Because it is her turn!!!!! This dynasty stuff has caused people to sit on the back burner and allowed her to be a forgone conclusion.
::throws things in anger::
I just feel like you totally get me.
I totally agree with this from the perspective that it was dumb of the Dems to coalesce behind her so early and basically foreclose other options.
So if any halfway decent challenger appears during the primaries, I will likely vote for that person.
But come November 2016, when it's HRC vs. Walker/Cruz/Rubio/etc., I'm left with deciding how I want the SCOTUS and other federal judicial nominations to go because those appointments are going to affect my life and the life of my future children. And I'm not willing to trust Scott Walker with the power to appoint SCOTUS justices.
To be fair, it isn't uncommon for the party in power for 8 years to have a weak bench. The Dems would be in the same position even if she wasn't a Clinton. She's essentially the Al Gore or GHW Bush, the person in the administration that is assumed would be running for presidency.
Post by cookiemdough on Mar 29, 2015 12:44:34 GMT -5
But no one is even talking about joe Biden. Not that I think he should run. But still it is not like she is the current VP. She has even eliminated the competition for those that typically would be next.
But no one is even talking about joe Biden. Not that I think he should run. But still it is not like she is the current VP. She has even eliminated the competition for those that typically would be next.
I don't know if anyone ever thought Joe Biden would be a competitive candidate.
I'm not excusing the Dems for not building a bench, but I just think there's a lot more to the situation than "HRC is a selfish legacy candidate." Coming out of the primaries of 2008, and looking at the country now, I don't see why we think the country would have rallied around an old white guy with a very traditional politician resume as the next in line if HRC wasn't sucking up all the air in the room.
The party has a weak bench because it controlled the White House for the last eight years. It has a weak bench because the country does not want an old white guy who has been in Washington for decades and who can be very easily painted as a guy that has been running for president for THIRTY years. I like Joe Biden. I love Jerry Brown and would support him in a heartbeat.
The reason there aren't a lot of alternatives is not because HRC sucks up all the air in the room, but because the realities of the political establishment and discrimination means that today, there still aren't a lot of experienced, interesting, fresh candidates that can generate the energy of 2008 and respond to the demographic shifts. Joe Biden and Jerry Brown are not on the bench because, even with their strengths, it feels like we are stepping backwards.
HRC is where she is because of the benefits of a dynasty, but there's nobody else that reflects a changing America because of the legacy of discrimination and establishment politics.
That's changing. There's a lot of talent a few cycles away from the presidency. The Castro Brothers. Kamala Harris. I expect we are going to start seeing more from Loretta Lynch. And I think there are white guys that have the potential to be appealing candidates someday. I like Richard Cordray, head of the CFPB. The AG of New York, Eric Schneiderman, had a lot of potential. But neither of those guys would be running for president if HRC weren't. Other people that could have been on the bench, like Sebelius, seem to have become causalities of the administration. That happens. It's not HRC's fault.
So sure, maybe a few people, perhaps Deval Patrick or Kristen Gillibrand, are sitting this one out because they don't want to piss of HRC. I don't doubt there are a lot of people making decisions because they want to stay in her good side. But I just can't get on board with this whole idea that the lack of a bench is almost entirely due to an entitled, early coronation ceremony. It's just far more complicated than that.
It's absolutely true that parties in the WH have a harder time with bench building but even in 2000 Al Gore wasn't the sole candidate. I was campus chair of the Bill Bradley for President club. Okay so I was the chair and only member. But still, the 2000 primary was not a slam dunk for Gore. There was an actual primary for five minutes. As it stands now, there is no primary; HRC is absolutely the one, this is her election to lose. She leads all polls against everyone, Dems or Reps. Why would any self respecting dem jump in for real when she is crushing everyone? For one thing, who would fund this campaign against HRC?
It's absolutely true that parties in the WH have a harder time with bench building but even in 2000 Al Gore wasn't the sole candidate. I was campus chair of the Bill Bradley for President club. Okay so I was the chair and only member. But still, the 2000 primary was not a slam dunk for Gore. There was an actual primary for five minutes. As it stands now, there is no primary; HRC is absolutely the one, this is her election to lose. She leads all polls against everyone, Dems or Reps. Why would any self respecting dem jump in for real when she is crushing everyone? For one thing, who would fund this campaign against HRC?
Hey, Jim Webb is running. Lololololololololololol.
The situation is definitely extreme. But I think a lot of factors contributed to it. You make a great point about campaign contributions. That's another area that has changed dramatically since 2008, thanks to Citizens United. It may very well be that as long as our parties are beholden to special interests, they pick the candidates months or years before anyone else.
I just can't get behind this "well, yeah, but we're not going to vote for the other guy". Where is the line? What can't a D candidate do?
Think about it this were an R. How would you feel about the people excusing it?
I actually have been thinking about this quite a bit.
We had mannnnnny conversations a few years ago about (mostly R's) having to hold their noses and compromise some beliefs to vote. (IIRC, the context was their struggle to balance the increasing misogyny and anti-gay sentiment on the Right with their own beliefs about economic policy / doing what is best for the country as a whole). I guess it might be the Democrats' turn to hold their noses and compromise beliefs?
or maybe they, too, need to vote 3rd party to affect change in their establishment the way I believe R's need to do to shake off the Religious Right.
I just can't get behind this "well, yeah, but we're not going to vote for the other guy". Where is the line? What can't a D candidate do?
Think about it this were an R. How would you feel about the people excusing it?
I'll be honest. If there were a viable 3rd party this news would likely push me towards it. But right now it feels like a 3rd party vote by a lot of Ds would hand the Rs the White House on a silver platter. And I'm so afraid for what the Rs would do to civil rights and women's rights and how much larger the wage gap would grow under their control to risk that.
So, if she wins the D nomination I will hold my nose and vote for her. But I'm really hoping to see a great primary competitor step forward and knock her out.
I just can't get behind this "well, yeah, but we're not going to vote for the other guy". Where is the line? What can't a D candidate do?
Think about it this were an R. How would you feel about the people excusing it?
Honestly, at this point with how far right the GOP has gone, it would take one of two things for me to not overlook pretty terrible things: 1) A Democratic candidate I believed was truly incompetent, particular on issues of foreign policy, or 2) A GOP nominee who I had some reason to believe would not appoint anti-choice candidates to the bench.
The current balance of the bench is such that I really do think the rights of women and minorities hang in the balance. And I am truly terrified of what happens to these rights if we have a Republican nominating SCOTUS justices.
If the GOO had given me any indication that it did not want judges to dismantle all these key protections, I might feel differently. The impact of these choices will be felt for decades.
I just can't get behind this "well, yeah, but we're not going to vote for the other guy". Where is the line? What can't a D candidate do?
Think about it this were an R. How would you feel about the people excusing it?
It's kind of becoming a vicious cycle.
I'm going to vote for a dem for president. I can 99% guarantee you that. And while I think HRC can be sketchy and this particular situation is pretty bad IMO, at the end of the day I still trust her more than Ted Cruz. And like tacosforlife said, I want HRC appointing SCOTUS nominees instead of Ted Cruz.
The R party has been running to the right for so long relatively that if an R gets elected, they will be beholden to that extreme wing. And I think that's going to push a lot of people to vote Dem or not at all. There's not going to be a genuine moderate running from the Rs. I mean Romney should have been pretty moderate (relatively) but he had to go to the right during the primaries and I think that hurt him in the general.
So because the Rs keep getting more extreme, I'm willing to put up with a lot more from a Democratic candidate.
Alright, to be fair, Ted Cruz is not likely to get the nomination. While I agree with your overarching point, I think we all know that Ted Cruz is probably not getting the R nomination.
"Not gonna lie; I kind of keep expecting you to post one day that you threw down on someone who clearly had no idea that today was NOT THEIR DAY." ~dontcallmeshirley
I just can't get behind this "well, yeah, but we're not going to vote for the other guy". Where is the line? What can't a D candidate do?
Think about it this were an R. How would you feel about the people excusing it?
To vote for Walker or Cruz over her because of this is like rewarding the person who hasn't gotten caught yet.
Does anyone really think the Bush Justice Department turned over all those RNC emails in which DOJ officials discussed using the DOJ to conduct a vote suppression campaign? I don't for one hot second think that Walker or anyone else isn't ready and willing of repeating that. Why would I vote for that party who stood by and watched that and claimed it was a liberal conspiracy? And who in their right mind actually believes everything in Florida in 2000 was entirely above board and no secret emails were deleted?
It's one thing to judge people nose holding while voting for the bigot. It's quite another to live in a glass house and throw stones.
Post by underwaterrhymes on Mar 29, 2015 16:51:41 GMT -5
If a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage Republican candidate emerged, I would consider voting for him or her.
But that isn't going to happen anytime soon. I am uncomfortable with what HRC did here, but honestly it's less shitty than denying rights to people. So I will vote for her.
I wonder if she had them really wiped or if they can be recovered. Wiping clean is rarely that so I question the brilliance.and, add in the recipient's email...yeah
She had her own server. As in, the physical hardware was in her home. Of course she wiped it clean. She had the power to do so.
Can someone post some articles or something explaining the technical aspects of this? I still dont' quite understand what actually happened. As I had understood it, she had it set up to automatically delete emails after 60 days, which doesn't seem particularly shocking. If there's evidence that she had all the emails stored, and then when they came asking for it, someone went in there and literally deleted years of records, then that is truly shady.
I just can't get behind this "well, yeah, but we're not going to vote for the other guy". Where is the line? What can't a D candidate do?
Think about it this were an R. How would you feel about the people excusing it?
To vote for Walker or Cruz over her because of this is like rewarding the person who hasn't gotten caught yet.
Does anyone really think the Bush Justice Department turned over all those RNC emails in which DOJ officials discussed using the DOJ to conduct a vote suppression campaign? I don't for one hot second think that Walker or anyone else isn't ready and willing of repeating that. Why would I vote for that party who stood by and watched that and claimed it was a liberal conspiracy? And who in their right mind actually believes everything in Florida in 2000 was entirely above board and no secret emails were deleted?
It's one thing to judge people nose holding while voting for the bigot. It's quite another to live in a glass house and throw stones.
I get the comparison but I didn't vote for them. I am now in a situation where I am going to be the exact same voter i was pissed at years ago for standing beside that mess. That is why I said upthread that she owes her voters better than this. She could have had the vote legitimately and now she gets a hold the nose vote. Oh well I guess a vote is a vote.
I can't participate in a serious political thread if I have to spend all my timing wading through the panic and hysteria regarding possible/likely/stated GOP candidates. I need all this arm flailing to stop considering the last two guys we put up for president were McCain and fucking Romney. Huckabee and Santorum and all the other really right wing Jesus Camp graduates have for the last however many years burned themselves out and left us with so so candidates who put the vagina wands on the backburner. So stop playing.
Plus, I'm damned sick of a board claiming they welcome conservative viewpoints turning into shrieking harpies when we discuss conservatives. There's plenty to snark on without the (unlikely) doomsday predictions.
You are above what these conversations have been devolving into for the last few weeks so Imma need you to stop.
Flame away.
Now, back to Hillary. Idk if she needs to drop out of the race per se but I do think all of you who would vote for her, who would LIKE to vote for her, who think she could do a good job to hold her feet to the fire over this. Do you need to DTMFA already? I have no idea but could you at least ask miss I'm a Clinton, I do what I want to go to damned counseling with you?
Stop acting like your only choice here is to divorce her or excuse her shadiness. Set some of her shit on fire and let her know that she can't play like this.
Otherwise, I want to hear no mouths when she carried on unchecked with even shadier behavior.
Unrelated, but I'm high on Easter candy right now.
I'm not panicking, nor am I waving the white flag. I'm pissed off because this is S*T*U*P*I*D! She knows better than this.
With that said my kids will be in kindergarten before the next election, and that is 17 months and thousands of dollars away. To me, that is a damn eternity. I am not going to lose sleep over this right now, but I am pissed.