Elizabeth Warren

If Hillary Clinton Runs, Will ANY Democrat Challenge Her For The Nomination?

Ronald 12 Comments

Based on public opinion polls and general perceptions that are out there, Hillary Clinton is a shoo-in for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2016, if she chooses to want it and run for it.

The hints are that she will run, and polls indicate more than 60 percent want her as the nominee, and only Vice President Joe Biden is in double digits with 12-13 percent, and Andrew Cuomo the only other person to really have even a few percent.

IF she does not run, there is an open season, with Joe Biden having the advantage, but certainly not a “slam dunk” against Cuomo, Martin O’Malley, Deval Patrick, and several possible women candidates, including Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Amy Klobuchar.

It seems clear that Hillary Clinton, who even this author thought would not run, IS likely to run, and seemingly, be “crowned” the nominee, although there are skeptics who point out that she seemed in the same position in 2006-2008, and lost to a newcomer named Barack Obama.

But now , with extra experience as Secretary of State, it seems as if she is “unstoppable” if she chooses to make the run.

And the GOP is already starting to attack her, because they know it will be extremely difficult for ANY GOP nominee to stop her, as she could lose some of the states that Barack Obama won, and still win the election. The odds of Texas going to her, along with Georgia and Arizona, and the return of North Carolina to the Democratic column, seems possible, with growing Hispanic and Latino population and voting participants, and the likelihood that a higher percentage of women would vote for her, along with African Americans and young people, that how could any Republican nominee be able to come up with 270 electoral votes?

If Hillary Clinton Decided NOT To Run For The Presidency, What Other Women Would Be Potential Presidential Nominees?

Ronald Leave a comment

It is assumed by everyone that Hillary Clinton, former First Lady, former New York Senator, and former Secretary of State, will run for the Presidency in 2016, and has an excellent chance to be the first woman President.

But nothing is certain at this point in 2013, and were Clinton to decide NOT to run, the question arises as to whether any other woman politician would be a potential Presidential candidate, and possibly the first woman President.

While Republicans may imagine that New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez or South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley could be future Presidents, or that Congresswoman Michele Bachmann of Minnesota might try again for the Presidential nomination, one would have to be delusional to the extreme to believe that would be an eventuality in the real world. There is no Republican on the horizon who could be seen as a future, serious candidate for the White House!

However, there are four Democratic women Senators who should be looked at in a serious manner, IF Hillary Clinton were to decide to bow out of the Presidential race, and two of them could be considered serious potential future candidates, even after a two term Hillary Clinton Presidency.

The two women Senators who have an opportunity for 2016 but not in the next decade, due to age, would be Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Claire McCaskill of Missouri.

And the two longer range potential candidates are Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York.

The most exciting possibility would be Elizabeth Warren, who Wall Street hates, and who is most loved by the liberals in the Democratic Party, with McCaskill, seen as more moderate, and Klobuchar and Gillibrand seen as to the left of McCaskiil, but not as much to the left as Warren.

As long as Hillary Clinton decides to run, these women will be in the background, but all bets are off if she ends up deciding to continue speaking for $200,000 a speech, and to write her memoirs, and avoid the political fray.

Last Four Originally Elected Democratic Presidents Were Underdogs: Will That Happen Again In 2016?

Ronald 3 Comments

In the past half century, four Democratic nominees for President, all considered “underdogs”, were elected President.

John F. Kennedy was an underdog in 1960, being a Roman Catholic nominee, thought unlikely to be nominated or elected, but defeating Vice President Richard Nixon, who was far better known.

Jimmy Carter was an underdog in 1976, the first Southern nominee for President since Zachary Taylor in 1848, and really considered the longest of long shots to be the Democratic nominee, and yet won the Presidency over President Gerald Ford.

Bill Clinton was an underdog in 1992, considered part of the “second tier” of possible Democratic nominees for President, and thought to be “dead in the water”, due to the Gennifer Flowers sex scandal, but managing to be the “Comeback Kid”, and win the nomination and the election against President George H. W. Bush.

And Barack Obama was certainly considered an underdog to Hillary Clinton in 2008, and being African American, seemed a particularly “long shot” to go all the way to the Presidency, defeating Senator John McCain of Arizona.

All four Democratic winners all had youth–Kennedy at 43, Carter at 52, Clinton at 46, and Obama at 47 years of age. And get this–these four men were elected exactly SIXTEEN years apart–1960, 1976, 1992, and 2008!

Could this happen again?

Hillary Clinton is seen as the clear front runner, and Joe Biden is the second established “veteran” in the potential race for President in 2016.

But could it be that Governor Martin O’Malley of Maryland, or Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York, or Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, or Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, or Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, or a future Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, or Governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts would end up as a sudden surprise during the primaries and caucuses in 2016, and emerge the nominee and the winner of the Presidency?

Who can say, but the past COULD be an indicator of the future!

The Conservative Political Action Conference: A Bunch Of Retreads And Future Losers!

Ronald 10 Comments

Conservatives are in the third of four days of their annual Conservative Political Action Conference, and it is quite an event, a circus of retreads and future losers, who fail to see that the nation has rejected their ideology when it is presented to them in Senate races, and only holding on to power in the House of Representatives because of gerrymandered districts created by the Tea Party uprising of 2010, which led to a large number of Republican governors and state legislatures at the precisely correct time to affect the shaping of House districts for the ten year cycle following the census figures.

The Tea Party movement has had its heyday, and there are already signs of its future demise, although they will persist in some rural districts in the House, and have their Senators, including Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Rand Paul, all ambitious to be President of the United States, but none of them should be delusional that they will actually be the next President, while they are all fighting to outdo each other three years ahead of 2016!

Attention at this conference is given to such retreads as Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann, Donald Trump, Paul Ryan, and Newt Gingrich.

Also, such losers as Wayne La Pierre, Grover Norquist and the usual right wing talk show hosts, including Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, are part of the “distinguished” speakers spewing forth their divisiveness.

And the conservatives are making clear that they will not budge in any form on the issue of gay rights, immigration reform,their “traditional” view of women being submissive to men, and refusal to separate science from the influence of religion!

There are differences on foreign policy between the libertarians and the neoconservatives, however, and any suggestion of moderation on ANY issue has led to Chris Christie and Bob McDonnell being denied an invitation to speak.

The ultimate reality is that it does not matter what happens at the CPAC, as it is like Don Quixote battling the windmill! The American people are NOT going to elect any of these “clowns”, even those who seem more “moderate”, such as Christie, to the White House in 2016. The Republicans are fighting a civil war, primarily over who shall represent them in 2016, but it is all for naught!

The next President will, assuredly, be a Democrat—whether Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Martin O’Malley, Andrew Cuomo, Elizabeth Warren, Mark Warner, Amy Klobuchar or someone else not yet known!

Rand Paul Becomes A Potential Presidential Candidate, And That Is Good For Democrats!

Ronald 4 Comments

Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky has become a celebrity, due to his 13 hour filibuster, postponing consideration of John Brennan, a twenty five year veteran of the Central Intelligence Agency, to become its head, The purpose of the filibuster was to gain a guarantee from the Obama Administration that drones would not be used on American soil against American non combatant citizens.

It has caused the American Civil Liberties Union to back Rand Paul, and some Democrats as well, including Oregon Senator Ron Wyden, as well as several progressive journals and web sites.

But the biggest manifestation has been the split developing in the Republican Party between the Tea Party Movement supporters (such as Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio) and the neocons (John McCain and Lindsey Graham, particularly), and this is great news for the Democratic Party!

Rand Paul is now being talked about more seriously as a potential Republican nominee for President, a thought that makes 2012 candidates for the nomination look as the beginning of a trend of continued disaster that will only become worse in 2016.

Bring on Rand Paul, and watch the GOP split asunder, and watch Rand Paul make Mitt Romney, John McCain, and Bob Dole, past GOP Presidential losers, appear brilliant by comparison! RIck Perry, Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul, Herman Cain were all embarrassing and disastrous, but Rand Paul would be the most disastrous nominee in history!

If Rand Paul is nominated, and even if he divides the Republican Party while losing the nomination, he will only insure a massive popular vote victory by any Democratic nominee for President, particularly Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, but including others, such as Martin O’Malley, Andrew Cuomo, Elizabeth Warren, or Mark Warner!

“Socialist” Barack Obama And The Doubling Of the Dow Jones Industrial Average

Ronald 3 Comments

It is amazing how the right wing continues to call Barack Obama a “Socialist” and worse, and yet the Dow Jones Industrial Average has doubled from its low point in March 2009, due to the Bush Great Recession, and is now at its all time high!

Wall Street is doing fantastically, while Main Street is not, due to the refusal of the GOP and the corporations to cooperate, since their goal is to make Barack Obama a failed Presidency, but even with that, five million jobs have been created in the past four years, recovering the losses under Bush and in the early months of Obama, and beginning to gain beyond the massive losses, the greatest since the Great Depression.

But of course, Obama is made out to be the “devil”, and no matter what occurs, it is always rejected, with the goal being to propagandize so that Obama will be perceived as a total failure in all areas.

But the American people know differently, and a majority twice have chosen him because he is not a captive of the corporations, and is out to regulate Wall Street through the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the strong advocacy of holding Wall Street to account of Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts!

Age Vs Youth: Will The Republicans And Democrats Be Switching On Their Presidential Nominees In 2016?

Ronald 2 Comments

When one analyzes the two major political parties in the past forty years, it has been a general reality that the Republican Party has run Presidential candidates who tend to be much older than the Democratic Party nominees for President.

Witness Richard Nixon, nine years older than George McGovern in 1972; Gerald Ford eleven years older than Jimmy Carter in 1976; Ronald Reagan thirteen years older than Jimmy Carter in 1980; Reagan seventeen years older than Walter Mondale in 1984; George H. W. Bush eight years older than Michael Dukakis in 1988; Bush twenty two years older than Bill Clinton in 1992; Bob Dole twenty three years older than Clinton in 1996; John McCain twenty five years older than Barack Obama in 2008; and Mitt Romney fourteen years older than Obama in 2012. Only in 2000 and 2004 did we see George W. Bush older than Al Gore by only two years and in 2004 actually younger than John Kerry by three years.

This phenomenon is maybe just a coincidence, but it has often been said that the Democrats go for youth and the Republicans for experience in their Presidential nominees.

Well, if that is the case, it is about to be switched dramatically in 2016 if one assumes that either Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden are the likely front runners for the Democratic Presidential nomination, as Hillary will be 69 in 2016, and Joe will be 74 in 2016. Clinton would be the second oldest first time nominee, behind Ronald Reagan, and Biden would be the oldest first time nominee.

The Republicans are certain to nominate a candidate decades younger, such as Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, Nikki Haley, Bobby Jindal, or Ted Cruz, all born in the early 1970s, being therefore mid 40s in 2016. If you consider Chris Christie, Scott Walker, or John Thune, they were born in the 1960s, so would be in the mid 50s. Jeb Bush, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann all were born in the 1950s, so would be in their late 50s or in the 60s. There is no candidate born in the 1940s seriously mentioned, unless one expects Newt Gingrich to try again for the Presidency, being just a year younger than Joe Biden and four years older than Hillary Clinton.

The Democrats have alternative possible candidates in Martin O’Malley and Amy Klobuchar born in the early 1960s, so either would be mid 50s in 2016, but Andrew Cuomo and Mark Warner, born in the mid 1950s would be nearing or at the age of 60 when running in 2016, and Elizabeth Warren, born in 1949, would be 67 in 2016, only about two years younger than Hillary Clinton.

So we are seeing a likely switch from an older to younger Republican nominee, and a younger to an older Democratic nominee, and the difference in years could be massive, as it was in the past forty years in most Presidential elections.

A final thought: In the nine elections between 1972 and 2012 when the GOP nominee was always older than the Democratic nominee, the Republicans won the election four times, and the Democrats five times, so basically, trying to determine whether age or youth are an advantage is clearly a pure guessing game!

The Likelihood Of Joe Biden Succeeding Barack Obama: Less Than 50%

Ronald 2 Comments

With the second term of President Barack Obama beginning, already the news media is speculating on the likelihood of Vice President Joe Biden running for President, and the odds that he will be the nominee of the Democratic Party in 2016, and become our next President.

Biden is certainly encouraging speculation, while saying he has not made up his mind. It is clear that he would like to run, but even he admits that the success or lack of success of the first two years of the second term of Obama, on top of his first term, will have a dramatic effect on his decision to run, and the odds of his having a good chance to become the 45th President of the United States.

Biden has a long record in public office, actually greater in number of years than any President of the United States having come to the Senate at the minimum age of 30, serving six terms (36 years), and now on his second term as Vice President, which, when he completes it, will mean he has served 44 years in national office.

Biden knows Washington DC like few know it. He also knows how to work with the opposition Republican Party in a manner unseen since Lyndon B. Johnson, although Johnson had a much more unorthodox approach to bargaining, and “wheeler dealing”, than the much more proper and mannerly Joe Biden.

But he also has a long list of gaffes, most not harmful, except to those who oppose him, and his liberal views have alienated major groups, as he has worked on issues highly controversial, including gun rights, women’s rights, gay rights, civil rights, foreign policy, Supreme Court nominees, and protection of the Great Society and New Deal programs, including the so called “entitlements”.

And his age, now 70, meaning he would be 74-78 in a first term, and 78-82 in a second term, is not a plus, as we only had one President beyond the age of 70, Ronald Reagan, who seemed to be in decline in his second term of office, finishing it at age 77 and about 49 weeks,

And there is the challenge of Hillary Clinton, whose public opinion ratings are higher than Biden’s, although there is much doubt that she will, ultimately, run for the Presidency. This author and blogger has already theorized, at the beginning of January, that Hillary will decide not to run. Her performance in testifying today at the Benghazi, Libya hearings of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will be crucial in any plans she might have, after a good rest and recovery period, to run for President in 2016.

And of course, there is the “younger” or “newer” generation of political leaders who have interest in running—including Governors Andrew Cuomo of New York and Martin O’Malley of Maryland, both taking strong leadership on gay marriage and gun regulations in their states; plus others, including Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, and Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, and even possibly others, including Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Governor John Hickenlooper of Colorado.

So the likelihood of Joe Biden running, while good, is not, automatically going to give him an edge in a field of many likely challengers. And of course, even if many Republicans like Joe Biden personally, it is certain, and obvious, that they are building up a long list of issues to use against the Vice President, should he end up as the Democratic nominee for President in 2016.

“The Progressive Professor” Favorites In The US Senate, 113th Congress!

Ronald 5 Comments

With the new Senate coming in on January 3 for the 113th Congress, this author and blogger has decided to indicate who his “favorite” members, those he has real respect and admiration for, and expects great things from for the next two years. The following list is not ranked, but simply a list of the top ten by state alphabetically! At the end, though, the author will list the two Senators he most admires, who he sees as tied for BEST! So here goes!

Tom Harkin of Iowa
Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts
Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota
Al Franken of Minnesota
Sherrod Brown of Ohio
Jeff Merkley of Oregon
Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island
Bernie Sanders of Vermont
Tim Kaine of Virginia
Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin

Seven of the above are incumbents, while Warren, Kaine and Baldwin are newcomers to the US Senate. And seven are men, while three are women.

And my favorite Senators of this group would have to be a tie between:

Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, true heroes in my mind!

Notice that FIVE of these Senators come from the Midwest (both from Minnesota, and Wisconsin, Iowa and Ohio).

Three come from New England–Massachusetts, Vermont and Rhode Island.

One comes from Virginia and one comes from Oregon.

And both favorites are New England neighbors.

This is the true progressive in action, with the Midwest, the area of progressivism in the past century, and New England as the areas of dominance, but with Oregon and Virginia adding admirable members to this select group!

The author invites commentary on this entry!

Progressive Victories In 2012

Ronald 2 Comments

As the year 2012 comes to an end in the next few days, it is worth looking back to what progressive victories there have been in 2012.

The clear cut victory of Barack Obama is an event still reverberating in the emotions of this blogger, and the strong belief that the Obama coalition is solid, and will carry beyond him and affect politics over the next one to two generations! Any Democrat who is nominated for President in 2016 would be the favorite to win the White House, as the nation becomes more “blue” in states such as Arizona, Georgia and Texas.

The likelihood of the US Senate staying Democratic is also a conclusion from the events of 2012, as it was truly miraculous that every seat was retained, three gained, and only Nebraska lost to the Republicans in 2012. While 2014 again will see more Democratic seats (21) up than Republican seats (14), the odds of the Democrats losing a net total of six seats and losing control is extremely unlikely, and the possibility of gaining more seats is also very likely with the Republican party turning ever further to the Right politically, and further alienating the rapidly changing demographics of the country.

The biggest surprise of the year was the decision of Chief Justice John Roberts, a Bush II appointee, to back ObamaCare, guaranteeing its survival and success despite many barriers past, present and future. This was the most important decision of the Supreme Court in a long time, in the sense of its long range impact on the nation!

The great progress of gay rights and gay marriage was a wonderful event, with the likelihood of gay marriage being upheld by the Supreme Court, at least in some limited fashion, by June of next year.

The rise of the prominence and numbers of women in politics was exciting, and the true star of the year in that regard was Elizabeth Warren, the newly elected Senator from Massachusetts, who could become a Presidential possibility very quickly.

The massive contributions of Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton make them the two best decisions on personnel that President Obama made four years ago, and they have had an extremely positive effect on the historical record and reputation of Barack Obama.

The power of wealthy millionaires and billionaires to control the politics of America suffered a smashing defeat, an event thought unlikely after the Citizens United decision of the Supreme Court in 2010.

The reactionary and hateful agenda of the far Right, both politically and religiously, also suffered a great repudiation, and proved once again that optimism and progress win out over fear and regression, as long as the American people become engaged and involved in the agenda, and realize the threat to the great progress made in the past 80 years by the New Deal, Great Society, and the many political, social and economic reforms brought about by forward looking Democrats and Republicans in Congress, and by the leadership of Presidents of both parties who saw the need for more government intervention and regulation–including Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Notice that Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush are not included in this list, as they both set back the concept of fairness and equity that all of the other Presidents, including some Republicans, made part of their agenda, to the dismay of the right wing forces in America!

So 2012 has been a triumph in many ways for progressivism, liberalism, and the goals of the Left in American politics to make a society of justice, equity, and compassion!