U.S. Politics - Let them who is without stones cast the first cake agaisnt the glass house

[TrackerNeil]

Assuming that Hillary wins the Democratic nomination, I wonder if Hillary's relative lack of charisma and likability will become a problem for her in the general election.

I doubt it. In a primary maybe, because voters are choosing between multiple candidates who hold essentially the same policy positions so distinctions like personality or charisma might matter. In a general election, most Democrats are going to vote for whomever the party nominates, no matter how likable she is. Same with Republicans; in fact, if Ted Cruz were to be the nominee (meaning that if lightning struck the same person six times in six minutes, six days in a row), most Republicans would vote for him, too.

[The Once and Future King]

The only people who hate Obama is the right, and they hated Obama last election and lost bad. Hillary should trot out whoever is strong in that area of the country and should trot them out often. Her husband is good everywhere, Obama may not be strong in the south, but he kills it in the Northeast money sector. He will be in full fundraising mode soon enough. (not that he hasn't been).

Don't expect to see the sitting president sit home like Dubya did in 08

She is already distancing herself from Obama on Israel, Russia and Libya.

A large portion of The establishment left (Menendez, Schumar) are distancing themselves on Iran.

It will not be worth it for her to use Obama. It loses to many center votes. He will fundraise for her but thats it. She will send Bill to black areas (where he is just as loved as blue collar) and allow him to remind them she worked with Obama.

[awesome possum]

It will not be worth it for her to use Obama. It loses to many center votes. He will fundraise for her but thats it. She will send Bill to black areas (where he is just as loved as blue collar) and allow him to remind them she worked with Obama.

This sounds more like wishful thinking than anything.

[TrackerNeil]

This sounds more like wishful thinking than anything.

Totally. I doubt Clinton will cast herself as Obama the Second, but if the economy is doing well in 2016, why wouldn't she align herself with a reasonably popular and successful president? Because Sean Hannity doesn't like him?

[The Reckoner]

Why haven't the libertarians taken over the Republican party?

[Maithanet]

Totally. I doubt Clinton will cast herself as Obama the Second, but if the economy is doing well in 2016, why wouldn't she align herself with a reasonably popular and successful president? Because Sean Hannity doesn't like him?

Plus, has anyone ever successfully distanced themselves from the sitting President and won? I can't think of many candidates who tried, and none who succeeded. At the very least you'd have to go back a long way.

No matter what, Clinton is going to be tied to Obama. If you're going to carry his baggage, you might as well point out the great stuff that's inside.

[messem]

Why haven't the libertarians taken over the Republican party?

Because there are not enough of them?

[TrackerNeil]

Plus, has anyone ever successfully distanced themselves from the sitting President and won? I can't think of many candidates who tried, and none who succeeded. At the very least you'd have to go back a long way.

No matter what, Clinton is going to be tied to Obama. If you're going to carry his baggage, you might as well point out the great stuff that's inside.

That's the way I feel, too. Obama has done a pretty decent job as president, despite his approval ratings, which IMO aren't a very good indicator of presidential performance. As long as the economy's OK this time next year, Hillary Clinton will lose nothing by aligning herself with the Big O.

In any case, how the hell can she distance herself from a guy for whom she campaigned and whom she served as Secretary of State? Americans aren't stupid and they won't buy it. For better or for worse, she's stuck with Obama.

[Arakan]

Will there be a significant change in US foreign policy if HC wins?

[DanteGabriel]

Will there be a significant change in US foreign policy if HC wins?

She may be more willing to kowtow to Bibi Netanyahu and to commit troops abroad than Obama.

[Jaxom 1974]

That's the way I feel, too. Obama has done a pretty decent job as president, despite his approval ratings, which IMO aren't a very good indicator of presidential performance. As long as the economy's OK this time next year, Hillary Clinton will lose nothing by aligning herself with the Big O.

In any case, how the hell can she distance herself from a guy for whom she campaigned and whom she served as Secretary of State? Americans aren't stupid and they won't buy it. For better or for worse, she's stuck with Obama.

In general, Democrats aren't likely to distance themselves from the ACA or any successes are they? That seemed to work against them in '14, didn't it?

[Arakan]

She may be more willing to kowtow to Bibi Netanyahu and to commit troops abroad than Obama.

I hope that she wont try to attack the Iran deal.

IIRC she was one of the biggest adversaries of a new Health Care system. So I suppose she will fight to further develop "Obamacare".

[lokisnow]

Worth remembering that Obama approval amongst democrats is like 87% or better, gw bush disappeared because his approval amongst republicans was very low.

If Maryland looks safely blue as I suspect it will, I will probably do a write in vote, I've been trying to think of the perfect write in to express my feelings about this.

I'm very curious about this. Whom are you expressing your feelings to? Noone will be able to perceive your feelings from this action because no one will read your ballot and think, "now I understand summahs feelings!" If you are seeking personal satisfaction rather than attempting to express a feeling through a venue poorly equipped to communicate said feelings you might achieve more of said satisfaction and better communicate your feelings by campaigning on behalf of your candidate.

[Summah]

It will not be worth it for her to use Obama. It loses to many center votes. He will fundraise for her but thats it. She will send Bill to black areas (where he is just as loved as blue collar) and allow him to remind them she worked with Obama.

No, Obama would be much more effective in black areas than BC, are you forgetting what he did on the 08 campaign trail? He lost his status "honorary first black president" because of that shit. BC would be much better utilized in blue collar areas like everyone said.

About the charisma thing and the concept that Dems will vote for the Democratic candidate and Reps will vote for the Republican candidate, there's also a large amount of independents, some of whom are reliably right or left, some of whom are not, and for them her charisma, or lack there of might make a difference especially if the Republicans nominate someone especially charismatic.

[Summah]

I'm very curious about this. Whom are you expressing your feelings to? Noone will be able to perceive your feelings from this action because no one will read your ballot and think, "now I understand summahs feelings!" If you are seeking personal satisfaction rather than attempting to express a feeling through a venue poorly equipped to communicate said feelings you might achieve more of said satisfaction and better communicate your feelings by campaigning on behalf of your candidate.

It can be for myself and I guess anyone I tell. Probably anyone I write in will not actually be a candidate, so no point in campaigning. Of the left wing third parties likely to be on the ballot (Greens, Socialists etc), I really don't feel it, and most of the socialists and communists (that belong to a party) I've run into in the US are Trotskyists more concerned about calling rival communists/socialist parties Stalinist than anything else and I really can't take any of them seriously.

[TrackerNeil]

In general, Democrats aren't likely to distance themselves from the ACA or any successes are they? That seemed to work against them in '14, didn't it?

In my view, I don't think the Democrats did anything wrong in 2014. What was wrong was an off-year election with a Democratic president overseeing a shaky economy. So I don't think talking up (or down) the Affordable Care Act had any significant effect then, nor will it in 2016.

I used to believe the ACA would grow more popular with time, but clearly that has not been the case. However, the parts that were always popular still are, which tells me that Americans are reacting to the law the way they react to most things: emotionally. They like a ban on preexisting condition discrimination even if they have no preexisting conditions that would disqualify them from coverage, but they dislike the mandate even if they themselves never run afoul of it. It's possible that the ACA as a whole will never be popular, but I'll bet my next paycheck (such as it is) that the individual state exchanges will always be well liked.

[lokisnow]

No, Obama would be much more effective in black areas than BC, are you forgetting what he did on the 08 campaign trail? He lost his status "honorary first black president" because of that shit. BC would be much better utilized in blue collar areas like everyone said.

About the charisma thing and the concept that Dems will vote for the Democratic candidate and Reps will vote for the Republican candidate, there's also a large amount of independents, some of whom are reliably right or left, some of whom are not, and for them her charisma, or lack there of might make a difference especially if the Republicans nominate someone especially charismatic.

There are a large number of nominal independents, but 95% of people who claim they are independent vote for candidates from there preferred party 100% of the time. This means there's only about five percent of independents (1-2% of the electorate) actually voting as independents by choosing candidates from either side, and those tend to split between the major parties without conferring an advantage to either.

So the media loves the independent narrative, but independents are actually pretty irrelevant to winning the rlection. The election is won with base mobilization.

[Shryke]

Re: Approval Ratings

It's important to remember that approval ratings are across the whole political spectrum. Which makes the overall numbers useless. Because it doesn't matter what the other side thinks when it comes to something like an election.

When you look at the numbers, Democrats love Obama. Republicans though think he's the anti-christ. Hence you get a sort of 50/50 average. But it's an average across two hugely different numbers.

In general, the worst thing Clinton could do is distance herself from Obama and the Democrats accomplishments over the last 8-10 years. It did them no good in 2014 and it didn't help Gore either.

With the economy improving I'd expect her to ride that connection. Especially since, as noted, Campaigning Obama is Obama's most powerful form.

EDIT: Lockesnow covering everything I wanted to say on every topic on this page before I can.

[DanteGabriel]

The Onion publishes its fact sheet on Rand Paul. Highlights:

Political Vision: Supports bipartisanship between the Tea Party and GOP

Campaign Strategy: Hoping college-aged white males come to comprise over half of U.S. population

Opinion On Big Government Reaching Into Our Pockets And Taking Away Our Personal Freedoms: Anti

Current Campaign War Chest: 10,000 bricks of gold bullion

Crossover Voter Appeal: Reaches fans as young as 18 and as old as 20

[Cubarey]

"No matter what, Clinton is going to be tied to Obama. If you're going to carry his baggage, you might as well point out the great stuff that's inside. "

Because the bag also contains a couple of large turds!

It's not going to be easy but Hillary will have to define her own position on foreign policy while at the same time claiming ownership of Obama's domestic policies (unless the Supreme Court guts Obamacare which is quite possible and then Clinton will likely go hard left and campaign for a single payor plan type system).

"In general, Democrats aren't likely to distance themselves from the ACA or any successes are they? That seemed to work against them in '14, didn't it? "

You have to remember that most democratic losses in 2014 were in Red leaning states where anti-ACA campaigning motivated the Republican base, and democrats had to manuever between the hard place of distancing themselves from the President and the immovable force of knowing a majority of the voters in those states were anti-ACA. In that instance, not mentioning Obama and basing their campaign on their own acomplishments or views simply looked like the better of two bad choices.

"There are a large number of nominal independents, but 95% of people who claim they are independent vote for candidates from there preferred party 100% of the time. This means there's only about five percent of independents (1-2% of the electorate) actually voting as independents by choosing candidates from either side, and those tend to split between the major parties without conferring an advantage to either."

Except that the "Independents" tend to inhabit the middle of the political specturm; thus the job of any candidate is to bring out his base without alianating his "independent" supporters which are not likely to switch to the other candidate but which could easily sit-out the election: problem with Obama's middle east policy is that it gives more moderate jews and other constituency a reason not to vote.