Now that we’ve made it out of the off-year doldrums of 2013, things can get a bit more interesting in the next 24 months. Of course, the 2014 midterm elections will be the political story this year with the 2016 race hovering just beneath it.

On the 2016 note, it appears Hillary Clinton is now moving her team into place and setting up the infrastructure to support her eventual run. Report on Hillary from Politico:

Publicly, Clinton insists she’s many months away from a decision about her political future. But a shadow campaign on her behalf has nevertheless been steadily building for the better part of a year — a quiet, intensifying, improvisational effort to lay the groundwork for another White House bid.

Some of the activity has the former first lady’s tacit approval. Some involves outside groups that are operating independently, and at times in competition with one another, to prepare a final career act for the former senator and secretary of state, whose legacy as the most powerful woman in the history of American politics is already secure.

More than two dozen people in her orbit interviewed for this article described a virtual campaign in waiting — a term that itself makes some of Clinton’s supporters bristle — consisting of longtime Clinton loyalists as well as people who worked doggedly to elect her onetime rival Obama.

On the 2014 midterm front, it appears Liz Cheney has abandoned her race to unseat Republican incumbent Sen. Mike Enzi. Report from CNN:

Liz Cheney, whose upstart bid to unseat Wyoming Sen. Mike Enzi sparked a round of warfare in the Republican Party and even within her own family, is dropping out of the Senate primary, she said in a prepared statement Monday morning.

“Serious health issues have recently arisen in our family, and under the circumstances, I have decided to discontinue my campaign,” she said.

Cheney, the eldest daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, began telling associates of her decision over the weekend, CNN reported late Sunday night.

“Though this campaign stops today, my commitment to keep fighting with you and your families for the fundamental values that have made this nation and Wyoming great will never stop,” she added.

Always more to the story than we know.

15 COMMENTS

    • And that might be the worst thing you could do, by not registering your preference. If there is a Reagan Libertarian or an acceptable-to-you Independent or Constitution-Party candidate, you should vote for them. Some would still choose to stay home, saying 3rd party candidates “have no chance of getting elected” against the 2 majors. But that is ultimately a self-fulfilling prophecy.

  1. Re: Clinton, isn’t it amazing that groups working on the same goal–a phantom campaign, at that–can’t get along? Politics… I still think some “new face” will take the nom.

    Re: Cheney, that family always has “serious health issues.” The real problem is the health of her campaign, with two polls showing Enzi holding onto a wide lead.

      • Nate: Yep. That’s what I said back on November 15, under the “Jeb Bush” heading.

        Brown has been tough, hasn’t cared whose toes he stepped on, and has turned California around. And we’re not talking about a state floating on oil. This is a state that has been in real trouble, with the defense industry leaving, and other states raiding Hollywood.

        A lot of people will remember him as “Governor Moonbeam,” because he seemed to be out-of-step. Back in 1976, when “The Great Society” mentality was still strong, Brown ran for president, saying, “The country is rich, but not so rich as we have been led to believe. The choice to do one thing may preclude another. In short, we are entering an era of limits.”

        When he ran for president in 1980, he called for a Balanced Budget Amendment. He ran against Ted Kennedy’s call for Universal Health Care.

        In 1992, he waged a grassroots campaign to “take back America from the confederacy of corruption, careerism, and campaign consulting in Washington.” As an outsider, Brown fought both parties, which he called, “the bipartisan Incumbent Party in Washington”

        He wanted to replace the income tax with a flat tax and value-added tax. AND he refused to take any campaign donations over $100. But of course, with little money, he couldn’t beat the Clinton machine.

        Browns problem is age. He’ll be 78 in 2016.

  2. I’ve been reading that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce will throw $50 million to the establishment republicans to defeat any primary challenges from the Tea Party.

    This will have two results I’m not sure they intended. First they will re-elect RINO republicans who supported Democratic legislation that has been hampering the growth of business and the economy. Secondly the Chamber is also pro-amnesty as is the Vichy republicans. This stratagem will enable 11 million ILLEGAL ALEINS to vote Democrat and thus piss away the $50 million they spent to support the establishment republicans.

    GOOD PLANNING U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE !

    • Bob: The Chamber likes establishment control. They want corporations to run the government. While TPers are anti-tax, they are also anti-spending, and the Chamber loves spending–especially if it’s corporate welfare.

      As for immigration, that’s simple arithmetic. The Hispanic population is growing, through immigration, but moreso due to family size.

      Mexicans are overwhelmingly Catholic, with conservative family values. The Chamber feels that they should go GOP, if the GOP stops alienating them. On the other hand, the Chamber loves to have LOTS of cheap labor to keep wages as low as possible.

      And, of course, it shouldn’t be hard to sell the idea that Democrats have taken them for granted. Obama promised immigration reform the first year. AND Obama has deported a LOT more than any other president.

      • Goethe;

        I understand from the past where the Chambers strategy is, my point was it seems self defeating. Their logic seems to take to much for granted and they have been sold a bill of false hope.

        Why put out money to support someone who will pass legislation that will impede the growth of commerce. The Chamber may benefit with kick backs but this isn’t going to trickle down to the members. The members aren’t fools and will eventually realize this and put their foot down. Just as if the rich gave more in taxes it isn’t going to go to the needy. It will go to expanding government power in Washington with more bureaucracy and waste. AS YOU ARE AWARE THE POLITICAL PARTIES ARE BASED ON POWER !

        As far as immigration the Chamber of Commerce only has to look as far as the past elections. Republicans never took a major portion of the Hispanic vote and there is little chance of that changing. Hispanics are said to have conservative values but they vote left. I’ll concede to you the point that the Chamber likes cheap labor. But then wouldn’t it make sense that all the aliens have to do is vote Democrat, get amnesty (which makes them citizens) and have the promise of joining a union in order to get better wages. For the Democrats it’s a win, win situation. They get the votes and additional union contributions. The aliens get citizenship and decent paying jobs. I mean if we are going to draw at straws and take things for granted why not this scenario ?

        • One last point on the Hispanic vote aspect.

          I believe Hispanics want the kind of BIG GOVERNMENT they were promised in their homeland but never really received. Whether it comes packaged as social conservatism or social liberalism is secondary. They may have the obligatory nod of the head when their priest talks about abortion but they would do the opposite when a personal decision is on the line. Much the same as American society is today……..indifferent !

          To believe Hispanics are a natural Conservative constituency is as naïve as believing republicans will win the hearts and minds of African-Americans voters.

  3. Here’s an article that tells of how after years of being relegated to the sidelines Social Conservatives are planning to make a move. They announced they are forming an aggressive super PAC which is intending to spend heavily in the primaries against republicans deemed squishy on social issues.

    Here are a few questions that came immediately to my mind on this.

    * How will this affect the RNC who came out in their Autopsy Report saying they need to be more inclusive to attract new voters?

    * Is Rev. Huckabee going to be a major benefactor of this PAC even though he is a member of the establishment republicans?

    http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/social-conservatives-fundraising-101666.html?hp=t1

    • Perhaps I should take your lead and stay on the sidelines more often Sam !

      At times I think I have a paralyzing effect on the site.

      • yeah Bob, I opinionate but not debate and most want to debate and at the very least try to discredit (I’m guilty occasionally).

        • Bob: Not sure what you mean. I have found your posts to be valuable. Of course, you and I almost got into fisticuffs a few times, despite the fact that Sufisher/Oblivious thinks we’re clones, but it was good spirited as well as spirited. And that is anything but “paralyzing.” We have had a few times on here when a discussion was getting into new area, and it was stifled (paralyzed) by an irreverent (and irrelevant) remark by others, but not by you.

          Sam: don’t sell yerself short. You can keep up with the best of them. But I do agree that we’re all better off when ideas are gently presented for consideration, and not pludgeoned as “gospel.”

          The idea that there is only one “right” answer in politics is folly.

          Stay tuned dudes. I think there’s a bombshell coming. . .

          • “Fisticuffs”????…….HOGWASH !

            It’s always enjoyable having a conversation with a fellow member from the herd of independent minds.

Comments are closed.