Forum: What Direction Do You See The Democrats Going In 2016?

question-marks

Every week on Monday morning , the Council and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher’s Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week’s question: What Direction Do You See The Democrats Going In 2016?

The Independent Sentinel : The entire party has been brought to the far-left. There are only far-left and those who obey the far-left.

If it has anything to do with deceit, non-transparency, divisiveness, promoting legislation that weakens our economy and diminishes our stature in the world, that’s where it will go.

Laura Rambeau Lee, Right Reason:The Democrats are going to push the first woman president in 2016. Our choices will be new doting, giddy grandmother Hillary Rodham Clinton or Native American woman Elizabeth (Liawatha) Warren. Hillary Clinton will campaign as a woman familiar and sympathetic with the plight of the common people and all about family values. She and Bill were so broke after they left the White House they could barely afford to pay the mortgages on their two homes, if we remember.

Warren will campaign against the corporatists – the 1% (knowing firsthand their evil capitalist ways having lived among them for much of her adult life) and bring voice to the 99% remnants of the #Occupy movement.

These two will be positioned to address the response of the voters after the 2014 mid-term elections. If President Obama is perceived to be taking us too far left over the next two years, Hillary will be the “moderate” nominee. If the country is docilely swept along with the hard left then Elizabeth Warren will be the nominee.

The Republicans face the challenge of nominating a candidate who can clearly state the need for a restoration to the founding principles of the Constitution and the rule of law and who will appeal to a majority of Americans in order to defeat the Democrats. There must be a clear distinction between the two parties. I’m going out on a limb here and saying the choice between a moderate Hillary Clinton and a moderate Republican will result in a Clinton win.

 GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD: If Hillary does not run, Cuomo seems to be in a better position. Serving in a state that is much larger than Maryland, Cuomo has enjoyed a higher national profile and his fight for same-sex marriage received greater media attention. The firm, PPP, released a poll this week showing Hillary at 64% and Andrew Cuomo at 3% (fourth after Hillary, Vice President Biden, and recently elected and liberal hero U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren).

Maryland Gov Martin O’Malley polled at 1%. The same poll found that without Hillary, Cuomo would be at 10%- and at 22% with neither Hillary nor Biden in the primary. O’Malley still remained at 1% without Hillary and was at 8% without either Hillary or Biden.

JoshuaPundit : A lot of ifs here. There are various points to consider in what amounts to a civil war.

While it’s almost a certainty that Barack Obama’s popularity will continue to decrease even if he isn’t impeached or forced to resign ala’ Nixon,  he is still going to remain a very powerful figure behind the scenes. He controls the Democrat database that’s invaluable in turnout and fundraising and  has already told the DNC in response to their request that he’s keeping it after he leaves office, but that parts of it are available for lease for the right price.Also, no matter whether he finishes his term or not, he is still going to be a key endorsement needed for black support.While his animosity towards the Clintons is well known, if  Hillary runs for president, his support will be vital to her  – or any other Democrat- winning in 2016. There’s absolutely no way of telling which way he’ll go.

And the racial complement is huge. While articles on how Republicans have lost the black and Latino vote (demonstrably untrue about Latinos, but I digress) are a dime a dozen, there are very few articles about how the Democrats have largely lost the white vote. So a massive black turnout in Democrat urban enclaves is a key component.

Another factor is a fairly thin Democrat bench. Two bad midterms in a row have wiped out a whole generation of younger Democrats capable of running and having a shot at winning a national election as well as competing in future state elections. Some of the few more moderate Democrats (relatively speaking) still left like Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Tim Kaine of Virginia and Mark Warner of Virginia are too conservative for the Democrat’s leftist base, or lack sufficient name recognition.

So aside from Hillary, there’s not much left besides Elizabeth Warren, Andrew Cuomo or Joe Biden, whom I don’t see as a serious candidate.

I doubt Senator Elizabeth Warren or Andrew Cuomo, the current governor of NY has the fundraising clout to compete with the Clinton machine…if Hillary runs. I think that’s still an open question. But if she does, she will run on three themes – being the first woman president, income inequality, and a revisionist portrait of ‘the good old days’ of the Clinton years. Her problem is that she will have to run to the Left in order to woo the party’s base, which is not fond of her. So she would have to find someone like Elizabeth Warren, Wisconsin’s Tammy Baldwin, Deval Patrick, NY mayor Ric DeBlasio, Martin O’Malley or maybe Al Franken as a running mate. A lot of the others are simply too old..Elizabeth Warren herself is 65 and Al Franken is 63.

If Hillary doesn’t run, it will be a sheer nutroots campaign, with Cuomo and Warren as the two main competitors.

Harry Reid is already showing that he recognizes this by creating a Dem leadership position as yet unnamed for Elizabeth Warren, as a bridge to the progressive fascist wing of the party.

The Republicans are going to have to field someone who can articulately voice conservative principles, point to the misery of the Obama years and make a credible case for real change. Another ‘moderate’ like Chris Christie, Mitt Romney redux or Jeb Bush would not be good choices at all.

Well, there you have it!

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. and every  Tuesday morning, when we reveal the weeks’ nominees for Weasel of the Week!

And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.

It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, andyou won’t want to miss it...or any of the other fantabulous Watcher’s Council content.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y’know?

Obama Told Ferguson Race Hustlers At WH Meeting: ‘Stay On Course’

xmike-brown-mob.jpg.pagespeed.ic.uMYlFmmUru

Image via Gateway Pundit

The term Stay the courseas popularized by Presidents George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan means to pursue an objective regardless of any obstacles or criticism in times of war. The opposite term, “cut and run” is an accurate descriptor for Obama’s war time strategy. But what Obama lacks as a Commander in Chief, he more than makes up for as Community Organizer in Chief.

At a White House meeting with a group of race hustlers one day after the midterm shellacking, the president used the phrase “stay on course” in reference to the racial battle that is being waged in one of our nation’s cities.

Attendees at that meeting included Al Sharpton,  NAACP president Cornell Brooks, National Urban League president Marc Morial.

At the time, a White House official gave a bland statement regarding the meeting, saying that it “included a discussion of ObamaCare implementation, education, and criminal justice issues.”

“The president also highlighted how we are looking forward to working with the leaders over the next two years to advance these and other critical issues facing the country,” the official said.

In Sunday’s New York Times, more details emerged.

According to the Rev. Al Sharpton, who has appeared frequently in St. Louis with the Brown family and delivered a speech at Mr. Brown’s funeral, Mr. Obama “was concerned about Ferguson staying on course in terms of pursuing what it was that he knew we were advocating. He said he hopes that we’re doing all we can to keep peace.”

Yes certainly – let’s do all we can to keep the peace even as fellow organizer Lisa Fithian is called in to help organize the protests and create chaos.

The regime’s extortion racket has kicked in – as the threat of a race war in Ferguson Missouri looms,  some definite objectives are being pursued by the racial grievance industry.

Protest leaders said wholesale change was ultimately what they were demanding, though not all agreed on what that meant. Some called for the removal of the Ferguson police chief or the entire department. Others said they want the police to wear cameras; civilian review boards for all police shootings; or a requirement that ethnic and racial makeup of police departments match the communities they serve.

“It must be changing how police and citizens relate to one another,” said Michael T. McPhearson, the co-chairman of the Don’t Shoot Coalition. “We’re calling for police accountability, police transparency, changing how the police do their work. If there’s an indictment or if there’s not an indictment, we still have that work to do.”

 RELATED:

Via Katie Pavlich: Townhall: EXCLUSIVE: In Scathing Letter to Obama, Former FBI Assistant Director Slams Holder as “Chief Among Antagonists” in Ferguson:

Former FBI Assistant Director and Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund President Ron Hosko sends “a scathing letter to President Obama detailing the damage done to the relationship between law enforcement and DOJ over the past six years.”

“The hyper-politicization of justice issues has made it immeasurably more difficult for police officers to simply do their jobs. The growing divide between the police and the people – perhaps best characterized by protesters in Ferguson, Mo., who angrily chanted, “It’s not black or white. It’s blue!” – only benefits of members of a political class seeking to vilify law enforcement for other societal failures. This puts our communities at greater risk, especially the most vulnerable among us,” Hosko wrote in the letter exclusively obtained by Townhall. “Your attorney general, Eric Holder, is chief among the antagonists. During his tenure as the head of the Department of Justice, Mr. Holder claims to have investigated twice as many police and police departments as any of his predecessors. Of course, this includes his ill-timed decision to launch a full investigation into the Ferguson Police Department at the height of racial tensions in that community, throwing gasoline on a fire that was already burning. Many officers were disgusted by such a transparent political maneuver at a time when presidential and attorney general leadership could have calmed a truly chaotic situation.”

‘Bout time someone said it.

UPDATE:

Via Drudge:

FBI: DECISION ‘WILL LIKELY’ LEAD TO VIOLENCE

 

The president and Atty Gen could have quelled the unrest – but they played along along with the false narrative even though they knew the truth. What does that tell us?

Linked by IOTWReport, thanks!