Feb
14
2015
4

Foreign policy is going to be a BIG deal in 2016. Get used to it.

The acceleration of radical Islamist attacks in Europe – I don’t think that the jihadists are afraid of us anymore – is probably going to continue. I’m hoping like Hell we don’t have another terrorist attack on American soil, of course: and I think that our counter-terrorism apparatus is going to cocoon the White House when it comes to operational decisions, assuming that they haven’t done that already*. But even if we don’t have another Boston Marathon bombing it’s going to be thin going for any candidate who has had a hand in shaping American foreign policy between 2009 and today. (more…)

Feb
12
2015
6

Hey, I guessed wrong on where the Democratic convention was going to be!

Turns out that they’re having it in Philly after all.  Personally, I would have picked somewhere that wasn’t a day trip from NYC, but they didn’t ask me, either? …Seriously, though: security is going to be a really big issue for both conventions this cycle.  The Republican party is going to have to worry about crazy blackshirt progressive lunatics who want to disrupt the proceedings, and the Democratic party is going to have to worry about…  crazy blackshirt progressive lunatics who want to disrupt the proceedings.  The really major difference is that the Democrats probably have to worry a little bit less about the aforementioned crazy blackshirt progressive lunatics trying to kill them some delegates*.

Hey, maybe that’s why they picked Philly: the cops there have a certain reputation…

Moe Lane

*That’s not a joke.

Feb
08
2015
16

Is *Hillary* Ready?

This is a very nice Townhall article by Conn Carroll on Barack Obama and how he was not the Left’s Ronald Reagan (unless you count the way that Barack Obama, like Reagan, has made the argument against big government – however inadvertently, in Obama’s case).  But I have a quibble. In short, I always have the same question in my head when I see lines like this:

Hillary Clinton will be a very formidable opponent.

Why?

Enjoy your Sunday.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

Feb
05
2015
8

Does Hillary Clinton honestly and truly want to run for President?

Because stories like this suggest that maybe she doesn’t:

An internal debate among Hillary Clinton supporters about the timing of when she should launch her expected campaign for the presidency has erupted once again.

Several Democrats have told CNN that there is a desire on the part of Clinton and her innermost circle to go as late as possible. But the potential for a summer start to the official Clinton 2016 campaign, first reported this morning by Politico, is only one of the options on the table. The spring launch plan is still seen by most Clinton watchers as the most likely timing scenario. Under the spring scenario, Clinton could form an exploratory committee or other official vehicle, which has FEC-regulated restrictions for potential candidates, but would enable Clinton to publicly indicate her intentions and begin a new phase of the process without formally launching a full blown campaign until later in 2015.

(more…)

Jan
29
2015
6

Think that the Democrats will retake the House in ’16? Fine. Name the seats.

You’re going to see a lot of these types of stories in the next year or so: “House Democrats retake the House? It’s a long shot, but they’re getting ready to try.”  At least, if the 2012 and 2014 election cycles are any indication:

(more…)

Jan
27
2015
10

Sen. Bernie Sanders (Socialist, Vermont) not wild about the Democrats’ brand for his 2016 bid.

I find I don’t really care one way or the other how Bernie Sanders runs: “Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders is under intense pressure to run for president as a Democrat and not as a “spoiler” independent who could undercut support for the eventual nominee, according to several progressives.” …because either way it all ends in recriminations and tears for the progressive Left. If Bernie Sanders runs as a Democrat, he will be destroyed in the primary election by the Democratic establishment; and if he runs as an independent, he will be destroyed in the general election by the Democratic establishment.  The Democratic party’s path to victory is sufficiently narrow* that they cannot afford even a traditional Nader-level of ineffectual third-party shenanigans; Bernie Sanders is a luxury that the Left should not indulge in… and yet, they will. (more…)

Jan
13
2015
35

The demographic shriveling of the Democratic party continues.

Oh, dear. It’s worse for the Democratic party than I thought.

The GOP dominance in these predominantly white working-class districts underscores the structural challenge facing Democrats: While the party has repeatedly captured the White House despite big deficits among the working-class white voters who once anchored its electoral coalition, these results show how difficult it will be to recapture the House without improving on that performance. “The question is: Are we at rock bottom here?” says Tom Bonier, CEO of the Democratic voter targeting firm TargetSmart Communications.

These trends present Republicans with a mirror-image challenge. The vast majority of their House members can thrive without devising an agenda on issues—such as immigration reform—that attract the minority voters whose growing numbers nationally have helped Democrats win the popular vote in five of the past six presidential elections.

Note the weasel phrase in the last sentence, there: now that ‘Republicans can’t defeat incumbent Democratic Senators’ has joined ‘Democrats always win special elections’ in the great heap of Rules Of Thumb Past Their Sell-By Date you can expect to hear that particular factoid. Because Democrats won the popular vote in five of the last eight Presidential elections. And five of the last nine. Six of the last ten. Six of the last twelve. Eight of the last fourteen. Eight of the last sixteen. And that gets us to the end of the Truman administration. Put another way: hey, here’s a news flash! The Democrats and Republicans have been trading the White House every eight years or so since my mother was a child. Expect that to happen in 2016, too. (more…)

Jan
06
2015
6

The 2016 Senate Retirement Watch may now officially begin!

Generally speaking, it is considered polite to at least wait until the new Congress begins before one starts to speculate on who will be leaving it soon. It should be extra-exciting this year because there’s at least two Republican Senators (Paul and Rubio) who are eyeing the brassiest of brass rings – the Presidency – and both of them are up for re-election next year. Heck, both of them are freshmen. Two Democratic Senators are also contemplating their Presidential chances, too – Warren and Sanders – but I don’t think that either of them will quit the Senate in order to run, which is frankly sensible of them.

Should be fun! No, really. I love retirements. It messes up everybody else’s careful calculations, at least briefly. I feel that this is generally a good thing for people; teaches them that the whole thing can’t be turned into a spreadsheet.

Jan
04
2015
6

Why 54 REALLY > 53 or 52, when it comes to Senate math.

And this is why you always try to grab as many seats as you can in an election, period: “Democrats are looking to reclaim their Senate majority in two years, but after losing nine Senate seats in 2014, their path back to that majority won’t be easy.”  Because it took us picking up nine Senate seats to get an article like that in the Atlantic. If we had ended at fifty-two or even fifty-three, the tone would have been much different. (more…)

Written by in: Politics | Tags: ,
Jan
02
2015
1

The staffing positioning for 2016 continues.

So, about two months ago there was an email oppo drop on Robby Mook, who is/was presumed to be high up in Hillary Clinton’s eventual Presidential campaign. My (unpublished) take on that email oppo drop, at the time: Dear sweet God, but the Democrats really had no idea that they were about to get Smote, did they?

Mook continued: “This has been a tough cycle — midterms always are — but what’s been so amazing to me is how from the Senate to the House to Governor’s races and beyond, we’ve been keeping the other side on defense. So many of you have played leadershp [sic] roles building field programs, managing campaigns, or running programs from allied groups. It’s been incredibly insipiring [sic] to see.”

…That was written the day of an election where, in point of fact, the Democrats ended up not keeping the other side on defense.  Anywhere.

Now, I could never get that post to gel, for some reason: and that’s perhaps, like Maggie Haberman, I thought that it looked weird that people would drop stuff on Mook in the first place. Upon reflection, maybe it was just concern? After all, as Jammie Wearing Fools notes here there is a remarkable whiff of insecurity and general juvenile behavior going on: JFW calls them ‘snot-nosed twits’ and ‘foul-mouthed punks,’ which is both unkind and generally true.  (more…)

Dec
30
2014
1

Scenes from the 2016 Democratic Shadow Gutter War: Clinton v. Webb.

Via Hot Air comes a whisper of the back-alley brawls that are even now starting to formover the 2016 election, out there where nothing is really too low a blow and everything can be denied later:

While they aren’t acknowledging [Jim] Webb publicly, [Hillary] Clinton loyalists are keeping an eye on him privately. The week before Thanksgiving, staffers of Philippe Reines, Clinton’s longtime communications guru, pitched talk radio producers on the racy, sexually charged writings in Webb’s novels, according to a source. Webb was forced to fend off a similar attack in 2006, when Allen accused him of “demeaning women.”

Webb also has previously apologized for writing that a Naval Academy dorm was a “horny woman’s dream” in a 1979 Washingtonian magazine piece titled “Jim Webb: Women Can’t Fight.” The piece’s central argument was against allowing women to take combat positions in the military. If Webb were to ever attain traction, Clinton’s allies would certainly lob the rhetoric back at him.

(more…)

Dec
18
2014
4

Barack Obama not yet understanding that he needs to be irrelevant to 2016.

Well, I don’t need him to be irrelevant.  But you know what I mean.

This should be fascinating to watch: “In recent weeks, Democratic operatives have begun to voice concerns that the 2014 midterms made plain the limits of an approach that failed to reach beyond minority groups or those who are reflexively liberal. And yet what should come next is not yet totally clear.” Largely because it’s essentially futile.  The Democrats will not have control over their message in 2016, because in our system a sitting President has tremendous power to define for the public what his political faction does or does not care about.

And the bear is loose:

[Barack] Obama feels liberated, aides say, and sees the recent flurry of aggressive executive action and deal-making as a pivot for him to spend the last two years being more of the president he always wanted to be.

I don’t often feel sympathy for my opposite numbers – and, in fact, in this case I still don’t.  But if I were to feel sympathy, it’d be in the way that they’re going to have to spend the next two years going Never mind Barack Obama without actually looking like they’re going Never mind Barack Obama.  Because while Barack Obama’s popularity generally is in the toilet*, it’s noticeably better among Democratic primary voters. Which means that the Democrats can’t actually tell Barack Obama to sit down and shaddap.

In case you’re wondering: yes, normally second-term Presidents don’t need to be told this.  Generally speaking the sitting President gets out of the way as gracefully as possible so that the eventual nominee from their party can get on with the remarkably difficult task of winning three elections in a row.  Fortunately (for my side), nobody bothered to tell Barack Obama that. Or maybe he doesn’t care.  Or – and this would be the best answer – the man still hasn’t come to terms with the limits to his competence, and Obama thinks that he can (chuckle, snort!) help

Moe Lane (crosspost)

PS: If Barack Obama thinks that what was going this session was ‘deal-making’ (instead of, say, ‘trying to work around an over-rated Harry Reid’), we will probably find next year to be quite amusing, in its way.

*I should note, by the way, that his reputation will recover, post-Presidency.  That’s what typically happens.  Don’t get bent out of shape over it, because doing so won’t affect the process and you’ll just be there in the dark chewing bitter bones, as the Elves might say.

Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by TheBuckmaker.com