This isn’t how I heard it – I didn’t hear they “had a deal”, but rather were negotiating, and Obama increased the amount he wanted. That just sounds like negotiating.
This sounds pretty much entirely like a Republican problem – they couldn’t say what concessions they wanted?
So qualify your assertions, then. When you say “liberals are X”, you’re inevitably going to be wrong.
I’m an “O’Malley fan”, and I’d bet lots of money that plenty of Dopers (dozens, perhaps) are O’Malley fans as well. That doesn’t mean that I’ve decided he’s my candidate – he hasn’t even announced he’s running! Nor, for that matter, have Hillary or Warren. So your “concerns” about this are utter bullshit – feel free to make them if liberals (and liberal Dopers) are saying “O’Malley sucks, I don’t like him, I want Warren or no one else”… but no one is saying this.
There’s a reason Obama got a lot of love in the '08 run-up – he was a terrific candidate. Warren might be getting tons of love right now because activists think she’d be a great candidate. O’Malley could announce tomorrow, say the right things, and get the “love”.
I’ll throw adaher a bone and say I definitely don’t want Biden. But then I’ve never been a Biden fan - not now, not in 2008, not at any point in between.
But I’d still pick him over Jeb or Scott or Ted or Rick or Rand. I’d be very, very disappointed in the Democrats for nominating him, but I’d vote for him.
And she may not even win the primaries, this is not guessing or imagining, it actually happened in 2008. Despite her name recognition, she was defeated by Barack Obama.
All it takes is for a young democrat with ideas and solutions to run and Hillary may yet again be defeated even before setting off to election day against a Republican.
As for Joe Biden, highly doubt he will even attempt to run. His age is against him, as it is with Hillary. Plus he too prone to gaffes.
If a Democrat succeeds Barack Obama, it will be a young man/woman. The Republicans may sit out of the White House for twelve years or even sixteen.
That’s my biggest issue with Hills. I’ve never gotten what her message is. I guess it’s “I have experience now and I’m the biggest Democrat besides Obama.”
I think she can win, and I actually think she’ll be a good president (and I’m hoping that if she’s president Bill in no way actually pulls the strings wink wink) but I think she’s very vulnerable.
And ElvisL1ves, I don’t have an answer to who’s a young democrat with ideas and solutions. That’s why I think Hillary will be the candidate. But she’s likely to energize the Republican base *against *her more than the Democratic base *for *her.
That’s mainly because the Warren supporters are pining after an unavailable candidate. Once they have to choose among the Clinton alternatives, one will emerge.
Even if all (100%) of the Warren and Biden supporters switched their preference to O’Malley, O’Malley would still be trailing Clinton by about 35 points. He would have to be a more inspirational candidate than Obama to make up greater ground in less time. I see no reason to believe that O’Malley (or any other democrat) is such a candidate.
However, while I don’t believe such a person exists, I would love to see one appear. If someone shows up with a greater ability to gain electoral momentum than Obama, the republicans are fucked.
Very true. Clinton is a strong candidate. For her to lose the nomination will take a stellar candidate running an impeccable campaign. I’m puzzled if Republicans think they really want to face such a candidate rather than the merely strong Clinton.
Any potential candidate *already has to be out there, working the donors, making speeches, shaking hands, etc. * But there aren’t any. HRC is going to be the nominee, not Warren or someone imaginary.
You can ponder who your idea of an ideal candidate would be all you like, but only real humans are available, sorry, damned few of them at that, and you’re going to have to pick the best one of the lot.
Republicans don’t. Warren would be the ideal candidate to face, but Clinton or Biden would do as well. The biggest problem is a fresh face with moderate views, or someone experienced who has been above it all, like Al Gore.
One of the perverse advantages of Clinton running is that the Republicans have already thrown everything including the kitchen sink at her and she’s still going. They can keep chanting “Benghazi” and “Vince Foster” and whatever else, and it’s not going to sway anyone who hasn’t been swayed. Even the astroturfed PUMA thing has been done.
Really, the biggest opponent Clinton has to overcome is her own campaign. In 2008 between coming out too aggressively, her “landing under fire” gaffe, Bill being Bill, and a few other minor missteps, she weakened her own chances at the same time Obama wasn’t putting a foot wrong. One would hope that she’s learned from experience - and that’s a helluva lot of experience - but we shall see.
On the other hand, the chances of her coming up against a Republican who won’t be busily machine-gunning his own foot is pretty small so she’s definitely got a good chance this time if she ever fucking declares.
Republicans often shoot themselves in the foot, this is true. But counting on that, while running a gaffe-prone candidate of your own, and further, one who is gaffe prone despite being ultracautious, which means she’ll never say anything GOOD interesting, is a mistake.
As in 2014, I think the postmortem analysis will be, “Should’ve gone with a fresh face.”
I haven’t actually predicted a result yet. And you should honor my prowess since I went from worst in 2012 to first in 2014. No one came closer than me to the result on this board.
I’ll honor your prowess in mid-term elections, which are very different than presidential elections. And you did predict a result – you predicted a postmortem analysis of a Clinton loss.
IF she loses, I believe that will be the analysis. Whether or not she loses depends on the Republican candidate, the state of the economy, and Obama’s approval rating.
