Sen. Barbara Boxer won't run for re-election

MarketPulse ^ | 1/8/15 | Robert Schroeder

[illiac]

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- Sen. Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat, announced Thursday she will not run for re-election in 2016.

[ez]

Thanks, I’ll check them out.

[MarineBrat]

[Viennacon]

Good riddance you narcissistic b)$$$$

[EDINVA]

“... perhaps another liberal bubble head will replace her.”

Ya think ?

[clintonh8r]

I’m surprised she doesn’t just resign now, allowing Brown to hand pick her successor. She’s going to find out that being in the minority is no fun at all.....

[BigEdLB]

All Hollywood election in 2016 to replace the village idiot:
Jon Voight (R) vs George Clooney (D)

[Vaquero]

California??

It’s just a matter of the devil that you know in that state. Expect another progressive marxist type.

[irish guard]

I understand she’s not resigning. My guess is she’s made the assumption that the Dems will not regain the senate in 2016 and wants no part of being in the minority beyond the next two years.

[wastedyears]

Am I dreaming this? She’s willingly leaving office and giving up that power?

[TomasUSMC]

The Mexicanos told her, “jewno run” mi turno.

[AuH2ORepublican]

“The goal: Find an exciting CONSERVATIVE to run for Barbara’s seat.

In San Diego area, that’s going to be difficult; BUT NOT IMPOSSIBLE.”

---

You’re aware that all Californians will get to vote, and that the election will take place at the same time as the presidential election (meaning high turnout), and that it will be a one-on-one election between the top two finishers in the all-party jungle primary, right? It doesn’t matter how “exciting” the conservative is, it will be nearly impossible for him or her to defeat a liberal Democrat one-on-one in a presidential election year in California.

What we need to do in order to elect a conservative to the Senate from California is to run *two*, and *only two*, prominent Republicans for the office, and hope that four or more prominent liberal Democrats run as well. If each conservative Republican gets, say, 18% in the jungle primary, and the four liberal Democrats each get around 15% of the vote, then the general election will be between two conservative Republicans, and we’ll win no matter which of the two gets elected. But if three or more Republicans run, it will be extremely difficult for the general to feature two conservative Republicans, and if it pits a Republican against a Democrat we pretty much know how it would turn out.

So we have around 12 months to find two conservative Republicans with good credentials and the ability to fundraise that will run and discourage any other Republican from running. That’s the way to take back Boxer’s open Senate seat.

[InterceptPoint]

Easy Prediction: A latino Dem will be elected in her place.

[RWB Patriot]

I would cheer having one less environazi gun grabber to deal with, but such views are required in the land of fruits and nuts, so I’m sure another will replace her.

[dennisw]

Not a huge surprise. We haven’t heard much from this heinous witch in the last years...I was thinking she might be ill or just plain ran out of gas at age 74.

Lots of these elderly senators are on mind warping meds and really are just front men for their staff that does 99% of the work. The older Senator just gives speeches and schmoozes with lobbyists and old cronies.

He also votes as directed to by his chief of staff. The elderly Senator sure as heck is not going to read or debate bills

[CyberAnt]

Sorry to disappoint you .. but we have already selected a person .. and now it’s just a matter of time whether that person will be willing to run.

Has all the qualities needed to do the job.

[AuH2ORepublican]

That’s fine and dandy, but if he or she is a conservative Republican running one-on-one against a liberal Democrat in November 2016 in California, he or she will have very slight odds of winning.

Obama got over 60% of the vote in CA in each of 2008 and 2012, and during the past six presidential elections the smallest victory margin for the Democrat in CA was when Kerry beat Bush by “only” 10%. And as for U.S. Senate elections in CA, the smallest victory margin for Boxer or Feinstein during the past 6 Senate elections was “only” 10% as well, in both 1998 (Boxer over Fong) and 2010 (Boxer over Fiorina)—and in presidential election years during the past two decades, the winning percentages for California Democrat U.S. Senate candidates have been 19% in 2000, 20% in 2004 and 25% in 2012.

And, unlike in elections prior to 2012, the Republican nominee won’t have the benefit of having third-party liberal candidates (from the Green Party or the Peace and Freedom Party) taking votes away from the liberal Democrat, since it would be a one-on-one general election. That’s why we need two—and only two—Republicans to run.

So if “we” have already selected a person to run for the Senate in 2016, may I suggest that you consider finding a second person to run as well. If the person whom you’re trying to convince to run takes into account his or her odds of winning when analyzing whether to take the plunge, knowing that there would be a decent chance that the general would be against another Republican instead of against a Democrat actually might help you convince him or her to run.

[WayneS]

If my calculations are correct, her clone should be the minimum age for a senator by then, so I can see why she might be willing to turn over the reins.

[WayneS]

...as long as “he” is either homosexual or “transgendered”...

[WayneS]

I agree.

I’m about 95% certain that Robert Byrd was actually dead for four years before they actually announced his demise.

[EXCH54FE]

good by, LET the door hit you on the A$$ on the way out.