|
My thoughts are on Biden, Cuomo and maybe Clinton.
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 17:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 03:01 |
|
|
Michelle is definitely sitting out, right? I have to think a Hillary/Michelle ticket would prove impossible to stop.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 18:32
|
|
|
Abel Wingnut posted:Michelle is definitely sitting out, right? I don't want to live in your crazy world where we get a Clinton/Bachmann ticket.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 18:43
|
|
|
Gyges posted:I don't want to live in your crazy world where we get a Clinton/Bachmann ticket. It would make for a great sitcom though
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 19:24
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:It would make for a great sitcom though
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 19:26
|
|
|
Abel Wingnut posted:Michelle is definitely sitting out, right? Obama or Bachmann?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 20:21
|
|
|
Obama. You really thought I meant Bachmann, even for the slightest moment?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 20:24
|
|
|
Abel Wingnut posted:Obama. Although I wouldn't be opposed to Michelle Obama making a run for senator in Illinois, having a dragged out primary fight with Chelsea Clinton, serving as SoS, and running in 2032.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 20:28
|
|
|
Michele Bachmann's name has one "l" in it. Michelle Obama's name has two "l"s in it. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 20:29
|
|
|
Jonked posted:...Bachmann is actually the more likely candidate in that scenario. I honestly don't think Michelle has presidential ambitions. I could see her going for Illinois governor though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 20:37
|
|
|
I would only a Clinton ticket if it were Michelle POTUS / Hillary VP. I hate the Clintons, but they do make good speakers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 20:39
|
|
|
By most all reports Michelle Obama actively hates politics and has no higher aspirations than sitting on corporate boards.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 20:40
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:By most all reports Michelle Obama actively hates politics and has no higher aspirations than sitting on corporate boards.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 21:00
|
|
|
Has anyone heard anything further about Rubio's finances being a problem for him to get clearance to be president? I remember NYMag had a blurb about it, stating that he was skittish about being vetted for VP back when his name being thrown around.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 21:10
|
|
|
Apparently he was facing foreclosure. It doesn't help, but it probably isn't a disqualifier. There were also some plane tickets he billed to the state but he can easily pay it back and make that issue go away.mr. unhsib posted:I honestly don't think Michelle has presidential ambitions. I could see her going for Illinois governor though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 21:50
|
|
|
I really think it could be Christie/Rubio. If Christie can lose some weight.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 22:04
|
|
|
TLG James posted:I really think it could be Christie/Rubio. Another upside-down ticket from the RINO establishment. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 23:45
|
|
|
Wanting someone to run just because they're married to the current president and seem likeable is indicative of fundamental problems with the way you view the political process. For a country that fought so hard to throw off the shackles of a monarchy, there seem to be quite a few of you in love with the idea of political dynasties.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 00:23
|
|
|
Majestic posted:Wanting someone to run just because they're married to the current president and seem likeable is indicative of fundamental problems with the way you view the political process. I agree. I can't see why the thought of Michelle Obama running for President is a reasonable option. I'd say the same for all the Bushes remaining too (Jeb, Prescott, etc). I'd say that Hillary Clinton showed that she is incapable of leading something as complicated as the country when she couldn't even lead a campaign properly. Her campaign was a mess. I think if Hillary runs that she'll win the primary easy and it'll be Christie on the GOP side.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 00:59
|
|
|
Whoever runs, I'm almost positive the Democrat will end up winning. It's a strange world when the next person up to bat gets two, possibly three living ex-presidents on the stump for them while the Republicans will have . . .
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 01:08
|
|
|
FAN OF NICKELBACK posted:Whoever runs, I'm almost positive the Democrat will end up winning. It's a strange world when the next person up to bat gets two, possibly three living ex-presidents on the stump for them while the Republicans will have . . . Romney COULD'VE had two, if he really wanted 
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 01:09
|
|
|
I don't see Christie standing a chance if the party doubles down on the crazy, as it seems its prepared to do. Even if his positions qualify him for the position, he is not exactly going to toe the line and follow the script, when it veers off into batshit crazy, as Romney was ready to do so during the primaries.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 01:25
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:I don't see Christie standing a chance if the party doubles down on the crazy, as it seems its prepared to do. Even if his positions qualify him for the position, he is not exactly going to toe the line and follow the script, when it veers off into batshit crazy, as Romney was ready to do so during the primaries. I'm not so sure about this. Almost every cycle the Republicans are "expected" to nominate the conservative insurgent candidate at some point or another. They certainly did in 1964 when Goldwater knocked off Rockefeller, and I suppose arguably did in 1980 although Reagan was pretty establishment by that time, but that's really it. At the end of the day, the crazy guy just doesn't win their primaries. There's a reason the Republicans are called the party of primogeniture; they always nominate one of the next in line establishment people. And I don't know whether that should be expected to change now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 01:33
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:I don't see Christie standing a chance if the party doubles down on the crazy, as it seems its prepared to do. Even if his positions qualify him for the position, he is not exactly going to toe the line and follow the script, when it veers off into batshit crazy, as Romney was ready to do so during the primaries. It seems to me that the GOP base since 2008 always nominates the most boisterous candidates. The candidates who speak the loudest with the most conviction and confidence, whether they are telling lies or not. Christie fits that profile perfectly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 01:37
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:I'm not so sure about this. Almost every cycle the Republicans are "expected" to nominate the conservative insurgent candidate at some point or another. They certainly did in 1964 when Goldwater knocked off Rockefeller, and I suppose arguably did in 1980 although Reagan was pretty establishment by that time, but that's really it. At the end of the day, the crazy guy just doesn't win their primaries. Admittedly, there is a case to be made that W got bumped up into line over McCain. Granted in 2016, who is going to be the next successor who has been around a while, Jeb? Maybe Newt?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 01:39
|
|
|
Whether it was a random pattern or a rule, the next in line is Santorum so I doubt it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 01:50
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Admittedly, there is a case to be made that W got bumped up into line over McCain. Granted in 2016, who is going to be the next successor who has been around a while, Jeb? Maybe Newt? McCain wasn't really the next dude in line in 2000, he was distinctly running as the outsider candidate although not from the right. True conservative insurgencies don't work in the Republican party to any greater extent than true progressive ones work in the Democratic Party. Sometimes who the successor is doesn't even work itself out until the primaries. It was obviously Romney this cycle all along, hence the entire Romney vs. Not Romney framework of the primary. It was less obviously McCain in 2008 with Rudy hanging around. Given that Rick Santorum is never going to be an establishment figure, the most likely person to establish himself in that role during the pre-primary and early primary cycle is probably Paul Ryan, but Christie, Rubio, Jeb, and even Condi are all plausible. Adar posted:Whether it was a random pattern or a rule, the next in line is Santorum so I doubt it. Right, I mean, Pat Buchanan wasn't the nominee in 1996 or 2000 despite being the runner up twice, these things do have their limits. It's more that the establishment candidate almost always wins in the end than anything, and there always is an establishment figure even though we might not know whom yet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 01:52
|
|
|
Is there anything stopping Booker from being VP? Has there ever been a mayor that's run as a VP and succeeded before? He seems like he would be hugely beneficial to rally up motivation, and it would give him the experience needed to run for president, which I think is, a given if the democratic party has anything to say about it. On top of that, if his VP run fails, he's got plenty of time to become a Senator or Governor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 01:59
|
|
|
I suspect that one way or another Booker is not going to be the mayor of Newark in summer 2016. He'll either get Lautenberg's Senate seat in 2014 or get parachuted out into a Cabinet vacancy. VP nominees have occasionally come from the ranks of non-statewide elected officials. Paul Ryan is one of them, of course, so was George H.W. Bush. I don't think it would necessarily be disqualifying, but I also don't know what would make him more attractive than others at that point. oldfan fucked around with this message at 02:04 on Nov 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 02:01
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:I suspect that one way or another Booker is not going to be the mayor of Newark in summer 2016. He'll either get Lautenberg's Senate seat in 2014 or get parachuted out into a Cabinet vacancy. Yeah, I have no reason to believe that Booker is staying in place. I think a lot of people can agree that dude is presidential as HELL, and the only thing stopping him is experience.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 02:02
|
|
|
Waterbed posted:Yeah, I have no reason to believe that Booker is staying in place. I think a lot of people can agree that dude is presidential as HELL, and the only thing stopping him is experience. The flip side is that he's 43 so it's not like there's a big rush. A word of caution on Booker: although he's a reformer to rather violent, caustic degrees within the Newark city infrastructure, it's still the Newark city infrastructure, and the last three mayors of Newark were all convincted of public corruption or fraud in their official capacities. So, there could definitely be skeletons there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 02:07
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:I suspect that one way or another Booker is not going to be the mayor of Newark in summer 2016. He'll either get Lautenberg's Senate seat in 2014 or get parachuted out into a Cabinet vacancy. I'd bet on Lautenberg's seat, personally, since what Cabinet slot is he going to get offered? I don't see him getting State, AG is unlikely since he barely practiced, Treasury also seems a long shot, which leaves a lot of less prestigious/visible slots, most of which are filled perfectly well. Cabinet seems like a distraction for him compared to going to the Senate, where he could easily be for the next 40-50 years if the presidential thing doesn't pan out. All that assumes Lautenberg leaves, of course, which is not guaranteed last I'd heard.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 02:09
|
|
|
Booker was offered a cabinet appointment by Obama in 2008 and turned it down to stay in Newark. Maybe he did so planning to run for governor which seems less likely now post-Sandy, so I suppose that could change. I do assume he has ambitions beyond being Mayor of Newark, although he is a bit off-the-beaten-path politically and could surprise us.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 02:09
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:The flip side is that he's 43 so it's not like there's a big rush. Yeah, I'm expecting a 2020 or 2024 run from him here at the earliest. Newark is a HELL of a better city since he took office. Newark has gone from complete shithole to pretty okay in the span of a few years. If he's got skeletons, I'd be surprised. The last dudes just kind of dicked around and did nothing substantial. Even if Cory doesn't run, I'll be happy. I live next to the city and would love to see it bloom under his reign for a long time. Edit: My high praise comes from the fact that I've seen the city change over the years personally. Maybe it's just hometown enthusiasm here, but he's done a hell of a job. anime was right fucked around with this message at 02:14 on Nov 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 02:10
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:The flip side is that he's 43 so it's not like there's a big rush. True, although I would think he needs at least 6-8 years to become a viable candidate through Senate or gubernatorial processes. I suppose that could be sped up a bit via Cabinet appointments, but I don't know if I see that happening. Point being that, while he is "only" 43, still looking at probably 53 before he had the credibility to run, and then he'd have to wait for the race to be right. So if Booker has Presidential ambitions - and again, he may not - I would assume he'd try to at least get started sooner rather than later. And your point about Booker's possible skeletons is well-taken. He seems impossibly clean and very, very few people are.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 02:13
|
|
|
One of the more interesting rumors I've heard, and I don't expect it has any validity but I'm throwing it out there just for fun, is that Obama could appoint Chris Christie as attorney general, for many reasons, including to reestablish the independence of DOJ, to kick Christie upstairs and set Booker up to be governor, and to get Christie out of the 2016 race. Booker would probably wipe the floor with Kim Guadagno in 2013 in that case, and that would make him a plausible 2016 presidential nominee non-Hillary division or a leading contender to be running mate for anyone. I do suspect Christie would take that job if it was offered, for whatever that's worth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 02:14
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:One of the more interesting rumors I've heard, and I don't expect it has any validity but I'm throwing it out there just for fun, is that Obama could appoint Chris Christie as attorney general, for many reasons, including to reestablish the independence of DOJ, to kick Christie upstairs and set Booker up to be governor, and to get Christie out of the 2016 race. Booker would probably wipe the floor with Kim Guadagno in 2013 in that case, and that would make him a plausible 2016 presidential nominee non-Hillary division or a leading contender to be running mate for anyone. Wow, I hadn't heard that at all. I doubt it would happen but it would certainly be fun for a lot of reasons. I wonder what carrots Obama has left in the tank for Christie. Maybe the Boss could set up an office in the RFK building?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 02:16
|
|
|
Two interesting things about Booker: He's single. He's a vegetarian. Could be interesting how that affects him. I doubt much. Also he's got rumors about being gay (mostly because he's hittin an older age and he's single). jeffersonlives posted:One of the more interesting rumors I've heard, and I don't expect it has any validity but I'm throwing it out there just for fun, is that Obama could appoint Chris Christie as attorney general, for many reasons, including to reestablish the independence of DOJ, to kick Christie upstairs and set Booker up to be governor, and to get Christie out of the 2016 race. Booker would probably wipe the floor with Kim Guadagno in 2013 in that case, and that would make him a plausible 2016 presidential nominee non-Hillary division or a leading contender to be running mate for anyone. This is kind of out there. But that job would do wonders for Christie in 2016... sooooo. Gamble?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 02:19
|
|
|
I'd be pretty shocked if Cory Booker was gay, and I think he plays the "none of your business" card more because of a legitimate belief that it shouldn't matter than that he's hiding something.Petey posted:Wow, I hadn't heard that at all. I doubt it would happen but it would certainly be fun for a lot of reasons. Christie has at times denied having any interest in being AG, to throw water on my own way out there rumor. I don't think that's a job you'd actually put an opposing partisan in basically ever because there's too much domestic policy influence on the hot buttons; the usual spots for cross party appointments are the foreign policy positions or the lower profile domestic positions where the hot buttons never come up, which is why we're discussing people like Lugar, Hagel, and Huntsman in the other thread. But if you ever were going to do it, hypothetically, it would probably be with a notably independent ally with a strong history of either running a USA or state AG office in a non-partisan fashion. And that does fit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 02:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 03:01 |
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:I'd be pretty shocked if Cory Booker was gay, and I think he plays the "none of your business" card more because of a legitimate belief that it shouldn't matter than that he's hiding something. I don't see Christie going for AG when he clearly has a good shot at the GOP nomination in 2016. Being Obama's AG would kill his chances at being the GOP nominee forever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 02:27
|
|