a clown car full of millionaires: the 2016 presidential primary thread

One of the many ways in which politics works is how a threat from your flank, which could mean anything from drawing away voters or voters staying home, forces candidates to appease this flank.

wake me up when dude is president dogg

― Nobody ever knows anything. (sleepingbag), Thursday, July 2, 2015 11:59 AM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i'm not a dogg

you're very obviously the simplistic thinker here

HRC's main contributors are from the same financial industry

this is not entirely true btw.

NYT: Democrats now get far less money from Wall Street, military contractors, health care companies and other industries that for decades ladled out cash more evenly to both parties, according to a New York Times analysis of data collected by the Center for Responsive Politics, a watchdog group. And the party now relies far more on constituencies that have achieved new clout in the era of “super PACs” and carefully targeted digital fund-raising... Almost two-thirds of money from investment banks and three-quarters of donations from credit card companies and lenders now flow to Republicans, and donations from hedge fund and private equity executives were a significant source of cash for Republican super PACs during the 2012 election cycle.

same article notes that: Unlike Mr. Obama, her campaign is aggressively raising money from business PACs, according to two Clinton fund-raisers. And Mrs. Clinton, like the Republicans who wish to run against her, has not yet pledged to voluntarily disclose the names of her bundlers.

so she kinda wants that money, but it isn't necessarily flowing to her, and she's highly conscious of the fact that she has to walk a fine line to get both the liberal bundling donors and the Wall Street cash.

Drash: fair point. I don't intend to say AoS is the whole dextrosphere - just that those attitudes are out there.

And at the same time, Οὖτις is correct that the existence of those attitudes speaks to the degree of fractiousness and intramural animosity on the right.

Good thing the left doesn't have the same problem, right?

Uh, right, guys?

[nervous laughter]

i just hope president christie doesn't make weed illegal here again, gawrsh...

Pointing out that "almost 2/3 of money" goes to Republicans means that a majority of financial industry money goes to the congressional majority. Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and JPMorgan Chase are in her top 5 contributors for 17 years. That is not counting the PACs and secret money that has yet to be voluntarily disclosed. Democrats are feeding from the same trough as republicans.

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00000019

they are but they're getting less in general - which is significant, and is one of the reasons she's leaning left in the primaries, because she needs to make up that funding shortfall from non-Wall Street contributors - and without full disclosure there's no way to authoritatively say who Hilldog's "main contributors" are for her prez campaign.

Don't get me wrong, I have zero faith in Hilary's anti-corporate platitudes precisely because of her deep ties to the financial industry, but she's on an altered playing field at the moment.

also that 17 years thing is misleading given that she hasn't been raising money to run for office between the time she left the Senate and declared her Prez candidacy, or am I misreading something...? How could she be raising money from PACs as Secretary of State when she wasn't running for anything?

webb's in

woop woop

What's up with Paul Ryan? Can he run, too? Also, Palin. And how old is her daughter? She can run, too, with McCain's daughter. Also, Bruce Willis and Sly Stallone.

can Poppy Bush run?

i don't think that Webb believes he can win, but i also can't think of what limited constituency he thinks will be drawn to him either

maybe a lost poker bet?

people who like boots?

surprised Ryan hasn't announced. everyone else has.

http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intel/2012/10/11/11-paul-ryan-time-p90x.o.jpg/a_250x375.jpg

Dude, chill, I'll announce when I'm good and ready. Soon as I finish these reps...

Man, that never stops cracking me up as the VHS box cover for some horrible '80s movie that never was.

https://broadcouching.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/kelly-and-jessie.gif

wild wild webb, jim webb, desperado

If Bernie Sanders stays in the primaries long enough to keep pulling HRC into progressive-populist territory I'll be grateful for his service. CW at one point in '08 was that the drawn out Obama/Clinton primary was hurting them both but it didn't really turn out that way.

CW at one point in '08 was that the drawn out Obama/Clinton primary was hurting them both but it didn't really turn out that way.

yea, the 08 general election in retrospect seems like such an afterthought after the clinton/obama primary

i mean was there anything notable apart from the palin noise in the 08 general?

McCain got older.

economy melted down

ohhhhhhhhh right the economy jeez

lmao

McCain debates were hilarious

never forget
http://wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/mccainassgrab.jpg

Some of Paul Ryan's demographic has presumably been leeched away by his anagram, and also losing Vice Presidents tend to go have a bit of a sit and think - only FDR after 12 years and Bob Dole after 20 have ever come back.

Had to look twice at your wording; I thought of ex-VP Nixon winning eight years later, but I see what you mean.

What if the Democratic field in 2016 is reprising what the Republican field did in 2012? What's the saying - history does not repeat itself but often rhymes?

Plenty of Democrats reject every Republican but are not thrilled about Clinton (understandably). This bloc will search longingly for an unHillary, just as Republicans tried in vain to fall in love with a half-dozen nonRomneys.

Hence a Sanders Surge. possibly to be followed by O'MalleyMentum, and WebbMania. (Wake me if there's a ChaffeeFeenomenon.)

I suspect that those will likely peter out like the Perry, Cain, Gingrich, and Santorum surges did. Negative motivation ("dear god, anybody but her/him") can be a fickle and unreliable motivation.

Dem field in 2016 assuming Clinton loses in '12, is that yr scenario here?

I think we can probably call that one.

The answer is obvious: Chelsea is eligible to run in 2016.

Man, that never stops cracking me up as the VHS box cover for some horrible '80s movie that never was.

― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 2 July 2015 19:00 (1 hour ago) Permalink

"Dem field in 2016 assuming Clinton loses in '12, is that yr scenario here?"

There must be a joke I am missing.

there are no jokes in this thread, important work is being done here

haha sorry forgot what year it was for a second there

If your time machine has room for passengers, Οὖτις, there are a few things that need fixin'.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/2009_called.png

long enough to keep pulling HRC into progressive-populist territory

Could everyone plz explain what they mean when they resurrect this hoary phrase whenever they use it? Does anyone think this has anything to do with changing policies that will be implemented by her putative Administration? Why would it? If not, who cares? "good goin Hil, you fooled the rubes again!"

sorry for grammar, 3 hrs sleep, sick etc

i think the basic problem is that ppl are going to care more about "pushing HRC to the left" while she's running for president than when she actually becomes president. leaving aside the fact that HRC's politics are probably pretty set-in-stone at this point, we haven't really figured out an effective way to hold politicians accountable once they reach the presidency.

otoh, like doc casino says upthread, someone like sanders actually making any impact at all could well have unforeseeable effects on american politics, making certain issues more ok to bring up, making the electorate less automatically fearful of "socialist" ideas, pushing other candidates to the left. or maybe it won't do anything. but who knows? weirder things have happened.

we haven't really figured out an effective way to hold politicians accountable once they reach the presidency.

in their first term they want to be re-elected to a second term, so they are more susceptible to public pressure/opinion polls etc. in guiding their policies. By the end of a second term they are p much doing whatever the fuck they want/true colors are revealed.

long enough to keep pulling HRC into progressive-populist territory

Could everyone plz explain what they mean when they resurrect this hoary phrase whenever they use it? Does anyone think this has anything to do with changing policies that will be implemented by her putative Administration? Why would it? If not, who cares? "good goin Hil, you fooled the rubes again!"

― skateboards are the new combover (Dr Morbius), Thursday, July 2, 2015 1:51 PM (37 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

My assumption is not so much that a putative HRC Administration would accomplish or even attempt to accomplish any particular element of a socialist or simply Sandersesque agenda. But ideas in campaigns (to the extent any exist) are part of the like background noise that shapes what's possible nationally, on the state level, locally. It's all about gravity. If whoever the Dem front-runner is is being dragged into making policy speeches in favor of stuff like more progressive taxation, higher minimum wages, mass transit infrastructure, sustainable energy, whatever, it lends credence to the idea that the center is further to the left than 1992 or 2008 HRC would've said it is.

“For too long, we Republicans have been content to lose the black vote because we found we didn’t need it to win," he added. "But when we gave up trying to win the support of African-Americans, we lost our moral legitimacy as the party of Lincoln, as the party of equal opportunity for all. It’s time for us once again to reclaim our heritage as the only party in our country founded on the principle of freedom for African-Americans."

Perry's affirmation of the protections of the 14th Amendment did not lead him, however, to reverse his position on voter ID laws that critics say disenfranchise elderly and minority voters. In a Q&A after his speech, Perry said it was important that states "protect that precious right of voting and make sure it is not fraudulently used."

In case there's any public records requests about legislative actions in Wisconsin you wanted to make, you should probably get that done sooner rather than later

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-wisconsin-public-records-20150702-story.html

that is entirely consistent with everything they have done since they came to power in 2010.

Republican Sen. Leah Vukmir, another member of the budget committee, continued walking by reporters without speaking when asked what she thought of the open records changes.

how appropriate.

sorry it's hard for me to respond to stuff like this with anything except a mix of acidity and despair. it's been five years of nonstop assault on democracy and decency, and they've gotten away with everything. the most despicable human beings -- just completely craven, foolish hypocrites -- are in control of this state and there's nothing i can do about it.

Does now seem like legislature may be teeing this up for Walker to veto so as to establish anti-HRC talking point re State Dept. email