|
Antti posted:I had to check and Jenna Bush would actually turn 35 on November 25th 2016 so she'd be constitutionally eligible by Inauguration Day. Joke scenarios aside, Jenna Bush is mostly liberal and it's exceedingly unlikely, if she ever took office, that she would run as a republican all family tradition aside. Her personal politics seem to be entirely focused on education, so I think she is more likely to stick with activism than to ever get into politics anyway.
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 22:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 21:01 |
|
|
Mirthless posted:I honestly hope that Biden has the sense not to run. I love Biden, I think he would be a great president, but running as a 74 year old is begging the right to pit him against a young guy and make the inevitable "heartbeat away" comparison that we did to Dole and McCain. Unless we are riding on a serious enthusiasm wave in 2016, I could see it costing us the election. Hilary won't exactly be a spring chicken at 69, but I think her age would instantly be less of a liability. She'd also be able to run with the momentum of being the first woman to take the office of president, which might get a lot of people out to the polls who were otherwise not enthusiastic about running. Biden has been running for president essentially nonstop since about 1982; he actually ran in 1988 and 2008, and laid considerable groundwork in 1984, 1992, and 2004 before assessing his chances at the nomination to be slim and none. Assuming he is healthy and the frontrunner in two years, which he probably is if Hillary decides not to make the race, I think there is little chance he passes on his best opportunity to do what he's built his left around doing for thirty years. This is also the essential core argument as to why Hillary will run, of course. axeil posted:What about Kirsten Gillibrand? Gillibrand is a frontrunner in a world where Biden and Clinton both decline to run.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 22:19
|
|
|
Gillibrand is very popular, but I think she's too young and has too little name recognition for top of the ticket. I'd keep an eye on her for VP, though. It probably goes without saying but I'm not sure how either party runs a ticket that does not have a minority or a woman as part of it in 2016 onwards, given the results last night. edit - If Biden and Clinton run, it's almost certainly going to be Cuomo unless he gets scandal'd in the next four years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 22:20
|
|
|
In the right situation I could see Schweitzer having a decent shot, because he could easily unite the working class + liberal netroots coalition, which precious Democratic politicians are capable of doing. I mean the main reason Obama won the nomination (besides the decent levels of institutional support that Joememtum referred to) over the preferred choice of most of the rich Democratic donors was his ability to unite the liberal netroots/blacks/young voters, compared to the liberal favorites of years past with limited appeal elsewhere (Hart/Bradley/Dean/etc). Schweitzer has a similar broad appeal in the primaries and in the national election could even make states like the Dakotas, Missouri, and Indiana competitive. Unfortunately for him I don't know if 2016 is that right situation. On the plus Democrats seem to not like Obama's cool and non-confrontational manner and might be looking for more of a fighter this time around. On the other hand there are plenty of potential candidates who will have strong institutional support and are also tolerable to the liberal wing of the party (Clinton/Cuomo/Biden) and I suspect the female half (more than that, actually) of the Democratic Party will be highly motivated to put the first female president in the White House in 2016. Schweitzer's branding iron, hunting, pro-gun schtick won't hold much appeal to them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 22:22
|
|
|
SHINEBLOCKA posted:Do ya'll really buy that Christie is "too fat?" I'd love to pretend we're in a country where that doesn't matter, but I don't believe it at all. Having a deficiency like that - just like being "too old" - is just asking your opponents to attack you for it. Hell, the right tried, more than once, to attack the Obamas for being "too black". serewit posted:Gillibrand is very popular, but I think she's too young and has too little name recognition for top of the ticket. I'd keep an eye on her for VP, though. Clinton/Gillibrand would be a ticket I'd love to see.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 22:22
|
|
|
I don't keep a tuned to the right wing talk but has Hillary been picking up the usually right wing Clinton flack the last four years? I feel like this stint as SOS has really pushed her to be the top elder statespeople in the Democratic party much more than she was in 2008. Presumably the right wing media knows she is going to be a frontrunner in 2016 and will begin pushing a narrative ASAP, but what exists now?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 22:23
|
|
|
Mirthless posted:Clinton/Gillibrand would be a ticket I'd love to see. And unless Hillary moves back to Arkansas, one you will never see.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 22:25
|
|
|
Hillary is stepping down in January and I think what she does with her time between then and 2015 is going to determine what her presidential aspirations are. If I wanted to run for president, I'd want to keep my high-level government position to stay in the public's consciousness. There will be a generation of first-time voters in 2016 who won't have any knowledge of what the Clinton name means. If the GOP continues to lose ground in 2014 because of the demographic gap then they are definitely going to try for a Rubio type person. He has the added bonus of being from Florida.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 22:26
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:And unless Hillary moves back to Arkansas, one you will never see. They can get KG an apartment in Jersey for a few months, it's very easy to circumvent the constitutional ineligibilty
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 22:27
|
|
|
serewit posted:They can get KG an apartment in Jersey for a few months, it's very easy to circumvent the constitutional ineligibilty Not plausible for a sitting officeholder, and I have no idea why you'd want her to give up a seat she should be in for the next 30 years barring election to a higher office. If someone's carpetbagging, it's Hillary (again).
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 22:28
|
|
|
I know everybody is crushing on Warren but her personality is just not well-suited to the national stage whatsoever. Besides, she's much more useful to the DNC as a liberal Senator in one of the safest Democratic seats that exist unless your name is Martha Coakley. There's no reason for her to go anywhere. If Romney won the election then I think it would be more likely to see the Democrats run a more aggressive partisan in 2016 like Cuomo, but at this point I'm gonna say that if Clinton decides to run, there's nobody who could oppose her. She's the only Democratic candidate in a post-Citizens United world that can raise Obama-level campaign money.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 22:29
|
|
|
Yiggy posted:Hillary is 45. Who could forget when Clinton was being inaugurated standing beside his bombshell wife, 25-year-old Hillary Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 22:33
|
|
|
JesusSinfulHands posted:...I suspect the female half (more than that, actually) of the Democratic Party will be highly motivated to put the first female president in the White House in 2016. This is why I'm very bullish on Gillibrand. Obviously if Clinton runs I think she'll get a lot of women voters instead of Gillibrand but if she declines I think Gillibrand is in a strong position due to her record in the Senate and general likability. I've had a very positive opinion of her every time I've seen her speak. I also think the institutional Democrats would be nuts not to get behind the first woman nominee after the party had such good success with the first black one (2010 excluded). Really I think the Democratic side is only interesting if both Biden and Clinton make the same decision about running. I worry about a Biden-Clinton primary, that could get long. I don't see it being as contested as Obama-Clinton though. As someone who was very Anti-Clinton in 08 I'd have no reservations about voting for her this time. Surprising what four years as Secretary of State and doing an awesome job with it did to my opinions. However if she ran against Biden it'd be a very tough call. I also have no clue who Obama would endorse in that scenario. Maybe neither?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 22:34
|
|
|
Cabinet level appointees are exempt from the Hatch Act. Which makes me wonder, does Sebelius have any ambitions? She left a good job as Governor to work for Obama after all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 22:37
|
|
|
That DICK! posted:Who could forget when Clinton was being inaugurated standing beside his bombshell wife, 25-year-old Hillary Clinton. They meant "president # 45", as in "the president that comes after the 44th"
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 22:37
|
|
|
axeil posted:This is why I'm very bullish on Gillibrand. Obviously if Clinton runs I think she'll get a lot of women voters instead of Gillibrand but if she declines I think Gillibrand is in a strong position due to her record in the Senate and general likability. I've had a very positive opinion of her every time I've seen her speak. I also think the institutional Democrats would be nuts not to get behind the first woman nominee after the party had such good success with the first black one (2010 excluded). If I recall correctly, the sitting President can't get involved in the primary process of his/her own party, publicly at least. Reagan in his memoirs said that during the 1988 Republican primary, he had to keep silent even though he privately wanted Bush Sr to get it. After Bush Sr got it, though, he immediately started campaigning for him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 22:38
|
|
|
exquisite tea posted:If Romney won the election then I think it would be more likely to see the Democrats run a more aggressive partisan in 2016 like Cuomo, but at this point I'm gonna say that if Clinton decides to run, there's nobody who could oppose her. She's the only Democratic candidate in a post-Citizens United world that can raise Obama-level campaign money. Cuomo's entire gimmick is that he's a post-partisan compromiser who can get things done with Republicans. Many of these things, especially on the economic side, were bitterly opposed by his own base. The worst thing that happened for Cuomo 2016 is that the Republicans have lost the New York Senate, so he no longer has someone to compromise with.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 22:38
|
|
|
axeil posted:However if she ran against Biden it'd be a very tough call. I also have no clue who Obama would endorse in that scenario. Maybe neither? From an article in October about the Clintons from noted insider John Heilemann: quote:But whatever the reality, this will not be a stance she’ll be able to maintain for long. Within months of her departure from the State Department early next year, the pressure for a yea or nay will begin to mount. And it will only be made more severe by the fact that Obama, in the words of one Democratic panjandrum, “couldn’t possibly be more disengaged from the question of party succession—he just doesn’t give a poo poo.” I can believe this because that is the most Obama thing http://nymag.com/news/politics/elections-2012/bill-hillary-clinton-2012-10/#print
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 22:39
|
|
|
Russ Feingold was a Senator from Wisconsin; OP lists him as from MN... I'd watch out for maybe a pick of Gavin Newsom, the Mayor of San Fran, as VP or even Julian Castro. Maybe Schweitzer. Probably someone like Cuomo or Clinton at the top of the ticket. Biden? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 22:44
|
|
|
quote:quote: This really disappoints me. Obama should care about who comes after him, party-wise. Then again, this sort of makes sense - Obama has always conveyed that he's the kind of politician and president that sees the best in his opponents, so he may very well think that if a Republican is elected in 2016, they'll put the best interests of the country first above their own party interests and ideology. Thing is, he could be wrong. Nevertheless, I still think that a Democratic President, or even a Republican President for that matter, should be engaged with the matter of and care about who comes after him/her. Renzian fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Nov 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 22:44
|
|
|
sullat posted:Cabinet level appointees are exempt from the Hatch Act. Ah you appear to be correct.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 22:44
|
|
|
Bread Zeppelin posted:If I wanted to run for president, I'd want to keep my high-level government position to stay in the public's consciousness. There will be a generation of first-time voters in 2016 who won't have any knowledge of what the Clinton name means. This is wrong because: - If she declares she will do it at the end of 2014/beginning of 2015. 2 years is not a generation. Mitt Romney stopped being governor 5 years ago. -Secretary of state is a full time job and she cannot campaign across the states when she is working overseas. She would have to resign, so may as well do it now. -The Clintons know how to stay in the public consciousness. Bill stopped being president 11 years ago. Brigadier Sockface fucked around with this message at 22:58 on Nov 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 22:55
|
|
|
JesusSinfulHands posted:In the right situation I could see Schweitzer having a decent shot, because he could easily unite the working class + liberal netroots coalition, which precious Democratic politicians are capable of doing. I mean the main reason Obama won the nomination (besides the decent levels of institutional support that Joememtum referred to) over the preferred choice of most of the rich Democratic donors was his ability to unite the liberal netroots/blacks/young voters, compared to the liberal favorites of years past with limited appeal elsewhere (Hart/Bradley/Dean/etc). Schweitzer has a similar broad appeal in the primaries and in the national election could even make states like the Dakotas, Missouri, and Indiana competitive. Honestly, I doubt he'd be able to beat a Governor or Senator from a large state (Cuomo, Clinton, maybe Deval Patrick?) because of the superdelegate format. I wish Baucus would retire and let Schweitzer take his seat in the Senate. That wold make for an awesome, rural duo for MT: the awesome scientist with the bolo tie and dogs and the Big Bopper. Consensus among my MD friends is that O'Malley can't give very good speeches and is sorta like a Mitch Daniels in that he's completely lost in a crowd, Wire or not. Charisma isn't his strong point, and he'd need it to stand out. Mark Warner wants to be President, of that I'm pretty sure. I like the guy. He made a serious effort to build goodwill in every part of Virginia. I mean, even the rural coal country went for him in 2001 and 2008. He has tons of political capital and money. He has progressive values, but he comes from the business world, so ultimately he's used to negotiating a very middle-of-the-road settlement. The activist base will hate him for his work in the Senate on a "grand bargain," but my hope is that he leaves that office to come back and be Governor, since that's a better platform to run for President on. He seemed to enjoy that job more (consecutive terms aren't allowed in VA) and actually accomplished a lot on improving education with a GOP state house. A very Clinton-like character politically, without the baggage. He'd be a shoo-in for at least a very Obama-looking electoral map. However, he too would lose the charisma game. sullat posted:Cabinet level appointees are exempt from the Hatch Act. Her career has to be dead. She wouldn't get anywhere as a candidate, and back in KS (say for Senate) she'd be toxic for basically running Obamacare (at least in the near-future).
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 23:15
|
|
|
De Nomolos posted:Mark Warner wants to be President, of that I'm pretty sure. I like the guy. He made a serious effort to build goodwill in every part of Virginia. I mean, even the rural coal country went for him in 2001 and 2008. He has tons of political capital and money. He has progressive values, but he comes from the business world, so ultimately he's used to negotiating a very middle-of-the-road settlement. The activist base will hate him for his work in the Senate on a "grand bargain," but my hope is that he leaves that office to come back and be Governor, since that's a better platform to run for President on. He seemed to enjoy that job more (consecutive terms aren't allowed in VA) and actually accomplished a lot on improving education with a GOP state house. A very Clinton-like character politically, without the baggage. He'd be a shoo-in for at least a very Obama-looking electoral map. However, he too would lose the charisma game. I hear his lackluster 2008 speech slowed down his political momentum a lot too. Then again, Clinton recovered from that kind of setback pretty well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 23:19
|
|
|
sullat posted:Which makes me wonder, does Sebelius have any ambitions? She left a good job as Governor to work for Obama after all. Also, it strikes me that 2016 is probably a losing year for the Democrats. Americans are restless children with short attention spans; the only presidents who successfully passed on the mantle to their partymates after serving two terms were Reagan and FDR, and I don't think that Obama or the Democratic party are going to have the support in 2016 that was present in 1984 or 1944. It also looks like the GOP bench will be somewhat deeper, with a wider spread of governors to choose from. I expect we'll see Hillary Clinton run without much 'old party' opposition (Biden might run but that would be a disastrous primary, and he'd lose), but maybe against a few up and coming progressive faces who'll make their names known nationally before ceding the field. Though I doubt she'll win, Clinton is the obvious choice - there aren't a lot of Democrats who don't love her, and it would turn out the base like gangbusters. That's all coming straight out of my rear end, admittedly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 23:29
|
|
|
Mark Warner would have a very hard time winning the Democratic nomination, which is why he didn't run in 2008. He's a B-list choice for the replacement Clinton figure in the race if she does not run. Tim Kaine is a much better fit for a national ticket even though he's perpetually in Warner's shadow in Virginia.Bass Concert Hall posted:Also, it strikes me that 2016 is probably a losing year for the Democrats. Most of the smart folks seem to think that the economy is going to boom over the next four years just as a rebound. 2016 could very well be a Democratic romp in that case.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 23:34
|
|
|
Clinton's age has been mentioned as a stumbling block in her candidacy. If she runs, gets elected, and serves two terms, she'll be 77 when she leaves office. What are the odds on her dying in office? Yeah, Reagan was 78 when he left, but there's the rumors that he was senile in his final days in the White House and plus, with that kind of age, it's just up in the air. I mean, 77 is really up there, in my opinion. If she does run, I think her choice for VP will be very important as that'll be a safeguard for the country in the event of her dying in office.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 23:46
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:Most of the smart folks seem to think that the economy is going to boom over the next four years just as a rebound. 2016 could very well be a Democratic romp in that case. It's not out of the question by any means, but it's a big if that primarily depends on whether Europe stays afloat or if Greece finally brings it down.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 23:48
|
|
|
So, does anyone else have some awful, horrible feeling of wrongness in the pit of their stomach when people talk about the 2016 election a day after this one ended? Couldn't there be just a tiny amount of rest now that it's over and they can actually get back to their work?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 23:53
|
|
|
On the Democratic side, I can easily see it being Clinton/Biden/Warren. In that configuration, I think that Warren has the advantage as the establishment would be split between Clinton and Biden, and Warren could capture the liberal and youth voters. In that situation, assuming the Democratic establishment really doesn't want Warren, they would have to force either Clinton or Biden to drop early, which could get ugly as they both have significant bases of support and have no interest in consolation prizes. As for the Republicans, the nomination is Romney's if he wants it. You can't buy the presidency, but you can buy the Republican nomination, and I don't see anyone being able to outspend Romney for it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 23:56
|
|
|
Bread Zeppelin posted:Hillary is stepping down in January and I think what she does with her time between then and 2015 is going to determine what her presidential aspirations are. If I wanted to run for president, I'd want to keep my high-level government position to stay in the public's consciousness. There will be a generation of first-time voters in 2016 who won't have any knowledge of what the Clinton name means. Are you insane? if theres one thing the Clintons are great at its maintaining the Clinton brand, also it'll only have been a few years. If she wants the nomination I can't imagine she won't get it. In a world where she doesn't run I think we're looking at Biden/O'Malley/Cuomo. Don't discount for a second how badly New York media/donors/power brokers long for a New York candidate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 23:56
|
|
|
Ra Ra Rasputin posted:So, does anyone else have some awful, horrible feeling of wrongness in the pit of their stomach when people talk about the 2016 election a day after this one ended? No, endless election seasons for everybody!
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 23:58
|
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Rubio, endorsed by Rush Limbaugh, in a drug induced haze. After ann coulter's meltdown on the Sean hanitty show, I think the republican party is in trouble.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 23:58
|
|
|
I like Schweitzer because yes, he's a progressive. But if you buy the appeal of politics as a spectator sport, he has a very different brand and character from Obama. Obama had 'cool' which rallied people to his cause, but didn't play well outside the cities. Schweitzer can throw out a 'good old boy' character (much like G.W. Bush had) and lure the southern states away from the republicans, and tempt them with the sweet temptation of progress. If he's a true progressive, the typical blue states will rally behind him anyway. There's the matter of if he can sell it, though. If he can, he has a strong narrative advantage, putting progressivism in an appealing package for the Carolinas and Arkansas or whatever. Hillary or Joe get first dibs, of course. Joe Biden reminds me of pro wrestler Diamond Dallas Page and the stories behind him. DDP is regarded as one of the nicest guys in the pro wrestling business(a business, much like politics, full of utter assholes), goes out of his way to help people, etc. But he's an utter egomaniac, putting himself over at every turn. Biden loves Biden, and although Biden is a nice guy with no filter(I actually love the assessment that Biden is basically Todd Akin or Richard Mourdock if they actually believed in poo poo that wasn't reprehensible), Biden is also an egomaniac. Biden thinks Biden is awesome, and if Biden thinks he can become president, he's running at 73. I just hope it's not Cuomo. He'll be like the Democrat Romney - we'll probably end up begrudgingly accepting him because it turns out O'Malley develops a med addiction, Deval Patrick thinks George Bush did 9/11, and Kristen Gillibrand has 'migraines' and runs off the Debate stage a lot. The GOP is too early to call. Is the response that Mitt Romney just wasn't conservative enough? Do they try to fan the flames of white dude anger even more? Do they try to court the hispanics to their cause? Do they have an epiphany and actually try to go the moderate route instead of simply obstructionist? If so, see: Appeal to Fascism More: Santorum 2016 Love Us, Hispanics: Marco Rubio 2016 Epiphany, stop being obstructionist: Chris Christie 2016 The also-rans of 2012 I think are unlikely. Bachmann can barely hold onto her congressional seat, Cain has found his calling is avant garde political comedy, Gingrich might run if it'll sell his next book, Perry will probably still have 'Oops' hanging over his head. Paul has said he's done, although he will be written in on ballots hundreds of years from now even as people forget who he is. Santorum needs the Tea Party to be strong, and if they go, he goes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 00:03
|
|
|
In Iowa, today was blessed. No more pollsters. No more canvassing. No more idiotic billboards. Peace and quiet, for the first time in 16 months. And we're only a short time away from it starting again. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 00:07
|
|
|
R.A. Dickey posted:Are you insane? if theres one thing the Clintons are great at its maintaining the Clinton brand, also it'll only have been a few years. If she wants the nomination I can't imagine she won't get it. In a world where she doesn't run I think we're looking at Biden/O'Malley/Cuomo. Don't discount for a second how badly New York media/donors/power brokers long for a New York candidate. There's going to be a hell of a subprimary going on for at least the next two or three years between Cuomo and Gillibrand to become that candidate when the next non-Hillary election arises.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 00:15
|
|
|
If I had to bet I would say, Hillary-Christie would be the most likely choice at this point. I think Hillary is the only real first tier possible nominee, and everything is in place for a fairly smooth victory. Keeping quiet until 2015 would take the aura of "inevitability" away and Obama at least gave a little space to the whole political dynasty-monarchy thing people were so worried about in 2008. It is going to be almost 16 years since Bill left office, not long enough to forget the Clinton administration but long enough it isn't "too soon" for another Clinton. I think Biden will be talked out of a run, or if he does, it is going to be a short one. Biden did a good job this election, but I don't think he has the type of support for a real run. As others have said, there is a very strong chance for a strong run from a progressive/left liberal candidate. I think Hillary is going to realize this ahead of time and curry as much support she can get from that wing so she doesn't get hit with another Obama. To be honest, Hillary economically is left of Obama for the most part if she brought up a public opinion and a couple other goodies, I think she would do okay. Christie as we discussed is a good speaker, is more conservative than Romney.govenor.exe but not that conservative especially socially. The fat thing could go away if he wanted to, and he could make fitness a useful nonthreatening talking point. I think things are going to be still bitter from 2012 from the Tea-Party wing and he is going to have a contested primary and he is certainly going to be saddled with a evangelical/tea party VP. At this point, the Republicans have to run a centrist candidate and a VP candidate that is to the right of the party.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 00:17
|
|
|
Wheresmy5bucks posted:The GOP is too early to call. Is the response that Mitt Romney just wasn't conservative enough? Do they try to fan the flames of white dude anger even more? Do they try to court the hispanics to their cause? Do they have an epiphany and actually try to go the moderate route instead of simply obstructionist? If so, see: I think a couple of the has-rans from 2008 are going to poke their heads up... Well, Huckabee at any rate. I don't think Guiliani or Thompson are coming back, and I think Ron Paul is done after this year.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 00:18
|
|
|
Konstantin posted:As for the Republicans, the nomination is Romney's if he wants it. You can't buy the presidency, but you can buy the Republican nomination, and I don't see anyone being able to outspend Romney for it. Nobody is going to want Romney again, they barely pushed him out the door in 2012 after cycling through literally every other GOP candidate. Despite Obama consistently polling ahead of the Republican field most conservatives believed this would be an easy one-term upset in a down economy, and when the other shoe drops Romney will receive the bulk of that blame.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 00:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 21:01 |
|
|
I could see Warren as a great way to keep a lot of the young liberal base of the Democratic Party and get more younger voters to stick around and keep voting; it seems like most of her most ardent supporters are quite young and extremely socially liberal. On a realistic side, Biden would be a very logical choice and would probably get a lot of support. I'd love to see Hillary Clinton also, and any combination of these three would be a pretty awesome ticket. It's about time the Democrats seriously ran a female candidate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 00:24
|
|
