Under Discussion: Impact of 2014 Elections and Hillary

Talk is already underway about the impact of the 2014 elections on 2016. Andrew Romano says Hillary Clinton is the real winner of yesterday's election.

Take a closer look at demography, geography and the road ahead for the parties, and it’s clear that the long-term winner of the 2014 midterms wasn’t the GOP at all. The long-term winner, in fact, wasn’t even on the ballot this year. Her name is Hillary Clinton.

Romano proceeds to crunch the numbers to support his theory.

< Election Gains for Legal Marijuana | Corey Gardner's Repackaging: How Big an Effect? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    He makes one small error (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 12:56:29 PM EST
    Many will say her campaign skills are still rusty -- and she certainly won't be heading into 2016 with many chits to cash in.

    She absolutely will. All those campaigns, even if they lost, were backed by the Democratic machines of those respective states.  She (and Bill) came out and campaigned for candidates, even though most of them really didn't have a chance.

    Those candidates, and more importantly, the state machines behind them - owe her.

    They worked hard (none / 0) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 01:06:36 PM EST
    but he's right.  This is not just good for Hillary.  Probably good for the Senate hopes and, depending on how they behave, maybe even the house.  

    But it's going to be a dark two years.  

    I am more upset about the Governors.  The senate probably has a harder time having any real and direct difference in people's lives.   The Governors are a very direct and personal loss.  Millions of people will continue to go without healthcare through Medicaid for one thing.


    I'm with you (none / 0) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 01:11:58 PM EST
    on the governors. Really the senate well, there's going to be a circular firing squad going on between Republicans and if some crackpot stuff does go through it will get vetoed.

    Nathan Deal is petty, small minded, mean and corrupt and it's going to be four more years with him and a lot of suffering down here in Georgia.


    Heh, I consider that they will be beating (none / 0) (#94)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 08:25:07 AM EST
    the squandered first two years right out of Obama for his last two years.  He really screwed that up :)

    The primitive, uber-cynical (none / 0) (#133)
    by jondee on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 01:06:10 PM EST
    Republican strategy will more of the same for the next two years: create as much of a train wreck as possible so that in two years they can crow loudly and continually 24/7 that it all happened under "Obama and the Democrat's watch". And the the results of the mid-terms just proved that the Right's scorched-earth, Neanderthal tactics can bear fruit for them.

    Americans aren't intellectually or politically engaged enough to understand what's going on; all they'll know is that they're hurting and demoralized and then notice the thousand fingers pointing at the most highly visible and covenient scapegoat in the Whitehouse -- the black "food stamp President" and "the Democrats".

    And Hillary will spinelessly roll over to what her Machievellian, beltway-yuppie consultants advise her to do, which will be to attempt to distance herself from the Obama administration as much as possible, which will only result in making her look dishonest and cowardly; especially when that interpretation is hammered on 24/7.

    It's tough going up against people who don't care who they hurt in the service of "winning" and having their anachronistic world-view vindicated.



    Sorry (none / 0) (#135)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 01:08:54 PM EST
    but anybody that runs is going to have to run away from Obama. It's the sad truth of the fact. And Hillary is the least tied to any of Obama's policies unless you've got a governor to run for President.

    Didn't Hillary advise Dems to run (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by masslib on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 07:32:39 PM EST
    On Obamacare?  I think she did.  In states where thousands of people who lacked insurance now have it, that would have been worth while.  Expect her to make some real distinctions, but not run away from the guy.  Further, he's extremely popular with African American voters.  What a way for a Dem to win primaries, by offending a huge part of the base?  I don't think so.

    The Dems have a history (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by MO Blue on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 07:42:20 PM EST
    of offending parts of their base.

    I was really (none / 0) (#181)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 08:13:13 PM EST
    talking about the general election more than anything.

    I don't think running away is going to work (none / 0) (#140)
    by jondee on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 01:31:36 PM EST
    especially when half the country is going to believe her real name is Hillary Rodham Clinton-Obama by November 2016.

    Well (none / 0) (#144)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 01:38:12 PM EST
    she has not been in the senate so they're not going to have any votes to talk about unless they want to go back and talk about the Bush Administration which I'm sure they do not want to talk about. Secondly the morons in the GOP have been running tape of her criticizing Obama every election cycle from 2008. So good luck with that. There's plenty of tape from 2008 to roll I'm sure for every clip they've got. And the Clintons know how to fight. I'm sure they have tape they can roll from these GOP nuts like Jody Hice saying women shouldn't do anything unless it's approved by their husband. Then I'm sure they've got good shots of Joni Ernst with her saying the black helicopters are coming to take us away. And Ted Cruz and his nuttiness. This is not rocket science. You can make the GOP so incredibly toxic to the average voter that they can scream Obama all they want but they are going to be too busy laughing at the GOP. Oh, and don't forget that the GOP primary is probably going to bring out the full clown car.

    Hillary (none / 0) (#153)
    by mogal on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 01:53:46 PM EST
    I would agree with you except she has a powerful weapon  in her husband,  who will explain things to the voters in a way that they can understand.  

    Also keep in mind he picked as VP someone a lot like him.  What if she were to pick Elizabeth Warren as her VP ?  Just a thought or maybe a dream?


    In other news... (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 02:05:40 PM EST
    what you chose to eat for lunch today and what it means for Hillary Clinton...special round-table discussion tonight at 11.

    The next two years are going to (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 02:25:59 PM EST
    be a treasure trove of campaign material.

    Boy (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 02:47:42 PM EST
    isn't that the truth? With the clowns in control of both congress and the senate it's going to be feast for the Dems.

    Yup, it will be very interesting (none / 0) (#15)
    by ruffian on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 03:15:41 PM EST
    I am already treating it as a done deal that she is running.

    Will be interesting to see how she frames the issues - or if issues are even front and center.


    Consequences of Terrible Govt and Candidates (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by dissenter on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 05:53:36 PM EST
    The midterms yesterday had the lowest turnout since 1932. I don't think this election sets Clinton up well at all. First of all, you have to have a message which the Democrats don't have and as far as I can tell she doesn't have one either.

    All one must do is look at what the next two years will bring. The Keystone Pipeline and the TPP will sail through Congress and Obama will sign them both. There will be more spying, more privacy violations at both the governmental and private sector level, worsening climate change, more foreign policy disasters and increasing health care costs.

    I don't think Clinton opposes the pipeline, TPP, NSA spying, tech companies selling your life to any willing buyer, a living national wage, a sustainable health care plan outside of abortion rights so I don't see where she picks up real votes.

    As the Fed ends QE, interest rates will go up, everything will be more expensive and few jobs will be created because we are looking at big budget cuts. There is also a global economic slowdown which will hurt what little manufacturing we have left. Any infrastructure projects on the horizon will be small scale because we have a small vision government at all levels.

    The corruption in DC and in state legislatures will get worse. I was a big Hillary supporter in 2008 but her corporatist, hawk worldview isn't going to sell in 2016 to Democrats. It won't sell for anyone in the establishment but nobody outside the establishment can truly run for president without Wall Street and dark money. At this moment, I see another two year race to the bottom and low voter turnout because few people in this country right now think that voting even matters. Nothing changes but the faces in the negative ads. I don't think even social issues are going to move people. The nation is flat out depressed and with good reason.

    Our democracy is very, very sick and I don't think it is too far out there to say it is on life support right now.

    Unless she hops in a phone booth and comes out as superwoman with a new worldview, I don't see her winning because when people don't have a reason to vote, they don't and lower turnout gives us exactly what we are looking at today.

    writing too fast (none / 0) (#17)
    by dissenter on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 06:01:47 PM EST
    I should have said I don't think she supports a sustainable health care plan (cost containment) or a living wage which is very different from a minimum wage. She is good on abortion rights but as we saw in CO yesterday, when people can't pay their bills they don't vote on abortion rights. She is rightfully supportive of those rights. I just don't think you can win an election on them when everything else is a shit sandwich.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 06:05:51 PM EST
    she has more going for her than that but the GOP has nothing but clowns too. Don't forget that little fact. She was talking about income inequality and the press went into overdrive condemning her. It's going to be a fight to even bring that subject up by anybody it would seem.

    She will have to make a clean break (none / 0) (#19)
    by Politalkix on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 08:29:17 PM EST
    with Wall Street to pick up votes that Democratic candidates did not pick up in 2016. If her campaign is bankrolled by Wall Street billionaires (irrespective of some noise she makes here and there about income inequality) and she runs as a war hawk, she will not win even if she runs as a social liberal. It is a fantasy to think that she can win Arkansas, Kentucky, West Virginia, Georgia, Louisiana (some states that Bill Clinton won). She will need to win Florida and Ohio and if these states come down to the wire, the Republicans will get a helping hand from their Governors in these two states.

    Saying that yesterday's election results were good for HRC is like putting lipstick on a pig. The results sucked. It is best to have an honest evaluation.


    Wow! Big news! (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by Yman on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 11:02:04 PM EST
    Seriously?  She has to make a "clean break with Wall St." or she will lose, while the guy who banked far more Wall St. money than her won in 2008 and 2012?

    When did this new threshhold suddenly arise, and how did I miss the press release?


    Interesting comments, politalkix, BUT (none / 0) (#22)
    by christinep on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 08:50:54 PM EST
    unduly pessimistic about Hillary Clinton ... especially in view of the competition.  While I don't know quite where you are coming from, it is accurate--I think--for me to say that we Democrats owe her a lot for service, support, structure.  On the biggie "Experience and Depth of Knowledge," there really is no realistic equal ... we all know that.  It is a resume plus kind of thing; it is a familiarity kind of thing; it is an apprenticeship & loyalty & dedicated public service workhorse kind of thing.  

    While I'm confident that she is aware of the importance of being current, of not being out-dated, her work on the national & international fronts keep her timely.  The real challenge, it seems to me, will be the ability to bridge the obvious experience with a sense of being in touch with the building populism that appears to be at the base of concern today.  Yet ... the spirit of populism cannot be missed by those who would lead today.  Her history actually predisposes her to understanding that want in our society today.  We will surely see.

    Meanwhile, a little comment:  The "lipstick on a pig" dig is more than a little annoyingly devious in my opinion.  If I may say so--and, I have normally liked reading your comments in recent years--that reference betrays a premature, judgmental emotional predisposition.  Maybe I misread ....I hope so.


    Experience (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 08:56:04 PM EST
    doesn't matter to these activists. They are all about how a candidate "makes them feel" instead of what they can actually accomplish that might make people's lives better.

    I agree with you on much (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by dissenter on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 09:57:57 PM EST
    I have always been a Clinton supporter which is why it pained me to write that little piece. However, I believe it to be true. You are absolutely correct about insulting white, non college degree voters. Obama has been a disaster on several fronts.

    Also there seems to be a disconnect in this party as to how well the educated are doing in this economy right now. We know the plight of the folks without college degrees but I can't tell you how many people in their late 40's and 50's I know who are unemployed, under-employed, still bogged down with college loans at 9% and can't save a dime. That college interest rate relief for the kids did nothing for older people with loans that are stuck at 9%. They are scared shitless. Those people are exactly the ones that handed Udall his defeat in CO and I loved him as my senator but his campaign was horrible.

    We have to get away from building a coalition by targeting groups of people. All this does is allow the republicans to play off people's fears and increase generational warfare. We have to start focusing on Americans and an American economy that is fair to everyone, gives everyone a chance at a decent job, grows the middle class and gives hope to the poor that they can improve their lives.

    For those that think we should just focus on the Obama coalition from 08 and 10, I say to you most sincerely that we will get our ass handed to us in 16 if we keep this up. People don't care about social issues, NSA spying, etc when they can't pay their mortgage or rent and their health insurance costs are off the charts which is what they are if you are in your late 40's and beyond.

    I'm sick of hearing about Obamacare. It is awesome if you are young and/or getting a subsidy. If you are middle aged (subsidy or no subsidy), you are getting hit hard. It is super hard to find a job and because your health care costs are expensive companies don't want to hire you.

    The problem in this party is that we spend so much time defending pols that we do not spend much time listening to actual Americans.  I'm just using the 40 and 50 somethings as point. There is little to no proactive planning for a better economy. What needs to happen is for pols to start listening to what is really going on in the country and then start looking at policies that might help people. Nobody gives a shit if the stock market is at 17,000 if you have no savings, a job or hope. Using Colorado again as an example, touting the "great" economic progress in CO was insulting to so many people who are struggling. The energy and financial sectors are  doing well. The rest of the state, not so much.

    When Clinton keeps defending Wall Street, she is wrong. And from my time abroad, I can tell you she is most definitely a hawk in every sense of the word. She is also horrible on NSA spying despite her recent pandering comments. I like her as a person. I went out in the snow to vote for her in the 08 caucus, I worked on her husbands presidential campaign but the 90s are over and this country is a mess. What we need is new, creative ideas and right now Hillary is not giving us anything new.

    I want change. Real change and that requires a break from the last 20 years of corruption and neither Obama or Clinton are the answer because they are both bought and paid for by Wall Street.  


    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 10:09:31 PM EST
    with you 100%. I've been saying the same thing for quite a while. The only reason I use demographics is it really just a shorthand way of getting to the point so to speak.

    Interestingly (none / 0) (#188)
    by vicndabx on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 01:21:31 PM EST
    The president had a jobs program that would've offered retraining. Can't get it thru Congress because of GOP obstructionism, now what?

    Did he try (none / 0) (#192)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 09:00:48 PM EST
    to do it before the GOP took over?

    Yes, Google American Jobs Act (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by vicndabx on Sat Nov 08, 2014 at 07:54:46 AM EST
    "judgmental emotional predisposition?" (none / 0) (#72)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 10:05:53 PM EST
    Why don't you just ask Politalkix if it's "that time of the month?"

    He's asking valid questions, and it's rather offensive that you're trying to lay it all off on emotion.


    The Obama coalition (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Politalkix on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 08:46:42 PM EST
    won two Presidential elections. Let us see what coalition HRC creates. It will be interesting to see if she can win a single one. You and jbindc are her worst supporters. Every time you open your mouths, she loses potential voters (very sorry to say).

    So what? (none / 0) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 08:52:11 PM EST
    It's gone, done finito as of yesterday. Obama has completely smashed it. Well, let's see last time it was comprised of Hispanics, women and working class whites. She won plenty last time and would have done better than Obama in the election back in 2008 according to the exit polls. But none of that matters to the self righteous self serving "progressive" activists does it? You allowed yourself to be browbeat by Obama for six years so you can scurry on off to your corner and hide under the covers before he starts browbeating you again.

    Unbelievable (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 09:05:42 PM EST
    Still fighting the 2008 Primary.

    No (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 09:09:25 PM EST
    I'm just pointing out there is a reason why the whole "Obama is awesome" crowd should not be interfering and deciding who the nominee is. If Hillary gets it or doesn't get it I want it to be because she succeeds or fails on her own without any meddling or condescending lectures from the self serving sanctimonious Obama supporters. They're already saying well, she has to be this way or that way and yet they're the same ones that have let Obama browbeat them for six years. They're in no position to demand anything.

    Interferring? (none / 0) (#30)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 09:12:15 PM EST
    It is that type of entitled condescension that cost Hillary last time.

    Obama supporters get to vote, get to criticize, get to campaign.  Telling us to shut up doesn't bode well.


    No (1.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 09:14:54 PM EST
    they were meddling and screaming at voters and calling them racists. They were the ones being condescending and now it's coming back to bite them. The very same voters that they want to vote for democrats-working class whites-were the ones that they were trying to run off as fast as they could.

    When did that happen? (none / 0) (#39)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 09:20:03 PM EST
    Did that happen in....2008?  According to this accusation at least.

    You are using that issue to try and shut up Obama supporters here on this thread today--now.

    Hillary will need to show us where she is on war and peace.....  


    Yeah (none / 0) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 09:27:31 PM EST
    it was in 2008 and remember Obama's condescending comments about the voters in PA clinging to their religion and guns? Not one of his finer moments. He talked about voters like they were some kind of sociological experiment not real people with real lives.

    What the heck is going on, MKS (none / 0) (#45)
    by christinep on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 09:29:39 PM EST
    It is 2014, not 2008.  Are we going to pick each other apart?

    Look, I wasn't involved in the give & take on this site that has been occasionally un-lovingly referenced.  But, I can tell you that--during the primaries in 2008--I did lots of campaign work on the ground for Hillary Clinton.  When she lost, I worked continuously in President Obama's campaign (as my husband & I did in a territorial assignment in Colorado in 2012.)  I deeply respect them both ... and, consider them to be colleagues who complement each others approach very well.

    What is sad ... what would be sad is a return to that relatively short period of acrimony in early 2008.  It serves no purpose.  Can't we let it go ... if not, what does that say about us???


    christine, I suggest (none / 0) (#48)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 09:32:29 PM EST
    you direct your comments to those who bring it up......It weren't me.

    Here's my (none / 0) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 09:37:02 PM EST
    issue: the lectures about what Hillary needs to do or not do from people who allowed Obama to browbeat them for six years.

    Actually (none / 0) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 09:31:24 PM EST
    I'm not trying to shut up Obama supporters. I'm asking why should anybody listen to you after what has happened over the last six years with Obama? C'mon tell me why Obama supporters who have allowed Obama to browbeat them should be telling Hillary or anybody else how they should run their campaign or anything?

    You'll listen. You'll like what she has to say or you won't. You'll vote for her in the primary or you won't. Do whatever you want to do with your vote because it's your vote and you have a right to do with it whatever you want. I have no problem with that.


    It is a rhetorical (none / 0) (#52)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 09:41:41 PM EST
    device to deflect the conversation.  Basically, an ad homimen.  Someone questions Hillary on the use of force and the response is well you are an Obama supporter blah, blah, blah....

    That does not answer the question.  And this whole overblown Ebola and ISIS double feature concerns me that there is still too much kneejerk reach for military action in our Exceptionalism DNA....

    I have no doubt Hillary would be "decisive" on the issue of ISIS....That is not necessarily a good thing imo.    


    You're not "asking questions" (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Yman on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 11:14:56 PM EST
    You're demanding to know Hillary's position from someone who isn't Hillary Clinton.  Moreover, it's on an issue where you've already decided she's far too aggressive for suggesting we should have given indirect aid to Syrian rebels, while lauding Obama who was threatening direct US military action in Syria.

    The hypocrisy is palpable.


    I said questioning (none / 0) (#77)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 10:18:11 PM EST
    on the use of force was a legitimate question to ask and I said so below. That is a policy question. Policy questions should be asked.

    My problem is the demanding that she do this or that because of x, y, or z from people who made NO demands of Obama and let them browbeat them. Do you get where I'm coming from?


    Georgia, I don't want to put words in (none / 0) (#55)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 09:47:13 PM EST
    your mouth, but are you saying that you think the Obama supporters are going to hold Clinton to a different standard than they've held Obama to these last 6 years?

    Don't mean to be getting in the middle of this, just want to understand the argument that seems to be going on.


    Yes (none / 0) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 09:52:58 PM EST
    that is exactly what I am seeing.

    Ga6th and Politalkix (none / 0) (#25)
    by christinep on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 09:00:47 PM EST
    C'mon ... let's not separate so soon.  It is 2014.  IMO, President Obama and former Secretary Clinton complement each other well.  Without being la-di=da, the 2008 difference could more than complement each other now in 2014 ... and, certainly, in 2016.

    We need to stick together and work together.  Or, we will have a much bigger national problem than we could presume now.


    I have just (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 09:12:56 PM EST
    had it with these sanctimonious lectures from these so called "progressives". I detest that word. Call me a liberal any day of the week but not a progressive.

    Okay, how liberal is Hillary? (none / 0) (#37)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 09:17:44 PM EST
    Will she commit ground troops to fighting ISIS?

    That is a legitmate question.....

    I would like to know the answer.  


    Maybe you should ask her (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Yman on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 11:03:57 PM EST
    Or are you expecting Ga6thDem to channel her inner thoughts?

    First of all we are already fighting ISIS (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 08:32:15 AM EST
    I don't know where that fight will be if and when she runs.  Second, nobody is going to be elected President on a platform of coddling ISIS.

    And not just our nation either (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 08:33:55 AM EST
    What nation will someone be elected to leadership on a platform of coddling ISIS?  Any of our allies?  Any member of NATO that has elections?

    Christinep (none / 0) (#49)
    by Politalkix on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 09:34:09 PM EST
    BHO and HRC compliment each other well and I enjoy my interaction with you and many others who supported HRC during the primaries. But then you have HRC supporters like Ga6th and jbindc....

    The lipstick on a pig was not a dig at HRC but at some of her supporters. Yesterday's election results sucked for everybody-for the President, the Democratic Party, for HRC, for the country. I think it is pretty misguidedly self serving for some HRC supporters to pretend that it did not suck for HRC but for everybody else.


    LoL (none / 0) (#34)
    by Politalkix on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 09:15:32 PM EST
    Working class whites without a college education-they may be more enamored about keeping their guns and keeping non-white immigrants out of the country than voting for "that woman". If she panders to them, she will lose a healthy chunk of the electorate that actually vote for Democrats and the subjects of her pander will still vote Republican.

    All the women vote could not even win her the Democratic primary (where she could only wrestle BHO to a draw in the popular vote despite Democratic primary voters being overwhelmingly women). Women's votes are very divided. Married women don't vote the same way as single women do and many just do not show up to vote.

    If you want a progressive democratic party, it is best to form a coalition of college educated whites and minorities. Pandering to non college educated whites and rural American is going to take you back in time and a less progressive direction.



    Wrong on all accounts (none / 0) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 09:24:01 PM EST
    Once again you are making a condescending statement about a voting bloc the exact same mistake Obama made. "that woman" is the phrase of "progressives" like you.

    You have to realize that Obama relied on caucuses and he bamboozled you into thinking he was the greatest thing since sliced bread and now he's continuing to browbeat you and you can't even stand up and defend yourself against it. Do you understand why progressive activists don't get any respect?

    You apparently don't want to expand the coalition. You want the Dukakis coalition and keep it small and those "impure" people out of the party. Right. I get it. Good luck with that. You are going to have to rely on squeezing every available vote from that coalition and hope it wins instead of getting a large mandate.


    The Obama coalition? (none / 0) (#111)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 10:16:17 AM EST
    Hasn't really helped grow the party.  It was all about him personally.

    Something to think about (my bold)

    After six years of his leadership of the Democratic Party, there aren't that many states colored Democratic blue on those maps maintained by the networks. Perhaps coming from the blood of so many candidates who lost because of their support for Obama, those maps are awfully red these days. It is now undeniable that no Democratic president in the last century has had as devastating an impact on his party as has Obama. When he took office in 2009, any political map of the United States was much more Democratic blue than Republican red. That was true across the board from the White House, to the Senate, the House, governorships, and state legislatures. Today, in the wake of Tuesday's defeats, all those maps are predominantly crimson.

    The numbers are sobering for Democrats, demonstrating both how far the party has fallen and how difficult it will be to climb out of the current hole. Almost all the attention has been focused on the loss of the Senate. But the damage to the party is considerably deeper than the top of the ballot and considerably dispersed from Washington.

    The numbers tell the story: In 2009, Democrats had 60 senators, when you include the two independents who caucused with them; in 2015, they will have 45. In 2009, Democrats had 256 members of the House; in 2015, they will have 192. In 2009, Democrats had 28 governors; in 2015, they will have 18. In 2009, Democrats controlled both legislative chambers in 27 states; in 2015, they will control only 11. In 2009, Democrats controlled 62 legislative chambers; in 2015, they will control only 28 (with one tie and two still undecided).

    The impact of the carnage in state legislatures on Obama's watch is hard to overstate. This is where the future classes of mayors, governors, and members of Congress are bred. This is where the boundary lines are drawn for congressional and legislative districts. This is where party leaders come from. And this is where the rules are made for party primaries and election laws are set. According to Tim Storey at the National Conference of State Legislatures, what we saw on Tuesday was an almost unprecedented "Republican wave," which he said, leaves "Democrats at their lowest point in state legislatures in nearly a century."

    Pretty sobering.


    Except that his analysis (none / 0) (#112)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 10:30:28 AM EST
    is flawed from the beginning:

    The real Democratic Senate seat number in January, 2009 was 55 Democrats plus 2 Independents equaling 57 Senate seats.

    The crux (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 10:35:51 AM EST
    of the article is right 60 house seats and 15 senate seats. No more whining about Bill Clinton from the left. Obama had it all and blew it.

    Sorry, but you're wrong again (none / 0) (#114)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 10:43:56 AM EST

    An aside....it was during this time that Obama's "stimulus" was passed. No Republicans in the House voted for the stimulus. However, in the Senate.....and because Democrats didn't have "total control" of that chamber.....three Republicans.....Snowe, Collins and Specter, voted to break a filibuster guaranteeing it's passage.

    Then in April, 2009, Republican Senator Arlen Specter became a Democrat. Kennedy was still at home, dying, and Al Franken was still not seated. Score in April, 2009....Democratic votes 58.

    In May, 2009, Robert Byrd got sick and did not return to the Senate until July 21, 2009. Even though Franken was finally seated July 7, 2009 and Byrd returned on July 21.....Democrats still only had 59 votes in the Senate because Kennedy never returned, dying on August 25, 2009.
    Kennedy's empty seat was temporarily filled by Paul Kirk but not until September 24, 2009.

    The swearing in of Kirk finally gave Democrats 60 votes (at least potentially) in the Senate. "Total control" of Congress by Democrats lasted all of 4 months. From September 24, 2009 through February 4, 2010...at which point Scott Brown, a Republican, was sworn in to replace Kennedy's Massachusetts seat.

    The ignorance and myths this so-called "journalist" couldn't take the time to check, tells us you need to know about the state of political discourse in this country.

    Get your facts wrong, and you too, can writ gud for the National Journal.


    Um (none / 0) (#115)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 10:58:17 AM EST
    YOU made the artifical timeline start at January of 2009.  My link said 2009, which is a true statement.

    In 2009, Democrats had 60 senators, when you include the two independents who caucused with them;

    And so, he is correct, and he is correct in pointing out that no president has lost so much Party-power under his watch than Obama.

    Careful reading helps for better analysis.  I suggest you try it.


    See (3.50 / 2) (#116)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 11:06:26 AM EST
    You actually agree with the writer as you quoted:

    August 25, 2009.
     Kennedy's empty seat was temporarily filled by Paul Kirk but not until September 24, 2009.

    The swearing in of Kirk finally gave Democrats 60 votes (at least potentially) in the Senate

    So you are saying the Democrats had 60 votes in 2009.

    The link said:

    In 2009, Democrats had 60 senators, when you include the two independents who caucused with them;

    So, you agree, and your comments did nothing except prove that you agree.


    The Democrats didn't have (2.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 11:26:52 AM EST
    60 votes in January of 2009, and they didn't have them until Sept of that year,

    That's different from just saying, "The Democrats had 60 votes in 2009".  

    It would be more accurate to say, from the last few months of 2009 Jan of 2010, the Democrats had the 60 votes they needed to break any Republican filibuster.

    So, to say, "In 2009, Democrats had 60 votes in the Senate" is simply untrue, as the time they had that was less than half a year, as you Earthings measure such things.


    A text book example (3.50 / 2) (#177)
    by sj on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 06:12:23 PM EST
    of missing the forest for the trees.
    The Democrats didn't have  (none / 0) (#117)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 10:26:52 AM MDT

    60 votes in January of 2009, and they didn't have them until Sept of that year,

    That's different from just saying, "The Democrats had 60 votes in 2009".  

    Because while your statement is literally true, the distinction is truly without a difference. And, moreover it serves to misrepresent and obscure the actual point of the original comment.

    Sorry, but a whole year (none / 0) (#184)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 06:47:38 AM EST
    Is a different time period from a few months of that same year.

    Thanks for helping me clarify that for you.


    Where did anyone say (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 02:18:03 PM EST
    "for the whole year"?

    The comment was "In 2009...."  which is a true statement.

    YOU are the one hung up on "the whole year".

    And still missing the point, since no one is talking about VOTES or FILIBUSTERS, but rather the NUMBER of people in elected office.


    You like your little tiny branch (none / 0) (#189)
    by sj on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 02:07:01 PM EST
    don't you? It lets you feel like your little correction negates a whole lot of other stuff you don't want to look at too closely.

    Be careful your branchling is strong enough to support your ego.


    So what you're saying is that (2.00 / 1) (#132)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 01:06:04 PM EST
    In 2009, the Dems had 60 votes. Which is what I (and James Oliphant said).

    The point being - not how many votes the Dems had, but the fact that in 2009 there were 60 (58 + two independents), and as of January they will have 45.  That's a loss of 15, which is what is important.  Not to mention a loss of 64 House seats, 10 governors, 16 states where Dems controlled both legislative houses, and a total of 34 single legislative chambers.

    But you keep seeing the forest for the trees.


    Nope they only had (none / 0) (#150)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 01:49:51 PM EST
    the requisite 60 votes in a limited period in 2009, they started in Jan 2009 with 55 Democrats, only 2 somewhat reliable Independents, for a grand total of 57.

    You do have some sort of problem admitting error, even in something you yourself didn't write.  Why is that?

    I refuse to simplify and dumb-down politics for anyone, so don't start feeling like it's personal, it's not.


    They were (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 01:53:32 PM EST
    caucusing with the Democrats were they not? I think that's the whole point whether they literally had a D beside their name or not.

    So you want to say that Obama cost us 13 senate sets instead of 15? Does that make you feel better? It shouldn't because its' still abysmal.


    I'm sorry (2.00 / 1) (#154)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 01:54:49 PM EST
    you apparently aren't smart enough to see (or don't want to see) that the Democratic Party has lost more people in power under Obama than any president in history.  THAT'S what the Obama coalition has brought us.

    You would rather argue something else entirely - but I fear it is YOU that have trouble admitting when you are wrong.

    Have a good day.


    I'm sorry that my accuracy (none / 0) (#157)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 02:02:27 PM EST
    has caused so much grief and stress for you and GA, but take heart, they'll probably be hiring at the National Journal next year, and you can rely on me if you need a reference for them.

    You crack me up. (2.00 / 1) (#159)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 02:05:24 PM EST
    Your "accuracy".  I'm going to be laughing for days about that one.

    There were (none / 0) (#119)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 12:04:53 PM EST
    60 senate seats. The fact that they weren't all sat at the same time or whatever doesn't mean stuff couldn't be passed during the time.

    And Obama chose not to make the best of that and kept moving the goal posts saying we need 67 to do anything. It was awful.


    And here are the ramifications (none / 0) (#120)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 12:16:23 PM EST
    There's a very light bench for the next generation of Democrats.

    As Democrats take stock of their grievous losses in the 2014 elections, party leaders are confronting a challenge perhaps even more daunting than their defeats in the House and Senate: the virtual wipeout of the Democratic talent pool across the country.

    After the Republican waves of 2010 and 2014, the party is depleted not just in its major-league talent, but also in its triple-A recruitment prospects. It amounts to a setback, Democrats say, that will almost certainly require more than one election cycle to repair


    It's too soon, some argue, to conclude that the party's recruitment pipeline is depleted: In 2004, Democrats struggled across the map and elected only two new Democratic senators. One of them, however, was Barack Obama.

    But the relative paucity of Democratic recruitment prospects stands in stark contrast to the Republicans' overflowing talent pool. The GOP will come out of this election controlling at least 31 governorships and as many as 54 Senate seats, many of them held by 2010 wave-election babies who are already positioning themselves for the presidency.

    Even among the Democrats who squeaked by in tough races this week - Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy and Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper - few party leaders and presidential strategists see the seeds of national greatness. It's one more reason why the Clintons loom so large in the Democratic coalition; more than ever, if Hillary Clinton decided not to run for president, it's entirely unclear who could fill the void.

    Well (none / 0) (#122)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 12:30:19 PM EST
    the good news is redistricting is going to keep the GOP in control of the house probably until 2020

    So there's time to develop talent over the next few years.

    And part of the talent problem is in the south like here in GA and that's really nobody's fault honestly. We just don't have many in the house and senate to develop into candidates.


    I suggest that your efforts to perpetuate (none / 0) (#148)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 01:46:24 PM EST
    the errors of the writer by you and jbindc aren't serving the Democrats, but, please proceed and explain to all of us why that isn't so.

    Forget 60. (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 01:50:51 PM EST
    You can pass stuff with less than 60. All you need is someone to arm twist and apply pressure. Obama just didn't care. He wanted the easy way out and handed everything over to somebody else to do.

    Well, what is left out of that is (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 12:34:10 PM EST
    The Senate could have changed the filibuster rule of 60.  And they threatened over and over again, and now watch the Republicans do that immediately.

    The first two years were squandered. He had Wall Street in the palm of his hand and he chose to allow them to continue to prey upon the hands and hearts and minds that feed it.  Nobody went to jail either.  That's his fault.

    He could have negotiated for better stimulus constantly and didn't.  Blogger BTD wrote post after post after post of all the boggled negotiations and the missed opportunities week after week after week here at Talkleft.


    Oh yeah (none / 0) (#173)
    by sj on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 05:50:22 PM EST
    that invalidates the rest of the commentary.



    That's true in my book (none / 0) (#121)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 12:22:42 PM EST
    His cult is hostile :)  I think he has been one of the best CICs we have ever had.  Because so much is classified the public doesn't have any deep discussions on this either.  I suspect years from now I will read some analysis on his choices there, and with information freed up he will take his seat at that table.  I don't think his cult even cares for that about him.  They think he's great for other reasons, I think he's mid-level on everything that's excites them about him.

    He doesn't fight well politically, seems to hate it and/or fear it.  He does not go to the public with his plans either and then get them to sign on and start a national discussion.  He is secretive and seems stuck in survival now on social issues and policy.  He doesn't push anything that isn't already pushing and selling itself and doing the hard work itself.

    But do I wish for John McCain or Mitt Romney instead?  Hell no!

    And don't try to share fact based Obama opinions with his cult.


    He's apparently (none / 0) (#123)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 12:32:27 PM EST
    Not had a good relationship with Senate Dems for a long time either.

    So, it really isn't just Republicans that can't seem to get anything done.  Harry Reid and Obama definitely share some blame.


    The filibuster rule was never changed (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 12:38:21 PM EST
    Will Republicans allow it stand?  I don't think they will.

    15 hours...that's how long it took. (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by Anne on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 12:46:14 PM EST
    Marcy Wheeler (bold is mine):


    Of course, that's going to leave a hole in the budget. Eliminating the medical device tax -- another tweak McConnell promised to make to ObamaCare -- will create another hole in the budget.

    McConnell revealed part of how he was going to fill it with his response to a question about the Democrats' filibuster reform. He noted that the Senate doesn't need 60 to get things done for some issues. He noted they can use reconciliation and push stuff through with just 51 votes.

    The GOP has spent 4 years complaining that the Democrats pushed ObamaCare through using reconciliation. But it took just 15 hours after winning the majority for McConnell to make clear that he plans to push through aggressive ideological legislation using the same tool.

    No surprise there...


    Well, (none / 0) (#130)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 12:52:42 PM EST
    even Elizabeth Warren supports that one.

    Man if Hillary runs I'm so glad she's not going to be in the senate having to vote for or against the crackpot stuff McConnell is going to put up for a vote.


    Elizabeth Warren (none / 0) (#131)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 12:57:37 PM EST
    As well as Al Franken and Heidi Heitkamp favor eliminating the medical device tax because they have medical device makers in their states.

    And MT, the Dems got rid of the filibuster for most presidential nominees a year ago.


    My point had nothing to do with (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by Anne on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 01:24:33 PM EST
    the elimination of the medical device tax, and everything to do with the GOP's intention to use the rules in ways Dems just could never seem to bring themselves to do.

    Dems fondness for only seeming able to bring limp noodles to their fights has never and will never make sense to me.


    I completely (none / 0) (#139)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 01:31:05 PM EST
    missed your point on that one. I'm sorry. I thought it was more about the policy than the procedure.

    And yes I understand your anger at their lack of fight. Honestly if you have a leader like Obama that gives up it seems the rest of them do the same.


    Well, wait (none / 0) (#142)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 01:33:21 PM EST
    Dems just could never seem to bring themselves to do.

    Dems DID do that  - that's how they passed Obamacare.


    Not true (none / 0) (#161)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 02:19:14 PM EST
    The cloture vote on Obamacare was 60-39

    Thanks for helping me keep (none / 0) (#162)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 02:32:28 PM EST
    the facts straight.

    Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (none / 0) (#165)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 03:00:39 PM EST
    which amended the ACA, and included such things as the more generous subsidies and the expansion of Medicaid, among other of the major features of the ACA, was.

    They didn't change anything about (none / 0) (#182)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 08:39:31 PM EST
    The filibuster to pass them.  They passed through reconciliation, which has been available since 1974.

    OMG (none / 0) (#138)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 01:26:34 PM EST
    I turned the news off two days ago.  Didn't want to  see it. So there it is.  What a glory.  Was that also one of the things that Obama did not want Harry Reid to do?

    I don't (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 01:32:28 PM EST
    know but the long knives are out for Obama from the party. They've had it with him. Reid's assistant went public with a story the other day. So apparently they are all now rallying around the Clintons.

    I saw that, jb linked to it (none / 0) (#143)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 01:37:20 PM EST
    I think his last two years will be mostly miserable for him and us unless something earthshaking takes place.

    What I see that is often missed, as CIC he doesn't really do something unless to not do something is riskier and/or more inhumane.  But he thinks he can run his national and social policy like that too.  What works in one realm does not work in the other.


    Well (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 01:42:16 PM EST
    someone needs to blast past Valerie Jarrett and tell him what the game is. Tell him he had better shape up or more long knives are going to come out for him and mostly they should tell him he's going to lose corporate money once he gets out of the WH. That should get him moving.

    I think he will be Carteresque (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 01:44:37 PM EST
    He's going to be a much better President out of office then in office.

    Well (none / 0) (#155)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 01:58:01 PM EST
    hopefully he doesn't drag everybody else down with him in 2016. Can you imagine?

    I think he will be treated like kryptonite (none / 0) (#156)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 02:01:50 PM EST
    Dems will be distancing from him, and hopefully advancing a real platform that they intend to honor.

    Who knows how to campaign successfully "after Obama?", probably the Clintons :)


    Not going to lose corporate $$$ (none / 0) (#167)
    by MO Blue on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 03:25:26 PM EST
    If he "reforms"corporate taxes lowering the tax rate and allows corporations to bring money back into the U.S. Tax free.

    One of the things he has already talked about doing with the Republican's help.


    And the Clinton haters are just (none / 0) (#145)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 01:38:20 PM EST
    shatting on themselves at the very suggestion

    Tracy (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 01:48:57 PM EST
    they did it to themselves. They did it to themselves They didn't listen. We tried to tell them this is what was going to happen. Even now they still don't get it.

    Definitely (none / 0) (#124)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 12:32:38 PM EST
    don't try the fact based stuff with the cult. It's as bad as trying to reason with a lot of the Republicans out there. Today I nailed a Republican on another blog but it took me about 12 posts to do it. He doesn't believe that the GOP is a far right party. I showed him the numbers and then it was crickets.

    I hear ya :) (none / 0) (#127)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 12:38:57 PM EST
    Good god it never ends (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by CoralGables on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 10:04:26 PM EST

    I'm like (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 10:11:41 PM EST
    can't you just let it be and let the chips fall where they may without lectures about how someone needs to be? Either they will figure it out or they won't.

    What the hell does this mean? (none / 0) (#98)
    by CoralGables on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 08:36:34 AM EST
    That (none / 0) (#100)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 09:02:02 AM EST
    was funny

    It's about the (none / 0) (#103)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 09:36:48 AM EST
    sanctimonious lectures of which you are not one of the them handing them out.

    Oh, honey...it's just getting started. (none / 0) (#74)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 10:07:49 PM EST
    But I'm sitting here with a headache percolating and I suspect the conversation here has something to do with it, so I guess I feel your pain.

    The electoral (none / 0) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 12:58:28 PM EST
    college is definitely against the GOP. I don't see any of the current clown car occupants as being able to change that and Rand Paul and Marco Rubio are going to have to resign their senate seats to run for President. Therefore I don't think Rubio is going to run for president but Paul might still.

    That didn't take long (none / 0) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 01:43:11 PM EST
    Howard Fineman Declares The 'Obama Era Is Over'

    I never felt like it got off the ground (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 12:40:14 PM EST
    Then the loser will be The American People (none / 0) (#7)
    by Dadler on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 02:02:11 PM EST
    Hillary is as corporate and mainstream and unimaginative a pol as exists on the national scene. She does not possess, in any way, shape or form, the creative chops necessary to bring America out of its political coma. Just my opinion, of course, but I will put money on it.

    Neither a Bush nor a Clinton be, to paraphrase what Polonius said to his boy Laertes.

    Let us have imagination, and nothing less. Sadly, this is as rare a commodity in American politics as anything one could imagine.

    pun intended (none / 0) (#8)
    by Dadler on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 02:02:52 PM EST
    meant to add

    More (none / 0) (#10)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 02:11:19 PM EST

    But many Democratic strategists said the switch to Republican control may have a silver lining for Clinton, helping her better define herself as she shapes a potential 2016 presidential campaign. By providing a convenient foil for Clinton and other Democrats, a GOP-run Congress would make it less imperative for Clinton to highlight her differences with President Obama, these strategists said.

    Obama's damaged, lame-duck condition also makes Clinton the strongest Democrat left standing.

    A Republican Senate is likely to "spend a lot of time trying to repeal some of the progress made in the Obama administration," Democratic strategist Erik Smith said. "That would be a great situation for her, because she could both make the case against the Republicans while currying favor with the Obama base."


    The midterm vote holds lessons for Clinton about which issues most resonate with the grumpy 2014 electorate and which are likely to matter in an election that is still far off, according to political advisers and analysts who are close to the former secretary of state or are watching her closely. Most agreed that she must fashion a way to run against Washington -- a task made easier with a GOP Congress.

    The losses also raise doubts about whether the "Obama coalition" of youth and minorities will turn out for anyone but Obama. No candidate, including Clinton, is likely to win nearly as large a share of the black and Hispanic vote as Obama did in 2008 or 2012. But Clinton probably would do better among whites in many states, while possibly expanding Democratic margins among women.


    Clinton headlined Democratic events that raked in millions of dollars for others this year and would be expected to break fundraising records for a general election. Paul Begala, a Clinton White House adviser who remains close to both Clintons, said the couple put political "money in the bank" with heavy schedules promoting Democrats nationwide this year.

    Clinton (none / 0) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 02:15:55 PM EST
    will definitely not do as well with blacks as Obama did but probably just as well if not better with Hispanics and white voters.

    And it's really about (2.67 / 3) (#13)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 02:26:26 PM EST
    white voters, middle class voters, and women coming to vote.

    That sounds a little off (none / 0) (#35)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 09:15:52 PM EST
    Is really about white voters....???

    The Democratic Party has historically been the party than champions minorities...


    And more (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 02:04:17 PM EST
    To Win White Swing Voters, Democrats Should Stop Trying to Appeal to White Swing Voters

    As was the case in Georgia and in other racially diverse states where Democratic candidates for Senate and the governor's office were trounced last night, the issue wasn't whether or not Pookie (the president's favorite election-season punching bag) stayed on the couch. It was candidates' failure to win the votes of the elusive white swing voter. They also failed to motivate the 63 percent of eligible voters (not all of whom are Cousin Pookie, I assure you) who stayed away from the midterms.

    Here's one idea why the Democrats lost swing voters and failed to attract many new ones: because they didn't say anything of substance. White voters want something more than bromides, and the voters of color whom the Dems have come to take for granted deserve it. What would have been the outcome yesterday if Democrats had directly spoken to working-class and impoverished voters being crushed by the economy and by harsh policies that penalize poor people? After all, bold initiatives that unabashedly set out to benefit low-wage workers and people caught in the jaws of the criminal justice system won big Tuesday. Minimum-wage hikes in Arkansas, Nebraska and South Dakota passed, as did California's Prop 47, which challenges mass incarceration by reducing some petty crimes now classified as felonies to misdemeanors. New Jersey reformed its bail system, a move that will mean pretrial release for low-income, low-level offenders who sit in jail because they don't have thousands of dollars at their disposal. Washington, DC, voted to decriminalize marijuana, a move that could shift policing in the district, given that black residents there are eight times more likely to be arrested for possession than white residents, despite equal use of the drug across race.

    Democratic candidates seem to assume that those are the types of issues that only motivate the types of voters they already have in the bag. So they opt instead for mealy-mouthed nothingness, a play for the middle in the quest to wrest white undecideds from the hands of Republican candidates. But as Zaid Jilani pointed out in his close look at the Georgia Senate race, this type of calculation will continue to lead the Democrats to crushing defeats in that Southern state and in other parts of the country where demographics are shifting rapidly.

    You know what? (none / 0) (#160)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 02:18:40 PM EST
    All that is true but the GOP said nothing of substance either. They had no issues nothing to vote for just Obama sucks. No solution to the jobs problem here in GA with the highest UE in the nation. No answer for anything no solutions. GOP campaign mailers: we suck but Obama sucks worse and they used a lot of racial innuendos too.

    So what? (none / 0) (#172)
    by sj on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 05:31:17 PM EST
    All that is true but the GOP said nothing of substance either.
    How is the fact that the GOP doesn't really stand for anything justify the Dems lack of principle?

    I know you don't really think that, actually. But I'll be honest: I don't typically give consideration to how the GOP does or does address a given issue. And on the occasions when I do, it will be because they have reached new depths of selfishness and depravity.

    Just saying.


    Yes (3.50 / 2) (#88)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 07:18:43 AM EST
    to some extent.  Just as it to some extent about Hispanic and AA voters.  But only you and Politakix are the only ones who don't seem to understand that the Democratic Party keeps losing older and white voters.

    And just because the party, as you say, has been the champions of minorities (I think that's what you meant), doesn't mean they can't offer something to people who are not minorities.  I thought the Democratic Party stood for what was good for all Americans.  Silly me.

    Newsflash:  No Democratic nominee can win with just the AA / Hispanic / college-educated women / millennial coalition (especially since they are losing support among those groups as well).  They are going to need the votes of many of those older and white voters that they have lost over the last few elections (mid-term and presidential).  And if HRC or some other candidate can resonate with people in West Virginia and Nebraska and South Dakota, as well as with people in NYC and SF, please tell me why that's a bad thing.

    Why that received a 1 or 2 rating for stating the obvious is beyond me.....


    The problem is turnout (none / 0) (#89)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 07:30:29 AM EST
    and the Democrats don't do it well with the aforementioned groups, why do you think it would go better if they added older Caucasoid men into the mix?

    Broadening the base by appealing to the people that make up the Republican base, that's a real plan of action that will win.


    Forget (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 07:37:08 AM EST
    about the whole race thing. Think middle class voters of all stripes. That is where the thinking should be.

    There are a whole lot of older middle class (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by MO Blue on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 08:26:43 AM EST
    white people who are not part of the Republican base. In order to attract them to the polls and get them to vote the D, the Dems need to address their issues in their campaigns.

    dissenter has a comment that goes right to the heart of what he and others are talking about.

    There is little to no proactive planning for a better economy. What needs to happen is for pols to start listening to what is really going on in the country and then start looking at policies that might help people. Nobody gives a shit if the stock market is at 17,000 if you have no savings, a job or hope. Using Colorado again as an example, touting the "great" economic progress in CO was insulting to so many people who are struggling. The energy and financial sectors are  doing well. The rest of the state, not so much.

    Too many older people are down right frighten. People in their 50s are going from good paying jobs to being unemployed and underemployed. It is either happening to them or they see it happening around them. They fear losing everything they worked for their entire lives.

    I do not like to put words into other people's mouths but I do not see what you see in what is being discussed. When I read the discussion of attracting more older white folks by dissenter, jb and GA6th(not just older Caucasoid men), I do not read it as appealing to the Republican base but to those outside of the base.

    Anyone who if familiar with my POV would know that I would be the very last person to advocate for the Dems to become Republican light. IMO the Dems need to become the party of for the people to attract voters.


    That's just part of it (none / 0) (#91)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 08:11:38 AM EST

    Comparing yesterday's exit polls to those of 2012, the first thing that jumps out at you is a big shift in age demographics: under-30 voters dropped from 19 percent of the electorate in 2012 to 13 percent in 2014, while over-65 voters climbed from 16 percent in 2012 to 22 percent in 2014. That's quite close to the age demographics of 2010.

    In terms of race and ethnicity, the white share of the electorate increased modestly from 72 percent in 2012 to 75 percent this year, not quite back up to the 77 percent whites represented in 2010. And interestingly enough, Republican performance among white voters didn't change at all from the 59/39 margin achieved by Mitt Romney. What did change is that Republicans boosted their percentage among African-Americans from 6 percent won by Romney to 10 percent yesterday; from 27 percent to 35 percent among Latinos; and from 26 percent to 49 percent among Asians. It's likely the age demographics had some impact on Republican minority performance, particularly among Latinos, given the relatively strong attachment of young Latinos to the Democratic Party. And in general, it's probable more conservative minority voters were more likely to vote.

    But another way to look at it is that minority voting preferences are returning to their pre-Obama level -- still strongly Democratic, but not so strongly that in a poor turnout year they offset the heightened Republican preferences of white voters.


    What are the implications, then, for the election cycle we have just entered? Some of the Republican advantage can be expected to melt away instantly due to the age and race/ethnicity differential for a presidential cycle. That shift will apply to downballot races as well. So a more favorable-to-Democrats electorate will vote on a Senate landscape as difficult for Republicans as this year's was difficult for Democrats. The GOP will need all those wins from yesterday to survive Election Night in 2016 with a majority intact.

    But more generally, and with respect to the presidential election itself, the big question is whether Barack Obama's successor can recapture his extraordinarily high vote percentages among young and minority voters, and/or make inroads among the older and whiter voters who have now consistently rebuffed him and his party in three straight cycles. For their part, the newly triumphant Republicans may be reaching a ceiling among those older white voters, and should probably think long and hard about killing off their prospects for a revival of pre-Obama voting levels among minorities with egregiously hostile legislative proposals on issues ranging from immigration to the "reforms" they want for the social safety net.

    There was less turn out for (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 09:01:08 AM EST
    the midterm elections compared to the 2012' so the numbers are somewhat skewed by that fact already.

    As Atrios noted this morning:

    Let's Keep Chasing The People Who Don't Vote For Us
    Instead of the people who might.

    The Dem midterm strategy is just wrong. The consultants can get rich and everyone can blame The Left, but whatever. It isn't working.

    I don't think Atrios is saying (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by MO Blue on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 09:42:03 AM EST
    not to pursue white people, young or old. He is advocating Dems run to the left rather than trying to out Republican Republicans. He linked to a WaPo article.

    Bottom line, that article advocated campaigning as a partisan Dem rather than running as Republican light.

    All of it has left some to wonder whether Warner would have won bigger if he had eschewed the middle and embraced the left, and whether the winning path for moderates that Warner forged during his own bid for governor 13 years ago is becoming extinct.

    It seems to me that (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by KeysDan on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 01:07:48 PM EST
    Republican-lite has been the real loser.    In the House, Democrats will have a more liberal caucus with the loss of conservative and moderate Democrats to Republicans (even more right wingers). The absence of Democrats who routinely provided votes for Republican bills may make it harder for House Republicans to craft legislation aimed at attracting their votes.

     And, analysis of some of the Democratic senate losses misses the point that these losses included "yellow-dog" candidates.  Now, I am not welcoming a smaller and more liberal Democratic base in the same way that Republicans see losses of their candidates as being because they were not extreme enough. Rather, the more liberal Democrats reflect many broadly-based popular and good ideas (e.g, minimum wage, criminal justice reform, conservation, women's health, and, most social issues.)

    And, the Democrats  can proudly own them, thereby ,moving the polls,  rather than following them, continuing to permit the Republicans to frame the agenda. There does not seem to be a great future as a Republican knock-off.  

    In critical ways, governance and politics over the next two years will depend more on how the the president and the Democrats in Congress act rather than on how the Republican Congress performs.

    Senator Gillibrand's pollyanna search for "common ground" was, hopefully, an attempt to put on a happy face, but, even so, it comes across as giving equal blame for past gridlock.

    Much can happen in two years.  There was a recent time (2008) when it seemed that the Republicans were down for the count. If the Democrats remember their Rooseveltian raison d'etre, this will just be a bad round.  


    Yeah (none / 0) (#136)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 01:10:50 PM EST
    but isn't that partially as to how the districts are drawn? It's the same with the GOP. They think that the more conservative you are the more likely you are to win even though they reside in very strange far right gerrymandered districts.

    Let's look at history (none / 0) (#101)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 09:19:34 AM EST
    Portrait of the Electorate: Table of Detailed Results - through 2010

    So, yes, this includes mid-term electorates who voted for Representatives (which, by extension would most likely include people who voted for President in presidential election years).

    If the Dems got every single vote of minority voters, and did not increase their share of the white vote, they would be hard pressed to win.  Or are you saying that what appeals to minority voters can't appeal to white voters and vice versa?


    The turn out was low turnout, the lowest (none / 0) (#104)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 09:37:08 AM EST
    Mid-term turnout since 1934.

    Work on turning out people for the midterms and the problem fixes itself. Trying to appeal to other groups is a chumps game, IMHO. The appeal needs to be for the working and middle-classes, and to tell the truth about the distribution of wealth in our society, even at the risk of having it labeled class warfare.  

    That's a winning strategy, instead of trying to appeal to different groups, or thinking that demographics will turn the tide later on, otherwise known as wishful thinking.


    And just who (none / 0) (#106)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 09:40:19 AM EST
    makes up the vast majority of

    "...the working and middle-classes."

    Yes, that would be the same people that have peeled off voting for Democrats in the last few cycles.  A vast majority of them happen to be white, although not all.  Those same people USED to vote for Democrats, but not anymore.

    Which was the whole point that you somehow missed, even though you actually agree with me.


    Uh, your the one worrying about Latinos (none / 0) (#108)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 09:43:45 AM EST
    and Asians and older white people so perhaps you should get your own priorities in order before telling us who agrees and disagrees with you.

    As usual (none / 0) (#109)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 09:46:59 AM EST
    You make no sense, since you are the one talking about not worrying about those who don't vote for Dems and how they shouldn't worry about them.

    I'm talking about people who used to vote for Dems.

    But whatever.  Keep ranting away with your incoherence.


    That's why turn out is impotant (none / 0) (#110)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 10:01:50 AM EST
    And having policies that are anything but Republican-lite and candidates who will campaign on them agressively is what we need, not % analysis and worrying about individual groups.  As far as older white voters are concerned, they are a PITA(I am in that group, 55 and Caucasoid-looking).

    If they aren't smart enough to see where the long-term interests lie, for them and their family, then let them run scared to vote for the Republicans, and see what's gonna happen.


    Strangely (none / 0) (#118)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 11:44:43 AM EST
    Or not, as I imagine he knows more than you, the head of the DSCC does not agree with you.

    A wave election and a tough map toppled otherwise strong Democratic campaigns, according to the top aide of the Senate Democrats' campaign arm.

    "This was not a turnout election in the sense that another door knock would have mattered of [or] another half-million would have mattered. It was a wave election," Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Executive Director Guy Cecil said Thursday morning.

    Oh, for the love of God, why does (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Anne on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 03:31:49 PM EST
    anyone care what the head of the DSCC thinks?  His opinion's  only been offered because it counters what someone else said and is no more or less valid.

    As someone with no credentials, other than being a living, breathing human being with a vote, here are my thoughts:

    In general, more and more people feel that no one's really listening, and that voting is more and more a charade.  Our choices are limited, and getting worse, not better.

    Too  much attention is being paid to demographics and not enough to policy, leadership and action.  If Democrats had not delayed the implementation of the ACA for 4 years, they'd have had that much longer for people - voters   to reap its benefits, and it would have been harder for Republicans to make any case at all for its repeal.  If Obama had fought for a more robust stimulus and the economy had rebounded sooner, there would have been more grateful voters.  The never-ending litany of lost homes, lost jobs, lost futures did no favors to the fortunes of Democrats.

    This insistence on segmenting us by race and gender and education and class and sexual orientation dehumanizes us - we are just bits and bytes and data points and for what?  To help us get better policy, to improve anyone's lives?  No - it's about Jobs for Jerks, the jerks being these people in the Congress who think it's our responsibility to help them keep their jobs.  What about helping me keep mine?  What about helping me be paid a living wage?  About quality of life issues for the people who are supposed to be represented by and advocated for by their elected representatives?

    People aren't voting because increasingly, they don't feel like it matters - the fix is in.

    Let's just cut the crap and stop letting the pundits and pollsters and analysts and talking heads and lobbyists and money men tell us what's important and what we have to do, and let them start taking orders from us for a change.

    [rant over]


    Just saying (none / 0) (#169)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 03:43:56 PM EST
    that someone who is in the thickest of the thick of the election is telling us that it wasn't all or mostly about turnout, whereas someone posting on a blog thinks they know better.  I put my faith in someone a little closer to what's actually going on than Mordiggian.

    ranting with your incoherence.. (none / 0) (#164)
    by jondee on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 02:49:37 PM EST
    Better quit hanging your chin way out there, jb.

    Anne can't always be relied on to show up and spank people with her steel ruler when they respond in kind.


    Here's (none / 0) (#102)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 09:30:11 AM EST
    the problem. Obama blew up the coalition. There's no there there. You can no longer depend on those same people to vote D.

    You need to (none / 0) (#93)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 08:24:27 AM EST
    apprise Jim of these numbers. He thinks that the GOP won Tuesday with just white voters and no minority voters.

    Coal miners (none / 0) (#105)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 09:40:02 AM EST

    Coal miners (mostly white once out of the shower) were a reliable Dem voting block until Obama decided Tom Steyer's money was more important.

    Ahhhhh, yes (none / 0) (#163)
    by Yman on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 02:37:06 PM EST
    The imaginary "Obama war on coal!", which was, in fact, enforcing regulations put in place by Bush.

    Too funny.


    Indeed (none / 0) (#185)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 09:19:15 AM EST
    Obama's chosen methodology for enforcement was all Bush's fault!  You seem to forget that the Obama administration is quite capable of writing and rewriting regulations.  Unfortunately, Tom Steyer's millions carries more weight than coal miners.

    What "chosen methodology"? (5.00 / 3) (#186)
    by Yman on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 10:11:26 AM EST
    Compared to what alternatives?  Be specific here, because this is about to get fun.

    BTW - Being from a PA coal mining family, I find your baseless, evidence-free claims pretty amusing.


    ugh (none / 0) (#175)
    by sj on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 06:05:56 PM EST
    Broadening the base by appealing to the people that make up the Republican base, that's a real plan of action that will win.
    And the drip drip drip of the loss of the Dem base continues.

    Maybe I'll vote "the rent is too damn high" party next time. No candidates got my vote this time. I voted strictly on the amendment.s


    party "that"champions (none / 0) (#44)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 09:28:42 PM EST
    If you only go back 50 or so years... (none / 0) (#170)
    by unitron on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 04:36:51 PM EST
    ...then that's true.

    Before that it was sort of a position into which they were evolving, and a lot depended on which part of the country you were talking about.


    Why would Hillary do better among (none / 0) (#46)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 09:29:49 PM EST
    white voters?

    For a number of reasons (none / 0) (#53)
    by christinep on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 09:41:51 PM EST
    there is a demonstrated connection with Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kentucky, West Virginia, etc. We all remember that.

    By the way, are you supporting some other would be contender at this point?


    Nope (none / 0) (#57)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 09:50:23 PM EST
    Hillary will get the nomination....maybe too easily.



    I so badly want her to be challenged (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 10:02:18 PM EST
    from the left, hard.  It wouldn't be any guarantee that, if nominated, and if she won, that she would not revert to Hawkish Hill, Queen of Wall Street and Lover of All Things Authoritarian, but I'd still like to see the challenge.

    Maybe if we had less de facto anointing and crowning, the people would feel like it actually mattered whether they voted or not; as it stands, "the fix is in" does not much inspire voter enthusiasm.

    And it worries me that those in power rather like it that way...


    I'm sure (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 10:07:34 PM EST
    there will be somebody though I'm not sure it's going to be somebody you'll like. Primaries are needed to hash out issues and hone messages for everybody IMO.

    I think that would be good (none / 0) (#79)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 10:50:26 PM EST
    But who?

    What his name from Montana....the guy with the bolo ties, maybe...

    If Rand Paul gets a head of steam and sounds to the left of Hillary on foreign policy, that would be a topsy turvy turn of events....


    Well (none / 0) (#80)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 10:57:50 PM EST
    first of all Schwietzer might run but don't expect him to get very far and he's not really to the left of Hillary. He also does not seem disciplined enough to run a national campaign.

    Rand Paul is going to have to resign his senate seat to run for President. Do you think he will? I'm not so sure he will since there's no guarantee he'll eve get the nomination. Secondly, Rand Paul went all out on isolationism and the Bushies started shooting at him and he did a 180 on his foreign policy stances. So i'm not sure where you're going with him being the left of Hillary. Currently he is signed onto the Bush Doctrine so he would be to the right of her on that account.


    Oh, bolo tie will not get very (none / 0) (#83)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 11:04:46 PM EST
    far and he will look very shopworn next to Julian Castro in the VP stakes....

    And, yes, Rachael is all ga-ga about Rand Paul having to give up his seat to run, but Tweety made the point that pols usually have a way of timing these things....so they file to run for their safe seat just in time after losing the Primary.

    I do think Rand Paul may be the nominee in 2016, as the only play the Republicans have in the long term is to go Libetarian.....


    I guess (none / 0) (#84)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 11:09:19 PM EST
    if the timing is right. I have no idea about filing times in KY.

    Nope (none / 0) (#85)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 11:12:33 PM EST
    Just checked. KY has a January filing deadline. So Paul actually would have to resign his seat to run for President. He's actually going to file a lawsuit hoping to change that law. What an idiot. It would take longer for his case to get through the courts than the GOP primary lasts.

    An idea being floated around (none / 0) (#166)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 03:06:59 PM EST
    Kentucky could eliminate its primary and go to a caucus system so Rand Paul can run for both President and Senator.

    Is that a state law about resigning? (none / 0) (#176)
    by unitron on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 06:12:18 PM EST
    Because there's a guy in the Senate named John McCain...

    I think it is, as Hillary was going back (none / 0) (#183)
    by nycstray on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 11:30:47 PM EST
    to the Senate until she got waylaid to State . . .

    Yes, it's KY law (none / 0) (#187)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 11:43:08 AM EST
    I mean there was a guy named Barack Obama, a guy named Joe Biden, a guy named Paul Ryan, a woman named Hillary Clinton, a woman named Michelle Bachmann, etc. who all ran for office while holding another.

    KY law says you can't run for two offices at the same time.


    Would a caucus (none / 0) (#191)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 08:48:31 PM EST
    even solve that problem? He would still be running for president though it's kind of funny that something like 2/3 of KY voters don't think he'd make a good president. And in KY you have to make a decision in January before even the first primary or caucus has even been done.

    Appreciate your response. Thanks, MKS. (none / 0) (#63)
    by christinep on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 09:57:44 PM EST
    Yes, there is a downside to lack of competition at times.  How does one stay sharp during a cake-walk!  Clinton and her advisors must have considered that; and, I hope the pacing process takes that all into account. It must be a sense of waiting-for-the-shoe-to-drop.

    She did (none / 0) (#71)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 10:05:24 PM EST
    better because she was actually willing to go and talk to them and listen to what they had to say instead of doing the rock arena thing like Obama.

    I will say this about Hillary (none / 0) (#78)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 10:40:53 PM EST
    She is rock solid among Latinos....more so than Obama....

    During the Nevada Caucus campaign, Obama did the big rally and Hillary was seen sitting in a living room talking to a Latino family tell them their tale of woe....I noticed that.   I knew she would do well.

    And, among Mexican Americans in particular, she just is the strong mother figure who will take care of the probrecitos.....very powerful stuff.

    I think she will be good on domestic issues....I worry about foreign policy and war.  It bothers me McCain likes her so much.


    Because she already did once? (none / 0) (#92)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 08:13:27 AM EST
    Because Democrats have shed white voters for three straight cycles?

    It will be interesting (none / 0) (#26)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 09:05:05 PM EST
    to see how progressive and how much of a hawk Hillary is.

    If you watch the Republican t.v. commercials this election was about eboloa and ISIS.  So, will Hillary try to sound tought to address that type of sentiment?

    Maybe we need to pay attention (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 10:02:31 PM EST
    to what Obama plans to do right now.

    The second item on Obama's list of things to accomplish in the next few weeks:

    And here are three places where I think we can work together over the next several weeks before this Congress wraps up for the holidays.
    Second, I'm going to begin engaging Congress over a new authorization to use military force against ISIL. The world needs to know we are united behind this effort and the men and women of our military deserve our clear and unified support. link

    Well (none / 0) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 09:11:03 PM EST
    you've already heard her talk about ISIS so you can make your decision on that one. Ebola is over probably never to be mentioned again by anyone since it was a fake crisis in the first place.

    Actually, no, (none / 0) (#32)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 09:13:24 PM EST
    I missed much of the ISIS scare....politics over the last few months has been very boring.....

    What did Hillary say about ISIS?


    Here (none / 0) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 09:17:42 PM EST
    Oh that (none / 0) (#40)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 09:22:07 PM EST
    Yes, that was a while ago.  

    Not promising.  More tough talk from Hillary.....


    To tell you the truth, MKS (none / 0) (#38)
    by christinep on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 09:18:26 PM EST
    I'm not sure, after all these years, how we would define "hawk" today.  Not to evade your query about the degree of one's hawk-ishness, but it is harder & harder to say that all to the one-side is a Dove and all to the other is a Hawk.  

    It is not a rationalization to talk about a continuum.  Surely, she doesn't resemble McCain or Graham or a lot of super-military poseurs.  Nor would she linger too long on the sidelines if a situation were truly threatening.  It is a central question -- where to draw the balance -- but, it may reflect on each of us as well as on her.  We all bring a lot of history to our own predispositions on when any degree of military might would be appropriate.  Somehow--and especially with her experience as Secretary of State, I assume that the issue will be publicly discussed at length as we enter into the next electoral cycle.


    christine, sure it is a reductive (none / 0) (#42)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 09:27:01 PM EST
    simplication of a complicated issue.

    But the issue remains.....We have erred by too much military intervention, not too little, imo.

    I would like to see instances of where she urged restraint and caution, not always being in favor of forceful action.

    The standard was set by JFK standing up to the generals and Curtis LeMay in particualr during the Cuban Missile Crisis.   The generals wanted a a war.  JFK resisted.

    Now, that is a lofty standard and perhaps not always achievable.  But what in Hillary's backbround suggests she will resist the Generals when they want war?


    Are you trying to set up a null hypothesis? (none / 0) (#51)
    by christinep on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 09:38:14 PM EST
    There is an emotionality to this sudden doubling-down that suggests something other than proving or disproving who-would-do-what-in-the-event-of-a-military-crisis is at issue here.  Surely, you realize that philosophical conjecture of the college-dorm "what if" variety goes only in circles?  And, just as surely, you are aware that no one serious contender in the US today would take a vow to do thus & so based upon a what-if?  

    Without more, it seems to me that this "dilemma" is based on a dislike of Hillary Clinton apart from whatever the purported issue is.  There seems to be a lot of emotion ... over what?


    Actually (none / 0) (#54)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 09:44:25 PM EST
    I think she'd be less likely to get us into a war using the JFK example because it's easier for someone that is perceived as "strong" to stay out of stuff than someone who is perceived as "weak" and can get pushed into it like Obama.

    Obama's problem mainly is that he has been reactive and slow to react.


    She got brow beaten (none / 0) (#58)
    by Politalkix on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 09:52:08 PM EST
    by GWB and Cheney to vote for the Iraq war. And BHO pushed back HRC, Panetta and other Generals when they wanted to go to war in Syria.

    Your imagination is not supported by facts.


    Obama (none / 0) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 09:54:04 PM EST
    has caved so many times on so many things I'm glad you found one where he didn't but that might have been his biggest mistake of his career too.

    That is what they said about JFK (none / 0) (#62)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 09:56:47 PM EST
    That Khrushchev clobbered him in Vienna....He was weak and indecisive... and not respected by the Soviets because he was weak.  They still (at least some conservatives) say that today.

    LeMay was well nigh treasonous in his open taunting of JFK.....to his face during the Cuban Missile Crisis....


    Can (none / 0) (#66)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 09:59:17 PM EST
    you imagine Obama standing up though? Honestly I cannot. He caves on extending the Bush tax cuts.

    If you want to go back to Obama (none / 0) (#69)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 10:02:32 PM EST
    I would point out that he has steadily pulled us back from military involvement....As to the Generals, they now are accused of bending to his will in giving assessments that support the adminstration.....Just ask Lindsey McCain.

    He has pulled us (none / 0) (#87)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 07:11:22 AM EST
    "steadily back" based on deadlines in agreements set forth during the Bush administration.  Not necessarily of his own plan.

    Wow, christine (none / 0) (#56)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 09:48:35 PM EST
    I am surprised....

    I think questioning the likely Democratic nominee on the use of force and war and peace is a mainstream Democratic tradition.  Going back to Gene, Gene, Gene....McGovern and Kucinich....and many others....Just tossing us into the rubbish pile of "emotional" voters is interesting......That appears the take on how to categorize Obama voters....This will apparently be quite some ride.

    Why don't you answer the question rather than attack the questioner?  

    I am hoping (a) Hillary shows an attitude that suggests that she will exercise restraint, and (b) the nomination process keeps her from going to the Right.


    Well (none / 0) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 09:55:26 PM EST
    I agree with you. Those are all legitimate questions.

    My concern (none / 0) (#171)
    by christinep on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 05:12:40 PM EST
    Let's not get taken back into the arguments of the past.  We all learn from the past; one thing that I have learned is to take what I have learned and apply to future issues/questions ... in life and in the subset of politics.

    The bottom line for me on this: Both President Obama and former Secretary Clinton have developed in very positive ways.  From my perspective, neither really seem to be the kind that keep repeating the same mistakes, errors.  Unless there is something further to be gained about who did what a decade ago, well .... To the extent that we Democrats can work to resolve definite divisions in method/approach, the better our position will be as we move to the next big leagues of 2016.  (And, of course, as all good Democrats should do, lets debate & discuss until the cows come home ... amongst ourselves, privately & without debilitating rancor.)

    There are lots of issues in the days ahead. Today, alone, we've heard McConnell and Boehner threaten about repealing Obamacare (with the new Senate numbers) as well as pontificate about the dire results of any Executive Orders on Immigration.  Sure, the President is holding the legal cards on both ... but, the Repub manipulation via their press buddies and the Congressional microphones could escalate fairly quickly.  IMO, that means it would be useful if Democratic supporters of President Obama's expected actions are focused and ready to speak out in whatever way may be warranted.  While occasional forays into the earlier 2000s can be interesting, the how of 2014 is more pressing at this time.  Unity is the center of how well we all do now.


    You realize (none / 0) (#174)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 05:52:48 PM EST
    Today, alone, we've heard McConnell and Boehner threaten about repealing Obamacare (with the new Senate numbers) as well as pontificate about the dire results of any Executive Orders on Immigration

    That politicians say a lot of stuff that they don't mean or can't back up, right?  See: I will close Guantanamo within 1 year; Read My Lips, no new taxes; I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky; you will not lose your health insurance; etc.


    Of course ... AND (none / 0) (#178)
    by christinep on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 06:54:36 PM EST
    I also realize that McConnell must say that right away, get it behind him after posturing for his minions.  As for any Obamacare vote, we know that the President will veto it (assuming there is no --ta da--filibuster.)  But, hey, wouldn't it be "fun" to see how the large number of Repub Senators up for re-election during the Presidential large-turnout year of 2016 vote if it does come to a vote.  McConnell is moving fast because the Obamacare enlistment numbers are moving up fast-er.  Yep, I would like to see how that vote in the Senate would go.

    The most consequential action may well be the President's issuance of Executive Order(s) concerning immigration relief.  It would be especially consequential if the Repubs split and openly try to prevent any beneficial immigration action.  It may almost have the same long-lasting effect that Kennedys' assistance to/embrace of Martin Luther King during the civil rights struggle in the 1960s ... as political scientists teach about the generational shift in African-American voting patterns directly traceable to that time and the Democratic administration's support.  Today, I would suggest that it would be hard to overstate the importance of the immigration issue to the Latino community.  So, yes, McConnell & Boehner are posturing and trying to sound strong and certain about the-President-will-regret-any-singular-action etc.  But, the immigration cards are stacked against the Repubs--legally, policy-wise, and in resultant electoral numbers should they overreact to appease their perceived base.

    They are saying it loudly when people might actually be paying attention.  


    Christinep (none / 0) (#65)
    by Politalkix on Wed Nov 05, 2014 at 09:58:07 PM EST
    MKS asked a very relevant question. There should be some vetting of HRC before she gets the nomination. If she decides to run and gets the nomination, pressure should be put on her to take a progressive like Liz Warren or Sherrod Brown as her running mate. This is ofcourse my opinion.