What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers? This is an open thread. Last night I watched a fascinating CNN program about John Hinckley’s attempt to assassinate President Ronald Reagan. I had no idea that Hinckley had been stalking Jimmy Carter during the fall of 1980. Twice he got within a few feet of the president at campaign events.
I also taped the CNN “Our Nixon” documentary first aired earlier this month, based on home movies shot by Nixon’s aides. Looking forward to watching that soon.
Rob Christensen published an interesting essay about conservatism in the south: “Few states took the idea of minimalist government as far as North Carolina. All of the 1800s was a case study of the proposition that North Carolina works best with bare-bones government.”
Speaking of small-government conservatives, here’s an oldie but goodie by Reagan administration economist Bruce Bartlett on Reagan’s forgotten record of raising taxes as California governor and president.
Moving to more recent history, I strongly disagree with what Patty Judge told the New York Times about Hillary Clinton needing a strong ground game if she comes back to Iowa. If Clinton runs for president, she will win the Iowa caucuses and the Democratic nomination without any question, whether or not she spends time on retail politics here. There won’t be a repeat of 2007-2008, because she will have only token opposition during the primaries.
5 Comments
Hillary and the Ground Game
You are surely correct that she wouldn’t need one, but she should nonetheless use the caucus season (and the caucus share of the contribution limit) to build and test one. Because she definitely would need it in November, especially in purple states like Iowa. Her team made many truly astounding unforced errors in working the rules and converting support to results in 2008. They could, and should, use the caucus season to prove they’ve learned form that and to work out the kinks so there are no errors in the general.
zeitgeist Sun 11 Aug 12:06 PM
yes, she would need a ground game
for the general election. I don’t think she needs to go overboard before the Iowa caucuses if it’s her against Kucinich or someone similar.
I agree that the Clinton campaign made some mistakes during the 2007 caucus campaign but don’t share the widespread view that she “lost” Iowa. Her campaign turned out probably around 70,000 supporters on a cold night in January, which was phenomenal given where she started in Iowa (third or fourth place in spring 2007 polling). She mobilized first-time caucusgoers as well as experienced ones. She was simply out-organized by the best campaign the Iowa caucuses has ever seen.
The caucus rules worked against her as well, because Edwards picked up a lot of “anyone but Hillary” people on realignment. Without the 15 percent viability threshold, Hillary would have finished a clear second in Iowa, not a close third.
desmoinesdem Sun 11 Aug 1:14 PM
I worked on the Clinton Campaign
1. Don’t Take Anything for Granted.
2. You Never Know When Some Near Political Unknown Can Start a Fire.
3. Investments Pay Dividends Long Term.
natetehaggresar Sun 11 Aug 6:00 PM
The anointed one
In 2007 Hillary was already the anointed nominee. All the big name in the party were endorsing her and jumping on board. Trouble is all the big names that jumped on her campaign did not read the rule book. They thought California was winner take all. They didn’t know that changed after the 1972 primary.
Is she the front runner for 2016. Yes she is. But I would rather see Elizabeth Warren. She is a most unusual creature. She is a democratic Senator with a spine that is willing to stand her ground. Warren and Bernie Sanders have more backbone in there little fingers than the other 53 Democratic senators combined.
keithnichols Sun 11 Aug 9:51 PM
the difference is
Neither Elizabeth Warren nor any other serious candidate will run against her in 2016. The context is completely different from 2006-2007, when many Democrats were terrified that she would lose a general election and were therefore open to alternatives. She had a lot of establishment support, but a half-dozen other serious candidates ran and some of them had significant backers.
I have never been a Clinton fan and don’t think she would be a great president, but if she runs, she wins the Democratic nomination for sure.
desmoinesdem Sun 11 Aug 10:05 PM