WSJ: Hillary Clinton suddenly planning to start campaigning in April.

How interesting: “Hillary Clinton and her close advisers are telling Democratic donors that she will enter the presidential race sooner than expected, likely in April, a move that would allay uncertainties within her party and allow her to rev up fundraising.”  Not least because such a move implies that there were unexpected and unanticipated problems along those lines.  Which probably everyone reading this could have told the Clinton campaign ahead of time, assuming that the Clinton campaign had had the mother-wit to ask anyone for real feedback.

The rest of the WSJ article is probably going to be filled with things that you already know, but this passage is still of note: “Mrs. Clinton, according to some close associates, doesn’t relish the campaign trail…” Really? Really? I find that a little hard to believe; because the only way that a candidate can overcome a visceral dislike of campaigning is to be so good at it that it doesn’t matter.  And Hillary Clinton, is, sad to say, not a very good campaigner.

Oh, the fun we will have. Yeah, I know that I said that in 2008 and 2012, too.  I also said it in 2004, and the only reason I didn’t say it in 2000 was because I was a lot less political back then.  That’s the thing about eight year cycles: they, well, cycle.


It’s gonna be a runoff in the Chicago Mayor’s election.

And if Rahm Emanuel’s 45.56% percentage holds up, it’s gonna be a gutter war.  Admittedly, it’s gonna be a gutter war between two Democrats, but that just makes it more fun. In those cases you can just throw the verbal grenades into the room and not worry about who you hit.

Seriously, I was expecting a 48% vote share for ol’ Rahmbo.  Admittedly, that was a gut call; equally admittedly, my gut can’t call Chicago elections.  Go figure…


:raised eyebrow: Of course Hillary Clinton is the inevitable *Democratic* nominee.

I can sum up this NYT article on the subject in one sentence: Nobody credible has signed up to run against Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary, and it’s getting to be too late for anybody to try.  That first part is particularly problematic for Democrats because they don’t have anybody really credible to run against her, either.  The crop of governors and senior Senators that might have hoped to run have retired, died, or been defeated in re-election bids; a couple are even sweating looming indictments. It is a measure of how poor the field is that Martin O’Malley almost shines in it; I assume that he’ll end up being the designated primary sacrifice, largely because the man is… remarkably optimistic and impressed with his own talents.

All of which means that the presumptive candidate on the Democratic side will probably be spending as much of the next year as possible hiding. She will have absolutely no practical reason to get out more, and Hillary Clinton doesn’t particularly like people much, so why complicate matters by displaying her personality to a wider world. …Yeah, it’s an exquisitely boring strategy that she’s come up with.  Your point?


Ready for Hillary… actually, could you come back in a few months?

Turns out that the inevitability train hasn’t actually left the station yet: “The main super PAC supporting Hillary Clinton is struggling in its early efforts to line up cash towards a fundraising goal of as much as $500 million, according to sources with knowledge of its fundraising.” The PAC in question is Priorities USA, and it’s apparently still trying to figure out what it name actually means; the Politico article notes that there’s a lot of disputation going on over strategy and goals.  There’s probably also a good deal of internal speculation on whether David Brock’s abrupt resignation from the group yesterday was due to… well, it would be impolite for me to suggest that it was paranoia, so I shan’t.

Come, I will conceal nothing from you: Hillary Clinton will eventually raise enough money to allow her to run for President.  The donors dragging their heels now will eventually pony up for her, if she becomes the nominee.  And the Left will dutifully declare that they are, indeed, ready for Hillary.  But they’re not very happy about it, are they? In fact, they sound a lot like we did in 2008 and 2012: all rah-rah in public (albeit without too much affect) and kind of resigned about it all in private*. Like… MoveOn (and savor THAT irony for a moment), they’re actually kind of ready for somebody else.  Except that there’s nobody else. (more…)


Tweet of the Day, Bernie Sanders Should Still ‘Run’ edition.

But I’m not going to try to beat Dan’s snark, though.

I mean: it CAN be done, but you have to work at it.


Democratic Election season in Iowa off to a slow start.

At least, that’s the impression that I’m getting here. Admittedly, back in 2007 the fun didn’t really start until the second half of the year, but the general take from that piece seems to be …Ehh. Hillary will show up, and we’ll go rah-rah, and then she’ll win and that’ll be that. It’s not that they’re jumping up and down for her; it’s that nobody apparently really expects that Hillary Clinton will be seriously challenged in Iowa this go-round, so she might as well take it slow. (more…)


The Democrats’ surprisingly complicated 2016 Senate problem.

Interesting list of potential Democratic retirements from the Hill, here:

  • Barbara Boxer, 74
  • Joe Manchin, 67
  • Patrick Leahy, 74
  • Barbara Mikulski, 78
  • Harry Reid, 74

Manchin’s on the list because he’s doing all the things that Senators who are planning to run for Governor do: to wit, talking about how much he hates Washington DC, and letting the state party apparatus dip their beaks into his fundraising war chest.  Boxer is… tired, I think.  Also, not raising money. Of the other three: Leahy is actually younger than I thought he was; he’s probably staying.  Reid has two years of pain ahead of him.  Mikulski… Barbara Mikulski would be 80 in 2016.  That’s old for a reelection campaign. (more…)


The Left did absolutely nothing to stop Scott Walker’s re-election. They didn’t even slow him down.

Throne. Of. Skulls.

Permit me this little amusement.  All bolding mine.

  • The Daily Beast, August 25, 2014 (“The Tea Party Governor Backlash of 2014″): “Wisconsin’s Scott Waker is frequently talked up by RNC types as a leading 2016 contender, but he’s fighting for his political life at home, beset by a tsunami of scandals and running neck and neck with Mary Burke. Walker’s most-favored Midwestern governor status in D.C. is in trouble despite a misguided arrogance born of his surviving a recall attempt. His efforts to rein in the public sector unions have been successful, but his style and tone—and did I mention scandals—could make him an unexpected loser on Election Night.”
  • NPR, October 28, 2014 (“In Wisconsin Election, Gov. Scott Walker Fights To Hold On”): “[Craig] GILBERT: Well, you know, one thing that we’ve seen in all the public polling is that, as divided as the state was in the middle of that kind of raucous recall fight, it’s even more divided now. It has not got – there hasn’t been a lot of healing in Wisconsin. And Governor Walker hasn’t really added to his coalition, politically, since those elections. And if you think about 2010 being a really conservative wave election, and you think about 2012 – winning a recall where some voters, you know, had reservations about Governor Walker but didn’t like the recall process – you can sort of see how this election really ought to be closer than those two elections and is.”
  • Politico, October 29, 2014 (“Scott Walker limps toward 2016″): “The politician who confidently lectured Mitt Romney in 2012 (“He has to say that I’m a reformer like Scott Walker,” Walker told The Weekly Standard) has tumbled into yet another fight for his political life. Far from a conservative Clark Kent, Walker is visibly straining in the closing days of his race against Mary Burke, a wealthy former Trek Bicycle executive and member of the Madison School Board.”
  • The New Republic,  October 28, 2014 (“Scott Walker Is Scared He Might Lose—and He’s Already Blaming His Fellow Republicans”): “The polls are generally not trending well for Democrats in the final days before the 2014 midterms, but it’s increasingly looking not inconceivable that the party’s loss of the Senate could be accompanied by a loss for one of the party’s biggest bête noires: Wisconsin governor Scott Walker. If polls showing him effectively tied with former Trek Bicycle executive Mary Burke weren’t enough, Walker has been giving off the distinct vibe of a man in a bit of a panic.”
  • Salon, October 30, 2014: (“5 Tea Partyers who could lose reelection next week”) “Walker was never going to glide to reelection in a state that in 2012 elected progressive Democrat Tammy Baldwin, the nation’s first openly gay U.S. senator.”
  • Slate, November 3, 2014 (“The Most Important Race in America”): “On a portable stage in the parking lot of a strip mall in front of the Eau Claire GOP field office, sandwiched between a Curves and an Office Products Co. store, Gov. Scott Walker is keeping his chin up. After the beating he’s taken, that’s no small feat. Walker, Wisconsin’s incumbent Republican governor, is in a tough statewide contest for the third time in four years, and this one is much closer than it was supposed to be.”
  • ThinkProgress, November 4, 2014 (“A Pro-Environment Candidate Could Kick Scott Walker Out Of Office Tonight”): “With the final polls showing an extremely close race between incumbent Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker (R) and challenger Mary Burke (D), an influx of last-minute donations and high-profile supporters indicate the importance of the race on a national scale.”
  • Wonkette, October 25, 2014* (“Scott Walker Gets Some Chris Christie All Over Him, On Purpose”): “With a little over a week to go before Election Day, Scott Walker is increasingly a man in need of a helping hand.”



Two weeks in, and things are not going according to the Democrats’ plan.

Some interesting articles out there on Obama, and his influence on various demographics.

Like, say, women:

Female voters powered President Barack Obama’s victory over Mitt Romney in 2012, as Democrats leaned heavily on social issues to rally single women and suburban moms to the polls.

But with two weeks until Election Day, the president’s diminished standing with women is quickly becoming one of the biggest liabilities facing Democrats as they struggle to hang onto the Senate majority.



House Democratic campaign operatives feel abandoned by their party right now.

Apparently, the Democratic Establishment has made a DOOM call for the House:

House Democratic strategists are frustrated that key outside groups are putting their money into the fight for the Senate, leaving House campaigns starved for cash.

Spending on House races by organized labor as well as groups representing women and environmental organizations dropped by $18 million compared to the last cycle, the groups said.

Democrats are worried their lost seats in the House could be in the double digits, making it that much harder to take back the chamber in 2016, a presidential election year when the party hopes turnout will be better.



Quote of the Day, ‘Election 2014: Suck It Up And Walk It Off’ edition.

Frank J is in rare form here:

…back in 2008, Barack Obama was elected president with a Democrat-controlled House and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Many of us correctly knew this was like having a toddler armed with power tools. Others, though, didn’t see the danger and cooed, “Oh, look at that little guy. He’s so industrious! He’s going to get a lot done,” while the rest of us were freaking out, worried about him getting near anything valuable. And before we could yell, “No, little Barry, no!” he went right after health care with his drill, and it’s basically all ruined now.

So in 2010 we voted to take away his power tools by turning the House over to the Republicans. Obama was still a destructive little tyke who just refused to listen, but at least now it was a bit harder for him to burn the whole house down or something. In 2012, we — well, I don’t know how to stretch the analogy — had the option to exchange little Barry at the kid-trade-in emporium and get a better kid who might not be as dumb and destructive. I guess we had grown fond of the little dummy, though, and thought maybe he was finally learning. We were just being sentimental, of course. We really should have done the smart thing and sold the kid to gypsies.


Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by