Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

2016 Democratic Primary Tag

Posted by Leslie Eastman on March 30, 2015 9 Comments
As a California Democrat, I really have only one wish for November 2016: That I am not forced to choose between the "lesser of two evils" and the ""evilest of two lessers." While most of my good friends at Legal Insurrection are keeping track of the Republican contenders for the presidency, I have vowed to stay on top of the Democratic race. Let me assure you that Hillary Clinton is as far from inevitable as we are from the Philae Lander. In fact, 54% of the Democrats asked in a Rasmussen poll said they want a "fresh face." Marlyland's former governor, Martin O'Malley, has been receiving standing ovations and drawn comparisons to John F. Kennedy simply by being a credible candidate. Several of the Democrats I correspond with about politics concur with his most recent statement about the 2016 race:
“The presidency of the United States is not some crown to be passed between two families,” Mr. O’Malley said on ABC’s “This Week.”
Another potential who seems to be passing the "fresh face" test and is inspiring actual enthusiasm among those I talk to is Jim Webb, former Senator from Virginia, who has been a combat Marine, a counsel in the Congress, and an assistant secretary of defense and Secretary of the Navy. The following video was prepared in response to inquiries if he was going to run.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on March 22, 2015 29 Comments
With Hillary's email and fundraising scandals destined to be a permanent fixture in the 2016 campaign if she runs, and with Clinton fatigue already setting in, the voices calling on Elizabeth Warren to mount a challenge are growing stronger. What started with committed progressives at places like MoveOn.org and Daily Kos, now is going mainstream liberal. The Boston Globe Editorial Board is calling on Warren to challenge Hillary:
DEMOCRATS WOULD be making a big mistake if they let Hillary Clinton coast to the presidential nomination without real opposition, and, as a national leader, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren can make sure that doesn’t happen. While Warren has repeatedly vowed that she won’t run for president herself, she ought to reconsider.... The clock is ticking: Presidential candidates need to hire staff, raise money, and build a campaign operation. Although Clinton hasn’t officially declared her candidacy, she’s scooping up support from key party bigwigs and donors, who are working to impose a sense of inevitability about her nomination. Unfortunately, the strategy’s working .... Fairly or not, many Americans already view Clinton skeptically, and waltzing to the nomination may actually hurt her in the November election against the Republican nominee..... Unlike Clinton, or any of the prospective Republican candidates, Warren has made closing the economic gaps in America her main political priority, in a career that has included standing up for homeowners facing illegal foreclosures and calling for more bankruptcy protections. If she runs, it’ll ensure that those issues take their rightful place at the center of the national political debate. Some of Warren’s admirers feel she’d be better off fighting for those causes in the Senate — but her opportunities to enact reforms there are shrinking, which should make a presidential run more attractive. As a member of the minority party in the Senate, her effectiveness is now much more limited than when she first won election, since Republicans control the legislative agenda. Democrats face an uphill challenge to reclaim the Senate in 2016 and face even slimmer prospects in the House. For the foreseeable future, the best pathway Warren and other Democrats have for implementing their agenda runs through the White House.
To drive home the point, The Globe today features several Op-Eds also urging Warren to run:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on March 16, 2015 16 Comments
The broken clock at Vox.com is right about something. Al Gore should run for president:
To many Democrats, the fight the party needs is clear: Hillary Clinton vs. Elizabeth Warren. But the differences between Warren and Clinton are less profound than they appear. Warren goes a bit further than Clinton does, both in rhetoric and policy, but her agenda is smaller and more traditional than she makes it sound: tightening financial regulation, redistributing a little more, tying up some loose ends in the social safety net. Given the near-certainty of a Republican House, there is little reason to believe there would be much difference between a Warren presidency and a Clinton one. The most ambitious vision for the Democratic Party right now rests with a politician most have forgotten, and who no one is mentioning for 2016: Al Gore. Gore offers a genuinely different view of what the Democratic Party — and, by extension, American politics — should be about. Climate change is a real and growing threat to the world's future.... No one really knows what that kind of temperature change — a swing that approaches the difference between most of human history and the Ice Age — would mean for humankind. The World Bank says that there is "no certainty that adaptation to a 4°C world is possible." Income inequality is a serious problem. But climate change is an existential threat.
Don't think Vox is alone.  Last July Salon.com was pushing Gore as the single-issue candidate we need

Posted by William A. Jacobson on March 15, 2015 32 Comments
While it's way too early to assess the overall damage to Hillary Incorporated from the email, now document destruction, scandal, is does appear to be hurting Team Billary in ways that are hard to change: Public perception of a politician. While Billary is dreadfully tiresome and transparently faux in its lack of transparency, to much of the electorate Billary is simply a nice old lady with a grandchild. Well, she does have a grandchild, but that's about where the nice ends.  And that unhappy end product of a secretive, controlling, fear-mongering, basically incompetent presidential candidate is coming into public view and that view may be hard to change. Jonah Goldberg hits the Billary on the head when he says:
If you want to know what Hillary Clinton would be like as president, you’re seeing it right now.
Maureen Dowd wrote an Open Letter to Billary:
It has come to our attention while observing your machinations during your attempted restoration that you may not fully understand our constitutional system. Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of our democracy: The importance of preserving historical records and the ill-advised gluttony of an American feminist icon wallowing in regressive Middle Eastern states’ payola. You should seriously consider these characteristics of our nation as the Campaign-That-Must-Not-Be-Named progresses. If you, Hillary Rodham Clinton, are willing to cite your mother’s funeral to get sympathy for ill-advisedly deleting 30,000 emails, it just makes us want to sigh ....
So how did this all happen? Ed Klein at The NY Post says Valerie Jarrett leaked key details of Billary's intrigue:

Posted by Amy Miller on March 08, 2015 32 Comments
Saturday Night Live has a history of lampooning the right candidate at the right time. Whether on purpose, or just as a result of tapping into the zeitgeist and saying what the majority of their fan base is thinking, the SNL players have taken out political power players from Sarah Palin to George W. Bush; and now, they're setting their sights on the most high profile would-be candidate in American politics. Hillary Clinton, welcome to 30 Rock. Kate McKinnon's latest cold open portraying Hillary Clinton as a (jocularly) manipulative but (completely not) relatable (possible!) candidate could be the beginning of another Tina Fey-esque assault on a less-than-desirable figurehead. You be the judge:
"This is not how Hillary Clinton goes down! I mean, what did you think my e-mails said? 'Hi, it's Hillary, I really screwed up on Benghazi today.' Please. HEH HEH HEH! I wasn't born yesterday; I was born 67 years ago and I have been planning on being president ever since. There will be NO mistakes in my rise to the top---if I decide to run!?
If I were Hillary, I'd be in my war room right now, because Kate McKinnon has managed to turn a cutthroat, cold, calculating, and malicious career politician into a complete joke---that also makes you a little bit nervous. Oh, and pay attention---they mention Elizabeth Warren. Not subtle.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on March 04, 2015 27 Comments
Hillary Clinton's email scandal gets worse by the day. First, the NY Times broke the story of Hillary's exclusive use of personal email account, raising serious security issues in addition to record keeping issues.  Then WaPo broke that Hillary set up her own email domain. The White House appears ready to abandon her on the issue: AP reports that Hillary had her own email server in her house:
The email practices of Hillary Rodham Clinton, who used a private account exclusively for official business when she was secretary of state, grew more intriguing with the disclosure Wednesday that the computer server she used traced back to her family's New York home, according to Internet records reviewed by The Associated Press.

Posted by Mike LaChance on March 03, 2015 23 Comments
Leaders in the Democratic Party have begun to figure out that if their far left base gets too excited about a candidate like Elizabeth Warren, it could create problems for the presumed nominee, Hillary Clinton. Weasel Zippers points to a column by Think Progress:
Sexist Warren Buffett Goes On The War Path Against Liz Warren (Socialist – MA) – She Is Too ‘Angry’ And ‘Violent’ With Rich People Liz sure as heck isn’t friendly with the middle class either.
Via Think Progress: In an interview Monday morning with CNBC, Berkshire Hathaway CEO and billionaire Warren Buffett was asked what he thinks of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and her views of Wall Street. “I think that she would do better if she was less angry and demonized less,” he responded. “I believe in hate the sin, love the sinner, and I also believe in praising by name and criticizing by category.” He continued that while there are “plenty of other candidates” whose political style he doesn’t agree with, “I do think it’s — I think it’s a mistake to get angry with your, with people that disagree with you,” he said of her. “In the end we do have to work together… And it does not help when you demonize or get too violent with the people you’re talking to.”[…] But Buffett’s use of the emotional word “angry” may be a sign of some subtle sexism.
The effort to squash the 'Warren wing' is on. Big time.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on March 01, 2015 20 Comments
Martin O'Mally [damn - I spelled his name wrong] (quick, look him up on Wikipedia, and let me know who he is) is spoken about in certain circles as a possible challenger to Billary. The New York Times reports that Marty (is it okay to call him that?) is jabbing at Billary, Martin O’Malley, in Veiled Jab at Hillary Clinton, Derides Politics of ‘Triangulation’:
Martin O’Malley, the former Maryland governor who is likely to seek the Democratic nomination for president in 2016, took a veiled shot at a potential rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton, in a speech in South Carolina on Saturday, criticizing the politics of “triangulation” that have historically been associated with the Clintons. “The most fundamental power of our party and our country is the power of our moral principles,” Mr. O’Malley said, according to a transcript of his remarks provided by an aide. In words that echoed those of Senator Barack Obama when he battled Mrs. Clinton in 2007 for the Democratic nomination, Mr. O’Malley added: “Triangulation is not a strategy that will move America forward. History celebrates profiles in courage, not profiles in convenience.” Mr. O’Malley’s comments came at the Democratic Party’s John Spratt Issues Conference in Myrtle Beach, and South Carolina is a crucial early primary state that Mrs. Clinton lost to Mr. Obama. Mr. O’Malley has in the past declined to contrast himself with Mrs. Clinton.... The remarks from Mr. O’Malley, who is viewed as facing an uphill battle, signaled a new phase both of his own efforts, after a year of saying he was not in “compare-contrast” mode with Mrs. Clinton, and of the early 2016 campaign.
Billary is scared. Very scared.

Posted by Amy Miller on February 23, 2015 29 Comments
Who is Hillary Clinton? As it turns out, not even her consultants know. At least, not right now, which is why she's added some of the best corporate branding wizards in the business to reimagine her persona in the image of someone fit for the Oval Office. All of this is happening before any sort of formal announcement of her candidacy, which is probably smart considering the image many Americans have of her involves a Senate panel and an ensuing scandal painting her as a heartless government pawn. So what will this revamped image look like? A "winning picture," according to her consultants. Fox News has the story: But even with a rebrand, will Clinton be able to convince people who have watched her for years that she's the change that we need right now? I don't think so, and neither do some Democratic strategists. The problem with Hillary won't necessarily lie in her image; it lies in finding something new for her to offer the American people:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 17, 2015 33 Comments
I've said it before, and I stand by it: Elizabeth Warren would crush Hillary, and they both know it. If you doubted that Hillary knew it, read this NY Times account of their recent meeting, Hillary Clinton, Privately, Seeks the Favor of Elizabeth Warren:
Hillary Rodham Clinton held a private, one-on-one meeting with Senator Elizabeth Warren in December at Mrs. Clinton’s Washington home, a move by the Democrats’ leading contender in 2016 to cultivate the increasingly influential senator and leader of the party’s economic populist movement. The two met at Whitehaven, the Clintons’ Northwest Washington home, without aides and at Mrs. Clinton’s invitation. Mrs. Clinton solicited policy ideas and suggestions from Ms. Warren, according to a Democrat briefed on the meeting, who called it “cordial and productive.” Mrs. Clinton, who has been seeking advice from a range of scholars, advocates and officials, did not ask Ms. Warren to consider endorsing her likely presidential candidacy. Aides to Mrs. Clinton did not immediately respond to requests for comment, and aides to Ms. Warren could not be reached. The conversation occurred at a moment when Ms. Warren’s clout has become increasingly evident.
It's not quite Bill Maher territory, but Hillary at some point may need to get down on one knee and propose a high level cabinet post in order to keep Liz out of the race, or if she stays out, to get Warren to bless the Hillary campaign. https://youtu.be/uUiehszTswU Warren backers see this as an unequal relationship, as in Hillary is barely worthy of being in the presence of Liz, via Bloomberg:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 11, 2015 19 Comments
I'm a believer, a true believer, that Elizabeth Warren would crush Hillary, if she wanted to. Just Run, Elizabeth, Run! Now a poll backs me up, Shock poll: Warren leads Clinton in Iowa, N.H.:
Populist groups cheering "Run Warren Run," today released 2016 election polls from Iowa and New Hampshire showing Sen. Elizabeth Warren ahead of dominant Democrat Hillary Clinton. The YouGov poll of likely Democratic voters for MoveOn.org and Democracy for America also found that 79 percent want Warren and majorities support her anti-Wall Street positions. The poll of 400 conducted Jan. 30 to Feb. 5 put Warren ahead of Clinton in Iowa, 31 percent to 24 percent. In New Hampshire, her lead is 30 percent to 27 percent.
SCIENCE! Why do some people hate SCIENCE?

Posted by Amy Miller on February 10, 2015 17 Comments
Welcome to Team Hillary vs. Itself, Round 2! (3? 4? I lost track.) Yesterday, operative and scourge-of-the-right-wing David Brock resigned in protest from pro-Clinton super PAC Priorities USA Action. In his message to the board, he accused his colleagues of orchestrating a "hit job" against his other project organizations, American Bridge and Media Matters. More from Politico:
Those groups — along with another pro-Clinton group, the super PAC Ready for Hillary — had their fundraising practices called into question last week by a New York Times report. It pointed out that veteran Democratic fundraiser Mary Pat Bonner got a 12.5 percent commission on funds she raised for Brock’s groups and a smaller percentage commission on cash she raised for Ready for Hillary. In his letter to the co-chairs of Priorities’ board — former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm and former Obama campaign manager Jim Messina — Brock alleged that “current and former Priorities officials were behind this specious and malicious attack on the integrity of these critical organizations.” The letter — and Brock’s resignation — offer a rare glimpse into a network of groups upon which Democrats are relying to keep the White House and stave off increasingly robust big-money efforts on the right. The public airing of dirty laundry comes as sources say Priorities is struggling to live up to the hopes of some Clinton allies, who had argued it should aim to raise as much as $500 million to eviscerate prospective Clinton rivals in the primary and general elections.
It's not just the groups that Democrats are relying on to keep the White House---it's the optics of the thing.

Posted by Amy Miller on February 05, 2015 8 Comments
The 2016 race is already barreling forward on the right, with candidates from every point on the conservative-libertarian political spectrum throwing elbows and pressing forward to gain the attention of both the media, and primary voters in key states like Iowa and New Hampshire. Space in the spotlight is at a premium---the media is still trying to figure out how they're going to differentiate and play these characters against each other. For Democrats, though, the eventual race for the White House is on hold as top strategists attempt to answer a question that many activists on the left refuse to stop asking: where's Hillary? It's odd to ask this question about a woman who hasn't left the spotlight since her husband entered the Oval Office. For many on the left, she's The Idea Whose Time Has Come©. For Conservatives, she's the Long National Nightmare© that refuses to go away. For strategists and campaign hacks, she's a precious commodity---that they have no idea how to handle. Via CNN, a few days ago:
Some Clinton loyalists worry that as the increasingly crowded Republican race heats up, the attacks on her could begin to stick without an apparatus in place to answer them. The liberal superPAC American Bridge has been countering Republican attacks on Clinton's behalf but many Democrats think it's no substitute for a campaign messaging operation. "They're doing terrific research," said one, "but they don't know what her specific policy agenda is going to be. She should get in and start putting together a substantive policy agenda so the attacks that are going to begin to come from every single Republican who is jumping in to the race can be answered." The Democratic National Committee is beginning to take on a larger role in an effort to protect Clinton and the party brand but many Democrats are concerned even that won't be enough. Other supporters want Clinton to lay low as the Republican field heats up, convinced Clinton will avoid some fire if she's undeclared and GOP candidates will take aim at each other instead.

Posted by Mike LaChance on January 25, 2015 12 Comments
As the race for 2016 shifts into gear, old conflicts are reemerging between Hillary Clinton supporters and Team Obama; this time, it's over access to Obama's massive email lists. Amie Parnes and Niall Stanage of The Hill reported:
Obama, Clinton tensions build over email lists ahead of 2016 New tensions are emerging in the relationship between allies of President Obama and Hillary Clinton. At issue is the fate of the political equivalent of gold dust — the enormous email list, comprised of many millions of supporters and donors, that the Obama team has compiled over the course of his two presidential campaigns. The Clinton camp would dearly love to get its hands on the list, but there is no promise as yet that the president’s aides will comply. There are “large concerns” about the lists among Clinton supporters, one Hillary ally told The Hill. To the Clintons and their friends, it’s near unthinkable that a Democratic president — who has plenty of reasons to want a member of his party to succeed him — would withhold such a valuable commodity. But Team Obama has long believed that the president’s support is built upon the bedrock of his personal qualities rather than mere party identification. His people are loath to be seen as treating the passion of his supporters in a cavalier fashion. “There’s a lot of data — voter data, massive email lists — that Obama built and there are a lot of people who want to make sure that he spreads that wealth,” the Clinton ally said. “They want to make sure he doesn’t take it in a suitcase back to Chicago and move on. No one wants to see it disappear or have it used just to build a library.”
Democrats are probably hoping everyone has forgotten how ugly the conflict between Hillary and Obama became during the 2008 Democratic primary. There's plenty of evidence that the rift never healed.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on January 13, 2015 13 Comments
Until now, it's been purely present tense. "I am not running for President." The tea leaf readers were undeterred, insisting that Warren had not ruled out running in the future. BREAKING: A possible twist. Someone asked Warren if she is "going to run" for President, and she said "No." Granted, the words "going to run" did not come from her mouth, but were built into the question, but she did say "No." TPM reports:
Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) gave a new type of answer about possibly running for president: she's not going to run for president. Warren, a favorite of the liberal wing of the Democratic party, was asked if she was going to run for president in an interview with Sheila Bair for Fortune magazine. "So are you going to run for president?" Bair asked. "No," Warren responded. That response is different from one Warren gave in an interview with NPR where she said she's not running for president but declined to say in the future tense that she wouldn't run for president. Fans of Warren running for president in 2016 said this showed that she had not completely closed the door to the idea.
How significant is this? She didn't say it herself.  It could have been Warren didn't pick up on the nuance between present and future (?) tenses: Elizabeth Warren Not Going To Run The Wall Street Journal reports the progressive groups who want Warren to run are undeterred:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on January 10, 2015 28 Comments
Hillary is the presumptive Democratic Party presidential nominee. She has a large double-digit lead over other potential contenders. The one thing Hillary doesn't have, however, is grassroots enthusiasm. Her support as the presumptive nominee is a mile wide and an inch deep. She's popular because of name recognition and organizational power. No one wants to be on Bill and Hillary's enemies list. But Hillary has an image problem, as reflected in this Jay Leno appearance, via The Daily Caller:
Comedian Jay Leno says he likes presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, but she just seems so old. Speaking of Clinton on HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher” Friday, Leno commented, “I don’t see the fire.” “Her and Elizabeth Warren are almost the same age,” Leno said, comparing Hillary to the Massachusetts senator beloved by the left wing of the Democratic Party. “And I see Elizabeth Warren come out — ‘boom’ — throwing punches. ‘Boom, boom, boom, boom.’” “And I like her,” Leno continued, speaking of Hillary. “But she seems to be sort of, she seems very slow and very — I don’t see that fire, you know, that fire that I used to see, that I see in Elizabeth Warren. Because I say to people, ‘how much younger is Elizabeth Warren than Hillary?’ And people go, ‘oh, 15 years.’ No! 18 months.”
Elizabeth Warren, by contrast? She's intriguing:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on December 29, 2014 16 Comments
Ignore the polls showing Hillary up by 50%+ over potential Democratic rivals. Elizabeth Warren "is not" running. Everyone knows (or assumes) Hillary is. The second Warren declares she's seeking the nomination, if she declares, the polls will narrow. The second Warren goes after Hillary as the crony-capitalist, contrived-candidate that she is, the polls would narrow. Defeating the Clinton machine would not be easy or quick, but I stand by my view that if Warren were to run, she would end up crushing Hillary. The massive lead would narrow and then evaporate, just like it did with Obama. But it would end there. As part of my effort to spread the word, I have a column today at The Boston Herald, Will Elizabeth Warren sell ‘outside the bubble’?. Boston Herald Will Elizabeth Warren Sell Outside the Bubble Here is an excerpt, head over to The Herald for the full story:
Accessibility by WAH