|
Ulysses S. Grant posted:If Jerry Brown opts to not run for re-election in 2014, I could very easily see Harris running and winning the primary. Maybe Brown will take one last run at the Presidency Well to be fair his aura smiles and never frowns
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 18:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 12:10 |
|
|
factorialite posted:I don't buy the opinion that Mrs. Daniels personal issues make Mitch running a non-starter. He's charismatic, he's an extreme fiscal conservative yet socially fairly moderate, he's white, and he has a tenable abortion position. Other Republicans would poo poo all over his wife before the left ever had a chance to. His progressive (for a Conservative) socials views would have the religious nuts burying his wife almost immediately
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 18:39
|
|
|
Ulysses S. Grant posted:If Jerry Brown opts to not run for re-election in 2014, I could very easily see Harris running and winning the primary. Maybe Brown will take one last run at the Presidency I doubt that Brown will decide not run for re-election. However, the impression I've gotten is that the current state of Californian politics totally blindsided him because it wasn't anything like it was back when he was governor originally, so he might develop an "I'm too old for this poo poo" mentality. As for running for president, I remember one of his arguments for why he should be elected governor again was because he was too old to just use it as a stepping stone to a higher office, and simply wanted to help the state. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 18:43
|
|
|
Thanks for the responses about Warren everyone. Truth be told I'm a bit behind in knowledge about the Dem side of 2016. Apparently I have some speeches to watch. Oh, and Rubio is heading to Iowa next week. IT BEGINS 
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 18:44
|
|
|
My guess: Rubio and Christie for the GOP Rubio Pros: The GOP has a huge problem with courting Latinos, and running Rubio would instantly fix a lot of that. Also, Florida is a swing state. Rubio Cons: Rubio is Latino, which might not sit well with a lot of southern Republicans. Also favored by tea party, which will probably be too right-wingey for the general. Christie Pros: National hero because of his handling of Sandy, going to be very popular in the general because of his "reaching across the aisle" publicity Christie Cons: Fat, going to have a lot of lovely things he did as gov used against him in the general, may be persona non grata amongst GOP for "reaching across the aisle"
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 18:45
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:My guess: Rubio and Christie for the GOP No, it won't. If you think Hispanics will largely move their support to Republicans because of who they are running, I'd like you to explain why blacks didn't get excited about Herman Freaking Cain. Even if the GOP became more moderate on immigration, they'd still have a Latino problem. Most Latinos don't share cultural values with the GOP except for being against abortion. They tend to be very supportive of government assistance, a strong welfare state, and all the other things traditional Christian Democrat parties in Europe and Latin America support. In other words, the exact opposite of the GOP platform. That's not to say Rubio couldn't win a primary, but what it seams like what we are debating here is not just who will run and could win, but who the party will support for strategic reasons. I'm sure a lot of Repubs will buy this line about getting Latinos excited about the GOP candidate, and Rubio will probably even play it up to get more support. But if the GOP actually thinks they can solve their minority problem by running a minority, they are insane.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 19:06
|
|
|
Frot Lesnar posted:I have social anxiety yet when I look at her speak I feel awkward for her. Her victory speech sounded like a retirement speech by a elementary school principal. I mean, I come from a long line of teachers and stuff so it wasn't exactly a turnoff but "You taught me how to win" seems like it should be followed by "and that is a memory I will always treasure, just as I treasure the memories of every single child who has walked through these halls."
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 19:10
|
|
|
Mirthless posted:Realistically, a celebrity candidate who didn't get into politics independently is unlikely to ever get a serious bid at the office of President. I think the closest we've had to a real celebrity president other than war heroes was Reagan, and Reagan had spent years in politics independent of being a cowboy actor. I was thinking earlier that Oprah Winfrey is maybe the only celebrity who could pull it off, since she's a self-made billionaire with high popularity and she famously endorsed Obama back in 2006. I don't think she has any interest in running, though; there were calls for her to run six years ago, and she responded by endorsing Obama and pushing him to run. RembrandtQEinstein posted:I've said it once, I'll say it again. Amy Klobuchar is going to be the democratic nominee in 2016. Why? She's a good but not great senator, and co-sponsoring PIPA made her really toxic to young voters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 19:13
|
|
|
Constantly LARPing posted:I'd like you to explain why blacks didn't get excited about Herman Freaking Cain. Because he was insane, had foolish policies and no experience in government.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 19:16
|
|
|
sportsgenius86 posted:Other Republicans would poo poo all over his wife before the left ever had a chance to. Which is too bad, because of all of the Republicans I can think of that have a chance at beating not-Hillary, he's probably the one I like the best. He's not perfect but who is?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 19:18
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Because he was insane, had foolish policies and no experience in government. And because blacks vote for Democrats, not black people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 19:19
|
|
|
Constantly LARPing posted:No, it won't. If you think Hispanics will largely move their support to Republicans because of who they are running, I'd like you to explain why blacks didn't get excited about Herman Freaking Cain. Simply running a Latino won't result in a massive Latino boom to the GOP, I wholeheartedly agree. However, in order for Rubio to win over the GOP base, the party will have to undergo a significant change, especially in terms of immigration policy and a tactical retreat from some extremist social stances. Rubio winning the primary would be a good indicator for how far the GOP managed to swing back towards the center. Rubio wouldn't stand a chance in today's GOP primaries, mainly for racial reasons, but if he can win in 2016 is will signify that the GOP as a party has done the work necessary to bridge the gap between the base and Latinos. Plus, the GOP doesn't need to "win" Latinos, they only need to get ~40% of the vote, which is what Bush, anti-gay marriage, pro-life, small government and all, managed to get in 2004.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 19:20
|
|
|
Joementum posted:And I suppose we should say something here about Michael Bloomberg whose term is up soon and who has plenty of money to throw at a 2016 race and who would be adored by the media and Wall Street if he did, but who does not appear in my list on the first page. Fortunately, Mayor of New York is a dead end job. The compromises that people have to make in that position, the people they have to befriend and the positions they have to take poison them for larger seats. Bloomberg may very well try for it, and I will enjoy watching him shake hands in Iowa diners and stump in South Carolina fields, but he won't take it. In fairness, and I say this as a guy who likes him a lot more than anyone else here is willing to admit, Bloomberg has never compromised on anything so your point is moot. Hieronymous Alloy posted:It all depends. If the Republican base triples-down on the crazy, he's toast. If over the next four years there's an awakening to reality in some form or fashion, he's got a GREAT shot because he now has impeccable bipartisanship credentials. Fully agree, with the caveat that I doubt he was aware of that at the time. It's much lower downside than it looks, because if this makes him unelectable in the primaries, the GOP is still pulling in 25% of Latinos and white men are still 3% less of the electorate than this year. If it does not, he looks really, really good in a likely gentler, nicer election campaign. But...way too early.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 19:23
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Because he was insane, had foolish policies and no experience in government. Yeah, but even if he wasn't quoting Pokemon, his policies were directly opposed to the interests of large segments of the black electorate. Look I'm sure that if the GOP put a minority on a major ticket there would be some movement among the target group, but on the whole most people vote for the policies they support, and the GOP does not support those policies. Edit: ManifunkDestiny posted:Plus, the GOP doesn't need to "win" Latinos, they only need to get ~40% of the vote, which is what Bush, anti-gay marriage, pro-life, small government and all, managed to get in 2004. George W Bush was not small government. The reason GWB did so well among Hispanics (for a Republican) was that he wasn't insane on immigration, and spent his whole domestic policy in the first term working on "compassionate conservatism". He was a conservative that wanted to improve schools (NCLB), improve Medicare, etc. The current GOP will never campaign on that kind of platform again, lest their base go absolutely nuclear. Constantly LARPing fucked around with this message at 19:40 on Nov 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 19:23
|
|
|
Constantly LARPing posted:Yeah, but even if he wasn't quoting Pokemon, his policies were directly opposed to the interests of large segments of the black electorate. Probably true! We have a fairly small sample size of minority candidates on Presidential tickets (N=1) to judge from. My main point, which you agree with, is that it will have a non-zero effect, we just don't know the magnitude. But comparing Marco Rubio to Herman Cain is silly. They're worlds apart.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 19:28
|
|
|
Constantly LARPing posted:Look I'm sure that if the GOP put a minority on a major ticket there would be some movement among the target group, but on the whole most people vote for the policies they support, and the GOP does not support those policies. You're correct in saying that Latinos probably won't move in huge droves without some immigration policy changes, which is why I also think the GOP will make some policy changes as well (probably should've put that in my original guess). They have to if they want any chance of winning. On top of that, Latinos are not quite as monolithically Democratic as blacks are.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 19:28
|
|
|
As an NYS resident I don't really get how Cuomo is a contender, considering I never really hear praise for him stronger than "At least he isn't Palladino" -- Can somebody shed some light on this? Is it the name recognition factor?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 19:29
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:You're correct in saying that Latinos probably won't move in huge droves without some immigration policy changes, which is why I also think the GOP will make some policy changes as well (probably should've put that in my original guess). They have to if they want any chance of winning. Well Obama said first thing he's doing after inauguration is pushing hard for immigration reform. They don't have much time to change their policies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 19:30
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:You're correct in saying that Latinos probably won't move in huge droves without some immigration policy changes, which is why I also think the GOP will make some policy changes as well (probably should've put that in my original guess). They have to if they want any chance of winning. I don't think there will be a policy change as much as a "just don't talk about the policy" effort. The GOP is going to be ignorant and confuse "convinced them to vote" with "convinced them to vote Democrat." They're going to treat it as if simply running an African-American candidate convinced that population to vote Democrat when it really just convinced them to actually vote in general for the party they already shared the views of.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 19:52
|
|
|
I wonder if Paul Ryan will have an unexpected John Edwards-style flameout out of nowhere. Probably not, barring some similarly big skeletons in his closet, but it'd be interesting. Mia Love would probably be the heir apparent in 2016, but she lost her race this week.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 20:23
|
|
|
Chamale posted:Why? She's a good but not great senator, and co-sponsoring PIPA made her really toxic to young voters.  She's really, really electable. Both republicans and democrats in Minnesota absolutely love her, she runs an extremely positive, clean campaign (part of the reason people love her so much). I know people who work in her office that say she is probably going to run, and the speeches that she's been giving lately indicate that she may as well. She's the right mix of youth with experience, background with likability. She not only excels at every job she's taken on, and she sets a new standard for that position by the time she leaves it. My only concern is that she may not be aggressive enough to make it through the primaries.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 20:44
|
|
|
What about Rob Portman? He might be attractive to the GOP if the economy still isn't humming in three years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 21:06
|
|
|
Constantly LARPing posted:No, it won't. If you think Hispanics will largely move their support to Republicans because of who they are running, I'd like you to explain why blacks didn't get excited about Herman Freaking Cain. The comparison you are looking for is not Herman Cain. It is Ted Cruz in Texas. Romney lost the Hispanic vote 30-70. Ted Cruz, the Hispanic Republican, lost it 36-64. (source)
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 21:48
|
|
|
RembrandtQEinstein posted:
She's the north's Kristen Gilibrand. I have no idea what either of them actually believe in though. They go out of their way to be as unoffensive as possible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 22:35
|
|
|
Edit: wrong thread
Ragingsheep fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Nov 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 22:43
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:She's the north's Kristen Gilibrand. I have no idea what either of them actually believe in though. They go out of their way to be as unoffensive as possible. Kirsten Gillibrand, famous southern senator
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 22:51
|
|
|
So this thread is cool, but I'm wondering if we can do some kind of general "what's next" thread. In 2008, we had the "transition team" thread. For the last year or so we've had effectively Obamarama threads. It's been so long since we've been without some kind of "general things going on with Presidential politics" thread that I've kind of forgotten what we used to do before it. There's not a transition team this time, but there will be a transition to a second term. Should I (or someone else) make a general thread for that? Joementum, would you prefer single-topic threads from now on? Petey posted:Others have outlined the reasons Booker won't run, but in case you were wondering, yes, he is still saving people via Twitter: But seriously, Cory Booker for Mayor of Twitter:  
Petey fucked around with this message at 23:55 on Nov 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 23:40
|
|
|
Petey posted:So this thread is cool, but I'm wondering if we can do some kind of general "what's next" thread. This thread is about the 2016 Presidential Primaries, not the transition to the second term, so I absolutely would encourage you starting a thread on that. Focusing it on the transition, cabinet appointments, the inauguration and related matters seems like a good idea because we have a few threads going right now speculating about various other aspects of Obama's second term.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 23:57
|
|
|
Is there any wisdom at all about choice of VP candidates? Maybe we should just throw that out the window, if the DNC apply their sabremetrics to choosing the optimal VP candidate. Is it commonly held that Biden was chosen, because he provided a foreign policy profile for Obama, or what made the deal?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 23:59
|
|
|
ufarn posted:Is there any wisdom at all about choice of VP candidates? Maybe we should just throw that out the window, if the DNC apply their sabremetrics to choosing the optimal VP candidate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 00:12
|
|
|
Petey posted:But seriously, Cory Booker for Mayor of Twitter: I love this so much 
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 00:16
|
|
|
Joementum posted:This thread is about the 2016 Presidential Primaries, not the transition to the second term, so I absolutely would encourage you starting a thread on that. Focusing it on the transition, cabinet appointments, the inauguration and related matters seems like a good idea because we have a few threads going right now speculating about various other aspects of Obama's second term. Ok, I will start working on one. Thanks for the guidance!
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 00:23
|
|
|
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/08/rubio-to-headline-fundraiser-for-iowa-governor/ Guess you can throw Rubio's name in if you're one of the few who hadn't already
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 00:42
|
|
|
I imagine that if Clinton runs Biden won't. There's only room for one older statesman from the current Whitehouse, and Hillary's got the edge in fundraising, age (She'd be inaugurated at 69, tied with Reagan, while Biden would be 74), and perceived capability (the media treats her with the seriousness she deserves, while Biden is portrayed as a gibbering gaffe machine). If he does run, Hillary would win out anyway. Not that I don't think Biden is awesome, and I hope he does run, but between him and Hillary I wouldn't take bets.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 00:59
|
|
|
ufarn posted:Is there any wisdom at all about choice of VP candidates? Maybe we should just throw that out the window, if the DNC apply their sabremetrics to choosing the optimal VP candidate. I can see the OFA team crunching the numbers to present Hillary in 2016: Ma'am, the crucial stats are unforced gaffes and Bills Passed per Term (BPT). Gillebrand has 1.3 and 6.7, whereas Feingold only has 0.8 and 5.3 But he's been out of practice for a while. Your call...
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 01:07
|
|
|
I think a lot of you are overestimating the impact of age on the electorate. While Biden will be 74 and Hillary 69, the only important part of their age is how they sound, how sharp they are. I have seen no decline in either and don't think I will in four years either. I realize president's are always old, but I hate to say to any person "Hey you're too old, you have outlived your usefulness" and I don't think America as a whole would say that either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 01:17
|
|
|
ufarn posted:Is there any wisdom at all about choice of VP candidates? Maybe we should just throw that out the window, if the DNC apply their sabremetrics to choosing the optimal VP candidate. No matter who's at the top of the ticket I really do hope the democrats have the foresight to have Schweitzer on the bottom of it since he would be the final death-nail in the GOP demographic coffin they are facing. Really, with his good-ole-boy persona combined with his progressive policies I think you could see a win in the very high 300's to even 400 EV range. His problem right now (and in 2016) is that he's just not well known enough on the national stage to get the nomination without some sort of highly viable position other than Governor of one of the least populated states.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 01:19
|
|
|
greatn posted:I think a lot of you are overestimating the impact of age on the electorate. While Biden will be 74 and Hillary 69, the only important part of their age is how they sound, how sharp they are. I have seen no decline in either and don't think I will in four years either. I realize president's are always old, but I hate to say to any person "Hey you're too old, you have outlived your usefulness" and I don't think America as a whole would say that either. The issue, at least as I see it, is that if a President is old enough when he/she starts his/her first term, there's a chance that said President could die in office. If Biden gets elected and serves two full terms, he'll be 82 when he leaves office. The prospect of him dying in office is a very real thing, and if I recall that was a big thing when McCain chose Sarah Palin for VP in 08 - the prospect that he may die in office and leave her in control.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 01:20
|
|
|
Jenna Bush seems genuinely awesome, I hope she runs as a Dem though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 01:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 12:10 |
|
|
Renzian posted:The issue, at least as I see it, is that if a President is old enough when he/she starts his/her first term, there's a chance that said President could die in office. If Biden gets elected and serves two full terms, he'll be 82 when he leaves office. The prospect of him dying in office is a very real thing, and if I recall that was a big thing when McCain chose Sarah Palin for VP in 08 - the prospect that he may die in office and leave her in control. Biden doesn't have a history of cancer or being tortured in war though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 01:26
|
|
