|
Unless all the economists are wrong, the democrat will be riding a huge economic wave into the next election, and should be the odds-on favourite to win it. If Hillary chooses to run, she'll have the primary sewn up and an extremely high probability of winning the general. (Then America can discover, as Australia has, just how much latent misogyny exists in their country). While I have a lot of affection for Biden, I find it hard to get excited about him as president, and hard to imagine him getting a huge groundswell of support. Warren would be insane to run and people should honestly stop talking about it. It's a bad idea and anyone around her with a lick of sense will tell her so. It is nice to see at least three women being discussed as potential candidates though.
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 00:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 17:24 |
|
|
I echo the idea that Warren does not have anywhere near the charisma to run for president. I take Clinton at her word she doesn't want it. I can't imagine having the energy for that kind of job at drat near 70. That's the same reason I don't see Biden really running. Schweitzer would be good. Warner or Cuomo probably have it. The GOP should nominate Rubio. If they nominate Rubio, and he moderates his positions slightly, they win. Otherwise, they lose.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 00:45
|
|
|
sullat posted:Cabinet level appointees are exempt from the Hatch Act. Her demeanor makes her look like her biggest ambition is to make it to her bed for a nap. (Seriously, every time I've seen her speak reminds me of that old SCTV skit about Perry Como lying on the couch while singing.) Dusseldorf posted: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? I've seen grudging admiration toward her from the right--up till Benghazi (and that won't shake out till the investigations and hearings are completed). But in 2008, the worst of the Hillary Hate came from Obama supporters, who regurgitated a lot of the right-wing crap toward Hillary from the 1990s. (I'm not saying that hate wouldn't have ended up coming from the right if she'd been the nominee; only pointing out how the Obama campaign cannily seized on what was the '90s GOP hatred to help destroy her.) In any case, her pre-Benghazi approvals were at an all-time high, and I agree with others who say the nomination is hers if she wants it. (Even though I voted for her as a LOTE in 2008, I'd much rather see someone outside of the DLC circles run and win. But the party has shifted so far to the right since Dean ran in 2004 I can't see anyone remotely progressive having a chance at the nomination, especially since, as Joementum pointed out, it's party leaders like Reid handpicking candidates behind closed doors, as they did with Obama, then putting the party muscle behind them.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 00:52
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted: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. Oh totally, if i were forced to guess at this point I'd probably pick Cuomo but I'm in no way sure...only because he's nine years older really. Also I'm a little more bearish on Dem 2016 chances than most so I'm not completely sure someone like Gillibrand wouldn't wait until 2020. She has plenty of time, and it wouldn't hurt her to stay in the Senate for another term.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 01:01
|
|
|
What's the possibility of a Clinton/Warren ticket?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 01:02
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:What's the possibility of a Clinton/Warren ticket? Very low. Cynically I don't two women on the ticket is a great idea and logically I think Warren can much better serve the party as a lifelong Senator from Massachusetts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 01:05
|
|
|
Yeah, there is way too much money in politics at this point for someone that actually wants to change things to get real institutional support. At least, progressives and young liberals could back a candidate and force the centerist whomever they may be to pander to them and maybe get a VP they like. Granted, I wonder what the big lure for progressives is going to be in 2016 since they used up taxes and gay marriage and no way are they going to push weed. I guess they could do climate change but that isn't really something you can run a campaign on (especially in Ohio/Pennslvania). There will probably be a compromise for amnesty by then so I guess it might be something health-care related or they could try for a triple by promising not to continue the Bush tax cuts. I guess Warren could throw her hat into the ring as a symbolic gesture, but I think Senator is the best it is going to get for her in today's Democratic party.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 01:06
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:What's the possibility of a Clinton/Warren ticket? Warren's chances of being on the ticket are entirely coextensive with her pulling off an insurgent primary from the left in a muddled field. So, not very good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 01:08
|
|
|
I completely agree with everyone saying that Warren shouldn't run since she lacks charisma and presence for POTUS. Hillary is the odds on favorite, with Cuomo and Patrick as the ones who would fight it out should she choose not to run. Feingold I don't think wants to run again since he's working on getting v. United overturned full time. Booker has a lazy eye and hasn't won a state wide election while Biden I think is a bit too old for the seat since he will be 2 years older than Reagan when he takes office so that means almost a full second term being senile where Hillary will miss out on that by a year. No matter what though I think Schweitzer should totally be on the ticket of whoever makes it to the main event so he gets some national exposure and if that ticket wins (which it really should unless Europe falls or Major War) it will prime him for 2024. On the GOP side... really it all depends on if they double down on the crazy where you're looking at Bachmann, Palin, Paul, Perry, Ryan, or Santorum or if they actually pull their head out of their rear end (lol) you're looking at Jeb, Christie, Huntsman, McDonnell, Pawlenty, Rubio, or Walker. Out of all of them only Christie, Huntsman, and Rubio would be able to squeak out a win against Cuomo or Patrick since everyone on both sides would get slaughtered by Hillary.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 01:11
|
|
|
^^^ I'd bet anything that Rubio or Martinez or any other Latino is on the GOP ticket, prolly as veep, given current demographics of the country and given that 75 percent of yesterday's Latino vote went to Obama.Ardennes posted:Yeah, there is way too much money in politics at this point for someone that actually wants to change things to get real institutional support. At least, progressives and young liberals could back a candidate and force the centerist whomever they may be to pander to them and maybe get a VP they like. Dems will just continue to trot out their War on Women rhetoric, as they do every 4 years, and "progressives" will fall in line, as they do every 4 years. SCOTUS and repro rights has been a scare-meme since 1980 and will continue to be a scare-meme till Dem presidents have replaced all 5 conservatives on the Court. quote:There will probably be a compromise for amnesty by then so I guess it might be something health-care related or they could try for a triple by promising not to continue the Bush tax cuts. The "Bush" tax cuts that are due to elapse at the end of this year? Nah, by then a Grand Bargain will have passed and lowered all the rates in exchange for pushing back Medicare eligibility to age 67. I'd reckon the 2016 Dem fights will be all about continuing the subsidies to private insurers with taxpayers' money, given that PPACA caps individual costs while not constraining insurance costs. vvv Because she had a lock on 2008 before Reid and Daschle convinced Obama to run. Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 01:19 on Nov 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 01:15
|
|
|
Why is it that everyone instantly assumes Clinton has the lock on every other candidate? If Obama taught us anything, it's that prior experience in this party means nothing. Personally, I think her foreign policy in Syria and Egypt has been awful, and Deval Patrick gave a better speech at the DNC than she's ever given. It's a little premature to think she's got this all wrapped up so early. Juan Castro has to be in the talk as the guy of the future as well. Probably not 2016, but I think he and Patrick are the two most promising people in the party today.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 01:17
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:On the GOP side... really it all depends on if they double down on the crazy where you're looking at Bachmann, Palin, Paul, Perry, Ryan, or Santorum or if they actually pull their head out of their rear end (lol) you're looking at Jeb, Christie, Huntsman, McDonnell, Pawlenty, Rubio, or Walker. Out of all of them only Christie, Huntsman, and Rubio would be able to squeak out a win against Cuomo or Patrick since everyone on both sides would get slaughtered by Hillary. Huntsman is more likely to get another appointment from Obama than he is to be the Republican presidential nominee in 2016. There's a fairly long list of plausible nominees at this point, he isn't one of them. Volkerball posted:Why is it that everyone instantly assumes Clinton has the lock on every other candidate? If Obama taught us anything, it's that prior experience in this party means nothing. Personally, I think her foreign policy in Syria and Egypt has been awful, and Deval Patrick gave a better speech at the DNC than she's ever given. It's a little premature to think she's got this all wrapped up so early. Universal name recognition and incredible popularity. She came very close in 2008 against one of the best candidates in recent memory, and that was with so-so popularity. She'll nearly clear the field just by announcing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 01:17
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Why is it that everyone instantly assumes Clinton has the lock on every other candidate? If Obama taught us anything, it's that prior experience in this party means nothing. Personally, I think her foreign policy in Syria and Egypt has been awful, and Deval Patrick gave a better speech at the DNC than she's ever given. It's a little premature to think she's got this all wrapped up so early. Juan Castro has to be in the talk as the guy of the future as well. Probably not 2016, but I think he and Patrick are the two most promising people in the party today. You think wrongly. The general consensus is she's been an excellent SoS, and that really filled the only hole in her game last time, the lack of experience. If she wants it, its hers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 01:22
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:Huntsman is more likely to get another appointment from Obama than he is to be the Republican presidential nominee in 2016. There's a fairly long list of plausible nominees at this point, he isn't one of them. Is there any precedent for losing as badly as he did this time around and getting the nomination next time? I'm not sure he isn't worse off now than he was before. Also he kind of needs a job a this point, and as you point out, if that job comes in the form of an Obama nomination he can immediately be crossed off.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 01:23
|
|
Volkerball posted:Why is it that everyone instantly assumes Clinton has the lock on every other candidate? If Obama taught us anything, it's that prior experience in this party means nothing. Personally, I think her foreign policy in Syria and Egypt has been awful, and Deval Patrick gave a better speech at the DNC than she's ever given. It's a little premature to think she's got this all wrapped up so early. Juan Castro has to be in the talk as the guy of the future as well. Probably not 2016, but I think he and Patrick are the two most promising people in the party today. Obama is not a counterexample, he is an extreme outlier in the political world. Obama's do not come along every day. Comparing his campaigning skills with anyone else is like comparing a professional sport with the farm league, and the technical aspects of his campaigns are the primary reason he won the 08 primary and a large part of his victory yesterday. 312 fucked around with this message at 01:49 on Nov 8, 2012 |
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 01:46
|
|
|
R.A. Dickey posted:Is there any precedent for losing as badly as he did this time around and getting the nomination next time? I'm not sure he isn't worse off now than he was before. Also he kind of needs a job a this point, and as you point out, if that job comes in the form of an Obama nomination he can immediately be crossed off. Dole got waxed really badly in 1980, probably a little worse than Huntsman all things considered, then won Iowa in 1988, and ultimately the presidential nomination on his third trip in 1996. I think he's the only one since the advent of the primary season. And it's not just that Huntsman lost in rather embarrassing fashion, it's that he spent the rest of the election season bashing the party after a tepid endorsement and went off and joined Brookings. That's not something you do in preparation for another run, at least not another run as a Republican.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 01:47
|
|
|
Huntsman had three big problems this time: 1. He had been appointed to a position by the opposition incumbent. 2. There was little difference between him and Romney, except Romney had much more money. 3. He was running as a moderate in a primary that was defined by the conservative extreme of the party. 1 and 2 will not be issues should he decide to run again in 2016. 3 may very well still be an issue. That's something we'll have to wait and see. Right now, Huntsman is sitting around being the head of a think tank and collecting speaking fees. That doesn't indicate that he'd run again, but watch out if he starts some initiative or foundation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 01:58
|
|
|
I highly doubt Rubio will be the 2016 ballot, he's a love child for the Republicans, but a bastard one, and he's way to divisive for the party right now. If he was a bit more moderate, he'd be a good pick, but as he's he's way too right for any real chance of victory. If they wanted to play the smart card, they'd bring in Jeb or George P ( 40 in 2016, party darling, beloved by pretty much every Republican, and still "white" while appealing to the Latino demographic. ) and play up the wife/mother was Latino bit, while playing up how Obama hasn't "fixed" Immigration yet, and how it was the GOP who voted in PR, not the Dems. That would give them a ton of extra votes from the Latino block, while simultaneously not having to do anything to upset their base. And Jeb/George could guarantee Red Florida, which would mean any Dem candidate would have an uphill battle from day 1. That's the smart card of course, they'll likely push Rubio as hard as they possibly can, and collapse again under the weight of nonsense tea party platforms, since they don't seem to "get" the smart plan, but it is a possibility. The big issue in my mind for a 2016 election is the lack of a strong Dem candidate outside of Biden and Hilary, and well, Biden and Hilary. Both are party darlings, both have the experience, and both have the money to pull off an election, but if they campaign against each other, it'll be a bloodbath for the Dems, they couldn't afford that kind of party infighting, even if the economy does a complete turnabout under Obama.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 02:09
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Huntsman had three big problems this time: Right, but now there's: 4.) He's a badly beaten loser from the previous cycle. 5.) He immediately went back to collaborating with the enemy after he got shellacked in New Hampshire. 6.) It's difficult to imagine the field being weak enough for random gadflies to become frontrunners based on a strong showing in the most recent seven dwarfs debate again. The reasons he was an implausible nominee in 2012 aren't exactly the same as the reasons he's an implausible nominee in 2016, but if anything the 2016 reasons are stronger.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 02:12
|
|
|
Rookersh posted:If they wanted to play the smart card, they'd bring in Jeb or George P ( 40 in 2016, party darling, beloved by pretty much every Republican, and still "white" while appealing to the Latino demographic. ) and play up the wife/mother was Latino bit, while playing up how Obama hasn't "fixed" Immigration yet, and how it was the GOP who voted in PR, not the Dems. That would give them a ton of extra votes from the Latino block, while simultaneously not having to do anything to upset their base. And Jeb/George could guarantee Red Florida, which would mean any Dem candidate would have an uphill battle from day 1.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 02:14
|
|
|
I definitely agree that Huntsman'd be in the second (or third) tier immediately in 2016, even if 4 wasn't quite so bad and if 5 didn't exist. He just doesn't excite the Republican id in ways that other, better qualified candidates do, which is why I'm betting 3 will still be a problem for him even if the Tea Party isn't a factor in 2016.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 02:16
|
|
|
George P. Bush hasn't done anything of note really ever and is currently debating a run for Texas Attorney General. He's several cycles away from even being a national figure, let alone on a ticket.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 02:16
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Right now, Huntsman is sitting around being the head of a think tank and collecting speaking fees. That doesn't indicate that he'd run again, but watch out if he starts some initiative or foundation. I don't think he's the head of anything actually, seems like he just does speeches. Even if he was though, being the head of Brookings specifically wouldn't do him any favors at all in a Republican primary.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 02:23
|
|
|
R.A. Dickey posted:Don't discount for a second how badly New York media/donors/power brokers long for a New York candidate. I do feel absolutely confident in predicting that one half of the eventual P/VP nomination ticket will hail from New York.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 02:24
|
|
|
R.A. Dickey posted:I don't think he's the head of anything actually, seems like he just does speeches. Even if he was though, being the head of Brookings specifically wouldn't do him any favors at all in a Republican primary. He's the chair of the Huntsman Cancer Institute, the project his father started to give away of all his money while curing cancer. He's also a distinguished fellow at Brookings, which will be an anchor around his neck in any future Republican endeavors.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 02:27
|
|
|
I figure Clinton runs because nobody in Washington could turn down such a great shot at becoming President. Is there any chance Deval Patrick goes for John Kerry's Senate seat?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 02:46
|
|
|
I don't think Clinton will run...I wish she would. If she does, it's her's for the taking. I love Biden, but he's not gonna be president...I just can't see it happening for him. Warren shouldn't run - she is more valuable in that senate seat and like someone else said, she can probably pick her successor when the time comes. Cuomo is an obvious choice, paired with Deval Patrick perhaps? Honestly though, I think a run from Schweitzer would be really interesting. As a bleeding heart liberal, he's not my favorite choice, but I think he could completely shake up the electoral math like we haven't seen in a long time. Paired with Gillibrand, I would be pretty interested to see how that election goes. Dems are notably lacking any Latino candidates from what I can see...interesting. Still waiting for some moderate democrat from texas to come gently caress up the electoral math something fierce. I still don't know if I can see the GOP base getting behind a laytino candidate in the primaries, but they are morons if they don't run Rubio as either P or VP. I still wonder why Romney didn't stick him on as the VP, and if there is something in his closet that would keep him from running. Chris Christie is another good choice, but running anyone that smells anything like GWB (including Rice) would be a big mistake. It looks like they have a deeper bench than the dems, but most of those people aren't really viable candidates in a primary.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 02:53
|
|
|
I've considered that the real surprise the Democrats could throw at the Republicans is a Woman/Woman ticket. Something like Hillary Clinton/Wasserman Schultz. Super duper surprise option Clinton/Obama (Michelle) [yes this is a joke] I mean the Dems can really dominate with that ticket if they undertake immigration reform before the Republicans grapple with it. Shammypants fucked around with this message at 03:01 on Nov 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 02:55
|
|
|
marchantia posted:Dems are notably lacking any Latino candidates from what I can see...interesting. Still waiting for some moderate democrat from texas to come gently caress up the electoral math something fierce. The middle of the decade had some decent prospects but Bill Richardson fell apart and Ken Salazar is not a national level campaigner.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 03:15
|
|
|
Couple thoughts. First, if the radical right of the GOP wins the battle for the soul of the party and manages to get a Santorum-esque candidate nominated, do you think there would be room enough in the middle of the spectrum for Bloomberg to consider a run? A Blomberg/Huntsman ticket would be really attractive to moderates, I would have to think. Second, and thoughts on Mitch Daniels considering a run? He's the president here at Purdue starting January 1, but as a midwestern governor I could see him at least sending out feelers, depending on where the GOP is come 2014.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 03:31
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa might still think he can run for President, but unless one of the Castros catches fire or gets a nice appointment I think VP is the limit for any of the Latino Dems. Oh god how did I forget the vaguely creepy identical Castro brothers?! Castro/Castro 2024 
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 03:34
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:I figure Clinton runs because nobody in Washington could turn down such a great shot at becoming President. Well for one, Scott Brown might run for it as I hear he's looking for a job. Appointing Kerry essentially puts a solid Democrat Senate seat back in play when they're going to be lucky to have any sort of a majority in 2014 as it is. Two, I'm not positive John Kerry's a lock to take over Secretary of State. He's definitely the odds-on favorite but I could easily see Obama taking Susan Rice or even Tom Donilon. (Also as an aside I don't think it's good for Biden's health to run for POTUS so late in his life but if he does run I'm voting for him in a heartbeat) HOTLANTA MAN fucked around with this message at 03:39 on Nov 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 03:37
|
|
|
XyrlocShammypants posted:I've considered that the real surprise the Democrats could throw at the Republicans is a Woman/Woman ticket. Something like Hillary Clinton/Wasserman Schultz. Wasserman-Schultz being anywhere near the Dem ticket would get me to max out a donation to the RNC.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 03:38
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:On the GOP side... really it all depends on if they double down on the crazy where you're looking at Bachmann, Palin, Paul, Perry, Ryan, or Santorum or if they actually pull their head out of their rear end (lol) you're looking at Jeb, Christie, Huntsman, McDonnell, Pawlenty, Rubio, or Walker. Out of all of them only Christie, Huntsman, and Rubio would be able to squeak out a win against Cuomo or Patrick since everyone on both sides would get slaughtered by Hillary. I don't see much of a chance that the Republican base lets the party do anything but double down on crazy at the moment. Look what they've done to Republican Senate aspirations the last two cycles, and how desperately they looked for any level of crazy other than Romney. I guess maybe if Talk Radio decides that it's in their monetary interest to try and ease out of the crazy. However since history shows that the big Talk Radio money is in egging on the crazy, that's unlikely. The best hope for the Republican party is likely to be getting it's rear end spanked in 2016. That way in 2020 some portion of the Rascal Raiders will have gone on to the great Walmart in the sky, Latinos will have had time for their anger at calls for electrified walls with alligator moats to cool, and a new wave of socially moderate young Republicans could be ready to run. Or they could just toss a random Latino on the ticket and hope that proves they're totally pro Latino, please ignore the crazy things they continue to say and do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 04:00
|
|
|
Jindal is already getting touted again, despite the disaster that was his attempted gifted star-turn in 2009. Probably more a temporary clawing at anything that looks like it can reverse the awful demographic trends that are killing the GOP outside of gerrymandering in elections. Was he put back in the oven long enough to bake into a proper GOP candidate that can get out of the primaries much less stand a chance in the general?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 04:23
|
|
|
Well the Onion certainly has a good idea about who's running on the republican ticket in 2016.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 04:28
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:Huntsman is more likely to get another appointment from Obama than he is to be the Republican presidential nominee in 2016. There's a fairly long list of plausible nominees at this point, he isn't one of them. Huntsman is the "Dark Horse" candidate that if (and that's a huge bunch of if's like getting a weak field to go up against and a billionaire sugar daddy out of the gate to crush the opposition early) could actually make a solid GOP run based on triangulation from the right. I know full well that him being the nominee only has like a 5% chance of happening, but that 5% kinda scares me since after that it would be a true horse race. Same thing for Schweitzer though as far as actually getting the nomination in 16. I would put it at only a 5% chance but still everything that would cause him to get the nod are pretty much the exact same things that would give Huntsman the nod from the other side which is why I think they would make solid choices for the VP pick since they are pretty well respected across the isle and would flip a lot of the opposition party that feel marginalized.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 04:35
|
|
say no to bats posted:Jindal is already getting touted again, despite the disaster that was his attempted gifted star-turn in 2009. Probably more a temporary clawing at anything that looks like it can reverse the awful demographic trends that are killing the GOP outside of gerrymandering in elections. Really though, what the hell does Jindal have to offer?
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 04:38
|
|
|
ManifunkDestiny posted:Second, and thoughts on Mitch Daniels considering a run? He's the president here at Purdue starting January 1, but as a midwestern governor I could see him at least sending out feelers, depending on where the GOP is come 2014. Mitch Daniels's wife has a very, very messy personal history that he doesn't want aired. It's why he didn't run this cycle and it's why he wasn't in VP consideration. I would expect he'll be on the short list for executive appointments if the Republicans ever win anything again, and perhaps he'll run against Joe Donnelly in six years, but he's never running for president.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 04:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 17:24 |
|
|
ManifunkDestiny posted:Second, and thoughts on Mitch Daniels considering a run? He's the president here at Purdue starting January 1, but as a midwestern governor I could see him at least sending out feelers, depending on where the GOP is come 2014. I doubt it, if he wanted to run he would have run this time. Plus, being president of Purdue would be seen as a negative considering how much some Republicans distrust academics.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 04:45
|
|