Is it only me or do others have the sneaky feeling that Hillary thinks of herself as the Tom Brady of the Democrats and is gearing up for another run? I think she is. And I think Joe Biden is out there to make sure that she not only doesnot get it but she also loses her influence and credibility in the party.
Old Joe could be a spoiler, a surrogate, or a serious candidate. Who know? It’s three years away and these dogs aren’t puppies. And of course it will probably be President Pence as the main card opponent.
Joe would have run last time but he didn’t have it in him for a big time Democratic-Brady-Bunch-gurls-against-the-boize-family-fight.
But not next time.
If Hillary runs she is no less a narcissist than The Donald and those champion her are no less dick-heads than those fighting for Trump. Just saying.
—
Talk about an A-1 rich guy wussie. Greg Gianoforte says he “made a mistake”.
Ahh, isn’t a mistake when you meant to step on the break but hit the gas and unfortunately killed 12 people? I mean it’s still a mistake, right?
And couldn’t it be argued that a young person who drives drunk made a mistake because he was too drunk to think right? Some would disagree, but some wouldn’t.
But when is it a mistake when someone grabs someone by the neck and body slams him to the ground?
Anyone? Bueller?
Correct, it would be a mistake if said grabber thought said grabbee was assaulting someone and said grabber used sufficient force to protect said victim of said grabbee from further harm. That is correct. Defense of others.
Did that happen here?
No.
It’s gonna be fun watching this guy self-destruct. (With some help from the media of course)
___
For every vote Marty Walsh loses thanks to the bike Nazi’s jumping down his throat for telling them to be careful how many does he gain? I say four votes for every one lost.
—
Tito’s campaign had zero traction before-and it was a great intro for him to JP and the other neighborhoods he needs to win. It also alienated him from the Trump/Walsh voters who likely made the difference against Connolly last time. Walsh is the kind of politician who figured out how to do this-though he has governed exactly as Connolly would’ve-if not more conservative on business interests and charters (his last minute No on 2 notwithstanding).
Last time around Walsh had a rare coalition of blue collar whites and blue collar people of color to beat the candidate backed by the establishment as well as the JP and Back Bay liberals. Walsh now has that establishment, and if the women’s march was an indication-he had the liberals. But if Tito can peel them off, hold the POC together (and many are still with Walsh outside of his ward) and peel off some of the Trump/Walsh voters he’s in business. He has next to no money and no name recognition-but he has more of that now thanks to the bike gaffe.
Ditto on Hillary 3.0 (yuck!) and Uncle Joe. In a likely field of 20, the Veep is the king or kingmaker. And he alongside our senior Senator may be enough to freeze Hillary out.
Dems shouldn’t write Montana off-Quist’s campaign along with Bullocks organization have rebuilt and revitalized many dormant county and town organizations and the campuses are alive like they weren’t in 2016. Somebody with a bit more heft than a singing cowboy can beat the creationist zillionaire body slammer from the Turnpike.
Aren’t things bad enough without some relic of the past giving us the same tired old shitck? The same goes for Clinton and Biden.
Hillary and Biden? Sometimes I wonder if OBAMA is running again.
Bikers are bad, but the biggest problem is still pedestrians.
Thank you, Jim
for your courageous stance against killer pedestrians.
Again.
Yeah yeah, I get it.
Believe me, I would love to pin all of Boston’s traffic problems on cars. In fact I’d love to ban cars from downtown Boston. But until then, the pedestrians have some culpability for the situation. There are sometimes legitimate reasons to drive (try taking the T to the medical area sometime), and the pedestrians flagrantly disregard the rule of law.
I’ve seen drivers do insane things, but I’ve seen more pedestrians do insane things. Many more.
I’d love for HRC to try one more time, but that’s not where my money is. Biden would be good too. Others I’ve heard about so far don’t excite me yet, but I’m sure I’ll find someone when the time comes. In the first things first department I need to decide on a gubernatorial horse to back for 2018 before I worry too much about 2020.
Given your thinking, may I suggest someone for Governor in 2018.
Never super enthusiastic about her, though I was happy to support her as the nominee. I also reject any implied comparison to HRC. She was my third choice out of the three who made it past convention, though probably would have still been my third choice if all five had gotten on the ballot. Pretty sure she’s not running. Of those who are running I like a lot of what Massie and Warren are about and stand for. I would strongly consider Dan Wolf and am still getting to know Jay Gonzalez. What’s a little concerning right now is I’ve heard not a peep of interest regarding LG.
Why on earth would you love for Hillary to run again?!
Because nothing has changed the fact that she would be the best-prepared, most qualified person to hold the office in quite some time, and is the heir to two successful Presidents, one to whom she is married and the other she served as Secretary of State. Her career and record for fighting the right fights and getting things done is unmatched, IMO.
If 2016 wasn’t a massive refutation of the notion that voters want heirs to elected positions-I don’t know what is.
It was hardly a refutation – to the tune of almost 3 million votes. Though there does seem to be an Electoral College curse on the heirs of Bill Clinton. His VP also won the popular vote even if you accept the official FL certified results. Besides, I was asked what I want, not what other voters want!
Hillary runs again and doubles her lead in all the states she won……and stalls in all the rest, again….and wins an even larger share of the raw vote…….and the EC elects Trump to his second term.
Gianoforte is a thug, but thugs are admired by the right.
She doesn’t need to double her lead in the states she won, but she could retool in the states she should have won and maybe surprise us in a few others if Trump is as toxic as he seems.
Deleted a comment by petr that had a bit too much salty language. Otherwise I agree with its sentiment, that the idea that Hillary is running again is baseless, so who cares discussing it. Meh.
I saw nothing wrong with it.
Rather you spoke of your disapproval in a comment rather than a delete.
Why did you delete my response to petr? Not fair. I feel violated. Unsafe even. How can I sleep in comfort if I can’t be sure my comments are safe from arbitrary deletes because of someone (petr”s) hurtful comments.
Hillary Clinton is John Kerry in a pantsuit. A creature of Washington so far removed from the day to day lives of ordinary people who has been on both sides of most major issues (trade, Iraq, gay rights, flag burning) that she comes across as insincere and phony. What you and I admire as experienced and pragmatic comes across as know it all condescension to swing voters.
They never felt this way about Obama. They never felt this way about Bill. But they did feel this way about Gore, Kerry, and Clinton. Nobody doubts that all three would’ve made great progressive presidents and lord knows they would’ve been preferable to the absolute dumpster fires that got elected instead. But voters don’t want to be lectured too-they want people to feel their pain and know their struggles. Obama and Clinton got this. She never could.
So who is like that right now? Ironically Sanders always held a bigger lead over Trump both before 2016 and now in 2017. It’s because he is honest and direct and has never wavered from his convictions. Biden holds the biggest lead in that same poll because he is authentic. He comes across as an average Joe and down home father to a close knit family. David and Charley can rightly decry him on banking regulations and Anita Hill-the average voter doesn’t remember and doesn’t care.
They like him. Likability is all that matters. Who else is leading in the polls? Al Franken-since he’s funny and can use down to earth midwestern humor to make his points. Who else? The Rock and Cory Booker. Warren is struggling and holds the slimmest lead over Trump. A former Harvard Law professor who lectures about the economy isn’t gonna beat Trump.
Over 8 million 2012 Obama voters in the five states Trump flipped defected. Why? The Democratic Party has to ask them and has to find out. We need our 2016 autopsy. Simply waiting and hoping for Russia or healthcare or some other Trump scandal to do the trick is a fools errand. It’s what Hillary did and she lost-bigly.
As much as I admire Elizabeth Warren and know that she would be one of our greatest presidents, I have to agree with you that she would not beat Trump (or Pence) in 2020. Progressives are much better off with her in the US Senate. I also agree that Al Franken would be a good choice.
I was talking to a few millennials over the past week, male and female, and the consensus was that they all thought Trump was a creep, but one of them voted for Trump because, as he put it, “They’re both corrupt and the Clinton’s had their shot.” The conversation arose when one of them was talking about Kushner’s possibility of going to jail. I told them that Kushner’s dad was a convicted felon while Jared and Ivanka met because the Trumps were close friends of the Kushner’s. To be fair, I told them that Chelsea Clinton’s met her husband through close friends of her parents and that her father -in-law was also a convicted felon.
Two people running for the presidency, both having a daughter who’s father-in-law was a close friend of the family, and a convicted felon. What does that say about the people we are putting in Washington?
I’ll be attending the state convention this weekend and the question I will ask anyone running for office is this: In order to win an election statewide in Massachusetts, you will have to win the votes of people who voted for Scott Brown once, Elizabeth Warren once, Barack Obama twice, and Donald Trump once. How do you propose to win their vote and why do you think they voted for Brown, Obama, Warren and Trump? .
Those are great questions John. And I think outside of the liberal bubble most voters tended to equate them as equally corrupt-aided by the media. They aren’t by a long shot-but the Clinton’s weren’t the cleanest candidates to run against the Donald. Our next nominee has to have zero financial ties to Wall Street and zero conflicts of interest.
I would have gone 20 rounds with anyone who dares suggest that HRC is in any way just as bad as Trump. We MUST push back on that garbage every chance we get!
We already have gone for many rounds-at least two decades worth-and another four years won’t change that. I am not disputing it’s garbage-I am arguing that the last time we nominated a fresh face with zero baggage we won. It is time to do that again. This is why I am convinced Sanders or Biden would have won-because they didn’t have her baggage. Presidential politics has everything to do with personality and nothing to do with issues, and as soon as Democrats wake up to this fact the better off they will be.
That sounds like more a reply to something I said than to EB3’s comment, and yes, Hillary is Kerry in a pantsuit. I did after all support Kerry in 2004 from the very beginning for many the same reasons. He was hands down the best prepared in that race, in many ways it seemed ironically better prepared than the incumbent President. I for one don’t recall hearing lectures from any you named, and if I did I probably would have seen it as a plus that they can hold forth intelligently on issues they will have to address as President. I absolutely do NOT apologize for taking the most powerful position in the world seriously enough to prefer someone who is knowledgeable over someone who is likable.
I never asked you to apologize. I am saying you have long been in the minority of Americans who think about voting this way. You remind me of the woman telling Adlai ‘you have the vote of every thinking man or woman in America’ and Adlai quipping ‘yes madam, but I need a majority’.
Has anyone done a focus group on what the 8 million Obama-Trump voters thought? Stan Greenberg has-and is conclusions should alarm us. The Macomb County Democrats and independents who gave Reagan two landslide majorities, then came back to Bill Clinton and Obama, are at risk of being part of a new permanent Republican majority.
Why do you persist in this? There is no evidence, whatsoever, that the number of people who voted for Obama in ’12 and who voted for Trump in ’16 is anything more than epsilon. It is a red herring and your insistence upon it is starting to frighten me. Nor does the Stan Grossman piece you linked to support this theory.
In Michigan, in ’12, Obama beat Romney by a margin of several hundred thousand votes out of 4,731,714 votes cast, or 54% of the vote.
In Michigan, in ’16, Trump beat Clinton by a margin of just 10,704 votes, out of 4,799,037 votes cast, or 47(-ish)% of the vote. Compared to Obama ’12, Trump received a smaller number, in both absolute and relative terms, of a larger turnout: almost 70,000 more people voted in 2016 than did in 2012.
Here is what frightens me about your persistently pushing this utter myth: Jill Stein ran in Michigan in both ’12 and ’16. She increased her vote by almost 150%: IN 2012, Stein received 21897 votes out of 4,731,714 votes cast, about .46% (POINT four six percent); in ’16 she received 51,463 votes… about 1% (of, as noted, a larger voter totals), a difference of 29466 and which was nearly three times the absolute value of the margin of victory of Trump over Clinton.
There is NOTHING in these numbers to suggest that more than an insignificant portion of a fraction of a percentage of voters, if any, voted for both Obama and Trump. It’s just not there. Nor is Michigan special in this regard. Run the numbers elsewhere and you’ll find similar results. But, rather than ask how and why Stein increased her tallies when both Democrat and Republican candidates decreased in theirs, you persist in this notion of a purely hypothetical Obama/Trump flip/flopper…. It. Doesn’t. Compute.
When are Democrats going to stop blaming the voters, the Republicans, the Russians, the dog at their homework, and become the party of one unifying value?
I do blame the voters. They voted for someone known to be a Dangerous Unqualified Misogynistic Bigot.
When democracy stops becoming about accountability, that’s when.
The argument that Democrats shouldn’t ‘blame’ voters for the vote boils down to the simple notion that Democrats didn’t manipulate the voters well enough while Republicans did.
Well, then I’d rather work on getting a majority of thinkers than coddle to those who not only don’t, but refuse to.
What makes the idea baseless?
A complete lack of substantiation coupled with the fact that EBIII is frequently wrong.
She’s at least as active as anyone else. She started a PAC earlier this month.
Yeah…..that’s just what the Democratic Party needs…more money.
When will they notice that Trump spent about HALF of what Clinton spent….and won?
I’m not interested in unilateral disarmament, but OF COURSE Trump won on half the money – the media shilled for him at least until he got the nomination. If they cut live to all the rallies of Clinton, Sanders, or the other GOPers like they did with Trump, those candidates could have spent less too!
The original poster asked the question: “is Hillary gearing up for another run?” Then answered that question with absolutely nothing more than “I think so” and handwaving just so that he could come to the conclusion that she is just as much a narcissist as Trump. So, yeah, baseless. Utterly baseless.
Is Steve Bannon a blood sucking alien from somewhere near Betelgeuse? I think so (insert handwaving here). He does stare at the stars at least as much as anyone else…
I don’t want to get in the middle of a spat between you and Ernie. To me, she is showing clear signs of interest. To name three things:
The PAC
Her speech at Wellesley College (yes she went there, but it’s also always been associated with her political career).
Her interview where she blamed Comey for costing her the election.
That all sounds like a candidate to me.
It sounds to me like an intelligent woman with valuable things to say and a forum to say them.
And she would still have both of those things without an active political fundraising account. If Clinton is out of politics-why is she creating a new campaign account? Why are they closing the Clinton Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative down? These are not the actions of someone who merely cares about issues, these are the actions of someone open to being a candidate again.
If you uprated this diary… then you kinda put yourself in a position you (now say) you don’t want to be in…
It’s not possible to tell, at the present pass, who uprated this but I suspect you were one of the several who did…
Is this an admission that you (if, in fact, you did) uprated a diary the subject of which you already held an a priori affinity…?
…because your post facto defense of the conclusion, and your waving away of the interim handwaving, suggests exactly, and only, that.
You’re impossible. I have never disputed that I agree with that aspect of the diary. I think she’s running again, or at least seriously considering it and keeping her options again.
Your tendency to make things about the people who comment, and not the topic, is really tiresome. It makes me feel like an idiot for replying.
I agree that personalizing the disagreement is really not helpful.
But I can’t agree that she’s running again. Not seeing that at all.
Why the Superpac with a similar name and theme from her campaign? Why teasing a bigger role in the resistance? I think if she felt she had a viable path to the nomination and the presidency again she would take it in a heartbeat. I agree with you she’s likely rational enough to realize that path is closed-but the PAC, raising money, and staying in the arena are the kinds of activities she needs to do just in case that situation changes. And obviously there are many people like Christopher who argue she’s our best bet in 2020.
A SuperPAC also allows her to call funders whenever she wants.
Reminder, there is no shortage of PACs. If I want to give to the guy challenging Paul Ryan, I can also give to him directly.
Does Deval still have his PAC? I think so.
To be fair, I’m not sure I’m arguing she is our best bet in 2020, just that she is likely the person I would personally choose if I had that choice.
What do you want from me?
EBIII posted a load of crap. I called it crap. You asked why it was thought to be crap. I told you. Then, you say ‘yabbut, if you close your eyes and hold your nose you can neither see the crap nor smell the crap and therefore, because the crap has the word Hillary innit, I agree with all the non-crap parts of it.”
And I’m ‘impossible’…?
You have something to say. So say it. Don’t uprate or in any way bolster EBIII’s crap because it might accidentally coincide with what you want to say. That’s not even good enough to be called lazy.