Home / General / There Is One New York Politician Who Could Be the Democratic Nominee in 2020

There Is One New York Politician Who Could Be the Democratic Nominee in 2020

Comments
/
/
/
104 Views

185718998-sen-kirsten-gillibrand-addresses-a-conference.jpg.CROP.promo-mediumlarge

I’m glad Erik recently highlighted Rebecca Traister’s superb profile of Kirsten Gillibrand. 2020 is a long way away and we don’t know what the field will look like, but Gillibrand is exactly the kind of political talent the Democrats need to be cultivating. She won a House seat in New York’s North Country — exactly the kind of swing district in which Trump outperformed Romney and McCain — but has been a strong progressive ever since being elected to statewide office, and understands where the party is going. And note as well that she was remarkably progressive for someone running in a blueish-purple House district:

The improbability of Gillibrand’s preaching skills matches the improbability of her role as a Democratic holy warrior against Donald Trump. Appointed to fill Hillary Clinton’s seat in 2009, Gillibrand came to the Senate with a reputation as a moderate upstate hack, an unremarkable product of New York’s political machine. Yet one month into the Trump administration, Gillibrand had staked out the most defiant position among her colleagues, casting the most “no” votes against his Cabinet nominees of any senator (although she did vote for Nikki Haley as ambassador to the U.N.), earning admiration from progressives frustrated by other Democrats’ initial willingness to “work with” Republicans. When Gillibrand spoke at the Battery Park rally against Trump’s Muslim travel ban in January, chants of “Kirsten 2020!” rang out among the protesters.

[…]

And like Sanders, she sees in left-wing populism — in affordable day care and paid leave and the expansion of Medicare as a means of addressing economic inequality — a path for red and blue America to come together. Sanders spoke alongside Gillibrand in March at a press conference in support of the Family Act, and Gillibrand is very enthusiastic about becoming a co-sponsor of Sanders’s forthcoming Medicare for All bill. “People want affordable health care,” she says. For the record, she’s not late to that party; Gillibrand supported Medicare for everyone when she ran in her House district in 2006. “It’s the solution, and it makes sense to people even in my two-to-one Republican district.”

This won’t stop some people from labeling her a neoliberal who proves the Democratic Party hates the working class, of course; as wjts puts it, the routine is familiar: “Any political position that Gillibrand has ever taken that I disagree with is her real position. Any political position that I can imagine Gillibrand taking that I disagree with is her secret real position. Any political position that Gillibrand has taken that I agree with is insincere pandering.” But it will just be a good test to identify people you can safely ignore.

I don’t know if Gillibrand will be the Democratic nominee, but I do know that if there is a nominee from New York it will be Gillibrand. The favorite dumb-cynical-that-thinks-it’s-sophisticated-cyncial assumption about the next Dem candidate is that Andrew Cuomo will be a very serious candidate. Here’s a hot tip: he’s not. He’s drawing dead. There is no constituency of the Democratic Party he appeals to more than Gillibrand except some donors, and Gillibrand’s not going to have any trouble raising money. You know how Joe Lieberman ran a farcically weak campaign as the party’s most recent vice president against a relatively unimpressive field in a party that was significantly to the right of the current one in 2004? Cuomo wouldn’t do that well. Think Rudy Giuliani, George Pataki, Jim Webb, like that. The whole idea is silly. If he considers himself a candidate this will be good for New York, but he has no chance of being the nominee. It’s not happening.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • Abbey Bartlet

    I’d like to move that the blog adopt Kirsten Fuckin’ Gillibrand as her official name.

    • I second this motion.

      • kped

        Thirded

    • redbike

      That would only be appropriate if she were from Brooklyn.

      • Abbey Bartlet
    • Caepan

      For the sake of decorum, it must be Senator Kirsten Fuckin’ Gillibrand.

  • Steve LaBonne

    It’s early days, but if I had to pick a 2020 candidate now it would be Gillibrand.

    • Same here. She’s been reliably progressive where it counts and seems to have natural political talent.

    • I agree, but she also needs to start ramping up her visibility in the public eye right now if she’s serious about 2020.

    • Domino

      Her or Al Franken. Haven’t seen enough of Kamala Harris yet to make any sort of judgment.

      Though right now, if I bet, I’d put money on Booker being the nominee.

      • Not a bad bet.

      • ForkyMcSpoon

        I am getting a strong vibe that the purity pony set will be targeting Booker as their neoliberal scalp.

        “Stop attacking private equity” will be playing on repeat.

        I think Gillibrand is at a lot less risk of that. Her old centrist compromises were just about guns and immigrants, and they don’t have as much passion for those issues, strangely enough.

  • mbxxxxxx

    Do we know anything about Gilibrand’s email history? Don’t want to nominate another email felon.

  • Chris Mealy

    It’s going to be tough for a senator from New York to run against Wall Street.

    • Rob in CT

      This would seem to be her biggest weakness, at least in the primaries.

      • humanoid.panda

        Assuming that there is not another financial crisis between now and then, there are ways for her to go around the problem.
        1. Attack the Trump administration for weakening regulations.
        2. Focus on a positive progressive agenda (universal healthcare, jobs programs, etc), while being a bit hazy on the negative progressive agenda (dismantling big banks.)

        • humanoid.panda

          And if there is another financial crisis between now and then, the party could run a man dressed in a panda suit, and still win.

          • wjts

            Say, I have a panda suit.

            • Rob in CT

              The Left’s answer to Pepe the Frog is born!

              • humanoid.panda

                “Progressive Panda 2020.”

                • wjts

                  There’s already a picture of me wearing the panda costume while standing in front of the White House, so the campaign will save a ton of money on ads.

                • tsam

                  Linking the pic or do I need to hunt it down? I have a network of spies, ya know.

                • wjts

                  It’s in a shoebox in my closet, along with the pictures of me in the panda suit standing in front of the Green Monster, Niagara Falls, etc.

                • tomscud

                  Advertising already created. (Look up “Panda Cheese Ad” on youtube if you doubt me.)

            • rea

              We can’t nominate another candidate who will panda to the !%!!!

              • Bling-Bling?

              • Hercules Grytpype-Thynne

                Those who are old enough may remember that Paul Tsongas referred to Bill Clinton as “pander bear” during the 1992 primaries – complete with cute stuffed props at campaign appearances. It worked particularly well in his New England accent.

          • PunditusMaximus

            Not really, no. Dems’ brand is bankhumping, due to Obama.

            • Rob in CT

              This is dumb, and especially so given the conversation you dropped it into.

              • PunditusMaximus

                It’s difficult for me to convey to nice white male middle-to-upper-middle-class Dems how thorougly people have figured out that as of now the Dems are 100% invested in the Rich People side of the Class War.

                They see the Dems as the less douchey rich folks, not as people who have their economic interests at heart. Lotsa lost houses and no prosecutions under Obama made people extremely cynical.

                • Rob in CT

                  Donald Trump is President. Look at his cabinet.

                  People got played for suckers in 2016 by a conman.

                  Now maybe that’ll happen again, even after the shitshow that is this administration, but lefties really don’t need to be enabling it.

                • PunditusMaximus

                  100% agreed that the Republicans are the much more douchey rich folks.

                  They have been for a long time. All the elegies to the WWC seriously do not get that the only reason to vote Republican has been racism as long as I’ve been alive.

                  It’s just that Obama prosecuted a grand total of 10 more banksters than Trump would’ve and explicitly said that he was protecting them from us.

                • Remember: a Conman is just a Commonman who has a few wrong letters.

          • SatanicPanic

            Don’t give Insurance Panda any ideas

        • Rob in CT

          First, yes, having the Trump administration to attack will be helpful. No question in my mind about that one.

          Maybe that’s enough.

          • Rob in CT

            LOL, I pulled a Rick Perry. First… and lost the Second.

            • rea

              Tell us what the Second was, so we know which cabinet department to put you in charge of.

            • Our chief weapon is surprise. Surprise and fear. Fear and surprise. Our two weapons are fear and surprise… and ruthless efficiency. Our three weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency… and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope. Our four… no… Amongst our weapons…. Amongst our weaponry are such elements as fear, surprise… I’ll come in again.

        • artem1s

          assuming the Dems will be running against Trump in 2020 is a bad assumption. I’m assuming they will be running against “Pence the Reasonable who saved us from looking like morons the way W did”

        • Dilan Esper

          An even better idea for her would be to move far left on Wall Street.

          Seriously, call for a Totten tax. Eliminate carried interest. Put absolute limits on the size of financial institutions. Break up the big banks. Cap the compensation of all financial executives at a level that makes it impossible for them to get super-rich. Impose a wealth tax. Restore Glass-Steagel.

          Just don’t get anyone get to the left of you on Wall Street.

      • Hungover Hank Moody

        Gillibrand voted against the 2008 TARP bailout.

    • sleepyirv

      Yeah, if the moderate Dem candidates in 2020 are going to be Gillibrand and Booker, both will have a hard time disconnecting their ties to the “local industry.” It will be a different debate next time with Trump and his Goldman Sachs cabinet, but I expect primary voters to be more weary, being once bitten twice shy after Hilary. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised Gillibrand is painted as “too much like Hillary” (in a marginally sexist way) though they are clearly two very different political talents with different baggage.

      • Duvall

        Ha, “marginally.”

      • JdLaverty

        I get nervous whenever I hear Cory Bookers name come up. There is a democrat who really is a fucking sock puppet for wealthy corporate interests, going all the way back to his days as the mayor of Newark (possible nicknames: “Charter Slut Cory” “Zuckerberg Hooker Booker” “Cory McFunnels-education-funding-to-hack-consultants-and-wall-street-bandits”)
        Gillibrand is pretty dope though. And a pleasant surprise; I remember when she was appointed everyone assumed she was going to be a lukewarm “blue-dog” type on account of the district she hailed from (the last thing we need is more New Democrats) an assumption she quickly laid to rest.

        • Just_Dropping_By

          Cory McFunnels-education-funding-to-hack-consultants-and-wall-street-bandits

          Not really bumpsticker material, that one.

          • witlesschum

            Why not use the whole bumper?

    • Crusty

      I feel like Trump and his Goldman Sachs cabinet have neutered that issue. She’s in the pocket of wall street! More than the POTus with the Goldman Sachs Treasury secretary who also made a killing in the foreclosure business?

      Some of this makes no sense/doesn’t matter. People can have pitchforks and torches out for wall street coastal elites and then elect a man who lives in a glass tower on fifth avenue.

      • burnspbesq

        Goldman is, and always was, a poor choice of villians. How many Americans actually deal with Goldman in their everyday lives? Does Joe Sixpack have any idea who securitized his MasterCard balance or services his car loan? Citi, Wells, BlackRock, ally, and Anthem are better choices; their bad behavior fucks up actual people’s actual lives.

        Not to mention the fact that no Goldman execs went to jail because none of them committed any crimes.

        • Redwood Rhiadra

          The reason people call out GS as evil over all the other financial companies is for one reason and one reason alone – none of the other names you mention sound Jewish.

          Most of them don’t even recognize that they’re peddling the old anti-Semitic “evil bankers are always Jewish” stereotype, but that’s exactly what they’re doing.

          (ETA: and hey, edit button! Got to fix a mis-spelled word.)

        • Plenty of Greeks will disagree with you on the malpractice they are still paying for.

    • Nick never Nick

      It always seems obvious that we’re going to have to fight the last war — but I’d lay good odds that in the next election, the Democrat will run against Trump, not Wall Street.

    • EliHawk

      Given Mr. “I hate Wall Street” was decisively defeated in the most recent primary and his similar candidates, notably Feingold, ran behind Clinton, I’m not at all convinced that being the anti-Wall St. candidate is the crucial electoral weapon you think it is.

      • bender

        It has the downside that Wall Street will give lots of money to your opponents.

  • humanoid.panda

    1. I am looking forward to the not at all mysoginistic takes about how by running an upper middle class woman, the Dems again show disdain for real America, and only care about suburbanites and slay queen etc.
    2. As for Cuomo: his problem is not ideological, per se- people can reinvent themselves on the fly (remember Edwards running as fire-breathing populist?) His problem is that as the governor of a state that really would like to get federal infrastracture dollars, he can’t slug Trump at will.

    • As for Cuomo: his problem is not ideological, per se- people can reinvent themselves on the fly (remember Edwards running as fire-breathing populist?) His problem is that

      he is widely, and correctly, recognized as a mendacious weasel whose father should have disowned him.

      • Q.E.Dumbass

        As for Cuomo: his problem is not ideological, per se- people can reinvent themselves on the fly (remember Edwards running as fire-breathing populist?) His problem is that

        he is vile scum and his political future must be destroyed.

        “Geneticists should study Cuomo, as we appear to be seeing a gene pool decline in real time.”

        • humanoid.panda

          he is widely, and correctly, recognized as a mendacious weasel whose father should have disowned him.

          By whom? Does anyone outside New York know who he is?

          • bobloblaw57

            yeah i’m pretty sure about 10% of the non-new york voting population could tell you who he is and that is probably generous

            altho the same goes for gillibrand too

            • humanoid.panda

              Right. One could make the argument that Gillibrand is the better politician and is better positioned to capitalize on anti-Trump sentiment. But the line from “he had been a centrist governor who colluded with republicans to keep Senate in their hands” to “he can’t get nominated” is not a straighforward as one could imagine.

          • Aaron Morrow

            Democrats who vote in primaries will be made aware soon, if only because the press loves to cover governors of New York, Maryland and Virginia as potential presidential candidates.

            • humanoid.panda

              True, which is why Cuomo is signing a free college tuition bill today, having been seen with both Sanders and Clinton promoting it. (that bill has some ugly fine print- but that’s not the point.)

              • humanoid.panda

                And because of his dirty dealing with the IDC, he also gets to say he pushed a free college bill through the republican senate..

          • MAJeff

            “He’s that nice boy on morning TV, right?”

          • Davis X. Machina

            By whom? Does anyone outside New York know who he is?

            Teachers do. At least the unionize, public school ones. They knew about Christie early on, too.

        • Davis X. Machina

          “Geneticists should study Cuomo, as we appear to be seeing a gene pool decline in real time.”

          Gregor Mendel only got taken seriously because he chose to work on peas, and not politicians.

          • Ahuitzotl

            dont we all dream of world peas?

      • Nick never Nick

        Eh, remember, it’s not the person but the coalition/policies behind them. Or is that only used to diffuse criticism of the LGM house candidate?

        • Hogan

          When Cuomo has the coalition behind him, we can talk.

        • Scott Lemieux

          1)Why you think this is relevant to the primary election, I have no idea.

          2)While this is generally true when talking about how people will govern (as opposed to who will win a primary election), it does have obvious limitations when applied to someone who actively tried to keep his party from controlling the state assembly, and succeeded.

          • ForkyMcSpoon

            Right, the missing ingredient from Clinton was the evidence that she had sabotaged her own party.

            Without that kind of evidence, claims that Clinton would have disregarded the wishes of the vast majority of her party are based on… [citation needed]

            • Hogan

              Something something THE BASE something something.

        • solidcitizen

          Sanders?

          • witlesschum

            I think that may have actually been said around here about Sanders on foreign policy.

    • Steve LaBonne

      His other problem is that whatever positions he adopts, he will still be a flaming asshole.

    • djw

      As for Cuomo: his problem is not ideological, per se- people can reinvent themselves on the fly

      In his case, for the purposes of the Democratic primary, I’m pretty skeptical. His political identity is sufficiently known and ingrained by now. (Re: Edwards, a) he was largely unknown, and b) his relatively conservative record in the Senate can be explained by representing NC; Cuomo has no such excuse)

      • humanoid.panda

        This is where I disagree: I am very skeptical that his political identity is well-known, outside tristate area.

        • djw

          It’s not. But (b) is a real problem.

          Also: My theory is that (without Hillary Clinton around to absorb it) there’s going to be a fair amount of “perfidious wicked neoliberal” negative energy looking for a target to glom onto for the Democratic primary. It’s not entirely predictable how that will be distributed among the candidates, but I suspect high-information Sanders supporters will play an outsized role in its distribution. And they do know, or will quickly learn about, Cuomo’s political identity, and disseminate that knowledge to their followers.

          (If I were Corey Booker and thinking about running, I’d be praying for Cuomo to run, to absorb as much of that negative energy and attention as possible)

          • Rob in CT

            My theory is that (without Hillary Clinton around to absorb it) there’s going to be a fair amount of “perfidious wicked neoliberal” negative energy looking for a target to glom onto for the Democratic primary.

            In this case, Cuomo running would be great.

          • humanoid.panda

            That’s a good point (and one should notice that Cuomo is indeed making nice towards Sanders).

          • Murc

            It’s not entirely predictable how that will be distributed among the candidates, but I suspect high-information Sanders supporters will play an outsized role in its distribution.

            I’d better get cracking then. I am 100% down with distributing political dirt on Cuomo. Is there some sweet sweet Soros funding available for this project?

          • Aexia

            I totally agree that the alt-left types will be looking for a neoliberal scapegoat but, as much as Cuomo would deserve it, there’s absolutely no way they’ll target a white man like that.

            Booker is already the target of some of that ire and he’s black so he’s screwed whether Cuomo runs or not.

            • PunditusMaximus

              Cool meme, bro.

              • brad

                Methinks the laddie doth protest too much.

                If it’s not about you, don’t make it about you.

                • PunditusMaximus

                  I hate the “alt-left” meme, because it implies that there is anything that remotely resembles the utter vileness of the “alt-right” on the left end.

                  There just isn’t. Both sides don’t do it.

                • Abbey Bartlet

                  I hate the “alt-left” meme, because it implies that there is anything that remotely resembles the utter vileness of the “alt-right” on the left end.

                  There just isn’t.

                  Lol.

                  When I’m being told I’m a cunt who should die from an illegal abortion for voting for Hillary, it doesn’t really matter if they’re coming at that from the left or the right.

          • Bethesda 1971

            well,high-information Sanders supporters and Russian trolls, as in 2016.

        • Scott Lemieux

          I am very skeptical that his political identity is well-known, outside tristate area.

          Yes, in addition to Democratic primary voters who won’t want to vote for Cuomo there will be people who have no idea who he is. Why you think this is any kind of path to Cuomo winning the nomination is…not obvious. What constituency does Cuomo appeal to?

          • trollhattan

            From the left coast I’ll say I’m quite familiar with and impressed by Gillibrand and as to Cuomo, how did dad raise that?

            • Phil Perspective

              The same way Birch Bayh raised a piece of crap son named Evan.

            • Colin Day

              Ask Marcus Aurelius.

              • Colin Day

                I just got an edit button!

            • brad

              He didn’t, Albany did.

          • humanoid.panda

            What constituency did Bill Clinton appeal to in early 1989?

            Look: unless Warren and/or Biden (I wouldn’t totally discount this possibility if he is healthy) run, we are going to have a race between people who don’t have much of a national brand, in a highly fluid environment defined by opposition to an incumbent. In this kind of atmosphere, very few people on don’t have any path.

            • Phil Perspective

              That’s just the thing. How many Democrats can raise enough money to get at least through South Carolina? Cuomo, Gillibrand and Booker can. Hickenlooper? Because a bunch of them probably think they can beat Trump. Will they take the jump though? Who wants to be put under the scrutiny that it would entail? Is Gillibrand’s husband willing to quit his banker job?

            • Scott Lemieux

              What constituency did Bill Clinton appeal to in early 1989?

              If you think that Clinton and Cuomo are comparable political talents, I don’t know what to tell you. And his primary competition was Paul Tsongas, because an at-the-time popular incumbent scared out any talented competition. Trump ain’t scaring out Gillibrand, Harris, or any other talented politician Cuomo has no chance of beating.

              • humanoid.panda

                Admittedly, my prior is that beyond transcendental talents (Obama), or total bores (say, McConnel), political talent is highly overrated.

                • McConnell is in niche market where gland handing wealthy and corporate interests is much, much, more important than charisma. The presidency requires both the ability to gland hand corporate interests, or promise to serve them later, *and* charisma. These are just utterly different places for talents.

                • “Gland handing”? Don’t you mean “glans handling”?

                • Imma gonna stick with it. But it ups the squick factor by several megajillions. My language skills have really taken a huge hit since I started work on my MSW. No one can understand my ten dollar words like (not kidding) jaunty, supplicant, and billious). I’m starting to communicate largely in emojis.

                • Davis X. Machina

                  “Gland handing”? Don’t you mean “glans handling”?

                  Well, that made getting up this morning worth it, all by itself.

            • cleter

              What constituency did Bill Clinton appeal to in early 1989?

              People who didn’t want another Dukakis. Being a moderate Southerner was pretty anti-Dukakis-ish.

    • Murc

      His problem is that as the governor of a state that really would like to get federal infrastracture dollars, he can’t slug Trump at will.

      Yes, he can. If he thinks that Congress is going to fork over meaningful infrastructure dollars, rather than corporate graft, to New York in any case, he’s not qualified to be the nominees anyway.

    • Dilan Esper

      I am looking forward to the not at all mysoginistic takes about how by running an upper middle class woman

      I am known for my distaste for Hillary, but I think there’s no reason why the Democrats should really ever run a male presidential candidate at this point. Hillary’s gender did not hurt her, and probably was a net positive. The demographic trends have the Democrats moving towards a more female-dominated party in the future.

      If not Kirsten, than it should be Kamala or Tulsi. But the Democrats should be cultivating female candidates.

      • msdc

        If not Kirsten, than it should be Kamala or Tulsi.

        Only an anti-Muslim, anti-refugee, opportunistically anti-gay neoconservative who defends Narendra Modi and Bashar Fucking Assad can save us!

        • brad

          Butbutbut, the Bros are ok that she doesn’t have a penis.

        • witlesschum

          Who, don’t forget, met with Trump’s people about a job.

          • And didn’t Richard Spencer recently praise her? That’s definitely the sort of person whose political opinions ours should be aligning with.

      • Davis X. Machina

        Tulsi?

        That ship has sailed, hit an iceberg, sank, and the occupants of the only lifeboat ate each other one by one, till the last survivor was hit by lightning and killed.

        Kelsey’s nuts will win the Boston Marathon first.

        • Chet Manly

          Word. Swap Tulsi out for Tammy Duckworth and I’d agree completely, though.

  • Q.E.Dumbass

    This frequent reminder does wonders to quell the (somehow) frequent nightmare I have of the 2020 field being Andrew Cuomo, Jim Webb, Bill Maher and Joe Manchin.

    That said, mark my words: If the race ends up narrowing to Cuomo and Bernie Sanders, I will literally eat a baby. If Cuomo ends up becoming the Democratic nominee, I will additionally eat every animal in the Bronx Zoo and upload it to the LGM site.

    • Murc

      If Sanders were even five years younger I would be all for him running again.

      Now, tho? Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. I think the only way I could justify voting for him again would be if the rest of the field were worse. Not equivalent; actually worse.

      Part of me would like to see Clinton take another run at Trump, give America a chance at a do-over, but that’s not gonna happen either.

      • Part of me would like to see Clinton take another run at Trump

        Only with a fixed bayonet.

        • That’s a better fate than the shitgibbon deserves, and yet I still kind of want to see this happen now.

      • PunditusMaximus

        Jeebus wasn’t lighting ONE billion dollars on fire enough? Nothing satisifies Clinton supporters.

        • Rob in CT

          Just a little tip for you there, sport: Murc was a loud & proud Sanders guy in the primaries, and does not actually want HRC to run again.

          • Murc

            Just a little tip for you there, sport: Murc was a loud & proud Sanders guy in the primaries, and does not actually want HRC to run again.

            Yeah, I mean… I wouldn’t MIND if she ran again, but I don’t actively desire it.

            Really, the feeling that I’d like to see Clinton take down Trump in a rematch comes from the same part of that wants to see, in 2018, Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton team up to take down Rauner and Cuomo in Illinois and NYC. Is it gonna happen? No. But man, it makes me feel warm.

            • Q.E.Dumbass

              FWIW, I’ve noticed that none of the 2018 Candidate Clinton chickenfucking AFAICT has centered around a gubernatorial run. Although there’s a greater chance that she’d do so than that Michelle Obama would.

              • Scott Lemieux

                If Clinton’s opponent is Andrew Cuomo, it’s pretty hard to sustain the “the graspingly ambitious Hillary Clinton will stop at nothing to perfidiously impose neoliberalism on the Democrat Party” wank fantasy that is responsible for 99.99999% of “Hillary/Chelsea is totally going to run for…something” speculation on the left. But if she ran (SPOLIER: she won’t), a lot of bros would still manage to do it.

            • Rob in CT

              Yeah, I get it Murc. It’s a fantasy. And because it’s a fantasy, you get the result you want (she wins/they win). It gives me the warm fuzzies too.

            • PunditusMaximus

              I guess. I cannot be the only person who is utterly exhausted by every living relative of William Jefferson Clinton being given an infinite amount of money and Establishment goodwill.

              I mean, sure, whup Rauner. But also whup the Dem Party that let Rauner happen.

              • jim, some guy in iowa

                not too exhausted to complain 24/7 though. that’s too bad

              • Bootsie

                I guess. I cannot be the only person who is utterly exhausted by every living relative of William Jefferson Clinton being given an infinite amount of money and Establishment goodwill.

                Ah yes, “every living relative”, or in simpler terms “just his politically accomplsihed wife”.

                • veleda_k

                  What does a mere female appendage to a Great Man think she’s doing, having goals?

              • StellaB

                Lawyers’ kids go to law school. Doctors’ kids go to med school. Politicians’ kids run for office. At any given time, 10% of Congress members are related to other past or present members. A few years ago there were simultaneously two sisters from California, two brothers from Michigan, as well as two first cousins from New Mexico and Colorado who were the sons of two brothers who had consecutively held the same House seat. One of the Udalls was also a nephew of Sen. Gordon Smith.

                Speaking of dynasties, I do like RFK’s grandson, Joseph P. Kennedy.

                • imwithher

                  Speaking of real dynasties, as opposed to misogynist/made up one like the Clintons, I, for one, was delighted when Governor
                  Patterson chose Congresswoman Gillibrand to replace Hillary Clinton in the Senate, instead of Lady Who Lunches But Otherwise Has No Qualifications Other than Her Genes, “Sweet Caroline” Kennedy.

              • ForkyMcSpoon

                It really is too bad that those Democrats keep putting perennial loser Roger Clinton Jr on the ballot.

            • Hogan

              So you’re saying if Aaron Sorkin made a Lifetime movie about it, you’d DVR it for later?

            • witlesschum

              Yeah, I don’t particularly want Hillary Clinton to be president, given better alternatives are available in this scenario. But I do want to see Donald Trump utterly humiliated, so…

              ETA:
              The edit window!?!?!?

              • Abbey Bartlet

                Yeah, I don’t particularly want Hillary Clinton to be president, given better alternatives are available in this scenario.

                I struggle to think of anyone named in this thread who would be a better *president* (not candidate) than Hillary Clinton.

        • OFFS. Running any candidate at all will cost a billion dollars. Or do you propose the democrats stay home in 2020?

          • Scott Lemieux

            The Democrat Party should abjure most fundraising and pour immense amounts of money into every single election held in the United States, of course. I don’t see what you don’t get about this.

            • ForkyMcSpoon

              I’ll never give money to the corrupt DCCC”
              “They shouldn’t take money from big donors”
              “The DCCC should’ve poured money into this race!”

          • Justin Runia

            The hair shirts and flogs aren’t going to buy themselves, you know.

  • Thom

    People in the NE probably think that Cuomo is a big name, like Bush, Kennedy, or Clinton. But outside that region, it is not. Probably at this point as many people know who Sen. Gillibrand is as know who Gov. Cuomo is. Not many know either.

    • Michael Cain

      I’m willing to bet now — if the Democrats nominate anyone from the NE urban corridor in 2020, that candidate will lose in the electoral college in November.

      • Rob in CT

        Ugh.

  • eclare

    I like the symbolism of Senator Clinton’s replacement becoming the first female President.

    • Q.E.Dumbass

      It would also fulfill the future prophesied in “Bart to the Future.”

    • artem1s

      I like that every woman who voted for Hillary for Senator, 2008, and 2016 twice will know who Gillibrand is. She has a national identity because she took that Senate seat away from a Kennedy no-nothing and turned into a solid progressive voice in DC. Women who vote Dem know who she is. The only more solid Democratic demographic she could carry would be black women Democrats. That’s who she needs to convince her Wall Street connections aren’t a negative. Not a bunch of unreliable Bernie supporters.

      • imwithher

        A “Kennedy Know Nothing” whose Uncle Ted was a key earlier supporter of then Senator Obama’s presidential primary bid. And was the favored candidate of President Obama when Governor Patterson told him to stuff it, and chose the much better Congresswoman Gillibrand instead.

  • bobloblaw57

    I don’t understand how she doesn’t have similar baggage to clinton with her financial industry ties. She has taken a lot of money from Goldman Sachs and whether fair or not, people will rake her for it. Yes her actual votes are usually quite progressive and she doesn’t have 30 years of anti-clinton skullfuckery but people are still going to bring up her pretty conservative anti-immigrant viewpoints from 10 years ago as well. maybe that will play good these days idk

    • Steve LaBonne

      A lot fewer people give a shit about that stuff than Bernouts imagine.

      • bobloblaw57

        i guess we will see. i suspect there will be some democrat with exactly the same progressive credentials as her but without the goldman sachs money in the primary

        of course now that i am typing that out i realize this is probably like a martin o malley guy who no one actually cares about lol

        • Matty

          i suspect there will be some democrat with exactly the same progressive credentials as her but without the goldman sachs money in the primary

          Who? Seriously, who? Our of the 48 Dems in the senate, how many have good anti-Trump records and a sufficiently pure donor list? How about the 16 current Dem governors, a list that includes John Bel Edwards, Jim Justice, the aforementioned Andrew Cuomo, and Gina Raimondo?

          • solidcitizen

            Merkley has no banking ties that I know of. Son of a machinist. I know he’s from palookaville, but he’s someone.

          • Dilan Esper

            Who? Seriously, who? Our of the 48 Dems in the senate, how many have good anti-Trump records and a sufficiently pure donor list?

            I like Gillebrand, but I do want to say, this sort of argumentation leaves a lot of people on the left cold.

            Basically, the Democratic Party is way too in bed with high finance. I don’t think the reasons are very pure. One decent reason is to raise money, but there’s plenty of other sources for that. But I also think it has a lot to do with the revolving door, getting their kids employed in very high paying jobs, being able to socialize and have events with very rich people and hang around the very rich, etc.

            So if this is ever going to stop, there has to be a price attached to doing it. And in principle, punishing politicians for doing it, or at least forcing them to repudiate it and really stick it to Wall Street in their platforms, seems to me to be a reasonable approach to take.

            In contrast, “almost everyone did it, so we won’t attach any consequences to it at all” is a very good way to ensure that the Democratic Party never becomes hostile to finance and the gravy train never ends.

            • The problem is that, as long as Citizens United prevents campaign finance reform, Democrats need to raise money to win elections. The better-financed candidate wins something like 90% of elections. I’m about as far left as you can get, but I still acknowledge political realities. We have to win power before we can change things. I don’t like the fact that finance is a major contributor to Democrats’ campaigns, but as long as we have to raise billions of dollars for presidential campaigns, it’s just a necessary evil. If we can overturn Citizens United, then we can talk about changing that.

              • Dilan Esper

                Cassandra, I don’t think Citizens United has much of an effect at all on presidential elections. Both parties always have way more money than they can effectively spend.

                You can make an argument that it has more of an effect in congressional races, but incumbency is a much bigger factor (meaning that certainly almost nobody running for RE-election needs to take a cent from the banks) and even there, there are other rich donors to liberal causes.

                At any rate, I really don’t believe that the need for campaign finance plays more than a small part in the explanation of why Democrats take this money. They receive some of this money. Their family members (especially their children) receive it. They get to socialize and attend parties paid for by it.

                One of the things I liked about Sanders, which I suspect a lot of commenters here would find a bit silly, is he’s one of the few politicians I’ve seen in recent years (Warren is another one) who doesn’t seem to have any desire to hang out with the very wealthy or enjoy the trappings of the ultra-rich. And I say that having no illusions about exactly how much money he has– he still gives off the vibe that he’d rather spend time with a labor union shop steward than with Jamie Dimon or Lloyd Blankfein. I want there to be more Democrats like that.

                • I was specifically speaking about congressional races with the 90% figure. And incumbency is an advantage in large part specifically because incumbents get to spend so much of their time fundraising. Indeed, they themselves acknowledge that if they didn’t spend several hours a day fundraising, they couldn’t stay in office, and several accomplished legislators have quit purely because of this. To be clear, this was a problem even before Citizens United, but it’s even worse now.

                  For the presidency, it may be less decisive, but to get to the point where you can credibly run for the presidency, it was assumed until last year that you had to have a credible record in other offices. And I suspect the shitgibbon’s sheer incompetence has completely nuked the possibility that a person without a record in office will be electable in the future, unless they are truly sui generis.

      • sleepyirv

        I dunno, the language served him well in the primaries.

        • cleek

          not well enough.

          • sleepyirv

            I don’t think “winning the Democratic Presidential nomination” is the standard for a lot of people caring about a particular issue.

            • Brien Jackson

              I can count on one hand the number of Sanders voters I know who genuinely care about having banking regulations as tight as Sanders desires.

      • PunditusMaximus

        Establishing a 4-year brand of total intransigent resistance would help a lot. Part of the Corporate Dem meme is that even when the donors don’t crack the whip, Corporate Dems are so used to rolling over for Republican Daddy that they do things like appoint James Comey to be Director of the FBI.

        Absolute resistance to Tr45 would do a lot to disrupt that meme. A lot of this is about character as well as policy.

        • This is really feeling like word salad or one of those fridge magnet poetry things.

          • PunditusMaximus

            More of a Cliffs Notes of a conversation that not everyone has been part of.

            Shorter version: lefty Dems are willing to forgive a lot from someone who fights Goldman Sachs (and Republicans in general), instead of pledging to protect them from us and hiring them for high-level positions.

            • Bruce B.

              I admit it: I’m a simple soul, and middle-aged now at that, with my on surviving parent in her mid-80s. I think it was more important to protect the party, the country, and the whole world from Donald Fucking Trump, Mitch Fucking McConnell, and the rest. I think the way you talk about Hilary Clinton as some monstrous figure is itself monstrous, and that your days and nights should be haunted by the constant realization of the unspeakable horrors that you and your little obsessions helped to unleash and help to perpetuate now.

              But like I said, I’m a simple soul. I think a candidate could be a whole lot worse than Clinton and still be very much the one to support and enthuse over, given reality as a whole.

              • PunditusMaximus

                I voted for Clinton.

                • Bruce B.

                  And zealously spend time demoralizing every potential Democratic voter you can reach who fails to meet your purity standard.

                  What we need now is the opposite of purity. We want the Manchin Democrats and all their ilk, and drifting not-paying-attention Democrats, and bankster Democrats, and upper-class-twit Democrats, and everyone, out supporting candidates. The Republican alternative is essentially always worse, and that’ll be the case for a long time to come; given that, darned near any reason to get folks enthusiastic for Democrats is a good one, and lots of candidates are good ones, too.

            • Abbey Bartlet

              lefty Dems are willing to forgive a lot from someone who fights Goldman Sachs (and Republicans in general), instead of pledging to protect them from us and hiring them for high-level positions.

              This is of course bullshit of the highest order.

    • ChrisS

      I would expect Gillibrand to appoint fewer former Goldman Sachs employees to staff positions than Trump.

      • humanoid.panda

        I don’t understand how she doesn’t have similar baggage to clinton with her financial industry ties. She has taken a lot of money from Goldman Sachs and whether fair or not, people will rake her for it.

        What killed HRC was not the money she took from Goldman as donations. What killed her were the lavishly paid speeches. Different category.

        • Hogan

          Killed her where? In the general? You think that was the key factor?

          • Scott Lemieux

            Yeah, this is a classic pundit’s fallacy. People want it to be the Goldman speeches that hurt her, because they were legitimately dumb politics, but they attracted very little media coverage for obvious reasons. It was EMAILS! (including the Wikileaks stuff) and the Clinton Foundation that really damaged her in the general.

            • humanoid.panda

              Fair enough. Killed her is way too strong. Stuck to her legs like chewing gum, and fed the left-wing resistance to her to the very end is a better formulation.

            • PunditusMaximus

              I dunno.

              I mean, I understand what motivated Republicans to vote against her, but almost anyone who was willing to vote for Trump was just gonna vote Republican no matter what. The lauded Obama/Trump voters were a tiny percentage of the electorate and laser focused on jobs.

              What killed HRC were apparently Comey and lost enthusiasm. Comey was all Obama, and I still don’t understand why there isn’t some serious hate about that. Lost enthusiasm can come from a lot of sources, including of course explicit voter suppression.

              I still remember thinking when the info on the Goldman Sachs speeches came out at the time, years before the primary, that HRC was perfectly entitled to cash in and that of course that meant she wasn’t running. It blew my mind that she thought that that level of obvious cash-in was compatible with appearing Presidential from the Democratic end. Only Republicans can get away with that obvious a conflict of interest.

              • Rob in CT

                The lauded Obama/Trump voters were a tiny percentage of the electorate and laser focused on jobs.

                If you include immigration as part of “jobs” sure.

                Comey was all Obama, and I still don’t understand why there isn’t some serious hate about that

                There is anger about that. Scott’s posted about it several times, and made many more references in other posts. There is general agreement on “Democrats have to learn to not appoint Republicans.” It might be the thing that would poll at or near 100% here at LGM. Obama fucked up by appointing him. Not only was he a Republican, but he was in on the Whitewater witch-hunt.

                Now maybe there isn’t enough anger about it amongst rank & file Dems, I can’t say.

                • PunditusMaximus

                  Were the immigration people really Obama/Trump? I thought they were generally just Romney/Trump or nothing/Trump.

                  I still don’t know why there isn’t standing white-hot rage amongst HRC backers toward Obama for appointing Comey. If any one thing got Tr45 elected, it’s that, and it’s utterly inexcusable.

                • Domino

                  Didn’t Ray LaHood do a decent job as Transportation Secretary?

                • PunditusMaximus

                  Well, that makes it worth the risk.

              • Abbey Bartlet

                I still don’t know why there isn’t standing white-hot rage amongst HRC backers toward Obama for appointing Comey.

                Because if you’d asked him to imagine the worst-case scenario that would result from a Republican FBI director, it wouldn’t have been “throws a presidential election to an incompetent fascist”?

    • Aaron Morrow

      There’s very few candidates for president who will be able to attack Gillibrand on the left, so tying her to Wall Street with her record is bound to fail.

      Also, many Democrats like candidates who become more liberal with age, like a fine wine. Again, I wonder how many candidates will be able to credibly attack her from the left on immigration when she has an actual record upon which to stand.

      • Hogan

        Funny thing: the far right recognizes the possibility of repentance and conversion, to the point of imagining it where it hasn’t happened. The far left refuses to recognize that possibility, to the point of denying it when it has happened.

        • Excellent point.

        • zoomar

          Gillebrand’s growth/change sounded credible to me. She explained that she met with constituents affected by Blue Dog policies and listened to those constituents by changing her views and advocating their interests.

        • pseudalicious

          Yeah, it is definitely a problem with the internet left. Not just the Berner left, either.

        • ForkyMcSpoon

          You’re allowed to convert as long as your conversion is becoming anti-establishment.

          Becoming more progressive or not is less important.

          Tulsi Gabbard is absolutely forgiven for being anti-gay in the past (her past on LGBT issues is worse than Clinton’s ever was) because she is anti-establishment and endorsed Bernie. In fact, it’s just neoliberal smears to bring it up. On the other hand, Clinton being wishy-washy on gay marriage is a indelible stain on her record. Yet Gabbard being outright homophobic can be forgiven. The fact that Gabbard also hasn’t moved left on “radical Islamic terrorism” and the like is ignored.

          I have a college friend who voted for Bush in 2004 (and still gets defensive about it) and was a fan of Ann fucking Coulter and how she pissed off the liberals when I met him… but he supported Bernie Sanders in the primary and constantly attacked Clinton for her impurity. None of the other Bernie supporters questioned his cred, my left/progressive cred was constantly attacked because I didn’t think Clinton was awful.

          (I do think he was wise enough not to call her “Goldwater Girl” which would have basically compelled me to discuss how he was a Coulter fan at a later age than that.)

      • Phil Perspective

        There’s very few candidates for president who will be able to attack Gillibrand on the left, so tying her to Wall Street with her record is bound to fail.

        Her husband is a banker/venture capitalist. Fair or not she’s going to have to deal with it. So she better have a good answer.

        • If the fucking “rather be right than in power” left would give our candidates a chance she could/would deal with it exactly the way any person who needs to win a national election would do “my husband is a banker/venture capitalist” he and I are very concerned about the ability of american corporations and workers to do well in a complex, global, financial environment. We both believe that America can and should do better by both workers and businesses. We have seen how Ameriac’s economy, worker regulations, and standing in the world have plummeted under President Trump…” blah blah blah.

          • PunditusMaximus

            I really wish the meme that it’s the lefties who’d rather be right than in power would die. It’s the Establishment Dems that killed the 50-State Strategy and refused to prosecute banksters on ideological grounds.

            Projection ain’t just a way to watch movies.

            • JMP

              Why should you wish a meme that it 100% correct would die? Fuck, one of the main reasons we have Donald Trump today is because too many “leftists” refused to vote for Hillary Clinton because they saw her an insufficiently pure and accepted all the Russian misinformation slandering. Yet they’re still playing purity politics and claiming that their idiotic bullshit was justified despite how they elected a racist fascist monster.

              • PunditusMaximus

                This is my point w/r/t “projection”.

                If HRC lost due to one thing, it’s because Obama appointed a white Republican Daddy to FBI Director. Those of us who protested at the time were told we were purity trolls.

                You people would rather be “pragmatic” and superior to “leftists” than win.

                • Scott Lemieux

                  Those of us who protested at the time were told we were purity trolls.

                  This, of course, didn’t happen.

                • PunditusMaximus

                  Yeah, everyone was totally in favor of Obama appointing Yet Another Republican Daddy, and the people who noticed the pattern and exhaustedly pointed it out yet again weren’t called purity trolls yet again.

                • Perhaps you would benefit yourself to go back to the LGM blog posts at the time where Lemieux himself criticised the Comey appointment. Here’s an example. Don’t see too many people calling him a purity troll.

                • brad

                  At least you know you’ve always been right.

                • PunditusMaximus

                  I’m even more lost than ever. If it’s ok to see Obama’s obsession with empowering Republicans as bad, then why is the “purity” meme even a thing?

                • Do you know the difference between making a bad decision and being a bad person?

                • If you don’t see the difference between criticising one specific appointment Obama made and spending an entire general election attacking the Democratic nominee as a neoliberal sellout, then I’m not sure there’s anything any of us can say to alleviate your confusion.

                  e: or what stepped pyramids said too. (Thanks for getting the edit function fixed, btw.)

                • tsam

                  I’m even more lost than ever. If it’s ok to see Obama’s obsession with empowering Republicans as bad, then why is the “purity” meme even a thing?

                  It’s one thing to be critical of Democrats when they fuck up. It’s another to suggest that their flaws make them as bad as Republicans or unacceptable or fucking whatever you guys are on about at any particular moment.

                  The purity meme is a thing because you purity trolls come in here and derail actual analysis of politicians with your insistence that something you don’t like about them (valid or not) is a total deal breaker and we’re all terrible for not agreeing with you.

                  You people would rather be “pragmatic” and superior to “leftists” than win.

                  You have no evidence that your “leftism” has any chance at success in the national electorate. Pragmatism means using all the data available to maximize our chances of winning. That doesn’t guarantee victory. I shouldn’t have to point out that despite you knowing it in your heart of hearts, electing a socialist isn’t going to make socialism suddenly happen in the USA.

                • PunditusMaximus

                  “You have no evidence that your “leftism” has any chance at success in the national electorate.”

                  That’s . . . not reasonable. Obama ran way left of where he governed, and he won as a result. The 2006 and 2008 wave elections came during the era of the 50-State Strategy, a lefty meme that Obama dismantled in ’09, leading to slow, constant decline for the next 8 years, culminating in shitgibbon.

                  I have evidence that there is a chance of success. I also have evidence that “pragmatism” isn’t very “pragmatic”, in that it involves losing to a shitgibbon.

                • tsam

                  One of your other comments made it clear that without Barack Obama putting Comey at FBI director, Clinton might not have lost to the ShitGibbon. Which is it?

                  You might be suggesting that the Comey nomination is thought of as pragmatism around here. That’s absolutely not true. I have no idea why Barack Obama thought he should appease right wing tantrums by handing law enforcement over to a right wing crybaby.

                • And yet people who ran to Clinton’s left performed worse than she did in the same election, so you’re going to need much stronger evidence that voters want to buy what you’re selling.

                  Furthermore, eliding the many contributing factors to Clinton’s ‘loss’, which I feel compelled to point out was actually a 2.86 million-vote popular victory, does not speak well of your intellectual honesty. Given that Clinton was running against factors including the FBI, the media, a sophisticated Russian troll operation, Wikileaks, and an electoral system designed to privilege slaveholding states, it’s certainly possible to conclude that 2016 was a fluke.

                • JMP

                  Me: “one of the main reasons we have Donald Trump today”

                  PM: “If HRC lost due to one thing”

                  Good job moving those goalposts!

                • PunditusMaximus

                  Dude I have two paragraphs in blog comments. I chose to focus on one synecdoche.

                  “without Barack Obama putting Comey at FBI director, Clinton might not have lost to the ShitGibbon.”

                  Yeah, I think that HRC, a highly competent and proven capable human could have pulled out a win against a shitgibbon.

                  That said, my contention remains that a “pragmatic” approach that ends with a shitgibbon having a shot at the nuclear football isn’t, um, “pragmatic” any more. The fact that the shitgibbon got close enough to win on a technicality means that whatever was being done, it wasn’t working.

                • PunditusMaximus

                  I’d say that the primary difference here is that my interlocutors seem to view Obama’s appointment of Comey as some kind of deviation from the norm, while I view it as absolutely the norm.

                • PunditusMaximus

                  And, dammit, even if 2016 was a fluke, we’ve got 1,000 lost state-level legislative seats over the years previous to account for in our discussions.

                • And, again, people who ran to Clinton’s left in 2016 performed worse than she did. She herself ran to Obama’s left even in the primary and shifted further left in the general, so even if we accept the implicit premise that Obama was a secret neoliberal, Clinton’s performance in 2016 is not solid evidence that the Democrats need to shift further left to win elections.

                  Furthermore, the majority of those 1,000 seats occurred during off-year elections that favour the political opposition of the president’s party, another factor you have repeatedly ignored.

                • PunditusMaximus

                  “to Clinton’s left”

                  1) I don’t know what this means. Economically or socially? My thesis is about jobs, wages, and prosecuting rich people when they do bad things. Did a lot of people run to HRC’s left on these issues — against TPP and also having been against it for a while, in favor of stronger union protections/minwage, and going after the banksters?

                  2) I don’t blame HRC for Obama’s neoliberalism. I blame Obama for that. But Obama pushing for TPP while Clinton ran against it just destroyed her credibility on these issues. Obama’s “foaming the runway” and impunity for banksters defined his Presidency, and it just wasn’t possible to get out from under that in a reasonable way.

                  3) I blame HRC for running for President after cashing out. That’s just a bad look. Only Republicans get to do that because our political press is deranged.

                  4) But I’m back to the beginning. I don’t know anyone who ran on containing the financial sector and trying to improve employment numbers who did worse than HRC did nationallly. I’m sure some people did; there are a lot of races. But in the areas I’ve got family in (Cali, IL, WI, IN), either the Dems pretty much tracked HRC and did about as well as she did, or they were to her left in these areas and did a little better.

                • ForkyMcSpoon

                  How did everyone ignore the part where PM said that Obama campaigned far to the left of where he governed?

                • Feingold ran to her left both socially and economically, and did worse than she did. This was a pattern among Senate candidates. Teachout did even worse in her House election. Meanwhile, Cooper ran somewhat to Clinton’s right in NC and won the gubernatorial election.

                  I’ll be the last person to defend Obama’s support of the TPP and I suspect that the thesis that it hurt Clinton is probably correct. I’m also not sure what particular relevance this has to any argument anyone has made.

                  And yes, I’m not entirely certain that you can say Obama ran well to the left of where he governed. He certainly didn’t run on a platform of nationalising the banks or anything like that. Indeed, a particularly notable aspect of his campaign was that a lot of his rhetoric was couched so that people could read a number of implications into it; moderates seemed to expect him to govern as a moderate. In any case, the ACA is one of the most notable pieces of progressive legislation since the Great Society, and the economic stimulus was also quite significant, so while he may not have been a perfect progressive, he was hardly some kind of neoliberal either.

                  I need to head out, so I will probably not be responsive for awhile.

                • Brien Jackson

                  “Yeah, everyone was totally in favor of Obama appointing Yet Another Republican Daddy…”

                  I mean, you’re literally stealing the verbiage Scott has used on this blog since basically the beginning of the Obama administration to discuss the topic.

                • djw

                  If it’s ok to see Obama’s obsession with empowering Republicans as bad, then why is the “purity” meme even a thing?

                  This sentence appears to be grammatically correct, but “then why” is being asked to accomplish a task it’s simply not up to: establishing a conceptual or logical link to the words before and after it.

                  Obama ran way left of where he governed,

                  One of the clearest signs that the 2008 campaign was a brilliant one is how many different people saw exactly what they wanted to in it. Those who were paying a little closer attention noticed he ran to the right of Hillary Clinton in the primary.

                • Obama’s 2008 platform was pretty centrist, and he ended up governing to its left on virtually everything other than national security/military issues.

                  The 50 State Strategy helped elect a lot of moderate to conservative Dems. As far as I can tell, the main reason people identify it with the left is that Howard Dean was involved (Dean being another figure that people think is much further to the left than he actually is) and that Rahm Emanuel was opposed (even though that was largely a personal power struggle, not an ideological one).

            • lunaticllama

              Gillibrand voted against TARP in 2008 and for Dodd-Frank. That right there should provide some inoculation against charges of being a financial-industry stooge, but YMMV.

              • bender

                “Obama ran way left of where he governed”

                As djw says, Obama ran on a few content-free slogans like “Hope and Change” and allowed people (including the Nobel Prize committee!) to project on him whatever they imagined he stood for.

                FWIW, I tagged him as a corporate liberal, thought he governed to the right of what I expected for the first term and a half and to the left of it for his last two years.

            • Abbey Bartlet

              I really wish the meme that it’s the lefties who’d rather be right than in power would die.

              I really wish the 132,476 people in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin who voted for Jill Stein would die.

    • JMP

      Nobody actually gave a shit about Clinton’s financial industry ties, nobody, that was just one of the excuses the “liberals” suffering from Clinton Derangement Syndrome gave for their lies claiming she was really just like a Republican and their hatred of her. Though there may be a repeat of that bullshit since Gillibrand does share the gender that was the reason the Bernie Bros hated her so much.

      • Domino

        I mean, I cared that Hillary didn’t think it was a problem at all to go and take money from Goldman for some basic PR “you’re all great” speech, knowing she was going to run for president. Add in the bizarre decision to try and withhold what was in the speeches (which only made it seem like there was a smoking gun in them, when there very clearly wasn’t) and that is a candidate I don’t want to support to lead the party.

        It’s part of why I supported Bernie. Of course, I was able to overcome those reservations when she was going up against Mango Mussolini.

        • PunditusMaximus

          Ditto, of course.

        • Little Chak

          I mean, I cared that Hillary didn’t think it was a problem at all to go and take money from Goldman for some basic PR “you’re all great” speech, knowing she was going to run for president. Add in the bizarre decision to try and withhold what was in the speeches (which only made it seem like there was a smoking gun in them, when there very clearly wasn’t)

          Wait a minute; I’m confused. Wouldn’t a speech that was basically a “you’re all great” speech be a smoking gun?

          The reality is that it was not a “you’re all great” speech, but even so, releasing the speeches was a political risk of its own, in that it would have given liars like Julian Assange the ability to take things out of context and present them to his followers as a smoking gun, anyway.

          Giving the speech was a political miscalculation, but it would have been hard to predict that the GOP would run an “anti-Wall Street” candidate running on faux economic populism. It also would have been hard to predict that so many on the left would be willingly snookered by propoganda from the right and join in spreading it.

          It also amazes me that people see taking money from an organization, in the form of a speaking fee which is not more than they usually command, to somehow be greater (or even equal) evidence of agreeing with the organization’s politics than just straight up taking the money for their re-election fund at a fundraiser.

        • JMP

          Damn that Hillary for not realizing that doing something that had no reason to cause controversy would be turned into a completely unfair attack against her by fake liberals with an irrational hatred of her.

    • Redwood Rhiadra

      Yes her actual votes are usually quite progressive

      Clinton’s actual votes in the Senate were pretty progressive too. Made no difference to the Sandernistas, though.

  • djw

    When people say “Cuomo will be strong contender in 2020,” they’re really saying “I developed my views on the composition and ideology of the Democratic party some time ago, and I have no interest in revisiting them in light of new information.”

    • Q.E.Dumbass

      Although a presidential run from him would do a great job of flushing out the alt-lefties and Chapo bros (re: the people who’d defend him as a leftist icon against Clinton 1.5 and the Neoliberal [[[Negroes]]]).

      BTW, did anyone take Michael Tracey seriously before his caping for Jim Webb?

      • Rob in CT

        I am not very impressed by Our Leftist Betters, but I’d actually be surprised if they sunk that low.

        • wjts

          I seem to recall at least one of Our Leftist Betters started out championing Jim Webb as the Real Progressive Alternative to History’s Bloodthirstiest Neoliberal Warmonger.

          • Rob in CT

            Maybe “sink that low” isn’t quite right. But I would be surprised to see that sort of bullshit attached to Cuomo. He doesn’t tick the “salt of the Earth” box at all. There’s no “he can win us back places we’ve lost we used to win” with Cuomo.

            • humanoid.panda

              I seem to recall at least one of Our Leftist Betters started out championing Jim Webb as the Real Progressive Alternative to History’s Bloodthirstiest Neoliberal Warmonger.

              Michael Tracey is an outlier, even among that brigade.

              • Murc

                Michael Tracey is an outlier, even among that brigade.

                Don’t you mean… BROgade?

                (I’m here all night, folks! Tip your servers!)

              • Abbey Bartlet

                Michael Tracey is an outlier, even among that brigade.

                I agree that he’s worst/Nazier than most, but he works at TYT, which is basically mainstream for True Leftists.

            • Duvall

              He does have a penis though. Very important for that crowd.

          • Q.E.Dumbass

            Michael Tracey, as I said upthread*

            *Sue me

          • Scott Lemieux

            I seem to recall at least one of Our Leftist Betters started out championing Jim Webb as the Real Progressive Alternative to History’s Bloodthirstiest Neoliberal Warmonger.

            To be Scrupulously Fair, Tracey actually started out supporting Rand Paul before moving on to Webb.

          • djw

            “Maybe we should give Jim Webb a second look” may have been Charlie Pierce’s dumbest moment.

          • PunditusMaximus

            Heh I remember that little bubble. It lasted, what, about 72 hours?

      • humanoid.panda

        I think that the Phil Perspectives of this world think that that Cuomo manages to win nomination running as a centrsist pro-business democrat, they are delusional. But I wouldn’t discount out of hand the possibility of Cuomo reinvening himself as “progressive governor of New York, who got shit done, protected immigrants, banned fracking, and all with a Republican Senate.”

        • Murc

          I think that the Phil Perspectives of this world think that that Cuomo manages to win nomination running as a centrsist pro-business democrat, they are delusional.

          This.

          I mean… lets be real here. Clinton almost certainly doesn’t win the 2016 nomination running on the policy platform she ran on if she weren’t Hillary Clinton, who spent forty years doing political spade work to make people like her.

          I don’t think Cuomo can run to the right of that, without having done that work, and have a shot.

          • humanoid.panda

            Clinton almost certainly doesn’t win the 2016 nomination running on the policy platform she ran on if she weren’t Hillary Clinton, who spent forty years doing political spade work to make people like her.

            I strongly disagree with this. If she weren’t named Hillary Clinton, the platform she ran on would be considered on the left edge of the party.

            • Rob in CT

              I thought that was off too. How about “record” substituted for “platform?”

              • Murc

                I’m prepared to entertain changes in my verbiage, yes.

                • djw

                  That makes even less sense. By the standard available measures of ideologically positioning politicians, she’s slightly to the left of Obama. If by record you mean “make her a scapegoat for her husband’s record when he was leading a far more conservative party and she didn’t publicly object” OK, but that remains something distinct her “her record”.

                • humanoid.panda

                  That makes even less sense. By the standard available measures of ideologically positioning politicians, she’s slightly to the left of Obama. If by record you mean “make her a scapegoat for her husband’s record when he was leading a far more conservative party and she didn’t publicly object” OK, but that remains something distinct her “her record”.

                  Well, that and her hawkishness.

                • Murc

                  By the standard available measures of ideologically positioning politicians, she’s slightly to the left of Obama.

                  I don’t agree with this at all. I would accept equivalent or slightly to the right; her foreign policy preferences alone should disqualify her from ever being declared to Obama’s left.

                  The point I am trying to make, which might be wrong but isn’t I don’t think nutty, is that I attribute quite a lot of Clinton’s success in the 2016 primary to the fact that she spent a very long time establishing personal relationships and building a political machine dedicated to advancing her to the presidency. And she was still given a run for her money by a guy who had done none of that and came out of nowhere and ran to her left.

                  Absent that political spadework on her part, I don’t see her policy platform and policy record putting her over the top, I really don’t.

                  This is not, by the way, an effort to delegitimize her win or minimize the very real popularity she has among Democrats. I’m just saying that if someone tries to run the way she did, as a centrist pro-business Democrat, WITHOUT having done all the affinity politics work she did, they probably get creamed.

                • Rob in CT

                  djw,

                  I think a bit of both. Real record: her hawkishness, as hp & Murc said. And yeah, there’s also the part of her “record” that is “she was First Lady when…”

                • djw

                  The standard metrics to which I refer are: congressional voting record, public statements, and fundraising. She’s to Obama’s left on the first two. (WRT fundraising the linked article compares her to her husband; not Obama, I haven’t tried to dig into Bonica’s dataset to compare them.)

                • djw

                  I’m just saying that if someone tries to run the way she did, as a centrist pro-business Democrat

                  With respect, I think your priors about Clinton are shaping what you saw her doing in 2015 and 2016. However you evaluate her past, she didn’t do that. She ran on the most progressive platform a Democratic candidate has ever run on. I sincerely doubt you’d have described some political newcomer who used the same rhetoric and took the same policy positions as Clinton did in this way.

                • PunditusMaximus

                  I’m sorry, but Clinton ran as pro-business. She was lefty on a lot of other issues, but protecting the TBTF banks from any sort of meaningful revenge was definitely on her list.

                • If by “pro-business” you mean “didn’t advocate expropriating the means of production and handing them over to the proletariat,” then sure, but that’s a strange definition of “pro-business.” If you mean “favoured policies that benefit business over the working class,” then you are simply wrong.

                • PunditusMaximus

                  I know we’ve been conditioned to seek crumbs from the banksters, but seriously — the Wells Fargo scandal during the campaign was HRC’s chance to come out swinging against the folks who destroyed our economy for funsies in 2007, and crickets.

                  This is a huge blind spot. It’s seriously not ok to straight up proclaim that laws are for little people if you’re not gonna run as a Republican.

                • Once again, you are objectively wrong. The fact that the media didn’t cover her attacks on Wells Fargo much does not mean that she didn’t make them, and the fact that you seem to believe otherwise is particularly strange given how little the media covered her discussions of policy in general.

                  The 2016 Democratic platform was the most liberal platform the party had run on since at least the Great Society, and it wasn’t even close.

                • djw

                  the Wells Fargo scandal during the campaign was HRC’s chance to come out swinging against the folks who destroyed our economy for funsies in 2007, and crickets.

                  This one isn’t quite as wildly implausible as the “she fights against the minimum wage” bullshit, but the fact that it’s your second obvious faceplant in this thread suggests that whatever technique you’re using for evaluating the veracity of attacks on Clinton appears to deficient, so if you’re not going to replace it with a better one, perhaps some remedial googling before you make an ass of yourself is in order.

                • Justin Runia

                  I don’t know about you guys, but I want pretty much every politician to protect against revenge. This is essentially the difference between our actual functional government, and the fantasies sold by groups like Anonymous.

                • PunditusMaximus

                  I want revenge against the people who caused the financial meltdown in 2007. It’s probably also justice.

                  But that was a lot of destroyed lives, and I want satisfaction.

                  That said, TIL that HRC actually called for appropriate prosecutions in response to Wells Fargo, and that was not something I was aware of. That does, in fact, change my opinion of her on a fairly deep level.

                • Abbey Bartlet

                  he 2016 Democratic platform was the most liberal platform the party had run on since at least the Great Society, and it wasn’t even close.

                  But in her heart of hearts, she didn't really believe in it, and that's what matters.

                • Abbey Bartlet

                  That said, TIL that HRC actually called for appropriate prosecutions in response to Wells Fargo, and that was not something I was aware of. That does, in fact, change my opinion of her on a fairly deep level.

                  If that one fact is so central to your opinion of a person, perhaps you should do more research on their stance *before* judging them.

              • PunditusMaximus

                Legit.

            • PunditusMaximus

              Banker immunity, “Never ever” having Single Payer, fighting the minimum wage tooth and nail, and starting a war in Syria are the “left edge” of the Party?

              What’s the “right edge”, annexing Alberta for liebensraum?

              • PunditusMaximus

                I forgot HRC’s industrial policy: “those jobs aren’t coming back”. Yes, correct when applied to coal, but it was applied to every single industry and sector.

                • Rob in CT

                  She actually had a (smaller than is likely necessary) investment in Appalachia policy.

                  But whatever.

                • PunditusMaximus

                  Yes, yes, and NAFTA included “retraining”.

                  There need to be jobs to retrain to, and there needs to be a vision of a country which consistently provides remunerative work to its citizens.

              • Ithaqua

                Way to make stuff up, guy.

              • Scott Lemieux

                “Never ever” having Single Payer, fighting the minimum wage tooth and nail

                LOL

                • Rob in CT

                  3. Raise the minimum wage.

                  At $7.25 per hour, the federal minimum wage isn’t nearly enough to make ends meet. Americans who work 40 hours per week at the minimum wage earn just $15,080 a year—below the poverty threshold for a family of two or more. That’s why Hillary wants to raise the federal minimum wage to $12 an hour—and why she supports city and state efforts to raise their own minimum wage even higher.

                  Remember, kids, advocating for a $12 minimum wage (65.5% increase) is fighting an increase tooth and nail.

                  The rest of the comment is similarly brilliant.

                • PunditusMaximus

                  I’m so old I remember when I got told that we were stupid to believe Obama’s platform because of how much it contradicted his record.

                • Hogan

                  Not just fighting an increase: fighting “the minimum wage.” The lefty equivalent of “voted to raise taxes 15,473 times.”

                • Rob in CT

                  When did Hillary Clinton EVER oppose increasing the minimum wage, let alone “fight it tooth and nail?”

                • PunditusMaximus

                  Ok I looked it up — HRC was solid on the minimum wage while in the Senate. I apologize; that was incorrect.

                • Rob in CT

                  Ok, great, kudos.

                  Now. Consider the possibility that other things you’ve said are also incorrect or at least badly overstated.

                  Some of the criticisms leveled at her were actually true. Many were not.

                • tsam

                  Ok I looked it up — HRC was solid on the minimum wage while in the Senate. I apologize; that was incorrect.

                  You’re fucking worthless. Your obsession has made you blind and accepting of bullshit. Combine that with Nazi references DURING THE PASSOVER, you have a good shot at a job in the White House.

                  Get your fucking act together or go back to 4Chan. You’re fucking up everything. Stop fucking up everything.

              • tsam

                You seriously need to get the facts straight or shut the fuck up.

                And you can stick your Godwin shit all the way down your fucking puke funnel, dick.

              • Nick never Nick

                HEY

                NOT FUNNY

              • Hogan

                liebensraum

                Welcome to my pie filter.

                • Nick never Nick

                  misspelled, yet

                  the quality of Nazi-fetishists is deteriorating rapidly in the Trump era, so many posers

              • StellaB

                “Never ever” having Single Payer,”

                Perhaps you are confusing Hillary “Hillarycare” Clinton with some other Hillary Clinton?

                • PunditusMaximus
                • StellaB

                  Hillary Clinton admittimg that single payer is an impossible political lift is not the same as Hillary Clinton opposing single payer. Additionally, single payer is not the only way to solve the universal access problem nor is single payer universally used throughout the industrialized world. However, you knew that, I’m sure.

                • PunditusMaximus

                  Single Payer really is the only way to solve the universal access problem in a country as big as ours.

                  And yeah, it’s pretty much gotta happen; the alternative is YA Dystopia.

                • Scott Lemieux

                  Single Payer really is the only way to solve the universal access problem in a country as big as ours.

                  This is very silly. Single payer doesn’t provide universal access any more than comprehensive hybrid models do.

                • PunditusMaximus

                  The comprehensive hybrid models all require fairly extensive rule-following by powerful private actors, which you can only get from:

                  1) Business schools that aren’t American, and/or
                  2) Brutal, constant enforcement creating new norms in a fairly small system.

                  Neither exists in the US. It would be cool if they did, but I certainly wouldn’t want to wait for a massive change in business culture before trying to get health care to sick kids.

                • sibusisodan

                  On the other hand, single payer requires that none of the main parties of government view government provided healthcare as some kind of moral evil, and thus seek to defund it in every way possible.

                  I am very much a fan of my country’s single payer system – under any other system I’d probably either be dead, bankrupt or uninsurable (or all of them!).

                  But it comes with some serious downsides which only get worse translated into the US political system. Push for it if you wish, but please know what you’re pushing for.

                • PunditusMaximus

                  Medicare works well here.

                • sibusisodan

                  Yeees, within limits. Those limits being:

                  – reimbursement rates which limit the medical network in order to (sensibly) save money
                  – Republicans wanting to kill it all the time
                  – only covering a third of the population (granted, they use a lot of care, proportionately)

                  Trying to push back on any of those limits – which Medicare for all would need to do – is difficult and expensive. In a ‘makes Obamacare look easy’ kind of way.

                  You can’t hand wave that away.

                • Brien Jackson

                  Yeah, citing Medicare as a defense here is really bizarre: It’s an extremely popular program that covers the most conservative portion of the population and the population group with the highest voter turnout rates….and the Republican Congressional leadership STILL desperately want to kill it off.

              • Cool story Bro.

              • Colin Day

                Alberta for liebensraum?

                Make love, not tar sands!

                • Domino

                  Make love in the tar sands(?)

            • djw

              Yeah, absolutely. It was modestly but clearly to the left of Obama’s platform, which is basically where I’d expect the winner of the 2016 primary to be if Clinton weren’t running, given the current direction of the party. What planks of the platform do you presume would have been poison for not-Clinton, and why?

        • Phil Perspective

          What are you mumbling about? The only reason Cuomo is even thought of as a serious candidate is because the big money boys like him.

        • For some reason I read that as “banned freckling” and it took me quite a while to realize that was improbable.

          • PohranicniStraze

            banned freckling

            Sounds like part of that “white genocide” I’ve been hearing about.

        • zoomar

          Cuomo prefers a Republican senate. Cuomo working with the senate he has is like throwing Brer Rabbit into the briar patch.

      • PunditusMaximus

        It’s funny because idpol bankhumpers make their priorities clear when they say things like alt-left!

        Remember, comrade — the #BernieBro phenom was pure Russian bottage, so you’re doing Putin a favor when you push his memes.

        • sharculese

          Fyi when you write in this kind of inscrutable jargon it makes you sound crazy.

          • PunditusMaximus

            The online harassment of female Clinton supporters was, more likely than not, coordinated through Russia and implemented by a bunch of bots. The vast majority of the #BernieBro phenomenon was probably some dickbag in a Moscow basement.

            This explains the not-native-English verbiage, the bizarre disconnect from overall Progressive ideology, and some other things.

            The HRC campaign missed a huge PR opportunity by letting its supporters twist in the wind, but that’s the Establishment Dem way.

            http://shareblue.com/watching-the-hearings-i-learned-my-bernie-bro-harassers-may-have-been-russian-bots/#.WOEFCh8Hnng.twitter

            • Rob in CT

              Wait. Did you just blame Clinton for not properly capitalizing on the harassment of her supporters? Holy shit. Imagine for a moment if the Clinton campaign alleged that it was the victim of a coordinated attack by foreign trolls. “Oh, those Clintonites, they’ll say ANYTHING to cover up their awfulness! Where’s the HARD EVIDENCE!” Come the hell on, you know full fucking well that would’ve been the reaction. Hillary playing the victim, sad!

              I think a lot of the worst crap flung during the campaign probably was Russian trolling (though some of it was, sadly, not). That’s deplorable. Similarly, a lot of the worse memes about Clinton, that apparently some on the Left fell for, were pushed by Russian trolls (do we blame Clinton for that too, btw?).

              EDIT BUTTON RETURNS, HUZZAH!

              • PunditusMaximus

                I blame Obama for letting HRC twist in the wind at the Benghazi hearings, and I blame HRC for letting her people twist in the wind.

                People should take care of their own. It’s one of the very least attractive aspects of Establishment Demism, going back to Shirley Sherrod.

                • Actual real, live, Bernie supporters at Kos, who remain active on twitter and at Kos to this day, were just as horrible and hateful and misogynistic in their personal attacks on HRC supporters. It wasn’t HRC who “left her supporters twisting in the wind” it was Bernie and his real life supporters online who happily took their cues and their talking points–but not their misogyny and extreme antipathy–from whatever Russian bots were also engaged.

                • Rob in CT

                  I blame HRC for letting her people twist in the wind.

                  She should have done what, exactly? Lay it out for me.

                  Sherrod I’ll grant was mishandled.

                • humanoid.panda

                  People should take care of their own. It’s one of the very least attractive aspects of Establishment Demism, going back to Shirley Sherrod.

                  The Establishment is a web of conspiracy relentlessly pushing the true leftists to the margins of society, and possibly also murdering people. It is also a gathering of society ladies unable to lift a finger in anyone’s defense. It is so.

                • PunditusMaximus

                  1) You will never hear me say that there were not douchebags who support any given politician and said unacceptable, inappropriate, and awful things. The HRC supporters on DKos gave as good as they got and Kos eventually had to wield a fairly large banhammer on both candidates’ worst offenders to calm things down. Which did improve things.

                  2) The Twitter stuff was way different. I don’t remember anything on DKos like what was routine on Twitter, and if there had been, that woulda been instant banhammer.

                  3) Hire an actual computer security firm to do some work tracking that shit down and protect their people. Also, honestly, sued Twitter. Fuck Twitter. Anyways, if they had, the traces would have pointed out of the country.

                • Rob in CT

                  Well we agree on one thing at the least: fuck twitter.

                • Bethesda 1971

                  Speaking of Sherrods, what about Sherrod Brown? I don’t know if he’s interested, but he seems like the ideal candidate to try to bring together the Sanders & Hillary factions, not to mention being popular in WWC archtype state Ohio, even with a 95% ADA rating.

                • I like Brown, but I’d rather our next nominee not be a Senator whose replacement wouldn’t be guaranteed to be a (reliably progressive) Democrat. And he needs to win in 2018 first. Given the shitgibbon’s unpopularity, that seems likelier now, but it’s still not a foregone conclusion.

            • Abbey Bartlet

              The online harassment of female Clinton supporters was, more likely than not, coordinated through Russia and implemented by a bunch of bots.

              Some of it is. Far, far, far from all of it. And please note tense. PS Fuck you.

          • msdc

            Also when he doesn’t write in it.

          • SatanicPanic

            It used to be just the far right that you needed a decoder ring to understand.

        • kped

          Lol “idpol”. Is that the new uber lefty thing to say to people who think things like minority rights are important?

          Psst, you reveal your own priorities when you open your idiot mouth too chump.

          Who says the BernieBro thing was Russian bottage? Guys like Taibbi, FdB, Greenwald are clearly not bots. You I don’t know about, but I assume you are a human asshole, just like the other bros. I don’t think your a Putin stooge. Just a stooge.

          • PunditusMaximus

            1) Nice job eliding Taibbi and Greenwald. I don’t keep track of GG (too much chaff), but you’re gonna have a hell of a time persuading me that Taibbi spent energy harassing female Clinton supporters on or offline.

            2) Hey wow semiotics I never heard of the idea that people read what other people write and bring their own life experiences to that before.

            3) idpol is the dismissive encapsulation of the idea that it is literally impossible to disagree with HRC for any reason other than racism and sexism. The meme appeared in different form, when any criticism of Obama’s handling of the financial crisis was characterized as racist. Boiled down to its essence, the idpol meme is “all criticism of high status Establishment Democrats is due to *-ism”.

            • JMP

              “The meme appeared in different form, when any criticism of Obama’s handling of the financial crisis was characterized as racist.”

              Bull-fucking-shit, liar. But it’s nice to see right-wing talking points being repeated by an alleged leftists.

              Nobody has ever characterized all critiques of Obama as racist. There have been a lot of racist attacks against Obama, and people have of course responded to them by pointing out that they were in fact racist. Every fucking time that happened, the brave defenders of racism would come out and screech, “how dare you call all criticism of Obama racist!” even though no one ever did that, people would call attacks on Obama racist when they in fact were actually racist.

              And now, you’re repeating that right-wing lie in defense of racism. Along with not only screeching about “identity politics”, another stupid insult used by bigots as an attack against anyone who opposes bigotry, but also reducing it to a stupid and obscure abbreviation no one else here has ever seen used.

              And you claim to be a liberal? You’re not, asshole, at all.

              • PunditusMaximus

                You literally just accused me of being racist because I criticized HRC and Obama.

                This isn’t tough, man.

                • gccolby

                  You literally just accused me of being racist because I criticized HRC and Obama.

                  Yeah, that’s not what just happened.

                • PunditusMaximus

                  1) Every conservative criticism of Obama is based in racism, because every conservative syllable is based in racism. There is no non-racist right-wing criticism of Obama, because there is no non-racist right-wing anything ever period.

                  2) If you’re a liberal, and you haven’t been accused of being motivated exclusively by racism, it’s because you didn’t criticism Obama from the left in the period 2009-2012 when it fell out of fashion. If you’re a liberal and you haven’t been accused of being motivated exclusively by sexism, it’s because you didn’t criticize HRC from the left in the period 2014-2016.

                  If you’re awesome and never did that, then great. Other people did.

                • That’s a lot of word salad that doesn’t address the fact that you accused JMP of saying something he (I think?) didn’t say.

                  Also, I criticised Obama and HRC from the left constantly throughout 2007-early 2016 or so. Never once got accused of racism or sexism for doing so. Perhaps the constant here isn’t attacks on those two from the left, but the attacks you were making. Just a possibility.

                • PunditusMaximus

                  Sorry, it was kped who accused me of being racist. JMC accused me of repeating bigoted right-wing memes for noticing. Different things.

                • JMP

                  Nope! I pointed out that you’re showing you don’t care about fighting racism by dismissing concerns of “identity politics” – and even beyond that, since you replace it by a shorthand that only you are familiar with. But thanks for lying!

                • JMP

                  PunditusMaximus’ word salad is pretty incomprehensible – are they writing in Russian and putting it through Google Translate? – but seems to boil down to repeating the bullshit of claiming that people called attacks on Obama racist, and attacks on Clinton sexist, even though that has not in fact happened.

                  They’re again repeating the right-wing trope of lying and saying “liberals call all criticisms of Obama racist and of Hillary Clinton sexist!” even though that in fact has never happened, what happens is that people call out attacks that really are sexist and/or misogynist for their bigotry, and then right-wingers along with some folks claiming to be leftist pull out that discredited trope. Even though every single fucking time the statement being called out as racist and/or sexist in fact really is racist or misogynist.

            • pseudalicious

              but you’re gonna have a hell of a time persuading me that Taibbi spent energy harassing female Clinton supporters on or offline.

              Nah, you’re right — instead, he spent energy harassing and/or raping vulnerable female Russians.

              (That comment earlier, where I said the internet left can’t let things go, even if people repent*? Yeah, I’m part of the problem.)

              *no idea if Taibbi’s repented

              • PunditusMaximus

                WTAF

                • pseudalicious

                  He and Ames wrote a book where they brag about it.

                • Q.E.Dumbass

                  Here. AFAIK “unrepentant rapist” was more Ames than Taibbi, although Taibbi being a sexual abuser isn’t implausible; he’s mentioned getting sexual favors from Exile employees in interviews.

              • PunditusMaximus

                Ok, now that I know the origin of the meme:

                You’re gonna have a lot of difficulty convincing me that Taibbi spent time or energy harassing female Clinton supporters in any way, shape, or form.

                You will not have difficulty convincing me that Taibbi is, as a human being, a lousy human who should be given authority with only the strictest of oversights.

            • pseudalicious

              “all criticism of high status Establishment Democrats is due to *-ism”.

              Today I learned that stewing in *isms one’s whole life has no concrete impact on one’s subconscious, who they give the benefit of the doubt to and who they don’t, the tone and words used in their critiques, who gets critiqued more or less than others, and so on. So illuminating!

              • PunditusMaximus

                Oh please. It’s an ancient bigot technique to take some utterly universal aspect of human behavior (“people mainly make decisions based on emotions”) and pretend that it applies only to the disliked group (“women are too emotional to make good decisions”).

                Yes, of course white supremacy, Patriarchy, and Class War are the water in which we swim. And sure, any discussion of any meaningful topic will be defined by them. But that means that all support of high-status Establishment Dems is also defined by them, and now we can start talking like grownups about how to approach the issue, instead of pretending that the only people who disagree with New Democrats from the left literally invented their positions moments after HRC declared her candidacy to express their sexism.

          • kped

            Hey fuck face, show me where i accused you of being racist. I’ll wait. Please, quote me at length you shit.

            Dishonest hack.

    • SatanicPanic

      The “Democrats always fold” people. They’re cynical and lazy, but just a bit too old to get on the Bernie or Bust train.

      • PunditusMaximus

        Dude. Obama always folds, and Obama was leader of the Dems for eight years and took out anyone who didn’t always fold with extreme prejudice.

        • Rob in CT

          Obama always folds

          But he took people out with extreme prejudice.

          This is like the leftier than thou version of the Right’s Obama’s A Tyrant!/Obama’s a weakling!

          • PunditusMaximus

            Obama didn’t mind losing to high status rich white Republican men and lost his damn mind when he was asked to concede to low status Democrats of all flavors.

            Dude was ruthless when dealing with lefties and toothless when dealing with righties.

            It’s about priorities and Respectability.

            • Rob in CT

              A single tear rolls down Mitt Romney’s cheek.

            • Pete

              I agree Obama often didn’t fight as much as I would like,although its not clear to me how he could have achieved much more domestically, but:

              Dude was ruthless when dealing with lefties and toothless when dealing with righties.

              Assuming the truth of what you say, it makes perfect sense. As a Democratic President he could deal with the lefties, the righties didn’t need a damn thing from him after 2010, so zero leverage. You can only hammer what you can reach.

              • PunditusMaximus

                So many Republican daddies to appoint to high level positions, so little time.

            • solidcitizen

              I remember when that fucker sent the feds in to clear out Occupy! Gangsta was ruthless!

              • PunditusMaximus

                Is this serious or joking? Because there was a Federally orchestrated crackdown on Occupy…?

        • SatanicPanic

          I was going to say it’s always the 90s for these people, but I guess for other it’s always 2009 and Obama didn’t even try for single payer

          • PunditusMaximus

            Dude Obama made his deal with PhRMA. The question was whether it was pragmatic or ideological. Events since have made it clear that it was ideological.

            • SatanicPanic

              Obama made his deal with PhRMA.

              Of course he did. He made a lot of deals to get the ACA done. GOOD. That’s why it’s been so hard to repeal.

              • PunditusMaximus

                Right — again, the question was whether it was pragmatic or ideological.

              • JMP

                But he didn’t even propose a perfect healthcare system that could never have passed Congress! How dare he actually try to improve the lives of millions of Americans instead of making a show of perfection that would accomplish nothing, which is much much more important than getting things done!

                • PunditusMaximus

                  The most important part of any negotiation is to first throw away any leverage you might have and start with your lowest offer. Then you start compromising.

                • Rob in CT

                  We’ve been over this before (maybe not with you), but negotiation can fail in many ways. One of them is asking for too much and having your negotiating partner(s) say “well, nuts to that” and walk out. The end.

                  We will never know for sure whether O could’ve driven a slightly harder bargain. Thinking he was gonna get a much more progressive bill through, though, is fantasy because look at the 2009 Senate.

                • Scott Lemieux

                  The most important part of any negotiation is to first throw away any leverage you might have

                  Yes, the leverage Obama would have gotten from threatening to pass single payer — which might have had as many as a dozen votes in the Senate! — was truly great. If only neophytes like Obama, Reid, and Pelosi had taken your brilliant tactical advice, they would have really accomplished something.

                  In other news, if you walk into an Audi dealership and offer more than $1,000 for their best new model, you’re throwing away your leverage and will never be a sophisticated neogotiator like WankusMaximus.

                • PunditusMaximus

                  I would be far more willing to believe that Obama’s opposition to Single Payer was pragmatic instead of ideological if:

                  1) The ACA didn’t literally make it illegal for states to try to implement Single Payer for years, and

                  2) Obama hadn’t come out so hard against the Public Option.

                  Obama crappified the ACA to try to get Republicans to vote for it instead of just using Reconciliation like us lefties begged him to. He killed the Public Option instead of trading it away. Eventually, the ACA was a worse bill with no Republicans voting for it, which was voted into law via Reconciliation anyway.

                  After all this, Obama appointed a bunch of white Republican daddies to high level positions in his Administration.

                • Scott Lemieux

                  2) Obama hadn’t come out so hard against the Public Option.

                  which was voted into law via Reconciliation anyway.

                  This is as embarrassing as your fantasies of Hillary Clinton crusading against the minimum wage. You have no idea what the fuck you’re talking about.

                • sibusisodan

                  1) The ACA didn’t literally make it illegal for states to try to implement Single Payer for years

                  Wait, what?

                  Didn’t Vermont try to do single payer and falter because they couldn’t fund it? How could they do that if it was illegal?

                • PunditusMaximus

                  https://extranewsfeed.com/who-really-killed-the-public-option-b4d95cf99b8a

                  “After months of deadlock, when the White House finally introduced its own proposal in 2010, the lack of a public option spoke volumes — undermining its Democratic advocates and emboldening Republican obstruction.”

                  The belief that Obama signed away the Public Option in the deal with PhRMA is probably not supportable. The belief that Obama killed it as part of his coddling of Baucus and Lieberman and endless, pointless pursuit of Snowe is absolutely correct.

                  Obama didn’t need any of them. Parts of the ACA were eventually passed through Reconciliation, as Progressives had begged for from the beginning.

                • Scott Lemieux

                  Obama didn’t need any of them. Parts of the ACA were eventually passed through Reconciliation

                  You don’t know anything about the passage of the ACA or how the legislative process works and you should stop embarrassing yourself by pretending that you do.

                • PunditusMaximus

                  The ACA required states that wanted to do Single Payer to acquire a waiver until this year.

                • Scott Lemieux

                  Didn’t Vermont try to do single payer and falter because they couldn’t fund it? How could they do that if it was illegal?

                  Colorado too. I’m surprised that Obama’s goons allowed the vote for an ILLEGAL measure to even happen. Everyone knows that single-payer was permanently banned everywhere by the Make Single Payer Illegal and Eliminate the Minimum Wage at the Behest of Hillary Clinton Act of 2010.

                • sibusisodan

                  The ACA required states that wanted to do Single Payer to acquire a waiver until this year.

                  …how does that add up to ‘illegal’? Given that a fair few waivers have granted for the states?

                • Scott Lemieux

                  The ACA didn’t literally make it illegal for states to try to implement Single Payer for years, and

                  The ACA required states that wanted to do Single Payer to acquire a waiver until this year.

                  LOL I’m not sure I’ve seen this many own-goals in a single thread since Dilan decided to share his novel theories of causation.

                • PunditusMaximus

                  “You don’t know anything about the passage of the ACA”

                  I remember Lieberman, Baucus, and Snowe being basically in charge of the thing until after Kennedy died.

                  I also remember being told, over and over, that it didn’t matter how Bush got his tax cuts passed, it was utterly verboten to use reconciliation to break the Republican filibuster.

                  Until of course, it wasn’t.

                • Rob in CT

                  You may not understand how this stuff works, but you certainly are sure of yourself! Clearly, you should run for President.

                • PunditusMaximus

                  Excuse me, I misspoke.

                  It was illegal to get a waiver until 2017. States could apply beforehand, but any Single Payer system had to wait until 2017 to begin, and then was gatekept by waivers.

                  http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/blog/2016/feb/innovation-waivers-and-the-aca

                • sibusisodan

                  I want a remake of House of Cards with the script written by PundMax.

                  “Well, dammit, use reconciliation!”

                  “We already used our shot this year. Plus it’s not deficit neutral.”

                  “You might think that, I couldn’t possibly have an idea what any of that means.”

                • sibusisodan

                  It was illegal to get a waiver until 2017.

                  Alas, the mis-speaking continues.

                  It was not possible to get a waiver before now. It’s not like there was traffic in illicit section 1332 waivers which has just been legalised, and now all these artisanal waiver growers are going to get swamped by Big Waiver.

                  The unavailability of waivers prevented no state from doing groundwork to establish a single payer system – two did so – and delayed no state from establishing such a system.

                • I’m always amused when people think they know more about the legislative process than Scott, who literally teaches this stuff at the university level for a living.

                • PunditusMaximus

                  For Pete’s sake; I don’t think I know more about the legislative process. I disagree about the motivations of the people involved. I think that the Obama who was so hands-off and market-oriented in 2009 is the same guy who appointed Comey and used homeowners to “foam the runway” for major banks — someone who views respectability and appeasing rich white male power as integral to his view of how to maintain the kind of order necessary for society to have any hope of providing prosperity.

                  So I’m inclined to interpret his actions through the same lens, instead of transposing my motivations onto him.

                • sibusisodan

                  I disagree about the motivations of the people involved.

                  But your evidence for those motivations is stuff that isn’t correct.

                  And even when you are less inaccurate, you mistake institutional and legislative boundaries as evidence for the motivations of individual actors.

                • PunditusMaximus

                  Institutional and legislative boundaries are fuzzy. Reconciliation was used to pass Dubya’s tax cuts (with, of course, the sunset provisions which were eventually removed). Medicare Part D is still the law of the land after the shitshow surrounding its passage. The filibuster was inviolate until it wasn’t.

                  The idea that Obama got rolled hard by Lieberman and Baucus is not unreasonable. Lieberman and Baucus are known vile actors and they’re good at their games. If Obama had not been chasing Snowe so hard, “foamed the runway” with American homeowners, protected banksters, kept appointing white Republican daddies, and proposed the sequester, I might view him with a less jaundiced eye.

                • Scott Lemieux

                  it didn’t matter how Bush got his tax cuts passed

                  Oh, dear.

                  I can’t wait for more hot takes that show Mr. Maxmumus’s deep expertise about legislative procedure. “Bush got Alito confirmed with just the Senate, so why couldn’t have Obama gotten single payer with just the Senate? Clearly, it was ideological, not pragmatic, just like when he conspired with Hillary Clinton to end the federal minimum wage.”

                • Dilan Esper

                  LOL I’m not sure I’ve seen this many own-goals in a single thread since Dilan decided to share his novel theories of causation.

                  Somehow I am still bashed on for this even though the point I was making (about multiple causes of close elections) was accepted here and by every other major left of center blog in 2016. Guess the laws of causation changed between 2000 and 2016. (More likely, a lot of people didn’t care about making good arguments when they wanted to bash Nader and his voters.)

                • Scott Lemieux

                  Somehow I am still bashed on for this even though the point I was making (about multiple causes of close elections) was accepted here and by every other major left of center blog in 2016.

                  Your point was that since elections have multiple causes you therefore can’t assign responsibility to any individual cause. This isn’t widely accepted anywhere because it’s transparently wrong.

                • Abbey Bartlet

                  Your point was that since elections have multiple causes you therefore can’t assign responsibility to any individual cause.

                  I feel like I should send Dilan my old LSAT prep books, with the bits on “sufficient vs necessary” highlighted for him.

            • SatanicPanic

              At any rate, my original issue was that certain people refuse to update their evidence with new knowledge. You bringing up a guy who is currently retired does the opposite of refute that claim.

              • PunditusMaximus

                That’s not reasonable. The question is where the meme came from. The answer is that the guy in charge for the last eight years very much embodied it.

                • SatanicPanic

                  It’s very much reasonable. “This guy is who is no longer in charge of anything is emblematic of everything wrong with people who actually are” is absurd.

                • PunditusMaximus

                  Not that it matters, but Obama got his guy picked for the DNC. He’s still a major player and if anyone is “in charge” of the Dems, he is.

                • Or it’s possible that, instead of some vast neoliberal conspiracy being involved, Perez got the position because the DNC is a large bureaucracy that fights voter suppression, and Perez successfully ran the Dept. of Labor, a large bureaucracy, and had a successful history of fighting voter suppression.

                  I’m also still amused how many people are still apparently furious over Ellison not getting the chair position when Perez’ first action was to appoint Ellison his deputy. Wait, amused isn’t the right word. Appalled is more like it.

                  There are far more constructive things to do right now than relitigate past battles. The shitgibbon is the enemy right now, but faux-leftists would prefer to keep talking about how much Democrats suck.

                • PunditusMaximus

                  Comey engendered shitgibbon.

                  Democratic leadership empowered Comey.

                  It matters who we pick to fight shitgibbon, so that the next generation of Democratic leadership doesn’t create Comey II: Electric Boogaloo, thus engendering Shitgibbon The Next Generation.

                  Rule The First for me is that if you were associated with the Comey Shitgibbon Experience, you don’t get a fucking say in how we deal with the Shitgibbon you gave us.

                • And if there were anyone likely to win the Democratic nomination for the presidency who would be foolish enough to nominate someone like Comey to the FBI or any similar position after last October’s events, this would be a consideration worth spending significant amounts of time pondering. Luckily, people are capable of learning from history, and spoiler alert: Andrew Cuomo won’t be the next presidential nominee, so I think we’re good here.

                  Also, the fact that you think one mistake in Obama’s presidency disqualifies everything he ever says from future consideration is rather telling.

                • PunditusMaximus

                  Ok, well, that’s great, but you asked why people want to avoid Obama having any say over current Democratic politics, and the answer is, “Because we don’t want to reward the power structure that empowered shitgibbon with more opportunities to shit and/or gibbon.”

                • PunditusMaximus

                  Also, for Pete’s sake, I don’t think Obama had “one mistake”. You don’t lose 1,000 State-level legislative seats with “one mistake”. That requires an abiding commitment to a strategy long since proved failing and destructive.

                • Much as you seem to believe otherwise, you have yet to establish the premise that Obama is secretly controlling the entire direction of the Democratic Party. I have proffered an alternative thesis: Perez’ qualifications for the position got him the job. The DNC chair is not a heavily ideological position in the first place. Your priors remain unconfirmed.

                  Furthermore, much as 2010 and 2014 were bloodbaths, it’s also by now well-established that off-year elections generally favour the opposition party of the incumbent president, as we saw yesterday in KS-04 where support for the GOP collapsed by some 21 points, so your choice to blame this on Obama also requires more evidence.

                • PunditusMaximus

                  Obama fired Dean and brought in Kaine to dismantle the 50-State Strategy (at Rahmbo’s behest), which he did.

                  Then came DWS.

                  Sometimes the people with power actually are the ones who made bad decisions.

                • PunditusMaximus

                  And the DNC Chair is ideological, just not in the way people think. It’s an elitism/populism divide, and it’s one of the subtle places Obama is an outlier in Democratic politics. The DNC race was about how much money the DNC takes from corporate donors and how that money is distributed to Dem consultants and staff. These are downstream policy choices from Obama’s deep top-down way of looking at things.

                • While I wasn’t particularly fond of Obama’s decision to replace Dean with Kaine, blaming the entire electoral outcome on that particular decision demonstrates a stunning lack of awareness on the structural factors contributing to those election results. 2006 was a wave election for the Democrats in large part because off-year elections largely favour the opponent of the president’s party. 2010 was a wave election for the Republicans in large part because off-year elections largely favour the opponent of the president’s party. Recent special elections have swung towards the Democrats because off-year elections largely favour the opponent of the president’s party, and the shitgibbon is bigly unpopular. And so on.

                  Furthermore, even if we do accept the assertion that the DNC should not have abandoned the fifty-state strategy (which I’m inclined to agree with), there is no sign that they are currently repeating this mistake. Indeed, Perez already seems to have made it a fairly major priority of his to visit parts of the country that the Democrats appear to have largely abandoned in previous years and has explicitly stated his intention to challenge seats everywhere, so even if we do accept the claim that the DNC chair position is partly ideological, there appears to be little continuity with the two previous chairs’ approaches in Perez’ approach.

                  Your assertion that Obama is the secret puppet master responsible for all of the Democratic Party’s problems and that he is continuing to run things behind the scenes remains unproven. Looks to me like he’s been too busy windsurfing and generally enjoying his vacation to be doing much of that.

                • PunditusMaximus

                  That’s not my assertion. My assertion is:

                  1) Obama was the completely unsecret head of the Democratic Party from 2008-2016, and he made a lot of decisions I disagree with profoundly and which I believe led to electoral disaster.

                  2) Perez was Obama’s choice to lead the DNC starting in 2017, and I think Obama’s badly wrong about strategic direction for the Party, with disastrous consequences so far.

                • Not that you’re likely to care, but your initial assertions were in fact that Obama’s choice to nominate Comey made his endorsement of Perez invalid, and also that because Perez was chosen as DNC chair, Obama is still in control of the party. You also implied that Obama’s choice for DNC chair was responsible for the election outcome.

                  The fact that Perez’ strategy has nothing in common with Kaine’s and DWS’ strategies has yet to enter your analysis.

                • Brien Jackson

                  You can tell people really care deeply and are super knowledgeable about Dean’s 50 state strategy by the way they never, ever, mention that Dean conceived of it as a necessity because he thought Democrats were going to go YEEEEEEAAAARS without being able to win a Congressional majority.

                  That they took both chambers in a massive wave in literally the next cycle literally proved his entire theory wrong on every level, even if it was a better organizational model than Obama’s “centralize everything and DGAF” approach.

                • PunditusMaximus

                  “You also implied that Obama’s choice for DNC chair was responsible for the election outcome.”

                  It’s known that Obama recruited Perez personally and worked the membership in favor of his election. I believe that this is why Perez first ran and then won, yes.

                  I have no idea why Ellison wasn’t acceptable to Obama, but the fact that he wasn’t puts up huge red flags for me. Ellison wins and knows how to win. Perez is an unknown quantity in electoral politics. Maybe it’ll work out. But I didn’t want to take that risk.

                • Running for office and running a large bureaucracy require two entirely different skill sets. The DNC is a large bureaucracy. Perez ran Labor, a large bureaucracy, very well. The DNC also has a significant role in fighting voter suppression, and this is something else Perez has successful experience doing. It seems incredibly self-evident to me that Perez’ résumé was why Obama supported him.

                  Furthermore, it’s not as though Ellison is uninvolved in the DNC, considering he is literally the second-in-command of the entire organisation. The fact that people continue to complain about this months later remains entirely baffling to me.

                • PunditusMaximus

                  The DNC is a small bureaucracy, not a large bureaucracy. It’s a lot more like Ellison’s field staff than it is like a civil service org funded by tax intake.

                  Again, maybe it’ll work out. I didn’t wanna. There were good reasons for that.

                • It’s definitely a hell of a lot larger than the field staff of a congressman from a fairly safe blue seat in MN. Not saying that Ellison isn’t a great politician (hell, I could see myself supporting him for the presidency at some point), but Perez’ résumé is far more relevant to the position than Ellison’s, especially since Ellison might not even manage his own campaign staff much (he very well may have people to do that for him). And you didn’t address the voter suppression argument, I notice.

                • PunditusMaximus

                  I just don’t concede that the DNC is more like the Department of Labor than the staff (including field staff) of a successful Congressperson who concentrates on fieldwork and constituent service. The missions, size, staffing process, and revenue streams all favor the Congressional staff analogue strongly.

                  Perez seems like a good human overall with a strong history of public service, and like most such humans, he has experience in relevant areas. I feel like the Obama era is one in which voting rights were successfully assaulted, so I’m all over the place on that one.

          • Steve LaBonne

            In addition to the fact that it wouldn’t pass now even in Canada if they were starting from scratch, let alone here, I’m strongly opposed to single-payer because of the political situation in this country. As in, say goodbye to coverage for women’s reproductive health care the moment Republicans were to take back control of the government.

            • Abbey Bartlet

              As in, say goodbye to coverage for women’s reproductive health care the moment Republicans were to take back control of the government.

              Strangely, this never seems to bother the people attacking HRC/Obama for neoliberal perfidy not being sufficiently committed to single-payer.

        • davidsmcwilliams

          I too remember when Obama folded over the debt ceiling crisis. And the ACA. And the Iran deal.

          • PunditusMaximus

            In order:

            1) Obama’s solution to the debt ceiling crisis was to implement the Sequester, which was a brutal austerian package that extended the Great Recession by years. But other than that, he totally held the line.

            2) Obama waffled so long on the ACA that one of his major Senatorial supporters literally died of old age, and he refused to even consider using Reconciliation until his Presidency was literally on the line. I do, however, admit that in order to hold up his end of the bargain with PhRMA, he started to actually try to get the job done.

            3) Granted. Obama really believed in the Iran deal and made it happen. It’s worthy of note that the Iran deal is what it looked like when Obama was unwilling to compromise and went all-out for the win.

            • Aaron Morrow

              It’s worthy of note that the Iran deal is what it looks like when Obama compromised with Republicans and signed off on requiring congressional review of any final nuclear agreement with Iran before the president can waive sanctions imposed by Congress.

              The presidency is not a dictatorship, despite your authoritarian fantasies.

            • Scott Lemieux

              Obama waffled so long on the ACA

              You don’t know anything about the passage of the ACA, or indeed the American legislative process, and you should stop embarrassing yourself by pretending that you do.

            • Justin Runia

              Now you’re revealing the dangerous authoritarian tendencies that so often manifest among our moral betters.

              Here’s the facts: Kennedy was hospitalized 5 months into Obama’s term and died 3 months after that. Did Obama lose Martha Coakley’s race for her? Scott Brown breaking the 60-vote Democratic caucus is what made reconciliation absolutely necessary, though you could perhaps make the case that it would have been ultimately necessary to get around the fuckery of asshats Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson. As to why Obama couldn’t simply pass the ACA in the first 5 months that Kennedy wasn’t actively dying, we just saw what happens when Congress tries to pass legislation on an arbitrary time table; it only strengthens the negotiating position of the people across the table from you. Getting the ACA passed in 5 months most likely would have resulted in a worse bill, not a better one.

              This Green Lantern stuff should have died years ago.

              • Brien Jackson

                And it makes no sense to be hung up on reconcilliation anyway: The final reconciliation package just modified a few provisions in the bill to make House members happy, and the bulk of the stuff in the ACA like new regulations on insurers, the ban on pre-exiisting condition discrimination, and anything else now strictly limited to taxes and spending couldn’t be passed through the process.

              • Also, Franken hadn’t even been seated for the first few months of Obama’s term. There was only a filibuster-proof majority for a brief period of time. I think it may have been about a month.

              • PunditusMaximus

                It is my belief that reconciliation would have been ultimately necessary to get around the fuckery of Lieberman, Nelson, and Baucus — and that begging Snowe for crumbs only served to magnify fuckery availability.

                My problem isn’t that there were strategic errors made during the ACA process.
                Anything that large and difficult is going to have major errors over its course.
                My problem is that nobody seemed to learn anything and the exact same behaviors were relentlessly repeated for the following seven and a half years. That’s what puts it over from the belief that the legislative process is hard to the belief that some of this was fundamentally desired by the Powers That Be.

                If Obama had said, “Well, that sucked, time to stop putting ‘respectability’ in front of getting stuff done,” fired Geithner, and nominated a pro-enforcement Democrat to take over the Fed, then I’d be the first in line in his defense parade.

        • Bruce B.

          Yeah, I haven’t heard of the ACA, either, let alone executive order 13672.

          • Abbey Bartlet

            executive order 13672.

            #idpol

    • sleepyirv

      I’m old enough to remember when Cuomo’s gay marriage bill was going to guarantee him the support of all liberals, before Anthony Kennedy and friends turned that into a footnote and all the leftist energy went into economic issues/BLM.

    • Scott Lemieux

      When people say “Cuomo will be strong contender in 2020,” they’re really saying “I developed my views on the composition and ideology of the Democratic party some time ago, and I have no interest in revisiting them in light of new information.”

      You’ve got it — it’s the latest expression of the “it’s always 1996” crowd.

      • kped

        For anyone who thinks he has a shot…how do they explain O’Malley? Is it just “Cuomo is from a bigger state”? Because O’Malley was a far better candidate on his record (save for the shitty Baltimore mayor stuff) then Cuomo is, and he basically didn’t exist in the primary. What makes Cuomo better to actual voters?

        • humanoid.panda

          The problem with O’malley is that the record on which he wanted to run collapsed under his feet: first the Freddie Grey atrocity, and then his succesor losing to a republican. If those things don’t happen, he could have made some noise, and at the very least establish himself as a 2020 contender.

          • Scott Lemieux

            The idea that O’Malley would have been a serious contender if only he had been succeeded by a Democrat could not be less plausible.

            • kped

              Yeah, that’s making me scratch my head. I don’t know if a single person outside of Maryland even knows that, and the universe of primary voters who both knew and cared enough to withhold a vote to O’Malley because of this has to approach 0.

              Honestly, even the BLM stuff didn’t impact him that much. The voters just split to two candidates they preferred. O’Malley lacked the charisma to gain traction, and there was nowhere on the ideological spectrum to run to to differentiate himself.

              • PunditusMaximus

                Freddie Grey destroyed what little traction O’Malley could have generated. He was a known failure taking on two major Party stalwarts.

                • Abbey Bartlet

                  Freddie Grey destroyed what little traction O’Malley could have generated.

                  Yep.

                  He was a known failure taking on

                  Yep.

                  two major Party stalwarts.

                  Oh come on.

            • Brien Jackson

              O’Malley is really the kill shot to the DWS CLEARED THE FIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEELLLD crowd. A reasonably well known and decently well liked Governor of a state surrounded with big media markets ran anyway and….became a political punchline by getting the shit beat out of him because NO ONE supported him over Clinton. The universe of people who could plausibly have beaten Clinton is exactly Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren, who chose not to run for their own reasons, and everyone else opted out precisely because they didn’t want to have their careers brutally eviscerated like O’Malley’s.

              • MDrew

                O’Malley is the kill shot for Cleared The Field.

                Awesome.

  • Jordan

    hmm, who are the people who think Cuomo is a super serious candidate? Mostly so I can ignore them, but also I can make fun of them.

    • Phil Perspective

      See my comment above. Cuomo is a super serious candidate because he’s good with some of the big money boys. Otherwise, he’d be a Roy Cooper.

      • Jordan

        … ok

        • humanoid.panda

          The governor of the 3rd largest state in the country, in which the world’s number one city is located, is a prominent name only due to donors. Period.

        • veleda_k

          Well, if you were looking for someone to make fun of…

  • SatanicPanic

    Gillibrand/Harris 2020!

    • bender

      What about Duckworth?

      • SatanicPanic

        Duckworth for SoS! But I wouldn’t cry about her being on the ticket either. How about an all-woman ticket + cabinet? Maybe add some token dood as Transportation Secretary just to make it burn more.

        • ForkyMcSpoon

          You better watch out, that’s asking women to vote with their VAGINAS.

          Notably, when Republicans run almost only men, they’re not voting with their PENISES.

          (Actually, if an attractive woman were doing well, THAT would probably be described as voting with their penises. Men who vote for men are just voting with their brains, duh.)

    • tsam

      I’m holding out for Batman. Batman is a scientist.

      • Rob in CT

        Very tough on crime.

        • Justin Runia

          Plus he can self-fund

          • tsam

            Long philanthropic record.

            Very focused.

  • Murc

    I largely agree with this Scott, but with two caveats.

    The first is that Cuomo is very clearly trying to reinvent himself as a man of the left. He moved heaven and earth to get our new free college (yes, yes, I know, it isn’t truly free, its last-dollar tuition top offs, more work needs to be done, YES I AM AWARE) program passed as part of our better-than-we-could-have-hoped budget.

    Basically, I think Cuomo either wasn’t planning on running or was planning on running in 2024. But now I think he very clearly has his eye set on 2020. He might do what his daddy did, but I don’t think so.

    The second is that Cuomo isn’t an idiot. He’s really not. I respect his intelligence and political acumen, just not the uses he puts them to.

    What I predict he’s going to do is this: the next three years or so he’s going to get whatever lefty dreamboat positions he can through the statehouse and, possibly, try and actually get the State Senate away from the Republicans. He’s going to try and do this without giving up his pro-business bonafides, and I’m not sure he can bring himself to actually giving the unions significant concessions, but he’s gonna try.

    Then in 2020 he’s going to run on free college, the SAFE Act, gay marriage, and whatever else he can scrape up. He will position himself as anti-Wall Street if he can, which might not be too much of a stretch given the longstanding history of bad blood between Albany and NYC.

    Will this actually work? I don’t think so. Like you said, I too believe he is drawing dead. But I think this is what he’s going to try, and you never know. Maybe Cuomo tries to cloak himself in the mantle of FDR, the media buys it, and stuff happens. That’s a long shot but we live in fucked-up times.

    • humanoid.panda

      This is a great comment. And I think the things that kill him are not ideological but
      1. His whole corruption business.
      2. The fact that he has no charisma whatsoever.

      • Aaron Morrow

        I find it hard to believe that Cuomo and Gillibrand both run in the same visible primary, but if they do, Gillibrand will beat him at least partially on ideology.

        (I suspect that is what is happening right now in the invisible primary, but how can I possibly know?)

      • ochospantalones

        #2 is key. Ideological positioning aside, he’s not a pleasant or engaging person. Nor is he an inspirational public speaker. I’ve been in a smallish private meeting (10-12 people) with the guy, and he doesn’t exactly light up the room.

    • Rob in CT

      I mean, I can squint and maybe see it.

      And hell, so many of us were totally wrong about Trump (to think I actually over-estimated the decency and intellectual consistency of Republican primary voters! I didn’t think I could do that).

      Nobody should be totally confident in these kind of predictions. Not me, not you, and not Scott.

      • Murc

        But unjustified overconfidence in my own opinions and analyses is part of my brand!

        • humanoid.panda

          I don’t remember when I read it, but I recall some conservative taking down Sullivan’s Oakenshottian Burkeanism, pointing out that “hey, ho, certitude must go” was a terrible political slogan.

          • Hogan

            “Which reminds me that I can’t remember whether I accepted an invitation from you to dine at Kettner’s to-night.”

            “On the other hand, I can remember with startling distinctness not having asked you to.”

            “So much certainty is unbecoming in the young; so we’ll consider that settled.”

            Saki

            • Saki! I was raised on Sredni-Vashtar. That was actually one of our bedtime stories when I was a child.

              • Hogan

                . . . good heavens.

              • Steve LaBonne

                Now you’re scaring me.

              • I know, right? And yet, my parents are lovely people. Of course we did name our cat herpes. So perhaps my normal meter is broken.

                • Abbey Bartlet

                  we did name our cat herpes

                  Sorry, the name of your cat was “herpes,” or you had “cat herpes,” which you named?

    • Phil Perspective

      Basically, I think Cuomo either wasn’t planning on running or was planning on running in 2024. But now I think he very clearly has his eye set on 2020.

      He, like almost everyone else, probably thought HRC was a shoe-in. Things changed since we know that 2020 is now open. It threw Cuomo’s plans in chaos too.

    • LeeEsq

      Cuomo might be helped by the fact that he is a white man. Its unlikely to be a great help but there have to be at least some Democratic primary voters and party officials that want to be as safe/strong against Trump as possible and that means not being seen as the women/people of color party to them.

      I personally would vote for Kirsten Gillibrand enthusiastically.

  • keta

    I don’t know about 2020, but I love love love the fact that the 2018 midterms look to be very, very interesting given the results in the special election in Kansas last night and the continuing deterioration of Trump’s mind.

    Many folks, myself included, maintain elected GOPers will stand by Trump until his fucknuttery imperils their own re-election chances. It looks to me that many of those spineless pud pullers are mere strokes away from breaking up with Donnie.

    • PunditusMaximus

      Two problems with this:

      1) There’s literally nowhere else to go. From a policy perspective, incompetence and intransigence are their only options. There is no GOP policy shop, period. It’s grifters all the way down.

      2) It’s too late. GOP = Tr45, no matter how hard HRC tried to separate the two.

    • mds

      the 2018 midterms look to be very, very interesting given the results in the special election in Kansas last night

      Yeah, I never thought I’d say “Wooo! Democrat loses special election by 7! Wooo!” Yet we’re talking about a seat that went Republican by, what, 31 points back in November?

      And speaking about mental deterioration:

      Great win in Kansas last night for Ron Estes, easily winning the Congressional race against the Dems, who spent heavily & predicted victory!
      — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 12, 2017

      “Easily” means “Underperformed by at least 20 points,” “spent heavily” means “barely spent anything,” and “predicted victory” means “predicted a loss, but with hopes for the outcome that were largely realized.” Even after all we’ve been through, I remain impressed by this man’s ability to pack so much total bullshit into 140 characters.

      • keta

        Yep. Although, while I’m now somewhat inured to the man’s ability to lie about absolutely fucking everything, I am still truly amazed that there are people out there that swallow the lies whole.

        It’s the credulous goobers who frighten me most.

        • PunditusMaximus

          Republicans are Republican. I keep telling people that Tr45 is utterly ordinary, but they keep ignoring that the Congressional clown shows and states with Republican governor is the exact same.

        • humanoid.panda

          Yep. Although, while I’m now somewhat inured to the man’s ability to lie about absolutely fucking everything, I am still truly amazed that there are people out there that swallow the lies whole.

          “It’s not a lie if you believe in it.”

          • lunaticllama

            With the tweet in question, I would not be surprised if Trump believed it to be completely true.

  • Crusty

    Anyone have any history on Trump giving to Gillibrand?

  • Nick never Nick

    This is probably politically or socially or something-or-other naive — but I think it would be great if the Democratic primary is largely about Trump. My point upthread about this sort of issue being a distraction from the coalition and the policies is kind of snarky, but it’s been said a lot here as well — that should be applied to every candidate. The Democratic policy platform should be our focus, not the individual loathsomeness of Democratic politicians, or their purulent supporters.

    In my opinion, LGM is actually an influential blog — discussions here could have ramifications elsewhere, but the chance of that happening is greater if people don’t collapse into snarky sub-tribes of angry Democrats. This is an entirely different sphere, but if anyone is familiar with the Hugo Awards controversy, one influential blog (Making Light), discussed and developed the ultimate solution, a new way of balloting. Obviously LGM won’t have that effect on the next election, but I do think that we are still reckoning with the way elections work in the current Internet-enabled environment, and that the sorts of interactions that happen in places like this are not trivial.

    • Rob in CT

      This is an entirely different sphere, but if anyone is familiar with the Hugo Awards controversy, one influential blog (Making Light), discussed and developed the ultimate solution, a new way of balloting.

      Don’t get Gregor started!

    • Hogan

      if anyone is familiar with the Hugo Awards controversy, one influential blog (Making Light), discussed and developed the ultimate solution, a new way of balloting.

      And LGM was represented there! Gregor Sansa, everybody. Let’s give him a big hand.

      • Or two thirds of the first round of hands after a runoff involving any people who have two or more hands.

        • Bruce B.

          …adjusting for hemisphere so that the Coriolis force works out correctly.

  • Nick never Nick

    And finally, what are the chances that the Democratic party is vulnerable, as the GOP turned out to be, to being involuntarily taken over in the primaries by a famous charlatan? And if that were to happen, who would it be? George Clooney? Barbara Streisand? Robert Fripp?

    • humanoid.panda

      The Democrats are as vulnerable to celebrity takeover as anyone else, I reckon. But I seriously doubt they can be taken over by a charlatan. IT would have to be a celebrity with a rerord and/or willingness to do the work for key constituencies.
      so Clooney? Yes. Mark Cuban? If he does the work. The Rock? No.

      • Phil Perspective

        The Rock has a better chance than Mark Cuban in a Democratic Party.

      • Brien Jackson

        Yeah I mean, Bernie lost pretty handily just last year, so we seem pretty well guarded against charlatans at the moment.

        • Abbey Bartlet

          Yeah I mean, Bernie lost pretty handily just last year, so we seem pretty well guarded against charlatans at the moment.

          *blows kisses in Brien’s direction*

      • ForkyMcSpoon

        Mark Cuban has a yacht named after Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead. I might actually prefer Cuomo.

        And Dwayne Johnson is a Republican – if he runs, he’s not running for the Democratic nomination.

        George Clooney I think could actually make a credible run.

    • Q.E.Dumbass

      William Maher SUPERGENIUS is the closest thing the left has to a Trump counterpart, but there’s no way in hell he gets the nomination.

      ETA: THE EDIT BUTTON IS BACK THANK BLACK JEEBUS

      • tsam

        No. Maher is an asshole, but he’s not a dim bulb who doesn’t give enough of a fuck to learn something to deal with really important job. I can’t stand that fuck either, but Trump comparisons are going too far.

        Jill Stein is closer to a left (?) version of Trump than Maher.

    • Scott Lemieux

      Robert Fripp?

      Ineligible, sadly. He can play the solo from “The Night Watch” at Gillibrand’s inaugural party.

      • Well, if we’re going for Roberts, how about Crumb?

        ETA: IT’S BACK!!!! yesssssssss!!!!!

      • Nick never Nick

        I WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS MY REGRETS AT INCLUDING ROBERT FRIPP IN THE SAME POST AS THE WORD ‘CHARLATAN’

        Also, in the world I inhabit, if Trump can be President, so can anyone else I like, regardless of legality, Constitutionality, or any other consideration. That’s why it’s Waters/Fripp, 2020, all the way.

        • Andy

          Waters/Fripp: “Pink and Crimson, not Orange!”

        • Colin Day

          Arnold Schwarzenegger, not for his policies, but to fulfill the Demolition Man prophecy.

          • I’d be amused if this happened purely because of how effectively he’s been trolling the shitgibbon lately.

      • Joseph Slater

        Frippertronics or go home.

    • Dilan Esper

      I don’t think a charlatan takeover is very likely, because the Democrats don’t have nearly the level of “bullshit deficit” (as I think Josh Marshall called it) as Republicans did. While there are some empirical disputes within the Democratic Party (charter schools, for example), there’s nothing like the accumulation of BS that the GOP had (e.g., pretending that their health care plans would cover more Americans and reduce deductibles, pretending that their foreign policy would both keep Americans out of wars and kick foreign butt, pretending that it was possible to stop illegal immigration and deport the undocumented without harming sympathetic characters, and that all illegal immigrants were “criminals”, pretending that everything wrong in America is Obama’s fault, etc.).

      I do think a celebrity could win a Democratic nomination under certain circumstances (although the chances are lower now because of the struggles that Trump has had getting his arms around the job), but that celebrity would be someone within the reality based community, not a charlatan.

      • Right. Clooney might be able to get the nomination because he actually has a history of political activism and genuinely knows things about political issues. A Democratic equivalent of the shitgibbon would have no chance whatsoever.

        • ForkyMcSpoon

          I’d need to see Clooney give a speech, but from what I’ve seen of him and politics, he’d be possibly the most credible non-politician candidate for the nomination.

          Al Franken, of course, gives you someone who used to be just a celebrity.

          Which might have the bonus of us getting to annoy Republicans by calling him “the Democratic Reagan”

          • I haven’t seen him give a speech specifically, but on several occasions I’ve heard him talk about political issues in interviews and so on. He definitely knows his stuff, and he talks about it convincingly. He also definitely has charisma, which is probably an important feature in a nominee. He’s definitely the most credible celebrity I’m aware of that we could nominate.

            I do like the idea of “the Democratic Reagan”. That pleases me.

      • Nick never Nick

        So basically you’re saying that the GOP is the equivalent of a national forest where natural forest fires have been suppressed for so long that the deadwood has reached disaster levels and even a controlled burn risks raging out of control and laying waste to the countryside for thousands of square miles.

  • MacK

    OK, I expect to be flamed for this – and please, I’m not expressing my personal opinion, but:

    Former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton said on Thursday that misogyny “played a role” her 2016 defeat.

    “Certainly, misogyny played a role,” Clinton said at the Women of the World Summit in New York. “I mean, that just has to be admitted. And why and what the underlying reasons were is what I’m trying to parse out myself.”

    Let’s assume it was a decisive role (and given the tiny margin by which Clinton lost the electoral college, a lot of things were decisive.) One has to ask, is running a woman in 2020 to big a risk (personally I don’t think it is)?

    • Nick never Nick

      Well, ignoring the contemptible aspects of this approach, using the logic outlined here we should have voted for John Edwards in 2008.

      Edited, I didn’t realize at first that this was a hypothetical and not your conclusion.

    • humanoid.panda

      I think its a fact of life, that any female candidate would have to think about. But its not an insurmountable obstacle, by no means.

      • Historically misogyny can be overcome when enough men have shit the bed for even men and misogynistic women to have had enough of male shit in everything.

        See: e.g. Iceland

        In my opinion the 2016 election wasn’t so much defined by misogyny as by red america’s tremendous weariness with the party of reasonableness, calm, no drama, no glitz, no showmanship. HRC was outglamored by Trump, she was out hysteria-ed by trump, she represented tiresome technocratic reasonableness. And people just didn’t see the need. They forgot the terror of the financial crash. While they pretended to terror on the terrorism/immigrant side they really had forgotten just how crappy a president Bush was or what it felt like on 9/11 so they didn’t see the need for female virtues like checkbook balancing or caring about the small details.

        But after trump literally and metaphorically shits the bed? People, lots of people, are going to be willing to give a woman the chance to clean up the mess. Just like they were willing to turn to the black guy to clean up the mess.

        • mds

          See: e.g. Iceland

          There’s the other side of it, of course, which US Democrats have plenty of experience with: “Thanks for tackling the mess we made. We’ll take power back now, thanks.”

          (In the case of Iceland, a lot of it was self-inflicted, of course. Letting the right-wing parties that helped smash the economy in the first place claim the mantle of anti-austerianism? Pushing EU membership on a Eurosceptic public that was watching periperal EU members get the Austerity Hammer good and hard? Being perceived as moral scolds? Yeah, nice work there, Social Democrats. Enjoy your three seats in yet another right-wing-controlled Alþingi. The Left-Green Movement will take it from here.)

        • eclare

          I think the real tell will come in the next year or so as Senator Gillibrand gets more and more notice. Once she’s seen as a threat, the RWNM will undoubtedly gear up and start their smear campaign, designed to play on most people’s latent, implicit misogyny. My hope is that three years isn’t enough time to fully incubate Gillibrand Derangement Syndrome, but if she actually manages to win I suspect people will be more and more likely to view her in the same light as Clinton. That being said, I would love to see her run.

        • msdc

          But after trump literally and metaphorically shits the bed?

          Oh, we all know what Trump likes to do to beds.

          • I thought about “wets the bed” but it just didn’t have enough contaminant for my meaning.

    • Crusty

      I don’t think its too big a risk because it is complicated. There is a unique brand of Hillary Hatred that is very closely tied to her being a woman and is therefore a form of or manifestation of misogyny and in that sense, the assessment that misogyny helped to beat her is correct. But it is a little more specific to her. As far as I can tell, Gillibrand inspires less lunatic hatred. For the moment, Gillibrand would face only a generalized we should have a strong man in the oval office so that we have someone who could arm wrestle putin, kill a spider and won’t be so emotional type of misogyny, which I don’t think is a mobilizing force in the way that Hillary Hatred (conniving entitled bitch with that voice, etc.) had been. Surely, something similar will emerge against Gillibrand should she run, I just don’t know that there’s the potential for it to be quite as gripping and motivating, in part because it hasn’t been developing for the last 25 years.

      • StellaB

        While I do think that Hillary was hampered by 25 years of hatred, I think that it was mostly because the scripts were honed and widely distributed. Her approval rating was quite high when she was SoS, but the Rs already knew what would work against her when she announced that she would run, Certainly, the Rs that I know hate, hate, hate Sen. Warren. They aren’t as aware of Sen. Gillibrand any more than they were aware of then-Sen. Obama and don’t have any pre-tested smear campaigns at the ready. They threw all kinds of crap at him before they finally hit on the classic “black man so uppity that he goes on Hawaiian vacations and plays golf”.

        My sample of informed GOP voters is very small. My sample of Fox News and Bill O the clown voters is much broader.

        • MacK

          We knew Hillary faced 25 years of hatred – but decided to defy that history. Was it a good idea?

      • ForkyMcSpoon

        I think the Hillary Hatred was enhanced by the fact that she’s the wife of a very powerful man.

        That enables a whole world of misogynistic narratives that are not available to use against Gillibrand or Warren.

        Hillary the power-hungry wife using her husband to get what she couldn’t earn on her own. Hillary the radical influence on her husband (seen in Arkansas and in the early 90s). The Lewinsky scandal made her sympathetic for a while, but afterwards enabled the narrative that their marriage is all a sham, a marriage of political convenience (and for the nuttier parts of the RW universe, she’s also a secret lesbian).

        The power-hungry usurper queen and the sham marriage narratives coincidentally reinforce common character attacks against her: that she’s calculating, untrustworthy, secretive and dishonest.

        Not to say that Gillibrand wouldn’t deal with a gauntlet of misogyny. Just that there is a possible explanation for why it wouldn’t be quite as bad.

        • This strikes me as accurate. The right-wing puke funnel has also had twenty-five years to build a narrative about Hillary, which they probably won’t have had with other women we’re likely to nominate in the future. Which isn’t to say that misogyny can’t still be a factor, but even if it was decisive in 2016, it may not be as decisive in future elections.

    • PunditusMaximus

      I wish I could be emphatic enough that the answer is absolutely not.

    • mds

      Misogyny was one factor. The other factor, based on my admittedly limited anecdotal pool of largely-sane CT Republicans, OR fence-sitters, Upstate NY’ers**, and partisans of various allegiances in the Upper Midwest, is that far too many of us underestimated the long-dormant mouth-frothing hatred for Hillary Clinton. I mean, absolutely rabid batshit hatred. She did so well at the NY polls in 2006, and had such high favorables as Secretary of State, yet all the time the prion disease was lurking under the surface.

      So of course someone like Gillibrand will face misogyny. But it will be more easily surmountable when she doesn’t have to deal with a press and an electoral cohort that are utterly consumed with Clinton Derangement Syndrome. I mean, I expect the Right to try to exploit it, but the manner in which they try to do so will almost certainly be pure misogyny (“She’s just like Hillary Clinton: a NY senator who’s a girl“), and I think misogyny will be a less effective attack against a candidate whom people aren’t predisposed to consider unsavory.

      **I will never cease griping about Clinton winning 58 of 62 counties in 2006, spending plenty of time in Western NY, etc., only to turn back into the Antichrist in 2016.

      ETA: Damnit, typed too slow yet again. So, what Crusyt said above.

      • Nick never Nick

        There are a couple of not-nice-to-point out factors as well, that come into play here. With Obama, it can’t have been unsignificant that his father was actually African, and he was raised by a white family in a very non-African-American community. In other words, black, but not ‘typically’ black.

        With Senator Gillibrand, it won’t be unimportant that she’s younger than Clinton, and attractive. In other words, she would probably get some support from misogynists that Clinton didn’t. I don’t think that this will be conscious, but for large numbers of people who don’t really think about why they vote the way they do, it will be one factor.

        • zoomar

          The misogyny Gillebrand will face won’t be of the deep, first-wave feminism backlash that has followed Clinton since she first made the “stand by my man,” “bake cookies” cracks. There was a visceral hatred of her that remains as powerful as ever while the original historical slights that spawned the hate have faded. Few remember “Fish Without a Bicycle” T-shirts, but the negative emotional backlash at the idea attached itself to young HRC and never left.

          • bender

            That’s Second Wave feminism. First Wave feminism started before the Civil War, achieved many legal reforms and won access to higher education, culminated with women getting the vote in the US and UK, and collapsed in the Twenties.

      • Rob in CT

        The other factor, based on my admittedly limited anecdotal pool of largely-sane CT Republicans, OR fence-sitters, Upstate NY’ers**, and partisans of various allegiances in the Upper Midwest, is that far too many of us underestimated the long-dormant mouth-frothing hatred for Hillary Clinton. I mean, absolutely rabid batshit hatred.

        Yes. I was worried about it early on. But I allowed myself to be convinced that it was already “baked in” and wouldn’t do further harm. She handled the Benghazi hearing well. Trump was a buffoon…

        And yet.

      • humanoid.panda

        Misogyny was one factor. The other factor, based on my admittedly limited anecdotal pool of largely-sane CT Republicans, OR fence-sitters, Upstate NY’ers**, and partisans of various allegiances in the Upper Midwest, is that far too many of us underestimated the long-dormant mouth-frothing hatred for Hillary Clinton. I mean, absolutely rabid batshit hatred. She did so well at the NY polls in 2006, and had such high favorables as Secretary of State, yet all the time the prion disease was lurking under the surface.

        This was my top political mistake of the 2016 cycle. I figured that when the dust of the primary settles, she will get to Romney level favorability, and then when she didn’t I figured people who hate her and Trump will go with safe choice. Oops.

      • MacK

        That’s a similar point. I agree that it’s unfair and f*cking morally wrong, but, but, at what point do you conclude that the sowing if batshit hatred has just been too effective, and you need another candidate (but who?? In 2016) At what point do you ask, how many moral wrongs may result from our running the morally right candidate?

    • Dilan Esper

      The numbers I have seen indicate that Hillary’s gender actually helped her.

      But if you believe it hurt her, remember, Al Smith lost but Kennedy won, and Jesse Jackson didn’t even get through the primaries but Obama won. Early candidacies make the later candidates more plausible and shift public opinion over time.

      And again, all the numbers indicate that a female candidate in 2020 would be a very good idea for the Dems.

      • MacK

        Dilan.

        I’m not saying sbe lost because she was a woman – who knows, it was that close. What I’m asking is if misogyny (or some other bigotry) is an issue, whag should Democrats do (my views on republicans involve a gas can and a zippo lighter.)

        But let’s not pretend that it isn’t an issue, or that a white blind nkrdic woman miggg appeal to white voters, but have a problem mobilising blacks and hispanics. The Republicans have been willing to look at these ugly factors and exploit them – they work for them. I’m not saying do as they do, bug at leat know what they do and be ready.

        • MacK

          White blond Nordic-ish woman.

          Frickin iPad

      • MacK

        Al Smith lost in 1924 (nomination) and 1928. Remember what Hoover winning in 1928 meant until Roosevelt took office in 1933. People were pauperised and died – it mattered.

      • bender

        The women of this country are not going to wait as long as the Catholics had to. In those days, presidential nominations were made in smoke filled rooms. Women are half of the electorate and if you think “We can’t take a chance on a woman,” is going to be a persuasive argument in the primaries, the nicest thing I can say is that you overestimate the proportion of voters who vote strategically.

        I wonder, though, whether the best strategy for meeting misogyny head on might be to have several women competing in the primaries.

    • MacK

      This has been interesting. Let me be clear, I have no objection to a woman being president, or a gay president (which arguably has already happened (he was not a good president – nothing to do with his being gay), or T, etc. Indeed, I’m of the view that, competence (and liberal politics) assumed, it would be a good thing (can we all agree President Michelle Bachman would have been at least as big an “oh f*ck” thought as President Trump.)

      The question I suppose is, assuming misogyny is a significant issue in presidential electoral politics – what price are we willing to pay to challenge it head on? I’m sorry, a democrat would be vastly better than the orange shit-gibbon, for women, for [real] men, for immigrants and minorities; but enough assholes will refuse to vote for a woman that it is fair to say it may have cost Hillary Clinton the election. And, if so, that has real life and death consequences.

      I doubt that their candidate being a woman in 2020 would cost Democrats the election, it could, but probably not. But the issue I’m raising is – how far will we go if does jeopardise the election. It’s an ugly calculus, but it’s one that I think has to be discussed.

    • Abbey Bartlet

      One has to ask,

      No, one does not, actually.

  • Andy should be afraid of whatever Preet Bhrara has in his back pocket. He’d like to be President, but I agree that he has more or less the same shot as Chris Christie.
    On November 8 I started telling people that Kirsten Gillibrand was my candidate. She has been an outstanding Senator, which is, as we all know, a very rare thing indeed. And while we are on the subject, let’s recall that David Paterson’s appointment of Senator Gillibrand is pretty much what drove him out of office. Damn shame, that. He knew who he wanted, and it was a great pick

    • FlipYrWhig

      And the rec list at Daily Kos threw a shit fit that became a shit maelstrom, because Gillibrand something something neoliberal establishment Wall Street, and Paterson shoulda appointed a real liberal like Caroline Kennedy. Why it’s almost like there’s a strain of leftish politics that involves unreflective scapegoating and ass-backwards judgment!

      • TopsyJane

        Quote from Kennedy friend Lawrence O’Donnell:

        “Paterson has no comprehension of upstate New York, absolutely none, and has chosen someone better at representing cows than people……. “What you have is the daughter of a lobbyist, instead of the daughter of a former President or the son of a former governor. This is the hack world producing the hack result that the hacks are happy with.”

        I do not think the party will nominate another white lady senator from the Northeast this time around, but if Gillibrand does go to the next level, I’d enjoy seeing her rub O’Donnell’s nose in that one.

        • Is the ‘son of a former governor’ in that quote Andrew Cuomo? Ouch. Also, what an unbelievably elitist remark from someone who claims to be a liberal.

          • TopsyJane

            I think so.

            There is an element of snobbery, to say the least, but to put the best possible gloss on it, O’Donnell was saying that if you’re going to pick someone who’s benefited from family connections, pick a liberal superstar, not an obscure upstate Blue Dog. He’s got a point. I expect Kennedy would have been fine once she was in the job and it is safe to say she would also have championed women’s causes. You would also have had in her a senator from New York with no need to kowtow to Wall Street and a junior senator who would get plenty of attention for her state without pretty much zero effort.

            • TopsyJane

              That should read “…with pretty much…”

  • I don’t know much about her, but based on what I read here, it definitely deems like she’s preferable to Cuomo.

    And I hate saying that because Cuomo’s dad was a political hero of mine, but Andrew is… ethnically challenged.

    • Nick never Nick

      Huh? Not Italian enough? Too Italian? Actually from Sardinia or (ugh), Italian Switzerland? You’ve gotta explain a bit more . . .

      • I’m not sure if you’re snarking, but I’m pretty sure that was a typo for “ethically”.

        • Nick never Nick

          The Age of Charitable Readings has long passed.

      • ForkyMcSpoon

        Andrew Cuomo’s first name being Andrew is acceptable, but not ideal, for an Italian-American.

        Joe Mancini “Manchin”, on the other hand, is ethnically challenged.

        The real reason to primary him is how he’s ashamed of his Italian heritage.

        Oh but also with the EpiPen bullshit, he’s also a bit ethically challenged.

        …Still preferable to Shelley Moore Capito (who is Italian-surnamed, but not actually Italian).

        I’ll stop with the Italian identity politics now.

        • Vance Maverick

          Given that your name is McSpoon rather then Di Cucchiaio, I think you’re indeed ethnically challenged.

          • ForkyMcSpoon

            However improbable it may seem, “Forky McSpoon” is merely a pseudonym, not my given name.

            My real name is more than a little Italian.

  • pseudalicious

    I like her a lot, although I think running a white person is a mistake.

    • gccolby

      People are really overthinking the electoral significance of the Democratic candidate’s race and gender.

  • stonetools

    Not sure the reason for the absolute hatred for Cuomo here, but I think l he will have a shot at 2020 for the reason that by then any Democrat with any chance of besting Trump will be embraced by Democrats of whatever stripe. I’m willing to be put him up there with both Gillebrand and Booker. I put both ahead of him because both have charisma, but he will have a record of ” getting things done”.
    What about the other coast? It’s high time there was a Californian on the ticket. I like what I’ve heard of Kamala Harris, but what of Gavin Newsome? And is Jeff Merkley in the mix?

    • SatanicPanic

      Gavin is running for Governor

      • stonetools

        I figure that he probably wins governor in 2018. If he does well between then and 2020
        , he may have the credentials and record for the big job.

        • Hob

          I guess it’s possible, if he only needs to be governor for two years. His lack of interest in carrying out the tasks of a difficult executive job didn’t become entirely clear until somewhat later in his time as mayor.

    • Jeff Merkley is a great Senator and I’m so pleased with him, but he is not particularly charismatic and he’s from a tiny, blue state.

  • ZakMcKrackenAndTheAlienMindbenders

    I heard she was President of the 8th Grade Republicans club at her grade school and once dressed up as Ronald Reagan for a high school debate team Halloween party. Just Lemieux trying to cram his neoliberal bullshit down everybody’s throat again.

  • Crusty

    Hey, sort of off topic, but who thinks Trump might face a serious primary challenge?

    • sibusisodan

      I think Trump only serving one term is more likely than that.

      All avenues for the Republican party removing Trump as president are excruciating. But a primary challenge of a sitting President is possibly the most damaging.

      • Brien Jackson

        I…don’t think so. I mean if Trump’s so unpoular even with GOP voters that he can be beat in a primary, then what exactly is the downside? Yeah maybe you lose because you piss off the true believers, but if it’s THAT bad you were gonna get creamed anyway. And if you’re thinking about long term damage, winning a legitimate election seems less controversial than impeachment or Amendment 25’ing him.

        • sibusisodan

          My thinking is that if it even gets to the point of a meaningful primary challenge, the GOP would have enough leverage to “convince” Trump that he had successfully made America great and so did not require a second term, hint hint.

          I think Trump would declare victory and go home if he wasn’t the favourite to win the primary.

          So the only scenario I can see a genuine contest for the primary happening is if Trump retains enough GOP support to make him viable, but not enough to be a lock. Which would be epic.

  • RabbitIslandHermit

    Nitpick: NY-20 wasn’t North Country, it was Hudson Valley. Anyways I would probably marginally prefer Warren but I could easily get behind a Gillibrand run. Having a President who I’ve actually seen in person would be neat, too.

    • Warren isn’t going to run. I wanted to be able to vote for her in 2016 before she even became a Senator, but she clearly has no interest in being president, and is probably going to remain in the Senate indefinitely unless she gets a cabinet appointment where she can do more good. Of the people who actually seem likely to run, Gillibrand seems as good a choice as we’re likely to get. She’s a solid progressive and she has natural political talent.

      • RabbitIslandHermit

        Maybe not but I figure if Harry Reid urges you to run you might listen. Anyways Gillibrand has already said she’s not running and basically endorsed Cuomo, that could all change of course.

      • TopsyJane

        but she clearly has no interest in being president,

        Are you sure about that? I gather Warren has plenty of interest, but her age may be against her, among other factors. .

        • I could be wrong. I’d been under the impression that people close to her didn’t think she had any interest in running, but the shitgibbon could have changed that.

          • tsam

            Let us hope that she’ll nevertheless persist.

  • MDrew

    Clinton II.

    I want the New York State Democratic Party and its members to stop bigfooting and trying to bigfoot the presidential primaries. There is no single Democrat-aligned institution that has fucked shit up for the party and thus the country than the NYS Democratic Party.

    Okay, I bet you can name one or two. Good for you.

    • Scott Lemieux

      Clinton II.

      “All blonde women, no matter how different in how many respects are all fundamentally the same. I am not a sexist crackpot.”

      to stop bigfooting and trying to bigfoot the presidential primaries.

      “By the graspingly ambitious and hysterical acting of running for president, Kirsten Gillibrand — a blonde woman just like the graspingly ambitious Hillary Clinton — would be ipso facto trying to usurp a nomination that properly belongs to someone who is not a blonde woman who was or is a senator from New York. I am not a sexist crackpot, and what part of Donkey Kong don’t you understand?”

      • Q.E.Dumbass

        Even NuMoarMaltedLiquor said they’d go in for Gillibrand, which is worth noting.

        “‘what part of Donkey Kong don’t you understand?'”

        The fact that it originated off an Ice Cube album cut.

      • MDrew

        Is Hillary Clinton blonde? I’m not convinced.

      • MDrew

        I’d love an explanation as to why it is so absurd to see her as a pretty comparable nominee to Clinton, who ran on The Most Progressive Platform In The History Of Presidential Democrats, whose Senate seat Gillibrand now occupies, who hails from the same state and state party apparatus, and who has (had) similar (because New York) difficulty establishing distance from the appearance and reality of Wall Street influence. Is it her position profile? Fair enough, I’m listening.

        It’s not like people here didn’t already think I’m a sexist crackpot, so I don’t particularly mind the way you chose to respond initially. So do go on. You’re forgiven.

        Give me Klobuchar, if she’ll do it.

        • Scott Lemieux

          who hails from the same state and state party apparatus,

          Really? Hillary Clinton came up through New York politics and her 2016 campaign was a product of the New York political machine although she had not been involved in New York politics for 8 years? Fascinating.

          and who has (had) similar (because New York) difficulty establishing distance from the appearance and reality of Wall Street influence.

          Really? You’re going to have to do better than this.

          • Abbey Bartlet

            Hillary Clinton came up through New York politics

            Dilan would be interested to learn of this development.

            • Scott Lemieux

              She was planted in the Arkansas governor’s mansion by the New York Democratic Party. Everyone knows this! They play a reallllly long game.

          • MDrew

            My god, that is some really weak sauce.

            Your response is really that Kirsten Gillibrand is too much a product of the New York Democratic party to be compared to Clinton on that basis.

            I mean… okay. Fair enough.

            • Scott Lemieux

              My god, that is some really weak sauce.

              Yes, your argument really is.

              Your response is really that Kirsten Gillibrand is too much a product of the New York Democratic party to be compared to Clinton on that basis.

              No, my argument is that Clinton is not a product of the New York Democratic Party at all, and her political liabilities have nothing to do with New York Democratic politics. (You apparently weren’t aware of this, but she wasn’t a senator and hadn’t been for nearly a decade when she gave those speeches to Goldman Sachs. OTOH, despite being a senator from New York Gillibrand hasn’t done this because she has better political instincts than Clinton.) Which is kind of a problem since is it’s the only non-gendered basis for your silly and sexist assertion that Gillbrand is “Clinton II.”

              not all there is

              Nope, that really is it. If you had something better you would have used it.

              • ForkyMcSpoon

                Gillibrand, as a sitting senator, is not allowed to give paid speeches. Not a test of her political instincts.

                Sanders conveniently omitted the existence of that rule when he would bring up his lack of paid speeches.

            • tsam

              Since when is New York a reason to like someone more or a deal-breaker? This is starting to sound like an EMAILZX THO argument.

              Dismount from the the NY thing. You have no argument here that’s going to resonate beyond your douches of a bag that harp on inconsequential shit to prove that the Democrat party is the worst ever.

          • MDrew

            Really? You’re going to have to do better than this.

            A) It’s not all I offered, which in turn is not all there is, and B) Why? It’s big fucking deal.

            • Perhaps it’s escaped your attention that Clinton was already a household name long before she was a senator from New York, and that she was Secretary of State for four years after her tenure in the Senate, meaning that qualifying her as exclusively a product of New York politics is hardly a defensible position. You also have yet to establish a pattern of New York figures being given undue consideration for the presidency. Our previous four nominees before Clinton came out of, in order, Arkansas, Tennessee, Massachusetts, and Illinois. Not exactly a pattern of New York-related nominees there.

    • Hogan

      Damn you, Mario Cuomo!

      Seriously, who are the last five New Yorkers before Clinton who even ran for the Democratic nomination?

      • Scott Lemieux

        The New York Democratic Party needs to stop BIGFOOTING the nomination process by imposing candidates like Hillary Clinton and Al Smith on the party!

        This ad hoc justification for saying that Gillibrand and Clinton are interchangeable doesn’t even rise to the level of a fig leaf. Sad.

      • tsam

        I’m still stuck trying to figure out why NY is so bad and worth another sanctimonious rant that explains why Trump is in office.

        • Scott Lemieux

          I have it on good authority than John Kerry, Al Gore, Michael Dukakis, and Walter Mondale have all visited New York City. I can only conclude that they were BIGFOOTED into the Democratic nomination by the omnipotent Democratic Party of New York state.

    • djw

      What, specifically, does “bigfooting” mean in this context, besides “running, and trying to win”?

      • PunditusMaximus

        Dunno, but I’d like them to stop doing that too.

  • Malaclypse

    I’m hoping Maura Healey manages to beat Charlie Baker in 2018, on her way to the big show in 2020.

    EDIT: Although she’d be an even better SC Justice.

It is main inner container footer text