Why don't you try to learn a little bit about polling? How about responding to my charges?
You don't like it when people call you out on your BS.
Why don't you try not being such a confrontational ass?
And I don't like your racial and sexist overtones. You have no freaking idea about what I support and what I believe. If you knew me you'd be very satisfied that I am far from a racist, paternalistic, conventional wisdom addled hack.
You are making assumptions out the wazoo. Which you should stop.
"She will have by far the most experienced, capable, and talented team working for her."
She will have a good team. "By far?" There are other very good operatives and staffers out there. Many others.
"The Clinton people can make mince meat out of anyone."
Not really supportable. Also,I'm a Clinton fan in general, and they have made many mistakes over the years.
"The nom's hers to lose. And if people online don't think she's got something up her sleeve on Iraq, you're smoking crack."
Not supportable. Conjecture. True, much of what is posted here is. But you get really arrogant because a lot of people don't like Hillary.
Um, you wanna check the accuracy of polls this far out in Presidential primaries? Hint: they are not remotely accurate.
What happens is that at such an early date people answer this question based on Name ID. See the Lieberman poll citations above in this thread. Lieberman was leading all polls well into 2003.
And in the armchair analysis of insiders/political obsessives/activists/educated liberals, perhaps of which you are one, they are usually unable to separate their own thoughts and interest in politics from those of ordinary folks. Ordinary people don't tune in until 2007. Most people (I'd say about 95% - that's roughly agreed upon by people who have worked on campaigns) aren't into politics so far removed from an actual election day choice; and when polled, they look for an easy crutch - Name ID.
Nah, I think she's merely the 3rd or 4th best person we could nominate. She might beat. I have little doubt that somebody with real message skills, good geography and likeability could beat anybody the other side comes up with, possibly even McCain. I'm thinking Warner, Clark, Edwards.
And an "unexciting" midwesterner might also make a strong candidate - what's unexciting to coastals is just fine with a lot of Americans. And I'm a coastal, by the way.
Why is she "tough?" More tough than any of the other likely candidates? In what, arm wrestling?
Don't swallow beltway insider spin about the "inevitiability" of Hillary. The Lieberman comparison is largely apt.
This is name ID, and nobody other than PolitiNerds, who think entirely unlike regular people, are thinking about the WH '08 race.
Phil Gramm and John Connelly had tons of money in their primaries, as I recall. This is her real advantage...but as I recall some guy named Dean found a way to raise money and be competitive even though he was not the favorite.
I think when Hillary becomes a real candidate, her mediocre stump skills and prickly personality will wear off pretty quick. And the message skills of people like Edwards and Warner along with the idea of "change", not "going back", will probably have Democrats looking for a new face.
It will be a new face time, and yes, even Clark and Edwards will count as new faces. Basically, anybody but Al Gore, Clinton, and Kerry will be new faces.
Great piece, Matt. Were I younger and not concerned with making some money, I'd be right there with you.
There is still a huge bias toward credentialism, both in politics and business, and a stint on your part in a "communications shop" might be a good idea. Then you can have more gravity among certain elders who are in power but naturally suspicious of a new thing. But I am not one to believe this kind of bifurcation (those who 'get it' and don't) is productive; those who 'get it' must build bridges.
On a related note I think many of the bloggers with political communication talent should be thinking in a somewhat more entrepreneurial way. And people who haven't dipped their feet in as you have should know that you build influence over a series of election cycles.
I am in SF and work around politics and public issues in a communications and grassroots capacity. If you'd like to get in touch let me know.
I agree with you on this point, though I would never put a percentage on it. It might be 50 with some people, 10 with others.
But I think we disagree here: I think it's pointless to try to win on truth until your rectitude is unimpeachable. That is, when public financing of campaigns happens. Until that day, it's a game. People will not be de-cynicised. (And I don't see that day anywhere on the horizon).
And we're back to disagreeing, and back to money, personality, geography, money, wedge or proxy issue positioning, money, height, looks, and money.
entertainment, Gary. No other reason. I'm under no illusion I'm changing the world here.
But seriously, your comment, "nothing to really distinguish Democrats from Republicans at the level of core political and social values....Is anybody going to be running as the Anti-Education President?" , while on the surface logical and defensible (contrast is always desireable in political races) makes me think this: you are assuming that most voters think about politics like you do.
Most people don't like politics. They never will. They'll never engage in policy nuances. Not even most liberals are very into politics -- this would come as a shock to many bloggers, I think.
So if Candidate Joe Blow gets up there and says something bland like "education is important...." people really might listen. Because on a basic level it is important. The wonkosphere won't and will laugh, but many people will listen. This is all not an arena of truth. It's a big game.
to answer your question I do communications work related to foundations pushing for universal health care, preschool, and assorted other things.
It's going to be entertaining to watch people like the complaining divisive blowhard who wrote this post as somebody they don't approve of gets the nomination in '08. They'll be "not tough enough, not liberal enough, not pure enough"....whatever. The fantasy that politics is about truth and the goodness of the human soul, not everyday life and humanity's imperfections, dies very hard.
I think the next President could be Warner, I think he's got a great strategic mind, messaging skills, likeability, biography (i.e. can pull in business and money) and a good geographic profile. His achievement in his state is remarkable. And he'll probably come out ahead of the "feel good" candidate of certain blog obsessives.
Oh, and before anybody gets any ideas, I'm liberal. A liberal. I think Al From and Bruce Reed are causing damage these days. I put my money where my mouth is....I work for progressive causes. This is Not about DLC vs. whatever.
I've believed it was fluid a long time ago. I'm not the only one. I've always been very skeptical when people talk about realignments as if they're lasting.
Outside of the base cores, most people out there are barely partisan, even if they have straight ticket voting histories. Most voters spend 5 minutes a week thinking about politics. They'll swing when it hits their wallet, or when they're disgusted. And when these feelings are prevalent near election day.
You should be surprised. I buy quite a bit of what you wrote, though perhaps do not agree on the immediacy of the impact. You seem to think a mass persuasion is about to take place very soon. I would give that, provided Democratic execution is good, several cycles to cement a new majority.
In '06 I think the economy will be far more important a factor in changing people's vote choices than Katrina will be. But Katrina should help, as I do see a slowdown on the horizon.
I'll believe we can take both houses in '06 if Bush hits the low 30's and stays there. That's my metric.
Again, you have no idea who I am, what I do, what causes I work for, what my skills (and resulting judgement) are Don't think that you can infer my mindset from that.
Not that I'm anyone famous or important, far from it, that's not my point, but I've been on this bandwagon for years now. I read Lakoff and Phillips 10+ years ago. I was crying about the GOP infrastructure 10 years ago. I was online years ago. Etc.
And I'm guessing you underrate the experience of working on a campaign, since you seem to dismiss it. That's like watching a lot of skiiing on TV, and thinking you know what it's about without trying it. This is epidemic on political blogs, as is an inability to see how 'regular' Americans view politics.
Thanks for letting me know how stupid I am. And sharing with me your foreknowledge of the future.
I agree Hackett is a template - but if you think his results can be easily duplicated, you're mistaken - because his persona cannot be easily duplicated. He was a great candidate; great recruits are very rare.
I made my statement about expectations. I didn't say "give up." If you think I'm some beltway advocate of kissing feet, you are far from correct.
I've been a paid staffer on political campaigns. I've put my money and time where my mouth is.
Don't condescend to somebody you don't know. That's the danger of the internet.