They could have taken credit for the reform or continued to hold it over the heads of those needing help. The least they could say I they was playing to their base who hates Latinos. Now Obama gets credit for the EO, the Democrat Senate had spread passed a reform bill, the GOP House held it up. Now either a GOP Congress pass reform or the EO stands.

Obama just reinforced the Democratic edge when it comes to the Spanish-speaking population. Boehner left it sitting there, and Obama took it. Obama has shown a remarkable propensity to do that, take the tactical open move, but it's never quite enough so I'm willing to call it planned.

They can pass an immigration bill that supersedes or cancels Obama's executive order. They would need only a few Democratic senators to do it.

Contrary to the OP article, Obama has made a smart move.

of "dixiecrats" and those have ran to the Republican ranks. The Republican party was the party which freed the slaves LBJ was able to get the Civil Rights bill passed and the migration began. The dixiecrats dislike people of color and they can be really nasty. Included in those are the KKK holdovers, a lot of hate.
Does the Republican cater to the poor white folks, hell no, they just use their vote. It would seem they should at least make the platform change and demand the platform not to hate them if they want their votes. I have been a lifelong Democrat, plan on going out the same way, I am probably the only one left in my family but I believe in the middle class.

decision.

They're setting themselves up for another meltdown like the one in 2008.

to understand how bull it is

There is so much wrong thinking and falsehoods in this article, it is impossible to know where to start in responding to it. Last I remember, these jokers were suggesting- post 2010 midterms- that President Obama stand aside and let somebody else (i.e. Hillary?) run for office in 2012. Gladly, nobody, especially President Obama, took them seriously or paid them any serious attention.

why the fuck should we care about Hillary and her selfish chances instead?

that's two years away.

Embarrassing to see their opinions here.

Actually, it could be true, just not in the way they mean it: I don't think the country or the party wants another corporate democrat at the helm.

but I think the party couldn't give a frack so long as they get elected.
To me Obama has always been a "free market" corporate/financial industry friendly alternative to the unhinged warmongers or rapacious vampires.
I think Obama walked into office because he was not Bush. He walked into a situation every bit as bad as Kennedy. That didn't turn out so well but Kennedy should have shown us that TPTB will not be challenged without consequence.
Obama lost the moment he didn't challenge the groupthink and serious people in DC.
It wasn't bad enough that the people he chose to advise him were part of the circle jerk but he left neocon assholes in place that could subvert any trend toward rationality.

but I'm hoping the shellacking the party just experienced might, might divert it's corporate-friendly course a little...maybe. Putting Elizabeth Warren in a newly-manufactured leadership position looks like window-dressing to me but could turn out to be a big deal.

We'll see. It sucks that this is the best we can hope for.


p.s. to clarify my previous post, when I said "the party" I meant us--rank and file members of it--not the party "leadership."

In this article it's hard to know where to start. Why is this shit on DU?

When asked if he'd be campaigning in 2016 he said no, that people would be looking for that new car smell. He was talking about himself.

I would love to see both Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama ride off into the sunset. We need Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren in 2016.

Obama Is Damaging Hillary’s Chances

President Obama ’s high-risk immigration gamble may have severe consequences for Washington, the country and the Democratic Party, most of all Hillary Clinton .

Hopelessly warped by business-conservative dogma and the need to make a profit.

I do find the notion that Obama is damaging Hillary's chances wrong, what he is doing is damaging the Republican's chances, which is what one wants and expects.

I don't think much of Hillary's chances, I don't think 2008 was a fluke. She is too well known and too well disliked.

Would Stratfor prefer someone who backs getting boots on the ground in Iraq and Syria? Google "Stratfor and Assad" and you may not like what you see.

What I see in the overall vision of what Obama is doing, is that he has intentionally drawn in the other countries in the region and has pursued a path - that he says may take years - to making ISIS unattractive and degrading it.

In 2009, I watched the hearings that Kerry had on Afghanistan. Many experts spoke against the huge surge that people like McCrystal (Gates and Clinton) supported. The problem they spoke of was that while it was completely true that well equipped US military could win military battles, unless there were local people to both provide good governance and to protect themselves from the reemergence of the enemy, it would be for naught.

In the current plan, Obama seems to have done 3 things - first, to demand that it be people in that region affected by ISIS who actually fight them in the first place, a call for unity governments - whether in Iraq or in Afghanistan, and a campaign to get important religious people in the region to come out against the violent Islamists. (On Syria, they are now "deconflicting as both Syria and the west attack ISIS. While it is true that Syria is still attacking other rebels as well, we still speak of a political solution -- could this be a unity government? as the long term solution here.)

Obviously this will not create the spectacular early victories of Bush's invasion of Iraq or even the surge in either Iraq or Afghanistan, but all of them ended in unsustainable situations - where as soon as the US left either the area or the country it fell apart. However, with the local people winning the ground - could there be more hope that they would then hold it? Could unity governments at minimum provide good governance and at least a calmer place from which to transition to an alternative?

I think Obama and his administration have intentionally not boasted about what they have accomplished here - probably because it could jeopardize what they are doing and because it is far too soon to see whether this succeeds at all. Yet consider that last June when Obama spoke to the country, it was considered that he could not get Maliki to leave or Iraq to form a unity government - they did and - though it is possible that it is too late - they are working to create the possibility for the Sunnis to face the extreme danger of rejecting ISIS. Consider that both the MSM and the right mocked the idea that the US could form a coalition to fight ISIS. (They targeted Kerry in particular arguing that "his" coalition was not even as good as Bush's) By the time the UN met, the Arab league, many Arab countries, all our usual allies were on board in some way or another -- and it has been the local people providing the "boots on the ground".

Yet have you seen anyone in the media give Obama credit that he has accomplished things that they said could not be done. No - you see articles finding anyone in the administration that they can push to speculate under any situation that we will send ground troops. Consider the amount of coverage of the despicable murders of any of the three hostages versus the actual loss of land by ISIS that last June was expanding without much pushback.

Your post is -if I dare say so- remarkably well written.

Your paragraph 'In the current plan, Obama seems to have done 3 things' does summarize well Obama's real achievements.

But..

..but the point of this thread was who/what is(or not) hurting Hillary's chances.

And, as you know, swing votes probably rely more on short term tangible results than on LT strategy, or they wouldn't be swing votes in the first place.

And, as you wrote (Obviously this will not create the spectacular early victories of Bush's invasion of Iraq or even the surge in either Iraq or Afghanistan), the current strategy will not produce quick results.


In short, all I'm saying is that I think Stratfor has a point, for a President to look mired in a LT war has not historically helped his party's chances at the next election.

I was just trying to bring to the discussion on Hillary's chance a point which -for good or for bad- will impact the direction of swing votes, irrespective of Stratfor's standings among the forum participants.

My guess is that Obama was and is more focused on doing what has the greatest chance of quelling the flames in the region than on the next election. Whether he wanted this or not (I vote not) this is a major part of his legacy. He was handed a really bad hand with the mess that grew out of the Bush invasions, but we are not playing duplicate bridge where his response will be compared with others faced with the same thing. His plan has been very thoughtful and, so far, there is some encouragement that what he is doing could make things better.

What could be quite ironic is what the political effect is if the Obama's strategy continues to outperform what the pundits expect. Will Hillary Clinton - because she is a Democrat and was Secretary of State - get some reflected credit - even though she strongly distanced herself on this issue.

Hillary Clinton already said that she had wanted to do more in both Syria and Iraq in the years she was SoS. She has made it clear that the policy Obama has taken on this is not hers - and she really is not far from where many Republicans (and Statfor) seem to be. I understand her strategy if Obama's policy fails, she has minimized the difference between herself and the Republicans. To paraphrase a recent Dean comment on 2014 - They will run on their not being Obama -- and she will too.

Both cases are complicated - thus interesting. Does she get credit for things she was not for -- or will her comments have succeeded in eliminating foreign policy as a differenciator.

In addition, look at what could have happened had Obama taken the advise and was attacking Assad as well as ISIS. Bush had to stand for reelection on Nov 2004 - a year and a half after he invaded. Had Obama attacked it would be over 2 years later that there was an election. Had that been the schedule Bush was on -- even starting without a war weary country and attacking a country, which as Rumsfeld said had many targets, had the election been slightly more than 2 years later - Kerry would have won because it was clear that things were a mess. Then consider that this was close to what Clinton was on record as being for.

I can't help but think that Obama's prudent polices - even if teh Democrats lose - gave us more chance than a more aggressive action.

need TeaLeft out of reality nonsense. I welcome a primary with several candidates and will support whomever the eventual nominee is, but she has the best shot. Those bashing her need to get their heads onto the planet and out of TeaLeft nonsensical purity land.

Don't like her politics. Don't like her behavior during the 2008 primaries. Don't like her husband or his policies. Don't appreciate their racist rhetoric in 2008 or the racism of their surrogates in 2008. Don't trust them or their cozy friendship with the Bushes or the McCains.

I don't trust these charlatans. At all.

It has absolutely nothing to do with purity tests!

Obama is no liberal and I have no problem with that. I take issue with him on many of his policies but it's not because he's not liberal. Sigh...

If she's the nominee, I will vote for her. But I ain't knocking on doors for her. I'm not working phones for her. She's not getting a red cent from me.

I will work for worthy Democrats on the downticket.

That's the best I can do.

I have no love for the Clintons but she'll get my vote if she's the one. Being as honest as I can.

I won't be taking people to the polls for her on election day.

I know it's the WSJ - but check out the link bemildred posted re - emerging new majority in Democratic Party.

I'll vote for the nominee with a D - but the way it looks now? I'm not busting my ass for anyone who has thrown their hat in the ring or whispered at it thus far.

And I'm wondering who triggered the article in the OP? They sure are trying to create division on the left - aren't they? Let Obama do what he wants in reason.


We don't have time for any magical mythical nonsense when he's the only person standing between us and a bunch of worthless Republicans in the House and Senate.

They are so talented they can degrad us because we are apparently so wacky and hold Hillary up on a pedestal at the same time.

She has to work for our vote just like everyone else!

what the WSJ owned by Rupert Murdoch thinks?

Usually the intent is to stimulate discussion. It gets really boring around here when everybody agrees and posts only stuff that will not offend anyone.

Been about 14 years since you were bored, huh?

Still, RBM needs to relax. The fix is probably in. Hilary will win the nomination and lose the election in 2016 as planned.

I like the way you think. However, in this case, I think Hillary has been working on this all of her life and there is no way she is walking away now, or handing it to Jeb or Mitt or one of those empty suit droids.



These aren't the droids you are looking for.

than the 2016 election most likely will. It has long been the case that the Democratic GOTV, which is good in Presidential years is really bad in midterms. (I have absolutely no doubt that the same exit polls, done in 2010 would have showed Obama losing badly to a Republican.)

Regular polling has chosen that most of the things Obama has doubled down on have majority support - notably including immigration and the China/US climate pact. (Consider that with reviving the economy, ending the wars, and healthcare, these were the five big issues all facing Obama in 2008. If the next two years lead to a more peaceful near east, Obama will have made major gains in all of them.)

This article is itself trying to mold public opinion - perhaps pushing some Democrats, who otherwise would support the things Obama is doing, to argue that it is more important to conserve whatever strength we have to push Clinton over the finish line.

What this ignores, is that the more successful Obama appears in 2016, the better for Hillary. Not to mention - the public is on our side and the surest way to lose activists is to waste the next two years -- or worse do what the Republicans want. ( Not to mention, I don't recall the right arguing that Reagan - who lost 8 Senate seats in 1986 should have changed his policies.)

Last edited Sun Nov 30, 2014, 02:01 AM - Edit history (1)

I have no use for polls as I don't think they have predictive value (beyond what you get with any knowledgeable expert). That is I think the use of math and statistics is not justified, and is done largely to furnish an aura of being "scientific". That is I think the implied precision is fake. That is, I think they are largely a racket.

That said, I will hazard the following guesses:

1.) I don't think Hillary will get the 2016 Democratic Presidential Nom. Some unknown will clobber her again.

2.) However, if she does get the Nom, I expect she will kick any Republicans ass. After two years of a fully Republican Congress, there will be turnout, to put an end to that, just like in 2012.

And not guessing at all, we need election reforms, including publically financed elections with no private money. Elections should be determined by leadership and ability, not inherited wealth or money got for favors stated or unstated.

On sampling, your comments do hit home. My career included designing many studies that used sampling when I worked for the Bell System (both Bell Labs and AT&T). For years, I have looked at the political polls, both with fascination and with increasing misgivings. The increased percentages of non response is very troubling. When it was comparatively smaller, the assumption that people who did not answer would be similar to the responses of the people (in their demographic class) was easier to accept -- and if wrong would have less impact.

Interestingly, the composite of the polls really have been more accurate - when near an election - than they have any right to be - suggesting that that assumption has not been all that wrong. As to the precision, the precision speaks only to the error due to natural variation in the sampled population. It does not account for any other type of error - such as design flaw, bias, or non response.

Polling when an election is not imminent, has even more problems. Stepping away from mathematical issues, is there what could be called game playing. Consider that in recent Presidential elections, there are at least 40 percent who almost certainly will vote for "their" party. Yet couldn't people who want one person as the nominee say they are undecided when asked of about alternatives.

(Not relevant - could the pattern of Presidential popularity falling be caused by party partisans abandoning their President when there is no longer an election - thus in their estimation little damage in expressing disappointment? (Could Clinton being different be because he was impeached and partisans backing him because THAT angered them?) )Could the HRC and Panetta comments have essentially made Obama a lame duck a year earlier than typical by causing some Democrats to split between HRC and Obama? Could this have hurt both Obama and the Democrats as a whole?

Anyway - this is rambling and going rapidly off topic - so I will end.

to improve, they are more likely tomorrow to hold the same views as they do today, compared with six months from now when they may well have modified their views. But that has nothing to do with having a good statisitical methodology, or not.

The basic problem is that polls and statistics are being used to predict future events (election outcomes), which is, scientifically speaking, gibberish. One cannot predict the future, so one examines the present and past, (interviews) and then assumes the future will be like the past.

But in fact the serial correlation between the future and the past is not determinate. Sometimes change is gradual, sometimes it is catastrophic. And statistics NEVER will catch the catastrophes coming, those are the "black swans", and those are the ones you need to predict.

Hillary may well get the Nom, two years is a long time, but Obama is correct about the new car smell.

I like when they say, "if the election were held today" I suspect that this year might heave been somewhat less bad if the completely unpredictable ebola outbreak had not happened when it did. Think about DU itself, when people we have seen post for years and know are genuine liberals/progressives, would have liked a policy more like Cuomo/Christie without Christie's obnoxiousness and better implementation. I can imagine it did play into the "who keeps you safe" meme we have fought to win since 911.

I was surprised at Obama's "new car smell" comment. I do think it is correct - as a country we have a tendency to look for a new messiah who can lead us and make everything better. (The Republicans envision this person as the reincarnation of Reagan - forgetting all the warts he had.) But, the wording is particularly interesting when the choices include some used cars, like HRC and Jebb Bush. Neither can really be seen as new and different.

Foreshadowing, distancing, and payback come to mind, but I don't believe payback, Obama doesn't work that way.

It could be to help her get out front on the issue (age and familiarity), as she will surely have to deal with it.
It could be to help her distance herself from him.
Or it could be he is smarter than I and has something else in mind.

But I don't think he mispoke, and I don't think he would go out of his way to piss the Clintons off.

another Warren leads.
Take your pick.

HRC will lead the Democrats down the road to Loserville.

It isn't his job to help her electoral chances, it's his job to govern.

I hardly think that it's necessary to worry about Hillary while he does his job.

I guess we should thank them for our concern?

the violent, racist and broken with reality tea party fanatics that control the KKKpublican party will be on an orgy of batshit insanity for the next two years!

If the USA survives it the next democrat standing for President will win in a landslide!

can lie all they wish, but they still have the clout -- and it clearly shows.

How selfish of us to think otherwise.

flaw in this "suggestive article"....the mind bend here (for me) is the fact that this is an exit poll following the Miserable 2014 turnout.....and is it wrong of me to assume the Majority of those who turned out were the "freakishly RW Conservative Paranoid"? Am I off base to then assume Those were the voters, by majority--who responded to said exit poll? Is it also wrong to assume that these particular voters might select an "unknown" GOP candidate?
"The national exit poll from the recently completed midterm elections showed her with less than a majority of voters (43%) saying she would make a good president. When pitted against an unnamed Republican candidate, Mrs. Clinton lost 40% to 34%.
"

I can only agree.

I've long believed polls are only as reliable as the person who pays for them is honest.

Let me get this striaght, the one issue that could have gotten new voters to the polls is somethign that Obama is doing Hillary's chances? Why? Is it that Hillary is tryign to appeal to the same people that are scared of brown voters? She better wise up, because the GOP is trying for that same damned crowd!