|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 13:13 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
The idea that running Rubio would somehow win back the hearts and minds of Latino voters is absurd, though I wouldn't put it past the Republicans to assume this. If the RNC platform remains as nativist as it stands currently, then Latinos won't suddenly be fooled into thinking Rubio is fighting for them because he's got a Spanish last name. Additionally, Latinos are not a solitary voting bloc, and most come from a cultural heritage and privilege very different from Cuban-Americans. To think you can run the same bigoted policies out there and cut significantly into the minority vote because it's stamped with a big fat Rubio is cynical, to say the least. And I think it's even more cynical to suggest Latino voters will be fooled.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2012 15:03
|
|
|
Clinton seems like a plausible nominee but Jeb Bush has just got to be name recognition/Bill Kristol's perverted fantasy, right?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2012 17:33
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:It was fairly obvious that the Clinton campaign was put together mostly as a formality without a whole lot of effort on details. No one in that primary group was supposed to supplant her, Obama was just a bright star and they most likely convinced themselves that he was out for facetime on a later run. Of course, in hindsight, that was a hell of a miscalculation and it turns out that Obama came out to be one of the smartest campaigners the Democratic party has ever seen, so yeah, they really weren't equipped for that fight. This is my feeling as well. Clinton had a lot of smart people working for her in 2008 and more money than God, but didn't expect Obama to be a serious challenge and more critically didn't learn from her mistakes as fast as Obama did. If she chose to run again I think it'd be an easy nomination this time, as she's the only non-Obama member of the Democratic Party who can raise as much money, the Clinton memory is stronger than ever, and her vote on the Iraq War is a non-factor now.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2012 15:18
|
|
|
The best thing you can say about Paul Ryan is that he wasn't as big of a disaster as Sarah Palin. His visibility outside of conservative fundraisers and getting schooled by Joe Biden was so low that Romney may as well have run alone.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2012 16:26
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:As far as Biden vs. Clinton, I suspect Clinton would just get a lot more support by default and I think Biden is just too old whereas Clinton is just borderline too old. I'm hoping that the Biden or Clinton issue works itself out in private beforehand because I think Obama owes Clinton a ton of support in 2016 should she run, and it would be very difficult if he had to publicly choose between his running mate and Clinton in a primary. I don't think it will ever come down to Clinton vs. Biden in the primary, but it would be very easy for Obama to say "they're both great candidates and I'll leave it to our voters to decide." His ability to support either in the general is obviously going to depend on what's happening in the world four years from now, and whether he's got the interest or the drive to campaign again. Beyond Obama and the Clintons, there's nobody in the Democratic Party right now who can raise such obscene levels of money.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2012 21:42
|
|
|
Randallteal posted:I'd add Secretary of State. Six of them became presidents, and possibly a seventh soon. Again, there's a small sample size for Mayor. Only four presidents even ran for the mayorship, and three won their races (TR ran in NYC and lost). All of them eventually held higher office before they ran for president. I wouldn't discount any mayor winning directly from that position but it would certainly most have to be from a huge city like New York or Chicago. Basically if you think that Schweitzer is qualified to run being Governor of Montana, you have to say the same of Bloomberg for actually managing an area where people live. Giuliani was a horrible candidate and human being in general so that's not a weakness of the office altogether.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2012 15:23
|
|
|
menino posted:Could Castro really jump up that quickly? Isn't he kind of limited in terms of larger state-wide office by being in Texas? I think it's just wishful thinking at the moment, you need to do a little more than Mayor of San Antonio to line up a presidential run. That being said if Castro could snag an upset win for Governor, Senate, even Congress, it would be a big political victory and bolster his hopes at winning the 2024 primary or whenever.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2013 20:36
|
|
|
I remember reading some '08 postmortem with Plouffe or Axelrod about how they really were putting all their election hopes on Iowa, which may or may not be an exaggeration, but in retrospect I think you can say that Obama needed a win in IA way more than Hillary, who was playing the inevitability game. While it's certainly true that Obama didn't come out of nowhere and had plausible party support prior to the Democratic primary, he really did need Iowa to raise his profile as a credible alternative to Clinton. I guess what I'm trying to say is that while Iowa is not the end-all-be-all of presidential elections, it is still really important!
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2013 16:30
|
|
|
jackofarcades posted:Virginia's a swing state! VP Terry McAullife Ugh that's actually kind of likely isn't it.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2013 12:19
|
|
|
Assuming Clinton runs and has a fairly easy primary, she would have no reason in my mind to select a running mate outside the Clintonland establishment, anyway. The actual impact of a VP on their home state is undeniably tempting, though -- look at the impact Paul Ryan made in Wisconsin.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2013 13:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 13:13 |
|
|
The last vice presidential pick who helped carry an otherwise unusual state for the party was Al Gore in 1992/6, and even then Clinton likely would have won in TN anyway. I get the feeling that if VP nominations mattered so much, we'd see picks in battleground states every election. Instead most in the past 30 years have come from safely blue/red states and have been mostly about image and/or broadening a candidate's appeal.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2013 16:55
|
|