Well they have to write it :). And go over the decisions with a fine toothed comb to make sure they didn't unwittingly create some other problem somewhere else - I'm betting that part takes even longer than writing it.


A lot of her appeal is to moderates, IIRC. That's why there are always rumors of a more progressive Democrat challenger in the primaries.

You might be right.

Is Hillary considered more moderate than Obama or less?

Daily Kos style liberals see her as too Moderate/establishment. They were all in for Obama during the primaries. And they are pushing for an Elizabeth Warren-type to run to her left this election.

I am not sure how she is seen by conservatives.

I think that, like most politicians running for national office, she wants to be seen as moderate.

In reality, I think that she will take whatever positions her pollsters advise her to take. Her biggest weakness, IMHO, is that she is not seen as having strong convictions one way or the other.

Our last 16 years of presidents have been two guys who (whatever the reality) were seen as guys with strong beliefs--both by their enemies and their supporters.

I'm not as conservative as some (still lean that way, but moderate enough for my wife and son to call me a closet Democrat), but that's how I see her - as someone who will do whatever she needs to to get elected (like move to New York for a senate seat). No idea what she actually stands for. I have more respect for Warren.

I thought it was interesting that Warren Buffett last week said that Warren was too angry and demonizing in her rhetoric; but he's a Hillary fan.

I agree with you on her lacking strong convictions; she seems to play to the position that is popular or works to her advantage without really any conviction or clarity for it.

More moderate. Obama outflanked her on the left in 2008, remember. Hillary's main base of support were, aside from women, white working class Democrats.

Warren is a lot like Huckabee. She's from a place where she can take extreme positions without worrying about losing a state election. She says things that one side really, really wants to hear, which makes them feel very energized that there's a candidate out there who is unafraid to truly serve the people. So she'll instantly reach 15-20% in polling the same way Huckabee did.

But does that drive moderates away from the party? Like Huckabee, is she someone who can possibly win the nomination, but polling suggests an absolute slaughter in the general? Or is she more like Palin, a good idea on paper ("oh, look at this "true conservative" who has 70% approval ratings in Alaska"), but was a disaster on the campaign trail?

She does have the advantage of being a media favorite, so she won't have to contend with the constant Palin gotchas. That's probably worth ten points on its own.

So the question becomes whether this does any damage to the party in the general? Look at 2004, when Bush was fairly unpopular, yet still won the general over Kerry. I think it was in large part because the Democratic primary - this months-long beauty contest designed originally to introduce candidates to the country - was a mess.

The whole party is on trial during these things. The Democrats learned this lesson in 2004 and have done a better job looking at primary season as an important part of the general.

I think the Republicans learned in 2012. We saw this in 2014 to a certain extent in their Senate selections. No more Todd Akins or Christine O'Donnells. A more consistent platform. They beat expectations.

I think, behind the scenes, the Democrats are telling Warren not to run. They want an alternative to Clinton just like the Republicans wanted an alternative to Romney. Both are safe and uninspiring choices. But they'll take Clinton if no one else emerges because Warren will bring out arguments during the primary that will hurt them in the general.

Candidates need to be vetted now rather than during the primary process. In this day when news is national in an instant, the primary plays a very different role than it did even 20 years ago.

That's true, but there are many misguided liberals out there, upset about Obama constantly compromising, who cling to this idea of Hillary as some sort of progressive goddess. Part of what I will enjoy if she wins is seeing how those people will react when she ends up governing the exact same way.

I actually see it slightly differently. A bunch of progressives don't see Hillary as different than Obama or Bill Clinton in terms of policy, but they realize that Hillary isn't going to give two shits about "bi-partisan" bills that seemed to really bite Obama in the ass with the left.

Hillary is certainly more hawkish than Obama.

Her Iraq War vote is what turns me off. That's probably my biggest litmus test.

Though as senator she had a pretty liberal record overall.

You seem to completely ignore the 2008 Dem primary. That was a far more contentious primary than 2004.

As much as I like to talk about process, I'm not sure it really matters much. The GOP did well last year because of where they were running, and the approval rating of the President. In 2008 the same thing benefited Dems.

Yeah, but regardless of who won the 2008 Primary, they were going to win, by virtue of not being a Republican after 8 years of Dubya.

I wouldn't put it past Mark Penn to screw up the general election much like he screwed up the primary.

It's amazing how Penn was SOOO good with Bill Clinton in the 90s compared to how bad he was in 2008.

Though, he's currently and Executive Vice President and Chief Strategy Officer for Microsoft, so he's unlikely to leave that position.

Right. The primary being cleaned up after 2004 really had nothing to do with it.

Would it surprise you if I said I really miss GWB? :)

I could go on a really long rant now, but I'll limit myself to saying Tom Cotton and the other GOP Congress members who signed that letter are fucking idiots.

If the tables were turned, you'd be hearing right wing biovators yell "TREASON" from every soapbox around

Honestly, and I've been saying this to whoever will listen (and many who won't) for some time now:

From a policy perspective, progressive Democrats are much better served with Warren in the Senate for 15-20 years than they are with her in the White House for 4-8. If she runs for President and gets elected, her influence on policy beyond her term in office is going to be limited to "does Ginsburg retire? Does Scalia stroke out in apoplectic rage? Do Democrats have control of the Senate to enable her to get progressive replacements on the Court?"

The legislation that reaches her desk would largely depend upon the makeup of Congress. If, somehow, Republicans still control the Senate after 2016, there is zero chance she sees anything she would want to sign. Democrats aren't getting the House back until at least 2020 or 2022. That's the penalty for going "wahh the President can't wave a magic wand and defeat Republican obstructionism so I'm staying home in a census year." And honestly I don't think it'll even happen as soon as 2022 unless there's either a major Republican backlash in 2020 or the Democratic candidate loses in 2016 and whoever gets the nomination in 2020 is so dynamic that his/her rising tide swamps statehouse Republicans.

What Democrats should be focusing on right now is running Presidential candidates who are moderate enough to keep the Republicans out of the White House, and figure out a way to recapture statehouses in the Midwest and the Rust Belt.

Liz Warren might get the left excited at the prospect of an actual progressive President, but until Democrats figure out how to undo the redistricting damage of 2010, Warren's ability to advance progressive policies will have far more impact from the Senate than they ever could from 1600 Pennsylvania.

Dola,

The question might be whether census data allowing for redistricting is available before the 2020 elections (allowing Republicans to redraw lines before Democrats get an opportunity, be it in 2020, 2022, or later in the decade). If it's not, winning in 2020 gives the Democrats a chance to "right the ship," so to speak. If it is, then the question becomes: if they win a mid-decade election, will the same courts that said "it's totally okay to re-draw the lines in the middle of the decade" to Republicans say the same to Democrats if/when they redraw the districts and Republicans sue?

Nothing will happen, but it seems a rather clear violation of the Logan Act.

Do those still exist? ;)


More-or-less this. Despite being liberal, I had no illusions about what Obama would actually be able to do as President, regardless of whether or not he wanted to pursue a true liberal, progressive agenda.

But Obama spent the first two years of his administration trying to craft legislation through compromise with the GOP, the same GOP with the stated goal of making him a 1-term president. That was frustrating. I don't see Hillary making the same mistake, and that's appealing for me.


Absolutely. I am completely bemused that DailyKos Democrats can't seem to wrap their heads around this.

Rargh!

And it appears the national Democratic Party has realized this (which is shocking that they have this level of competence... I'm sure it won't last ;)). Warren can influence policy like Ted Kennedy did in the Senate, while Hillary Clinton goes into the White House as someone who knows she is going to face an obstructionist GOP majority and will be prepared to fight them.

On top of all that, I've seen nothing whatsoever to indicate that either a) Warren is interested in running for President or b) Warren doesn't realize how much more effective she can be in the Senate.

Maybe I'm idealizing her a little bit, but she strikes me as someone who is very serious about persuing a specific agenda (progressive, heavy on cleaning up Wall Street) and knows exactly how she wants to pursue that where she is.

Warren has repeatedly and emphatically denied that she's running for president in '16.

See, I would kind of expect the netroots to be all "ooh she'll break up the banks and everything will be wonderful forever"! The Internet isn't exactly known for rational thinking. "DailyKos Democrats" itching to bust a nut over a Warren announcement? To be expected, really, even if it would be a bad idea for the previously-mentioned reasons.

I'm not saying HClinton is my ideal Democratic candidate (I'd have far fewer reservations about supporting Jim Webb), but Clinton in the White House and Warren in the Senate is much better for Democratic policy pursuits than Warren in the White House and Clinton done with elective politics.


And this is the other thing. I'm not sure the national Democratic Party DOES have this level of competence. It can be hard to figure out which group is spamming me with 'we want...!' emails, but I get emailed almost daily by one group or another looking to "draft" Warren and begging for donations to make it happen. Are they all idealistic netroots organizations, or are some of them cynical DNC organizations looking to raise cash for the party by using a name who insists she isn't running?

The first page of this thread is pretty entertaining for its wildly incorrect predictions:

Obama versus McCain (versus the rest) - Front Office Football Central

Speak for yourself. :D This was what I wrote on June 18th:


The thing that strikes me is how many people in that thread don't post anymore. Oh, and how it was 7 years ago? :(

It's interesting too to go back a little further and see who people thought would win the nominations in October 2007, 7 months further along in the process than we are now. Hillary had more than 3X more votes than Obama. A lot of Huckabee and Guliani predictions on the Republican side at the start, but McCain did win in that poll by the end. People stopped voting in the Dem thread pretty early, I guess because it was assumed that Clinton had it wrapped up. The Republican thread went on longer.

(Politics): Who will (not should) be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008? - Front Office Football Central

Who will (not should) be the Republican presidential nominee in 2008? - Front Office Football Central

The moral - maybe we don't have 2016 figured out yet.

Haha, the earliest opinion I have is "McCain is lame" followed by "Given Huckabre, Romney, Obama, and Hillary...I'll take Dick Cheney.". :)

I think that goes a long way to show that while I am a right-wing conservative/traditionalist...the Republican Party doesn't quite line up with what I want in a counter to the Dems. I wish I could find a candidate that was hawkish on economics and foreign policy and liberal on social and religious concerns...and one that would be appealing to more blacks and more Hispanics.

Would we be in the same position still if the GOP retains the house--at least--if Hillary does run and win the election?

No, because Hillary (or any Dem nominee, at this point) isn't going to be naive enough to think they can actually work with GOP leadership.

While Obama ran on ending partisanship (oh how naive), any Dem who wins the nom is basically going to be running on how the GOP is fucking up the country and they need to be destroyed (in subtext, not explicitly - though Hillary may explicitly say that in an inauguration speech ;)).

What Imran said.

Though I don't suspect she'll say that in her inauguration speech, but possibly in her victory speech and certainly in her nomination speech.*

*Assuming those things come to pass, of course.

And why should she....they only represent 45-55% of the nation anyway. :)

Well maybe this time the GOP leaders won't meet before the first inauguration and plan how to obstruct literally everything the President advocates.

Oh stop. What did the President set out to do that he didn't accomplish? Leave Iraq, gay marriage, ACA, raise the national debt, class warfare... what am I missing? Guantanamo Bay, I guess. I think he was very successful in accomplishing his goals.

Obama was ready to give in on SS and Medicaid, but even that couldn't get any GOP support.

The fact that this nonsense is still part of the narrative just proves to me that Obama's real weakness is leadership.

You will have to explain that, I am giving Obama a compliment. :). He had certain goals and he achieved them. Except for Guantanamo...which he admitted was a whole lot less of a priority once he got briefed on who was still there. And realm, if the only residual from Iraq is ISIS...thats a pretty big win too....that he gets to share with Bush, of course.

Some of your examples seem to come from a secret agenda he must have had, gay marriage and class warfare.

Others like raising the debt and Iraq were achieved by a bipartisan congressional act, not Obama's pen.

ACA, is his, but I bet just as many on left dislike it for not being a single payer than those on the right proclaiming its socialism.

It is his I inability to command the narrative that makes this presidency luke warm. Bush created prescription drug act and sold to the same people who decry ACA as totalitarian. Clinton gutted welfare and gained popularity among liberals. Reagan sold expanding the military complex was not the same as increasing big government,

Obama, played defense on nearly every big moment.

Bin Laden and NCAA Football Playoffs.

What else did you need?

Are you not entertained?

The two of those are mutually exclusive, Dutch. You can't have austerity and the social safety net at the same time. I think what you mean is "libertarian on social," not "liberal on social;" that what you want is someone who doesn't give a shit about whose peener is in whose pooper. Social liberalism doesn't begin and end with same sex marriage. A socially liberal candidate is likely also to be to the left on reproductive health; to the left on access to health care for the working poor and single mothers; to the left on housing security for those same groups; and to the left on things like food security and living wages for those same groups.

Unless you want to redefine socially liberal as "to the left of Ted Cruz," that's the kind of candidate you're talking about. Most of those priorities are going to require spending to back them, and probably at higher than current levels.

You literally cannot have a candidate who wants to balance the budget and wants to maintain current levels of military spending while at the same time looks to leverage the power of government to help the working poor and single mothers. You have to choose two of three:

A) Maintain current levels of military spending
B) Pursue socially liberal policies
C) Balance the budget

Unless you're willing to return to the tax rates of the 1950s, you literally cannot achieve all three of those aims.

This post isn't meant as a slam on you, Dutch. Just to point out that either you meant something other than what you posted, or your ideal candidate is a unicorn in contemporary discourse. JFK might qualify, but military spending under him was 70% of what it is today in 2005 dollars. A candidate who proposed cutting military spending to JFK levels to subsidize his socially liberal policy pursuits would not be considered a military hawk.

(Hell, military spending under Obama is higher than under any president not named FDR, and he's being accused of gutting the damn thing.)

I wish Obama accomplished "class warfare", but no Democratic President is going to really go after their rich and corporate rulers.

It is helpful to remember Dutch's main point. We hear a lot of disillusioned people say that it does not matter who is in charge because both parties are the same. And, certainly, for things like bending over for corporate interests at the expense of the people, both parties are much more similar than different (even as the Dems pretend that they are not like that).

But then a couple of events happen close in time that make you realize that it really does matter who is in charge:



http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-con...age-3-6-15.pdf

The picture is members of the Texas GOP sharing some cake to celebrate ten years of banning same sex marriage in Texas.

The link is to the brief filed in the Supreme Court by President Obama's Department of Justice in support of full marriage equality.

Whatever your thoughts on this issue, you cannot say that who is in charge does not matter because both parties are just the same.

With Obamacare taking root (I hope), I will consider a GOP next cycle as our Foreign Policy is lacking. But Ted is not going to be it.

Ted Cruz to announce 2016 presidential bid on Monday - CNN.com

If you vote for R's, you're voting to remove the ACA. straight up.

You can check in 2022 - my predictions:

Republican - some old white guy who may be a moderate but is forced to sound like Hitler due to the idiots on the fringe

Democrat - someone who wants universal everything and thinks people can't decide for themselves

The Republicans definitely need new leadership.. I'm on board with that. And maybe some media support that being conservative and capitalist isn't far right thinking.

In other words, a faux-conservative candidate that I'd stay home rather than vote for.

Without getting the social positions correct, the rest of the stuff ultimately doesn't matter afaic. All the money in the world ain't worth a damn to me if I'm spending it in a world unfit to live in.

Point here isn't to rip on you, point is simply how difficult it is to find a Frankenstein candidate that can get both of us to the polls

Curious of what the conservatives around here think of Scott Walker?

He'd make a dynamite Secretary of Labor.

Based on a quick pull of position quotes, he's too weak on other issues -- illegal immigration for starters -- for me to seriously consider him for anything higher. Maybe a VP slot, that's nearly useless barring a death.

Yes, the farm lobby here in WI has kept him from going right on immigration. He did say something recently that would be construed as moving right on immigration but I'm positive he won't be advocating the shoot on sight approach you would prefer for border security.

While I recognize that I'm unlikely to get a wholly satisfactory position out of a candidate, once he backed "pathway" notions, he'd pretty much rendered himself inadequate for me in that regard.

Not sure any amount of backtracking now (or between now & election time) will convince me of his good intentions.

Still, he has some uses & I'd consider him for a cabinet position if he could be kept away from broader issues where he's weak.

Maybe, you're not the only one that tells me I'm reaching. But what the hell, Reagan took 49 states and he was as faux as they come (actor), I just need to find some dude like that to run the party.

I hate Scott Walker more than any politician ever. He's completely ruined Wisconsin, and is turning it into Mississippi North.

Ted Cruz in it to win it.

It's nice how conservatives suddenly believe that someone born outside the country can be a natural born citizen.

Maybe you just have to be white.

www.tedcruz.com

tee hee

I saw a bullet point list of Ted Cruz's main foci. One was to keep NASA's focus on space exploration.

I am asking this question honestly and not in a trolling way. Did I miss something? I thought that was what NASA did. What is the complaint about?

I believe he wants them to focus on that than this alluded climate change bizness.

Follow-up: NASA’s Cruz Control.

That came up last week in some hearings. Some conservatives are mad that NASA looks at global warming. I didn't realize that was an issue, but apparently it is.

Ah. Thanks. That makes sense and certainly fits with the overall theme of a candidate attempting to stake out the right wing of a GOP primary field.

why do people not want scientists to examine the possibility of global warming? again not trolling - just really want to know the reasoning. is it because it is seen as a waste of taxpayer dollars (or at least marginally more of a waste than space exploration)?

Reagan came along at an interesting time, eventually insuring his legacy by having success against the greatest perceived threat we faced at the time. Whether he won the Cold War or the other guy mostly just lost it, he still benefited from being the one on the floor against them as they came apart.

Similar success -- in terms of legacy & all -- seems even more unlikely today since there appears to be a considerably greater divide about what constitutes greatest threat(s).

Really? (I'm kind of perplexed)

Climate change deniers tend to want to disassociate the idea that humankind has been the root cause of the uptick in temperature fluctuation, storm intensity and rising ocean waters due to melting of the Arctic.

Most of this can be attributed to a reliance on burning of fossil fuels, population growth, and destroying our natural resources, which means donors like Energy and Agriculture and their lobbyists posit that this is just "temperature cycling" and that all is well and should not be changed.

NASA was conducting some studies into the matter and Cruz doesn't want further corroboration (especially from a Federal agency) from scientists that climate change is a real issue.

Reading "Nixonland", and there is a whole side story about Reagan. Nixon was very concerned by him, enough to deal with Strom Thurmond to get the nomination for president.

Reagan frightened Nixon not because of ideology but because he was a very viable candidate who could have taken the nomination from him.

That being said, Reagan was motivated by faith, that "God would provide" and didn't have that devious drive that Nixon did. It was very close and perhaps if he had more of a political kill drive, he could have taken the nomination, but he really did seem to have an "Aw Shucks" personality.

Or, you know, doesn't want funding intended for one purpose diverted into an agenda driven fiction.

Information is information, regardless of the outcome. It doesn't create itself. We should just stop looking at things that may have an unfavorable result?

i understand the "funding intended for one purpose" part: nasa is a space agency and should focus on that. (however, if an argument was sincerely limited only to that concern, then it would include a recommendation for which agency should study it instead.)

it's the "fiction" part i don't get: how do you know something is fiction unless scientists study it? and if, as a mental exercise, it turns out to be true, would it be important enough that a government should examine it? especially a government currently "on top" that wants to maintain the global status quo for as many centuries as possible?

PUHLEZE.

No Federal agency has just one program. They handle a multitude of issues and in some cases cross silos to work with other agencies (CIA can't get satellites up into space by themselves).

This is a classic Republican diversion, let's have NASA do what it's supposed to explore space (while quietly killing all funding to do so) but also keep them from corroborating that climate change/global warming is a true phenomenon aggravated by humankind.

Rednecks hate their science. Why study things when you know what is right.

I lean conservative but I also believe in global warming and science. However if you are going to go with the generalization about conservatives and hating science what about liberals thinking they know everything? Complete understanding of the workings of a complex economy. Check. Complete understanding of social sciences and human behavior. Check. Complete understanding of the causes of mass shootings. Check. Healthcare. Check. The list goes on and on.

Very nice line there

I don't think any of those. I think we have no idea what causes mass shootings other than likely mental illness. I do believe really easy access to high powered guns does not help, but not sure anything other than banning guns would really work (and I'm not in favor of that). Same with economy...I believe both sides have proven really faulty on this issue and so obviously in the pockets of their campaign financers that we are stupid as a population for letting it continue.

But science is science. Judging by the actions of most in the Southern states (and parts of suburban California apparently), there is a fundamental disbelief in science and willingness to sacrifice our next generation to the stupidity of their parents.

Under what stretch of the imagination is (the manmade) global warming (myth) part of Aeronautics or Space? Your CIA example has a clear connection, but in this case the first blush is that it's merely an agenda driven end run.

The one grounded in reality.

On Instagram last week NASA Goddard posted a time lapse of the the winter Arctic ice sheet. Saying it has now reached its maximum and is the smallest on satellite record. 2015 Arctic Sea Ice Maximum Annual Extent Is Lowest On Record | NASA

Is that a misuse? Political? It would seem the use of this information by others is what makes it political, not the information in itself.

NASA on climate change (Jon I know you won't read it but here's the link)

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Cruz wants NASA to quit worrying about climate change - Business Insider

Of course you could say the same thing about city slicker liberals and aspects of food production.

I believe there is a (large?) chunk of the population that loves science when it confirms their beliefs but hates it when it doesn't. I see it all the time with farmers that think climate change is a big hoax yet use science to persuade people that GMOs (one example) are harmless. And you can flip flop the two and get the same thing. Sometimes I feel alone in this world as somebody that believes GMOs are harmless and climate change is real (and humans are a big contributor).

I agree with you. So that's 2 of us. Only 5,999,999,998 people to go!

But why would climate change deniers want to disassociate this idea?

Your assertion that it is somehow driven by Energy and Agriculture lobbyists just doesn't hold water. I doubt JiMGa (or any other climate change denier you know in your day-to-day life) is getting one red cent from the Energy or Agriculture lobby. It might explain why a politician does what he does, but not for us regular joes. I also reject the 'rednecks hate science' argument: I really doubt that an intelligent guy like JiMGa or other smart conservatives you know would really, if pressed to answer, reject the usefulness of the scientific method. I'm still left wondering...

Can you expound on why you describe global warming as a myth or fiction?

Is it just me, or did anyone else find it amusing that in response to "Rednecks hate their science", panerd got offended the he was referring to conservatives in general.

Are all conservatives rednecks to you, panerd? ;)

3!! We're causing a mass movement right here! :D

If you can go with "safe" instead of "harmless" I think a lot of people would agree.

4! Get ready to march on Washington!

Make it 4!! But of course there need to be some larger controlled studies done on specific GMOs (we in the science field know that exposure to certain growth factors leads to diseases, it's just a matter of which ones). I do think it's crazy that tons of shit they put in food here in the US that we buy and eat are banned in Europe. I guess they are socialists or something, but the fact that Kraft makes different products to sell here (and are cheaper) does give me a little pause...

And Kodos makes three!

No, Kodos makes 6 :mad:

My assertion that it doesn't hold water? In what way?!?

Climate skeptic Willie Soon funded by industry - Business Insider

National Review


So in a nutshell, after years of admitting there is no climate change, the National Review is stating "hey it'll be good for the economy".

Teddy Cruz on Climate Change:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...last-17-years/


Of course Fox News:

Fox News host: Climate scientists 'fabricated' temperature data | PunditFact

But hey, I mean, this is all recent. If you don't think Energy and Agriculture (not all mind you) like funding against this.

There was a time when this was okay to believe too:

[IMG][/IMG]

Haha, y'all's inability to count is what has me skeptical. :)

Are you fucking kidding me?!!

Israel stole classified US information and used it to help congressional Republicans - Vox


Just... no words.

And absolutely nothing will be done about it.

And what most annoys me are the morons going around saying "everyone spies on each other" as if that's the actual issue here (or that the US really is mad that Israel spies on the US - that's basically a given).

Yeah, Israel has long been one of the most active espionage countries. It made me laugh out loud to read their denial: