General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI don't give a rat's ass WHO'S running in 2016 because...
the whole damn House is up for renewal in 11 months and that's enough work for now.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Hekate
(90,853 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)Imagine what we could do with a 2015 D house. Expand Obamacare and make it closer to single payer, maybe even. Or at least hold off repeal of it. Immigration reform. Banking regulation reform. Avoiding obstruction over every debt ceiling, budget and appointment. Two years of progress.
And what is further hilarious is there is no concern about the 2016 Congress, like if it's R what can Elizabeth Warren or Alan Grayson do? Fight? Use the bully pulpit! Twist arms? Mesmerize the Rs into voting for progressive agendas? If Barack Obama can't do that, Elizabeth certainly cannot.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)If not, well, I don't see any way for us to get 60 Senate seats in 2014.
That said, those of us who would like to recruit a liberal to head the 2016 ticket have to make our feelings known now. It takes time to build a campaign.
-Laelth
Warpy
(111,367 posts)My own district is Democratic, although the Rep is a little farther to the right than I'd like. I think she's pretty safe, she hasn't done anything really stupid in her first term.
I'll be contributing to the southernmost district where Pearce(R-teabagging halfwit) is vulnerable. They're red as red can be usually but they've been tending to be a little pinker since the shutdown debacle.
I just hope the rest of the country is in the mood for a change away from useless ideologues who won't budge an inch.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)
bunnies
(15,859 posts)
Wonder if the lesson is still learned.
edit: holy shit. Its been five years?! http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x7950254
Heather MC
(8,084 posts)Don't ask me why.
but he went on and on about how black people were going to have to decide between their unwavering support of the Dems or supporting a Black Man for president.
Welp we all know how that turned out.
2014!!!!!! Nothing else matters.
Now if you want to discuss who is going to be on the ballet in 2048, let's talk My SON!!!!!
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)On the life sciences, weather patterns and Keynseian economics. I fear we will need all of it, and then some.
Also make sure he knows how to chose good advisors and a top notch cabinet.
Heather MC
(8,084 posts)We get to the other stuff next year 
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)And music, can't go wrong there
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)some people just have to talk about the next Presidential. That hardly anyone talking about it this early is ever close to the mark is irrelevant.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Look at Clinton after he finished his second term. Obama is pretty much on track to have the same white hair (unless he starts using Just for Men which I don't think he would).
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Heather MC
(8,084 posts)So I can't support anyone
I have every intention of supporting the Democratic Candidate, unless the GREEN Party gets their act together
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)RKP5637
(67,112 posts)
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)Amazing.
I agree that getting the house to turn Dem is huge, and an excellent place to put energy.
I don't agree that POTUS discussions should wait till after then. At that point we'll be told it's too late and we have to get behind Hillary. Many of us want an alternative, and that effort needs to start yesterday. It takes a huge effort and organizational structure to mobilize for a presidential run. That takes time to build.
There's a discussion that really needs to happen in this country, and especially in this party. It's a discussion about what's important, what basic things do we value, what kind of country and world are we working towards, what policies will slow climate change, how do we stop imprisoning more people that anywhere else, how do we transform from a nation of a few winners and a ton of losers into a nation that provides for all of its people, how do we reign in the financial, petrochemical, health insurance, military and surveillance industries. The best place for this discussion is a passionate battle in the Democratic primary.
Knock yourself out working to turn over the house, that's great, but the top of the ticket for 2016 is also incredibly important, and that can't wait, preparations have to start now.
Most of the people I hear saying something along the lines of the OP are Hillary supporters who will be only too happy to tell us all we have to fall in line because it's too late to build an electable alternative. I don't know if that's you or not, but that's the kind of thing I think of when I read an OP like this.
Good luck with the House.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)We'll have a new House and maybe a few new Senators and we'll see where the trends are heading. Before that it's all blowing smoke and anyone interested in the job will have a skeleton force out there.
There's really very little we can do on the ground until then, and early out of the gate candidates tend to be early to the slaughter anyway.
The truth is, I really don't have any interest in 2016. I have a Congressman who was hit with a recount last year and has been targeted with tons of money already as one of the best chances they have to turn a seat Republican next year. Every bit of political energy I have will be in that race.
Then, we'll see.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)I have no problem with your congressional efforts, who runs the house does make a lot of difference.
I have a big problem with people wanting to keep the POTUS discussion off the table. You don't think Hillary has begun preliminary work for her run? I'm quite certain she has. And she's coming from a position of great strength, financial, experience, ambition, etc.
For someone to emerge who could actually make it happen, who would perhaps actually represent what this party says it is about, will take more of an effort, it will take earlier preparations, at the very least it will take grass-roots mobilizing for such a candidate, to build any kind of momentum where such a thing has a chance of happening. That should not be underestimated.
Honestly I could care less whether you personally have any interest in 2016. What I do care about, though, is attempts to force us into accepting the supposedly inevitable without getting a real fighting chance at a better alternative in 2016. Delay of game would be an effective way to keep such alternatives from emerging.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)organization. Same with a lot of other people.
But, unless you are a national party insider, or state chairman, you have no idea what the details are. Nobody's filed, nobody has an "official" committee, and it's all hush, hush until after the midterms and some damfool goes and announces and gets shot down as the sacrificial lamb.
So go ahead and secretly support your personal favorite and donate to his or her PAC, have some house parties and invite any party chairs who might show up to feel them out...
But, just some advice which you can take or leave-- don't bother wasting time on anonymous discussion boards blathering on about '16. Any decisions made will not be made here.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)especially your advice at the end, as well as your "secretly support' advice.
What matters now is the prevailing winds of public opinion.
Potential candidates are putting their fingers in the air and making decisions. They should hear from us, in any way possible, a discussion board such as DU is an excellent place to raise such support. There is a ripple effect to everything we do anywhere, that's the reality we live in.
Your OP was entirely superficial, it offered no actions to be taken to flip Congress, yet it is I who am supposedly wasting my time on an anonymous discussion board? Whatever, we clearly disagree. I've made my points and I truly wish you well in your efforts to flip Congress.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)That's nice.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)Care to explain where you're coming from so I get it right? Or not, your choice, just wondering.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Last edited Tue Nov 12, 2013, 12:52 PM - Edit history (1)
Are busy in the management of perception. It is an ancient marketing technique. Given that politics is partly marketing I am not surprised.
As others told you, too early, and there is a Congressional election. In my case a does not matter here local election even before that.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)that pretty much clued me into where you are coming from.
I'm still going to disagree, very much so. Carry on crusading for 2014, it's a terrific place to put a lot of effort.
But there is a great need for energy towards a serious liberal challenge to the corporate Dems in 2016. And no I don't think it's too early, I think it needs to be chatted up as much as possible. There's a great chance that no serious challenge will happen, which would be tragic in my opinion, so there is no "too soon" for me.
If I was attempting to reduce people's 2014 efforts I would agree with you. And I get that people only have so much energy to expend, but we often have to put energy in multiple directions in this life. I think this is such a time.
This is a great article, you've probably seen it.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115509/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clintons-nightmare
"There is a feature-length Hillary biopic in the works, and a well-funded super PAC—“Ready for Hillary”—bent on easing her way into the race."
Just an example of things happening on the Hillary side, I'm sure you know of much more. She's mobilizing but we're not supposed to discuss alternatives? Umm, no, not buying it.
I followed that OP of yours (linked at top of this reply) to another OP linked downthread, etc., anyway some good reading for me. You sound very interesting, someone that actually has been involved in campaigns, and some knowledge of donors and bundlers. In one of your posts (no link handy) you were discussing bundlers, I think you specifically mentioned Hillary's and Warren's. Does Warren actually have bundlers? I guess she would, for her senate campaign. Do these things exist separately for presidential runs? Just wondering if you were saying you have knowledge that Warren has people bundling donations for a possible presidential run.
Anyway, I hope I haven't pissed you and others off here, not my intention. I've watched so many times in my life as the left is left for dead, completely ignored, with nowhere else to go of course, while the corporate branch of the party, in my view, supports policies that just destroy any populist credibility this party has. Usually we notice too late that we've been had, again, and that there's nobody even remotely championing the issues we care about.
There are actually a few people these days that have the principles, backbone, and political standing to possibly do something, and our country and its government are fubar to a degree that many people are no longer wanting to settle for what the party hands us. This is an important time and an unusual one, where an actual redirection of the Democratic Party back towards the 99% could happen, especially if enough people are willing to make it the priority it deserves to be. It'll be be a very heavy lift (as will 2014), we'll see.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)It is a reminder. Look, I could easily get into the only thing that matters is the Christie, Clinton, drama, like the rest of the media.
But if partisans want to fall into it, carry on. Forgot about local, state, federal elections with only the WH mattering. See how far you get with Clinton in the WH and a republican controlled house and Senate.
It will make for exciting news, but very bad government.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Don't fall for it. Their message is pretty simple as you stated "either you have a candidate right now that can run and win or fall in behind Hillary Clinton".
I think the day after the mid-terms you'll see plenty of action. We may have recounts going on while candidates are announcing exploratory committees. That's how soon I think it will happen.
Without the House during 2015-2016 Obama's agenda(or any progressive agenda for that matter) will be DOA. You'll see the same bullshit pulled we got during the govt shutdown.
I find it telling these are the same people that are screaming about ENDA and immigration reform. They can't and won't be done with a divided government. If we lose the House next year (or even worse case lose both) nothing, absolutely nothing will get done until around February 2017 or later.
So please start working on presidential campaigns so we can throw away the next three plus years. Clearly we don't need to pass anything until after the next presidential election.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)are on a different timeframe. They are looking for support now, vocal support if nothing more, to evaluate if they have the people behind them. They are also looking at organizational and funding issues. Those things will not wait until 2015. It is you who are giving the false narrative. Preparations happen early, or to a great extent they don't happen. If I'm wrong, tell me how I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.
I don't want a token Kucinich-type token liberal candidacy, I want a real candidate putting progressive policies on their shoulders and presenting them to the American public as the best path forward, with conviction and with a huge and determined organization behind them. When's the last time that happened in this country? 'Cause I'm pretty old, and I can't remember it, ever (the Howard Dean campaign, maybe, that's somewhat of a stretch though, and I'm a little too young to remember the McGovern campaign well). It's time, no more of the same B.S. third-way triangulated corporatism, it's time for the left's issues to get a serious hearing, not because I want it, but because this country desperately needs it.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)but no one is going to seriously announce anything until after the mid-terms. If they did it would hurt their candidacy. That's why I am saying the day after (or within a few days after) the mid-terms you'll see movement.
If someone started fundraising (other than an independent group, which I understand has already started) they would have to file forms at some point and that would become public record. As soon as it becomes public record, what do you think will happen? Reporters will jump on it. Now how much knowledge certain people have of independent groups fundraising on their behalf I don't know. It could be coordinated or maybe not.
My beef is that we not be TOLD who is going to be the nominee. I think we agree on that one.
In terms of the candidate, I have a feeling we'd probably be on the same page or very close.
I think people pushing a certain candidate are making a lot of assumptions based on things we don't know. If those people have a crystal ball I really would enjoy borrowing it because I need to find out who will win the Superbowl next year. I could use the money. Just saying.....
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)There was a wonderful prediction spoken of up there.
And that's how it goes this early in the game. State chairs, and some critical county ones, are getting their ears bent now about the possibilities, but it won't start to gear up until after New Year's '15.
And the New Year's after that we're really into it.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)In fact you might be interested to what I posted here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4019364
November 12 2005?
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)DU doesn't run the party.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)or we won't get an alternative. That's where I'm coming from, and that's why I have a problem with the wait till after the midterm meme.
I know how much congress sucks, not diminishing the importance of turning it.
I don't, however, subscribe to the belief that Obama had his progressive agenda thwarted by an obstructionist congress. Just because B is true doesn't mean A is true, he had no progressive agenda, nor does Hillary. Would Obama have been a better president with a better congress? Of course he would have, so by all means let's fight to make that happen. Would he have advocated for progressive policies such as I named in my post upthread? I don't think so, he (and so many of our corporate Dems) only give lip service to progressives when it's campaign time, or when the policy in question is no threat to the bottom line of the capitalists.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)I believe (and correct me if I'm wrong) that's how Dean ended up running. It was his campaign that was a pioneer in the grassroots fundraising and online organizing that helped Obama win in 2008. Granted he didn't win, but had he not run who knows what would have happened.
I don't think Obama is quite as bad as you make him out to be. He has driven us in the right direction. By no means are things perfect, but I do believe some major accomplishments were made.
Without a progressive Congress (both the House and the Senate) you will never get the funding for the things that need to be done. Anyone who thinks a president can wave a magic wand and get things done should probably remove themselves from wonderland (or cut back on the buds).
The right has made it very clear what their agenda was from day one. While they have failed at some things, they have succeeded just enough to derail many of the policies we need.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)With surprisingly few exceptions, the people in this country have never even heard progressive policies advocated for by a serious candidate. The media certainly doesn't do it. People are told, over and over, how exceptional we are. It's convenient and flattering, so far too many believe it. They rarely if ever see the data that contradicts that narrative, they are never presented with the arguments for alternative (to the trickle-up economy) policies, they never hear as a serious proposition anything that would make a real difference. There are fixes for what ails us, but they are kept off the table, completely, by design.
So we have a very effectively managed and brainwashed population who need to see these issues seriously debated on a big stage, preferably on the tube, since that's still very influential. They need to see someone they respect articulate why these policies are exactly what we need, and how well such policies have worked elsewhere in the world.
There is tremendous potential for change, which is why the powers that be keep the lid on so tightly, why the permissible frames of discussion are limited to the frames acceptable to the corporatists. A great and very simple example is the 99% meme that came out of Occupy. That one thing changed, for awhile, the entire frame of acceptable discussion, because people forcefully advocated for it, spoke intelligently, and because it was a latent truth that was already burning the average American. A good candidate can do this and much much more and we have been denied this for a very long time, hopefully no more.
I think there is nothing more important. There are other ways to go about it than a POTUS candidate, all of which should be pursued, but the presidential race is a powerful vehicle that gets into a lot of heads, especially if it is heavily contested by a good candidate with real and substantial policy differences.
Nay
(12,051 posts)and am appalled at how 'managed' everything is. We so desperately need a truly liberal voice to discuss actual liberal policies. Dean was the last one to do so, really, and look how they destroyed him. IMO, the Dems should have doubled down on their support of him, and he should have emerged as an even stronger advocate for the 99% -- but he was allowed to be destroyed by that stupid 'scream' video.
The potential for an explosive change is indeed out here, if only someone in the Democratic ranks could break away from the stodgy business-as-usual Democrats and get out in front for a change. Stop acting as if the Republicans were anything but destructive assholes.
uponit7771
(90,367 posts)dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)Meanwhile, the "inevitable" happens, or rather an alternative doesn't.
MADem
(135,425 posts)that talk about these races!!!!
My district is SAFE. I have nothing to add from where I sit. My blue rep will be reelected. YAY.
People who are living in contested districts need to get off the dime and start informing the rest of us about the issues in their districts, instead of griping that we're not talking about the "right" things.
I hate these scolding threads. They don't motivate anyone to do anything--they simply try to shame or demotivate people from talking about topics that interest them.
FWIW, I support Clinton for the Presidency. I think she's the best qualified candidate for the job.
And what good does THAT do?
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)Tim Bishop is one of the good guys and targeted for the past two elections as one of the top 5 "Easiest Dems to Turn Out" with millions of republican money heading this way. He doesn't have a challenger yet, but millions in pledges and PAC money are already here for whoever gets to run. Last year it was so close we had a recount that lasted over a week.
I have no problem with Hillary, and no alternative in mind at the moment, but let us not forget two other blondes we have on the back burner-- Wendy Davis or Kirsten Gillibrand might look good in the White House one day.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The prediction for 2008 was Clinton vs. Powell. How'd that turn out again?
Hillary's supporters are trying to create an inevitability campaign. Again. There's no reason to believe it will be a massive success this time around either.
Winning in 2014 is how you lay the groundwork for a liberal candidate in 2016. Because it will demonstrate the country is far more liberal than conventional wisdom dictates. Without that victory, centrists will have lots of ammunition to claim we need centrist presidential candidate.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)davidpdx
(22,000 posts)and
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)
Rockyj
(538 posts)Its BS! who cares if Christie is an elephant or if Warren runs against Hillary, its not until FUCKEN 2016! We need to get our HOUSE back in 2014!
madokie
(51,076 posts)Must get out the vote
B Calm
(28,762 posts)the best government money can buy! Time to get rid of the cons!
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)but I hope it's Hillary 
Sie
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)Let's kick some Rethug Governors out for starters.....Snyder here in MI, Walker across the lake there in WI and on and on....
Julie
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)I really think Texas is going to go blue in a big way. If not now, soon.
I have such respect for all of you fighting the good fight in some of these states that have been in a GOP strangle-hold for a long time. Can't tell you how much I appreciate your efforts!
Julie
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)Dem Congressman will once again be in the fight of his life, we're generally in pretty good shape around here.
otohara
(24,135 posts)Turned it on a few times today - it's a loop of Hillary/Christie
Back to music..
Gothmog
(145,650 posts)Texas needs to elect Wendy Davis and break the choke hold that the GOP has had in this state. There has not been a Democrat elected to statewide office in Texas since 1994. Senator Davis is running against a major league jerk named Greg Abbott is far meaner than Goodhair. I am planning on working very hard for Davis for Governor.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)to see her in the Governor's mansion and then maybe the White House.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)What do I do to focus...help me out here. Sing Kumbaya and pray for an electoral college miracle? What should one actually do ... like a real Plan ... to "renew the House" in the next 11 months? How does one GOTV without a candidate and/or a reasonable plan?
No..no...no..no..no-without-a-plan is what Republicans do. And who do they fear? Ah, not the yet-to-be-discovered self-funding Progressive.
The PACs are in play for both parties ... like it or not. Hillary is raising $200,000 per speech...like it or not. I support a search for another viable candidate...talk someone into committing for the next 3 years....but not holding my breath.
How about No More Posts That Dream About Those Not Running. Or better, Here's the Plan without Her. Or worse, The Pout...I'm staying home if I don't get my way. Let them have my health care, my (wife, girlfriend, mother, grandmother's) women's health/ reproductive rights, so sorry to my LGBT friends...y'all can just wait for 8 years 'cause we Don't Like Hillary.
It's not too early to start circling the wagons...not one bit early.
we can do it
(12,203 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)record corporate profits and continued decline of the middle class.
Besides in my district the challengers havent filed yet and the incumbent Democrat hasnt started his campaign.
And I think it is very short sighted to wait until after 2014 to try to find someone to challenge the clear corporate candidate for presidency that is already running.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)that obsessing over it is maybe a bit counterproductive. Every four years names you never heard of pop up out of nowhere-- like Barack Obama.
Don't think for a minute that if Wendy Davis wins the Governor's mansion she'll be content to stop there. It's not if, but when, and another reason to focus on next year.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Last edited Wed Nov 13, 2013, 06:16 PM - Edit history (1)
In my area the campaigns havent started. I call my HoR Rep and they cant use me until next year.
On the other hand, now is the time to try to find a progressive candidate to challenge Ms. Clinton. It's going to be tough but we must start now.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)but more importantly, you can go on the lists of supporters and contact your town and county Democratic committees and clubs. They'll be exhausted if they had an election like we had last month, but at least introduce yourself.
Besides, if your congresscritter can't use you now, what makes you think you'll have any impact at all on a campaign years in the future? How often has any candidate for either party this early in the cycle actually been nominated? Remember all that Powell vs. Hillary talk?
We already know every Governor and Senator in office or recently retired-- what can we possibly do here on the ground to find someone else or shift the tide? There are insiders who don't know we exist who are collecting support for various candidates as we speak, and we have little or no access to them.
Oh, and "next year" is only a month and a half away.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)I support our "Drinking Liberally" group. So working on strategies and tactics are ongoing as are trying to build progressive policies and candidates at the local and state levels. Campaigning for specific candidates is organized and happens when most appropriate.
On a national level, our only hope is to get a popular progressive candidate chosen and start now to raise money and awareness.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)involved as you are, if your local groups and committees are anything like mine, the next Presidential might as well be in the next century for all we're dealing with it.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)And that's not a bad thing, but we need someone looking at possible presidential candidates. I get the idea from state and local that that's left up to the national organization. I dont like that.
libodem
(19,288 posts)I'm already sick of it. I can't help it. All the 'inevitable-ness' of she is picked, already, and we don't even get a say in a primary or anything, makes me want to throw up my hands and quit following politics all together. I'm sick of it!
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)I can't believe I am now reduced to quoting Will Pitt, of all people!!
Argh!!!
Whargle bargle fargle!!
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)And donate.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)
Beacool
(30,253 posts)Reminds me of 2008. Some people are posting Hillary threads and others are pushing Warren. Neither one is currently running for anything. Furthermore, both Clintons have tried to dampen expectations about a Hillary run by saying that we first need to worry about 2014.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)Beacool
(30,253 posts)DU and the other LW sites are not a reflection of the party as a whole, but they are sowing division.
