ETA: I meant to bold “…take the heat”.
Anyway, I thought Hillary was pretty inevitable (and I was happy about that) until I read this thread, and now Cuomo and Warren are sounding at least as likely – and it’s not too late for someone off the radar to come into focus in the next few months.
That was the strategy before Sandy Hook. Then they got emboldened, thinking they’d take advantage of headlines, and have now labelled themselves the party of gun control once again.
Before Hillary can lose, someone has to beat her. The Dems have a pretty deep bench of up-and-comers, but no one with the oomph to have a serious shot against her. The really promising ones won’t want to try because the last thing they would want to do is make an enemy of the Clintons.
And in the general? Please. The GOP has the same problem it has always had–all of its potential saviors fall apart as soon as anyone gets to know them. Christie’s moments of clarity don’t erase the fact that he’s a blowhard jackass the rest of the time. Rand Paul brings the crazy in ways that don’t mesh well enough with standard Republican crazy. (He’s also eventually going to have to come up with a better explanation for why he had to create his own ophthalmology licensing board.) And those are the two best shots they have.
Yes, Hillary’s campaign in 2008 was a mess, but she ran a tight race against what turned out to be the greatest campaign machine in American history. And the people who ran the nuts and bolts of that campaign can work for her now.
Is that a Clinton Chronicles reference or something else? If you only mean the political sense, then the retort is “Obama”.
But yes, you can’t beat somebody with nobody. Until that somebody else has a name, then you have to bet on Clinton.
At the moment, based on the considered candidates, the Democratic nomination will go to Hillary. No female Democrat will challenge her, and they will all work to support her against any male candidate. She started organizing on that basis before 2008, and has concentrated heavily on it since then. In addition, she and Bill are already working to lock up the money suppy for 2016 making it extremely difficult for any other candidate to run as a Democrat. The male challengers, especially Cuomo, are lightweights, not ready for primetime.
If Hillary wants it, she will be the Democratic candidate in 2016, and likely win against any Republican who makes it through their process, but it’s not guaranteed. If the Republicans pick a candidate with national appeal. A candidate like Christie can easily sap votes from independents and Democrats who don’t like Hillary, he is a likely GOP choice, if the party can rally behind someone on the basis of ‘electibility’ instead of extreme political ideals. Working against that concept was their last candidate who was chosen on the basis of electibility and lost badly.
I’m sure that thought will be first and foremost on the extremist’s minds: “Romney was a moderate and he lost! We can’t put up a moderate, we need a true [del]scotsman[/del] Conservative!”
However, the real issue was the unsuitability of every goddamned one of the other candidates they put up. Not a single one of them was going to withstand the test of a national election.
Frankly, unless someone else comes out of the woodwork, I don’t see that they have anyone who will. The internal dynamics of the party are working against itself.
Hey mods, can we finally get real and call the opposite of gun grabbers murderers? It’s much simpler and truer and would avoid a lot of ambiguity. If that’s too much how about murderer-enabler? Murder enthusiast? Murderer-by-proxy? Murder-in-Law?
The money republicans have to kick out the sex republicans. Then they can steal the middle.
“We want to balance a budget. We don’t care who you marry or sleep with.”
Oh?
. . .
Elizabeth Warren in 2016!
Yes, that’s what I said. Why is Oakminster calling the party that wants gun control the gun grabbers? Gun control means we want fewer people grabbing onto their guns, not more. Charleton “cold dead fingers” Heston was a gun grabber, and I don’t think he was a Democrat.
Well, of course, assuming you’re not whooshing, by “grabbers” they mean “confiscators.” But “grabbers” is preferred for the alliteration.
In another thread, one Doper (who?) proposed “gun liberal” for those with a broad, liberal interpretation of the Second Amendment, and “gun conservative” for those who prefer a strict, militia-only, interpretation.
I think we should agree to use those consistent terms, for clarity. 
Unless there’s a reinstatement of poll taxes or literacy tests, I don’t think Republicans will win the Presidency again in my lifetime. The demographics are just not there for the Republicans and each election cycle. Now, in addition to Florida and Ohio, now Virginia is now in play. Colorado and New Mexico are now solidly Democrat. Hillary would have to lose Florida, Ohio, and Virginia. That ain’t going to happen no matter who the Republicans put up, though I would be curious to see what you envision the 2016 electoral map to look like.
I don’t think Colorado is solidly anything. We’re anti-nutcase and pro-going along and getting along.
So that will mean Hillary over someone from the Rabid Right. But if the Republicans can nominate somebody with sense, maybe they get votes.
How long are you planning on living? The Dems managed to turn around this in 12 years. American presidential politics are relatively flexible. The public changes its views, the parties adjust their platforms, and as a result I doubt anyone will get locked out of the WH for a truly long period. Which doesn’t mean 12-16 years is impossible, but a “lifetime” certainly is. Even the post-Lincoln Dems managed to pick up the occasional win, and they lost Civil War!
This aura of HRC inevitability is really driving me up the fuckin’ wall - but then again, so is all of this 2016 speculation nonsense in general - given the fact that we already saw this playbook in 2008, and it didn’t exactly pan out that way back then.
I’ve said it several times on these boards: HRC is not my first choice to succeed Obama, Brian Schweitzer is. Still, if she decides to win, I don’t doubt that she’d be a juggernaut in the race.
I just realized it’s still 2013. Why are we even talking about the 2016 presidential race? It’s pointless to talk about it until after the 2014 midterms; they will shape the context. And it’s too soon to talk about the 2014 midterms. November, maybe.
Barack Obama inspired unusually high Democratic turnout, especially among the most Democratic-leaning groups. Do you really think black turnout rates will exceed white turnout rates with anyone else at the top of the ticket?
Also, demographics are not destiny in elections. The Democrats had a far more favorable climate from 1933 to 1980 and still lost the Presidency four times. So be assured, you will see Republican Presidents in your lifetime. If you are right about demographics, that actually means the Democrats will regain their lock on the House.
There’s not a big block of left-leaning black voters in Colorado.
Denver has pretty typical demographics for a city that size, but Colorado Springs is heavily military and it skews all over the place.
Boulder is a hotbed of leftism, but it’s pretty small. And really white.
Fat chance of that happening. She still leads handily in early polls, as of last month.
