Jim Webb 2016!
14
As trivial as this might sound, oh how I've come to hate her laugh. Her loud boisterous laugh sounds so forced, so fake, so haughty and disengenuous that it's almost like she's trying to hide her true self in plain sight. It's at least as bad as Mitt Romney's, that man who would be King (ours, had he not immolated himself with his "47% takers" gaffe, among other unforced errors).
Her loud haughty laugh -- more like a cackle -- suggests that she sees herself as a queen and her ascension to the American presidency so inevitable it might as well be preordained. Nothing could be further from the truth, of course; something she also knows. So, instinctively, she doesn't want to reveal so much as a wisp of it, the vanity lurking just under her skin, because just a full flash of it in public might be enough to undo her second, and last, bid. It might provoke a creeping backlash similar to the one that undid Romney.
Even so, I sense Mrs. Clinton will not be the Democratic nominee in 2016, nor will Jeb Bush be the Republican. Bush III won't be able to simply buy it the way his brother did in 2000 while the public looks on askance, mouths agape.
Her loud haughty laugh -- more like a cackle -- suggests that she sees herself as a queen and her ascension to the American presidency so inevitable it might as well be preordained. Nothing could be further from the truth, of course; something she also knows. So, instinctively, she doesn't want to reveal so much as a wisp of it, the vanity lurking just under her skin, because just a full flash of it in public might be enough to undo her second, and last, bid. It might provoke a creeping backlash similar to the one that undid Romney.
Even so, I sense Mrs. Clinton will not be the Democratic nominee in 2016, nor will Jeb Bush be the Republican. Bush III won't be able to simply buy it the way his brother did in 2000 while the public looks on askance, mouths agape.
22
I want Hillary to run because 1. she's smart , capable and experienced. 2. the thought of the republicans controlling all of the branches of government, as well as the Supreme Court, terrifies me on every possible level. We'll get what we vote or don't vote for. Think about it before you decide Hillary isn't good enough.
18
I would never underestimate a Clinton.
6
With over 300 million Americans, it is both mystifying and terrifying that so many people think only the Bush and Clinton families are worth voting for--but such alternatives as Perry, Christie, Paul, Cruz and Walker are even scarier, not to mention the Fox clowns of the week, such as Carson, Cain, Trump and Palin.
22
"There is a case that she will be a better candidate than she was in 2008, "
She actually won the second half of the primaries in 2008. If the super delegates had stuck with her instead of the don't stand in Obama's way narrative, she would have won the nomination and the election.
She actually won the second half of the primaries in 2008. If the super delegates had stuck with her instead of the don't stand in Obama's way narrative, she would have won the nomination and the election.
10
shoulda coulda
16
Can people please put gender aside and stop saying "Lets put a woman in the White House." This isn't about gender... Its about her politics, her public standing, who she is as a person and what she would be like as the President. Do these potential lawmaker's ideals and tendencies have any influence in your voting... If they don't, please spare us all and don't vote.
29
NYT, enough on bashing Mrs. Clinton, who is not even announced her candidacy.
Why isn't the same level of attention and analysis made of the likely Republican candidates?
At first I thought it was just a personal bias of NYT Op-Ed columnist Maureen Dowd but there appears to be a larger agenda afoot.
Perhaps the NYT could put the power of its ink to better use. A few suggestions...why is our nation still embrioled in the Iraq and Afghan wars after more than 13-years with few results, billions of wasted taxpayer dollars and no end in sight....why have there been no real federal job stimulus program after the fiscal crash in 2008 or improvement in wage earnings of the middle class and poor workers while corporate coffers are full of cash and CEOs and top wage earners have seen their earnings soar...what's going to happen to healthcare for tens of millions of our seniors and disabled when new Medicare reimbursement cuts soon take effect and providers stop accepting Medicare...why is the federal, state and locals government allowing our critical infrastructure to crumble and when are they going to start making the necessary improvements..why is our education system failing to achieve better results...why is our poverty level now the same as when President Johnson announced our war on poverty?
These are just a few suggestion that might warrant the same focus and attention of the NYT as the prospects of a Clinton candidacy in 2016.
Why isn't the same level of attention and analysis made of the likely Republican candidates?
At first I thought it was just a personal bias of NYT Op-Ed columnist Maureen Dowd but there appears to be a larger agenda afoot.
Perhaps the NYT could put the power of its ink to better use. A few suggestions...why is our nation still embrioled in the Iraq and Afghan wars after more than 13-years with few results, billions of wasted taxpayer dollars and no end in sight....why have there been no real federal job stimulus program after the fiscal crash in 2008 or improvement in wage earnings of the middle class and poor workers while corporate coffers are full of cash and CEOs and top wage earners have seen their earnings soar...what's going to happen to healthcare for tens of millions of our seniors and disabled when new Medicare reimbursement cuts soon take effect and providers stop accepting Medicare...why is the federal, state and locals government allowing our critical infrastructure to crumble and when are they going to start making the necessary improvements..why is our education system failing to achieve better results...why is our poverty level now the same as when President Johnson announced our war on poverty?
These are just a few suggestion that might warrant the same focus and attention of the NYT as the prospects of a Clinton candidacy in 2016.
34
I am surprised you do not remember that the Times has devoted extensive coverage, much of it negative (and deserved) to Christie, Bush, Paul and Walker. Then again, you decry the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, apparently not remembering that Hillary Clinton supported both of those.
31
Yes, a Clinton/Bush race is nauseating. But who wants Scott Walker, who hates working class Americans so much that he compares labor unions to ISIS? He should do all of us a favor, especially Wisconsin citizens, and self-deport. And if not Hillary, then who for the Democrats? Elizabeth Warren isn't running and might or might not be ready for prime time nationally. If she had Obama's ambition, she would already be gearing up for the caucuses and preparing a dynamite ground game.
No, it's going to be Clinton/Bush, the two veterans, warts and all. If anybody thinks that Bush is compassionate, take a close look at what he did, and tried to do, to the husband of Terry Schiavo. Bush's actions were pathetic and evil. If you're a true conservative, a moderate, or a progressive who cares for America, hold your nose and vote for Clinton.
No, it's going to be Clinton/Bush, the two veterans, warts and all. If anybody thinks that Bush is compassionate, take a close look at what he did, and tried to do, to the husband of Terry Schiavo. Bush's actions were pathetic and evil. If you're a true conservative, a moderate, or a progressive who cares for America, hold your nose and vote for Clinton.
24
No, a Clinton?Bush candidacy makes perfect sense if they are on the same ticket.
8
you don't hold your nose, you vote third party
12
The Democrats don't have a great deal of bench strength. No one comes immediately to mind as a Hillary alternative. But I fear we truly NEED an alternative.
That said, the only thing that gives me comfort is that the GOP candidates all seem poised to implode. I cannot picture any of them going the distance at least at this juncture.
That said, the only thing that gives me comfort is that the GOP candidates all seem poised to implode. I cannot picture any of them going the distance at least at this juncture.
7
What politician isn't a 'polarizing figure'?
5
Clinton's ace in the hole is she is the best chance to elect a woman President in the near future. This will prove enormously appealing to many female voters in both parties who think it's long overdue. I admire Elizabeth Warren enormously, but just because she could win in a very blue state doesn't mean she's ready for the rough and tumble of a national election. If the Dems lose this election, it could easily be 8 years until they have another shot at the White House. And that's a long time to wait.
6
Please grant women more judgment. I am a registered Democrat. I am a woman. I wouldn't vote for a woman simply because she and I sit down to void.
25
The mere sight of Lanny Davis on TV over the weekend deflecting and spinning in a desperate attempt to shield a Clinton from yet another self inflicted wound was enough to turn one's stomach. Oh no...not this again!
Can you imagine having to deal with 2 living Clinton Presidents at once and all of the garbage rolling over the transom for perhaps 8 long years. And then..what's next... Chelsea?
These family dynasties have become way too powerful and self important. They wreak of corruption at every turn. And the same goes for the Bushes.
Elizabeth Warren & Scott Walker......where are you?
Can you imagine having to deal with 2 living Clinton Presidents at once and all of the garbage rolling over the transom for perhaps 8 long years. And then..what's next... Chelsea?
These family dynasties have become way too powerful and self important. They wreak of corruption at every turn. And the same goes for the Bushes.
Elizabeth Warren & Scott Walker......where are you?
20
That's right, Hillary is in danger because she won't carry Kentucky or West Virginia. Neither did Obama, nevertheless he received 365 and 332 electoral votes. You'll have to do better than this.
6
Pretty sophomoric bit of political analysis, Mr. Cohn. With an obvious antipathy toward Hillary, which you make little effort to hide. I'm not convince about her either, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't have appreciated a bit more objectivity. Perhaps you'd feel better off at the Washington Post.
9
Right now, Hillary Clinton may be seen as just as another candidate. But the value of having a woman president, should not be underestimated.
Presidents do not just preside. They also set precedents and becoming the first woman in the White House could be a huge precedent for the nation.
It is said that. "Minds are like parachutes. They only function when open". A shift in feminine power could open minds in ways we have not seen before.
I say, run Hillary, run.
Presidents do not just preside. They also set precedents and becoming the first woman in the White House could be a huge precedent for the nation.
It is said that. "Minds are like parachutes. They only function when open". A shift in feminine power could open minds in ways we have not seen before.
I say, run Hillary, run.
10
A "huge" precedent: just like our current president set back in '08?
The electorate should focus on placing the best possible candidate in the Oval Office; not on some illusory character trait that makes everyone feel good. As our current predicament has demonstrated, it is best to vote the most qualified person into office with a proven track record. Someone who has been tested. It is probably best to not vote on emotion.
Hey, if a terrific candidate came along who also happened to be female (or an Italian or a Jew), it could be a great thing for our country. However, learn the lesson that voting solely because of a candidate's race or gender is a dangerous proposition.
That said, I would agree that Hillary, if elected, "could be a huge precedent for the nation." As in, it would surely complete the downward trend America has enjoyed the past several administrations.
The electorate should focus on placing the best possible candidate in the Oval Office; not on some illusory character trait that makes everyone feel good. As our current predicament has demonstrated, it is best to vote the most qualified person into office with a proven track record. Someone who has been tested. It is probably best to not vote on emotion.
Hey, if a terrific candidate came along who also happened to be female (or an Italian or a Jew), it could be a great thing for our country. However, learn the lesson that voting solely because of a candidate's race or gender is a dangerous proposition.
That said, I would agree that Hillary, if elected, "could be a huge precedent for the nation." As in, it would surely complete the downward trend America has enjoyed the past several administrations.
18
If the Democratic nominee is someone whose family has not lived in the White House, then in the 2016 campaign Democrats will be able to say, "Not another Bush." Clinton could not run with this simple message. Democrats and independents should take a fresh look at Warren, Biden, O'Malley, Sanders, and other potential candidates.
11
Of those candidates, only O'Malley would be under 70 by the end of the 2016-2020 presidential term. In fact, two of them are over 70 right now. Don't the Democrats have anyone who isn't as old as the hills?
1
lets not forget jerry brown, al gore or even howard dean again. or even an "unsung" democractic senator that doesn't display alarming mercurial narcissistic personal traits like ron wtden. joe biden might be interesting, though he seems to be too much of a creature of washington at this point.... would be surprised if he had anything to offer other than status-quo, which hasn't been good for the people lately.
5
Well how about Sherrod Brown? 62 years old right now. Although he is very progressive he has worked across the aisle as well.
5
the only way i'm voting for hillary is if she picks bill as her VP
4
Too many people take this elections for granted. They think Mrs. Clinton have all the money and all the support of the powerful, including Wall Street. I don't think so. This is going to be a hard fought election, against somebody backed by the Koch brothers and other uber wealthy, and against one of the most powerful propaganda machine ever developed. Mrs. Clinton is being backed half heartedly by the left, and sometimes they are against her too. If we don't do better we may well be looking to a real catastrophe with the three branches of government in the hands of the conservatives. Then we may be looking to the good old days when only two branches were in their hands.
8
Reasons I would prefer someone other than Hillary to be president:
1. Acting outraged that she should even be questioned about Benghazi.
2. Circumventing public scrutiny by not using her official email account as Sec'y of State.
3. Not being a pioneering political woman in her own right from the get-go, but rather being the first lady for years.
4. Her mawkish attempt to garner votes in New Hampshire after her loss in Iowa saying, "I just don't want to see us fall backwards as a nation," as if the Obama win in Iowa was that step backward. Then there was the attempt to make the emotion of the moment more acceptable by having her minions say that she had finally "found her own voice."
5. The gratuitous Tammy Wynette, baking cookies comment. What was she trying to do with that?
6. Whitewater - at least a little bit.
7. I remember seeing a picture of Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea walking towards the White House lawn after getting off the helicopter right after it became clear that Bill did have sexual relations with "that woman," Monica Lewinsky. Teenage Chelsea was in the middle holding both her parents hands. Felt shabby to me.
8. Voting to go to war in Iraq.
9. Overplaying issues of "women and children." Great leaders do right by their kindred constituencies, but retain the spirit of fairness to all and a focus on citizens and the world at large.
1. Acting outraged that she should even be questioned about Benghazi.
2. Circumventing public scrutiny by not using her official email account as Sec'y of State.
3. Not being a pioneering political woman in her own right from the get-go, but rather being the first lady for years.
4. Her mawkish attempt to garner votes in New Hampshire after her loss in Iowa saying, "I just don't want to see us fall backwards as a nation," as if the Obama win in Iowa was that step backward. Then there was the attempt to make the emotion of the moment more acceptable by having her minions say that she had finally "found her own voice."
5. The gratuitous Tammy Wynette, baking cookies comment. What was she trying to do with that?
6. Whitewater - at least a little bit.
7. I remember seeing a picture of Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea walking towards the White House lawn after getting off the helicopter right after it became clear that Bill did have sexual relations with "that woman," Monica Lewinsky. Teenage Chelsea was in the middle holding both her parents hands. Felt shabby to me.
8. Voting to go to war in Iraq.
9. Overplaying issues of "women and children." Great leaders do right by their kindred constituencies, but retain the spirit of fairness to all and a focus on citizens and the world at large.
31
She's not a good candidate for the Democrats in 2016. There are an awful lot of good Democrat candidates; unfortunately several of them are running out of life time. Warren as a VP candidate might be good since she is younger than some of the other possibilities and could step in if needed to replace an elderly incapacitated president.
2
Younger? By the end of the 2016-2020 term, she'll be 71. That's not young.
6
OPRAH! OPRAH! OPRAH! Think about it.
2
Time for a new ERA.
As long as Oprah gets NEW advisors.
No more Hillary, JEB or Obama advisors like warhawks Madeline Albright or Henry Kissinger.
As long as Oprah gets NEW advisors.
No more Hillary, JEB or Obama advisors like warhawks Madeline Albright or Henry Kissinger.
1
Who else can beat Jeb?
Who else can survive constant criticism?
God help us if we get Jeb or Walker.
Who else can survive constant criticism?
God help us if we get Jeb or Walker.
15
OPRAH
2
No surprise that ratings are volatile and changing based upon attacks against her in the arena of public opinion. She will bounce back! Again, she is a master of this sport.
4
I don't want Hillary Clinton in 2016. Period. Other good choices would be Martin O'Malley, Jim Webb, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Enough of the Clintons!
24
The problem with your choices is that they are all sure losers.
4
"Democratic Eisenhower..." Puhleeze!
2
The only real point in this assignment is one we've long known: Polling and similar forecasting this far out are virtually worthless.
12
Before we -- i.e., the voting public -- consign HIllary Clinton to the dust heap of history -- the New York Times has, obviously, already voted in the non-Republican Presidential candidate -- lets wait until she is a Presidential candidate as well as a Republican; then, the media can pontificate on who will win.
5
does anyone else but me remember that hillary couldn't even win the nomination last time in 2008 ? why everyone thinks she is a capable politician with an air of inevitability for 2016 is a mystery. she is no bill clinton.... natural ability in campaigning etc does not directly transfer by virtue of marriage... and lets face it the only reason we are talking about hillary in 2016 is the result of her relationship with bill. if democrats want to run a woman, i think elizabeth warren would have a better chance. otherwise lets consider someone that actually has tons of experience... give me jerry brown, al gore or even jimmy carter again. our country has barely survived the rookie presidencies of bush jr and obama.... either of whom had no business really being the president based on experience and seasoning.
9
Clinton has to run a better campaign than she did in 2008. I don't think she understands how smarmy the Clinton Foundation looks to many life long Democrats. Her private email address at DOS is equally too cute by half. If it's about optics, I'm not sure she's learned anything in 20 years, and it could cost her votes, a lot of votes.
14
Hillary is one of the most polarizing figures in the Democratic party today.
If she runs in the general election, it will be a Republican victory. We will be saddled with a Republican President and a Republican Congress.
Democrats must find a candidate to run against her in the primaries.
If Hillary truly cares for this country, she'll announce that she is not going to seek the Presidency.
Unfortunately, the next thing we'll be hearing from her is how the email scandal is a fishing expedition and that she has to stand up to Republican tactics on behalf of all women.
This is like watching a slow motion train wreck.
If she runs in the general election, it will be a Republican victory. We will be saddled with a Republican President and a Republican Congress.
Democrats must find a candidate to run against her in the primaries.
If Hillary truly cares for this country, she'll announce that she is not going to seek the Presidency.
Unfortunately, the next thing we'll be hearing from her is how the email scandal is a fishing expedition and that she has to stand up to Republican tactics on behalf of all women.
This is like watching a slow motion train wreck.
17
I have just read she turned the 55,000 pages of emails over to the State Department as printed documents in boxes, lots of boxes. The poor State Department has to read each page to determine what to turn over to the Senate Committee.
Doesn't she realize how bad this looks?
Doesn't she realize how bad this looks?
8
A woman in the office will do us all a favor. Why can't she? Her husband was the greatest president their could ever be. Why can't she implement the same practices? Regardless of the gender, #ImReadyForHillary
6
Bill Clinton was the greatest President? That's HILLARY-OUS!
Various polls of the leading Presidential scholars and other historians put him at about average. In addition, He had the massive benefit of huge Fed manipulation when he took office, at least two gigantic bubbles, etc. to put the economy in overdrive. He also might have been ousted if the economy had been bad.
Incidentally, even some major Democratic economists say he was bad.
Various polls of the leading Presidential scholars and other historians put him at about average. In addition, He had the massive benefit of huge Fed manipulation when he took office, at least two gigantic bubbles, etc. to put the economy in overdrive. He also might have been ousted if the economy had been bad.
Incidentally, even some major Democratic economists say he was bad.
7
"general-election polls more than a year before Election Day have little meaning". Yet somehow your analysis does?
7
Who is not a polarizing figure in public life? I mean, I don't count red-state Senators who are Republican. I don't count blue- state senators who are Democrats. This article makes me want to throw up. If you insist on polling a candidate who has not yet declared -- a pointless effort anyway because she hasn't taken any steps to defend herself at this stage -- at least compare Hillary's poll numbers with other candidates who ran a second time. How about Reagan in 1979 or Phil Gram in 1996? How about George Bush in 1988 or Richard Nixon in 1968? But this? This isn't data. It's talking points and gossip.
4
With two ex Presidents (Obama/Clinton) actively campaigning for Ms. Clinton, during the Fall of 2016, how could Jeb Bush or a Chris Christie actually survive that kind of onslaught. I think not.
2
Thank you for reminding us that the most popular politician of all time will be by her side. The Clinton days were indeed the good 'ol days.
3
To be fair to the estimable author, the point of the column is not to do horse-race analysis 18 months away from election day 2016. The point is to assess the perceived CW that Hillary Clinton's formerly stratospheric approval ratings would somehow make her unassailable in the 2016 elections. The answer is that those ratings are no longer stratospheric because she is no longer a post-political figure, and is thereby guaranteed the opposition (if not the enmity) or at least 45% of the overall electorate. But, as the author points out at the end, this hardly means that she is a poor candidate or somehow destined to lose to a generic Republican in 2016. It just means that it isn't fair or wise to predict the 2016 elections based on data points that were true 6 months ago but are no longer true today.
4
I would add that I don't know how relevant her "favorability" is to the strength of her candidacy. It's perfectly possible that her position is unassailable with respect to any potential Republican challenger. There's nothing in this column that demonstrates that the two concepts are actually related.
1
Hillary Clinton can succeed if she returns to her roots --Park Ridge, Illinois --and succeeds in telling about this young girl and all of her aspirations made good in various roles in subsequent decades.
She has to learn to listen --and to personify the aspirations and concerns of the folks she meets along the campaign trail --as her husband does so brilliantly.
This can't be about Hillary becoming president, it must be about regular Americans (re)claiming the Whitehouse.
Hillary has got to be honest and true and transparent --even if it at times it makes her look slightly bad--like most regular folks who are not superheroes, but who are hard working, regular, decent people.
She has to learn to listen --and to personify the aspirations and concerns of the folks she meets along the campaign trail --as her husband does so brilliantly.
This can't be about Hillary becoming president, it must be about regular Americans (re)claiming the Whitehouse.
Hillary has got to be honest and true and transparent --even if it at times it makes her look slightly bad--like most regular folks who are not superheroes, but who are hard working, regular, decent people.
5
Hillary's Park Ridge roots are Republican like her Dad.
She was a 'Young Republican', and campaigned for Republican Barry Goldwater as a 'Goldwater Girl'.
As Secretary of State, Hillary says she was 'thrilled' to be advised by war criminal Henry Kissinger.
NO Hillary hasn't changed that much.
We DON'T want her!
She was a 'Young Republican', and campaigned for Republican Barry Goldwater as a 'Goldwater Girl'.
As Secretary of State, Hillary says she was 'thrilled' to be advised by war criminal Henry Kissinger.
NO Hillary hasn't changed that much.
We DON'T want her!
10
I'd vote for Elizabeth Warren or Al Gore in the primary over HRC in a nano-second. I'm a democrat, but this e-mail stuff is alarming. It shows amazingly terrible judgement in several regards. The race hasn't even started, and already I'm having to read articles about her that just make me wince.
13
Well, New York Times, are we having fun yet? How many articles can be written to bring this woman down? Are we going to be the last "first world" country to elect a woman president out of fear from the right wing, the male establishment, and traditional, fading, flounder newspapers?
8
Madame Secretary: Question for you. Let's assume you are the POTUS and each of your Cabinet Secretaries comes to you asking if they can set up their own email account and server from their home. Is that ok with you?
If the answer is yes, that's a big problem, obviously. If the answer is no, that's a big problem, obviously.
Ultimately, this comes down to leadership. Mrs. Clinton has an enormous flaw here. One that cannot be overcome. The Dems need to run someone against her, otherwise they will be forced in the next election to defend someone that is indefensible.
If the answer is yes, that's a big problem, obviously. If the answer is no, that's a big problem, obviously.
Ultimately, this comes down to leadership. Mrs. Clinton has an enormous flaw here. One that cannot be overcome. The Dems need to run someone against her, otherwise they will be forced in the next election to defend someone that is indefensible.
27
You have a vested interest in portraying the race as competitive. Democrats have won 5 of the last 6 and that trend is only picking up steam.
2
Likeability doesn't mean much without another candidate to compare to. I don't think we will know how strong Hillary is until we see the Republican candidate. Undoubtedly that candidate will be Jeb Bush, but he has his problems, too. One of the most important factors will be his ability to sway people in his public demeanor. We don't know yet if he can dig up the charm that his brother displayed when running for office.
The American public fell in love with Obama, to some degree with George W. Bush, and with Bill Clinton. It is true that tjje country fell in love with Hilary Clinton but that was before she went for serious power.
It will be interesting to see if Ms. Clinton can out charm Jeb Bush. So far, Bush seems to be a bit of a dud when he is in public but it is very soon. Hillary is very good with crowds, but it is hard to say whether that will carry her over the massive fear this country seems to have about having a woman in power.
This will be another long and intense campaign and the GOP will pull out every dirty trick in the books. But their candidate has to have more charisma than Hillary. So far I don't see it.
The American public fell in love with Obama, to some degree with George W. Bush, and with Bill Clinton. It is true that tjje country fell in love with Hilary Clinton but that was before she went for serious power.
It will be interesting to see if Ms. Clinton can out charm Jeb Bush. So far, Bush seems to be a bit of a dud when he is in public but it is very soon. Hillary is very good with crowds, but it is hard to say whether that will carry her over the massive fear this country seems to have about having a woman in power.
This will be another long and intense campaign and the GOP will pull out every dirty trick in the books. But their candidate has to have more charisma than Hillary. So far I don't see it.
3
A non-column with a non-conclusion on what is now only an issue to the media.
15
More vulnerable? I don't think she stands a chance. The country has already spoken in the midterms. Right or wrong, people seem to want someone less liberal than Obama, not more. And Hillary's got a ton of trash to dig her way out of while her opponent will be able to concentrate on the issue (lower taxes for the rich, and the benefits from which that will accrue to us all).
5
Midterms .ne. presidential race.
And especially, House races in gerrymandered districts have less and less bearing on a popular or electoral college vote.
And especially, House races in gerrymandered districts have less and less bearing on a popular or electoral college vote.
6
I'm sure there's a district here and there that was gerrymandered by Democrats.
2
At least twice in this article the author embraces a gloom and doom scenario, picturing an electorate "anxious or downright pessimistic about the future" and vaguely menacing outcomes for both the economy or foreign affairs.
Meanwhile, unemployment is below 6% and falling, and if the Fed reacts carefully, we may be partying like it's 1995 in 2016, as Paul Krugman suggests. The Affordable care Act is bending the cost curve - and if torpedoed by a partisan Supreme Court, the chaos will be seen for what it is, a GOP creation. Yes, there are troubles in the Mideast - but what else is new - and we're on the cusp of reaching a deal on Iran's nuclear weapons. Concerns in the Ukraine? Of course. But that's not a Republican talking point.
Of course Ms. Clinton is not a shoo-in. We are Democrats. But this naive, "things could be so bad" scenario is a product of the Republican FUD machine, not good analytical reporting.
Buck up, Mr. Cohn. The 2016 general election shows every sign of favoring a Democrat riding 8 years of great White House leadership - and 2 years of repeated GOP emotional and political meltdowns in Congress. It's going to be a horse race for the Democratic nominee - as it should be- and the campaign will test and hone the eventual nominee's skills.
I'm feeling good at this point about 2016 and rumors of the death of Democrats in the next election are greatly exaggerated.
Meanwhile, unemployment is below 6% and falling, and if the Fed reacts carefully, we may be partying like it's 1995 in 2016, as Paul Krugman suggests. The Affordable care Act is bending the cost curve - and if torpedoed by a partisan Supreme Court, the chaos will be seen for what it is, a GOP creation. Yes, there are troubles in the Mideast - but what else is new - and we're on the cusp of reaching a deal on Iran's nuclear weapons. Concerns in the Ukraine? Of course. But that's not a Republican talking point.
Of course Ms. Clinton is not a shoo-in. We are Democrats. But this naive, "things could be so bad" scenario is a product of the Republican FUD machine, not good analytical reporting.
Buck up, Mr. Cohn. The 2016 general election shows every sign of favoring a Democrat riding 8 years of great White House leadership - and 2 years of repeated GOP emotional and political meltdowns in Congress. It's going to be a horse race for the Democratic nominee - as it should be- and the campaign will test and hone the eventual nominee's skills.
I'm feeling good at this point about 2016 and rumors of the death of Democrats in the next election are greatly exaggerated.
6
And to think that the gossip columns would only be handled by Jonathan Martin and Amy Chozick. Looks like everyone's got to jump on the bandwagon.
2
Imagine the charts of favorable and unfavorable ratings for Clinton (and Bush) after another 300 days of dynasty fatigue, faux authenticity, reminders of cronyism and sleaze, private jets, presidential suites, and crudites, all layered atop 15, 20, to 25 years of median household income stagnation. Even before considering the paucity of her (and Bush's) accomplishments in public office, the stage will be set for newcomers to capture the nominations.
Clinton becoming the nominee depends heavily on Bush being the frontrunner for the Republican nomination. Anyone else -- think for 15 seconds about each of the other Republican possibilities -- will leave the door open for any Democrat to win the general election.
Clinton becoming the nominee depends heavily on Bush being the frontrunner for the Republican nomination. Anyone else -- think for 15 seconds about each of the other Republican possibilities -- will leave the door open for any Democrat to win the general election.
3
OPRAH for President.
1
Yeah, why not. But will Dr. Phil pass vetting as Surgeon General?
2
"She has, in other words, gone back to being what Mr. Obama’s supporters alleged in 2008: a polarizing figure, just as Mr. Obama is today."
Every major American politician is a polarizing figure. In our current political environment if you call yourself a Democrat or a Republican then you're a polarizing figure by definition. We don't like each other very much.
Every major American politician is a polarizing figure. In our current political environment if you call yourself a Democrat or a Republican then you're a polarizing figure by definition. We don't like each other very much.
44
So obvious that it hardly warrants noting and granted correlation is not causation, but the decline in Hillary's numbers directly corresponds to the length of time she has been out of office and unannounced for 2016.
2
Former Secretary of State Clinton ought not to run for President in 2016--
1. Judging by recent photographs, she appears to be, "a little tired" [my caption]. Sixty-seven years of age may not be considered "old" for the average senior facing 10 to 30 years of retirement. But then, being President isn't what I would call, "retirement".
2. The next 10 years (2 to run, 4 to 8 to serve) will exact an incredible toll on our next President, mentally and physically. The outlook from the Oval Office is already gloomy, both at home and abroad. Danger lurks everywhere. The next occupant will need to display superhuman strength and ability on a daily basis.
3. Secretary Clinton has always been a polarizing figure, "something of a lightening rod" [my caption], ever prone to scandal. This simply doubles the load she'll need to carry. Better to elect someone like former President Ford, who was perceived as, "squeaky clean, conciliatory at home, firm and decisive abroad" [my caption].
... As a US citizen and member of the voting public, I recommend that Secretary of State John Kerry consider another run for President on the Democratic ticket, and that former Governor Mitt Romney reconsider running as the Republican candidate. These two strong and capable men are in my opinion the best we have...
May our next President be our best President--
... He or she will have to be...
1. Judging by recent photographs, she appears to be, "a little tired" [my caption]. Sixty-seven years of age may not be considered "old" for the average senior facing 10 to 30 years of retirement. But then, being President isn't what I would call, "retirement".
2. The next 10 years (2 to run, 4 to 8 to serve) will exact an incredible toll on our next President, mentally and physically. The outlook from the Oval Office is already gloomy, both at home and abroad. Danger lurks everywhere. The next occupant will need to display superhuman strength and ability on a daily basis.
3. Secretary Clinton has always been a polarizing figure, "something of a lightening rod" [my caption], ever prone to scandal. This simply doubles the load she'll need to carry. Better to elect someone like former President Ford, who was perceived as, "squeaky clean, conciliatory at home, firm and decisive abroad" [my caption].
... As a US citizen and member of the voting public, I recommend that Secretary of State John Kerry consider another run for President on the Democratic ticket, and that former Governor Mitt Romney reconsider running as the Republican candidate. These two strong and capable men are in my opinion the best we have...
May our next President be our best President--
... He or she will have to be...
10
Er, Romney is the same age as Hillary, 67 right now and 73 in 2020. As for Kerry, he was born in 1943, which would make him 77 at the end of the 2016-20 term.
2
I see: First an article on Hillary's email, then on the Clinton Foundation (for, gasp, accepting funds from Middle Eastern countries, just like every politician), now an article citing those articles on Hillary's email and the Clinton Foundation. This is the Times chasing its own tail: a made-up media moment.
32
Practically a lock on the nomination, but not for the presidency - sounds about right. But it would be nice to see some quantitative analysis in here. Look at the states that were close in the last two elections. Look at the demographics and other fundamentals for those states. How do they look for a basically pro-business, pro-law-and-order/national security Democratic woman with a solid resume (and, yes, a sleaze factor)? Isn't this kind of analysis what the Upshot is about - not just wise heads nodding?
And BTW: "None of this is not to say that Mrs. Clinton is a weak candidate." is a great example of a Freudian slip.
And BTW: "None of this is not to say that Mrs. Clinton is a weak candidate." is a great example of a Freudian slip.
3
I'm trying to figure out how the pollsters found 87% of Democrats who supported Hillary. Perhaps if it were worded, "Do you want Hillary or Rand Paul?", but other than that the number seems contrived.
7
I think the 87% figure is explained by the fact that the people surveyed were comprised solely of Clinton political operatives, criminal defense lawyers, and those seeking willing to trade large sums of cash for Presidential pardons; obviously, they have a vested interest.
6
What other candidates are known? Who are those polled going to mention? This is the general public, not the NY Times readership. They have not heard of any other candidates.
1
@Jonathan--it still boils down to how the question is worded. Unless the articles includes the question responded to--"When was the last time you hit your wife?", the poll numbers appear contrived. I certainly agree that commenters to NYT articles seem to pay attention more but that is a small sample influenced by my own prejudices.
Hillary will win the general election in large part because many centrist women want a woman in the White House.
6
This is progress? Since when is one's personal plumbing the rational basis for high office? Even if it were, there are plenty of good solid women candidates far better and more qualified than Mrs. Clinton. America is ready for a woman president but it can do far better and deserves far more than Hillary. Seen in the broader context, her election is just one more step to this country becoming a banana republic.
16
This race will be decided by women and minorities both of whom like Ms. Clinton very much. We are ready for a woman in the White House and Ms. Clinton has risen to the top over many years of harassment from both the Republicans and some of the Democrats. Other women are coming up through the system, namely Elizabeth Warren. But Ms. Warren has wisely decided not to run. She will be a better candidate in a few more years, but she is not as experienced as Hillary.
The Republican Party will scale up its already constant slinging of mud at Hillary because it doesn't have a candidate to compare with Hillary.
My fear is that she will be swift boated as John Kerry was. The GOP finally found the piece of mud that would stick on Kerry and so he lost in spite of being far more qualified than Bush. Already they are testing different kinds of mud to see if they can make it stiick on Hillary.
Whether they can bury her in mud or not is the only question. She is far more qualified to be Presidemt tna any candidate on the Republican bench. Still negative campaigning works -- that-s why it is so prevalent.
The Republican Party will scale up its already constant slinging of mud at Hillary because it doesn't have a candidate to compare with Hillary.
My fear is that she will be swift boated as John Kerry was. The GOP finally found the piece of mud that would stick on Kerry and so he lost in spite of being far more qualified than Bush. Already they are testing different kinds of mud to see if they can make it stiick on Hillary.
Whether they can bury her in mud or not is the only question. She is far more qualified to be Presidemt tna any candidate on the Republican bench. Still negative campaigning works -- that-s why it is so prevalent.
3
"Wanting a woman in the White House" is so lame. I
wanted an African American to someday be President,
but not ANY African American - I wanted an intelligent,
wise, and honest African American - which we got in spades ! Those wanting a woman President need to be
for the right woman.
wanted an African American to someday be President,
but not ANY African American - I wanted an intelligent,
wise, and honest African American - which we got in spades ! Those wanting a woman President need to be
for the right woman.
2
Regardless of the outcome this time, Mrs. Clinton has already made history as the first presidential wannabe to be inevitable twice. The question that none of the data has been able to answer, though, is why we can't do better.
10
This email kerfuffle was like a splash of cold water, waking this liberal up from his dream that HRC was somehow a changed, credible candidate. If the Dems can run on the issues -- economic justice, climate change, marriage equality, peace -- we win. If HRC is nominated, the Repubs will make the race about her, and we will lose.
The many credible Democrats who have stood on the sidelines need to jump in now, starting with Elizabeth Warren.
The many credible Democrats who have stood on the sidelines need to jump in now, starting with Elizabeth Warren.
20
Democrats need to be very wery of hanging on to Mrs. Clinton in 2016 in the way that Republicans fiercely believed that Mr. Romney was a slam-dunk. They are obviously still bitter, and reflected in their utter lack of cooperation with our current President.
5
Her unfavorable-as-President, which would be a better question, rating is through the floor. "But she didn't announce..." She was married to announce. Jeb Bush: never. The next president will be someone we barely know right now, like Obama was unknown at this stage, and people will follow him or her. The internet ability for me to 'speak' to a stranger in Kansas or anywhere has matured in 8 years and my friend in Kansas or anywhere is as tired as I am of the name brand candidate. We want generic.
4
Anyone who believes in Open Government laws won't vote for Hilary.
She's a sneak, just like Bill.
She's a sneak, just like Bill.
7
But they may still, given what they see as the alternative.
George Bush - sneaked us into a ten year war and the cost of trillions of dollars and untold lives, Ronald Reagan sneaked tax increases on to the middle class calling them revenue enhancements, and Richard Nixon, well we all know about his sneakiness - so who are the sneaks - need to check your bias at the history book door.
3
This is a very self-serving summary of the present political landscape, which the author tells us alternately to pay attention to and ignore.
"But at least for now, her favorability ratings don’t resemble those of an especially strong candidate".
"But general-election polls more than a year before Election Day have little meaning".
This read was a waste of my time.....
"But at least for now, her favorability ratings don’t resemble those of an especially strong candidate".
"But general-election polls more than a year before Election Day have little meaning".
This read was a waste of my time.....
10
I will believe this when Nate Silver says it in print.
3
Is this about a US Presidential election or an 11th grade high school election?
5
Yes!
1
Yep!
If it please you, a sentence that begins "none of this is not to say" is, as is the case in this case, very likely to say what the author intends not.
Editor please repair.
Editor please repair.
4
I think that this is largely a consequence of the country's polarization. A few years ago Hillary was associated with the relatively non-political role of Secy of State, and fond memories of her husband's economic record. Now, she is looking more and more like a candidate, whose policies will likely be close enough to Obama's that it's difficult to see many McCain or Romney voters switching. That doesn't mean she doesn't need to do better, but just that there's a ceiling.
Her strengths are significant. She may have lost in 2008, but by end was a strong candidate. She'll have no trouble raising the money and recruiting the staff necessary to run a national campaign. The very fact that she is so well-known means that negative attacks can only do so much because a lot of people already have made up their minds. Just as Republicans will rally around Jeb Bush in a general, I think that the same can be said of Democrats and Democratic-leaning constituencies.
Her strengths are significant. She may have lost in 2008, but by end was a strong candidate. She'll have no trouble raising the money and recruiting the staff necessary to run a national campaign. The very fact that she is so well-known means that negative attacks can only do so much because a lot of people already have made up their minds. Just as Republicans will rally around Jeb Bush in a general, I think that the same can be said of Democrats and Democratic-leaning constituencies.
2
I am not an expert on demographics and cannot analyze where her votes will come from but all I can share is that I do not want Hillary to run. I am sick of hearing and seeing and reading about the so-called Bush and Clinton dynasties. I consider myself a Progressive Democrat and I want someone with those ideals and can reach out to the electorate and inspire them and excite them. I'm sorry, I am not inspired by Hillary but I am inspired by Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders or another hidden gem waiting to set foot out of the shadows and lead this country.
38
The Bush family includes two U.S. Senators, one Supreme Court Justice, two Governors and two Presidents (one of the two presidents also served as Vice President) and a third possibly seeking further high office.
The Bill and Hillary Clinton are two people from the same generation who held high public office.
The "dynasty" term is inappropriately applied to the Clintons.
The Bill and Hillary Clinton are two people from the same generation who held high public office.
The "dynasty" term is inappropriately applied to the Clintons.
1
Who care which way the weeds are blowing on one day or another? It will not matter until election day. As we all know most of the nation will vote Dem. or Rep. no matter what. In the mean time we watch the press exhaust itself trying to come up with stuff to write day in and day out. Most of it speculative or stenographic.
Perhaps one reason Clinton has no challenger in the primary is that the press only covers politics in the most superficial way so the readership has little knowledge of governors and senators outside of the few making fools of themselves on a daily basis, mostly Republicans.
Responsible leadership just doesn't cut it by the media's lights these days so we have little knowledge regarding the few serious people we send to office, only the class clowns.
Perhaps one reason Clinton has no challenger in the primary is that the press only covers politics in the most superficial way so the readership has little knowledge of governors and senators outside of the few making fools of themselves on a daily basis, mostly Republicans.
Responsible leadership just doesn't cut it by the media's lights these days so we have little knowledge regarding the few serious people we send to office, only the class clowns.
4
Whether Hillary is weak or strong, it's time for other Dems to get into the race. Since I'll be voting Dem in 2016 (I'm an ex-GOP moderate), I'm glad these issues are coming to the fore now. All the better to give some breathing space to other candidates, when up to now all the oxygen in the room has been taken up by Hillary's presumed candidacy.
And not Elizabeth Warren please - she has a large legislative role to play. As we can see in Congress, POTUS isn't the whole story.
And not Elizabeth Warren please - she has a large legislative role to play. As we can see in Congress, POTUS isn't the whole story.
26
I'm with you on everything you've said. Elizabeth Warren is better suited in the senate. I don't believe she will be able to win a national election due to her polarizing politics (even though I agree with most of her agenda).
17
The most obvious conclusion from the favorability ratings graph is that the American public does not like a strong woman seeking power. The more successful Hillary is, the more some people hate her. It's the "head girl envy" syndrome that we know all too well from high schools.
4
America is far beyond that. The problem with Mrs. Clinton is Mrs. Clinton.
20
I think it's more likely that America does not like a problematic, scandal-prone, aspiring, rapacious empty pantsuit to be president. How did Hillary ever become a feminist icon? What does her experience teach anyone, let alone women? First, marry a preternaturally charming politician who becomes president, stand on his shoulders then wait? Hillary's path to power has a great deal in common with Lurleen Wallace's path to the Alabama governor's house, and I don't see anyone waving Lurleen's example.
7
Wow! MCPs are having a field day today - you want "empty suits" or should I say empty pot-bellied bloviated male suits look no farther than the Republican line up. And the male equivalent of Luleen? Try Ted Cruz on for size.
2
The Dems are going to miss Obama come 2016. Presidential elections these days are about winning 7 or 8 (or possibly as little as 4 or 5) battleground states, and Obama was a great candidate in that respect. He energized African American voters, young voters and urban liberals and clearly brought people into the voting booth who wouldn't have been there otherwise. It remains to be seen if Clinton can do that. There is a reason Obama beat her fairly handily in 2008 primaries.
The Republicans have a problem in that a candidate who wins primaries by energizing Tea Party and Christian Right voters is NOT who they want in November. But for Dems it may be the opposite. A good primary election candidate might be what they need to goose the turnout in the battleground states. In other words, the base strategy now seems to play better for Dems than Republicans.
The Republicans have a problem in that a candidate who wins primaries by energizing Tea Party and Christian Right voters is NOT who they want in November. But for Dems it may be the opposite. A good primary election candidate might be what they need to goose the turnout in the battleground states. In other words, the base strategy now seems to play better for Dems than Republicans.
11
Any prognostication for the 2016 general Presidential election should answer this question: "Which states that President Obama won in 2012 will the Democratic candidate lose in 2016?"
Telephone polls of favorable vs. unfavorable, appeal to Red State Democrats, extrapolations of 2012 Congressional results in Iowa or Colorado, and "scandals" that interest only people who wouldn't vote for a Democrat anyway are meaningless at this point.
There is also the issue of whom the Republicans nominate. Every election is a specific choice between candidates, and many voters choose whom they want to vote against.
Certainly Sec. Clinton might not win the Presidency in 2016. How many things can anyone name that will undoubtedly happen in 2016?
Telephone polls of favorable vs. unfavorable, appeal to Red State Democrats, extrapolations of 2012 Congressional results in Iowa or Colorado, and "scandals" that interest only people who wouldn't vote for a Democrat anyway are meaningless at this point.
There is also the issue of whom the Republicans nominate. Every election is a specific choice between candidates, and many voters choose whom they want to vote against.
Certainly Sec. Clinton might not win the Presidency in 2016. How many things can anyone name that will undoubtedly happen in 2016?
3
An extremely muddled analysis of the tea leaves to say the least. Either Hillary is a strong, very strong candidate at this preciously early stage of the pre-campaign, or else she is terribly weak. Pollsters and political prognosticators shouldn't be allowed to have it both ways, and this fascinating but confusing article triangulates Hillary's poll numbers in a way perhaps only her hubby Bill, the ultimate triangulator, could enjoy or be satisfied with.
12
I don't understand the assumption that Clinton is just going to sweep to the Democratic primary. I always assumed a legitimate contender would emerge, and probably defeat Clinton. Specifically, I feel like Jim Webb brings tremendous credentials that would serve well in an general election.
I felt the same way at this time in the 2008 process when the "conventional wisdom" was Ms. Clinton would be the sure Democratic nominee. Sure enough, she struggled immediately and an relative unknown emerged.
The difference this time is there seems to be no energy in the party for a competitive race. It really does seem like a foregone conclusion Clinton will be the nominee.
I don't think this serves the party or the nation well. We need truly competitive races not the illusion of true competition while backroom kingmakers set the agenda.
I felt the same way at this time in the 2008 process when the "conventional wisdom" was Ms. Clinton would be the sure Democratic nominee. Sure enough, she struggled immediately and an relative unknown emerged.
The difference this time is there seems to be no energy in the party for a competitive race. It really does seem like a foregone conclusion Clinton will be the nominee.
I don't think this serves the party or the nation well. We need truly competitive races not the illusion of true competition while backroom kingmakers set the agenda.
43
Quick, name Hillary Clinton's greatest accomplishments. Now stop struggling with that one, and quickly name her biggest problems. I bet you had a lot easier time coming up with her problems than you did her accomplishments. Therein is the reason Hillary Clinton is a weak candidate.
70
Yes, President Merv, you're right. But perform this same exercise with any of the leading presidential contenders (Jeb Bush? Chris Christie? Rand Paul? Scott Walker? Elizabeth Warren? Joe Biden?), and you'll get similar results.
Maybe this next presidential campaign will have to be based on ideas and proposals rather than resumés. LOL.
Maybe this next presidential campaign will have to be based on ideas and proposals rather than resumés. LOL.
1
And, quickly now, name the greatest accomplishment of Bush, Ragen, or Mittens, pre presidential, of course. It is a slippery slope upon which you plant your flag.
1
How would (then) Senator Obama, or (then) Governor George W. Bush have fared in your tests?
4
Yes, it's still all speculative--who knows what will happen this far out. Candidates can make all sorts of mistakes. In 2008, McCain threw away his last chance by picking Palin as his VP.
Right now, it looks like the only Democrat who could conceivably challenge Clinton would be Elizabeth Warren. And she still says she doesn't want to. It would be fun if Sanders ran, because he would say things that need to be said, but he has zero chance of nomination.
But I think it says something about our current generation of political leaders if the best we can hope for is another round of Bush vs. Clinton. I mean, really, there could hardly be a more stark demonstration of the capture of our political process by the interests of the oligarchy.
Right now, it looks like the only Democrat who could conceivably challenge Clinton would be Elizabeth Warren. And she still says she doesn't want to. It would be fun if Sanders ran, because he would say things that need to be said, but he has zero chance of nomination.
But I think it says something about our current generation of political leaders if the best we can hope for is another round of Bush vs. Clinton. I mean, really, there could hardly be a more stark demonstration of the capture of our political process by the interests of the oligarchy.
77
Very well stated. I think 2012 was the first presidential election since 1972 when a Clinton or a Bush wasn't a serious primary or general election candidate for either President or VP. That's really hard to imagine.
2
Please, the President is also "Commander in Chief" and a lot of people, this Democrat among them, just do not seriously see Elizabeth Warren in that role.
She's a great Senator and that's it.
She's a great Senator and that's it.
2
what is wrong with people that they want to lean on two families this way, and families with this much baggage? It has to do with celebrity probably and we all certainly need to curb our enthusiasm with celebrity.
2
If the Latino constituency turns out, no Republican stands a chance. After the way they have treated this enormous and growing body of voters, demographics alone will defeat almost any of the front-running candidates.
5
"No republican stands a chance," due to the Latino constituency?
Jeb Bush is married to a Latina; speaks fluent Spanish; and has estranged some of his party by a liberal position on illegal immigrants' status.
If Jeb is nominated, the Hispanic vote will definitely be in play.
If some righty goober is nominated, I would agree with you.
Jeb Bush is married to a Latina; speaks fluent Spanish; and has estranged some of his party by a liberal position on illegal immigrants' status.
If Jeb is nominated, the Hispanic vote will definitely be in play.
If some righty goober is nominated, I would agree with you.
19
Really? The GOP are against illegal immigration, but Hispanic voters are citizens by definition. Do you really think that such voters care that much about immigration? Maybe they don't want more competition for jobs, just like other American citizens.
2
Latino voters are not one block. Rubio's Cuban story is one of a displaced elite rather than that of the more usual immigrant struggle. That's not going to impress Mexicans, Dominicans and Nicaraguans. Though Jeb's wife is Mexican, that may or may not matter as much to voters as his personal connection to his own family which is so prominent.
Voters in general of "minority" descriptions are wary of GOP tokenism. And, yes, voters of Mexican, Central American, and Caribbean origin care very much about immigration - they're very family and community oriented and that their own selves may be set, Jonathan, does not end the concern of any individual. Furthermore, they're more exposed to economic concerns than many GOP voters and that *is* weighing toward the Dems.
I also think the idea that social conservativism on the part of the current GOP would be more appealing to Hispanics, is over-ridden by an aversion to the fiercely individualistic cant of much of the party.
Now, I don't think Dems should be taking Latin voters for granted either. But thinking the GOP has it made because of a Mexican wife of a candidate or they're somehow uninterested in a more liberal immigration policy is to have one's head in the sand.
Voters in general of "minority" descriptions are wary of GOP tokenism. And, yes, voters of Mexican, Central American, and Caribbean origin care very much about immigration - they're very family and community oriented and that their own selves may be set, Jonathan, does not end the concern of any individual. Furthermore, they're more exposed to economic concerns than many GOP voters and that *is* weighing toward the Dems.
I also think the idea that social conservativism on the part of the current GOP would be more appealing to Hispanics, is over-ridden by an aversion to the fiercely individualistic cant of much of the party.
Now, I don't think Dems should be taking Latin voters for granted either. But thinking the GOP has it made because of a Mexican wife of a candidate or they're somehow uninterested in a more liberal immigration policy is to have one's head in the sand.
3
Am I the only mid-west Democrat who is weary of Hilary? Too much, too long.
62
This attitude is probably a predictor of why the Republicans will take over government in 2016. We'll have so much to look forward to when they get to nominate new Supreme Court justices.
12
Currently USSC 5-4, rightwing wins. If Dem wins in '16, probably one of the minority gets replaced … still 5-4. The oligarchs have a lock on the court. Far past '16. Don't look for salvation there.
Wallace, give up the echo chamber and vote your conscience when the time comes.
Unforunately the Dems. couldn't be bothered with grooming an alternative over the last three years. On the Wallace note; am I the only one sick of Dem. party leadership?
Unforunately the Dems. couldn't be bothered with grooming an alternative over the last three years. On the Wallace note; am I the only one sick of Dem. party leadership?
3
How powerful does the name "Clinton" remain in certain states? True, Bill Clinton's strong, passionate efforts to help save Mark Pryor in Arkansas failed by a substantial margin. Clinton endorsements also seemed to offer little boost for other statewide candidates in a number of races. Nonetheless, the Clinton name was not on the ballot. I think there is, at least at present, legitimate reason to believe she would not only outperform Barack Obama's 2012 totals in some of these old-time Democratic states, but any other person the party could nominate. She may do much better with white, married women than any Democrat in years. I agree that it's not enough to swing West Virginia or even Arkansas unless it is a wave election, but it should give her a larger cushion in Ohio and Pennsylvania, for example, devastating Republican chances overall. That would leave the GOP, in a toss-up election, with an extraordinarily narrow path to victory, requiring its candidate to add Florida, Virginia, Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire to the Romney states with *zero* margin for error in the Electoral College (losing NH would yield a 269-269 result, absent a faithless elector, sending the issue to the House of Representatives).
5
But if the election is settled by the House of Representatives, the Republicans have an overwhelming advantage.
I read this and just cheered. Now maybe some with real character, humility and empathy and compassion for the former American middle class will run for office. I'm tired of Hillary. I'm worn out. I'm tired of her excuses. I'm tired of her pandering to the rich. I'm tired of the excuses she made for her husband. I'm tired of her breaking rules to suit her needs. I'm tired of a candidate who won't admit she's a candidate but pretends she is one. I'm tired of a woman who supported the North American Free Trade Agreement and gave it tacit approval while simultaneously acknowledging that she wasn't certain about it.
I want a real Democratic candidate for president. I want one who will stand up to the Republicans and not be spineless. I want a Democrat that will rebuild the devastated American middle class. Before I would even consider voting for Hillary I would vote for the ghost of Richard Nixon. Hillary! Please! Stay home. Be a grandma. Don't run for president. You didn't earn that right and you don't deserve to be considered a candidate. Go hide your e-mail. This Democrat will not vote for you for dog catcher. You failed as Secretary of State. You failed as First Lady and you continue to not be trusted or trustworthy. I'd vote for Nancy Reagan before you. I'm a Democrat Hillary but I have no idea what you are or what you stand for. Except perhaps your own interest.