As a follow up to my last post: Can we can debates about 2016 till Nov 2014 is over?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

[brooklynite]

1. If the candidates aren't why should we?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

2. has anyone officially declared 2016 yet? also because congress is important

not just the presidential election?

[brooklynite]

14. Well, I'm able to deal with multiple elections at the same time...

...and while nobody has "announced" it doesn't mean that those interested aren't preparing the ground.

[MineralMan]

3. That would be great, but seems unlikely on DU. It's all that many can think about.

Personally, I'm focusing entirely on state and national legislative elections in 2014. Once those are over, I'll get interested in the same thing for 2016. The Presidential race? I can't really do anything about that one, so I'll keep my focus on elections I can do something about. In November, 2016, I'll vote for the Democratic candidate, as I always do. Until then -

GOTV 2014 and Beyond!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

4. i think presidents matter, but have we not learnt that congress matters too?

i mean what if tea party wins both houses?

sigh!

[MineralMan]

7. In many ways, Congress matters much more.

Every law comes from Congress. Presidents can't make laws. Every budget comes from the House. Every Supreme Court justice has to be confirmed by the Senate, and so forth.

Presidents can say no, but they can't force Congress to do a damn thing.

That's why I focus on Congress and my state legislature. They are where things actually happen.

[William769]

10. Bite your tongue!

[silverweb]

5. Only if the TeaTHUGs do likewise.

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]I mean, if you really think they're sitting around saying, "Let's not worry about 2016 until after 2014."

[HappyMe]

6. Well, you are right about that.

Since nobody has declared any presidential candidacy, and the 2014 election is incredibly crucial....

[longship]

8. You are not following the narrative.

Warren said she's not interested in the presidency. Therefore, "Warren 2016!!!!"

Hillary has only shown casual and oblique interest. Therefore, Clinton 2016!!!"

"No! Warren 2016!"

"You are wrong! Hillary 2016!"

Et cetera. Ad nauseum.

Meanwhile, 2014 is looming and some DUers will still be hashing out the 2016 election which does not occur for three years. Pitiful, actually.

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. Hey, I have an election in a week

that matters far more to me than this perception management, which is exactly what it is.

[longship]

12. If I were still living in SoCal, I might be standing next to you.

Bon chance, mon ami.

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. The priorities from national bundlers, imo, are wrong

Local elections are critical, from there future leaders emerge and control of boards and judgeships are like critical.

Next come state officials, again that is the back bench. Finally, Congress, Senate and the President. Yes, they matter, but local control is so damn critical, and critically ignored, regularly. Bundlers only care of the WH, and maybe congress sometimes. It is wrong headed.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

27. so true.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

24. so well stated. nt

[redstatebluegirl]

11. YESSSS!! If we lose in 2014

it will not matter who wins in 16, they will be blocked by the idiots elected in 2014 while we sit home and debate Clinton or Warren..

It is the House and Senate along with state races we need to focus on that is what is killing us!

[Dawgs]

15. No. n/t

[libdem4life]

16. I don't see the harm in discussion...people are free to engage or not engage. For me, this is my

first Presidential election on DU and it is instructive to read and respond because, as a Liberal, I kind of obsess on hearing what everyone has to say. Maybe it will change my mind, or maybe it won't, but it's all good nonetheless.

[Whisp]

17. What we have to worry about for 2014 is

how the Jane Hamshers in 2010 swarmed in and started dissing democrats, dressed up in phoney democrat clothing. And then we find out she has/had dealings with the likes of Norquist.

I don't see talking about the 2016 Prezzy thing at all the same.

[libdem4life]

18. Ah, makes sense. I'm just a bit surprised at all the anti-Hillary stuff, to be honest. OTOH, it's

maybe good to listen and agree or disagree. Guess I'm hooked.

[Whisp]

19. we live in interesting times in all sorts of ways. n/t

[Raine1967]

20. The media and the GOP want so many to think about 2016...

It sexier (blech) I suppose. I;m not really into infotainment politics, personally.

Right now there are four numbers and four letters I care about:

2014 GOTV

I'm really convinced that people want us to ignore 2014 -- I'm not going to do that -- at all. I know I will support whoever the party nominates as out 2016 candidate. I want to see a healthy robust primary -- but not until AFTER we work to take back congress. Personally, I'd like to see a repeat of 2006!!!

[Nye Bevan]

21. Yes, you most certainly can. Simply use the "trash thread" feature. (nt)

[hfojvt]

22. November 2014? What about December 2013?

Supposedly there is a super-committee trying to work out a grand bargain or something.

[arely staircase]

23. right?

it is like christmas lights up before thanksgiving. but to answer your question, no. not around here.

[former9thward]

25. Candidates are already campaigning on both sides.

No one goes by "official" announcements. So the answer is no.

[Major Hogwash]

26. Tell Skinner to restrict all of those discussions to the Politics 2013 forum.

Because in a few weeks, he'll have to rename that forum "Politics 2014" anyway.