Don’t much like her either. Back then, I was resigned to voting for Hillary because I thought Obama couldn’t get the job done. Wrong again, and glad of it! Feel much the same way now, still don’t like the Clintonista third-way, blue dead dog, Republican Lite stance of the 90’s, but was that Hillary or more Bill? At any rate, I don’t think we can afford to take any risks, the stakes are too high.
Could Bernie win? I’d love to think so, but I don’t.
What about Biden? Would his entrance change your decision?
He might do, but it depends on whether the Pubbies shoot themselves in the foot with a .45 or a bazooka.
Joe Biden considering a run! Personally, I’d prefer him to Hillary. One of the truly great statesmen of our time.
I’d support Clinton only over the worst of the GOP field. I’d support Biden over the worst, and a few that I don’t like too much as well. Biden is also a good candidate for winning over more working class white voters without depressing the minority vote as much as a Jim Webb would. Joe Biden has made it all the way to the Vice Presidency without ever cashing in on his office. A temptation that someone else in the field couldn’t avoid.
I love Biden but I have a hard time seeing this as something to be taken seriously. Over the last eight years the media has done such a thorough job of painting him as a goofball loose cannon that I see that being a major hurdle to get over. He just isn’t taken seriously by a large segment of the public and comedians would have almost as much fun as they are currently having with Trump.
All of the 20 somethings and millennials I know are pumped up for Bernie. I like him too but just don’t see how he is a winner in the general election.
O’Malley is the only one of the others I take seriously but he needs a perfect convergence of events to have his campaign take off. I don’t know what would have to happen for him to get some traction. I see him having a better shot in 4 to 8 years.
Which basically leaves Hillary. Unless her campaign has a total collapse I don’t see how she doesn’t get the nomination. Yeah, she’s stiff and pretty much a shill for Wall Street but she’s better than anyone on the GOP side.
Clinton and Sanders have serious flaws. One has ethics, honesty, and authenticity issues, the other is unelectable. Biden’s always been portrayed as an adult in the party despite his gaffe-proneness, but his last two runs he had to compete in large fields. A small field with far more flawed candidates where he’s just been VP for eight years is tailor made for him. I just don’t see how Democrats will pick candidates with serious flaws over a guy whose only real weakness is that he says weird stuff.
Many Democrats think Hillary has the best chance to win, and the polling I’ve seen supports this. Not that I don’t like Biden – I like him fine and would happily support him. I still haven’t made up my mind which Democratic candidate I will support in the primary, but I don’t need to for quite a while.
Polls do show Clinton doing better than Biden, this is true. Electability is an argument she made once before though, and she was wrong.
In fairness, we don’t know if she was wrong (though I think she probably was). Further, she was running against Obama and not Sanders and/or Biden.
She was wrong in the sense that Obama was just as likely to win as she was. She’s right about Sanders, but I don’t think she can make that claim about Biden, who is perfectly mainstream.
If the fundamentals favor the Democrats, any mainstream Democrat will win, provided no major scandals. Who is less likely to have a major scandal derail their candidacy?
I’d say O’Malley.
Here’s how the NRA helped Bernie first get elected to Congress: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-the-nra-helped-put-bernie-sanders-in-congress/2015/07/19/ed1be26c-2bfe-11e5-bd33-395c05608059_story.html?tid=pm_politics_pop_b
O’Malley seems to be doing pretty well in Iowa recently.
[spoiler]
Martin O’Malley: Obscure but not implausible
By Steve Chapman
The Chicago Tribune, July 22, 2015
CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA - In a party that produced such talented speakers as Mario Cuomo, Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, this year’s presidential race looks like a slog through an oratorical desert. Yet last week, the Iowa Democratic Party hosted a dinner so masochists could hear five White House aspirants deliver speeches.
Former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee and former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb read their remarks like dutiful students. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders brought to mind a punk band that knows only three chords and plays them all the same way: loud. Hillary Clinton uttered every sentence as though she were addressing third-graders. There was one respite, from Martin O’Malley. The former governor of Maryland apparently heard somewhere that fluent public speaking is a useful skill in politics.
If you couldn’t pick him out of a lineup, don’t feel bad. A new Washington Post-ABC News poll gives him 2 percent of Democratic voters. He was lampooned in an April Twitter post with a photo of the gyrocopter that landed on the White House lawn and the caption: “MARTIN O’MALLEY WILL NOT BE IGNORED.”
Clinton may have had the most supporters in the room, and Sanders’ populist fury stirred the most anticipation. But if there had been impartial judges giving scores, O’Malley would have been the clear winner — and a sound meter probably would have confirmed it. His lines about redeeming the American Dream and promoting a stronger middle class are standard fare. His selling point was: “I am the only candidate for president with 15 years of executive experience.” He stands out, he said, for turning “progressive values into action.”
This was where his earnest speech became impassioned, his voice rising over building cheers: “In Baltimore, we took action to save lives by reducing record-high violence to record lows. We increased drug treatment to free thousands of our courageous neighbors from the scourge of drug addiction. … Driver’s licenses for new American immigrants, marriage equality and a ban on assault weapons: and we didn’t just talk about it, we actually got it done!” On his mayoral record, O’Malley can point to documented changes that, in the post-Ferguson, Mo., era, seem incompatible. Overall crime fell more in Baltimore than in any other big city. At the same time, shootings by police dropped sharply.
But he is not above massaging the truth, as his comment on international trade revealed: “I am fundamentally opposed — as an American — to secret trade deals that our Congress is forced to vote on before we’re even allowed to read them.” In fact, the texts of the trade deals now being negotiated will be public months before Congress has to vote on them.
Stressing his executive record highlights a difference with his rivals. For all her years in public life, Clinton has trouble with the question: What have you actually accomplished? Sanders is the quintessential maverick, better at indicting the system than transforming it. O’Malley, 52, has other things going for him. With his athletic frame and thick gray hair, he looks like he walked out of a Cialis commercial. In 2013, The Washington Monthly called him “the best manager in government today.”
And he seems to enjoy the part of the campaign that involves chatting and posing for selfies with voters. At the nearby White Star Ale House, before the dinner, I arrived 10 minutes early for his “meet-and-greet,” only to find O’Malley already working a crowd whose numbers would have alarmed the fire marshal. He was still at it when I left an hour later.
Does any of this matter in a race against two far more famous candidates? Maybe not. He lacks Clinton’s money and incomparable name recognition, and he lacks Sanders’ visceral appeal to the Occupy Wall Street crowd. His narrow path to victory lies in convincing Democrats he’s a fresh alternative to the recycled Clinton, but unlike Sanders can be elected.
If nominated, O’Malley would offer plenty of targets for Republicans, who would portray him as a coal-hating, gun-grabbing abortion rights zealot who has embraced unauthorized immigrants and raised taxes over and over. Rebutting that portrayal is a problem he would love to have. If old-fashioned retail campaigning still works in Iowa — and Rick Santorum’s Republican victory four years ago suggests it does — his candidacy is more plausible than may be apparent. It’s safe to bet that by February, even without a gyrocopter, Martin O’Malley will not be ignored.
Copyright © 2015, *The Chicago Tribune *[/spoiler]
I think the recent polls showing Hillary down to GOP rivals is actually a good thing for her. She plays (to the electorate) much better as an underdog than a front runner
Agreed. She won’t want to peak too early, and it’s understandable that with The Donald in the race, the GOP is getting more attention right now anyway.
I believe the exact opposite. Clinton’s appeal is entirely based on her inevitability. Some like to note that she got better when Obama was beating her. Problem is, she didn’t get better when Obama first emerged as a threat. She got better when she’d already all but lost. She did her best campaigning precisely when a whole bunch of Democrats wished she would give it up for the good of the party.
As for O’Malley, Chaffee and Webb have moved out of their 1% holes. O’Malley is at 2%, 5th place in the latest poll.
I wonder where Biden’s support goes if he decides not to run? I would think that most of his support is from people who want an alternative to Clinton, so him finally ending speculation could benefit O’Malley or Webb.
Hillary Clinton’s team getting very antsy about Joe Biden:
>Year of Our Lord 2015
>Fox News
>Joe Biden is gonna crush Hillary!!!
NY Times also now reporting that Biden is considering getting in:
Maureen Dowd is an edgy hag who has even more of a hate-on for Hillary than Rush Limburger.
Actual journalists disagree: https://twitter.com/chucktodd/status/627564931903287296
https://twitter.com/ron_fournier/status/627561251892252672