Go ahead and talk about 2016 — but here’s how to sound like you actually know something

[DonViejo]

By Ana Marie Cox, The Guardian
Friday, December 6, 2013 12:30 EST

It’s a bit of a slow period for political news: Congress is going into recess, the Affordable Care Act is in a kind of procedural limbo, most people are turning their attention to the holidays – and, perhaps most disheartening, the economy just continues to trudge along, offering neither much hope nor much political urgency. That there should be more political urgency regarding jobs and the economy is a topic of eloquently-expressed frustration by my friend Jason Linkins at the Huffington Post. But economic numbers are hard, while idle speculation about the 2016 presidential candidates is super-easy! And, to be fair, it’s a subject that will be on the minds of regular folks soon enough. With that in mind, some thoughts on how to discuss – and perhaps even report on – the candidates and their chances.

1. It’s OK to say someone is inevitable!

I mean, that’s strong language, but the pseudo-sophistication of pooh-poohing a frontrunner is a short-term strategy for punditry. While it’s true that the chattering class deemed Hillary Clinton “inevitable” in 2008, there’s little evidence that the inevitable label had a role in her eventual loss. Barack Obama’s unprecedented levels of organization and fundraising were, you know, significant factors.

In GOP races, there’s even less reason to hedge: conservatives are historically conservative in their choices, not just for the past few, either: for almost 20 years, 1976-2004, there was a Bush or Dole on every ticket! Between 1952 and 1972, Richard Nixon was on five out of six of them. 2016 will be a little different, what with the GOP not having an obvious front-runner, but don’t be afraid to stick to the safest name (Chris Christie) even if seems kind of boring. Unless you just don’t want to be boring. See next items.

2. If you’re going to think out-of-the-box, have some data on your side.

On the Democratic side, the Elizabeth Warren “boomlet” is almost entirely of journalistic blue-skying. The lady says she does not want to run for president, and she seems far too level-headed to try to muscle her way in based on the pining of some Beltway insiders.

full article
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/06/go-ahead-and-talk-about-2016-but-heres-how-to-sound-like-you-actually-know-something/

[merrily]

1. Disagree. I don't think that journalists invented the pro-Warren push.

I think desperate Democratic voters did, back when Warren was still in the regulatory mess, before she even announced for the Senate.

However, it's hard to tell sometimes which comes first.

As far as it being okay to say something is inevitable, even though that was proven wrong in 2008, gee, I wonder who the author means?

Fundraising was one of the reasons Hillary was considered inevitable in 2008--the practice and contacts of the Clinton organization in raising money was one of the very things cited then. It was disproven in 2008.

But, I do think Hillary is inevitable as the Democratic nominee. Everyone has been saying so since before the 2012 election, so it seems as though the PTB are determined to make it so.

[4dsc]

2. I suffer from Clinton fatigue

so I hope another candidate steps up to help me with my problem.

[Beacool]

3. I suffer from the fatigue of the Left wringing their hands in angst.

No one even knows whether Hillary is interested in running again.

How about cooling your jets and worrying a little more about 2014? Because if we lose more seats in Congress, it won't matter much if Hillary or any other Democrat wins in 2016. Nothing would get done.