JUburton wrote:She currently has a -11 net favorability which for a woman who has been a GOP target for years...that's not really that bad. She has something around a 75% favorability rating among democrats.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main ... y-clinton/

I mean we can debate whether or not that's a "good" favorability rating for Hillary Clinton, it's certainly historically bad for someone running for president that doesn't expect to lose.

Which is kind of my point. Generally parties nominate someone like this during a down cycle of their power, they lose, then they recalibrate and become "better." But because of trump they'll probably win and convince themselves they won because people like them rather than disliking the other guy more.

Also she's probably going to get impeached 5 times which probably won't be good for the country. (I'm not saying that's her "fault" but it's an example of why nominating someone this unpopular is a bad sign)

I just think it's really hard to judge by favorability in this climate. So much has changed since 2000 (and 2008) to polarize the country that I think it's really hard to have two strongly favorable candidates after a 2 term presidency. I can't think of any candidate who I'd be convinced would have a positive net favorable right now. Hell, Romney had something like a -10 and he was a normal Republican.

2000: Bush +6, Gore -4 - Bush seemed like a likeable guy, people liked his dad and we had just had 8 years of democrats. And Gore was painted as technocratic and boring.
2004: Bush -1, Kerry +1 - About even but didn't even matter in the end
2008: Obama +15 (!!), McCain +6 - I'd argue Obama is an a outlier and this was pre-crazy McCain (or the start of it)

I'd agree that -11 is not good but almost any Republican would have an unfavorable view of a Democrat (and vice versa). And at that point it's an impossible bargain. You have the right who hates her because email benghazi liberal. And some of the far left that hates her because she's a neo-lib hawk. When in reality she's neither of those things (though the hawk thing is actually closer to the truth) How do you reconcile that as a party? Nominate someone more centrist and you're still screwed and nominate someone farther left and you're extra screwed.

There is a problem with the Dem's bench and their lack of young talent coming up. They haven't paid enough attention to their minor leagues in baseball parlance.

Ironically, I do think the one real benefit of the Tea Party movement for the Republicans was it really did inject a lot of new faces into the party who achieved national prominence. To be sure, many of these people were unhinged lunatics, but it did give rise to handful of energetic talented politicians who are also unfortunately right wing nut jobs. The fact is though that these down ballot competitive primaries may have been very good for party, and a Bernie inspired grass roots type movement (not one that is necessarily directed by the rump of the Bernie campaign) may be a real shot in the arm for the Democrats and the American left in general.

The problem is that too many on the left have yet to grasp how much power and influence can be generated by working on getting people elected to state legislatures and such. Too many on the left simply don't pay attention critical state legislative races. I mean, consider a movement that organized African-Americans in the deep South, which could make state houses far more competitive than they are currently.

could be worse they could've nominated a cotdarn COMMIE SOCIALIST

The Huffington Post aggregator has her at 42%-56% fav/unfav. Obama, even at the worst points of his presidency around the last midterm never got below -5. At this point Romney was at 43%-48% and never crossed into more than 50% disliking him.

JUburton wrote:I just think it's really hard to judge by favorability in this climate. So much has changed since 2000 (and 2008) to polarize the country that I think it's really hard to have two strongly favorable candidates after a 2 term presidency. I can't think of any candidate who I'd be convinced would have a positive net favorable right now. Hell, Romney had something like a -10 and he was a normal Republican.

2000: Bush +6, Gore -4 - Bush seemed like a likeable guy, people liked his dad and we had just had 8 years of democrats. And Gore was painted as technocratic and boring.
2004: Bush -1, Kerry +1 - About even but didn't even matter in the end
2008: Obama +15 (!!), McCain +6 - I'd argue Obama is an a outlier and this was pre-crazy McCain (or the start of it)

I'd agree that -11 is not good but almost any Republican would have an unfavorable view of a Democrat (and vice versa). And at that point it's an impossible bargain. You have the right who hates her because email benghazi liberal. And some of the far left that hates her because she's a neo-lib hawk. When in reality she's neither of those things (though the hawk thing is actually closer to the truth) How do you reconcile that as a party? Nominate someone more centrist and you're still screwed and nominate someone farther left and you're extra screwed.

Romney is a normal republican... That lost. I get that things are more polarized now but we're not comparing her to 60 years ago.

I think another serious alternative without 20 years of target practice could be more popular. That's what happened the last time she ran at least.

This time, we'll never know. Because, again, the establishment democrats got lazy and did a terrible job developing serious alternatives, and they didn't get lucky with an Obama coming out of nowhere.

It's not the minor leagues...you can only groom the talent you have so much. They hit the jackpot with a young, poised, natural speaker with the quiet power that Obama has. You do not get someone like him every 4 to 8 years. Imagine they didn't have him...after charismatic Bill they'd go Gore, Kerry, Clinton, ? Dems were so lucky to have him.

Also agree with TV that the democrats need to improve at the local and state level. Which is weird because they are great at having ground games at the presidential level and those 2 seem like they should be correlated.

JUburton wrote:It's not the minor leagues...you can only groom the talent you have so much. They hit the jackpot with a young, poised, natural speaker with the quiet power that Obama has. You do not get someone like him every 4 to 8 years. Imagine they didn't have him...after charismatic Bill they'd go Gore, Kerry, Clinton, ? Dems were so lucky to have him.

Crazy how when your Vice President, SOS and leaders of both houses are 70 that no new blood comes along. Heck even Dick Durbin is still around.

I just find it ironic that the party that preaches diversity of ideas being good for the country has people that were elected in the 80s/early 90s in nearly all the primo spots.

I'm definitely not arguing that they have historically bad net favorability. I guess I'm arguing that it doesn't matter that much in this race. I think net-net-favorability (thats not a thing but you get it) probably is a more telling measure and thankfully she's going against a racist demagogue.

are the Democratic potentials that bad or were they discouraged by the Democratic Party lining up behind the idea that it's "Hillary's Turn"

I guess I'min the minority but I think the Dems have some seriously good, young talent: Castro, Booker, Klobuchar, Gillibrand, Garcetti, the young Joe Kennedy, etc. some seriously smart, talented young politicians.

JFLNYC wrote:I guess I'min the minority but I think the Dems have some seriously good, young talent: Castro, Booker, Klobuchar, Gillibrand, Garcetti, the young Joe Kennedy, etc. some seriously smart, talented young politicians.

I agree that there's potential there, just hope they do a better job with it than they have the last 8 years.

Houshphandzadeh wrote:are the Democratic potentials that bad or were they discouraged by the Democratic Party lining up behind the idea that it's "Hillary's Turn"

Either way that's on the Party, imo.

MoBettle wrote:

Houshphandzadeh wrote:are the Democratic potentials that bad or were they discouraged by the Democratic Party lining up behind the idea that it's "Hillary's Turn"

Either way that's on the Party, imo.

definitely

Or maybe she had the best political resume, favorability be damned? Gotta say I hate the whole 'it was just her turn' thing because it makes it seem like she's just been dicking around waiting to be crowned candidate since 2008.

JUburton wrote:Or maybe she had the best political resume, favorability be damned? Gotta say I hate the whole 'it was just her turn' thing because it makes it seem like she's just been dicking around waiting to be crowned candidate since 2008.

yeah, instead she was creating war zones as Secretary of State

really, though, she was under investigation by the FBI during the primaries. that's hardly the best 'political resume.' most candidates wouldn't just plow through that

Houshphandzadeh wrote:

JUburton wrote:Or maybe she had the best political resume, favorability be damned? Gotta say I hate the whole 'it was just her turn' thing because it makes it seem like she's just been dicking around waiting to be crowned candidate since 2008.

yeah, instead she was creating war zones as Secretary of State

i think this is a different argument though, i guess.

and the fbi thing ultimately turned up...not much and i'm totally fine with fighting through that instead of acquiescing over a few emails and some dumb/lazy practices that weren't criminal.

I know people are gonna disagree about stuff like her SoS tenure and obviously a lot of Dems will hand wave the e-mail server

but not incorporating favorability, likability, history of scandal, vulnerability, etc into her political resume for President makes the whole thing a pointless exercise

We had a primary and she got the most votes. I don't know how else to pick a nominee. You cant require others to run if they don't think it is their time.