I find that hard to believe. Of course, I hope she runs.

I cannot think of one Republican in the state who could win anytime soon.

Not too blue to produce the career of Ronald Reagan, from pillar to post.
CA is my home state. One of the reasons I left was that so many people there refused to take important action by announcing 'CA is super liberal, I don't really have to put effort into elections because we are all just so groovy that a thing like Prop 8 will never pass, mark my words, your outrage is wasted, CA is too blue to do that!!!!!!'
I no longer buy that line of bull.

I think CA leans to the left, but it can easily be hoodwinked by right wing lies and personalities (as with the Reagan BS and the Arnold BS).

During the recall campaign, a friend of mine was twice asked to sign liberal-sounding petitions -- as I recall they were for higher pay for teachers and for small class sizes. She read the petitions and they were both Davis recall petitions. When she called the petition workers on it they just shrugged.

He'll have name recognition after his bid this year and he's not part of the Tom McClintock wing of the GOP. He comes across as a reasonable, likeable guy.
There are probably a few mayors around the state who could rise to the challenge.

The important thing is that the Democrats pay attention and select candidates who won't give the opposition a chance to succeed. We got Arnold as governor because the party abandoned Gray Davis and that left Cruz Bustamante, who had his own problems, as the leading Democratic contender.

Don't let that little old "D" after her name fool you. It stands for "decoy."

It's why she lost her run for governor back then.

I expected him to run for Princess DiFi's seat,
not Boxer's.
But he has good name presence, and he has a good reputation.

I make no comment on her Senate work.

I would like to see more new folks in Congress.

It would be a disaster to replace her with a naive inexperienced conservadem DINO.

new=worse

Its Feinstein we can do without.

But if she's ready to retire, all the power to her.

California has a whole gaggle of competent Democrats willing to step up carry on her work.

We need new blood in Congress instead of the same old, same old that both parties offer year after year.

i want people like Boxer regardless of age, how long they have been senator etc.

Let's get someone new and fresh in the seat.

Exactly what "same old" do you disagree with?
Do you disagree with her liberal policies?
Do you want to replace her with a more conservative person?
You want to put a coal shill in charge of the Senate Environment and Public Works committee?
You want to turn the California coast into one big oil slick?

The Ultimate Public Servant. We'll miss her when she's gone.

How would you like to be replaced in your job by someone younger, because you're just the same old same old.

I just am not a fan of career politicians.

Better yet, Teachers? Firefighters? Doctors?

Are you against careers in other essential services, or just politics?

Last edited Tue Sep 9, 2014, 07:43 PM - Edit history (1)

We hold experience and commitment as honorable traits in every other profession. Why should we desire a churn of political leaders, not merely without regard to their skills and years of experience, but as a direct result of their skills and years of experience?

Should we only have inexperienced people running our country?

Being a Senator or House member -- or President --- is not that tough. We limit President to two terms -- if this precious "experience" was so important why not have lifetime Presidents? The fact is that in a nation of 315 million we have hundreds of thousands of very smart and skilled people who could easily handle the 536 jobs of Senators, House members and President.


In 1796 Washington decided not to run for a third presidential term. he wrote George Washington believed it important that he leave the office of President alive so it would not be seen as a lifetime position. He wanted no part of a kingship or monarchy. Leaving the office of President voluntarily was probably one of the most profound decisions Washington made to establish transition and show the new found country was more important than ONE man. He chose not to run for a third term. He did not want to defeat his ideal of a president elected by the people- he did not want to encourage the possibility of anything like a king or dictator or president for life as happened so often in countries who later tried to set up a constitutional government similar to that of the US.

The country survived Washington leaving. It will survive anyone else leaving also.

of course we could survive. No one even hinted otherwise. Neither was the question whether we should have lifetime Presidents.

Again, no one even remotely suggested such a thing

My questions were whether you apply that same logic to all professions (and if not, why?), and why you think a candidate with experience and expertise might be of lesser value than a candidate with a fresh face.

Both question remain unanswered. You don't have to answer, but I am genuinely interested, so please do.

One as a union official. One as a government labor investigator. One as an attorney. In all three cases people who had decades in those jobs were pretty much worthless. They were burnt out and just waiting for their pension to kick in. You may be ok with that but I don't think it is anyway to run a country.

We will do just fine without Boxer or Sanders or Warren. All have been mostly great public servants, but there will be someone else that will come along that will do just as well.

Find me a good electrician and I'll keep him or her for life.

But in Cali, we could probably get someone else of her same caliber.

In any case, since she's likely not running again, we'll find out.

Feinstein can go but Boxer has been a good Senator.

Feinstein is the one we need to get rid of, not Boxer. If Boxer wants to retire though, I respect that. She's been there a long time and maybe she wants to do something different.

I can only hope that Feinstein decides to retire in 2018. The flip side though of them both retiring so close together is that California will end up with both Senators at the bottom of seniority list.

that age. there are many other things in life she might prefer to do.

Last edited Tue Sep 9, 2014, 01:40 PM - Edit history (1)

WA generally refers to the state...

I'll correct it.

Boxer and Feinstein got elected together in 1992 and I recall the Democratic field for the retiring Alan Crantson's seat was quite large. I expect the same this time around if she does retire. I'll hate to see her go, but I suspect she wants to enjoy her grandchildren while she is still robust.

As an executive, he cannot run a lunch wagon effectively. But he is bright and, when he chooses to be, hard working. He would be an effective advocate for LGBT rights as well as clean technology. Most importantly, it keeps him busy and out of the Governor's Office.

Barbara exists. And that is what will happen.

She'd win.

Newsom was groomed by DiFi and shares many of her problematic political positions. While he's a social libertarian, he's also quite conservative and pro-Wall Street when it comes to business and economic issues. Additionally, he fought hard to eliminate welfare and support benefits for homeless people in San Francisco, and succeeded in eliminating all cash benefits for them. While he later declared the program a "success" after the number of homeless declined, an independent investigation by Stanford showed that it had simply chased homeless people out of San Francisco and into surrounding cities.

Newsom has his positives, and there are certain roles that I support him in, but I don't ever want to see him as our governor.

He's got a shot at Governor or Senator at this point, we'll see what the party let's him do.

Attention whore.

DiFi is 81 years old, and her current term will end in 2018 when she is 85. Running again would put her in office until she's 91 years old, and there have been a number of comments made by those around her suggesting that she's not interested in staying in office that long. Prior to the last election, there were some comments that hinted at it being her final run, and she's made comments since suggesting that she's planning an exit. During a conversation about changing the filibuster rules last year, for example, she said that she wanted to "get things done for the five years I have left" in the Senate. While she hasn't come right out and said it, her tone and comments strongly suggest a 2018 exit.

2018 is still pretty far out, so it's not a surprise that she hasn't confirmed anything one way or the other, but I expect that we'll hear something in 2016 or so. She won't announce now, because she doesn't want to undermine her current power in the Senate, but she won't wait too long because she'll want to give other Democrats a chance to establish themselves as viable replacements in the public mind. 2016 seems like a safe bet.

Dianne Feinstein.

in '10. I was pleased but surprised when she decided to run. She is 74 now. The amount of time and energy it takes to run for office may not be worth it in 2 years. I ran for state assembly and it consumed my life for 4 months.

Feinstein had no business running in '12. We have a number of good progressive/liberal Democrats in state government and in Congress now - Debra Bowen, Jackie Speier, John Chiang, to name a few. I would love to see Speier in the Senate.

occasions. I want her to run again!! Sending daimoku for her to get those funds!!!

...if we can get Gavin Newsome as her replacement that'd be fine.... but I'd rather have her stay...