Amusing? Yes. Important or relevant? No. Someone will be President after noon on January 20, 2017. And it’s not going to be Darth Vader.
Amusing? Yes. Important or relevant? No. Someone will be President after noon on January 20, 2017. And it’s not going to be Darth Vader.
Itching to build a national network of his own, Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon is heading to Aspen, Colo., next month with O’Malley for a retreat for major party donors. Nixon, who has said he would back Clinton, also recently said that the 2016 field could use a candidate from the heartland who, like himself, gives voice to blue-collar concerns but has red-state appeal.
The only comment so far to mention Nixon is “Curmudgeon2013,” who asks:
This is just such crap. Bernie Sanders contemplating a run? Puh-leeeeze. And who the hell is Jay Nixon? Oh, and Jerry Brown… really?
This is just such poor reporting. Half these alleged “candidates” aren’t running for president, they are either selling books or positioning themselves for the vice presidency.
The silly season seizes the media. Jeez.
“Who the hell is Jay Nixon?”
A lot of people in Missouri are asking the same question.
As far as I know, his only known purpose is to veto bills. Other than that, Mr. Cellophane should’ve been his name. He’ll go down as the most unremarkable multi-term Governor in Missouri history.
But he’s also right in that most of these “Presidential campaigns” are just resume enhancements or publicity stunts or running mate rehearsal. In both parties.
There’s just one sentence from this that tells you everything you need to know:
Site selection officials concluded after visiting the city that the Sprint Center lacked sufficient suites for entertaining high-dollar donors.
Who I’m sure will be dumping all that money on the RNC just to come there and watch someone who is not their hand-picked horse accept the nomination.
Two years before the fact, I already know what happened. We had a dozen non-credible flashes in the pans flame in and flame out during the primary season, dividing the anti-establishment vote, making it possible for the establishment’s candidate to win early primaries with low percentage pluralities but win all those states’ delegates because they’re winner-take-all. What there was not was someone in the race running as a militant populist outsider willing to take no prisoners, which was the only thing that could have derailed the establishment. By the time the middle of the primary season comes, the flashes in the pan ran out, and the establishment’s guy had such a big lead in the delegate tally that opposing him became futile. In July 2016, at Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland, the Republican National Convention nominated one John Ellis “Jeb” Bush for President. Later that year, the Democrat nominee, Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, beat Bush handily in the November election.
I looked at it again, and there’s an element that’s even more repulsive.
The city was willing to spend more than $7 million to create more suites. How nice of them to pay for space to entertain multimillionaires and the occasional billionaire. Because we all know that Sheldon Adelson is so hard up for money these days that he couldn’t afford a week of Kansas City’s high life.
As it is, the city spent $850,000 in its failed bin to win this convention.
This has got to stop.
Surprisingly, the article cites as good news for Romney a Quinnipiac poll finding “45 percent of voters said the United States would be better off today with Romney as president.” But that’s actually lower than the 47 percent who voted for him in 2012. Furthermore, the same Quinnipiac poll found Obama’s approval rating at 40 percent and his disapproval at 53 percent. So even in a terrible poll for Obama, Romney is polling below his presidential vote percentage — and there are a subset of Americans who disapprove of Obama but still don’t think the nation would be better off with Romney.
The rest of it is worth your time. It makes some of the points I’ve made here recently and often. The “it’s my turn” slash “experience necessary” nature of Republican Presidential politics since WWII, the fact that Romney didn’t exactly have a stellar political resume before he started running for President (he only won one general election in his life, for Governor of Massachusetts in 2002, and with only 49% of the vote at that).
But if you can get past that, I actually do think that Romney and Nixon are a lot alike. Remember who Nixon chose as his first HUD secretary.
I think this Romney-again business is nothing more than part of the Republican establishment worried that their two marquee horses for 2016 won’t be able to get it done. Krispy Christie is bogged down with Bridgegate, and with every TB-infected Dreamer that runs across the “border,” Jeb Bush looks more and more the moron. Keep Romney queued up in the background so the rubes don’t get a crazy idea like nominating someone like Jeff Sessions.
The CW on RNC 2016 going to Cleveland is Ohio’s swing nature.
Maybe the last part is right, but the RNC being in Ohio probably won’t make a difference on how Ohio votes.
The last five RNCs have been in cities in states that the person that convention nominated did not win in November.
1996: San Diego, Bob Dole. Clinton won California.
2000: Philadelphia, Bush 43. Gore won Pennsylvania.
2004: New York, Bush 43. Kerry won New York State.
2008: Minneapolis. McCain. Obama won Minnesota.
2012: Tampa, Romney. Obama won Florida.
The only good news is that since Dallas was the only other finalist, it means that Sheldon Adelson’s proposal to buy the RNC a Vegas party was panned. Now all we need to do is to get the Stupid Party to disregard Adelson all the time.
And also…Cleveland has had a lot of good luck lately in NBA draft lottery ping pong balls. How’s that working out for the Cavs?
I don’t know if this is anything more than way out of kilter D.C. social circuit gossip, but it wouldn’t surprise me, either.
I also think that if this is true, senior Democrats are breathing a sigh of relief. Because HRC’s big allure all along has been “the first woman.” If her train derails yet again, then they know they have another woman on deck to send up to the plate. I think plugged in Democrats have already made the conclusion that they have to run a woman in 2016.
Courting powerful Jewish donors for the second time in two months, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie called Sunday for a more aggressive foreign policy that defends Ashkenazi values abroad — even in “in some very messy, difficult places.”
“The rest of the world watches in desperation and hope that America will realize and act upon once again its indispensable place in the world,” Christie, a prospective Republican presidential contender, said in a keynote address Sunday at the Champions of Jewish Values International awards gala in New York. “We must lead.”
Actually, Chris, what most of the world is watching and hoping for desperately is for Amurrika to take its blacks and go home, and quit fucking up with the world with its egalitarian bullshit.
What for? It doesn’t seem to me that either is really a huge threat to their existence. Neither man really reminds me of Huey Long.
Except…quantitative easing. Maybe WS fears that Cruz or Paul would end it.
Another article about this matter quotes Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs. Ironically, Mrs. Ted Cruz works for Goldman Sachs.
The really curious thing is this: Why him, why now? Especially when his days in elected politics are over.
I have a theory.
Before I state my theory, I have to remind you of my theory that IRSgate is a bipartisan scandal, because that plays into where my mind is running.
Then take a look at this. It’s not just the WSJ and NR, it’s also Jennifer Rubin at the WaPo and Sheldon Adelson that have recently geared up to put up a RINO shield between the Rand Paul and the Republican nomination for President. Not for the reason he shouldn’t win the nomination, because he’s open borders and amnesty all the way. That they won’t talk about, because that’s also their position, with the possible exception of NR, and their immigration agenda in spite of not being the worst possible still isn’t anything to write home about. No, the reason they’re out to get Rand Paul is because he’s Ron Paul’s son, and they’re worried that apple has not rolled far enough away from tree on foreign policy, even though that apple has been doing nothing but rolling away from the tree ever since he started running for the Senate, and by the time 2016 comes around, Rand will be far closer to the neos than his father. However, that still won’t make the neos happy, when they have a reliable lifer in Jeb Bush rather than a Johnny-come-lately in Rand Paul. The invade the world neos have made the decision that they far more trust a brother and son of two people named George Bush than a son of Ron Paul.
So mash the two together, RINO sway in IRS politics and RINO fear of Rand Paul.
What does it add up to?
If the IRS can find dirt or quasi-dirt or anything questionable related to Ron Paul and the Campaign For Liberty, they’ll pounce, the media will pounce, and some of the splat will land in Rand Paul’s lap.
And that’s what the RINOs are hoping for.
The comments clearly set Bush apart from other Republicans, especially some considering runs for president in 2016. Even Bush seemed to acknowledge that his position could cause him political trouble as he mulls whether to run for president.
This doesn’t differentiate Bush from the other major Republican contenders for 2016, it puts him right into the mainstream of that group.
For instance, among many instances, Rand Paul says “find a place for illegal aliens here,” “get beyond deportation,” “give work visas to anyone in the world that wants to come here and work.” If anything, even counting these statements, Jeb Bush is still not as open borders as Rand Paul.
Far from “causing him political trouble,” I fail to see how Jeb Bush being for amnesty and open borders is going to hurt him when all his other competitors are for amnesty and open borders. In the land of the blind, a blind man can still be king. If Jeff Sessions does not run for President, then you won’t have a real immigration patriot in the bunch. Ted Cruz, OTOH, while not as despicable as the Republican Presidential lamestream on the issue, is not as strong as Sessions.
Bush is fluent in Spanish and accomplished at courting the 17 percent of the Florida electorate that is Hispanic: He won 61 percent of their votes in 1998 and almost that much in 2002. The time is ripe for Republicans to do as well with Hispanics as Jeb Bush’s brother did in 2000.
George W. Bush, conversational in Spanish, won 35% of the Hispanic vote in 2000 and 40% in 2004. That’s called losing.
Getting the Hispanic vote for a state Governor is way different than getting it for President.
Michael Barone writes:
It is jokingly said that I am Michael Barone’s illegitimate son. (Coincidentally, Barone and my mother were born in the same year.) Strange I didn’t even get a happy birthday e-mail from “dad” on Monday.
“By my estimate, about one-third of the homeowners foreclosed on in the years just after the housing price collapse were Hispanics.” And since the ObamaCare rollout, during which the Spanish-language version of the Web site was completely inoperative for weeks, “the president’s job-approval has declined more among Hispanics — 23 percentage points — than among any other demographic group.” It should be possible for Republicans to find a nominee who can do as well as George W. Bush did in winning 40 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2004.
The irony is that one of the main reasons Bush got even 40% of the Hispanic vote in 2004 was because of all the free candy affirmative action giveaway subprime mortgages to Hispanics that his policies ordained, which in turn was the cause of the housing bubble then subsequent bubble burst that “hurt” Hispanics.
In spite of all the functional problems with ObamaDontCare, hablamos and otherwise, Hispanics still have a high approval rating of ObamaDontCare in general.
Republicans can’t be too frequently reminded that their problem in presidential politics is the “blue wall” — the 18 states and the District of Columbia that have voted Democratic in at least six consecutive elections, and have 242 electoral votes. So Republicans should welcome to their nomination competition any candidate who might remove from the blue wall such bricks as Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
The last six Presidential elections means 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2012. A Bush was the Republican nominee for three of those. Yet Will expects yet another Bush to be able to break through the blue wall that his brother and father could not.
Ironically, the three blue wall states Will mentions by name, MI, PA and WI, are part of the blue wall NOT because of Hispanics, which outside of some parts of Philadelphia are political non-entities in all three states, but because of working-middle class whites, that they don’t give the Republican big enough margins to overcome the reliable Democrat voting blocs in those states, blacks in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Milwaukee and the Scandinavians in good chunks of Wisconsin. C’mon, Jeb Bush is going to change that?
You read stories like these, and once you’re done, you wish there was a snarky blogmeister somewhere who could translate it all into readable plain English.
Here I come to save the day.
What Sheldon Adelson wants more than anything else in the world is for immigration law not to be enforced. Secondarily, he’d be happy with some sort of amnesty/legal status/work permits legislation to happen, but failing that, he wants and needs the former. The only way immigration law will ever be enforced is if whoever the President of the United States is wants to enforce it. Therefore, Adelson has as his prime objective to make sure that whoever is President doesn’t want to enforce it.
Adelson isn’t necessarily exercising disproportionate influence over Republican Presidential politics because he wants a particular person or one of a very small circle of individuals to win, he’s doing it to make sure that an immigration patriot does not win the nomination, to make sure an immigration patriot does not win the Presidency and start enforcing immigration law.
It says in this article that Bush, Christie, Walker and Kasich are going to Vegas to kiss Adelson’s ring. Any one of those four men would lose to any halfway credible Democrat in 2016. But my point is that Adelson doesn’t care whether the Republican or the Democrat wins, as long as whoever wins does not enforce immigration law. He knows as well as the rest of us that any given Democrat won’t, so the crucial thing is to make sure that someone like Jeff Sessions doesn’t win the nomination. For if he or someone similar does, and turns 2016 into a very winnable immigration referendum, then Adelson is going to be sweating bullets.
Menlo Park, California
In my own observations as the father of two girls, the ‘bossiness’ meme concerning girls is advanced chiefly by other girls. I’ve certainly never used ‘bossy’ with respect to my girls or any other girls, but the term has gained currency among my girls anyway as a way of expressing when another girl has failed to fully cooperate in the play and is instead insisting on having her exclusive way. Thus, the playmate who always demands to lead the imaginative play and demands the right to assign roles to other girls is ‘bossy’. By comparson, when I was a boy we naturally organized into armies and tried to hit each other with sticks. There was one girl who joined in this play who took up leadership of one of the armies, and no one ever called her bossy. Someone had to give orders and as is not unusual at that age before puberty, she was as big (or bigger) and quick as any of the boys. As an adult, I find that many women who are put into leadership positions overestimate how ‘bossy” bosses are expected to be. I’ve seen some women who are very very good in the role, and others who just never learned how to lead with the quiet confidence required. The same could be said of many men, but as percentage that at least seems less of a problem (laziness in leadership would I think be the more typical male problem, either that or the reverse of not deligating anything and trying to do everything alone).
Like + 100 if I could.
The theory that “Ban Bossy” is Hillary Rodham campaign grease skidding is correct. But it’s not designed to get men to vote for her, it’s designed to solve her woman voter problem. The reason she didn’t win in 2008, or one of the main reasons, is because a lot of women that would have voted for a Harold Clinton in that same circumstances wouldn’t vote for Hillary Clinton. Many high level elected women Democrats were very early adopters of Obama over Hillary. Mainly because those women didn’t want the other woman to rise to the top before them, reverse queen bee syndrome.
And I think HRC’s problem with women will surface again in 2016.
“Ban Bossy” is an attempt by HRC’s sympaticos to disassemble female cat house politics.
Bowling Green, Kentucky
Some in our quarters told us that the reason we had to disregard the immigration treachery on the part of Ron Paul and now Rand Paul is because the father’s strident foreign policy neutralitarianism or the son’s tempered version was supposed to be dog whistling that they were really on our side, and that the immigration thing was just game-playing.
Rand Paul has now essentially become Jeb Bush and Krispy Christie. I wonder why he thinks anyone will vote for him when he’s no different from the establishmentarians in the party, and I wonder why he thinks the party donors will suddenly dump a lot of money on him when they have better options in Jeb Bush and Krispy Christie.
The 2016 Republican nominee will be one of only three people: Jeb Bush, Krispy Christie or Jeff Sessions. Only Jeff Sessions has the capability to engineer the populist muscle to knock out the RINO establishmentarians in the primaries, because of the power of the immigration issue and his increasingly populist message and tone. If he does not run, or does and can’t deliver the KO punch, then the nominee will be one of the two establishmentarians.
Dana Loesch won’t support the laughable comedy that may call itself “Ben Carson for President in 2016.”
Yeah, I guess this rationale is a good start. But to me, passing on Ben Carson is as simple as these two simple facts:
2. No real political gravitas, either in terms of previous elected offices or other political resume.
AKA Ben Carson is the New Herman Cain.
Ironically, Carson’s “gun rights by geographical location” is him trying to dog whistle something which most people reading these words would agree with, i.e. yes for white people, no for the black undertow.
Huh? They’re both for open borders.
1. “What difference does it make?”
2. Taking a big red plastic button over to Russia
3. I don’ kno’ nuffins ’bout no cattle futures
4. Forgiving Bill
Bowling Green, Kentucky
“Republicans haven’t gone to African-Americans or to Hispanics and said, ‘You know what? The war on drugs, Big Government, has had a racial outcome. It’s disproportionately affected the poor and the black and the brown,’” he said, on TheBlaze.
This has never been tried before.
Unless it has.
Two words: Jack Kemp.
Who averaged a BIG BIG BIG whopping 5% of the vote in Republican primaries and caucuses he actually tried to do well in when he ran for President in 1988. And when he was the Vice-Presidential nominee in 1996, he let wooden AL GORE of all people get the better of him in a debate. Kemp’s being on the bottom of the ticket that year probably didn’t get as much as one single black or Hispanic voter to change their vote from Clinton to Dole. And that was the first real chance that black and other non-white voters had to show their appreciation to Kemp for all of his years of pandering to them, as the only kind of elections he ever ran in before were in his own western NYS Republican-gerrymandered Congressional district, which hardly had any blacks or Hispanics, or in Republican Presidential primaries and caucuses in 1988, which blacks patronized about as well as they do bookstores. (In 1988, Jesse Jackson was a semi-credible contender on the Democrat side during their primary and caucus season, so black voters had an obvious skin interest there.) Yet, the kind of people Kemp so dearly cared about because they were all in one big jock shower together (his own words) strangely wanted nothing to do with him.
Now, back to Jack Kemp 2.0.
Rand Paul’s 2016 keynote issues?
* Allow felons to vote (*)
* Quasi-legalization of drugs
* Oppose the NON-ISSUE (**) of the use of armed drones on American territory
* Give tax breaks to non-taxpaying minorities
* And most of all, swing the borders wide open and give work permits to anyone on Earth who wants to come here and work, turning us all into wage slaves, well, all of us except for the top 1% of the top 1%.
Wow, there’s the path to victory.
No, there’s the path to LOSING, which is the opposite of WINNING. Which is why he’s getting more and more favorable coverage from the liberal media, save the WaPo, and the only reason they’re not on board is because they need to sell subscriptions in a city full of people that either work for the NSA or people that are related to or are friends with people that work for the NSA.
Nominate Rand Paul, LOSE.
Nominate Jeff Sessions, WIN.
(*) – Kentucky is one of the few states that have an almost absolute blanket prohibition on convicted felons voting. Which would come in handy if you’re running for Senate from the state of Kentucky in a close contest, wouldn’t it, Rand?
(**) – Note to peanut gallery: The Posse Comitatus Act of 1871 already makes illegal the use of armed drones on regular American territory. We won that battle 143 years ago. No need to re-fight it.
Catherine Hanaway is in for GOV-R-2016.
She was Missouri’s first Republican House Speaker when Republicans flipped the chamber in 2002. She ran for but lost Secretary of State to Mrs. Antolinez two years later. After that, Bush 43 made her U.S. Attorney for Eastern Missouri.
I would have been mildly enthusiastic for a Gubernatorial campaign of hers before she became U.S. Attorney, but her time as U.S. Attorney was less than stellar in my opinion and to put it lightly.
With the fall of Christie Soprano, the new establishment A-1 choice for 2016 is…
Sure, he might have suffered immensely with everyone else when he noodled along with the Gang Bangers of Eight, but that’s precisely what now makes him a donor/barnacle class favorite.
We find out here that Paul Ryan isn’t running, which means Rand Paul has that big big big 5% Jack Kemp constituency all by himself. He’s really on his way.
I swear, they’re making things so easy for Jeff Sessions to win the nomination that all he’ll have to do is declare and keep having a pulse.
When the Clintons sat in judgment, Claire McCaskill got the seat closest to the fire. Bill and Hillary had gone all out for her when she ran for Senate in Missouri in 2006. But McCaskill seemed to forget that favor when NBC’s Tim Russert asked her whether Bill had been a great president, during a “Meet the Press” debate against then-Sen. Jim Talent in October 2006.
“He’s been a great leader,” McCaskill said of Bill, “but I don’t want my daughter near him.”
Instantly, McCaskill regretted her remark; the anguish brought her “to the point of epic tears,” according to a friend. She knew the comment had sounded much more deliberate than a forgivable slip of the tongue. So did Hillary, who immediately canceled a planned fundraiser for McCaskill.
A few days later McCaskill called Bill Clinton to offer a tearful apology. Bill was gracious, which just made McCaskill feel worse. After winning the seat, she was terrified of running into Hillary Clinton in the Capitol. “I really don’t want to be in an elevator alone with her,” McCaskill confided to the friend.
But Hillary, who was just then embarking on her presidential campaign, still wanted something from McCaskill—the Missourian’s endorsement. Women’s groups, including EMILY’s List, pressured McCaskill to jump aboard the Clinton bandwagon, and Hillary courted her new colleague personally, setting up a one-on-one lunch in the Senate Dining Room in early 2007. Rather than ask for her support directly, Hillary took a softer approach, seeking common ground on the struggles of campaigning, including the physical toll. “There’s a much more human side to Hillary,” McCaskill thought.
Obama, meanwhile, was pursuing her too, in a string of conversations on the Senate floor. Clearly, Hillary thought she had a shot at McCaskill. But for McCaskill, the choice was always whether to endorse Obama or stay on the sidelines. In January 2008 she not only became the first female senator to endorse Obama but she also made the case to his team that her support would be amplified if Govs. Kathleen Sebelius and Janet Napolitano came out for him at roughly the same time.
McCaskill offered up a small courtesy, calling Hillary’s personal aide, Huma Abedin, ahead of the endorsement to make sure it didn’t blindside Hillary.
But the trifecta of women leaders giving Obama their public nod was a devastating blow. Hate is too weak a word to describe the feelings that Hillary’s core loyalists still have for McCaskill, who seemed to deliver a fresh endorsement of Obama—and a caustic jab at Hillary—every day during the primary.
And why did all these prominent women break early for Obama over HRC? Because…Reverse Queen Bee Syndrome aka Female Crabs in a Bucket Syndrome.
As someone who was on the other side of Claire McCaskill’s ledger in 2012, from my vantage point, she got absolutely no help from Clinton, Inc. that year.
Many of the other names on the traitor side of the ledger were easy to remember, from Ted Kennedy to John Lewis, the civil rights icon whose defection had been so painful that Bill Clinton seemed to be in a state of denial about it. In private conversations, he tried to explain away Lewis’s motivations for switching camps midstream, after Obama began ratcheting up pressure for black lawmakers to get on “the right side of history.”
Lewis, because of his own place in American history and the unique loyalty test he faced with the first viable black candidate running for president, is a perfect example of why Clinton aides had to keep track of more detailed information than the simple binary of for and against. Perhaps someday Lewis’s betrayal could be forgiven.
Ted Kennedy (another seven on the hit list) was a different story.
He had slashed Hillary worst of all, delivering a pivotal endorsement speech for Obama just before the Super Tuesday primaries that cast her as yesterday’s news and Obama as the rightful heir to Camelot. He did it in conjunction with a New York Times op-ed by Caroline Kennedy that said much the same thing in less thundering tones. Bill Clinton had pleaded with Kennedy to hold off, but to no avail.
John Lewis is easy to explain — Race race race race race. Ted Kennedy endorsing Obama over HRC is harder to figure, but I think I know the answer, though it might be an answer he took to his grave so we’ll never be able to confirm in this world — One hint to the answer is the use of the word “Camelot” here. The only Kennedy that was ever President was John, and only for 1,036 days. If HRC would have been elected President in 2008, it would have meant that the Clintons would have instantly become more of a credible Democrat Presidential dynasty than the Kennedys, by definition of two different Clintons winning the White House as opposed to just one Kennedy. If I’m right, look for either an above or below the surface jihad from the remaining living political Kennedys to bring down HRC when the Presidential campaign season begins in the second half of next year going into early 2016.
Paul Ryan to Republicans: ‘Go into inner cities, go into minority communities’
Former vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan thinks Republicans need to take their limited-government message to voters who are “unfamiliar with hearing us.”
“Go into inner cities, go into minority communities,” Ryan, who speaks in Iowa tonight, told The Des Moines Register in a telephone interview on Monday. “Go into communities that have not seen or heard from Republicans in a long time.”
You know why they “haven’t heard it in a long time?” (Even though they’re telling us that we have to do this seemingly every other day). It’s because it has already been done, and failed spectacularly.
This was the playbook for one of Paul Ryan’s mentors, that being Jack Kemp, when he ran for President in 1988, and doing so while only a Congressman, as Ryan would be if he runs in 2016, presuming he wins re-election to another term in Congress in 2014, (hopefully some immigration patriot will knock him out). And how well did it work? Kemp won no states, averaged 5% in primaries while he was actually running and supposedly “competitive,” and 2.72% or 331k votes overall, the percentage inevitably decreased after he dropped out, because, you know, constantly getting 5% of the primary vote in each state isn’t going to win you many Presidential nominations.
The only big difference this time is that the immigration issue is hot now while it wasn’t in 1988, so Ryan is making “immigration reform” (amnesty and open borders) a centerpiece of his speculative Presidential campaign, the same amnesty and open borders we just screamed at the top of our lungs to stop at least for awhile.
He’ll be lucky to get 5% in his own state much less any state with that as his prime issue.
Christie got 51% of the Hispanic vote. (Except he won’t get anywhere near that among Hispanics versus the Democrat nominee in a Presidential race). Even if Mitt Romney got 51% of the Hispanic vote, keeping everything else the same, (and that’s not possible in the real world), he still would have lost.
And how did Christie even get to 51% of the Hispanic vote? By supporting ObamaCare, by being for amnesty and open borders, by appointing a temporary Senate replacement “Republican” (Jefferey Chisea) that voted for the Gang Bangers of Eight bill, by hearting Obama. IOW, by being a Democrat. He can do that and not lose any white votes in a state with a severe dearth of white conservative voters like New Jersey, but that won’t play among Republican primary and caucus goers in most of the country, nor among the same trying to turn them out the following November.
The “HRC might not be so inevitable” bandwagon is starting to fill up.
But who does New Republic think is the answer to “if not Hillary then….?”
Answer: The Dime Store Indian.
Pardon me? Gender sociology is part of what wrecked HRC in 2008 — The Dime Store Indian is also a woman, and not much younger than HRC, so she too will be subject to the same social pressure.
I still think it’ll be Mark Warner.
I’ve never believed the notion that some of our favorite websites have been pushing that Romney picked Paul Ryan as a running mate at the behest of consultants, barnacles and donors. I’ve tended to the theory that Romney elevating younger “talent” like Ryan up the ladder ahead of what is considered normal schedule was a feature of his managerial style in the world of business.
Drudge today has been splashing heavy this Time expose mainly about what scared the Romney campaign away from Krispy Christie, but in passing, my sensibilities have been confirmed:
Mitt meditated on the choice that now seemed inevitable: Ryan. Beyond all the political pros and cons, Romney felt comfortable with Paul. He reminded Mitt of junior partners he used to work with at Bain: eager, earnest, solicitous, smart and not at all threatening. Bob White had a phrase for these buttoned-down go-getters, which he applied to Ryan: “client-ready.”
That will get missed, but at least the good news is that dirty laundry is starting to show up re Christie. Not soon enough to keep him from winning a second term as New Jersey Governor on Tuesday, but this will very likely seriously hurt his Presidential chops.
And as a Jeff Sessions guy, that suits me just fine.
Great idea, nominate a northeastern moderate.
If Romney loves Christie so much, why did he pick Ryan instead of Christie? The first link in this story answers all.
I still think that given enough time, Democrats will blink first, because their own activist groups are dependent on the kinds of Federal spending that is not happening.
But why are they going to hold out for awhile?
It’s as simple as this:
Democrats think that if they blink first, Ted Cruz is the next President of the United States.
Personally, I don’t think it’s that nice and neat an easy, but I’m thinking for myself and not for any elected Democrat.
Cape Girardeau, Salem
No URL yet for corroboration, but I can confirm because I have my ear to the right kind of ground: Kindercare will very likely run next year in MO-8 and try to take down Jason Smith in the Republican Primary, the same Jason Smith who beat Kindercare in that famous eight-ballot caucus of the Republican central committee for MO-8 last year to determine the Republican nominee for the special election that was called after Jo Ann Emerson quit Congress to take a lobbying job.
I wonder if this means that Kindercare is mentally checking out of the race for Governor in 2016. If he is, then that’s big news, because it was looking like until today that Kindercare as Republican nominee for Governor in ’16 was pretty much a done deal. If he’s out, that opens things up quite a bit. I have a theory about a dark horse.
However, Kindercare doesn’t have to quit being Lieutenant Governor to run for Congress next year. If he can’t topple Jason Smith, then he remains in that office, meaning he’s still in okay position to run for Governor in 2016. Problem is, I think that if he loses to Smith again but in a different political venue, I think he’ll be damaged goods for 2016 even if he’s still one heartbeat way from being Governor. If he beats Smith and goes to Congress, why would he spend a few months in Congress then come right back home to start campaigning for Governor? This is why I think he’s giving up on the Governor’s Mansion.
Speaking of Jason Smith, H/T MOPNS:
So I’m sitting at my desk eating my brown bag lunch, listening to Rush, and he just now said that HRC won’t be the Democrat nominee in 2016.
I thought it and made-for-TV movies were dead, too, because hiring non-WGA writers to write one crummy unwatchable “reality” “show” after another was light on the nets’ bottom lines.
The only thing that will ineviably be missing from this HRC miniseries on NBC? The “I’m Hillary Clinton, and I approved this message” disclaimer at the end.
And also…this won’t make CNN happy.
Just like 2007 for the most part. How’d that turn out?
Claire McCaskill has already endorsed HRC for 2016, which is curious because she was an early adopter of Obama back in 2007. I interpreted her and many other white women Democrats going for Obama over HRC relatively early in the process as an indication of Queen Bee Syndrome, an example of HRC’s taboo gender sociology problems that I think will present again in 2016.
And also…don’t blame me. Todd Akin wouldn’t be endorsing HRC right now. Oh no.