Elections Democratic Road to 2016 Primary Thread

[Lead]

This is what I'm counting on. Paul and Rand, in my opinion, are two of the most skilled debaters on the right, and they are going to put the other candidates in some tough spots where they actually have to articulate ideas properly on the fly. I don't see a clear nominee yet, unlike the obvious Romney selection in 2012, and that means this could be a historic clusterfuck. I'm all ears.
To be fair, Warren could play a very similar role if she decided to put her name in the ring. She is very hard to assail outside of calling her an idealist, and she would leave some big gashes in Hillary as she challenged her from the true left. I think Warren knows better though, she'd rather see Hillary in the White House than any of these buffoons.

I think Rand isn't that aggressive. I can't see him calling out specific candidates. He would make clear the differences he has from the entire field however. Cruz and Christie to me would be the people that would cause problems, especially Cruz.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Sure do wish Sherdog leftists were as passionate as our right-wing counterparts.

This goes back to what I was saying in another thread: http://forums.sherdog.com/forums/showthread.php?p=110139505. The U.S. was founded as an experiment in liberalism, and politically, we're still kind of waking up after a long period of a strong liberal consensus. As a result, few people in politics openly argue against liberal values--freedom, equal rights, democracy, governance guided by reason, etc. The arguments are framed as arguments about factual or technical matters. "Do higher deficits drive growth when interest rates are as low as they can go?" rather than, "should gov't do anything about recessions, particularly when the rich end up paying a bigger portion of the relief effort?" Or note how everyone agrees that racism is irrational and destructive--even people who hold racist beliefs and feelings (they just deny that that's an accurate description!).

So Sherdog liberals and leftists tend to think, "Well, that guy is just wrong about a question with an objective answer. Let me correct him (not necessarily in a respectful way)." But rightists have a better grasp on what's really going on on their own end (and a worse grasp of what's going on on the other end). They realize that the arguments are not really what they're about, but they think that's symmetrical. So rightists think that when someone says, "climate change is real," they're really saying, "I want the gov't to take greater control over our lives." And when someone says, "we can reduce unemployment with temporarily higher deficits," rightists interpret it the same: "I want the gov't to take greater control over our lives." When someone notes the obvious objective success of healthcare reform, it's the same. And so on. If one guy thinks, "oh this dude is getting something wrong," and the other thinks, "this guy is trying to enslave me," there's going to be a big passion gap.

Because he can wrap it in enough rhetoric that it won't be a big deal until the general, and Republicans will vote for him anyway, to keep a Hillary or Bernie out. Whomever the next President is will sign some sort of immigration reform and likely offer amnesty to large segments of the Mexican community already here, it's silly that the Republicans have let this issue derail their primary, though it would have been something else like repealing Obamacare or overturning gay marriage if not this. Trump's polling numbers will not transfer into the voting booth, I am fairly confident in this.

I think it makes a lot more sense that immigration is the key issue in the GOP primary than tax cuts for the rich. The GOP base goes along with tax cuts for the rich because it's an identity issue, but they HATE immigration and immigrants, and a lot of them have no trust that the party leadership is with them on that issue. Further, a lot of people on the left are also passionately anti-immigration and that view doesn't have much representation in Democratic Party so a Republican strong on that issue might get some crossover votes. The GOP would be a lot more successful making immigration a big issue than they have making upward redistribution a big issue.

 

[Lead]

Could Warren-mania hurt progressive Democrats?

Martin O'Malley says he wants to bring "fundamental change to the culture of Wall Street." Jim Webb is lashing out against the "greed and irresponsibility in the financial sector." For years, Bernie Sanders has railed against corporate excesses.

But they all have one significant shortcoming in the eyes of some progressive activists who otherwise agree with their message: They're not Elizabeth Warren.

In the earliest stage of the 2016 presidential campaign, Warren's devout fans -- long enamored of the Massachusetts senator's anti-Wall Street, middle-class-warrior rhetoric -- insist that they're simply not interested in anyone else. The activists behind the Draft Warren movement say that on the ground, it's Warren's personal story and years-long fight for economic equality that's getting people fired up about a possible alternative to Hillary Clinton.

 

[Lead]

Hillary Clinton Ignores Democratic Rivals' Criticism at South Carolina Forum

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton defended her claim that she and her husband backed the Defense of Marriage Act in the 1990s as a tactic to forestall a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage at a Friday forum where the resurgent front-runner largely ignored her rivals' sniping in favor of outlining her own political vision.
Clinton's rationale for supporting DOMA, which limited the federal definition of marriage to a union between a male and female, has come under considerable skepticism since she first raised it, insisted that her concerns were genuine. A constitutional amendment "was something that came up in private discussions that I had," Clinton told MSNBC host Rachel Maddow on Friday during a one-on-one interview that was part of the network's First in the South forum for Democratic presidential candidates, held at Winthrop University in Rock Hill, South Carolina.

 

[ShoelessRye]

Ya know who should run: Russ Feingold.

Looks like he could be running back for his old Senate seat - which would be a plus. He could join Warren in the liberal wing, along with Sherrod Brown, Sheldon Whitehouse, Bernie Sanders and a few others.

 

[Lead]

Nevada State Director for Bernie Sanders Is Leaving the Campaign

As Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont prepares for a major rally in Nevada on Sunday, his state director there is leaving the campaign, an aide to the candidate confirmed.

The director, Jim Farrell, a Democratic strategist with ties to New Mexico, had only recently taken the position. But Michael Briggs, a spokesman for Mr. Sanders, confirmed that he will be leaving the team.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Reich was secretary of Labour in Clinton Administration, but endorsed Obama in 2008 - Did he do a mea culpa on his Clinton years, being Labor Secretary when NAFTA passed etc?

He basically wants to be on the stage to debate domestic/economic issues and get Hillary on record on them more than actually believing he has a chance of course.

His better bet would be trying to get into O'Malley's ear and see if he could be a economic vision kindred spirit.

Never happen but Reich and Christie as respective party nominees would be a sight. Big ol round fat guy and a 4'10" skinny guy.

Good point. It seems like he kinda has:

 

[Makani]

This goes back to what I was saying in another thread: http://forums.sherdog.com/forums/showthread.php?p=110139505. The U.S. was founded as an experiment in liberalism, and politically, we're still kind of waking up after a long period of a strong liberal consensus. As a result, few people in politics openly argue against liberal values--freedom, equal rights, democracy, governance guided by reason, etc. The arguments are framed as arguments about factual or technical matters. "Do higher deficits drive growth when interest rates are as low as they can go?" rather than, "should gov't do anything about recessions, particularly when the rich end up paying a bigger portion of the relief effort?" Or note how everyone agrees that racism is irrational and destructive--even people who hold racist beliefs and feelings (they just deny that that's an accurate description!).

So Sherdog liberals and leftists tend to think, "Well, that guy is just wrong about a question with an objective answer. Let me correct him (not necessarily in a respectful way)." But rightists have a better grasp on what's really going on on their own end (and a worse grasp of what's going on on the other end). They realize that the arguments are not really what they're about, but they think that's symmetrical. So rightists think that when someone says, "climate change is real," they're really saying, "I want the gov't to take greater control over our lives." And when someone says, "we can reduce unemployment with temporarily higher deficits," rightists interpret it the same: "I want the gov't to take greater control over our lives." When someone notes the obvious objective success of healthcare reform, it's the same. And so on. If one guy thinks, "oh this dude is getting something wrong," and the other thinks, "this guy is trying to enslave me," there's going to be a big passion gap.



I think it makes a lot more sense that immigration is the key issue in the GOP primary than tax cuts for the rich. The GOP base goes along with tax cuts for the rich because it's an identity issue, but they HATE immigration and immigrants, and a lot of them have no trust that the party leadership is with them on that issue. Further, a lot of people on the left are also passionately anti-immigration and that view doesn't have much representation in Democratic Party so a Republican strong on that issue might get some crossover votes. The GOP would be a lot more successful making immigration a big issue than they have making upward redistribution a big issue.

In the sense of the general election, sure, even I have my caveats regarding immigration, and I'm a raging lefty. They have just handled it with a lot less tact that their arguments for upward redistribution, Trump dropped such bombs early that everyone is still trying to put together a message that resonates but doesn't make them looking a crazy person.The GOP has had years to learn to hide Reaganomics behind the "small business," "family farm," and "job creators" rhetoric, but I think that is wearing thin, as the rise of Sanders seems to indicate. There will be a balance of power between how many Hispanics the Democrats can drive to the polls on a pro-immigration platform and how many people gravitate to the eventual GOP candidate based on the fear of a weakened border.

I admit I was a little cocky early in the cycle regarding Hillary's ability to just bust the door down, it is looking like it will be a slog, and as I said, Rubio/Kasich is a ticket that scares me as a Democrat. It is telling that holding firm on an anti-immigrant stance is a possibly neutral move for them even though it is their best course, as the repeal of Obamacare and other wedge issues have been great at holding their base, but disastrous in the general sense and election. I will be very disappointed if any of the flat tax advocates make it through the primary, but most of their economic policies are horrific. Even Hillary has put out ideas for the reformation of capital gains taxes, and I'd be willing to bet 90% of the GOP field would slash and burn any such "burdens on investment."

 

[Lead]

Bernie Sanders Hates Campaign Cash, the Very Thing He'll Need to Beat Hillary Clinton

Much of Bernie Sanders' career is centered around his disgust for money in politics. He hates the fact of it, hates its effects, and, naturally, he has deep disdain for the process of raising it. The bigger the number, the more contempt he has.

 

[Lead]

Hillary Clinton rebukes charter schools

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sounded less like a decades-long supporter of charter schools over the weekend and more like a teachers union president when she argued that most of these schools “don’t take the hardest-to-teach kids, or, if they do, they don’t keep them.”
Her comments in South Carolina came straight from charter school critics’ playbook and distanced her from the legacies of her husband, former President Bill Clinton — credited with creating a federal stream of money to launch charters around the country — and President Barack Obama, whose administration has dangled federal incentives to push states to become more charter friendly.

 

[ShoelessRye]

He should run as an independent, or at least threaten to, to scare Hillary into pledging to take on campaign finance reform. If he ran as an indie he'd get 2-3-4% of the vote from Hillary, which would be enough to probably cost her the election.

Problem is folks know he's too pragmatic to actually do it.

 

[Gandhi]

I think she is wrong here. While it is not the only problem (funding is a much bigger issue imo), school choice is needed. There is a reason blacks support this one issue unlike the rest of the party, it is a lifeline from failing schools.

 

[Lead]

He should run as an independent, or at least threaten to, to scare Hillary into pledging to take on campaign finance reform. If he ran as an indie he'd get 2-3-4% of the vote from Hillary, which would be enough to probably cost her the election.

Problem is folks know he's too pragmatic to actually do it.

The past decade has been crazy when it comes to campaigns. It's pretty much anything goes at this point. We already get to see it with all these candidates raising massive amounts of money before even announcing a run. Add in superpacs and it's become a very monetized structure with less focus on the voters. The media looks at which donors are being courted by which candidate far more than looking at demographic polls.

 

[Lead]

Is Joe Biden ready for Joe?

Joe Biden isn

 

[ShoelessRye]

^He's basically using his candidacy as a weapon to use against Hillary to make sure she doesn't start taking hard shots at the Obama Presidency. However he polls at a lowly 13% to Hillary's 58% in most recent Florida Dem Primary polling - so I don't think the Clinton's are all too worried about the possibility.

AFAIK Obama hasn't turned over his voter list to Hillary or DNC yet either - so maybe Biden + Obama donor list is the threat that is going to be used to keep Hillary "in line".

Obama couldn't not endorse Biden afterall either, considering he's his vice president and thus his choice to replace him if Pres Obama somehow died or was incapacitated while in office. How could Pres Obama say "gee he was ready the last eight years, but not I think Hillary is better" - he couldn't.

 

[Lead]

^He's basically using his candidacy as a weapon to use against Hillary to make sure she doesn't start taking hard shots at the Obama Presidency. However he polls at a lowly 13% to Hillary's 58% in most recent Florida Dem Primary polling - so I don't think the Clinton's are all too worried about the possibility.

AFAIK Obama hasn't turned over his voter list to Hillary or DNC yet either - so maybe Biden + Obama donor list is the threat that is going to be used to keep Hillary "in line".

Obama couldn't not endorse Biden afterall either, considering he's his vice president and thus his choice to replace him if Pres Obama somehow died or was incapacitated while in office. How could Pres Obama say "gee he was ready the last eight years, but not I think Hillary is better" - he couldn't.

I think Dems would want Joe to run just to have a primary. He wouldn't win and I don't think he'd expect to. A debate would be nice.

 

[Lead]

Clinton Won't Hand Over Server, Says Emails Are Gone

Hillary Clinton's attorney told House Republicans Friday that she would not comply with their request to turn over her email server to a third party and that there are no emails from her private account remaining on the server from her time as Secretary of State anyway.

Attorney David Kendall's letter to Trey Gowdy, the House Republican leading the probe into the Benghazi attacks and now Clinton's email practices, drew a sharply critical response from the lawmaker.

"We learned today, from her attorney, Secretary Clinton unilaterally decided to wipe her server clean and permanently delete all emails from her personal server," Gowdy said in a statement Friday evening.

 

[Lead]

Hillary Clinton Fails to Turn Over New Benghazi Documents, Trey Gowdy Says

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has failed to produce any new documents in response to a congressional subpoena related to the 2012 attacks on a U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya, and has also wiped her e-mail server clean, said a Republican lawmaker.

Clinton, a potential Democratic presidential candidate, permanently deleted the e-mail after responding to an October 2014 request from the State Department to turn over government-related communications, said Representative Trey Gowdy, the chairman of a congressional panel investigating the attacks, in a statement Friday.

Clinton has faced weeks of questioning, and Republican scrutiny, over her exclusive use of private e-mail, and a server at her home, during her tenure as secretary of state from early 2009 to early 2013.

 

[ShoelessRye]

And she did nothing illegal still. When she was SOS the only means to save official emails was self reporting/submitting them. She claims she did that. There is zero proof she didn't.

Until all GOP Presidential candidates turn over their private email servers over to third parties this isn't much of an issue - other than in GOP talking circles.

Should the rules have been stricter - yep. Should they be made stronger still. Yep. Are all phone calls between pols recorded so you knew everything that is said? Are all person-to-person meetings have to be recorded to know what is said? Emails are more a kin to casual conversation than old timey official letterhead letter writing, or can be.

 

[Lead]

And she did nothing illegal still. When she was SOS the only means to save official emails was self reporting/submitting them. She claims she did that. There is zero proof she didn't.

Until all GOP Presidential candidates turn over their private email servers over to third parties this isn't much of an issue - other than in GOP talking circles.

Should the rules have been stricter - yep. Should they be made stronger still. Yep. Are all phone calls between pols recorded so you knew everything that is said? Are all person-to-person meetings have to be recorded to know what is said? Emails are more a kin to casual conversation than old timey official letterhead letter writing, or can be.

I think the two issues that the media has been covering are:
1. Yes, it's legal but was this practice ethical to do as SOS. Anytime there's secrecy in government, opposing media will assume the worse. I don't mind that kind of criticism because it pushes for future reform. I think if anything, this issue can be made into stricter laws for regulating emails.
2. She hasn't been found to do anything wrong but the problem is the majority of that is on her word. This just furthers that future laws need to address this. Obama put something into law shortly after Hillary left so it shouldn't be an issue going forward.
3. The security risk may be the biggest worry. There have already been analysts who listed a number of ways her emails may have been compromised. This is where the comparison of a Governor to SOS differs. With SOS, you are dealing with highly classified information. It's highly more valuable than a governor's correspondences. I'm not saying there shouldn't be laws for both but I am saying the consequences of compromising SOS emails are far higher.

 

[Lead]

O'Malley: Presidency no 'crown to be passed between two families'

Former Maryland Gov. Martin O

 

[ShoelessRye]

How long before claims of sexism in that remark. Hillary is a Rodham who married Bill Clinton, she is not a mother of Bill, or daughter of Bill.

 

[Lead]

To Avert Repeat of 2008, Clinton Team Hopes to Keep Bill at His Best

Bill Clinton

 

[tumbler]

it's too bad elizabeth warren doesn't have a real chance that is the only person I would get off my ass and march for

 

[Lead]

it's too bad elizabeth warren doesn't have a real chance that is the only person I would get off my ass and march for

TBH, the Senate is lacking Democratic muscle with Reid leaving. It needs to keep Schumer and Warren, even if they might have conflict with each other.

Democrats are pretty much going to have to look to rebuild for future presidential races. They need to win more Governor seats and also focus on retaking the house. It's hard to find good contenders when you don't hold many of either. Part of the problem is a Democratic president is currently in the house so it takes the spotlight off possible future leaders.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

A Warren/ Sanders ticket would be amazeballs.