It's Almost Show-Time- An Intro to Hillarynomics

In 2008, I told people that I felt Hillary Clinton was a solid progressive. Some of those who opposed her campaign scoffed at that and said she everything from a "moderate" to "Republican-lite." Anyone who read through the domestic policies of Hillary and President Obama would have actually come to my conclusion, but most didn't. Bygones are bygones though, and President Obama is finishing two successful terms in office and leaving in two years. Secretary Clinton is likely to run for President. So, let's try this again.

On Friday, the Center for American Progress released a white paper on economic solutions for America and the United Kingdom (who happens to have an election coming up in May). Her policy director for her last run, Neera Tanden is the President over there, and Larry Summers (of the last two Democratic Administrations) was one of the writers. Ed Balls, Labour's Chancellor of the Exchequer if they win, was also involved. In other words, this paper matters. Anything from CAP matters, particularly with John Podesta having founded the organization, and now moving into a role as "liaison" from the Clinton-campaign in waiting to the White House. It was titled the "Report on the Commission on Inclusive Prosperity." Matthew Yglesias of Vox sums it up:

In some ways, it defies stereotypes of the Clintons as standard-bearers for neoliberal centrism by endorsing fiscal stimulus and a strong pro-labor union agenda while downplaying the strong education-reform streak of the Obama administration. But it's also notable for the Obama-era liberal ambitions it pushes aside. In the main recommendations for the United States, there's no cap-and-trade or carbon tax in here, no public option for health care, and no effort to break up or shrink the largest banks. Nor is there an ambitious agenda to tackle poverty.

Instead, you get a multi-pronged push to boost middle-class incomes. After an extended period in which Democratic Party politics has been dominated by health care for the poor, environmental regulation, and internecine fights about Wall Street, Hillarynomics looks like back-to-basics middle-class populism. It should in many ways further infuriate Clinton's left-wing intellectual critics — and then further infuriate them by turning out to be an agenda that makes the party's voting base perfectly happy.

So that might seem complicated in that it says on the one hand that we need serious fiscal stimulus and a stronger labor movement, but it's not in line with some of this White House's agenda. So, is this a progressive plan. In short, yes. Yglesias makes it more clear with some more details:

The list of proposed solutions for the US is long, ranging from more infrastructure spending (with new measures to improve project management on federal infrastructure deals), more preschool, closing corporate tax and inheritance tax loopholes, curbing the deductibility of executive pay, a tax cut for middle class workers, more FHA subsidies for riskier loans, and a reiteration of the merits of comprehensive immigration reform.

But the report is especially striking for its endorsement of labor market regulations not normally associated with the Summers wing of Democratic thinking. As David Leonhardt put it, "one theme is that the countries where the middle class has fared better are countries where workers have more power." The document endorses a variety of regulatory changes that would make union organizing easier, and calls for the creation of German-style works councils outside the context of traditional union organizing. It also endorses more favorable tax treatment for worker-owned firms, and proposing "estate tax relief" for corporate founders who convert their companies to worker-owned enterprises when they retire or die.

On the non-wage front, inclusive growth calls for paid (gender-neutral) parental leave, expanded Family and Medical Leave Act eligibility, and universal paid sick days and paid vacation days — all loosely under the banner of increasing women's labor force participation. Clinton has, in the past, field-tested feminist frames as a means of selling big government.

The chief criticism of this plan will be that it is less inclined to focus on poverty, and more inclined to focus on middle-class stagnation. One could pretty plainly argue that the focus is correct, and middle-class, consuming-class, stagnation is killing our economy. One could also say that after an era where Democrats did focus on these issues, the next Democratic President must simply defend the gains we received in this era. Either way, it's worth noting that CAP's agenda is very, very heavy on pro-worker reforms. It's not a "business friendly" plan, even if it is a clear deviation from Elizabeth Warren-economics.

It must be noted here that this is not a white-paper from the Clinton campaign, which doesn't even exist yet. It's not a statement by the candidate (or her husband), and it's not legislation that could be passed as is, either. It's just a clue. A clue that came on the weekend before the State of the Union, the point in 2015 at which it now becomes viable for Clinton to begin a campaign, when she chooses. At some point in the next two months or so, we will probably get word that Hillary Clinton is becoming a candidate for 2016. This paper just gives us something to chew on and process while waiting.

Read More

People Would Much Rather Romney Run Than Christie...

All the press wants to talk about are the doubts about Mitt Romney from Washington Republicans. They act like Christie could run though. He's toast:

A new CBS poll shows 29% of Republicans would like to see Christie run for the Republican nomination for president. But 44% say no. Only former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s numbers are more underwater: 30% of Republicans say they’d like to see her run, but 59% disagree.

In contrast, 59% of Republicans would like to see Mitt Romney jump into the 2016 race, while 26% believe he should stay out.

That's not an electable number. When 15% more of your own party would like to see you sit it out, you can't win. Less people want him to run than Palin. Just consider that. 

Read More

No, Ben, It's You....

No personal responsibility for that Ben Carson....

“Carson says all these crazy things," Carson said at the Republican National Committee winter meeting, mocking the "craziness narrative" about him in the mainstream media. "Every time a liberal press does something about me they say, 'Oh you know, he’s the one that said Obamacare is worse than slavery.' First of all I never said that. I said it’s the worst thing since slavery.”

Yeah.... that's a lot better.... a lot less crazy.... clearly. 

Read More

Ben Carson and Those Patriotic ISIS Fighters

Yes, for real, he said this:

In a speech to the Republican National Committee's winter meeting outside San Diego, the former neurosurgeon and conservative favorite praised American patriots for their willingness to give their lives for their beliefs. Then he mentioned the Islamic State group.

"They got the wrong philosophy, but they're willing to die for what they believe, while we are busily giving away every belief and every value for the sake of political correctness," he said as Republican officials from across the country interrupted him with applause. "We have to change that."

Commonly known as ISIS, the Islamic State group has been responsible for hundreds of deaths across the Middle East in recent months. Islamic State militants claimed responsibility for recent beheadings of Western journalists and aid workers. One of the suspects in the recent Paris terror attacks claimed allegiance to the Islamic State group.

Yeah! We should all be willing to kill over our disagreements and differences, Dr. Ben! ........ Oh..... wait..... no.

This guy is an absolute imbecile. Yes, he was a brilliant surgeon, but the man is either socially ignorant, crazy, or just in over his head. Just because I won some campaigns doesn't mean I'd go become a doctor. Perhaps the doctor should leave politics to people with mature, adult thoughts on the issues, and not try to incite lunatics. If he honestly sees something redeemable in ISIS, he only proves every critic's point.

Read More

Chuck Todd is a Zero

I don't watch "Meet the Press" because it's mind-numbingly stupid. Sometimes though, the stupidity on there reaches those of us who don't watch it. Chuck Todd had one of those moments last weekend, when Arsalan Iftikhar schooled him:

Chuck Todd used a Wall Street Journal op-ed by ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali to launch an indirect attack on Muslims albeit with much civility. She wrote the following:

If we take the position that we are dealing with a handful of murderous thugs with no connection to what they so vocally claim, then we are not answering them. We have to acknowledge that today’s Islamists are driven by a political ideology, an ideology embedded in the foundational texts of Islam. We can no longer pretend that it is possible to divorce actions from the ideals that inspire them.

Chuck Todd asked Arsalan Iftikhar to comment about Ali's oped based on the loaded snippet above. Arsalan Iftikhar was ready for that type of question. After all, the media is infected with those that have picked up the mantra of the right wing to continue an effective demonizing of Muslims.

"I would say that she is being too reductive in her reasoning," Iftikhar said. "And I think that it is important to keep in mind that when you are dealing with the second-largest religion in the entire world of 1.7 billion people, you know there is no minority demographic group today in Western societies that is placed with more collective guilt than Muslims. And I think that it is important that we do not have this double standard in terms of calling out terrorism. I think terrorism today has been co-opted to only apply when brown Muslim men commit acts of mass murder and when white Christian people like Anders Breivik in Norway kill 77 teenagers and try to bomb the prime minister of Norway's office, we didn't ask Norway's Christian leaders to come out on national TV and condemn. So I think it is a little reductive in her conflation."

I'd love to say that's the dumbest thing that Todd said lately. It's not. He went on to say stupid things about Hillary Clinton:

CHUCK TODD, MSNBC: A lot of Republicans obviously believe 2016 is going to be the best chance at the presidency in a long time, or they wouldn't be clamoring to get in.

One of the things we don't talk about this, boy this means a lot of Republicans look at Hillary Clinton and are not intimidated. This means a lot of Republicans look at Hillary Clinton and are not intimidated. I’m sorry, nobody a month ago thought Bush, Romney, and Christie could all be running in this race. The assumption was they would sort each other out. They're not, so I think they all see it as. There's not 2020, there's no waiting...

That's a cute theory, but last I looked, the stage was filled with Republicans in 2008 and 2012. It was filled in 1996 too. There wasn't a lack of Democrats in 2004, or even 1984 and 1992. I suppose no one was intimidated by Presidents Obama, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, and Bush. They were all "not intimidating." I mean, who even comes up with these stupid ideas like him? Is it him, an intern, a writer? I'm curious. There are always people willing to run for President, every four years. The stage is only ever empty in re-election years, and even then not always. Chuck Todd probably heard this from some Republican staffer and repeated it on Morning Joe.

Chuck Todd seemed like a smart enough guy when I watched him cover the 2008 election. He understood demographics, geography, and basic politics. Either we say his ceiling then, or he got lazy. Either way, the guy is a zero now. 

Read More

LOLGOP!

I love when the other side wastes lots of money:

Said Priebus: “Listen, we’re writing a Hillary Clinton book now, we have a research team that’s in Little Rock, so we’re not going to be shy about it… We’re going to be active. We’re going to get whatever we have to to share with the American people the truth about Hillary and Bill Clinton.”

LOLOLOL! Hillary Clinton's name recognition is what, 95%? Maybe 97%? She's been a public figure since the 1970s. She was First Lady of both Arkansas and the United States, and was elected to the United States Senate 15 years ago now (16 by the time we get to 2016). She went through the Process of running for President eight years ago now, and through the process of being appointed Secretary of State seven years ago. She's the most vetted and researched person in America. You're not going to find anything new in Little Rock. Or probably anywhere, really.

Go write your new books though RNC. And please, tell America the truth about Hillary Clinton.... there's a reason you're losing to her now, after years of trying.

Read More

Non-Contender Rand Paul Incorrectly Insults the Disabled

Rand Paul's excuse for Congressional Republicans setting up a man-made-crisis for Social Security Disability:

Paul made headlines for his paper-thin, generalized headlines Wednesday while speaking in New Hampshire. Essentially, he claimed a large number of people, approximately half on disability, are simply scamming the system. He stated when answering questions in Manchester from Republican legislators:

“Everybody in this room knows somebody who is gaming the system. What I tell people is if you look like me and you hop out of your truck, you shouldn’t be getting a disability check. Either half the people on disability are either anxious or their back hurts. Join the club, you know?”

No. Don't join the club. I'm not sure what club Mr. Paul is talking about. In his reality, there is massive fraud in the Social Security program. In actual reality, there's not.  

Read More

Rand Paul is an Annoying Media Obsession

Rand Paul is not going to be President. He's not even going to be Republican Nominee. If he's not careful trying to skirt Kentucky law, he might even lose his Senate seat over his Presidential ambitions. While he and his father have generated headlines and campaign donations at an impressive rate, there's really no reason to believe he's going to have any more success than his father's two previous campaigns had.

For this reason, I'm kind of sick of Washington media types and cable news fawning over this do-nothing Senator from Kentucky and his quixotic campaign for President. He does not have a chance. The stories are annoying. I'll explain why.

Rand Paul does not lead a single poll a year out, which hardly disqualifies him, but certainly doesn't justify the media's coverage of him in the same way it's covering Romney, Bush, or even candidates with some past record of success, like Huckabee. More important than the polls at this point though is the money race, and the money race is no kinder to Rand. As Bush, Romney, and even Christie lock up the money types, Paul is going to be left well behind on Wall Street, which doesn't like risky, new-idea types like him. He's going to be smoked in oil-rich Texas, where Bush, Perry, and Cruz all should use their ties to dominate. Then there's California, where he may find some libertarian money, but he'll still lose the rich, business-man race there too. He's not going to do great with the pro-Israel Republicans while talking up isolation, and the defense contractors will want nothing to do with him. Paul will have to run entirely on grassroots money, like his father, who lost despite doing okay at this. Paul starts out both behind and probably lacking the resources the big-boys have.

So what about his message? Well, as I said above, he's not going to appeal to the war-hawks or Wall Street, two key groups in the GOP. Some of the positions that make him interesting to the press, on incarceration for instance, have no real constituency. While some think his new-age thinking will appeal to a younger generation and pull them out, I'll bet you a steak now that this won't happen. Young, future conservatives generally don't care until they start paying taxes. The Republican Primary will still be a lot of old, white people. Especially in the Iowa Caucus, and the South Carolina Primary. Can he try to appeal in New Hampshire? Sure, but Romney is strong. Can he try to appeal in Nevada? Sure, but good luck getting by Romney and Bush there too.

Let's say for a second that Paul somehow wins New Hampshire, or some other early contest, gets into the more nationalized stage of the primaries, and overcomes his problems with the party on a few social issues and national security. Let's even say that he somehow wins the nomination. Fair enough. This man said the Civil Rights Act should not apply to private businesses. So, the Democrat should do similarly well with African-Americans as President Obama, despite his best efforts on incarceration. He's voted to block immigration reforms in the Senate. So, the Democrat should do similarly well with Latinos as President Obama. Is he going to run as a full-fledged supporter of Marriage Equality to narrow the gap with LGBT Americans? Asian-Americans like immigration reform too, and he still voted to block it. Perhaps you believe he can cut into younger Americans right now because he's "hip," but he's out of step with their stated positions in poll after poll, and the one or two wedge issues he has will simply narrow the gap. I fail to see how he flips 64 electoral votes that Romney lost.

Ron Paul lost badly for President. Rand Paul is going to lose badly too. I get that he's an attractive guy who will give interviews, that he's unafraid to speak to groups and crowds who don't support him. That's nice. Exactly the policies and persona he seeks to put forward that interest the press and liberals are the reasons he won't even sniff the GOP nomination, and even so they are a fairy-tale that would be exposed in the Fall election as a fraud. In short, stop wasting our time talking about this lunatic, media types, and cover the actual race.

Read More

Don't Read Too Far Into Early Polls

So then, there's this:

A new Gravis Marketing poll in Iowa finds Mitt Romney leads Republican presidential field with 21%, followed by Jeb Bush at 14%, Scott Walker at 10%, Mike Huckabee at 9%, Rand Paul at 8% and Ted Cruz at 7%.

Twice now, Mitt Romney has finished second in Iowa, once to a guy they have at 9%, and once to a guy who's not in the poll. The first time wasn't so close, the second time was razor thin. Now we should believe he's got a healthy lead about twelve months out in a state he tried not to contest in 2012, as the front-runner.

Spare me the cliches, but things will change a lot in twelve months. What I think is substantial here is 45% of the vote goes to "establishment" figures, while 24% goes to the loons. Obviously, no Christie, no Perry, and no Santorum means take it with a grain of salt, but that's probably solid if you're a Republican.

It's also solid if you're a Democrat too. If you believe the next nominee will be Hillary Clinton, having her run against an establishment figure might seem worse than getting to run against a nut-job, but it also means a campaign mostly fought between the 40 yard lines. The reality is, Hillary is viewed as competent, she wins on the issues, and she's actually more interesting than Romney/Bush/Walker. At this point in time in fact, I still don't see a candidate currently up to beating her. 

Read More

Take Christie Seriously?

Well, not so fast on dismissing Christie.

The New York Observer has learned that Chris Christie for President has landed a highly coveted name to be its finance chairman for a 2016 campaign that is quickly taking shape. As soon as the end of this week, Mr. Christie will announce that Dallas investor Ray Washburne will be its new finance chair, tasked with raising the $80-100 million it is expected to cost to win the GOP nomination.

Mr. Washburne most recently served as the Republican National Committee finance chairman, taking the reins after the party’s failure to win the White House in 2012.

Reached on Monday afternoon, Mr. Washburne would not directly confirm the appointment but did tell the Observer, “I’m finance chairman of the RNC and we have our annual meeting this week in San Diego and I’m not standing for re-election. All I’ll say is I’m going to be very involved in 2016, but stepping down should be very indicative of what I’m thinking about. I wouldn’t say you’re reporting anything incorrect. But Chris hasn’t announced anything yet and he’s going to one last governor’s inauguration in Maryland, but I don’t want to say anything more than that.”

Well, that is big. It's just one bundler though. Let's see where things go in the weeks ahead. It's the first thing that makes me think Christie will actually run. 

Read More

Why Mitt Romney Matters

The good old days in the GOP?

Well, Mitt Romney is probably running for President, while his running-mate is not. This isn't completely shocking, as we had heard rumors of a possible return to the trail for Romney for a few weeks now. This is his third run for the White House, the first ending after two second place finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire in 2008, and a general election loss in 2012.

This sets up a showdown with Jeb Bush, the brother of the last Republican President, for control of the "establishment" wing of the party. Bush can probably shut other "establishment" figures like Chris Christie's fundraising down, but in the case of Romney, that's much harder. Romney has deep ties now to a national donors list that have been with him through two elections. Romney also has deep pockets and hundreds of millions of his own dollars. In other words, he's the one guy Bush can't muscle.

Romney received 206 electoral votes, just 64 short of the White House in our last election. He's now vowing to take on Jeb Bush from his right in the 2016 election. He is a viable national figure who has the personal finances to run a serious race. His entrance slows down the narrative of Bush being coronated, and it puts all the issues and narratives from 2012 on the table. In short, the GOP is going to have to confront not only the demons of their last President, but also of their last nominee. That's gotta be a bit uncomfortable for Republicans.

Read More

Paul Ryan Decided to Run for Speaker, Not President

So Paul Ryan is not running for President. At least he says no. The 2012 Vice-Presidential nominee is not going to enter the 2016 field that is already getting very crowded. He's going to stay in the House, where he is now the Ways and Means Committee Chairman. It's possibly the second best job in the House, and he now has it for the next two years.

As great as that job is, I don't think the 44 year old passed on a run for President to stay on as Chairman. I think he has bigger game in his sights- namely, the Speakership of the House. John Boehner, the current Speaker, is in his third term as Speaker, which might be the end for him. He's 65 now, and would be 67 in the next term, and has taken a real beating on the job. If he steps down, there is not a clear successor. Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy came on in 2014 to take over that job along with Majority Whip Steve Scalise. McCarthy is not viewed as "conservative" enough for the base in the House, and Scalise is taking heavy damage for association with groups connected to Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. If neither is an ideal pick to succeed Boehner, Ryan is. He's respected and liked by conservatives, and he's politically very savvy. He may make more sense.

I believe that is Ryan's calculus. Paul Ryan will be just 46 when the next Congress convenes. He can be Speaker, and be done being Speaker, before 55 years old. If he wants to be President, he will have further opportunities in the future. He decided to play for a better opportunity right now.

Read More

Today's Comedy

LMFAO!

Insiders say Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) wants to become president, the Miami Herald reports.

“It’s anyone’s guess how a politician with such low favorability ratings who has never captured 50 percent of the vote in Florida can win nationwide (or in Florida in a presidential election year, when the electorate is more liberal-leaning).”

No further commentary needed. 

Read More

About Those Aspirations, Cowboy....

So if you're Jeb Bush, and you hear about Mitt Romney talking to a bunch of donors, and Chris Christie talking to these guys, who do you fear more today?

Christie met with federal prosecutors and FBI agents last month during a secret session at theNew Jersey governor’s mansion in Princeton. He agreed to sit down with investigators voluntarily after they offered him a chance to provide his side of the story. Interviewing Christie was one of the final steps in the investigation, which appears to be wrapping up, according to those briefed on it.

If Governor Christie avoids indictment in the "Bridgegate" scandal, he won't do so by much. Others are almost certainly going down, as it is clear that U.S. Attorney Paul Fishman is tightening his grip over Christie-land, and taking his predecessor down a road he didn't want to go down.

Even if he survives legally, he's not surviving politically. All Cowboy jokes aside, where's he going to get his funding? Bush and Romney are going to cut him off on Wall Street, and Bush and Perry will cut him off in Texas, even if Jerry Jones does love him. He's going to lack money, and a political pathway forward, before the corruption in his administration bites him. He'd be best to skip 2016. 

Read More

Go For It, Mitt

Not what Jeb wants to hear:

Mitt Romney, who has been encouraged by his allies to consider another run for the White House, will meet with several of his former political advisers for a private dinner in California, the Washington Post reports.

Now I know what you're thinking- why the hell would Jeb care what the 2012 runner-up is doing. You're kinda right. Kinda. For all the talk about Romney's problems with conservatives, he ended up as the Republican nominee in 2012, right? The guy is at very least formidable, and could force Jeb to have to play all in for Iowa, since Romney would be very tough in New Hampshire.

Forget all of that though, Romney is the most dangerous candidate in the GOP for Jeb for other reasons. While Jeb can snuff out a Chris Christie run at the donor stage, or anyone else for that matter, Romney is someone he can't. For one, yes, Romney has a built-in cadre of donors who will stick with him now even against Jeb. Even if he didn't though, Romney is unique for other reasons too- Romney could go with no other donors at all. Romney could simply write himself a $100 million check to start, and run the primaries. Literally no one can stop him. If he wants the White House, he can run a well-financed campaign to try and do it.

Mitt Romney is the one Republican in the country who can go muscle for muscle with the Bush political machine. He might be the only person the party has who can. If he wants a legacy of being that guy, he can have it, even if he may not be able to win the White House. So I say go for it, if you want it, Mitt.

Read More

Commence Clown-Show: Welcome to the 2016 GOP Primary

While most of us were doing something fun for ourselves on Saturday evening, old, cranky, cynical Republicans were watching Mike Huckabee resign from Fox News to pursue a run for President in 2016. Yes, the 2008 Iowa Caucus winner joins an ever-growing field of lunatics, opportunists, re-runs, and other forms of non-desirable potential Presidents. He becomes the first of the 2008 re-treads, and joins a field with people like Ben Carson (The ACA is worse than 9/11), Rick Santorum (He slept with a dead fetus), and Jeb Bush (Sane, but probably ready to run an even more evil, incompetent White House than his brother).

The Republican Primary system is basically looking like tribal warfare, with different "brackets," if you will, emerging to separate the potential combatants. They are:

• The establishment money-men: This field absolutely includes Bush and probably Chris Christie. It's a strong possibility that Mitt Romney could grace this field again. John Kasich and Rob Portman of Ohio absolutely could grace this field, and Marco Rubio likes to think he does. Give the early edge here to Bush, however Romney doesn't have to necessarily "win" this field if he's willing to self-finance. 
• The Christian Conservative men: Huckabee will likely join 2012 re-tread Rick Santorum in a battle of "close but not quites" from times gone by. I would assume that Ted Cruz and Ben Carson will also seek out this mantle as well. Apparently this is also the way forward for Bobby Jindal too. Give the early edge to Huckabee, if this bracket matters at all, and if not, give it to Cruz.
• The Class of 2010/Teabilly men: Rand Paul certainly is the headliner of the 2010 Senators who grace us in this group, along with Marco Rubio. While Cruz is not technically a 2010er, and some in the next group are, Cruz is absolutely battling these two for prominence. Give the early edge to Cruz, I don't think Paul really has appeal beyond that of his father.
• The Governor Class: Scott Walker and Bobby Jindal come up first amongst DCers, but guys like Mike Pence have to come up here. Rick Perry should be discussed here, though I think he might fit in the next group just as well. Watch New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez as well. Christie will seek this mantle out too. Give the early edge to Christie and Walker.
• The Maverick/Cowboy/Non-Politician Crowd: Perry headlines this group to me, as well as Ben Carson. Carly Fiorina apparently wants to be in this crowd as well. While they won't run, you'd consider such clowns as Sarah Palin and Donald Trump here too. Perry has the early edge.

So basically i'm giving the early edges to Bush, Romney, Huckabee, Cruz, Christie, Walker, and Perry. I think these candidates will raise enough early money to survive the Summer, and get to the real portion of this election.

Read More

Thought of the Week- We Haven't Changed That Much Since 2000

One of the popular talking points since Jeb Bush got into the Presidential race (let's be honest, he's in) has been that he "can't win." The Republican base "hates dynasties," he's "too Wall Street," and people "remember his brother's Presidency." We've heard all of these before, with slight variations (it was dad, not brother then.), in 2000 when George W. Bush got into the race for President. On the back end of a Democratic Presidency, and with all of Bush's supposed pitfalls, he wasn't going to make it to the White House, because something was going to stop him. Something.

American politics has changed a bit in the last fifteen years, but the basic tenets are the same. In a Republican Primary, being able to lock down the big-business money is paramount, and the Bush family is good at it. Jeb Bush will secure some major donors, and unite the business Republican community with a mix of religious and military Republicans who want similar policy outcomes. He'll bring back some veterans of both his and his brother's victorious past campaigns, and put together a good staff. He'll run a strong campaign.

The other piece of this is that the further right-leaning elements of the Republican Party will not be able to unite quickly in the process behind another candidate. Some will want Rand Paul, others Ted Cruz, others yet Ben Carson. Jeb will be able to exploit that, provided he doesn't have a strong establishment opponent (which would have to be Romney or Christie, if they can do it). The same thing happened in 2000.

None of this is to say that Bush will win the Republican Nomination, let alone the White House. The internet nature of American politics now is different than his last run for office in 2002, or his brother's 2004 Presidential win. The Republican Party is more conservative than it was in 2000. His brother actually left office less popular than his dad did, which could be a real strain on his campaign.  His business wing funders are less in step with the party's voters (think immigration here) than they were in 2000 too. Even if he survives all of that, Hillary Clinton appears to be a stronger candidate than Al Gore was in 2000, and the left is much different than it was in 2000 too. Lots of things can derail Jeb.

Even so, don't tell me that Jeb Bush "can't" win in 2016. I obviously hope he doesn't, and I obviously wouldn't mind the GOP nominating someone crazier, but I'm not going to rule out something that fairly obviously could happen. There is a real possibility that there could be a third Bush Presidency. If that doesn't motivate you on the left, I don't know what does.

Read More

Why Jeb Bush is Thinking About Running for President

Let's say you were a Republican who wanted to be President. Let's say your brother was the last Republican President. Let's say he left unpopular, and made it impossible for you to run the last two times. So you had to sit, out of national politics for nearly ten years since you were last Governor of Florida. One day you wake up though, and your brother's successor is in his final two years, and the field is about to form for your party's nomination to replace him. That field looks like:

• A Texas Senator who the entire Senate GOP Caucus hates, who is an extremist, who caused a shutdown, and who probably can't win.
• A former Pennsylvania Senator who lost his re-election by twenty points and who once slept in his bed with a dead fetus.
• A neurosurgeon who compares health care plans for the uninsured to Nazi Germany.
• The last guy who lost for President in a general election, by millions of votes, a hundred plus electoral votes, and over 5%.
• A Tony Soprano-wannabe, bully of a Governor from New Jersey who the base absolutely hates, and who will probably see members of his administration indicted for closing the George Washington Bridge for politics.
• Donald Trump says he wants in.
• A Kentucky Senator who is a crazy right-wing libertarian who wants to "audit the Fed," and return to the gold standard, clinging to a base that got his father nowhere in his two presidential runs, and who scares the hell out of the right-wing on defense issues.
• The outgoing Texas Governor who made a fool of himself in the last primaries for President and who was once your brother's lieutenant governor.
• The guy who wanted to turn Medicare into vouchers, who lost the 2012 election as the Vice-Presidential nominee, and who wants to turn Medicaid into a voucher program.

You get the point, right?

So Jeb Bush is looking at this clown-show of a Presidential field, and saying to himself, I have to be able to beat these guys. He's basically right, on paper, and I get his rationale for a run. I think he may be underestimating the problems he'll face in this primary, but even so, it's winnable. I mean, His dad beat the "conservatives" in 1988. Bob Dole did the same in 1996. John McCain did in 2008. Mitt Romney did in 2012. The "establishment" pick usually wins. It makes sense that he thinks he can do it, particularly with his family's record in these fights. I still think  his ability to do this is questionable though.

Bush seems to have a realistic view on his chances. He sees a weak field, and he's taking them on. He's entering early specifically so he can maximize his one big advantage- fundraising. He knows that getting in early might muscle out Christie and Romney, his chief competitors for money, and make his run much easier. Frankly though, if he can't do this, he shouldn't even bother.

The GOP base is crazier and more motivated than ever. The only way someone interested in governing might win the nomination would be to roll the other "establishment" guys, and be able to smash his Tea Party opposition to pieces.  Jeb won't be able to do this easily. He'll be called a RINO, Clinton-lite, and all kinds of other conservative insults. It's worth the shot, but frankly the only way I think he can pull this off is to make himself unelectable by taking crazy positions. He seems resistant to that. I don't see him becoming the third Bush to reach office.

Read More

Jeb Bush Wants to be President (and is doing something about it?)

Well, the 2016 election is now under way:

I am excited to announce I will actively explore the possibility of running for President of the United States: https://t.co/luY4lCF2cA.
— Jeb Bush (@JebBush) December 16, 2014

I just want to know how one "inactively" explores the possibility of running for President of the United States? What does this even mean? It's not an announcement that he's in the race, or even that he's in the exploratory phase, per se. I guess it's just one of like 15 times we'll get to see him make news? I'm not sure.

Read More

There's No Good Reason to Draft Warren to run for President Right Now

So let's say that you have an experienced, qualified, electable, fairly left of center candidate for President who polls way out ahead in the primary, and solidly ahead in the general election. Let's say that no one else also meets all of those qualifications at this time in the party. This person should be your candidate for President, right?

That's Hillary Clinton. She ran for President eight years ago and got second. She'd be a historic candidate as the first woman to be nominated, and potentially elected President. She's the most vetted candidate in the world. She's fought for progressive causes like civil rights and health care her entire career. She's qualified to represent the United States around the globe. She's just the right choice.

I understand that on the left, there are some misgivings with Hillary after nearly 40 years in public. I get that there's a want to push the debate left. Those are both fine with me. That's no reason to go blowing up our best candidate with a hard-left alternative that pushes her and the party far away from the policy programs that got her here.

If we want the victories of the Obama Administration to be held up in the next administration, we have to win the 2016 election. Hillary Clinton is the best candidate to do that. If Hillary does not run for President, I'm totally open to Elizabeth Warren being a candidate. If Hillary Clinton does run for President, a Warren candidacy will not help the party. We don't always need a left-challenger in a primary. In 2016, we don't need a left-challenger. I'm ready for Hillary, because she's the right candidate for the time. 

Read More