Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard suggests that Democrats are approaching panic mode over Hillary Clinton's "deteriorating" campaign, and in particular a CNN poll that found that 57% don't consider her to be "honest and trustworthy." I think Barnes makes an excellent point here:
Quote:
Matchups against other presidential candidates are evanescent. Voters change their minds repeatedly at this stage. But a personal judgment of a candidate’s basic honesty is not a fleeting opinion. It cuts more deeply. And reversing a negative judgment doesn’t happen overnight. It can doom a candidate and sometimes does.
Barnes notes that former NYC mayor and gun control advocate Bloomberg has now "popped up" as a potential entrant for the Democratic nomination. Bloomberg evidently still has the drive that made him a multi-billionaire. Last year he succeeded in passing an ill-conceived gun-control law here in WA that passed with almost 60% of the vote. New York Democrats are reportedly urging him to throw his hat in the ring for 2016. Wall Street wants Bloomberg for President - Business Insider
Quote:
...some New York Democrats are urging Bloomberg to enter the field (which has to smart if you're Clinton, a former New York senator). Apparently he met with party operatives recently and, at the very least, paid attention to what they had to say.
There is concern among Democrats, of course, but nothing approaching panic. The Republicans have no one with enough broad appeal to get panicked about. Among those who approach that, Bush is the leader. Rubio is the one to fear, and Walker is the one they want. Bloomberg would make it interesting, for sure, but he is rich, male and white and that is not the formula they need for winning, particularly if the Rs go for Rubio. As for the money men, Wall Street's dream match would be Bloomberg v. Bush, but Clinton is OK with them too.
I'm guessing the same type of people encouraging Bloomberg are the same people encouraging Pataki. They think just because they live in NY where the media is, their elected officials are on the lips of the voters throughout the country. I bet if you say, "Bloomberg" to anyone outside of the northeast and DC to NY corridor, the ones who actually know who he is will say, "Hey, isn't that the nanny guy who wanted to tell us how much soda to drink?" Nobody knows Pataki. I don't even think people outside of that same region remember him from 9/11. The same ones over-flatter Representative Peter King with attention. The DC media guys will have extra love for the senators.
But, that doesn't make their concern about Hillary, wrong.
Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard suggests that Democrats are approaching panic mode over Hillary Clinton's "deteriorating" campaign, and in particular a CNN poll that found that 57% don't consider her to be "honest and trustworthy." I think Barnes makes an excellent point here:
Quote:
"Matchups against other presidential candidates are evanescent. Voters change their minds repeatedly at this stage. But a personal judgment of a candidate’s basic honesty is not a fleeting opinion. It cuts more deeply. And reversing a negative judgment doesn’t happen overnight. It can doom a candidate and sometimes does."
Fred Barnes wasn't exactly prescient in 2012, but he didn't beclown himself ala Michael Barone, and his observation regarding Hillary Clinton strikes me as salient (I'm ignoring the absurd Bloomberg suggestion). In fact, I think it's a bit understated: "reversing a negative judgement" in the case of personal qualities such as honesty and trustworthiness rarely happens. Which, were we discussing a presidential race in decades past, might have presented a serious obstacle. However, I think Mr. Barnes fails to recognize the degree to which partisanship has calcified in the last decade or two. Take a look at the makeup of the U.S. Senate following the 1986 election, for instance. Combined, fewer Democratic senators represented New York, Vermont, Minnesota, Oregon, and California (three), than Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee (nine). Today, no Republican senators represent the former group of states, and no Democratic senators represent the latter. That's not an accident -- it's not that there aren't any accomplished, articulate, charismatic Republicans or Democrats residing in New York and Texas, respectively. Rather, the electorates of the aforementioned states have simply become unwilling to support a candidate of one or the other party. Political scientists have termed this phenomenon negative partisanship (Jonathan Chait, one of my favorite political writers, discusses it at length and in relation to Hillary Clinton).
Basically, the political climate that currently prevails is akin to the one that existed in parts of the South and North in the decades following the Civil War. In the mid/late-20th century, the dynamic waned, allowing LBJ, Nixon, and Reagan to win 61% ('64), 60% ('72), and 58% ('84) of the popular vote, respectively. Presently, however, such margins seem impossible -- Barack Obama, an exceptionally talented politician campaigning in the most favorable presidential environment either party has enjoyed in at least a generation ('08), fell just short of 53%. Hence, the nominee of either party, whomever that might be, will have a relatively robust shot at the presidency. And in all likelihood, the Democratic nominee will have a slightly better chance.
Last edited by drishmael; 06-07-2015 at 10:25 PM..
If Bloomberg were to run and win the Democratic nomination., the RNC would get flooded with donations for whoever the Rep nominee is. Hopefully against Bloomberg, it would be Rubio.
If Bloomberg were to run and win the Democratic nomination., the RNC would get flooded with donations for whoever the Rep nominee is. Hopefully against Bloomberg, it would be Rubio.
From whom? A bunch of low life rednecks? The rich would LOVE Bloomberg. He is one of their own. They care about money, not the silly guns and soda divisive crap you get fed. The real money would come flooding in for Bloomberg. Rubio wouldn't get a nickel from them. I doubt Rubio will get any Wall Street help anyway. They would much prefer a known friend like Clinton than some wet behind the ears unknown like Rubio.
Wall Street wouldn't care if it was Bush vs Bloomberg. They win either way.
I agree so why the defense of Bloomberg by some who claim to be against Wall Street cronyism? Are the only people against this now "low life rednecks"?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
