Kevin Graham wrote:It seems to me the reason she has the audacity to support the EX-IM bank is because it has been around for nearly a century and it has had a consistent track record of investing in domestic jobs growth while bringing in revenues, however modest those may be.
I'm not sure this is accurate. My impression has been her support of the EX-IM banking loans is inline with her overall political philosophy that government involvement, including interference, is a tool to be used for the good of the common citizens of the US. Providing loans to businesses that are completing in a global economy where their competition is often subsidized by other governments is a scaling-up of her economic views domestically. That it turns a profit is a nice point in favor of broad-spectrum political support but does not appear to be the driving motive.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
Then-Senator Obama call the Export-Import Bank "Little more than a fund for corporate welfare." (Senator Obama, Remarks at a campaign event in Green Bay, Wisconsin; 9/22/08)
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
Kevin Graham wrote:Typical. Republicans underestimate the super star political power of someone who has integrity. They were saying the same thing about Obama in 2008.
Hillary Clinton holds a massive lead over Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) in a new poll released by CNN.
The CNN/ORC poll released Sunday finds that Clinton leads by 57 points, 66 percent to 9 percent, over Warren. That lead is essentially unchanged from a CNN poll in November, when Clinton was up 65 percent to 10 percent.
I wonder what the poll was back in 2007 when the same question was asked about Hillary and Obama. From what I remember, Obama's rock star status exploded out of nowhere rather late in the game.
Kevin Graham wrote:Uh, you do realize Warren isn't running, right?.
Neither is Clinton, what are you confused about?
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
Kevin Graham wrote:Uh, you do realize Warren isn't running, right?
I wonder what the poll was back in 2007 when the same question was asked about Hillary and Obama. From what I remember, Obama's rock star status exploded out of nowhere rather late in the game.
It was a much closer gap, though Clinton was a solid favorite throughout 2007. Warren would have no shot at Clinton in 2016 and is a poor Democratic candidate in general. She barely won a Senate seat in 2012 in Massachusetts. That doesn't suggest campaign strength. She's positioned to do well among a small subset of the Democratic coalition - sort of a 2008 Ron Paul of Democrats if you will.
What Warren could do is make herself enough of a presence in a Democratic primary campaign to force a mainstream candidate like Clinton to shift leftward in her promises to protect her flank. This could in turn influence future campaign strategy and promises of candidates depending on how much attention and support she can draw in during her doomed campaign.
Ralph Nader never had a snow-ball's chance in hell of winning in 2000, but his campaign did bring significant attention to campaign finance reform, which was a major contributor to McCain-Feingold being passed under the Bush administration even though the content of the bill hurt Republicans more than Democrats.
Kevin Graham wrote:Uh, you do realize Warren isn't running, right?.
Neither is Clinton, what are you confused about?
Clinton ran before and is expected to run again. Everyone knows she is going to.
Warren on the other hand, is a rookie who isn't really well known... yet. Obama was behind Clinton throughout 2007 and then came on strong towards the end. In October 2007 Clinton was up 49 to 21 over Obama and that stayed about the same throughout the year. Then Obama tied her after the first six weeks of 2008.
Kevin Graham wrote: Clinton ran before and is expected to run again. Everyone knows she is going to.
Warren on the other hand, is a rookie who isn't really well known... yet. Obama was behind Clinton throughout 2007 and then came on strong towards the end. In October 2007 Clinton was up 49 to 21 over Obama and that stayed about the same throughout the year. Then Obama tied her after the first six weeks of 2008.
A lot can happen.
I posted the polling history of Obama/Clinton upthread. It's closer than the gap you cite. You picked the literal peak gap and said it was that way throughout 2007. It wasn't. The year opened up with a 20 point gap. By March it narrowed to around a 10-12 point gap. It stayed there until fall, where it climbed up to the peak you cite. It then shrunk back by about 10 points or so and stayed there until Obama rocketed up right in beginning of Jan of 2008. His two main jumps are right before the New Hampshire primary and right after his South Caroline primary speech, which is arguably the high-point of Obama as a campaigner never to be reached again.
Obama was a a significant underdog throughout the majority of 2007, but he was in a much stronger position that Warren is now. Warren is a notoriously weak candidate. Again, she could barely win a Senate seat in an election where Democrats nationally did well in one of the most Democratic states in the country. She is a darling of the progressive left, and that would have some cache in that niche, but it's hard to see any plausible path to victory for her beyond the simple note that anything is possible in politics. The realistic best case scenario is a Bill Bradley type run for her. If you paid more than a penny or two for her on in-trade, you're paying way too much.