My friend Eric, a musician and political independent, is, I think it’s fair to say, a Hillary hater. He is a centrist, conservative-ish on some issues, liberal-ish on others, and in general aligns more closely with Democrats than Republicans. But he really doesn’t like Hillary Clinton. He’s called her “odious,” “corrupt, self-centered, power-hungry and hypocritical,” and that’s just for starters. He has said that, if the general election came down to her vs. one of the current crop of Republicans, he’d write in Bernie Sanders.
At least, that was all true until last week. Eric still doesn’t feel warm and fuzzy about Clinton. But after Clinton’s extraordinary 11-hour testimony in front of an almost absurdly hostile bunch of Republicans who were transparently much more interested in trying to score political points against her than in finding out what actually happened in Benghazi, here’s what Eric wrote on my Facebook page (I’m quoting him with his permission):
Well, my mind has changed after a masterful performance yesterday before the Benghazi witch-hunt…uh… committee….
I was not only tepid, but very opposed to her. I’m still not crazy about her. I think she’s corrupt, self-centered, power-hungry and hypocritical (going on and on about educating girls in Third World countries while the Clinton Foundation rakes in millions from the likes of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States). BUT–I now know she’d also be a cool-headed leader in a very dangerous world. She’s not running for sainthood. One of our two greatest presidents, FDR, was a devious underhanded man who rigged one of his nominating conventions. JFK was arguably fraudulently elected with the assistance of his father, and of Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago, delivering votes from dead people in Cook County. But if he hadn’t been sitting in the Oval Office standing up to the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Cuban Missile crisis, who knows how many millions of people might have been killed in a nuclear war?
I think the Republicans overplayed their hand very badly indeed, and have created support for her where there was none before.
This is, of course, only one man’s opinion, and it’s always tempting to generalize too much from anecdotal evidence like this. But in my experience at least, Eric’s take on what happened last week is far from unique. I’ve heard many people who previously weren’t particularly excited about Clinton’s candidacy say that, while they still may not love her, they found her testimony very impressive, to the point that they feel much better about her as president than they did before. My sense is that a lot of people who don’t love Clinton nonetheless now think that, as Eric put it, she would “be a cool-headed leader in a very dangerous world.”
Hillary has had a fantastic couple of weeks. She did very well in the Democrats’ first televised debate, earning pretty much universal plaudits as the clear winner. Joe Biden decided against running, which almost certainly helped her more than it helped Bernie Sanders. And then the Benghazi committee did more for her campaign than it could possibly have done for itself: it turned people like Eric from opponents into potential supporters. Recent polling shows Clinton’s numbers improving – and this is mostly before the Benghazi hearing, which almost certainly will help her in the polls.
If Hillary becomes president, which I’ve long thought and still do think is the likely outcome of 2016, it’ll be because people like Eric became willing to support her. And if that happens, it’ll be in large part because of the Benghazi committee. #irony
Dad thinks of himself as a centrist independent, even though he is pretty progressive on most issues. He was a Weld and McCain 2000 voter, but also voted for Reich, Dean, he really likes Elizabeth Warren, and may be one of the few people I know personally who genuinely liked Coakley. He has log felt Hillary was a self serving and corrupt figure, he really soured on the Clinton’s during the second term, and really disliked her hawkish record as a Senator. But he actually said on the phone “Christ, the Republicans just elected her President! Even I like her after this”.
This may have been the fortnight she won over progressives and middle America by rejecting the extremism of the far right. It doesn’t help Republicans that Trump and Carson continue to grow stronger, it seems the more minorities and independents they alienate the higher they go in primary polls. I’m more and more confident that she can win and be a good President.
I read the story comment as meaning that she can do the job, which is different than can win the election or even would be my first pick.
As a long time idealist, I’d rather have people vote for what they really want.
If we were electing the clearest spokesperson for our boldest platform, Bernie Sanders is above and beyond a better candidate than Clinton. And I strongly feel you vote your heart in the primary, especially since the upside is great (making social democracy mainstream) and the downside relatively small (Hillary will win the nomination whether you vote for her or Bernie).
But we elect Presidents in the general election. And just as I would’ve voted for flawed spokesmen Kerry in 2004 or Gore in 2000, I will vote for Hillary in 2016. And unlike those two bland white guys, she is a stronger and ballsier candidate with a bolder progressive agenda. It’s easy for men to take the glass ceiling breaking as no biggie, as I immaturely did in 2008, but the fact that most of the women I know who are on the front lines of social activism are excited as hell about her speaks to me. Qualify it as an insider or presidential relative coming back to their old house, as I used to do, lament that America is following the pack on this, as I used to do, but it’s still a big fucking deal and could be a big driver of turnout.
I don’t believe Eric’s and Big Jim’s change of heart is just anecdotal.
My closest friend, Terry McGinty, confided in me today he is ready now to support Hillary. He had been undecided but leaning toward Bernie.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
It’s amazing how much the Benghazi committee has backfired against the Republicans. Not only did it now take Clinton down (as its obvious purpose was), but it actually served to make her look stronger.
I’ve leaned towards Clinton from the start, but I was also intrigued by Sanders (who, despite my skepticism about his run this time, I’ve long liked going back to his days as mayor and U.S. Rep.). But, in all seriousness, can you imagine any Democrat showing the same range of knowledge and as capable of essentially giving the middle finger to an obvious partisan Republican investigation as Clinton has?
or rather what Undercover Blue wrote at digby’s blog:
The best thing we can do is remind voters that Republicans control Congress, and Republicans are Benghazi-crazy.
Sadly, nobody seems to be mounting a campaign to take back Congress. It’s just not part of any Dem candidate strategy.
If it were not for Hillary’s new found strength, which is but perception, where would we be?
Good strategy she discussed with Rachel Maddow the other day. She views herself as the leader of the Democratic Party in a way President Obama has not-that could have profound ramifications on strategy and electioneering. It’s definitely work all of us have to contribute to, not just our nominee.
Beats me why we ever turned back from the 50-State Strategy.
made up of Democratic base: Women, AA, Latino, Labor, GLBT, Elected Officials including our own Senator Ed Markey, VA Governor Terry McAuliffe and Gov. Howard Dean.
This is what a serious candidate for President has to do in order to win.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
if we want real change.
Hillary can lead but remember that FDR’s New Deal only became law because Dems won super majorities in both the House and Senate.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
…we have to drive turnout in both 2018 and 2020 as well, which is when most officials involved in the next redistricting will be elected.
Last Saturday canvassed in Pelham, NH for Senator Sanders. The tally after 21 doors knocked. 8 people at home. 3 undecided 2 refused 3 Bernie
No, nada, Hillary Clinton. Eric should listen to the next debate and maybe get out and see what other people think. Benghazi Comm Republicans are not a high bar to get over. Bernie has faced an onslaught of labels, and some nastiness also, but does not flinch when asked “gotcha” questions. He reframes it to show he is reliable, consistent, not for sale, and progressive. The number of undecideds shows it is not in the bag for HRC yet. ‘
By the way what did you all think of Sidney Blumenthal’s access and his ability to take his personal agenda, mostly wrong, to the innards of the State Department? I’ll go first. Pretty sleazy. His actions had nothing to do with Benghazi, but it was revealing that he was allowed inappropriate contact.
I think the Secretary of State has 70,000 people reporting to him or her directly or indirectly. I think the department has a chain of command for addressing concerns and escalating them as needed. I think every Secretary of State has friends and advisers who email or call them from time to time. I think Bernie Sanders does the same.
I think the failings that led to the tragedy in Benghazi have already been analyzed. I think recommendations were made to Ms. Clinton shortly after the attack, and I think she accepted and acted upon each. I think all of that was done a LONG time ago.
I think that last week’s questioning was therefore a flagrantly partisan and transparently dishonest attempt to disparage Ms. Clinton that produced ZERO new information, as its chair acknowledged after its conclusion. I think the references to Mr. Blumenthal were stupid cheapshots, and I wonder why you repeat them here.
That’s what I think.
There is a strong chain of command not unlike the military, and I had to get the approval from two directors before I could email folks at DoD or foreign embassies regarding some of the weapons transfers we were tasked with researching, and that process could take several days or several hours depending on how many requests they had on their plate. Their offices were in my wing of the Acheson building, not half a word away.
Ambassadors fall into two categories-foreign service appointees and political appointees. Stevens was the latter and the Secretary was correct to say his security would’ve been handled by the RSO (Regional Security Officer) for his region and the DS (Diplomatic Security) chief for the area. Barring that the Chief of Mission (COM) has the ultimate say over directing embassy operations. I am sure 25 year old friends and business associates had easier email access to either of my directors. If DoD operated the way Gowdy thinks State should operate you’d have colonels calling Obama directly for air support. It’s gross stupidity to think that’s a more efficient system that would save more lives.
…the data I have entered for the Clinton campaign in Nashua shows strong support for her. She also has a much stronger canvassing operation overall.
They did her a huge favor by giving her hours and hours and hours of free airtime to look cool, confident, and presidential. It was a gift.
I am not the biggest HRC fan, either, but one must admire her ability to head into a confrontation like that–in which people were wondering how much damage the attack would do her campaign– and not only survive, but win outright, and by the 10th hour be simply running up the score.
Given that the next president, if a Democrat, is going to face a hostile Congress made up of precisely these people, that could be an important skill to have.
and running up the MA vote totals is not going to have an impact.
Just by virtue of living in this state your (and everyone else’s) views are going to be slanted.
I have been predicting an inevitable Clinton win, and it’s because of the electoral college.
The number in the “always blue” column is huge, and Republicans basically have to win every single swing state to make it to 270. I don’t think it even matters who the Dem nominee is. Would Sanders scare people off? Please. The is the United States where the average voter’s political knowledge is minimal. If he beats Clinton he still wins.
The only chance for the R’s is that somehow Sen. Rubio ignites some pan-Spanish speaker enthusiasm for a Spanish speaking president. Unlikely though. Would candidate Colin Powell have gotten Obama numbers? Not even close. No reason to think people would vote ethnicity over party for Rubio.
I’m so not interested in 2016. It’s just a wait for the coronation.
If this is the case, what happened in 2000 and 2004? I’m pretty sure that the electoral college math was fairly similar.
How, other than rigging state results, did George W. Bush win those two elections?
In 2000 GWB barely won (maybe not) FL. If NH had gone the other way Gore wins regardless. NH hasn’t been red since.
In 2004 CO, NM, and NV were in play. They haven’t been red since.
You’ve had two elections with a blue VA and that’s probably lost to the GOP.
OH and FL last went red in 2004. Also maybe permanently lost.
These are due to changes in voting and demographic shifts (VA gets more urban, number of Hispanic voters increases, etc etc). NC is in play.
I’m not bemoaning this fact. It is what it is.
The whole democratic process is broken. President Clinton 2 rules over more gridlock.
Dems start with 247. GOP 206. 270 wins.
Pure purple:
NH (4) won’t support a Theocrat, but will support a Main Streeter.
OH (18) could swing either way depending on economy, flubs, etc.
VA (13) remains very red on sub-POTUS elections; voted Bush x2 and Obama x2.
FL (29) was already on the knife’s edge before Netanyahu amped up the anti-Obama rhetoric.
IA (6) swingy!
CO (9) seemed to be trending blue, but the pendulum seems to be swinging back.
NV (6) is like OH. Economy a big factor.
Slight blue:
WI (10) it’s sort of the “average” of Minnesota and Ohio.
PA (20) seems to be swinging red, although it may be in part due to an anti-Obama Appalachia effect.
Slight red:
NC (15) had nudged blue, than slammed back red hard in 2014. TBD.
And, of course, a disastrous POTUS candidacy for either party means a loss. There are enough purple and lean on both sides to ensure that much.
P.S. This map math won’t last long. Dems who shift left on modern progressive issues (environment, technology) risk losing the non-IL Rust Belt, just as they’ve lost pockets in the deeper South to abortion, marriage, and labor rights. And, of course the 2024 election will be with newly apportioned EVs, with more shifting to the Southeast if current demographic trends continue.
This is a fun map to play with for scenarios, they have a good setting called ‘same since 2000’, and many states routinely colored purple appear there-> WI, MN, MI, PA, and OR. These are all blue states. I would bet real money that none of them become Republican this cycle.
1) Disagree on many of the Pure Purple
Minnesota actually has a revitalized and strong center left DFL that finally put good candidates up for office, an underrated progressive Governor in Mark Dayton, and is the only midwestern state that is under full blue control. Wisconsin used to be a purple state since it used to be centrist. Now it’s base v base, and the right shows up every election and we show up every four years. Student turnout in the Mad City and black turnout in Milwaukee will elect Clinton and re-elect Russ. I will bet you a sixer of Wisconin’s finest beer if a different outcome happens.
Moving past that, VA is this decades Pennsylvania. It has become a solid blue state, and for the same reason. The Philly suburbs were bastions of mainline Republicans and now they are moderate Democrats since the GOP took a bus to crazy town. They will still vote against the ‘Philly Machine’ and send Republicans to the House or Harrisburg, but they won’t send them to the White House or the Senate. Ditto Virginia. NOVA has gone from moderate Republican (Tom Davis/John Warner) to moderate Democrat (Mark Warner, Tim Kaine, and Terry McAuliffe). Terry has invested in a solid plan to win back the statehouses in coordination with HRC this fall. I am very confident VA is a blue state in the future.
2) The Real Swing States
CO, OH, and NH are libertarian states in my view. They will vote for fiscal conservatives at the state and house level, while sending mixed delegations to the Senate and Democrats to the White House. I agree that if the GOP has a pro-gay pro choice nominee by 2024, which I suspect they will, those states are back in the tossup column. An economic agenda is essential for them and a harder sell there.
NV is a blue state thanks to Hispanics, you can put NM in that column too, and possibly GA by 2020 believe it or not. Also because there is a growing black middle class turning the Atlanta suburbs and exurbs bluer.
FL will remain a tossup forever, it’s a very large and diverse state with a lot of different constituencies. I would say Cubans and older Jews are swingier there on national security issues, while downscale blacks and non-Cuban hispanics are perennial Democrats. The days of Bob Graham WASP Democrats are probably over though, so we should emphasize diversity for recruitment down there. I am shocked and pissed off our two Senate candidates are both white male millionaires.
NC will come back thanks to student and minority turnout, and also the rejection of the radical Governor. It was a lost opportunity in 2012, if the money dropped in GA and AZ had been spent there, Obama probably would’ve carried it.
3) My Lean Red
IA is swingy, maybe even lean red. It’s become a lot more socially conservative in the last few years, though apparently hipsters are colonizing it so there is some hope!
WV could be brought back because the economy is so bad, it’ll be interesting to see if KY re-elects the Democrats to the Governorship, one of the few red states where ACA was embraced and implemented with great success.
Already talked about GA, TN could be on the same trajectory thanks to immigration and the rise of a black middle class. More 2024 than 2020, but the cultural issues aren’t at the fore down there.
MO is a lost cause. It’s one of the most racist states I’ve ever visited, I was made to feel very self conscious about being in an interracial relationship.
I wouldn’t spend a dime there this year.
If Bill Clinton couldn’t save a legitimate conservative Democrat like Mark Pryor, he won’t carry Hillary over the finish line. That’s a red state now.
A native Razorback like Joeltpatterson can chime in if I am off base there.
I’ve been saying her ceiling is Obama 2008 and her floor is Obama 2012. Indiana is definitely off the board, but I could see Hillary putting Arizona or Georgia into play. Probably not both. I ran Latino turnout models for my Electoral Politics class for the 2008 election and predicted Arizona would be blue by 2016, so we will see if my model was right. The GOP has to pick off MI, PA, WI, or OH to win and I just don’t see it happening. VA is basically a solid blue state, so is Colorado and for similar reasons. It’s likely NC will be a solid as VA by 2020. And these trends have been ongoing since 2004. Kerry was the first Dem to carry a majority in Fairfax county since the LBJ sweep, which was a good indicator. He was also the last candidate to run close in West Virginia or Missouri (within single digits), but it’s likely those are solid red states now.
I’m not suggesting will, but “could”: Arkansas, Arizona, Georgia, West Virginia. I suspect that any effort in those states will be to force the GOP to spend money there, because if she’s able to go on offense in any of those states she’s likely got 270 wrapped up in a variety of permutations. I’d love to also
see her go after Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, Montana, and Missouri — all states that her husband won at least once, and states where her campaigning might help Dems pick up seats in the House and in state government elections.
P.S. Don’t be so quick to write off West Virginia based on 08 and 12 — Obama’s Appalachian problem may or may not be a Democratic Appalachian problem.
But WB and AR are going to be harder sells, feel free to reference my other reply.