, 53% disliking it and 47% liking it (or thereabouts.)   BUT, the dirty little secret is that crosstabs show that about 11% of respondents dislike the ACA because to them it does not go FAR ENOUGH.  They want to see single payer instead.  Thus, turn the numbers on their heads, as the question should really be something like "Do you like the ACA and or an even more inclusive system called single payer health care OR do you like the previous status quo on health care?"

      The ACA is growing in popularity as we speak, Obama is back to normal territory in terms of his own popularity (daily tracker Rasmussen has him between 52% and 50% popularity right now for the last week.)  

      •  The scientific polling says otherwise, florida (0+ / 0-)

        regarding the "if today" issue.

        And "demographic shifts" are awfully shaky grounds to base electoral calculus on.

        One of the things Dems SHOULD be doing is actually pulling BACK on the Far Left/Hyper-Progressive fringe a little on issues like family values, religion, et al.

        The White Working Class still has large pockets of harnessable progressive tendencies that would be a huge boost to Democratic margins if only they didn't feel like they weren't wanted because of the tendency of Progressives (which they share with the TEA crowd by the way) of looking at anyone who doesn't check off all the "tick boxes" on the party line as an enemy.

        Read Andrew Levinson's excellent book "The White Working Class Today".  Excellent evaluation of the complex values of a demo that the Dems seem too willing to abandon.

        •  Well (0+ / 0-)

          I do agree with you here about the white working class. I guess you have forgotten that Hillary and Bill actually went into these towns and talked to them and listened to their problems and explained how what she was offering would actually help them with their lives. Obama not only abandonded these people but virtually called them names. That's how you get them to ignore what we are offering them and vote for Republicans.

          The truth of the matter is the entire working class is suffering right now not only white ones.

          It's the policy stupid

          by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 04:25:59 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Thier bench is terrible, Clinton or not (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    anastasia p

    I think we have half a dozen people or more who could beat anyone they put up.

    “Hardworking men and women who are busting their tails in full-time jobs shouldn't be left in poverty.” -- Elizabeth Warren

    by Positronicus on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 11:21:22 AM PST

  •  clinton world (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chuckvw, WillR

    will be her baggage.

  •  They don't have a decent woman; that is their big (0+ / 0-)

    problem. Their women are extreme and/or tokens.

    tipped and rec'ed

    nosotros no somos estúpidos

    by a2nite on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 11:30:26 AM PST

  •  Right, so let's just skip the next several months (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    left of center, chuckvw, Panbanisha

    of pie wars and hand HRC the nomination already. Because we all have to fall in line and claim our allegiance anyways.

    Then we can focus our attacks on the Republicans and their Bill Clinton penis jokes.

    "The next time everyone will pay for it equally, and there won't be any more Chosen Nations, or any Others. Poor bastards all." ~The Boomer Bible

    by just another vet on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 11:32:28 AM PST

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

    "failed wars, wrecked economies, huge deficits, crumbling cities, financial crashes, high gas prices, government corruption and corporate malfeasance"

    Sounds more like Obama to me!

    But seriously, I think Hill has too much baggage.

    It's funny how you have to attack someone for being overweight.  

  •  Who can republicans turn to in a clutch? (2+ / 0-)
    If you're a Republican, however, this situation cannot possibly look good. So who can you turn to in a clutch? Who can Republicans call on to retake control of the nation's capitol and steer the ship of government their way? Who among them has the experience, character, and record of accomplishment that will give them the ability to challenge the stench of certain defeat?
    I thought the answer was going to be SCOTUS because that's who they looked to last time they 'won' an open presidential seat

    Women do 2/3 of the world's work, receive 10% of the world's income and own 1% of the means of production.

    by LibrErica on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 12:35:48 PM PST

  •  But if HRC decides not to run I'll (0+ / 0-)

    be worried. We could be looking at Pres. Christie or Ryan or Walker easily IMO (and polls show it).

    I don't think Joe Biden would be a good candidate - he's got a reputation and a self-feeding meme about him that can be disastrous and a distraction during a Pres. campaign.

    All that said, why would a woman who clearly wants to be Pres. (or did) walk away when all signs point to her winning relatively easy.

    •  No (0+ / 0-)

      polls do not show it. Polls show her beating every one them by double digits except for Paul Ryan that she beats by 8 points.

      It's the policy stupid

      by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 01:39:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Everyone knows... (0+ / 0-)

        ...HRC by face and by name. Relatively few could pick Ryan out of a lineup.

        The mushy middle (who usually determines which of the two parties controls the Administration) responds to name/face recognition and it's actually scary that she isn't double digits over Ryan at this point. 90% of the public could match HRC to her picture and would be unable to match Ryan to his. If Ryan were to get the GOP nomination, the name/face recognition advantage would disappear in a couple weeks.

        If Ryan doesn't do stupid stuff (not by progressive standards, but by mushy middle standards), his star will rise. This is actually true of any relative unknown. HRC's star has no chance of rising dramatically - everyone with a pulse has already formed an opinion about her, consciously or unconsciously. Her star will only diminish relative to an unknown who figures out how to shine brighter than "who is that?" level.

        HRC has a lot of baggage. Progressives don't love her (Walmart board anyone?). Anyone skittish about  the ACA will be even more skittish about her attempt at Health Care Reform which was more extreme (and, people skittish about the ACA are usually not calling for Single Payer now).

      •  I'm saying if she doesn't run - (0+ / 0-)

        polls show other dems like Biden not doing so well against GOP

  •  I remember when... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ky DEM

    GWB was president and I was pining for an alternate reality where Jeb was president instead.  That's.  How. Bad. It. Was.

    What's the difference between the Federal government and organized crime? One's legally sanctioned.

    by FrankenPC on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 06:05:16 PM PST

  •  There should still be a Democratic primary and (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chuckvw, WillR


    If a nominee is just magically appointed, it will hurt base turnout.


    •  Not necessarily (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Scandalous One

      I get the feeling some people are so used to having endless and divisive primaries that you can't imagine it any other way.

      Here's the alternative -- more like 2012 than 2008: We have token primaries but with no real race, so our side doesn't spend gazillions of dollars attacking each other and in the process weakening the eventual nominee. Instead, we focus on organizing ground game and GOTV for November, while eating popcorn and watching the GOP loonies scrap and fight.

      A primary does not necessarily excite your base, and lack of a contested one does not necessarily hurt.

      •  The difference between... (0+ / 0-)

        ...2008 and 2012 is that one was an incumbency. Voters tend to trust the incumbent unless things are going horribly pearshaped. Yes, in 2012, Obama hadn't accomplished what he had promised, but at least things hadn't gotten worse.

        The power of the incumbency is incredible - and neither party has it in the next POTUS election. In fact, it should be very concerning that Obama didn't do better against Romney, who was a very weak candidate, in the popular vote. Yes, I know popular vote isn't what matters and what POTUS campaigns optimize for, but it's an interesting bellwether to track nonetheless.

        Biden is as close to an incumbent as there is and he's completely unelectable if the Republicans put any rational candidate up (which is, of course, a big "if" given the last two elections). HRC, even with all her baggage, is a way better bet. Anyone Biden can beat, HRC can beat - the inverse is not true.

  •  Mitt Romney (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Mitt will be the nominee.

    An object with 3 sides is called a “Triangle”
    An object with 4 sides is called a “Rectangle”
    An object with 5 sides is called a "Pentagon"
    An object with 6 sides is called a “Hexagon”
    An object with 12 sides is called a “Dodecahedron”
    An object with an infinite number of sides is called a “Romneygone”

  •  As a true progressive... (0+ / 0-)

    ...I will only vote for zombie undead Henry Wallace.

    I'd vote for zombie undead Eugene Debs, but I'm concerned that without a caucus behind him in Congress, he might not be able to pass any legislation.

    That plus the fact that he'd be an undead zombie.

    "Politics is not the art of the possible.
    It consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable" J.K. Galbraith

    by Davis X Machina on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 06:24:50 PM PST

  •  I Love Hillary (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Panbanisha, Scandalous One

    She will kick Republican ass, only the backbench third stringers will be crazy enough to run against her, she will drive the rightwing completely over the cliff, and she will peel a lot of women GOP voters off behind those closed curtains. But the sight of Hillary and Bill back in the White House will remind people of the Greatness of this Country before the George W/Cheney Clusterfuck.

  •  The establishment GOP will throw in the towel (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Scandalous One

    Let the tea baggers nominate a crazy person and hope HRC gets a 15-20 point popular vote win so they can take control in 2020.

  •  Their bench is pretty deep actually (0+ / 0-)


    Scott Walker (WI) - Could play well in the MidWest; won in  blue state
    Brian Sandoval (NV) - Moderate hispanic GOV in blue state
    Susana Martinez (NM) - Moderate Latina GOV in blue state
    Bobby Jindal (LA) - Indian background/Minority
    Nikki Haley (SC)  - Indian background/Minority
    John Kasich (OH) - GOV of crucial swing state


    Marco Rubio - Young, Latino, from critical swing state

    Kelly Ayotte - Moderate female from swing state

    Rand Paul - Could appeal to younger voters

    They have a lot of young diverse people as Governors and in the Senate while we have Hillary Clinton anyone of those names listed above could run and win the nomination and possibly win against Clinton. To say their bench is awful is not looking at the facts more than a few of them are actually pretty formidable opponents.

    •  I don't think any of them could be framed... (0+ / 0-) strong candidates except in the context of depicting Clinton as flawed and other words, with an ax to grind.  Rather than go down the whole list, I'll only note that Ayotte has a serious obstruction-of-justice scandal that would get lots of play if she even ran for President, and small-state governors haven't fared very well presidentially.  Rand Paul is the strongest candidate on your list in my opinion, but I don't think he has the message discipline to get through the primaries much less the general election.

      It's not the side effects of the cocaine/I'm thinking that it must be love

      by Rich in PA on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 06:45:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Nikki Haley (0+ / 0-)

      is a very weak candidate. She's a far right republican from a red state. She's a minority version of Sarah Palin. Bobby Jindal--have you seen him talk? It brings howls of laughter.

      It's the policy stupid

      by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 04:35:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  2016 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Hopefully, the Republicans won't try to steal the election this time, and that Florida has cleaned up it's act so that no one has to stand in line for hours upon hours to vote, because there aren't enough machines at certain areas.

  •  Is it necessary to call Christie "fat?" (0+ / 0-)

    I generally don't consider myself too much interested in political correctness, but this is just stupid. Why lower yourself to such idiotic discourse? Are all wonderful liberals and Democrats lean and physically fit and beautiful? I don't think so.

    I'm a little tired of this. Tired of hearing Limbaugh is fat, or some other criticism of someone's looks because we don't like them. Republican policies are horrible enough that personal attacks are not helpful, but do provide ammunition for the other side. Is it wrong for Ted Nugent to call Obama a "subhuman mongrel" but okay for us to call Christie fat? I guess so.

    Not that it matters, but this doesn't apply to me. I (am not beautiful in the least but I) do Ironman triathlons and ultramarathons. So this doesn't "hit home," but I'm not so clueless as to throw around such pointless insults. They aren't necessary and my first impression of brooklyn "bad boy" is that he lacks class. How's that.

    Oh, I didn't read the rest of his diary in depth. After the "fat" comment, I figured he didn't have anything useful to contribute other than criticizing someone's weight.

    PS. And yes, I wish Franken didn't put "fat" in the title of his book.

    •  I beg to differ (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      My impression of brooklynbadboy is that he is a Democrat who has great humor and who talks like regular folks in the real world outside Dkos. You said you aren't interested in political correctness but you are been very PC in your swipe against him.  

      And yes Christie is fat. That is a fact not an opinion. To compare BBB bringing up that fact in his thread to Nugent's baseless vitriol against the President is beyond the pale to say the least.

  •  BBB.. it won't be a slam dunk by (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kentucky DeanDemocrat

    any stretch of the imagination.   We still have sexism ramping every single day.. Anyone but a woman..
    Then there is the Anyone but a Clinton...  I personally am all for Clinton but there are thousands and thousands ....maybe millions of so called christians who believe a WOMAN is not supposed to be head of anything.
    Including dems.   Scares me a little

    We the People have to make a difference and the Change.....Just do it ! Be part of helping us build a veteran community online. United Veterans of America

    by Vetwife on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 06:56:05 PM PST

  •  I remember 1964 and 1972 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    both totally lopsided blow-out elections, one ours, one theirs. (My first vote ever was for George McGovern in the 1972 Pennsylvania primary. In 1964 I was in junior high school and had an election-night party to watch the results, with one poor soul supporting Goldwater but we invited him anyway. He later turned into a long-haired hippy who could laugh about his youthful mistake.)

  •  2016 will very likely be a Democratic rout (5+ / 0-)

    And this is more likely the case the better the GOP does in 2014, because the more the nation understands the implications of having the current crop of Republicans in power, the more likely they are to return as much of that power to the Democratic side in the next presidential year.  This is why I believe that GOP operatives should be praying that the Senate is not returned to their leadership this year.

    And I while I concur that most any Democrat would be formidable in 2016 against any of the current GOP crop of candidates, I truly believe that Hillary Rodham Clinton, even with all the calumny of the most vehemently anti-Clinton voices of the past several decades (within and out of the MSM and beltway media) could well lead a forty-state route in the vein of LBJ in 1964.

    She alone possesses a coalition of forces without precedent in politics--the campaign organizations of Obama and Clinton, with the most dynamic group of seasoned politicians in our nation's history, with Barack and Michelle and Bill of course leading the troops.  There is also the amazing imprimatur of having all Democratic women senators in her column even before Hillary's formal declaration, and what promises to be a chorus of former old-guard GOP women to cross party lines on her behalf in the general election.

    Yes, she carries all the baggage and scars of some four decades in politics.  But with that, she carries the supreme wisdom of her long political past, and a keen comprehension of the process and its entire vicissitudes that too is veritably without precedent.

    Here in my native Ohio, a recent state-wide poll has her leading GOP Governor John Kasich in a hypothetical 2016 presidential match-up by an overwhelming fourteen points.  This comes at a time when Kasich is attempting to take credit for a recovering Ohio economy owed almost entirely to the efforts of team Obama to help bail-out the auto industry, whose local plants are cardinal to Ohio solvency--a bail-out Kasich and his fellow GOP members at the time derided persistently.

    And while it is an axiom that even a week can become a changing political lifetime, it is also a certainty that if one's opposition--untested on the national scene, and at a period of claiming to have more favorables--can do no better than being fourteen points behind, in this most legendary of bell-weather states, that itself is precedent-shattering formidable.

    I do not know that Hillary will choose to run.  But I am as certain as I have ever been of anything that I have witnessed in politics that should she be the nominee, far from ending up an extremely close also-ran as she did in 2008, Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2016 has the makings of leading a juggernaut that itself will have had no precedent in American politics.   And this, no matter which is the candidate of the other side.

  •  this is the diary i will point to from now on (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    When a feminist tells me that male politicians aren't judged on the appearance. And for the record, Hillary already sold out to the banks. If you want to just win elections you might have your candidate. If you were looking for a progressive than you've severely misjudged her.

  •  John Thune, guys. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Never heard much of him?  Exactly.   The guy knows when to shut up and stay quiet.  It's the only reason he's the #4 Republican.  Watch out.

  •  The Bench Really Is Threadbare Going Into 2016 (0+ / 0-)

    We ought to stock it.

  •  I'm not ready to vote for a woman... (0+ / 0-)

    ...that doesn't understand economics. Hillary has no background, nor demonstrated interest in economics. Biden knows economics. So does Warren. Either would be a more sensible Democratic nominee for president in 2016. Can't think of another woman in the running on our side besides Warren, so if she's out as she says, I'm not ready to vote for a woman just for the sake of voting for a woman. We did that for the sake of electing a black person in 2008 and look what a crap job he's done since he was clueless about economics. Be honest.

    •  Surely you jest? (0+ / 0-)

      You are taking the identity politics thing waaay too far and it's rather offensive.  "We" did not vote for Obama based on his race and "we" will not be voting for Hillary based on her gender.

      It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

      by Radiowalla on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 08:15:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, please (0+ / 0-)

        Of course a lot of liberals / progressives, likely most of them, voted for Obama because he was black. He rode in on what were heavily promoted by his impressive machine as rousing, clever speeches about the color of America (purple). He had the advantage of being an unknown black, by and large, young, good looking, energetic, with a delightful wife and adorable family; the new black. But he did not know the main thing we needed a powerful president to know (and with near-enough to be called supermajorities in Congress he was the most powerful newly elected president Johnson) economics. He did not. It was a problem. The same would be true of Hillary Clinton and her presidency will be as polarizing and stultifying to democracy in this country as Obama's has, probably worse. Just because we'd rather elect a type rather than a well-qualified candidate.

  •  Really ? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    historys mysteries

    "On the other side, the most famous and admired woman in the entire world." D'oh, so Angela Merkel is running for President of the USA ?

    Born in NM, in France for now, Socialist gay atheist

    by NMFrog on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 09:32:51 PM PST

  •  One HUGE problem (0+ / 0-)

    No- the GOP doesn't have the problem - the Democrats do. See... the Presidential power is now known to be very weak as far as policy and legislation goes. Other than foreign excursions and some bully pulpit wins, not a damn thing can get passed in a divided Congress. And next go - around it won't be divided. THe Senate is about to crumble and become a 65-35 GOP majority and the house is going to be even more strongly controlled by idiots. Imagine a veto-proof repeal of Obamacare! Or a veto proof ban on gay marriage nationwide. How about a Corporate Tax rate of 4% and an elimination of unemployment insurance and the privatization of Social Security. Can't happen? RIght! THe will of the PEOPLE and all that. Can you say Gun Control? Breaking up banks? Extending Unemployment? Feeding people? With Obama gone and Hillary in the White House, only a pundit could believe that magically the Koch Brothers will become uninterested in further destructive agenda items. They still don't run EVERYTHING!

  •  It's more than POTUS and the White House (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    historys mysteries

    The strategy for Hillary (or the eventual candidate, if it's not her) must be this...

    Go to EACH AND EVERY STATE and make the message clear: "You can support me, and that's great, but if you don't vote for (Democratic Congressional Candidates in that state) and (Democratic Senatorial Candidate, if applicable) then don't bother, because without a Democratic Congress and a SOLIDLY Democratic Senate, I can not deliver. As long as you support Republicans who obstruct America's success and progress, no Democratic President can deliver what you need and want."

    The Democratic Candidate for POTUS must fight for the House and Senate they want.

  •  I've been predicting Jeb for two years (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    historys mysteries

    Not because he wants it, or he's competent, but because the "field" is going to drop one at a time due to felony. The Big Dog is not only a good explainer, he's patient. He will not attack any of them, and neither will Hillary. Let them destroy one another until the guy sitting on the sidelines is the only one left. It's a lot cheaper.

  •  Yeah, but they almost have figured out how... (0+ / 0-)

    to resurrect Reagan...

    For the life of me, I can't think also of who else they would dig up to construct their 2016 Frankenstein Monster Candidate:

    In the last 100 years (1913 to 2013), let's consider what GOPers (or even Dixiecrats or Southern Democrats) that would be able to fly to election in this crazy GOP/TPer party atmosphere...

    Who among them would want:

    Taft, Harding, Coolidge (he's cool), Hoover, Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford...

    A few weirdos and many of them with accomplishments that would make a Teabagguer's head explode...

    And then think of the stinkers of the past, like Strom Thurmond (Democrat, Dixiecrat, Republican), who would not make it against a Clinton or Warren ticket.

    Nope. Not gonna happen.

    Gotta raise the dead saints.

    Ugh. --UB.

    "Daddy, every time a bell rings, a Randian Libertaria­n picks up his Pan Am tickets for the Libertaria­n Paradise of West Dakota!"

    by unclebucky on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 04:46:18 AM PST

  •  About the only non-crazy one..... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    that I can think of would be Jon Huntsman.  

  •  It's always fun making fun of Republicans (0+ / 0-)

    physical attributes.  Take note fat, small framed and balding people.  You may be mistaken for a Republican.  

    If I comply with non-compliance am I complying? Sarcasm is the ability to insult stupid people without them realizing it.

    by thestructureguy on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 07:50:43 AM PST

  •  Jeb (0+ / 0-)

    Actually the Republicans should keep Jeb Bush away from news reports as much as possible.  Don't want him to implode like all the other potential Teapublican presidential candidates.  He should use the next 32 months to take the best possible step to improve his electability: change his last name.  There is no way in the world that any intelligent American will vote for a Bush again.  The operative word above is "intelligent," so that leaves out Teapublicans.

  •  I think the next set of GOP Pres Debates (0+ / 0-)

    Should come with a higher Arbitron rating as they are so darn fun to watch with all the clapping and cheering over "death to poor people and gays" going on.

  •  What a nightmare (0+ / 0-)

    The only chance the Republiclowns have would be to draft Colin Powell. This would drive the Tea Partiers and conservatives to suicide. What a wonderful thought. I think Powell, Cheney, Dubya, and Dumsfeld should stand trial. So I am no fan of Powell. As for Jug Bush, he would be as bad as his brother. Republicans the destroyers of the economy and the middle class.

  •  Hilary? (0+ / 0-)

    Having grown up in the sixties, it's amazing to think that Obama is "left." Same with Hilary. They both seem far to the right of Eisenhower, and, in many ways, to the right of Nixon. In the lead-up to the last election, it seemed like Hilary was a war-mongering hawk, and Obama a bit more peaceful. He, of course, has proved not to be, by expanding drone murders in many countries, depending on black-op type actions, and concealing the terrorism our policies perpetrate. Don't think Hilary will be any better. What we seem to have now is a choice between middle of the road Republicans and right-wing extremists. I, for one, don't think it's much of a choice. It's time we looked for leaders who have the strength to move us back to the left.

  •  Not a single one (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I have not seen nor heard of a Republican that is qualified to be President of the United Sates of America. The Media is talking about Christie, Walker, Kasick, Bush, Paul, Ryan, Cruz, now there is a real idiot for you, and Rubio just to name a few. Not a single one of these idiots are qualified to be President of the United States of America. I challenge anyone to prove me wrong>

  •  This could just as easily have been written in 98. (0+ / 0-)

    And look what happened. Anointed, competent, worthy, intelligent but boring Al Gore "lost" to appointed, incompetent, unworthy, brick stupid but "fun" Dubya.

    So another liberal thinks Hillary Clinton is liberal, and has a better than 50% chance against any likely Republican nominee. Cute, but it's getting tiresome.

    She's a terrible campaigner. She cannot beat anybody who can stand up to her and/or has any charisma at all. Call her on her fakery and she folds like a house of cards. If she can't beat an obscure black guy with an African name in IOWA then maybe she can't beat Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, or yes even Jeb Bush in the general. I really would call any of those a 50-50 shot, even before the swiftboating. Seriously.

    Hillary's vaunted "inevitability" is pure bullshit, just like almost all of her "virtues". That's just what the establishment is trying to sell us.

    Besides, Hillary IS a Republican in all but name, and if she does win she'll sell us out far worse than her husband or Obama ever did. We. Cannot. Trust. Her. Period.

    She never did any of us any good except in the State Department, where the skills she does have could be put to use while her ruthless ambition was kept in check.

    Anti-Hillary sentiment runs deeper and stronger than you know, among both progressives and conservatives. Who else had an entire PAC devoted to nothing but making sure she never sits in the big chair? Before she even announced? You think I hate and mistrust her? You ain't seen nothing yet.

    by Edward L Cote on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 04:25:15 PM PST

    •  I think you underestimate the pro-Hillary (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      sentiment in this country.  Go ahead and unload your grievances, real and imagined, but unless you come up with a real alternative (someone who "can stand up to her," and who has "any charisma at all"), all you are doing is ventilating.  

      It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

      by Radiowalla on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 04:33:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  jeb Bush (0+ / 0-)

    Some folks should remember that he was caught telling lies about the worth of a building he wanted to rehabilitate during the Savings and Loan Scandal of the 80's. Many Repubs hope to sweep this under the rug, but the entire family is corrupt. Neal was also caught and made the scapegoat for the rest of the family. The truth is that George HW was  involved as well, but managed to make the trial in Texas "go away", never take place. Info is available if you truly are willing to dig.

  •  I would not be so quick to dismiss JEB from the (0+ / 0-)

    GOP nomination and am willing to bet that he will present a viable challenge to Hillary in the general. I lived in Florida throughout his time as governor and the lesser of the bushies has much charisma and charm and is very practiced at playing politics, meaning supplying rhetoric that fails to answer any questions that he wants to avoid answering. This makes him dangerous. He is more articulate than his older brother by far, so he will not slip up in his speeches; he is married to a hispanic and speaks the Spanish language fluently, so he will be able to appeal to that sector of the electorate, especially if he comes out in favor of immigration reform, which he undoubtedly will; and, finally, he is FAR more intelligent than Shrub, not that that is saying much.

    As far as blaming the wars on Shrub's younger brother, good luck making that charge stick. My prediction is that he will take all the credit (and believe it, the GOP will be able to find some good in the war,  they always do) but shred all the blame.

    To say I find the GOP and the Bush brothers repulsive is an understatement; that is why I am so cautious and feel the need to warn y'all against writing him off.

  •  I strongly suspect... (0+ / 0-)

    that another Bush candidate would set new records for slaughter.  While perhaps unfair, the comparisons with the prior family members would preclude a whole lot of voters, the dismal record of previous administrations would weigh down any campaign, and his record in Florida would immediately take center stage.  No offense, but Florida isn't currently seen as the model of a functional democracy with justice for all.

    However, he would likely do wonders for voter suppression, just for the wrong party.  I can't see him rallying the GOP to the cause, especially against Hillary.  

  •  And yet (0+ / 0-)

    I predict it will be a closer election than either of Barack Obama's wins. Never count out Americans for voting against their own interests when they choose to show up!

  •  The list... (0+ / 0-)

    Let's see who is planning to pour out of that clown car for the election.  I've got the exploratory polling ballot right here in front of me, and it's a sad sight:
    Kelly Ayotte, Haley Barbour, John Bolton, Jeb Bush, Herman Cain, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Mitch Daniels, Newt Gingrich, Nikki Haley, Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindel, John Kasich, (I know your sides hurt, but there's more) Peter King, Susana Martinez, Sarah Palin, Rand Paul, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, Mike Pence, Rick Perry, Rob Pertman, Condoleezza (sic?) Rice, Marco Rubio, Rick Santorum, (they just keep piling out!) Tim Scott, John Thune, Scott Walker, Allen West ... is that the end?  Whew!!!  

  •  BAD NEWS BEARS! (0+ / 0-)

    You ever wonder HOW the Bush family has managed to keep it a secret that their family has been involved in scandelous, rogue behavior as far back as Sam Bush in pre-WWI as he helped (with the help of the Remington Arms family) to get the US into it for the purpose of profiteering?  

    If you follow the Bush family history, you'd be asking HOW has this despicable family NOT BEEN STOPPED WITH LEGAL ACTIONS for their MANY atrocities done to this nation for their own financial and political gain!

    GW's grandaddy, Prescott Bush was the largest NAZI money launderer for ADOLPH HITLER, and continued raising the Nazi's money throughout the war!  YES, even as the US was fighting them!

    Is it any wonder how 9/11 was an INSIDE job, and the 9/11 commission's report had 23 pages OMITTED by the Bush administration (Cheney, ROVE, and RUMSFELD....ALL GERMANS BY HERITAGE), that opened their door to destroy America from within?  They accelerated this DESTRUCTION with the Patriot Act, which, as Benjamin Franklin once warned, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."  WE LET THEM GET AWAY WITH THIS, but it remains within the POWER OF THE PEOPLE to change it back to restore our 1st Amendment rights that were taken from us at the risk of our own destruction!  

    BTW, Bush's Presidential OATH of office was DIRECTLY VIOLATED by this 1st Amendment destruction, which is well defined as TREASON!  This can be tacked on to his "contempt of Congress" for refusing to comply with a Congressional Subpoena!  (perhaps the GOP can think about THIS while they attack Obama for everything, even things as simple as using the wrong FORK for his salad)!  The AUDACITY of the GOP!

  •  Bad News Bears..... (0+ / 0-)

    OOPS!  I forgot the main point and conclusion:  NO MORE BUSH!!!!  They've done FAR, FAR TOO MUCH for (I mean, "TO") the USA already!

  •  another (0+ / 0-)

    repuke/bagger clown posse in the works.

  •  The GOP is awful. (0+ / 0-)

    Now what were you saying?

    No country can be both ignorant and free - Thomas Jefferson

    by fjb on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 12:06:31 PM PST

  •  I took my husband to the VA this morning for (0+ / 0-)

    an appointment.  While there, I picked up a newspaper to read, one a couple days old.  I turned to the editors page, and found an article by a local reporter who is a republican.  He stated that the country would be better off with Hillary Clinton then with any of the republicans that look like they will run.  He said he remembered his father who was a republican too, telling him that while he liked republicans, he was always better off financially with a democrate as president.  He said he believed that too.  If this man is representative of other more moderate republicans, that Hillary has an excellent chance of winning in many southern states.  This is by the way in north Florida.  Or some call it southern Georgia! The mind set here is pretty much more southern than central or southern Florida.  

  •  2014 election (0+ / 0-)

    Most folks too busy to watch much politics, but dems should have the easiest year ever regardless of their opponent's money. Ads must be succinct, to the point. Why not charts, graphs SHOWING folks their opponents great ideas like don't raise the minimum wage at a time when every single item has skyrocketed in price, everything, or keep busting unions so we can keep moms in the workplace and away from their children. Or how about repubs voting to cut from middle class, poor but have given more than ever to the rich? Those types of graphs show FACTS. A candidates' pretty picture telling us what they plan to do is same old same old and no one believes them. SHOW that in Ky, Obamacare works great; where repubs have fought it, people lose. Any dem. who loses probably deserves it for hiring some high priced ad agency w/old ideas that appeal.

  •  GOD FORBID! (0+ / 0-)

    The news that the Republicans are trying to recruit Jeb Bush as a possible presidential candidate in 2016 scares the living shit out of me. At this point, considering our country's present circumstances, I don't think America could SURVIVE another Bush presidency. Thank God, the Clinton political machine is a force to be reckoned with, and it's going to be difficult, if not impossible, for the GOP to find a viable candidate to run against Hillary Clinton in the next presidential election. However, the rosy projections of how her numbers are stacking up against individual Republicans who are considering tossing their hats into the campaign ring shouldn't lull us into a sense of complacency. Democrats must actively and strongly support her candidacy and get out the vote in 2016. As for whoever the GOP chooses to run against her, I'd sleep a lot better if I knew for certain that JEB BUSH wasn't going to run for president. Yikes.

  •  The GOP Bench is awful... (0+ / 0-)

    because that's all they have.

    Their 2012 lineup was so embarrassing and so ridiculous, I blushed every time one of them was on TV.

    At first, I thought it was some kind of a joke, but when they actually ran Romney, I finally realized they were actually SERIOUS!

    In a weird sort of way, I felt sorry for them.  

skybluewater, Alumbrados, paradox, MichaelPH, JWC, Mimikatz, Sylv, TXdem, Odysseus, native, MouseThatRoared, TheGreatLeapForward, SanJoseLady, red moon dog, Bob Friend, Matilda, emelyn, MarkInSanFran, davelf2, Morgana, concernedamerican, Merlin1963, CoolOnion, KMc, oceanview, artebella, dksbook, Texknight, RLF, Getreal1246, virginislandsguy, cosette, Diana in NoVa, econlibVA, side pocket, Gowrie Gal, bloomer 101, historys mysteries, Tinfoil Hat, ichibon, ajsuited, reflectionsv37, jane123, sunbro, Tunk, FindingMyVoice, mightymouse, Land of Enchantment, MadGeorgiaDem, edwardssl, Ky DEM, cookseytalbott, KenBee, gpoutney, Libby Shaw, Crashing Vor, katrinka, unclebucky, thenekkidtruth, CA Nana, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, blueoregon, crystal eyes, dochackenbush, cpresley, anna shane, Loudoun County Dem, camlbacker, EdSF, puakev, edsbrooklyn, FishOutofWater, wildweasels, Cofcos, Matt Z, mbh1023, jnhobbs, millwood, OIL GUY, Librarianmom, leonard145b, spearfish, TomP, Empower Ink, chicago minx, gizmo59, Mighty Ike, GAS, MikePhoenix, WilliamE, mamamedusa, Sixty Something, Youffraita, Involuntary Exile, NewDealer, elwior, filby, Americans for a Republican Irrelevancy, royce, icebergslim, Jeff Y, mattc129, watercarrier4diogenes, JBL55, clent, maggiejean, prettygirlxoxoxo, ragged but right, kevinpdx, Keith Pickering, nancat357, nocynicism, Lefty Ladig, Railfan, FogCityJohn, brunoboy, catwho, mookins, ATFILLINOIS, Egalitare, Jaimas, Storey, nirbama, kenwards, ericlewis0, fiercefilms, slice, theKgirls, kerflooey, Front Toward Enemy, MidwestTreeHugger, spooks51, slowbutsure, lady blair, implicate order, FarWestGirl, mikejay611, OhioNatureMom, Haf2Read, sethtriggs, Liberal Lass, thomask, Santa Susanna Kid, BarackStarObama, LSmith, old mark, blue aardvark, ratcityreprobate, Chitown Kev, Auriandra, No one gets out alive, Laurel in CA, Pinto Pony, anodnhajo, AnnieR, a2nite, rukidingme, This old man, Scandalous One, doroma, Buckeye54, New Minas, avsp, cablecargal, dotdash2u, databob, Sue B, atana, SanFernandoValleyMom, Drocedus, howabout, Smoh, ET3117, Ishmaelbychoice, OregonWetDog, bobwilk, RUNDOWN, Dodgerdog1, luerwulf, Penny GC, Gurnt, LiberalLoner, Rolly, Shawn87, numble

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site