Posted on 02/07/2014 2:53:31 PM PST by SeekAndFind
The man’s got a point, for once.
With the Senate seriously at risk, and the Koch Brothers spending prodigiously, shouldn't Dem funders be focused on '14 and not '16 races?
— David Axelrod (@davidaxelrod) February 6, 2014
Awful lot of static aimed at Hillary lately from Team Hopenchange. First came this WSJ piece about Democrats being “unsettled” by all the fundraising attention pro-Clinton PACs have gotten lately, then came this buzzy BuzzFeed report about Obama’s aides knocking her emerging 2016 strategy. Then came the news that Democrats will get no help from Priorities USA this fall; they’re keeping their powder dry for the Clinton coronation. There’s a zero-sum game afoot: The earlier the Hillary! 2016 extravaganza gets going, the less attention wealthy donors will pay to this year’s Senate races, which raises the odds that any new Supreme Court appointments during the final two years of Obama’s term will have to face a Republican majority. If O thinks his second term can’t get any tougher, just wait.
But that’s not all. If you missed it a few weeks ago, read Sean Trende’s probability estimates for control of the Senate over the next two election cycles. There’s a huge number of vulnerable Republicans up in 2016, making it very likely that Democrats will control the Senate again when the new president is inaugurated in 2017. That depends in part on how many seats are lost this year, though; obviously, the better the GOP does in 2014, the higher the bar for Democrats to retake the Senate will be two years from now. By Trende’s calculation, Republicans could win as many as eight seats this fall and Democrats would still be more likely than not to reclaim a majority in 2016 even if a Republican wins the presidential election. If you assume a Democratic presidential victory, the Democrats could afford to lose as many as nine seats this year and still *probably* win back the Senate in 2016. Point being, the stakes of this election are high not only for Obama in his final two years but for Hillary herself if she ends up running and winning. Want to make sure President Clinton can ram through a bunch of liberals for her cabinet and court vacancies? Better make sure you ante up for the Senate races this year, then. That’s what Axelrod’s thinking about, but whether logic can blunt the imperative among would-be Clinton courtiers to suck up early and often, I don’t know.
Via NRO, here’s Axelrod demonstrating his worry about 2014 in another way, kinda sorta nudging red-state Democrats to cut Obama loose and do what they need to do to win. Exit question: Is there more to the early noisy Hillary boosterism than meets the eye? At first I thought it was all about manufacturing an aura of inevitability to make her path through the primaries easier, but that’s unnecessary. No one, not even lefty darling Elizabeth Warren, seriously threatens Hillary. Maybe top Democrats are convinced that she’s less likely to run than everyone thinks, whether for health reasons or fatigue from the demands public life, and they’ve concluded they need to twist her arm somehow to make her do it. Constructing a prefab campaign for her, replete with lots of congressional endorsements and billionaires waving their checkbooks to make it relatively easy, might do it. Too bad for Mark Pryor and Mary Landrieu, though.
A dangerous place is between Hillary and her career.
Because even someone as stupid as a democrat knows 2014 is lost
Why would “Hillary fans” listen to the pleas of one of the main people who “screwed” Hillary out of her shot in 2008? Does he think they’ve forgotten? Hahahahaha! I think not.
I think Axelcrud is about to find that out the hard way, GOD willing.
A dangerous place is between Hillary and her K rear.
Sounds like a great County Road commission motto for the Winter.
AxleShaft?
Perfect. From here on out, it’s Hil-liar-y.
I guess all those twenty or so women were all lying.
Vote Hillary. She knows how to hire private investigators to protect the right of the women her husband abused to remain silent.
If you think Hillary will win in 2016 then it is a good investment to donate to her coffers, and the earler the better. Money donated to a congressional candidate who is at best a tossup, and even if he wins will probably have little or no power, is a poor investment.
Axelrod knows this of course, but he is aiming his BS at the ignorant easily swayed small fry who still can cough up millions for the losers of 2014.
I think Axelrod has ties originally from Chicago, but was he ever on Team Clinton (Bill or Hillary)?
A week is a lifetime in Washington politics. Two years is an eternity.
I guess all those twenty or so women were all lying.
"What difference does it make"
Exactly!
The campaign will just be a formality of course.
(Campaigns are good excuses for fund raising)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
