GOP establishment fears the monster they created...

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by Asympotically fat

....I think eventually (i.e. maybe not next election) the Republican party will come back with an electable centre-leaning candidate and the tea party and their ilk will return to the wing, rather than trying to control the 'Pubs.

Except that loses. There already is a ruthlessly centrist party, the Dems. The Trog Right isn't expendable, they can't do it without them. The Bizness Pubbies had been scamming the knuckle-walkers for years, pretending to give a shit about their priorities, flattering them, petting them, and forgetting them.

And it just isn't working any more. That is reason number one they are in such a lather to try and rig the system.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

No, you're wrong...

Uhm, it was a joke.

Have you had your blood pressure checked recently?

[Asympotically fat]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Except that loses. There already is a ruthlessly centrist party, the Dems. The Trog Right isn't expendable, they can't do it without them. The Bizness Pubbies had been scamming the knuckle-walkers for years, pretending to give a shit about their priorities, flattering them, petting them, and forgetting them.

And it just isn't working any more. That is reason number one they are in such a lather to try and rig the system.

It doesn't work just to cede the centre to your rival, voters in the middle count double in any system where there are only two real contenders as every vote you lose in the middle is a potential vote that your rival gains. The Republicans may lose fighting for the centre, but at least they would stand more of a chance.

They need the Tea Party constituency to vote for them, but what they don't need them is to dictate policy for them. The right wing of the party would still vote for a more centrist candidate. They might not like it, they're not about to vote Democrat because of it.

Of course by ignoring their right wing too much there is a danger that they could lose voters either to a third party candidate out-flanking on them on the right or to less voter engagement. However that risk should not be over-exaggerated. A vote lost to either a 3rd party candidate or due to apathy is not a vote gained by the Democrats and so is not as important as a vote lost in the centre. Also even those on the right would recognize that a 3rd party or not voting for a Republican candidate because they are not right-wing enough is self-defeating. They fear any Democratic candidate far more than they fear a centre-leaning Republican one.

If the economy is on the road to recovery and the Democrats can put up a good candidate and the Republicans don't reform themselves (which they show no sign of doing), the Republicans may find themselves on the end of an even worse loss next time around. I think that would serve as a major wake-up call to them and the influence of the Tea Party wing will instantly evaporate to nothing AND then you will see the kind of changes being made to drag themselves to the centre and make them electable.

[Dick Dastardly]

Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder

I don't buy it. I don't think she's as much of lock on the nomination or the presidency as everyone here thinks she is. Forget the shambles the GOP is currently facing, all's it takes is one charismatic, young, fresh, non-establishment, inspiring candidate to flip a campaign upside down...just ask Hillary Clinton. I don't see her wanting to trudge through another campaign for the presidency and go through what she went through in the 90s and 2008.

She's served, she's achieved more power and prestige than any woman in American history, she's currently beloved by most Americans, she's respected internationally, but she's not a masochist. And she's not young. It's an exhausting process, and there's way too much for her to lose.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I suspect Hillary's going to retire to raise money for her pet causes, enjoy the bully pulpit of elder stateswoman, and make buttloads of cash on the speaking tour.

Just like the GOP the Democratic party has a troublesome base. These people are the ones who vote in primaries and they have their pet issues like any other motivated political group. In 2007 their big issue was the Iraq war. Hillary had played it safe and been an enthusiastic war backer. Obama took a risk and mildly, with lots of wiggle room ashould it become necessary later, opposed the war. And that single issue cost Hillary the nomination. There was just so much anger against her in the base and so many people that just couldn't support her because of Iraq. Obama was still a rank outsider going into the first Dem primary but when the numbers came out and the exit polling was done it was Iraq that sank her. After that her campaign gradually crumbled.

That's ancient history now and she's still ruthlessly ambitious. All pols at that level are and have not a little ego too -- look at McCain trying to get elected in his mid seventies and unable to deal with the fact that the electorate preferred somebody else.

If she stays healthy the Democratic primaries will be a coronation and if nothing disastrous happens to the country/economy under Obama she'll walk the 2016 election. In the meantime she'll write a book, do lots of speeches, charity work and keep building up the donor base that the Clintons have and take over the Obama donor base/all the election databases the Obama campaign have.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby

Bailouts, deficits, and housing bubble inflated by government wouldn't happen under the tea party.

Not even you believe that. They're no more the party of fiscal responsibility than are the GOP.

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby

I'll take Reagan over Nixon any day.

Not if you have a problem with deficits, you won't.

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder

She won't run. She's more popular now (as is evidenced by that KY poll) than she's ever been. If she runs for president, it'll be the 90s all over again. She has a legacy to think about.

By 2016, Hillary will have been a major public figure for a quarter of a century. People will have largely made up their minds about what they think of her generally. They can try re-running Hillary Hate, but it'll do more to rally support for her than opposition to her.

Not to mention, a few more years of Seniors Wildly Indignant about Nearly Everything dying off will improve the chances of every Democrat across the board.

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by Dick Dastardly

If she stays healthy the Democratic primaries will be a coronation and if nothing disastrous happens to the country/economy under Obama she'll walk the 2016 election. In the meantime she'll write a book, do lots of speeches, charity work and keep building up the donor base that the Clintons have and take over the Obama donor base/all the election databases the Obama campaign have.

If she stays healthy, she'll have to run against Joe Biden, Martin O'Malley, and probably Brian Schweitzer. I think Biden will prove to be a paper tiger, but a lot of people will be ready for someone more of Obama's generation than Hillary's, and O'Malley will be a strong contender. Nobody wins 2016 in a walk.

[Happy Lendervedder]

Originally Posted by Dick Dastardly

Just like the GOP the Democratic party has a troublesome base. These people are the ones who vote in primaries and they have their pet issues like any other motivated political group. In 2007 their big issue was the Iraq war. Hillary had played it safe and been an enthusiastic war backer. Obama took a risk and mildly, with lots of wiggle room ashould it become necessary later, opposed the war. And that single issue cost Hillary the nomination. There was just so much anger against her in the base and so many people that just couldn't support her because of Iraq. Obama was still a rank outsider going into the first Dem primary but when the numbers came out and the exit polling was done it was Iraq that sank her. After that her campaign gradually crumbled.

That's ancient history now and she's still ruthlessly ambitious. All pols at that level are and have not a little ego too -- look at McCain trying to get elected in his mid seventies and unable to deal with the fact that the electorate preferred somebody else.

If she stays healthy the Democratic primaries will be a coronation and if nothing disastrous happens to the country/economy under Obama she'll walk the 2016 election. In the meantime she'll write a book, do lots of speeches, charity work and keep building up the donor base that the Clintons have and take over the Obama donor base/all the election databases the Obama campaign have.

Well I guess we'll see, won't we? This Democratic overconfidence is troublesome, however.

[Just1Lurk]

Originally Posted by Robot Arm

You're very clever, young man, but it's no use. It's 'tortous' all the way down.

And this, sir, is why you owe me a new keyboard

[Hello Again]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

And as a lawyer I advise all to be sure to confuse neither with "tortous," i.e., conduct constituting a tort; a tort being an actionable civil wrong, usually having nothing to do with pastry.

I'm, like, 99% sure it's tortious.

[Smapti]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

By 2016, Hillary will have been a major public figure for a quarter of a century. People will have largely made up their minds about what they think of her generally. They can try re-running Hillary Hate, but it'll do more to rally support for her than opposition to her.

If I were 69 years old, I don't think I'd want to put up with another several years of "but what about BenGHAAAAAAAAAAAAZI?"

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by Smapti

If I were 69 years old, I don't think I'd want to put up with another several years of "but what about BenGHAAAAAAAAAAAAZI?"

She'll have to learn to roll her eyes very discreetly but still visibly. And by 2016, most Americans won't remember what "Benghazi" is supposed to mean in the GOP lexicon. Increasingly, the wingnuts are talking in code that means nothing to most Americans.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Uhm, it was a joke.

Have you had your blood pressure checked recently?

No, it wasn't a joke. You were illiterate--he was using the correct definition of "their" but an ambiguous antecedent. Not that it's important. I just thought you might enjoy seeing what your brand of petty nit-picking feels like.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Have you had your blood pressure checked recently?

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

I just thought you might enjoy seeing what your brand of petty nit-picking feels like.

Tone it down, please.

[Zakalwe]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

She'll have to learn to roll her eyes very discreetly but still visibly. And by 2016, most Americans won't remember what "Benghazi" is supposed to mean in the GOP lexicon. Increasingly, the wingnuts are talking in code that means nothing to most Americans.

Seriously. How true is this? I find myself looking up phrases just to see what they're supposed to mean to the people they're aimed at. "like a snowstorm in February" - the fuck? Oh. It's code for "Obama is a Kenyan, Muslim, atheist who wants to destroy America", who knew?

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Hello Again

I'm, like, 99% sure it's tortious.

Correct; spelled it wrong. (Damn, that spoils the "all the way down" bit! )

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Asympotically fat

They need the Tea Party constituency to vote for them, but what they don't need them is to dictate policy for them. The right wing of the party would still vote for a more centrist candidate. They might not like it, they're not about to vote Democrat because of it.

No; but they may well decide to simply stay home and not vote at all for someone they consider a Democrat in disguise.

Originally Posted by Asympotically fat

I think that would serve as a major wake-up call to them and the influence of the Tea Party wing will instantly evaporate to nothing AND then you will see the kind of changes being made to drag themselves to the centre and make them electable.

There's a problem with that though; the Democrats are already there at what passes for a center; they've spent the last few decades sliding to the Right just behind the Republicans. Unless the Democrats move left, there's no room for the Republicans to move very much to the center without become indistinguishable from the Democrats.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by NitroPress

Occupy was co-opted by day 2. Which was unsurprising.

By whom?

[Dick Dastardly]

Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder

Well I guess we'll see, won't we? This Democratic overconfidence is troublesome, however.

I'm never overconfident. Something could happen like the 2008 economic meltdown that gets tied to Obama and ruins the Democratic brand. But likely things the Democrats push like an immgration reform will just split the GOP and highlight their non-friendly Hispanic/Asian attitudes. The GOP have to have a 2016 nomination process too. That means candidates having to appeal to GOP primary voters, the craziest of the crazy, who aren't going to be in a more moderate mood after four more years of the Kenyan socialist and so they'll have the same clown car derby they had in 2008.

The GOP spent decades appealing to white resentment and it worked because of the white majority. But they don't have a majority anymore and so the policies they used have now come back to bite them in the ass. As Senator Huckleberry Closetcase recently pointed out, they've run out of angry white guys :

http://gawker.com/5939404/sen-lindse...to-sustain-gop

[Dick Dastardly]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

If she stays healthy, she'll have to run against Joe Biden, Martin O'Malley, and probably Brian Schweitzer. I think Biden will prove to be a paper tiger, but a lot of people will be ready for someone more of Obama's generation than Hillary's, and O'Malley will be a strong contender. Nobody wins 2016 in a walk.

I follow US politics quite closely and I've never heard of O'Malley. I've heard the second name but can't remember where. Hillary is known by everyone, (now) massively popular with the Democratic base, is a woman* and has a funding network that will dwarf every single candidate in the race. She'll also have Obama's campaign databases of supporters and the best people will want to work for her. If she stays healthy and runs it'll be a coronation, the other guys won't even be window dressing.

*You can't underestimate this. After the first black president the first woman president.

[Dick Dastardly]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

She'll have to learn to roll her eyes very discreetly but still visibly. And by 2016, most Americans won't remember what "Benghazi" is supposed to mean in the GOP lexicon. Increasingly, the wingnuts are talking in code that means nothing to most Americans.

This is undoubtedly true. Benghazi and things like it only matter to people who hate her anyway. They'd be doing her a favour by attacking her on things like this.

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by Dick Dastardly

I follow US politics quite closely and I've never heard of O'Malley. I've heard the second name but can't remember where.

Martin O'Malley is in his second term as governor of Maryland, and before that he was mayor of Baltimore for eight years, and city council and so forth before that. He's chaired the Democratic Governors' Association, which is a modest springboard for Presidential candidacies; past chairs include Bill Clinton and Howard Dean. More significantly, someone isn't likely to hold that position unless the people who run the national party think well of him/her. So he's got a good record, he's well-connected, he's running, and his second term as governor conveniently ends in January 2015. He will be 53 in 2016.

If Hillary weren't in the race, he'd be the guy to put your money on. And I would hardly count him out. The Democratic primary electorate is younger than the (get off my lawn!) GOP primary electorate; Hillary's age may be a bit more of a problem on the Dem side than McCain's was on the GOP side.

[mozchron]

O'Malley is awesome. I lived in Baltimore while he was mayor and governor. Popular, charismatic, young, he played in a celtic band while mayor for god's sake.

I think he could give Hillary a run for her money. I am sure he has large political aspirations, but whether 2016 is in his plans I don't know. He's young enough that he can wait.

[kaylasdad99]

Originally Posted by TriPolar

I would guess the same thing. I could just as easily propose that eliminating daylight saving time, the designated hitter, and left lane exits on highways would have the same effect.

Hmm.

Well, THAT would at least get me reading the newsletter...

[kaylasdad99]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

If she stays healthy, she'll have to run against Joe Biden, Martin O'Malley, and probably Brian Schweitzer. I think Biden will prove to be a paper tiger, but a lot of people will be ready for someone more of Obama's generation than Hillary's, and O'Malley will be a strong contender. Nobody wins 2016 in a walk.

Originally Posted by Dick Dastardly

I follow US politics quite closely and I've never heard of O'Malley. I've heard the second name but can't remember where.

Former front man for the Stray Cats; along with Big Bad Voodoo Daddy and Royal Crown Revue, a major player in the rise of "retro swing's" popularity.

ETA:

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Dick Dastardly

Hillary is known by everyone, (now) massively popular with the Democratic base, is a woman* . . .

*You can't underestimate this.

But you can dispute it, or at least the RW has and will.

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by mozchron

O'Malley is awesome. I lived in Baltimore while he was mayor and governor. Popular, charismatic, young, he played in a celtic band while mayor for god's sake.

I think he could give Hillary a run for her money. I am sure he has large political aspirations, but whether 2016 is in his plans I don't know. He's young enough that he can wait.

Everyone pretty much assumes that he's running. And while he's young enough to wait, there's the question of what he's going to do with himself if he waits for 2020+. He's term-limited out of the governorship in January 2015, and neither of Maryland's Senators, both Democrats, seem to be contemplating retirement.

He needs to run in 2016 while his experience as governor is still fresh: even if his sights are really set on the future, 2016 is when he needs to run to become nationally known, raise his visibility for the veepstakes, and so forth.

[Dick Dastardly]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

But you can dispute it, or at least the RW has and will.

She's got cankles too.

[Dick Dastardly]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

Martin O'Malley is in his second term as governor of Maryland, and before that he was mayor of Baltimore for eight years, and city council and so forth before that. He's chaired the Democratic Governors' Association, which is a modest springboard for Presidential candidacies; past chairs include Bill Clinton and Howard Dean. More significantly, someone isn't likely to hold that position unless the people who run the national party think well of him/her. So he's got a good record, he's well-connected, he's running, and his second term as governor conveniently ends in January 2015. He will be 53 in 2016.

If Hillary weren't in the race, he'd be the guy to put your money on. And I would hardly count him out. The Democratic primary electorate is younger than the (get off my lawn!) GOP primary electorate; Hillary's age may be a bit more of a problem on the Dem side than McCain's was on the GOP side.

I don't see the age thing as being a problem unless she isn't healthy and I don't think there's a generational issue at all. If she was some crusty old Senator who'd been in the Senate for decades then maybe but when you're such a major and vibrant political figure then it's not going to matter

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Dick Dastardly

I don't see the age thing as being a problem unless she isn't healthy and I don't think there's a generational issue at all. If she was some crusty old Senator who'd been in the Senate for decades then maybe but when you're such a major and vibrant political figure then it's not going to matter

Sure, Hillary's never been the presumed front runner for the Democratic nomination, only to be beaten by a young upstart.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Steve King is possibly the craziest non-Gohmert in Congress. What have the TP got against him? Farm subsidies?

Anyone?

[DigitalC]

Originally Posted by Dick Dastardly

Just like the GOP the Democratic party has a troublesome base. These people are the ones who vote in primaries and they have their pet issues like any other motivated political group. In 2007 their big issue was the Iraq war. Hillary had played it safe and been an enthusiastic war backer. Obama took a risk and mildly, with lots of wiggle room ashould it become necessary later, opposed the war. And that single issue cost Hillary the nomination. There was just so much anger against her in the base and so many people that just couldn't support her because of Iraq. Obama was still a rank outsider going into the first Dem primary but when the numbers came out and the exit polling was done it was Iraq that sank her. After that her campaign gradually crumbled.

I fail to see how any of that is "problematic". For Hillary i guess.

[F. U. Shakespeare]

Arabic-to-English translation of Benghazi:

Ben = "Vince"

Ghazi= "Foster"

[JohnT]

Originally Posted by F. U. Shakespeare

Arabic-to-English translation of Benghazi:

Ben = "Vince"

Ghazi= "Foster"

I read this and thought "No fuckin' way!"

Then realized this wasn't the "amazing BS facts that are actually true" thread.

[CJJ*]

Originally Posted by Dick Dastardly

Just like the GOP the Democratic party has a troublesome base. These people are the ones who vote in primaries and they have their pet issues like any other motivated political group. In 2007 their big issue was the Iraq war. Hillary had played it safe and been an enthusiastic war backer. Obama took a risk and mildly, with lots of wiggle room ashould it become necessary later, opposed the war. And that single issue cost Hillary the nomination. There was just so much anger against her in the base and so many people that just couldn't support her because of Iraq. Obama was still a rank outsider going into the first Dem primary but when the numbers came out and the exit polling was done it was Iraq that sank her. After that her campaign gradually crumbled.

Though I agree the Iraq war stance was a strong differentiator between Clinton and Obama, I think it's more likely Mrs. Clinton's lost because the Obama campaign was far better organized--especially in the smaller states.

After an early Iowa loss, Clinton won NH and seemed on her way. But then (1) she won a plurality in NV, but because Obama's team understood the apportionment rules and campaigned according to them, he got more delegates than her, (2) she had no real campaign in SC--banking that SC was a less-important state for Dems and that she would have had momentum by then anyway--and (3) focused her Super Tuesday strategy exclusively on the largest states, which allowed Obama to rack up just as many delegates (and more total states) by tailoring his campaign. It was after this point that the race focused on individual primaries/caucuses, and because Clinton didn't expect the race to go this far Obama's advanced planning for these states (including an understanding of the often byzantine methods used for delegate apportionment) led him to rack up consecutive victories and steal the mantle of inevitability. It was only when Clinton decided to take these later primaries seriously that she was able to start winning again (she actually won more states in the final month than Obama), but by then it was too late.

I'm pretty convinced that--had she run a better campaign--she would have cruised to the same kind of victory as Obama did, regardless of her Iraq war position.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by F. U. Shakespeare

Arabic-to-English translation of Benghazi:

Ben = "Vince"

Ghazi= "Foster"

Yes.

[Dick Dastardly]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Sure, Hillary's never been the presumed front runner for the Democratic nomination, only to be beaten by a young upstart.

She isn't on the wrong side of the issue that burned with Democrats the most like she was in 2007. She's a repected elder ststesman and massively popular with the base. If she'd been against the war she would have walked the nomination.

[CJJ*]

Getting back to the original topic, Politico has a piece today linking a "purge" of Tea Party favorites on Fox News with Rove's new Conservative Victory Project:

Ailes has aggressively, and shrewdly, toned things down post-election. Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly were among the first conservatives to call for a rethinking of the GOP’s opposition to comprehensive immigration reform. And then Palin and Morris got the boot, sending an unmistakable message about the new expectations for the channel’s contributors.

This has coincided with the political efforts led by Rove, who took to Fox’s air Tuesday night to defend his campaign to beat back controversial conservatives such as King. On Fox, Rove said it’s crazy to think the GOP cannot do better than Todd Akin, the party’s Senate candidate in Missouri, and Richard Mourdock, his counterpart in Indiana, both of whom lost after blurting out their views about rape in the heat of the campaign. “We need to do better if we hope to take over” the Senate, Rove said.

The article documents the expected arguments on both sides, but this paragraph buried deep on page 2 offered a new wrikle I hadn't thought about before (bolding mine):

But a senior Republican operative said the party has two huge, unresolved impediments to the top leaders’ grand plans: “suicide conservatives, who would rather lose elections than win seats with moderates,” and the “many groups on the hard right that depend on direct mail fundraising that requires a high degree of audacity, and borderline shrillness.”

There is a cottage industry of selling outrage on the right, and "direct mail fundraising" is only the tip of the iceberg. Things like the Obamacare Survival Guide (just $19.99!) relentlessly hawked on Newsmax and the Patriot Depot are obvious, but more insidiously RW outrage aggregators like NewsMax and TownHall also lease out their mailing lists to third party marketers. They send the usual spam to subscribers but couch them in RW language--like the medical product which “Washington, the medical industry, and drug companies REFUSE to tell you about.”

This mail-order industry has a long history and is pretty well-entrenched on the right, but otherwise it's little different than the usual snake-oil cons that have been parting fools and their money for ages. The moderate leadership has tolerated it for decades because despite the fleecing it still brings the sheep to the polls. Now that they're an embarassment they want to eliminate it--OK, but it won't be that simple if there's money involved.

[Dick Dastardly]

Originally Posted by CJJ*

Though I agree the Iraq war stance was a strong differentiator between Clinton and Obama, I think it's more likely Mrs. Clinton's lost because the Obama campaign was far better organized--especially in the smaller states.

After an early Iowa loss, Clinton won NH and seemed on her way. But then (1) she won a plurality in NV, but because Obama's team understood the apportionment rules and campaigned according to them, he got more delegates than her, (2) she had no real campaign in SC--banking that SC was a less-important state for Dems and that she would have had momentum by then anyway--and (3) focused her Super Tuesday strategy exclusively on the largest states, which allowed Obama to rack up just as many delegates (and more total states) by tailoring his campaign. It was after this point that the race focused on individual primaries/caucuses, and because Clinton didn't expect the race to go this far Obama's advanced planning for these states (including an understanding of the often byzantine methods used for delegate apportionment) led him to rack up consecutive victories and steal the mantle of inevitability. It was only when Clinton decided to take these later primaries seriously that she was able to start winning again (she actually won more states in the final month than Obama), but by then it was too late.

I'm pretty convinced that--had she run a better campaign--she would have cruised to the same kind of victory as Obama did, regardless of her Iraq war position.

This could well be true but had she not been on the wrong side of the Iraq argument (as far as the Dem base was concerned) then she could have run an even worse campaign and won easily.

[Dick Dastardly]

Originally Posted by CJJ*

Getting back to the original topic, Politico has a piece today linking a "purge" of Tea Party favorites on Fox News with Rove's new Conservative Victory Project:

The article documents the expected arguments on both sides, but this paragraph buried deep on page 2 offered a new wrikle I hadn't thought about before (bolding mine):

There is a cottage industry of selling outrage on the right, and "direct mail fundraising" is only the tip of the iceberg. Things like the Obamacare Survival Guide (just $19.99!) relentlessly hawked on Newsmax and the Patriot Depot are obvious, but more insidiously RW outrage aggregators like NewsMax and TownHall also lease out their mailing lists to third party marketers. They send the usual spam to subscribers but couch them in RW language--like the medical product which “Washington, the medical industry, and drug companies REFUSE to tell you about.”

This mail-order industry has a long history and is pretty well-entrenched on the right, but otherwise it's little different than the usual snake-oil cons that have been parting fools and their money for ages. The moderate leadership has tolerated it for decades because despite the fleecing it still brings the sheep to the polls. Now that they're an embarassment they want to eliminate it--OK, but it won't be that simple if there's money involved.

And this sets the stage for a massive civl war between the corporate wing of the party, people like Rove, and the nutjob wing who are not going to go down without a fight.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Dick Dastardly

And this sets the stage for a massive civl war between the corporate wing of the party, people like Rove, and the nutjob wing who are not going to go down without a fight.

Shhh!

"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."

-- Napoleon Bonaparte

[YogSosoth]

*grabs popcorn*

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Dick Dastardly

She isn't on the wrong side of the issue that burned with Democrats the most like she was in 2007. She's a repected elder ststesman and massively popular with the base. If she'd been against the war she would have walked the nomination.

Very good point.

[Dick Dastardly]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Very good point.

Back in 2003-7 Bill Clinton was easily the bigger political figure of the two Clintons and he was truly hated by a huge section of the Democratic base for having backed Bush's Iraq adventure. Voting for Obama was seen by a lot of Dems as a way of getting back at both the Clintons. Since then he made two spectacular convention speeches to help Obama and a bunch of campaign appearances, Iraq is forgotten and everyobdy loves him again. If he doesn't cark it before 2016 that's yet another huge weapon Hillary has.

[CJJ*]

Originally Posted by Dick Dastardly

Back in 2003-7 Bill Clinton was easily the bigger political figure of the two Clintons and he was truly hated by a huge section of the Democratic base for having backed Bush's Iraq adventure. Voting for Obama was seen by a lot of Dems as a way of getting back at both the Clintons. Since then he made two spectacular convention speeches to help Obama and a bunch of campaign appearances, Iraq is forgotten and everyobdy loves him again. If he doesn't cark it before 2016 that's yet another huge weapon Hillary has.

It's hard to argue this since we're talking about perceptions, but I think this is overblown. Certainly Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq war authorization in 2002, a vote which was embarassing for her in the 2008 campaign. But Bill Clinton in particular followed the precedent of other ex-presidents and refrained from anything more than token support for US policy in the run-up to the Iraq invasion, and in any event both Clintons (like the rest of the Dems) were quick to criticize once the political winds started blowing against the war in 2004-5. Given this, it's hard to see why the base would especially single them out for their opprobrium; while there were surely some who hated Bill Clinton's serial hypocrisy and the fact that he lobbed a few cruise missles into Iraq in 1998, I just don't recall it gaining much traction outside of the liberal blogosphere.

What I do remember are the PUMAs and the Just Say No Deal coalition--clearly a base effort, even if it came a little late to save its candidate. It's hard to see how these would have existed if a huge portion of the Dem base wanted to get back at Bill. I'm not saying it wasn't a factor, but I'd credit Obama's victory more to his campaign's mastery of the process and the historic nature of his candidacy (this is what brought the superdelegates and the moneymen on-board) than to the base's need for revenge against the Clintons.

[jayjay]

Originally Posted by CJJ*

It's hard to argue this since we're talking about perceptions, but I think this is overblown.

Agreed. I know, for me, the reason I opposed Hillary in the 2008 primaries was that the Clintons were deep in DLC crap, way too centrist for me, and her choice of campaign operatives only reinforced that for me (Mark Penn?! Terry McAuliffe?!).
Of course, in the end, we got a president who's pretty much completely what I expected Clinton to be anyway, so I figure, what the heck? Let's back Hillary next time...

ETA: And I'd say that the huge amount of Republican-policy triangulation Clinton did (welfare reform, in large part) helped to disaffect a lot of Democrats, far more than any lukewarm support for Bush's Iraq Adventures did. Even given that, though, I still say that if the 22nd Amendment weren't there, Clinton would have gotten at least a third term.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by CJJ*

What I do remember are the PUMAs . . .

N.B.: Some notable PUMAs were/are not what you'd call loyal Democrats, and even openly backed McCain in the 2008 general election. Don't be so sure Hillary could count on their support in 2016.

[foolsguinea]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

And as a lawyer I advise all to be sure to confuse neither with "tortous," i.e., conduct constituting a tort; a tort being an actionable civil wrong, usually having nothing to do with pastry.

Ooh, that would be a fun game of Anagrams!

[Evil Captor]

Originally Posted by jayjay

Agreed. I know, for me, the reason I opposed Hillary in the 2008 primaries was that the Clintons were deep in DLC crap, way too centrist for me, and her choice of campaign operatives only reinforced that for me (Mark Penn?! Terry McAuliffe?!).
Of course, in the end, we got a president who's pretty much completely what I expected Clinton to be anyway, so I figure, what the heck? Let's back Hillary next time...

ETA: And I'd say that the huge amount of Republican-policy triangulation Clinton did (welfare reform, in large part) helped to disaffect a lot of Democrats, far more than any lukewarm support for Bush's Iraq Adventures did. Even given that, though, I still say that if the 22nd Amendment weren't there, Clinton would have gotten at least a third term.

Welfare reform? Penny-ante stuff. Clinton signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall into law. The 2008 economic debacle is DIRECTLY attributable to that supremely misguided bit of legislation.

In any event, the problem the Dems will have in 2016 is base erosion. As the Republicans have moved ever to the right, the Democrats have been, as described, ruthlessly centrist, and as a result they've followed the Republicans into far-right territory, especially on economic issues. Wall Street owns the Democrats as thoroughly as they own the Republicans. This is gonna discourage a lot of Democrats, especially as Obama in his second term seems intent on becoming the Reagan Republican he always was.

[JRDelirious]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

N.B.: Some notable PUMAs were/are not what you'd call loyal Democrats, and even openly backed McCain in the 2008 general election. Don't be so sure Hillary could count on their support in 2016.

Yeah, the PUMAs were not really "base" - they were a faction who stood to benefit from a return to the Clinton Era policies, this time (they presumed) with a Dem Congress for the whole term, and in the Obama candidacy saw the Professional Left and the College Kids throwing away what should be their easy victory. In hindsight, of course, we know we got a centrist administration with some mild liberal splashes of flavor anyway all the same.

In any case, the GOP proceeded to neutralize the PUMAs thoroughly by offering them Sarah Palin as a consolation prize.