2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary Clinton and the 2016 Democrats: Mostly Liberal, Together
Derek Willis
Among seven potential Democratic presidential contenders, Hillary Clinton is the overwhelming favorite and the third-most liberal candidate. How the other candidates are arrayed on an ideological spectrum could make her run for the White House easier than the last time out.
In some ways, the cast of candidates for 2016 resembles the group from the 2008 race, with a field of stalwartly liberal politicians. Mrs. Clinton was slightly more liberal in 2008 than now, according to Crowdpac, which scores politicians on a left-right scale of -10 to 10. (Crowdpac bases this mainly on campaign contributions, but also on votes and speeches.) Her problem was that Barack Obama, who was further to the left of her at -7.8 to her -6.9 also had the donors who were to the left of her. He ran a better campaign, particularly in Iowa, and benefited from a surge in money from small-dollar donors.
This time, Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts (-8.2) and Bernie Sanders (-8.3), Vermonts independent senator, are to her left. Ms. Warren has the higher fund-raising profile of the two, with a leadership PAC that raised more than $2 million during the 2014 election cycle. But she and Mrs. Clinton (and to a lesser extent Mr. Sanders) would be competing for a similar pool of donors. During her 2012 Senate race, Ms. Warren raised more than $3.4 million from individuals who also gave to Mrs. Clinton's presidential campaign, Federal Election Commission data shows.
The field of potential Democratic presidential candidates is ideologically cohesive. While there is room to the left of Mrs. Clintons Crowdpac score of -6.4, there is not a lot.
The lack of distance between the Democratic hopefuls suggests that creating a wedge between someone like Ms. Warren and Mrs. Clinton would be harder among Democratic donors, and perhaps among the broader primary electorate.
more
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/18/upshot/hillary-clinton-and-the-2016-democrats-mostly-liberal-together.html?smid=tw-upshotnyt&abt=0002&abg=1&_r=0
djean111
(14,255 posts)Also, the TPP means more to me than a score concocted from donors and speeches. And old votes.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)certainly violates common wisdom here at DU, which often puts Hillary ever so slightly to the left of Jeb Bush due to her banker-donor pool. The purpose of Crowdpac is to analyze where the money comes from and aid individuals to find a candidate that fits an individual's ideological twist.
Continue reading the main story
Crowdpac ideological scores for potential 2016 Democratic presidential candidates.
Joe Biden -4.4
Jim Webb -5.3
Andrew Cuomo -5.4
Martin O'Malley -6.2
Hillary Clinton -6.4
Elizabeth Warren -8.2
Bernie Sanders -8.3
The field of potential Democratic presidential candidates is ideologically cohesive. While there is room to the left of Mrs. Clintons Crowdpac score of -6.4, there is not a lot.
Steve Hilton, a Brit out to disrupt American politics with Crowdpac
Crowdpac, a new online venture, debuts a tool to help ordinary voters combat billionaires' influence in politics.
[link:http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/71f06fe4-3ce5-11e4-9733-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3S6rZyegD|
Crowdpac helps politicians tap the crowd]
Persondem
(1,936 posts)... liberal scores are negative?? There are other ways of indicating placement on such a scale without using a method with a "bad" connotation.
brooklynite
(94,585 posts)... Democrats are colored "blue" in political maps? The color of hypothermia and death?
Sometimes, a chart is just a chart.
Persondem
(1,936 posts)They could have used An "L" and a "C" to indicate direction on their Liberal/Conservative scale e.g. 2C or 8L. I still don't like the negatives.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)Persondem
(1,936 posts)Your imagination is lacking as is the substance of such posts.