Last Night's SOTU Is the Beginning of the 2016 Campaign

[MineralMan]

In many ways, it was brilliant. President Obama set up some great goals for the future. Today, the Republicans are busy explaining why they won't support any of those goals.

Our President is looking down the road. Over the next almost two years, I expect that he will continue to propose things the Republicans shoot down, and all of those things will be targeting benefits for the middle class. When the Republican Congress enacts bills that don't do that, Obama will veto them and make a new speech about each one, explaining why the Republicans are trying to screw the public, yet again.

He'll also do whatever executive actions he can to benefit people. Again, the GOP will condemn those things, because that is all they know how to do.

The campaign for 2016 is now officially underway, even though there are no candidates yet.

[libdem4life]

1. Absolutely, it widens the net for candidates, sets sights more to the Left, and is removing the

tarnished Liberal brand, somewhat. Oh, and the veto threat...magnificent. Bring it.

[Proud Public Servant]

2. And the big loser is Hillary

Seriously. While she coyly pretends that she hasn't decided whether she's running for president, Elizabeth Warren and now President Obama have essentially written the 2016 Democratic platform. When Hillary finally does declare, her only choices will be to engage in some "me-too-ism" that's bound to appear opportunistic or to repudiate a message that resonates across America.

Won't keep her from winning the primary, or the general. But it certainly won't help her reputation as a "leader."

[OKNancy]

3. oh really?

She has a good record when votes counted.

She cosponsored bills to increase the minimum wage five times; she was an original cosponsor of the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007; she has supported equal pay for women all her adult life; fought to extend unemployment benefits.

As a Senator, Hillary Clinton supported progressive tax policies that required millionaires to pay their fair share. She opposed the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, and she supported a variety of middle-class tax cuts, including tax credits for student loan recipients, and keeping in place the tax cuts for those who make under $250,000 a year. Clinton has said “that inherited wealth and concentrated wealth is not good for America,” and she has consistently voted against repealing the estate tax on millionaires, doing so in 2001, 2002, and 2006.

http://correctrecord.org/hillary-clinton-a-lifetime-champion-of-income-opportunity-2/

and much more.

She will do just fine if people will actually learn about what she has done.

[MineralMan]

4. I think that's a pretty big stretch, really.

I don't think President Obama has any particular candidate in mind. Instead, he's building support for Democrats in general, which is exactly what will be needed to regain control of Congress.

Whoever the nominee for President ends up being, Obama will campaign vigorously for that candidate. I think it will be Hillary Clinton, based on 50 years of following presidential elections. You may know better, though, I suppose.

[ALBliberal]

20. I agree

I like your succinct wrap up of the SOTU so much that I bookmarked it to share with my husband. I would like to add that talk of Hillary Clinton's current wealth is irrelevant. I think her middle class upbringing is more relevant to her candidacy. I also believe that she will be the nominee and Obama will do all he can to help her get elected. I think much of this plan began when he won the nomination in 2007. Hillary Clinton (like her or not) is living proof of the American dream fulfilled. So is President Obama.

[Ykcutnek]

8. That's the good thing about career politicians.

Their ideology reflects the poll numbers.

If that's the platform and people demand it, the Clintons will supply it.

[AtomicKitten]

5. He greased the skids for a populist campaign by Elizabeth Warren.

The message is hers, not Hillary's. And the GOP is dead set against every item POTUS ticked off the list.

[MineralMan]

6. Oh, dear. But Senator Warren has already said she won't run.

I think you're mistaken about that. However, it's true that the GOP will fight against every one of President Obama's popular proposals. That's exactly the point. I hope they do exactly that, and am sure they'll oblige.

[AtomicKitten]

7. Nobody has declared their candidacy yet.

I'm not convinced the kabuki going on beforehand precludes candidacy, not for her or anybody else.

[MineralMan]

9. That's true. Some, though, have declared non-candidacy.

Trust me. Hillary's running. Who else will I can't say, but I'm certain that she's running.

What happens will be what happens. That doesn't change my statement in the OP. President Obama began the campaign last night, and he did a bang-up job of it, too. I hope you'll be part of that campaign. I know that I will.

[jeff47]

10. Then consider her name a placeholder for someone else running to the left of Clinton.

Someone's going to do it. Their name doesn't particularly matter.

[MineralMan]

11. Oh, their name matters a great deal.

It's going to take a big name to actually compete against Hillary Clinton in the primaries. A big, very popular name. Most people will not attempt a run against HRC.

Frankly, I consider Clinton a shoe-in unless someone really, really prominent takes a stab at it. Others will be gone after Super Tuesday, if not before.

[jeff47]

12. Yes, some black kid with a funny name would never be able to defeat her.

Especially if he was really new to national politics.

Names matter now because polling now is basically name recognition. We aren't voting now. We're voting almost two years from now. And despite the best efforts of the media, policies matter.

So far, Clinton is copy-n-pasting her strategy from 2008. Really, really dumb. It leaves a massive opening for someone else to beat her again. And no, we are not talking about them yet. We don't have to.

[MineralMan]

15. People see things in different ways.

If you know of someone who has a chance, then I think you should be encouraging that person to run. Barack Obama is a unique individual. It will take someone as unique and with as much presence to have a chance against HRC. I can't think of anyone, frankly, except for maybe Elizabeth Warren and her heart doesn't seem to be in it. She's got a great position now. It would be a risky move for her, I think, to run.

BTW, that "black kid with the funny name" is the President of the United States. He pulled off something amazing in 2008. If you can find another Barack Obama, that'd be great.

[jeff47]

19. Defeating her the first time takes a special person.

When she's using the exact same strategy, you don't have to be special to beat her. You just have to copy what already defeated her.

[MineralMan]

21. Frankly, I think you're very mistaken.

Don't forget that Hillary Clinton has also learned something in the past 6 years, and has served as Secretary of State, to boot. I think you'll find that she has more than enough gravitas to lead as a presidential candidate. It won't be easy to defeat her at all, and would take a very substantial candidate with the perfect combination of name recognition and heft.

Frankly, I don't know of anyone who I think might have a chance. If you do, you'd better start trying to convince that person to get started right away.

[jeff47]

22. She's hasn't demonstrated that she's learned anything.

After all, she's using the same strategy that lost in 2008. And she's been slow to grasp that Third-way style Democrats are not doing well.

There's plenty of time between now and the actual voting for her to do something different. But so far, it's more of the same. And more of the same will lose. Either in the primary or the general.

[MineralMan]

23. She's not campaigning yet. She hasn't even announced yet.

I think you may not be looking at this objectively, really. Presidential campaigns are not targeted at any particular sector of a party. You don't like Hillary Clinton, but you are just one person. Lots of people do like her, and they'll be voting in the primaries, too. My assessment of her candidacy and ability to win the nomination is not based on liking her or not liking her. It's based on historical precedent in presidential elections since the one in 1968.

I have not even said whether or not I like Hillary Clinton, nor will I. If she is the nominee, I'll be supporting her for the general election. Who gets elected is not up to me. Who gets nominated isn't really, either, although I'll probably be a delegate to the Minnesota state DFL convention. On the presidential level, my opinion of a candidate is pretty much irrelevant.

But I work to get Democrats elected, and I want the candidate who is most likely to be able to get elected. Right now, that's Hillary Clinton.

[jeff47]

24. Of course she's campaigning.

She didn't write that book for shits and giggles.

It's based on historical precedent in presidential elections since the one in 1968.

And I'm basing it on the elections since 2000, especially 2008, 2010, 2012, and 2014. How you win 50 years ago is not instructive in how you win today.

"Hope and change" wasn't just a slogan. Voters did not want to continue the status quo. They're looking to shift the country back to the left. The "Reagan Revolution" has run its course, and voters are not pleased at where they ended up.

2008: Clinton ran a "why are we even bothering to have a primary?" campaign. Even after she lost Iowa. Obama beat her by appealing to the left. And Obama then beat McCain by a combination of not being Bush, and appealing to the left.

2010: Democrats ran with a strategy of "OH MY GOD!! WE PASSED HEALTH CARE REFORM!!!! WHAT WERE WE THINKING?!?!! RUN AWAY!!!!!". And lost badly. They ran on status quo, and the marginally-attached voters that gave Obama the decisive win in 2008 stayed home.

2012: Democrats said, "Well, shit. We can't run away from Obama since he's on top of the ticket". So they kinda-sorta ran with Obama and an overall more liberal theme. And won. Those voters showed back up.

2014: Democrats said, "Thank god we're not saddled with Obama on the top of the ticket. Now we can run away from him and be good centrists". And were utterly crushed.

So far, Clinton's camp has been running the same "why are we even bothering to have a primary?" campaign that lost in 2008. She's been slow to grab on to the populism that Warren is riding on. Instead, she's been looking like the same calculated, third-way candidate she was in 2008. And that isn't a good idea. In the primary, someone could defeat her with a "hope and change" campaign. They've already got the template, thanks to Obama. In the general, being "more of the same" is really bad after two terms of your party in power. It's what made 2000 so close. And even Gore admits he fucked up 2000 by trying to be third-way instead of himself.

Clinton needs to abandon Clinton the calculating politician and just be herself. It's how she won New Hampshire in 2008.....and then she went back to focus-group-tested crap until it was too late. She needs to notice that all the "populist" stuff from Warren's camp is passing by large margins when voters are given the chance to vote on them. Even in red states.

She needs to be a change candidate. And so far, she isn't doing that.

While she isn't who I would pick if I could magically choose our candidate, I don't hate her. I've accepted that my worldview will not be represented until the old guard dies off.

[kentuck]

13. was iit a good start?

Last edited Wed Jan 21, 2015, 05:07 PM - Edit history (1)

It was a political speech, I would agree.

[MineralMan]

14. Opinions might vary on that. In my opinion, yes,

it was a good start. If we take up the challenge, it could be a great start.

[kentuck]

25. The question some folks might have?

Is all this "progressive" talk intended to get out the progressive vote in 2016 or is it to actually propose "progressive" legislation? Talk is cheap.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

16. You're right, and the Republicans know it was the start of the 2016 campaign.

Mitch McConnell said it, according to today's LA Times. I believe he said the speech sounded like a campaign speech.

They're so busy refuting what Obama had to say last night, that they haven't been able to get going on their own plans.

Oh, good!

[MineralMan]

17. Anything that keeps the GOP busy defending the indefensible

is great by me, frankly. I love to see McConnell and Boehner sputter. Funniest thing ever!

[CaliforniaPeggy]

18. I could not agree more!