The "Who is running?" tea leaves thread

[Beet]

Gillibrand has got to be one of the most overrated potential future names of the American political landscape.

One problem for Gillibrand is-- what base is she going to run from? "The women" isn't a base, she needs her constituency, and her constituency just happens to be more beholden to Cuomo than her.

In fact, there is rather already a serious two-way in New York State politics if both Hillary and Cuomo run. My sense is that Cuomo will have had enough time as governor (if indeed, he has not already done so) to take control of the New York Democratic Party and machine, and this would be a serious problem for either Hillary or Gillibrand.

[Beet]

I do think Jindal is setting himself up for a possible run.  It's interesting....

Jindal seems to be positioning himself as the chief criticizer of everything Republican, though he has heavy competition from Christie out in New Jersey.

What do you all think they are doing with this? I wonder if there's a segment of the Republican Party that this appeals to...certainly not to me.

I think they're trying to convince some people who were dejected by the last presidential election that they have the answer to pull the party up. I think Christie is definitely going way off the reservation, though.

[Beet]

Is there anyone who thinks she won't run?

Any and all policy reasons aside, I hope she doesn't, because, as Ralph Nader said, her essentially unchallenged nomination smells of a dynastic coronation.

Also, I want to see a truly competitive democratic field. Lets bring in some new names to the Presidential contest! Russ Feingold, Ron Wyden, etc...

Keep in mind that a less competitive field will only benefit the Democrats.

Plus, I think she earned her primary win in 2008. Going toe to toe in the longest primary campaign in over a generation, against a phenomenon like Barack Obama was, winning 18 million votes and 1,600 delegates, campaigning in all 50 states plus territories... it's more than most successful nominees who go through competitive primaries do. Without that '08 campaign I don't think she'd be anywhere close to the position she is in today. In fact I think she would be largely forgotten about, Obama would have picked Kerry or Rice as SoS.

[Beet]

Hillary Clinton's Circle Isn't Sure She Should Run for President in 2016

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Link

[Beet]

Posting this here because her health is the biggest question on whether she runs or not:



Hillary in January... Goodness gracious, look at the difference in skin color between her and Bill. He looks like he has a tan... she is ghost white. Not good.



Hillary in April... much better, but not sure if it's just the makeup. I hope she's getting her fill of time outdoors.



Hillary in May.

You know, more than anything else this fixation on Hillary's health reminds me of a certain Russian from back in the day. This is how he put those doubts to rest:



Also, a bit further afield (in more ways than one) but I couldn't resist:



He was 72.

[Beet]

Clinton folks thinking about where to locate her campaign HQ; probably Westchester at the moment, or possibly Queens or Brooklyn

Not the D.C. area? Crap, I won't be able to volunteer at HQ.

[Beet]

Why do you think Portman has no shot?

[Beet]

How much credence is there to the idea that speaking engagements are often a way of getting around campaign finance laws? That could have something to do with it, although it's not as if she needs to announce before spring.

At the rate of 14 delivered or scheduled so far over the past year or so, at $250,000 per speech, that amounts to $3.5 million total - in contrast, in 2007 she was raising north of $20 million per quarter. From a financial standpoint her best bet would be to announce as early as possible so she would have the most fundraising quarters under her belt as possible.

[Beet]

How much credence is there to the idea that speaking engagements are often a way of getting around campaign finance laws? That could have something to do with it, although it's not as if she needs to announce before spring.

At the rate of 14 delivered or scheduled so far over the past year or so, at $250,000 per speech, that amounts to $3.5 million total - in contrast, in 2007 she was raising north of $20 million per quarter. From a financial standpoint her best bet would be to announce as early as possible so she would have the most fundraising quarters under her belt as possible.

It came out just last week that UCLA paid Clinton $300k to speak - and that was, according to UCLA staff, the "special university rate."

So? At the rate of 14 per year at $300,000 per speech, that's still only $4.2 million per year. In the first quarter of 2007, Hillary raised $25 million, as one of three major candidates. She would have to give 83 speeches per quarter (nearly one per day) at $300,000 to match that.